Top 10 Countries Commissioning Nuclear Power Plants in 2025
Where the nuclear new-build pipeline is concentrated in the latest PRIS snapshot
This page ranks countries by the number of power reactors under construction in the IAEA Power Reactor Information System (PRIS). That is the cleanest status-based way to compare where real nuclear new-build execution is already underway, without mixing formal construction with political announcements, memoranda, target dates, or media headlines.
In the latest PRIS snapshot, the world total stands at 73 reactors under construction with 76,590 MW(e) of net capacity. China alone accounts for roughly half of the global pipeline by both units and capacity, while India, Russia, Türkiye, and Egypt form the next tier of visible program-scale activity.
This is a status-first ranking, not a forecast of who will complete projects fastest, generate the most nuclear electricity, or deliver the next commercial startup first.
Top 10 countries at the center of the nuclear construction pipeline
The top of the ranking is not just a list of “nuclear countries.” It is a map of where parallel construction workload, late-stage testing preparation, licensing sequencing, training pressure, turnover packages, and future grid-connection activity are likely to be densest. The difference between one unit and four or eight units matters because the industrial rhythm becomes more programmatic.
China dominates the global table by both unit count and capacity. This is no longer a marginal lead: it is a system-level concentration of construction activity that shapes the entire global new-build map.
India sits clearly in second place by units. Its pipeline is smaller than China’s but still large enough to represent a sustained national execution track rather than isolated project activity.
Russia ranks below India by count but remains large in MW(e). That means fewer parallel units than India, but a capacity block that remains globally material.
Türkiye’s four-unit position marks the transition from a single-site project story to a genuine commissioning sequence that must be managed as a repeatable program.
Egypt matches Türkiye by unit count and sits just below it by net capacity. That is a meaningful footprint for a country scaling up a new nuclear program.
The UK shows why MW(e) cannot be ignored. With only two units, it still ranks above other two-unit countries because each unit carries a larger capacity footprint.
Korea’s pipeline is narrow by count, but each unit is substantial. For analytical purposes, this is a good example of why “busy” and “large” are not identical concepts.
Japan’s two-unit pipeline is close to Korea’s in capacity terms. The ranking should be read as a construction snapshot, not as a statement about total nuclear activity in the country.
Even a two-unit pipeline creates substantial commissioning demands when the broader institutional base is still developing around a first major program.
Ukraine closes the top 10. The footprint is smaller than the leading builders, but the presence of two formal under-construction units still matters in a globally short table.
Table A. Top 10 countries by reactors under construction
| Rank | Country | Reactors | Net MW(e) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | China | 36 | 38,802 |
| 2 | India | 8 | 6,028 |
| 3 | Russia | 5 | 5,000 |
| 4 | Türkiye | 4 | 4,456 |
| 5 | Egypt | 4 | 4,400 |
| 6 | United Kingdom | 2 | 3,260 |
| 7 | Korea, Republic of | 2 | 2,680 |
| 8 | Japan | 2 | 2,653 |
| 9 | Bangladesh | 2 | 2,160 |
| 10 | Ukraine | 2 | 2,070 |
Global baseline: 73 reactors under construction worldwide, totaling 76,590 MW(e). Countries tie first on unit count, then on total net MW(e).
Table B. Shares of the global pipeline
| Rank | Country | Share of units | Share of MW(e) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | China | 49.3% | 50.7% |
| 2 | India | 11.0% | 7.9% |
| 3 | Russia | 6.8% | 6.5% |
| 4 | Türkiye | 5.5% | 5.8% |
| 5 | Egypt | 5.5% | 5.7% |
| 6 | United Kingdom | 2.7% | 4.3% |
| 7 | Korea, Republic of | 2.7% | 3.5% |
| 8 | Japan | 2.7% | 3.5% |
| 9 | Bangladesh | 2.7% | 2.8% |
| 10 | Ukraine | 2.7% | 2.7% |
Figure 1. Under-construction reactors by country (all PRIS-listed countries)
The chart below keeps the ranking visual, but it stays honest about coverage. This is not a “Top 20” or “Top 100” graphic because the current PRIS list contains 16 countries with reactors in formal under-construction status. When coverage is short, the page should show the real list rather than inflate the title.
Fallback visual summary
If the chart script does not load, this ranked bar list remains visible.
The main ranking metric is reactor count. Capacity matters too, but the chart emphasizes parallel execution workload, while Tables A and B keep the MW(e) dimension explicit.
Methodology, scope, and limitations
The page uses a single database and a single rule. The indicator is the number of nuclear power reactors shown in PRIS as Under Construction, aggregated by country. Countries are ranked by unit count. If countries tie on the number of units, the tie-break is the total net electrical capacity under construction, measured in MW(e).
This matters because unit count and capacity answer different questions. Unit count is the better proxy for how many parallel project tracks are active: civil works completion paths, system turnover, test campaigns, staffing cycles, commissioning procedures, readiness reviews, and grid integration planning. Net MW(e) is the better proxy for how much capacity sits inside those tracks. A country with fewer units can still carry a larger capacity block than a country with more, smaller units.
The terminology also needs discipline. In everyday language, people often call the whole path from announcement to operation “commissioning.” PRIS is narrower. It separately defines construction start, first grid connection, trial operation, and commercial operation. This article therefore uses “commissioning pipeline” only as a reader-friendly shorthand for the construction-to-startup pathway, while the formal ranking metric remains PRIS status: Under Construction.
The ranking is intentionally narrow. It does not measure future completion speed, levelized electricity costs, delivered generation, construction quality, outage performance, financing structure, localization rates, or industrial competitiveness in the full supply chain. It is a status snapshot. That limitation is a strength as long as it is stated clearly, because it keeps the comparison grounded in one official system rather than a mix of plans and narratives.
Editorial guardrail: this page should never present “under construction” as identical to “commissioned,” “operational,” or “commercial.” It is best understood as the clearest globally comparable proxy for where real nuclear build execution is already underway.
Insights and takeaways from the ranking
The first and biggest takeaway is concentration. This is not a balanced global map with many countries clustered near the top. China alone holds 49.3% of all reactors under construction and 50.7% of the global MW(e) tied to projects in this status. That means the global nuclear new-build story is no longer just “many countries are building.” It is increasingly “one country builds at unmatched scale, while a smaller second tier sustains meaningful but much narrower pipelines.”
The second takeaway is that the list captures different industrial profiles. India’s pipeline is broader by count than Russia’s, but Russia remains close by capacity. Türkiye and Egypt are lower in the table, yet four units each is already enough to push a country into a programmatic mode where commissioning cannot be treated as a one-off event. In practice, that means recurring turnover logic, repeated training cycles, more structured site readiness planning, and a clearer need for institutional memory.
The third takeaway is that countries with the same unit count are not equivalent. The United Kingdom, Korea, Japan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine each show two units under construction, but their MW(e) totals differ materially. That is why a good ranking page needs both columns. If the page reports only units, it understates how much capacity is concentrated inside some small-count pipelines. If it reports only MW(e), it hides how many parallel sequences must actually be managed.
The fourth takeaway is that short annual milestone lists should never be confused with the full pipeline. A country can have a large under-construction fleet and still show only one or two first-grid events in a calendar year. Late-stage testing, regulatory timing, and integrated system readiness do not move in a straight line. The ranking is therefore best used as a workload map, while year-specific milestone tables serve as a movement log.
What this means for readers
For a general reader, this ranking is useful because it answers a more practical question than a typical “nuclear plans” article: where is real execution already happening? If you work in energy, engineering, project controls, licensing, EPC, component supply, testing, or power-market analysis, this page gives a cleaner first pass at where near- to medium-term startup pressure is likely to cluster.
For investors and policy readers, the main value is not predicting exact completion dates. It is understanding where capital, industrial coordination, construction risk, workforce bottlenecks, and future connection activity are already concentrated. A country that sits high in this table has crossed out of aspiration mode and into real execution workload. That is more valuable than a long list of announced reactors with uncertain schedules.
For everyday news readers, the key point is even simpler: a big under-construction pipeline usually signals ambition backed by concrete, steel, contracts, and site activity, but it still does not prove fast delivery. This is why the ranking should be paired with milestone tracking, not replaced by it.
Use this page to answer “where is the nuclear build pipeline actually real?” Do not use it on its own to answer “who is best at nuclear power?”
Country-by-country notes
The notes below keep the interpretation narrow and disciplined. They stay close to what the indicator can support: confirmed construction footprint, the difference between count and capacity, and why that combination matters for the construction-to-startup pathway.
China
China dominates both the count side and the capacity side of the table. Because the unit share and MW(e) share sit close together, the signal is not “many tiny projects.” It is a broad and heavy pipeline. In practical terms, this points to a sustained cadence of construction completion work, system turnover, test sequencing, and eventual grid integration across multiple sites rather than a narrow cluster of isolated builds.
India
India’s eight-unit position clearly separates it from the countries below. The gap to Russia is especially instructive: India manages more parallel units, while Russia stays close by MW(e). That means India’s “breadth of execution” signal is stronger than its “capacity block” advantage, and that difference is exactly why a two-metric ranking is analytically stronger than a one-metric list.
Russia
Russia ranks third by units and remains substantial by net capacity. Fewer units than India do not automatically mean a smaller strategic footprint; the capacity total remains large enough that delays or accelerations can still shift a meaningful block of future nuclear output. For this reason, Russia remains part of the global second tier rather than the trailing field.
Türkiye
Four reactors under construction is a real program threshold. Once a country sits at that level, site logistics, training, testing, and licensing work start to behave more like a repeatable sequence. The story moves beyond “a country has one major project” and toward “a country is managing a multi-unit program.”
Egypt
Egypt is close enough to Türkiye in both units and MW(e) that the two often belong in the same analytical sentence. Its four-unit pipeline matters because it reflects a buildout large enough to create repeated commissioning obligations rather than a single delivery event.
United Kingdom
The UK is a classic example of why capacity-weighted interpretation matters. Two units may sound modest beside China or India, but 3,260 MW(e) is a heavy block for a two-unit pipeline. A small-count program can still matter greatly when the units are large.
Korea, Republic of
Korea’s current pipeline is compact by count yet still meaningful in capacity. In ranking terms, this is the opposite of a country with many small units: it does not dominate the list by breadth, but it does hold a sizeable capacity footprint relative to the number of units being managed.
Japan
Japan’s two-unit position should not be over-read. A narrow construction pipeline at one point in time does not summarize the country’s whole nuclear system, policy debate, or operational base. It simply shows that formal under-construction activity is presently limited to a small set of units.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s two-unit pipeline is smaller in absolute terms but still operationally demanding. In countries with less frequent new-build experience, project standardization, training depth, turnover discipline, and milestone reporting become even more important because the institutional learning curve can be steeper.
Ukraine
Ukraine closes the top 10 with a confirmed two-unit pipeline. The rank is modest compared with the leading builders, but in a short global table even a two-unit footprint remains visible. This is a good example of why the page should stay status-based rather than drift into speculative language about future additions.
What changed in 2025
Pipeline depth and annual movement are related, but they are not the same thing. A country can have a large under-construction fleet and still show only one visible grid milestone in a given year. That is why the annual movement table belongs next to the ranking rather than inside it.
PRIS separates first grid connection from commercial operation. The period between those two dates is trial operation. This matters because a page that casually mixes the milestones will look imprecise to any reader who actually uses PRIS.
| Unit | Country | Net MW(e) | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajasthan 7 | India | 630 | 17 March 2025 |
| Zhangzhou 2 | China | 1,126 | 22 November 2025 |
| Kursk 2-1 | Russia | 1,200 | 31 December 2025 |
Interpretation guardrail: first grid connection is not commercial operation. Rajasthan 7 reached commercial operation on 15 April 2025, while Zhangzhou 2 shows commercial operation on 1 January 2026 and Kursk 2-1 still shows no commercial date in the PRIS unit page.
FAQ
Why use “under construction” as the core ranking metric?
Because it is the cleanest officially maintained threshold between planning and execution. Announced projects are noisy and politically inflated. A PRIS under-construction count is stricter and more comparable across countries.
Is commissioning the same thing as commercial operation?
No. In PRIS, commercial operation starts on the commercial date. First grid connection comes earlier, and the period between first grid connection and commercial date is trial operation. That is why a serious article should not collapse all milestones into one word.
Why not rank countries only by units that started operating in 2025?
Because that would answer a different question. A startup table shows annual movement. This page is about the size of the real construction pipeline already in formal execution.
Does a larger pipeline mean faster delivery?
Not automatically. A large pipeline shows execution scale, not guaranteed speed. Regulatory timing, supply chains, site productivity, financing, testing progress, and grid readiness can all stretch delivery.
Why include MW(e) if the ranking is already based on units?
Because equal unit counts can hide very different capacity blocks. Two countries may each have two reactors under construction, but one may be carrying much more future generating capacity per unit.
What exactly does PRIS mean by construction start?
PRIS defines construction start as the first major placing of concrete for the base mat of the reactor building. From that date, the reactor is considered under construction.
Are small modular reactors included in this ranking?
They are included if PRIS lists them as power reactors under construction. The page follows PRIS coverage rather than adding or excluding units by editorial preference.
How should I verify one number for a specific country?
Start with the PRIS under-construction by country page for totals, then open the relevant country or reactor detail pages to verify the specific units, capacities, and milestone dates behind that total.
Official sources
The page is intentionally built on official PRIS material rather than mixed plan-based reporting. That keeps the ranking defensible, updateable, and easier to audit.
-
IAEA PRIS — Under Construction, by Country
Primary table for the country totals and the global baseline used in Tables A and B.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx -
IAEA PRIS — Glossary
Definitions for construction start, first grid connection, trial operation, and commercial operation.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/glossary.aspx -
IAEA PRIS — Database home
General context for the PRIS system and its current status reporting.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/home.aspx -
IAEA PRIS — Rajasthan 7 reactor details
Unit page confirming first grid connection and commercial operation dates for the Indian 2025 milestone example.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=298 -
IAEA PRIS — Zhangzhou 2 reactor details
Unit page confirming first grid connection in 2025 and commercial operation in 2026.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=1090 -
IAEA PRIS — Kursk 2-1 reactor details
Unit page confirming first grid connection on 31 December 2025.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=903
Update note: when PRIS changes, the page should be updated as a new snapshot. Do not patch old totals with new country notes or vice versa.
