Nuclear power is back on the table — pitched as the answer to soaring electricity demand from AI, data centers, and electrification. But is it actually a new era of nuclear energy, or the same old technology wearing a new marketing label?

We've assembled four panelists who will not agree with each other. (Full speaker bios below.) Here's what we're putting to them:

Is nuclear technology different enough to change the debate? Smaller reactors, passive safety, factory manufacturing, new fuel cycles — does that add up to a genuinely new risk profile, or the same industry with better graphics?
Does a safer reactor produce a safer nuclear system? Engineering aside, who operates it, who regulates it, who's trusted to respond when something goes wrong — and does better hardware actually change any of that?
Can "new nuclear" compete on price? SMRs remain commercially immature, with real uncertainty around both cost and waste output. Can they deliver electricity at a price customers — including AI and data-center operators — will actually pay?
Can existing regulatory systems govern a fundamentally different fleet? Rules built for a handful of giant, centralized reactors weren't designed for dozens or hundreds of smaller, factory-built units. Who decides where they go, who's liable if a manufacturer fails, and how are risks compared against the alternatives?
Is this a new nuclear model, or a better-marketed version of the old one? South Korea's standardized build program and thorium/molten-salt designs are held up as proof the industry's cost problem was about how plants were built, not the technology itself. Does that case hold up?
What actually determines whether nuclear's risks are worth it — engineering, economics, institutions, or public trust? And what happens when the four don't line up?

This is not a panel designed to reach consensus. Come ready to push back.

Contact the host of The Next Generation of Nuclear Energy: Promise, Problems and Possibilities