The first goal aims to support strategic decision-making in IAEA Member States that want to establish a new nuclear Lapatinib Ditosylate program or expand an existing one. Again, it is striking that the actual sustainability assessment of the nuclear energy system comes after the acceptance of the need for additional nuclear power in an IAEA Member State. The need is argued as an outcome of power demand and supply modeling over the coming decades, where outputs of models are based on ceteris paribus assumptions about relationships governing energy system developments and assuming only marginal changes. The evaluation of nuclear power as being ‘needed’ results from estimations of growth in demand (with little electricity efficiency), investment expenses, supportive financing terms, availability factors of the units, etc. The modeling tools proposed by IAEA (2008, pp. 59–69) are run within the bounded rationality of an economic optimization of a nation's energy system within a time frame spanning a few decades, under assumption of manageable doubt and of easy reversibility, sidelining the true challenges of incomprehensible far futures, uncontrollable doubt, and precluded reversibility ( Verbruggen, 2013). Gibson et al. (2005) explicitly reject the methodological approaches adopted by IAEA as inappropriate for the assessment of sustainability-oriented policies. Considerations regarding the flexibility or the reversibility of the nuclear power option in the face of large uncertainties are not scoped by IAEA.