In a candid interview with Nikkei Asia, Christoph Brand, the chief executive of Axpo Group, expressed skepticism about the prospect of a large‑scale revival of nuclear electricity. While the ongoing conflict in Iran has forced many nations to reassess their reliance on imported oil and gas, Brand contended that nuclear power is unlikely to become a dominant source of new capacity. “Will nuclear be a major contributor to overall power output? In our view, it will not,” he told the reporter, underscoring the company’s assessment that the current wave of renewable construction dwarfs any realistic expansion of nuclear generation.
Axpo, Switzerland’s largest electricity producer, operates a diversified mix of assets that includes hydro, wind, solar, gas‑fired stations and three nuclear facilities on Swiss soil – a full‑ownership plant, a majority‑stake plant and a minority‑interest plant. The firm, which is owned collectively by the cantons that form the Swiss Confederation, also maintains a sizable trading operation and opened a representative office in Japan last year to deepen its presence in the Asian market.
Globally, nuclear power now supplies roughly one‑tenth of total electricity, a proportion that has been on a slow decline since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster. The catastrophe, triggered by a massive earthquake and tsunami, prompted Japan and several other nations to shut down reactors and tighten safety regulations, setting back new construction projects for years. Fifteen years on, the sector is experiencing a modest resurgence of interest, driven by two converging forces: the disruption of oil and gas markets caused by the Iran war, and the accelerating demand for power from artificial‑intelligence workloads and the data centers that support them.
Asian governments have been the most vocal about adding nuclear to their future energy baskets. In late March, Vietnam signed a contract with Russia to build the Ninh Thuan 1 plant, marking the country’s first foray into nuclear power. Indonesia, despite its seismic vulnerability, announced a target of 500 megawatts of nuclear capacity within the next few years, with an ambition to scale that to 7 gigawatts over the next decade‑to‑half‑century. The Philippines has set a goal of 2.4 gigawatts by 2035, while Thailand aims for 600 megawatts by 2037. South Korea and Japan, both of which have existing reactor fleets, are exploring accelerated restarts of plants that have been offline for safety upgrades.
Brand acknowledged the strategic merits of nuclear energy, particularly the ability to stockpile fuel for extended periods. “You could secure five years’ worth of uranium and effectively bridge that interval without major supply disruptions,” he noted, highlighting a point that pro‑nuclear advocates are likely to repeat as geopolitical tensions intensify. He also refuted the perception that uranium supply is monopolised by Russia, pointing to a diversified market that includes producers in Canada, Kazakhstan, Australia and other jurisdictions.
Nevertheless, the chief executive warned that the financial architecture of new nuclear projects remains a formidable obstacle. In most jurisdictions, the state assumes the bulk of the capital risk, either through direct equity stakes or through guarantees that shield private investors from cost overruns. Sweden, for example, recently announced that its government will acquire a controlling interest in Videberg Kraft, the entity tasked with developing the country’s next generation of reactors. Brand argued that this model, while essential for moving projects forward, transfers construction and operational uncertainties onto taxpayers or end‑users, especially given the historically lengthy timelines and frequent budget overruns associated with nuclear builds.
“The economics are challenging,” Brand said. “Where a new reactor is erected, it is essentially the government that bears the financial exposure, or at least a dominant share of it.” He contrasted this with the comparatively swift rollout of wind, solar and gas‑fired plants, which can be commissioned in months rather than the decade‑long horizon typical of nuclear facilities. “Speed and cost are decisive factors. Whether a new nuclear plant makes sense depends heavily on local conditions, and for many economies it will remain a long‑term option rather than a near‑term solution,” he concluded.
The Axpo perspective arrives at a moment when global investors are watching how energy‑security concerns will reshape capital allocation across the power sector. While the Iran conflict has reignited discussions about diversifying away from fossil fuels, the practicalities of financing, licensing and constructing nuclear plants suggest that the technology will likely play a supplemental rather than a leading role in meeting rising demand. For countries with abundant renewable resources and robust grid‑integration capabilities, the incentive to invest in wind and solar remains strong, especially as battery storage costs continue to fall.
For Asian economies, the decision to pursue nuclear will hinge on a balance between the desire for baseload stability and the fiscal realities of building reactors in an environment of heightened public scrutiny. Nations such as Vietnam and Indonesia, which are still expanding their electricity networks, may find nuclear attractive for its low‑carbon baseload, but they will also need to secure state backing or international financing to mitigate the inherent risks.
In the broader geopolitical picture, the shift away from Russian energy supplies has accelerated the search for alternative low‑carbon options, yet the nuclear renaissance narrative appears to be tempered by the financial and temporal constraints highlighted by industry leaders like Brand. As the world’s energy mix evolves over the next five years, the balance between rapid‑deployment renewables and the slower, capital‑intensive nuclear pathway will likely determine how much, if any, of the anticipated power gap is filled by atomic energy.
For global stakeholders, the takeaway is clear: while nuclear may re‑enter policy discussions as a strategic reserve, its contribution to the overall electricity landscape is expected to remain modest unless governments can devise financing structures that alleviate the burden on public budgets and accelerate construction timelines. The coming years will test whether the renewed political will can translate into tangible capacity, or whether the sector will continue to occupy a niche role alongside the faster‑growing renewable and gas‑based solutions.