Key Points
• The World Bank is reviewing its decades-old ban on nuclear power funding, with a decision expected soon, largely driven by U.S. pressure to counter China and Russia’s nuclear diplomacy.
• The ban, in place since the 1950s, may be lifted to support climate goals and energy security, though concerns remain regarding safety, costs, and proliferation risks.
• If approved, the policy shift could lead to increased nuclear projects in developing countries, reshaping geopolitical influence, while also raising concerns about nuclear safety and proliferation.
1. Background
The World Bank has not funded nuclear power projects since the 1950s, reaffirming its stance in 2013 under then-president Jim Yong Kim, citing political sensitivities. The policy reflected growing global concerns after nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl and Fukushima, which intensified safety and proliferation fears (World Nuclear Association, 2024).
However, as of March 2025, the bank is undergoing a strategic review of its energy policy, considering nuclear power as part of a practical and reliable energy mix to address climate change and energy security (International Energy Agency, 2024).
2. U.S. Pressure and Geopolitical Dynamics
The United States, under the leadership of Representative French Hill and the new administration, is pushing for the ban’s removal. This move is primarily aimed at countering the geopolitical influence of China and Russia, both of whom are actively financing nuclear power projects in countries such as:
• Bangladesh
• Belarus
• Egypt
• India
• Turkey
• Pakistan
By lifting the ban, the U.S. hopes to promote Western nuclear technology and regulatory standards, ensuring that developing nations align more closely with the Western economic and security framework rather than becoming reliant on Russian and Chinese nuclear infrastructure (Foreign Affairs, 2025).
3. Arguments For and Against
Arguments in Favor of Lifting the Ban
1. Climate Change Mitigation
• Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, emitting between 7 and 22g CO₂/kWh over its lifecycle, comparable to wind energy (World Nuclear Association, 2024).
• It plays a critical role in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, particularly as electricity demand rises.
2. Energy Security and Reliability
• Nuclear energy provides baseload power, with a capacity factor exceeding 80%, ensuring continuous electricity generation, unlike intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar (International Energy Agency, 2024).
3. Geopolitical Strategy
• Funding nuclear projects could strengthen Western influence in developing nations, preventing them from becoming economically and politically dependent on China and Russia.
• Expanding Western nuclear technology also bolsters economic opportunities in U.S. and European nuclear industries (U.S. Financial Services Committee, 2025).
Arguments Against Lifting the Ban
1. Safety Concerns
• Historical nuclear disasters, including Chernobyl and Fukushima, underscore the catastrophic risks associated with nuclear power, including radioactive contamination and long-term environmental damage (World Nuclear Association, 2024).
2. Nuclear Proliferation Risks
• The spread of nuclear technology in politically unstable regions raises concerns about weapons development and nuclear security (Project Syndicate, 2023).
3. High Costs and Economic Viability
• Nuclear power remains significantly more expensive than renewables.
• New nuclear projects cost up to five times more per kWh than onshore wind and take 5 to 17 years longer to complete (One Earth, 2024).
4. Potential Implications of Lifting the Ban
If the World Bank removes its nuclear funding restrictions, the following outcomes are likely:
1. Increased Global Nuclear Deployment
More developing countries will adopt nuclear power, expanding global capacity (World Nuclear Association, 2025).
2. Geopolitical Shift in Energy Influence
The U.S. and Western allies could reclaim influence in Africa and Asia’s energy sectors, reducing Chinese and Russian leverage (Foreign Affairs, 2025).
3. Stricter Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Standards
World Bank-backed projects could impose higher safety regulations, improving global nuclear security protocols (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2025).
4. Economic Opportunities & Financial Risks
Increased nuclear funding could create jobs and investment opportunities, but high costs and long construction timelines may burden developing economies (One Earth, 2024).
5. Stakeholder Perspectives
United States’ Position
U.S. lawmakers, including French Hill and Patrick McHenry, are leading efforts to finance nuclear energy at international lenders (U.S. Financial Services Committee, 2025).
China & Russia’s Nuclear Expansion
Russia’s Rosatom is constructing reactors in Bangladesh, Belarus, Egypt, India, and Turkey, while China is expanding nuclear exports to Pakistan and Africa (World Nuclear Association, 2025).
The World Bank’s Leadership Perspective
World Bank President Ajay Banga has hinted at considering nuclear power, but opposition remains from Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg, which oppose nuclear expansion (HuffPost, 2024).
6. Comparative Analysis: Pros and Cons of Nuclear Funding
| Aspect | Pros | Cons |
| Climate Impact | Low-carbon, helps meet climate goals. | High emissions during construction; long lifecycle impact. |
| Energy Security | Reliable baseload power, reduces fossil fuel dependence. | Requires backup for demand peaks, potential supply chain risks. |
| Cost & Economics | Long-term fuel cost stability, job creation in nuclear sector. | High initial costs, long construction times, economic strain. |
| Safety & Risks | Can improve with higher safety standards. | Accident risks, radioactive waste management, proliferation. |
| Geopolitical Impact | Counters China/Russia, promotes Western technology. | May escalate tensions, reliance on foreign nuclear suppliers. |
7. Conclusion
The World Bank’s nuclear funding review represents a critical shift in global energy policy, balancing climate goals, energy security, economic feasibility, and geopolitical competition.
• Lifting the ban could accelerate nuclear energy adoption, enhance Western influence, and improve global safety standards.
• However, risks remain, including high costs, nuclear proliferation, and construction delays.
A final decision is expected in the coming months, shaping the future of nuclear energy financing and geopolitical influence in the developing world.
References
• Foreign Affairs. (2025). The World Needs More Nuclear Power.
• HuffPost. (2024). A New ‘Global Bank’ Wants to Compete with Russia on Nuclear Energy.
• International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (2025). World Bank Must Support Nuclear Expansion.
• International Energy Agency (IEA). (2024). Nuclear Electricity Analysis.
• One Earth. (2024). The 7 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Not the Answer to Solve Climate Change.
• Project Syndicate. (2023). Development Banks Must Embrace Nuclear Energy.
• U.S. Financial Services Committee. (2025). Nuclear Energy Financing Bill.
• World Nuclear Association. (2024). The Nuclear Debate.
• World Nuclear Association. (2025). Plans for New Reactors Worldwide.
Legal Disclaimer
For Informational Purposes Only – No Investment Advice Provided
This report is provided for informational and analytical purposes only. It does not constitute investment, financial, legal, or tax advice, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement of any particular investment strategy, security, or industry, including nuclear energy.
The information contained herein is based on publicly available data and does not take into account any specific investment objectives, financial situations, or individual circumstances. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and seek independent financial, legal, or tax advice before making any investment decisions.
This firm is not FCA-regulated, and this report does not constitute a financial promotion or solicitation under UK financial regulatory laws. No warranties, express or implied, are given as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information contained herein.
The firm accepts no liability for any direct, indirect, or consequential losses arising from the use of this document.
