Financing Nuclear Briefing Series in South-east Asia: the capital is ready, now decision-makers must act

World Nuclear Association took its Financing Nuclear Briefing Series to Asia for the first time this week, bringing together bankers, investors, lawyers, advisers, development banks, government and industry in Singapore during Singapore International Energy Week 2026. Earlier briefings were held in London and Paris. The Association launched the series about 18 months ago to get the nuclear and finance communities talking. Its network now includes over 600 finance professionals.

Hosted by PFYN Group at the Temasek Shophouse, the event combined a briefing on the World Nuclear Investment Guide, a review of nuclear plans across countries in the Association of South-east Asian Nations (ASEAN) region – drawing on the World Nuclear Outlook Report – and two panels: one on where nuclear investment is going, and the other on what it takes to bring a South-east Asian project to financial close.

The discussion made clear that the region’s commitment to nuclear energy is not in doubt and that investor appetite is strong. The task now is for decision-makers to define the conditions that would make a nuclear programme in their countries economically competitive and attractive to external finance. As the World Bank Group said at the World Nuclear Supply Chain conference in Manila last week, "the greatest bottleneck that we see to nuclear development right now is readiness", not capital availability.

Setting the scene

National ambitions now add up to 1,467 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050, against roughly 400 GW operating today. South-east Asia accounts for more than a quarter of the ambition in newcomer countries.

The regional case is strong. Electricity demand is rising fast with data centres adding to it. Coal still supplies more than half of power in Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, and the region increasingly relies on imported Liquified Natural Gas, currently priced at about two and a half times earlier levels. As one speaker put it, capital is now following energy security, not climate. Policy has shifted too and both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have lifted their restrictions on financing nuclear.

Yet, countries are moving at different speeds. According to the World Nuclear Outlook Report, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Myanmar have set capacity targets and are working on sites and vendors. Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore are studying the option to add nuclear and building capabilities. A third group (Cambodia, Brunei and Timor-Leste) is at an earlier stage.

Small grids, limited capital and similar timelines make regional cooperation especially valuable. New partnerships must be structured carefully to avoid fresh dependence on single vendors or fuel suppliers.

Investing across the value chain

Start with the "why". Discussions at the Financing Nuclear Briefing Series stressed that governments need to be clear about the problem nuclear is meant to solve: meeting demand growth, securing supply, cutting emissions, or building industry. Nuclear is not the only option for any of these and does not win by default. Its strongest case rests on round-the-clock power and energy density, which matter most where land is scarce. Investors, in turn, look for a clear and consistent story that will survive changes of government.

Each part of the value chain carries different risks. Investment is needed across the whole value chain, but the opportunities differ by segment. New large reactors make up most of the investment required, followed by small modular reactors (SMRs), with smaller but significant amounts for life extension, fuel cycle services and end-of-life.

• Large new build: the main worries are cost and time, so investors want proof of delivery, fewer designs and more repetition.
• Life extensions: risk is lower because plants and fuel contracts already exist, but lenders still ask how plants will fare in markets with plenty of near-zero-cost renewables.
• SMRs: technology and first-of-a-kind risk remain, although panellists expect the field of designs to narrow over time.
• Fuel cycle: questions arise particularly where new reactor designs need fuels not yet produced commercially at scale. Newcomer countries need a complete fuel-supply package rather than fragments.

Panellists said that the easiest places for private finance are those where risks are understood and can be managed. They also pointed to an early-stage gap: few funders will pay for the studies and site work that come before a final investment decision. This is where philanthropic and public grant money can make a difference.

Break the chicken-and-egg problem with programmes, not projects. Manufacturers will build capacity once orders are firm, while buyers hesitate until supply is certain. Panellists saw the same pattern in other infrastructure, such as regional power grids. The way out is a clear national programme and, ideally, standardised technology and contracting across several ASEAN countries, which would lower the cost of capital and make projects easier to finance. Governments cannot hedge indefinitely: capital, factories and public support all need a visible direction of travel.

Public trust is a financial risk. A weak social licence can delay a project or unravel it after an election, so a coherent account of what nuclear means for affordability, reliability and jobs is part of making a project investable. Philanthropic capital can help here too, by helping governments become informed buyers. It can also support workforce development which panellists framed as an energy-system challenge, rather than a nuclear one: the region will need welders, pipefitters, project managers, lawyers and economists as much as nuclear engineers.

From policy to financial close

Capital is available. Bankable cash flows are the scarce part. The step from "nuclear fits our needs" to "a bank can lend against this" means turning value into contracts and revenues, with risks shared sensibly between public and private parties. Cost of capital matters enormously because most of the cost of new nuclear is paid up front: capital costs make up 70–80% of nuclear's levelized cost, and each percentage point off the cost of capital cuts that cost by 10–20%.

Choosing a vendor means choosing a package. Governments were urged to look beyond the technology to the whole package, including the partnership and financing that come with it, and to take a whole-of-government approach that reaches well beyond the energy ministry.

Government and Multilateral development banks support are part of the structure. Panellists agreed that government support is essential, at least for first projects. Liabilities, insurance and offtake risk are too large for private sponsors alone. The UK's Sizewell C was held up as an example of government de-risking that crowded in commercial lenders. Panellists argued that this is no sign nuclear is uncompetitive: it reflects an asset that can serve a country for a century, with benefits that no single project structure can capture.

For large plants in South-east Asia, panellists expected early financing to be dominated by government debt and export-credit finance, with commercial banks more likely to play a role in providing benchmarking and liquidity rather than de-risking, at least in the short/medium term. Multilateral development banks lend to governments over long periods. They are likely to support grids, capacity building and early assessments.

State financial support would reduce over time. Panellists said government funding and risk-sharing would diminish once first units are built and a programme proves repeatable, although some thought a degree of government involvement will always be needed, for example in long-term revenue contracts.

A clearly defined national programme is the most useful single step. Several speakers said it should have long-term, cross-party backing that outlasts election cycles. Projects are likely to span two or three electoral terms, so that means institutions that outlast individual ministers and genuine public support.

Readiness comes before the money, though not in perfect order. No lender, export credit agency, commercial bank or development bank, will commit until credible regulation, an independent regulator, creditworthy buyers, and a nuclear liability regime are in place. But waiting for every element to be perfect is not required and regulators, workforce and project planning can develop in parallel, and the project itself tends to force the pace.

Next steps

The conversation continues. Several regional initiatives are advancing the development of regulation, financing, standards and skills.

The World Nuclear Investment Guide is free to read on the World Nuclear Association website, and the team welcomes feedback and ideas for future modules.

The next Financing Nuclear Briefing Series event is expected in January, with the date to be confirmed. Finance professionals who want to join the network or take part in nuclear financing activities can contact

pippa.eames@world-nuclear.org