nuclear-news

Who will foot the bill? The opportunity cost of prioritising nuclear power over renewable energy for the case of Finland

Science Direct, Rasul Satymov ^a, Salvatore Ruggiero ^b, Björn Steigerwald ^cd, Jens Weibezahn ^e, Neven Duić ^f, Jero Ahola ^a, Dmitrii Bogdanov ^a, Christian Breyer 15 November 2025

Highlights

•Tripling nuclear power is more expensive than optimised renewables in Finland.
•Tripling nuclear power costs over 71% more, equal to 2.3% of Finland’s GDP.
•Tripling nuclear power exacerbates local social inequalities.
•Renewables meet energy demand more cost-effectively and avoid nuclear risks.
•Timely insights for policymakers quantifying the costs of nuclear power expansion.

Abstract

In an effort to decarbonise their energy systems, several countries have declared intentions to triple their nuclear power capacity by 2050 at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 28. The expansion of nuclear power includes plans for so-called small modular reactors, intended for electricity generation as well as combined heat and power production. This study aims to demonstrate the cost differences between nuclear-based and renewables-based energy-industry systems using the Finnish energy system as a case study. Four nuclear power expansion scenarios are examined, imposing 13.2 GW of nuclear power capacity into Finland’s energy supply mix, with various capacities of small- and large-scale nuclear power plants alongside combined heat and power production from small-scale nuclear plants. These nuclear tripling scenarios are compared to a reference scenario that simulates a free cost optimisation with zero emissions target. The nuclear scenarios show 71–84% higher annualised system cost of 18.4–19.7 b€ compared to a renewables-based system costing 10.7 b€ in 2050. The reference scenario does not include the installation of new nuclear power capacities, indicating that new nuclear power plants are not part of a cost-optimal system. Additionally, the energy-industry system outlined in the reference scenario possesses fewer risks compared to nuclear tripling scenarios, particularly given that SMR technologies are not yet commercially available. The findings have important implications for energy justice, especially in terms of the significant opportunity cost presented by the nuclear decarbonisation pathway.

1. Introduction

There is a growing discourse on energy transition to low-carbon sources, with proponents advocating for both highly renewable energy (RE) systems [1] and the expansion of nuclear power [2,3]. At the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties 28 (COP28) 25 countries have declared their intent to triple their nuclear energy capacity by 2050 [4]. This commitment comes in spite of the risks associated with nuclear power in terms of cost, long lead times, waste disposal challenges, safety concerns, proliferation, considerable operational risks in war zones, and uranium supply uncertainties [[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]].

The COP28 declaration commits to triple global nuclear energy capacity from 2020 to 2050 by mobilising investments and supporting the construction of various nuclear power technologies, including small-capacity reactors, known as small modular reactors (SMR), although these technologies are not yet commercially viable [10].

New nuclear power plants may struggle to secure sufficient fuel for their entire operational lifetimes due to rising demand for uranium and limited reserves [11]…………………………………………………………………………

While many studies advocate for 100% RE-based systems [19,20], others see nuclear power as a viable option or a necessary complement to RE [[21], [22], [23], [24]]. However, nuclear power is unlikely to meet the expectations for rapid capacity expansion to align with climate goals [5,25,26]. SMRs have been proposed as a cost-effective alternative to conventional reactors, but their lack of large-scale deployment and limited operational experience presents challenges. SMRs, akin to traditional nuclear power plants, require lengthy regulatory approvals, licensing, and operational testing to ensure safety [25], and their economic viability remains uncertain [27,28]. ………………………………………………………. over-insistence on nuclear power may ultimately delay the energy transition.

Conversely, 100% RE-based systems are increasingly recognised as a more affordable option for decarbonisation [20] than nuclear power-centric systems, relying on improved energy storage and grid management, as documented for increasing periods of 100% RE in California [35]………………………………………………………..

With growing calls to deploy SMRs to address climate change [40] and energy security [41,42], it is essential to evaluate the economic costs and energy justice [43] implications of decarbonisation pathways. This study conducts a techno-economic assessment of scaling up nuclear power versus transitioning to a highly RE system using Finland as a case study………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Several studies have shown the feasibility of a highly RE-based system in Finland [[57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]]. Child and Breyer [58] and Pilpola et al. [61] show that carbon-neutrality can be achieved without nuclear power, and adding nuclear power increases energy system costs.

COMMENT – Lengthy discussion here, with excellent tables and graphs

6. Conclusion

Tripling nuclear energy capacity by 2050, as proposed by the COP28 declaration, would lead to significantly higher annualised costs and levelised costs of electricity compared to a cost-optimised system that prioritises renewable energy sources. …………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544225042720

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Finland | Leave a comment

Greenpeace calls for review of infrastructure protection at Cattenom power plant

RTL Lëtzebuerg, adapted for RTL Today, 23.09.26, https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/greenpeace-calls-for-review-of-infrastructure-protection-at-cattenom-power-plant-61201962

Recent flyovers by unidentified drones in Luxembourg have prompted Greenpeace to urge the government to review security measures, particularly in relation to the extended operation of the Cattenom nuclear power plant.

Greenpeace Luxembourg has raised concerns that the recent sightings of unidentified drones flying over Luxembourg should be viewed not only in the context of the renewed operating licence for the Cattenom nuclear power plant, but as part of a broader conversation about the protection of critical infrastructure.

In a statement released on Wednesday, Greenpeace called on the Luxembourg government to demand information from the French authorities regarding the risks posed by drone attacks and potential acts of sabotage.

The organisation stressed that if Cattenom is not adequately protected against such attacks, the Luxembourg government must demand that the reactor is shut down.

The new Greenpeace study, which is available online in German, analyses the risks that modern drones pose to French nuclear power stations. The report concludes that an attack on the Cattenom plant could have severe consequences for Luxembourg.

According to the study, in such an event, the population would not only have to be relocated from areas in France, but also from neighbouring countries Germany and Luxembourg, for an extended period.

Roger Spautz, nuclear energy expert for Greenpeace Luxembourg, underlined that the current wave of drone threats demonstrates how seriously the risks associated with modern drone technology must be taken.

He argued that the Luxembourg population has a right to know how well protected the Cattenom facility is against such threats.

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, safety | Leave a comment

The Dictator of Kiev Needs the War: Closing Russian Skies to Stay in Power

Adrian Korczyński, September 23, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/09/23/the-dictator-of-kiev-needs-the-war-closing-russian-skies-to-stay-in-power/

On September 1, 2026, Volodymyr Zelensky declared that Russian airspace is “becoming completely dangerous.” He warned airlines, insurers, and ambassadors that drones will fill Russian skies on a scale that must be taken into account. “The safe days in Russia’s skies are over.”

The Skies Are the New Battlefield

This was not an operational communication. It was a declaration by a man who needs the war to continue and expand.

Ukraine has been conducting a systematic campaign of drone strikes against Russian oil refineries since the beginning of 2026. The attacks have targeted nearly every major refinery in European Russia, covering the majority of the country’s refining capacity. Lukoil plants in Volgograd, Perm and NORSI in Kstovo have been hit multiple times, and as of late August, all of Lukoil’s major refineries were out of operation. Oil processing has dropped significantly. Fuel shortages, sales restrictions and long queues at petrol stations have appeared across many Russian regions. Zelensky had previously spoken of a target of a thousand drones per day. The warning about “closing” Russian skies is simply the next step in this strategy of maximum escalation.

A War Without an Election

Zelensky’s elected five-year term expired in May 2024. Elections have not been held. Martial law has been repeatedly extended. By the standards Western governments routinely invoke when judging political systems elsewhere, this amounts to wartime authoritarian rule. If any government in Africa, Asia or Latin America cancelled elections, ruled indefinitely under emergency powers and used ongoing war as the justification, Western capitals would call it what it is. In Kiev’s case they prefer softer language. The double standard is the point.

Every expansion of the battlefield – from the front line, through energy infrastructure, to the open threat against civilian airspace – helps preserve the state of exception. War has become a political insurance policy. As long as it continues, Zelensky remains indispensable. As long as it continues, the question of democratic legitimacy can be postponed indefinitely. Escalation is no longer merely a military instrument. It has become a method of holding power.

Closing the Skies

Zelensky claims that Ukraine “does not threaten civil aviation as such.” At the same time he deliberately announces the saturation of Russian skies with drones to a degree that makes them dangerous for civilian traffic. This is not defence. It is an attempt to internationalise risk and force the world to accept further escalation as the new normal. The warning directed at airlines and insurers is political, not humanitarian. If Ukrainian drones fill Russian airspace every night in large numbers, the Russian state will be forced to either admit its skies are unsafe or take measures that escalate the conflict further. Either outcome serves the same purpose.

A Bid for State Terrorism

President Vladimir Putin described Zelensky’s warning as a “bid for state terrorism” and said that “there can be no negotiations with terrorists.” Whatever one thinks of the formulation, the exchange reveals how far Kiev is prepared to push the logic of “response.” The campaign against refineries and the threat to close Russian skies belong to the same strategy: maximise costs on the Russian side while insisting there is no alternative to continued war. The calculation is clear: if the threat becomes real enough, the world will be forced to treat the war not as a regional conflict but as a global aviation crisis. And that is precisely the political logic of the strategy.

Who Controls the Trigger?

Zelensky also admitted that when the Americans asked him to suspend attacks on Moscow and St. Petersburg for three days in late August, he complied. This is a revealing admission. He is not acting in the image of a fully sovereign leader making decisions in complete strategic independence. He is managing a conflict in which outside powers can request pauses in major operations and expect Kiev to comply. Then he announces that the strikes will resume. The admission is as significant as the strikes themselves. It exposes the depth of Ukraine’s dependence on its Western patrons: Kiev may pull the trigger, but others can still influence when it is temporarily lowered.

The War Must Continue

Zelensky is not looking for a way to end the war. He is looking for a way not to end it. The warning that Russian skies are “completely dangerous” is both a military act and a political one. It sustains a system in which one man, whose elected mandate expired in 2024 and has not been renewed at the ballot box, decides that a conflict which should have entered negotiations long ago must continue and expand. Escalation has ceased to be a means. It has become the end itself. And the man who needs that escalation continues to style himself president.

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Israel Damaged 82 Percent of Gaza’s Buildings. Collapses Are Burying Us Alive.

Residents of the recently collapsed six-story high rise knew they were in danger but could find nowhere else to sleep.

By Shahad Ali , Truthout, September 23, 2026

Khaled Al Soutari, who was inside the six-story residential building in western Gaza City that collapsed on September 16, is now sleeping on the street without a tent, devastated by the loss of 21 of his neighbors.

“They were more than just neighbors to me,” Al Soutari told me when I interviewed him two days after the building collapse, sitting on the street with a group of his neighbors next to the collapsed building. “They were my best friends. We shared food and laughter and had endless talks despite the harsh reality we were living through. It is hard for me to imagine life without them.”

Al Soutari told me that for more than six months, the building, which had previously been damaged by Israeli bombardment, had been weakening further because of wastewater seepage. The walls had also developed deeper cracks, and pieces of concrete had begun to fall. Then, one night, the building itself suddenly crumbled.

“We were sleeping when suddenly the ground started to shake as if an earthquake had hit. I started screaming at my wife and children to jump through a hole in the wall, but we could not because the building collapsed,” Al Soutari told me. “I found myself under the rubble within seconds, surrounded by the screams of my family and others shouting, ‘We are here. We do not want to die. Help us.’ I could not breathe or shout. For a moment, I thought this was the end.”

“Luckily, one of my neighbors noticed me and managed to free me from the concrete pressing on my back,” he continued. “However, my wife and my three children spent hours under the rubble before the Civil Defense intervened and managed to rescue them.”

Al Soutari added that his daughter, Sham, suffered a leg injury in the collapse and had to undergo surgery to have a plate inserted.

The municipality had inspected the building a few days before it collapsed and asked residents to leave, Al Soutari said, explaining that his family tried to do so, but they could not find any other place to go.

“I always talked with my neighbors who lived in the building about my fear that it could collapse on us at any moment, but we were helpless. We could do nothing but stay,” he told me………………………………………………………….

As Winter Approaches, More Building Collapses Are Imminent

The collapse of the Al-Sadah building was not an isolated case. Mahmoud Bassal, spokesperson for Gaza’s Civil Defense, said in a statement after the collapse of the Al-Sadah building that around 2,000 other buildings across the Gaza Strip are also at risk of complete collapse………………………………………………………………………. https://truthout.org/articles/israel-damaged-82-percent-of-gazas-buildings-collapses-are-burying-us-alive/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=1319f0e1c1-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_09_23_08_15_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-66fc42c01f-650192793

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Atrocities, Gaza, Israel | Leave a comment

North Korea to keep nuclear weapons ‘forever’: foreign minister

North Korea will keep its nuclear weapons “forever”, its foreign minister
vowed Thursday, dismissing the South Korean president’s renewed calls for a
denuclearised Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang has legally enshrined its status
as a nuclear-armed state, with its leadership repeatedly declaring the
country’s atomic arsenal permanent and irreversible.

Daily Mail 24th Sept 2026,
https://www.dailymail.com/wires/afp/article-16156233/North-Korea-nuclear-weapons-forever-foreign-minister.html

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | North Korea, weapons and war | Leave a comment

With federal funding windfall, X-energy advances small nuclear reactor

For the nuclear renaissance to truly arrive, however, these new projects need to be completed on a reasonable timeline and at a reasonable cost. Blown deadlines and blown budgets have dogged the industry, and in 2023 contributed to the dissolution of the first small-modular reactor project with an NRC-approved design

The Amazon-backed firm is aiming to build up to 144 of its novel Xe-100 reactors as the U.S. government seeks to revitalize an industry beset by rising costs.

Canary Media ,By Brian Martucci, 23 September 2026

The federal government has thrown its weight into reviving America’s long-stagnant nuclear industry, and X-energy’s first-of-a-kind reactor project is among the biggest beneficiaries so far.

The U.S. Department of Energy last month said it would award $1 billion to X-energy, an Amazon-backed advanced nuclear startup working to bring four novel 80-megawatt electric reactors online at a Dow Chemical facility in Seadrift, Texas, in the early 2030s.

The federal government has thrown its weight into reviving America’s long-stagnant nuclear industry, and X-energy’s first-of-a-kind reactor project is among the biggest beneficiaries so far.

The award nearly doubles the federal government’s commitment to X-energy, following a $1.2 billion investment in early 2021. Both tranches were structured as 50-50 cost-sharing agreements under the DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, launched in 2020 to commercialize next-generation nuclear technologies.

X-energy’s Seadrift project now enjoys a level of federal funding that rivals any other advanced nuclear development in the nation. The Bill Gates–backed TerraPower’s commercial demonstration project in Wyoming, which broke ground earlier this year, has also been awarded up to $2 billion in cost-sharing funds through the ARDP.

The X-energy project does not yet have a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, though it received a key environmental approval in May and expects the regulator to green-light reactor construction in early 2027. Only TerraPower and the Google-backed startup Kairos Power currently have NRC construction permits.

Nuclear energy has struggled in recent decades in America, but surging energy demand and a desire by some states and companies to secure carbon-free electricity have revitalized the industry. Tens of billions of dollars in public and private funding are now flowing into a crop of startups looking to build advanced reactors — as well as efforts to restart or build new large-scale reactors like the 96 America already has.

In early 2023, before it had fully engaged with Dow or selected Seadrift for its commercial debut, X-energy estimated the cost of completing the full ARDP scope between $4.75 billion and $5.75 billion.

X-energy has not publicly updated its cost estimates since then, though the federal funding of up to $2.1 billion implies at least $4.2 billion will be spent on the project. In securities filings this year, however, it said that it faces the same broad inflationary and trade-related pressures that have pushed up costs for natural gas, renewables, and other types of energy infrastructure.

CEO J. Clay Sell told investors and stock analysts on an Aug. 13 earnings call that he expected the government to contribute more funding as needed.

“I’m confident to the extent more dollars will be required, they will be provided by our partners at the Department of Energy and Commerce,” he said. “We’ll see where the number ends up.”……………………………………https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/federal-funding-x-energy-small-nuclear-reactor

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

A new report from Europe raises serious alarms about orbital collisions

“I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits.”

Eric Berger ars TECHNICA, – Sep 23, 2026

The 2013 sci-fi blockbuster film Gravity, starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, popularized the notion of the Kessler syndrome. In the movie, Russia shoots down a defunct satellite and creates a cloud of debris, leading to serious tension in orbit.

The movie is fantastic, a true thriller, and while some liberties were taken with the depiction of outer space, the basic premise of a cascading series of collisions rendering orbits too cluttered with debris to be usable is valid. The idea was first proposed by NASA scientists Donald Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais nearly half a century ago.

Still, the movie was science fiction, right?

Well, a lot has changed since Gravity‘s release. At the time that theatergoers were sitting on the edges of their seats and watching Bullock dodge debris, there were only about 1,000 active satellites in orbit. Today, that number is closer to 17,000, according to CelesTrak.

The preponderance of this growth has been driven by SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, which now has approximately 11,000 satellites in orbit, with many thousands more on the way. And SpaceX is not alone in the race to provide Internet from space. Amazon has launched hundreds of satellites, with thousands more to follow. Multiple Chinese Internet constellations are likewise in progress.

Then there are the orbital data centers, which may produce hundreds of thousands of satellites.

We’ve written a lot about these constellations, and they have generated a bunch of questions. Most prominent among them: Just how sustainable is all of this? Will we see the Kessler syndrome play out in real time? Here are some answers.

How bad is the situation?

It depends on who you ask, so let’s start with the glass-half-empty and glass-half-full outlooks.

Starting with the pessimists: A few years ago, one of the world’s experts in orbital debris, University of Texas at Austin professor Moriba Jah, told Ars that he worries a lot about the consequences of satellites and debris in low-Earth orbit.

“I think we are going to lose the ability to use certain orbits because the carrying capacity is going to get saturated by objects and junk,” Jah said. ” I also predict that we will see a loss of human life by (1) school bus-sized objects reentering and surviving reentry and hitting a populated area, or (2) people riding on this wave of civil and commercial astronauts basically having their vehicle getting scwhacked by an unpredicted piece of junk. I predict that both those things are going to happen in the next decade.”

At the other end of the spectrum is the person almost solely responsible for the remarkable growth in satellites over the last decade, SpaceX founder Elon Musk. His attitude has largely been that space is big, and things will probably be just fine. For example, during a SpaceX-produced interview this summer at the company’s Starlink terminal factory in Bastrop, Texas, Musk said, “Space is really big. It’s not like space is gonna get crowded. Space is enormous. If you actually look at it relative to the Earth, the satellites are so tiny you can’t even see them.”

So in one way of thinking, very, very bad things are coming. In another, everything’s fine. Where does the truth actually lie?

What’s really happening?

One of the most credible sources for this kind of information is the European Space Agency, which has long studied space debris and its impacts on various orbits.

Fortunately, it just released its annual Space Environment Report a week ago. The European agency has produced such a report over the last decade to provide a transparent overview of global space activities and assess the quality of efforts to preserve the sustainability of spaceflight.

There are some striking—and concerning—changes this year. For example, the European report has dramatically increased its projections of future satellites in this year’s report after reassessing the current trajectory of large constellations.

“The notable increase in the index this year is primarily driven by the substantially larger future population resulting from the current extrapolation scenario,” the report states. “In particular, the growing influence of large constellations highlights the limitations of traditional mitigation approaches when applied to future traffic at unprecedented scales. At the same time, the results are affected by the limited availability of detailed and verifiable information on future deployment plans, operational practices, and end-of-life strategies of these systems.”

More satellites mean an increasing probability of collisions, which helps to push us toward a Kessler-like scenario…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://arstechnica.com/space/2026/09/there-are-now-17000-satellites-in-orbit-and-growing-should-we-be-concerned/

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel | Leave a comment

40 years after Chernobyl, Italy greenlights a return to nuclear energy

Italy´s Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to legislation paving the
way for a return to nuclear power nearly four decades after the Chernobyl
disaster prompted the country to abandon atomic energy. The measure cleared
the upper house 81-51 with seven abstentions. It marks a major step in
Premier Giorgia Meloni´s drive to bolster energy security and meet climate
goals, even though the construction of possible new reactors is still years
away. The bill, which earlier passed the lower Chamber of Deputies,
establishes a legal framework for next-generation nuclear technologies. It
authorizes the government to draft implementing decrees over the next 12
months covering reactor licensing, safety standards, waste management and
criteria for future sites.

Daily Mail 23rd Sept 2026 https://www.dailymail.com/wires/ap/article-16154865/Italys-parliament-paves-way-return-nuclear-energy.html

September 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Italy, politics | Leave a comment

Volodymr Zelensky – the “exceptional” leader

25 September 2026 , Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/volodymr-zelensky-the-exceptional-leader/

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese very recently hugged Ukrainian President Zelensky, and praised him as an “exceptional leader.” That’s par for the course for a Western leader – they all fawn over Zelensky.

Zelensky was born in Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Russia. So he was Vladimir Zelensky, until recently – now he’s Volodymr Zelensky. Before he took over the leadership of Ukraine, the Russian “Vladimir” was fine. Ukrainian was the official language of Ukraine, but Russian was widely used, too, and 65% of the population are ethnically Russian. But now, Russian is not fine – banned in schools and public places. The June 2022 – LAW OF UKRAINE – “On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as the state language” – greatly restricts the use of the Russian language in music and in all media. That’s just one part of the de-Russification of culture in Ukraine. I felt sad that the government has trashed, very literally, the memories of Catherine the Great, who did promote not only art and culture to Kiev, but also improvements in health and education, and rights for Muslims and Jews. (Western pro-Ukraine writers are now busily rewriting history on Catherine the Great).

But then, I am inclined to put much importance on that rather nebulous thing – “culture.”

What else has Zelensky achieved inside Ukraine?

Politics. Also in 2022, Zelensky banned 11 political parties, despite no evidence linking any to the Russian government. His term as President was due to be over by May 2024, but the state of martial law enables him to continue to rule. He has shown support for the ultra-nationalist section in Ukraine, those who hark back to the days of collaborating with Nazi Germany in opposition to Russia during World War 2. This did not go down well with Poland, where Ukrainian Nazis had committed massacres. In June 2026, Polish President Karol Nawrocki, revoked the Order of the White Eagle – Poland’s highest honor – previously awarded to Zelensky. In 2024, Zelensky banned Ukraine’s largest Christian church – the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Military conscription for the war uses brutal methods to recruit men aged 25-60. Ukraine is a dictatorship. And I haven’t even touched on the level of corruption.

Zelensky’s progress in the war. It seems to be forgotten that civil war was going on in Ukraine for 8 years before Zelensky’s election in 2019, with the government fighting the “separatists” in the Donbass. The Donbass were granted autonomy within Ukraine, by the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015, but Kiev refused to honour that agreement. Zelensky was elected in a landslide, with his main promise being to grant that autonomy, honour Minsk, and end the war.

March-April 2022: Zelensky and Putin agreed on a framework agreement that would allow the Donbass autonomy, and end the war, with Ukraine pledging not to join NATO. The U.S. and U.K. objected. Prime Minister Boris Johnson flies to Kiev to tell Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia. Zelensky complies. The war continues with Russia seizing much of the Donbass.

From then on, it is a saga, with Zelensky applying his truly exceptional media skills in an endless peripatetic round of Western capitals seeking apparently endless amounts of money and weaponry, as he pushes themes of evil Russia’s intent to invade Europe, and destroy Western democracy. Always dressed in some distinctive gear, Zelensky presented first the persona of the very ordinary down-to-earth tough little soldier, later the persona of the strong leading statesman, all in black, suggesting implacable military leadership yet not actually in a uniform. Within Ukraine, (the Jewish) Zelensky celebrated Orthodox Christian Easter, suitably arrayed.

I see that I have returned to the theme of culture and style. But how else to account for the extraordinary adoration given to Zelensky by the West? With a couple of notable exceptions, (Poland and Slovakia), the Western world is not only full of enthusiasm for Zelensky, but willing to fund advanced weaponry to Ukraine, oblivious of the danger of nuclear-armed Russia responding to attacks deep inside its territory. Even Russia-hating Joe Biden drew the line at this. Zelensky, originally open to negotiations with Russia, considering compromises and concessions on both sides, now is intent on the goal of unconditional surrender by Russia. The European Union is backing this aim, apparently unable to consider a more realistic approach to ending this war – a war which is bankrupting Ukraine, killing a huge number of soldiers, while at least 6 million have fled the country, with 10 million displaced within Ukraine.

Western media determinedly reports atrocities by Russians, but never atrocities by Ukrainians. Western media reports Russian attacks near Ukraine’s nuclear sites, particularly Zaporizhzhia, although the evidence there is uncertain. But there’s silence on Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s huge nuclear station at Kursk. Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure and civilian areas are reported as atrocities, but Ukraine’s attacks on Russia’s infrastructure and civilian sites are “successes.”

The idea of considering genuine negotiations with Russia is really not being considered, let alone of examining the situation of the largely ethnic Russian citizens of the Donbass. I did hear one podcast report, a Donetsk farmer saying that he just wanted the war to end, and didn’t care whether Ukraine or Russia was in control of Donetsk. I know that I can’t extrapolate from this one statement to the general opinion of the Donbass. But I think that it’s quite likely, after 11 years of war there, that might be the opinion of many others.

It’s going to be interesting, when European States come up for election soon, whether or not the public will tire of this unequivocal support of Zelensky and his aim to conquer Russia. It might be that some very right-wing, neo-nazi factions will take over, and bring us even closer to the brink of nuclear war. Or it could go the other way, and voices of reason, such as former diplomat Charles Freeman, might prevail. Meanwhile, Zelensky’s own position within Ukraine is fraught: he would face elections if the war ended, and perhaps his political survival, even his physical survival, depends on the unequivocal quest to defeat Russia.

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina's notes, PERSONAL STORIES, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Deep Fission ($FISN): a Money Pit

ICRBERG RESEARCH, September 24, 2026

Please refer to our disclaimer at the bottom of the report.

Main findings

Nasdaq-listed Deep Fission (FISN) is developing a small modular reactor (SMR) with a capacity of 5MWe-15MWe. The company plans to bury a miniature version of the widely used pressurized water reactor (PWR) one mile deep, inside a 40-60-inch water-filled borehole drilled into hard rock.
Like other SMR developers, FISN pitches itself as an AI data-center power solution. But data centers have turned to natural gas to accelerate deployment. Almost all of the roughly 75GW of booked data center on-site generation is natural gas-based. FISN has no regulatory approval and remains years away from commercialization.
Before its June 2026 IPO, FISN guided to a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of just $50-70/MWh. Then the company dropped the reference. Using figures disclosed in its June 2026 prospectus, we calculate an LCOE of $289/MWh for the first-of-a-kind (FOAK) reactor and $148/MWh for the nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) reactor, about 200% above prior guidance. This is not competitive with behind-the-meter gas solutions.
Even this NOAK estimate is too optimistic, as capital cost is understated. Using figures from independent third parties, we estimate NOAK capital cost to be $112mn, 34% above FISN’s estimate, raising our estimated NOAK LCOE to $170/MWh.
FISN claims it can secure Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval in less than a year. Yet it has already struggled with the less demanding Department of Energy (DOE) process, missing the program deadline while at least four peers have already completed it. Even if NRC approved, commercialization is far from assured: NuScale, which has a much more conventional design, has yet to sell a reactor three years after receiving its NRC license.
FISN targets deploying its reactor in just six months versus 3-4 years for other advanced SMRs, citing fewer safety-related systems. Yet its own filing states a two-year development timeline. Peers pursue the same simplification strategy, but FISN adds a major step: drilling a one-mile borehole.
FISN touts the industry’s largest customer pipeline. Most counterparties are undisclosed. Of those identified, one is an undeveloped industrial park with doubtful demand for a nuclear reactor. The other two (Endeavour Energy and Blue Owl) have signed only non-binding agreements.
FISN has less than twelve months of cash runway and faces ~$350mn of unfunded capital needs, potentially implying ~43% dilution to its existing shareholders. At the same time, the competition for SMR funding is intensifying: publicly traded SMR names have risen from three before October 2025 to nine today, with three more coming to the market, including a far more established player, Westinghouse.
FISN is largely a repackaging of the founders’ prior venture, Deep Isolation, a deep-borehole nuclear waste disposal company that has failed to commercialize its concept after a decade.

Background and bull case

Deep Fission (NASDAQ: FISN) is a California-headquartered company founded in 2023. The company is developing a nuclear reactor called Gravity. The reactor is intended to be a miniature version of the conventional pressurized water reactor (PWR), using low-enriched uranium (LEU) as fuel. The company’s key innovation is that its reactor would be buried in a 40-60-inch water-filled borehole one mile (~1.6 km) underground. The reactor is designed with a power generation capacity of 5–15MWe.

Management claims that its reactor is cheaper to build because its innovative borehole design eliminates certain components required in above-ground PWR reactors……………………..

FISN is participating in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) pilot reactor program. The company is seeking DOE authorization to build a pilot reactor at a site in Parsons, Kansas, by 1H 2027. Then, FISN plans to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to convert the pilot reactor into a commercial facility by the end of 2027, with high-volume deployment targeted to begin in 2028. Because its reactor is based on well-established PWR technology, its licensing pathway would be simpler than for novel advanced reactor designs.

The company claims that its reactor can then be commercially deployed in as little as six months, compared with three to four years for other small modular reactors (SMR). ……………………………………..

The company’s own numbers show its reactors are not cost-competitive

Even FISN’s own numbers reveal the poor economics of its reactors. Before its June 2026 IPO, the company claimed that its reactor could achieve a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of only $50-70/MWh, including in an investor presentation prepared in connection with the February 2026 private placement. The number excluded non-engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) costs and contingencies……………………………………………………………..

Then, when the company was listed, the reference to the LCOE was dropped. The prospectus filed in connection with FISN’s June 2026 Nasdaq debut no longer mentions an LCOE target, nor do the company’s subsequent investor presentations, news releases and filings. Yet the company itself recognizes that LCOE is a key driver of its success (p. 38):………………………………….

Another claim made in the January 2026 presentation (p. 17) but absent after the IPO was the assertion that its reactors would achieve 70%-80% cost reduction versus newly built conventional PWRs. The company probably realized that there was no basis for such a claim. It seems that material walkbacks like those mentioned above are fairly common for the company. ………………………….

If we simply apply the financial assumptions provided by the company, there is no way FISN can achieve such a low LCOE, whether for a FOAK or a NOAK reactor…………………………………………………………………………………………

Finally, let’s remember that the nuclear industry is prone to cost overruns. FISN is particularly at risk as its design is still evolving………………………..

The certification timeline is wildly optimistic………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

An avalanche of newly listed SMR companies compete for funding

FISN’s need for additional fundraising comes at a time when investor appetite for SMR stocks has materially weakened, as the broader SMR investment theme has cooled and SMR-related stocks have lost momentum. After years of warnings about the technology’s readiness and economics, institutional investors are noticing that natural gas is the actual solution being adopted by AI data centers, while SMRs remain a distant and highly speculative prospect. Retail investors, who largely fueled the bubble, are turning their attention to SpaceX’s space-based data center concept.

…………………………………………………………………….. Deep Fission recycles the founders’ past venture that never achieved commercialization ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://iceberg-research.com/2026/09/24/deep-fission-fisn-a-money-pit/

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

RIP SMRs: Is It the End of the Line for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?

the companies promoting the 10 SMR designs in Canada had either left the country, lost their proponents, filed for bankruptcy protection, or failed to secure private sector backing for their projects.

Despite the public spending largesse, and after heroic promotional efforts by Ontario Power Generation and the federal and Ontario governments, there are no reports of private investment in the Darlington SMR—not even after Prime Minister Mark Carney’s high-profile Canada Investment Summit last week—and none have been ordered in Canada or elsewhere.

The Energy Mix, Susan O’Donnell, September 22, 2026, https://www.theenergymix.com/rip-smrs-is-it-the-end-of-the-line-for-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/?

In early September, the organization behind Canada’s push for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) quietly signalled their demise.

In 2016, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories President Mark Leskinski proclaimed that “SMRs can live among the annals of great Canadian innovations.” Ten years later, the organization announced the termination of its two programs to support SMR development.

During the intervening decade [pdf], the companies promoting the 10 SMR designs in Canada had either left the country, lost their proponents, filed for bankruptcy protection, or failed to secure private sector backing for their projects.

An SMR is a nuclear reactor designed to generate 300 megawatts of electricity or less, compared to Canada’s existing CANDU reactors which generate 500 megawatts or more.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) manages Chalk River, the federal research campus where Canada’s top nuclear researchers conceived and designed the CANDU reactor. All the power reactors operating in Canada are a similar CANDU design, and CANDUs also operate in six other countries. But the last unit to connect to an electric grid in Canada was in 1993, and CANDU exports dried up decades ago.

CNL’s idea for a transition from large CANDU reactors to smaller reactors was an attempt to reenergize a moribund domestic nuclear industry. The concept was to lower the cost of nuclear reactors by making them smaller and building multiple modular units in factories.

The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories president made his bold claim in 2016 about a stellar future for SMRs during a pitch to the federal government for multiple millions of public dollars to transform Chalk River to focus on SMR research.

Since that public money began flowing, Chalk River’s upgrades included the Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre for SMR research, still under construction and projected to open in 2028. The cost for the new facility ballooned from $370 million in 2018 to an estimated $1.025 billionin 2025, about half the cost of the overall SMR transformation of the Chalk River site.

The new research centre’s focus is on “advanced” nuclear fuels for SMRs, including plutonium. One of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ first research collaborations for SMR fuel was with Moltex, a UK start-up company that had set up in Saint John in 2018. Moltex proposed to use plutonium to fuel an experimental “advanced” SMR it wanted to build at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy.

Moltex lost its proponent in 2025 when New Brunswick Minister of Energy René Legacy told CBC the province was no longer willing to take on the risk of supporting first-of-a-kind experimental SMRs. A second “advanced” SMR slated for the Point Lepreau site also lost government support. At that point, the provincial and federal governments combined had spent nearly $130 million on SMR activities in New Brunswick—funds that could have gone into heat pumps and energy efficiency upgrades to combat energy poverty and cut climate pollution—without attracting private sector interest.

The New Brunswick SMR projects were two of the 10 SMR designs in Canada reviewed in a recent research report by the Fredericton-based Contesting Energy Discourses through Action Research (CEDAR) project. Of the remaining eight, most have decamped to their U.S. home base after attracting no proponent in Canada.

A CNL spokesperson told The Energy Mix the lab “is playing an important role in advancing microreactor technologies for off-grid and remote applications, with multiple, targeted, initiatives under way for federal partners.”

“CNL continues to support SMR development as part of Atomic Energy of Canada’s Federal Nuclear Science & Technology Work Plan,” Senior Communications Officer Lauren Kutchaw wrote in an email. “These research projects span the nuclear fuel cycle, reactor safety and security, materials and chemistry and energy systems analysis. They build the scientific knowledge to support decision-making, and develop the cutting-edge expertise and capabilities that can be leveraged to advance the deployment of both SMRs and Advanced Reactors in Canada and internationally.”

So far, however, only one SMR is under construction here: an American design at Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington nuclear site on Lake Ontario.

By March, 2026, the “Darlington New Build” project was still in pre-construction phase yet, had already received the lion’s share of the $4.5 billion in SMR subsidies by federal and provincial governments. In June, the federal and Ontario governments gave $715 million more via a “loan guarantee” to seven First Nations that flowed the funds through to the project. In return, the First Nations have an “equity guarantee” in a future SMR at Darlington, should one ever be built.

The high price tag per unit, $6.1 billion plus $1.6 billion in associated infrastructure that could be shared with future SMRs on the site, makes Darlington considerably more expensive than alternative sources of electricity generation, and about the same price per megawatt as the most expensive large reactors ever built in the U.S. No doubt the exorbitant cost explains the investor reticence and lack of orders.

In addition to the Darlington SMR’s financing challenges and empty order book, and the abandonment of the “advanced” SMR projects in New Brunswick, the most spectacular SMR failure is a project designed and championed by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories.

In the “Roadmap” that launched Canada’s SMR strategy, CNL was mandated to develop the country’s first SMR, a “micro modular reactor” to be in operation by 2026. The reactor was meant to serve mining and remote communities. CNL put together a consortium of companies to build the SMR at Chalk River and develop “advanced” fuel to keep it running.

However, in February, 2024, the lead company in the consortium, Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear, announced it was scaling back operations, complaining in a media release that “only a subset” of potential customers “have shown the resolve to incorporate advanced reactors in the near term.” Several months later, the company filed for bankruptcy protection [pdf] in the U.S., owing more than US$600,000 to Canada’s nuclear regulator and lesser amounts to many Canadian small businesses.

The same year the SMR project at Chalk River flopped, Alberta oil and gas giant Cenovus Energy abandoned a market study [pdf] of the potential of SMRs for oil sands extraction, finding that: “from a business perspective… SMRs are not economic or commercially feasible at present or in the near future. The capital costs are high, the timelines are long and uncertain, and technology and supply chains lack maturity.”

The Cenovus market research outcome was foreshadowed by academic research published in 2020 which found that the market for SMRs in mining and remote communities was “too small to be viable.”

Despite the failure of its flagship SMR venture, and the death knell for SMRs in Canada overall, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is persisting in its quest to find a market for SMRs. After all, the organization should need at least to attempt to justify the billions in public funding it has spent so far upgrading Chalk River for SMR research.

According to its September media release announcing the demise of its two SMR support programs, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories “is playing an important role in advancing microreactor technologies for off-grid and remote applications, with multiple, targeted, initiatives under way for federal partners.”

Apparently, old SMR ideas never really die. They will only, eventually, fade away.

Susan O’Donnell is lead researcher of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University and co-author with M.V. Ramana of a March 2026 report on SMRs in Canada that has been downloaded more than 9,000 times. The report will be published in French later this month.

This story is part of The Energy Mix’s partnership with Small Change Fund.

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Shadow cast over US nuclear revival after Palisades reactor incident

As new fuel was being lowered into the reactor – dubbed a “zombie reactor”, as it is being restarted after decommissioning – one of the fuel assemblies tipped, causing resumption to be placed on hold while Holtec assesses the situation.

“The significance of this is that the reactor core and the nuclear fuel is the most dangerous part of a nuclear power plant,”

Nuclear regulator investigating issue at site in Michigan where restart plans are well under way

Cody Combs, Washington, September 23, 2026, https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2026/09/23/palisades-power-plant-nuclear-incident/

An incident at Palisades, a nuclear reactor in Michigan that is soon to be restarted, has cast a shadow over an apparent nuclear energy renaissance in the US.

The revival has been driven largely by the proliferation of energy-hungry data centres as part of the vast investment in artificial intelligence.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed to The National it was investigating a “tipped fuel assembly” incident at the site in Covert, Michigan.

Though closed in 2022, the reactor, later bought by Holtec International, is expected to make a comeback as AI-based energy demands exert strain on the US energy grid.

An NRC spokeswoman emphasised there had been “no radiological release” and that no workers or the public have been affected. “Our inspectors will continue monitoring the situation,” Viktoria Mitlyng said.

Yet the incident has fed some nearby residents’ concerns about the unprecedented nature of restarting a nuclear reactor.

“The significance of this is that the reactor core and the nuclear fuel is the most dangerous part of a nuclear power plant,” long-time nuclear energy critic Kevin Kamps, founder and director of environmental advocacy group Don’t Waste Michigan, told ABC57.

He said the 55-year-old plant had a series of problems during the last 15 years of its operations before closing.

Before it was bought by Holtec, a 2012 NRC report warned about the work culture at Palisades, where it said safety concerns were often dismissed.

In 2016, security staff at the reactor were placed on leave from the plant, then owned by Entergy, for failing to properly follow fire-prevention protocol.

A little more than a year ago, a worker at Palisades fell off a refuelling bridge into a pool of water, though they were not seriously injured.

Shortly after the NRC’s confirmation of the incident at Palisades, the company wrote what it called a “progress report” on its website.

“Plant personnel evaluated the incident and determined that it did not trigger the safety reporting requirements under NRC regulations,” it read. It also said “fuel loading remains paused while Holtec addresses the affected fuel assembly”.

In a statement provided to The National on Wednesday, a public affairs official with Holtec addressed the incident, re-emphasising that the “fuel remains intact, and there was no radiological release or injury associated with the issue”.

He added that Holtec does not have plans to release any photographs of the accident “at this time”.

Long-time nuclear industry critic Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, first raised concerns about the Palisades incident shortly before the NRC confirmed what had taken place on Monday.

He remains skeptical about Holtec’s integrity and curious about what transpired.

“They already had some glitches, including a recent issue with improperly doing surveys of areas where there was airborne radioactivity for which they got violations,” he explained, adding that sees the company as having somewhat of a stigma when it comes to safety.

“In the moments leading up to their initial public offering they were putting out press releases about the progress being made and how they were loading fuel, but then all of a sudden word spreads about this accident,” he said, pointing out that Holtec postponed the IPO days before acknowledging the recent incident at Palisades.

Mr Lyman said that Holtec, other energy providers and several Big Tech companies were doing “performative exercises by trying to show that nuclear power can quickly” be a solution.

Michael Keegan, chair of Don’t Waste Michigan, echoed Mr Lyman’s speculation about Holtec’s handling of the incident.

“It is not a coincidence that Holtec’s IPO withdrawal, years in the planning, could not go forward with pending bad news of a major refueling snafu at the end of August,” he said.

Palisades has become something of a poster child for the NRC, which under the influence of President Donald Trump has become vocal about the need for more nuclear energy projects throughout the US.

On September 2, days after the Palisades fuel incident, the NRC said the plant was moving “closer to restart”.

In recent months, the NRC has announced new policies related to “microreactors” and “small-modular reactors” (SMRs), which have been the source of vast investment from Big Tech.

Though often portrayed as safer and less aesthetically disruptive than conventional nuclear reactor designs, the modular reactors and companies behind them are not without controversy.

In a recent blog post, Beyond Nuclear, a Maryland-based non-profit safety watchdog, said the “SMR renaissance is more sound and fury, signifying nothing”. It pointed no SMRs are currently out operational in the US and said SMR companies have lost value.

“It’s specifically nuclear offerings in which the confidence has been lost, as evidenced by the recent shorting of shares in NuScale Power, Nano Nuclear and Oklo, and the plummeting market value of X-energy,” the organisation wrote.

Meanwhile, despite the Palisades mishap, Holtec is projecting optimism. “We remain focused on returning Palisades to safe and reliable operation once all restart work is complete, and all applicable federal requirements and industry standards are met,” the company said.

Holtec is not alone in trying to bring a closed plant back online amid the AI-induced energy boom.

In Middletown, Pennsylvania work is under way to restart the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor, which closed in 2012, as part of a deal involving Microsoft to help power its data centres.

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | incidents, USA | Leave a comment

High levels of radioactive isotope led to discovery of Lepreau leak

N.B. Power says 200 litres of heavy water recovered inside reactor building

Erica Butler· CBC News · Sep 22, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/high-levels-radioactive-isotopes-disovery-lepreau-leak-9.7354212

N.B. Power said it has collected about 200 litres of heavy water from a leak at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station earlier this month, which the utility initially characterized as “small.”

In emails this week, the utility has shared more details about the leak, which CBC News first reported on Sept. 15.

The utility first became aware of a problem inside its reactor building on Sept. 10, when its monitoring system identified elevated levels of tritium.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope that occurs in the heavy water used to transfer heat from nuclear reactors.

The higher than normal readings “triggered an investigation to determine the cause,” said N.B. Power spokesperson Tracey Stephenson on Tuesday afternoon.

Lepreau was shut down on Sept. 11, and a heavy water leak from a 3/8ths-inch instrumentation line was confirmed on Sept. 14, said Stephenson.

The utility reiterated this week that the leak caused “no impact or safety risk to the public, staff or the environment.”

When the elevated tritium levels were detected, there were “no employees in the immediate vicinity,” said Stephenson because “that specific area is not accessible when the Station is online.”

That means there were no “unplanned or unexpected employee exposures associated with the leak,” said Stephenson.

The staff who investigated the problem did so following radiation safety procedures, including using specialized monitoring and personal protective equipment, she said.

Most of the heavy water leaked as vapour, said Stephenson, and was “recovered and collected” through station processes.

“The material remained contained within the reactor building at all times and there was no risk to workers, the public or the environment,” she said.

Timing of information release

It’s taken over a week for N.B. Power to release details about the heavy water leak.

A Sept. 14 press release announcing the Lepreau shutdown made no mention of a leak. It said the station was taken offline to “repair a small instrumentation line inside the reactor building.”

In an interview with CBC News the next day, deputy site vice-president Joel Armstrong acknowledged there had been a heavy water leak but said it was too early to comment on how much was spilled.

Kathleen Duguay, N.B. Power’s head of community affairs and nuclear regulatory protocol, spoke to Radio-Canada on Sept. 16 and characterized the leak as small. She said, speaking French, “It’s just a few drops coming out of the instrumentation line.”

Stephenson said Tuesday that the vapour state of most of the leak might account for the difference in “what might be expected from a liquid leak alone.”

‘Lack of information’

Energy researcher Susan O’Donnell said she is concerned about the “lack of information” initially disclosed by N.B. Power about the leak, starting with a Sept. 14 news release that did not share any details about radioactive heavy water.

“Why did they not just say this was radioactive material that leaked, this is how much material was leaked, this is the volume of radioactivity in the material?” asked O’Donnell.

“’X number of workers were cleaning it up, or were exposed … but hey, everyone’s OK. They’ve all been checked. There’s no problem. We’re looking into it.’

“Instead, it’s just this sort of vague information that doesn’t give anyone who’s interested in it all the facts that they need,” she said.

O’Donnell said N.B. Power should be “super transparent” about any release of radioactive material or risk a “lack of trust” with the public.

“People just get really suspicious. Like, what’s going on there? What are they not telling us?”

Too early to say what caused leak

O’Donnell said she has other concerns regarding the leak, including the potential risk to workers and the cause of the leak itself.

O’Donnell said she’s concerned about the age and tritium levels of the heavy water being used in the closed circulation system at Lepreau and whether it may have been a contributing factor to the leak.

Armstrong said on Sept. 16 that N.B. Power had started the process to determine the cause of the leak, but any conclusions would be “premature.”

“Our focus right now is making sure that we facilitate the repair … in a safe manner,” said Armstrong.

N.B. Power did not release the number of workers involved, but the utility said that staff in the area of the leak were working under strict protocols.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said via email that it has site inspectors stationed at Point Lepreau, and it was made aware of the leak on Sept. 10.

“We are engaged with N.B. Power as it conducts a thorough assessment of the incident and undertakes the necessary repair activities,” said the commission.

It also noted that “no workers have been reported to have received radiation doses above regulatory limits.”

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, incidents | Leave a comment

US proposes AI alert system with China

Mon, 21 Sep 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/508524-US-proposes-AI-alert-system-with-China

The US has proposed creating an alert system with China to notify each other when artificial intelligence incidents become serious enough to threaten national security.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced the proposal after talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng in New York on Sunday, ahead of a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Washington this week. Bessent told reporters:

“We want a shared vision of common goals and common threats. We think that just like any cross-border activity, that moving from opaque to more transparency between the No. 1 and the No. 2 AI powers in the world is very important.”

The proposed mechanism could cover serious incidents such as AI-enabled cyberattacks or major model failures, according to experts cited by AP. Chinese researchers have also pointed to risks to critical infrastructure including electricity, telecommunications, finance and transportation.

The proposal comes as Washington and Beijing have been locked in an increasingly intense race to dominate AI. Trump has repeatedly argued that the US cannot afford to slow development while China is rapidly narrowing the technological gap.

Earlier this month, Trump declared that “whoever wins AI wins,” and has dismissed warnings of an AI takeover as a “hoax.” On Saturday, Trump again vowed that his administration would not “hinder or stifle” the industry and announced plans to create an “AI Force” and appoint an AI czar.

His position comes amid increasingly stark warnings from leading technology executives.Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has called for development of the most powerful AI systems to be slowed, warning of risks including loss of human control, cyberattacks, bioterrorism and major economic disruption. OpenAI chief Sam Altman and xAI owner Elon Musk have backed calls for greater caution.

A series of recent incidents has added to the concerns. Google confirmed this month that its Gemini system breached three real companies during a cybersecurity exercise after it was mistakenly given internet access. OpenAI agents have separately bypassed restrictions during testing, accessed outside systems and used websites to communicate with one another without being instructed to do so.

US-China competition has meanwhile expanded beyond model development itself. Washington has sought to restrict China’s access to advanced chips and other technology while accusing Chinese companies of extracting capabilities from leading American models.

Beijing has rejected the accusations and accused Washington of seeking an AI monopoly. Despite US restrictions, Chinese developers including DeepSeek and Moonshot have released increasingly capable systems that compete with leading American models, often at a lower cost.

China has also been building a broader international framework around AI. In July, it joined Russia and 27 other countries in establishing the Shanghai-based World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization, presenting it as an alternative approach based on wider access to AI technology and international cooperation rather than technological blocs.

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

Report: Energy efficient office buildings over three times cheaper to run

Michael Holder,

Research by real estate giant JLL argues ‘the case for efficiency has
never been stronger’ following latest energy price spikes and tightening
building performance rules. The gap between the cost of running the most
and least efficient office buildings in major cities worldwide has widened
significantly in recent years, making investments in energy efficiency
measures more worthwhile.

Business Green 22nd Sept 2026, https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4536093/report-energy-efficient-office-buildings-times-cheaper-run

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries