nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

The nasty truth about Small Nuclear Reactors’ toxic fuel and toxic wastes

27 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/the-nasty-truth-about-small-nuclear-reactors-toxic-fuel-and-toxic-wastes/

A lot of enthusiastic guff goes on about the joys of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). They don’t say much about the fuels that SMRs require. So – just for fun, let’s take a look at that. Let’s pretend, for the moment, that SMRs actually exist, and that they are privately funded, cheap, clean, safe, and welcomed by local communities. So – that’s all good.

Now – what about their fuel?

They don’t need as much, or perhaps ANY dirty uranium mining. Ain’t that great? Well some designs (eg, the Westinghouse evinci micro reactor) do use low-enriched uranium (LEU) which contains less than 20% of uranium-235 (U-235). Such LEU SMRs have a shorter expected life, and because of their graphite content have a high volume of wastes. So now the emphasis is on a new kind of fuel – high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU): 5–20% U-235 and/or plutonium.

For a non-physicist such as myself, trying to navigate the labyrinth of information on nuclear fuels is a daunting task. And I’m sure that the nuclear lobby intends to keep it that way. They’ve traded for decades on the principle that the great unwashed cannot and should not understand nuclear power, and that only nuclear physicists are qualified to have an opinion on this. (No wonder they vilified Dr Helen Caldicott, who described nuclear power as “an expensive way to boil water”).

What makes it all more complicated is the variety of SMR designs, and of the fuel types now being planned, generally to use the HALEU or mixed uranium-plutonium. This means that the SMR company has to get these advanced fuels from somewhere more special than the conventional uranium fuel train. But who supplies the world’s highly enriched uranium? Omigawd – it’s Russia! So that fact has caused a bit of a panic. The U.S, government’s Department of Energy has now selected 11 advanced reactor designs under its Reactor Pilot Program, most of them to. run on HALEU. As Peter McKillop of the Energy Mix says:

“… here lies the problem. By embracing HALEU, the DOE is effectively jump‑starting an international HALEU market and expanding the global circulation of material that can shorten the path to a bomb.”

The required plutonium has to come from recycling the spent nuclear fuel from large nuclear reactors. Of course the nuke lobby boasts that this solves the nuclear waste problem – what was previously called “trash” now becomes a “resource” and a nuclear waste solution. More about that later on.

The fuel needs of SMRs raise not only the weapons proliferation problem: they bring the risks of radiation-releasing accidents, theft, terrorism, and consequently the need for extra security and extra costs.

What about the radioactive wastes?

The nuclear lobby is rather coy on this subject. When their propagandists are talking to us, the great unwashed, they tell a comforting and optimistic story. You see, SMRs produce a very small volume of radioactive wastes, and even that can be recycled to be used again, leaving an even smaller volume. So SMRs are not only themselves clean, but they are a benefit to humanity, solving the existing nuclear waste problem.

SMR propagandists don’t bother our poor little heads with the technical details. That’s because the technical details tell quite a different story. Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challengesof highly radioactive nuclear waste. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30.

SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. The very high toxicity of these wastes mean that the spent fuel pellets will require a larger area in deep disposal than those from conventional reactors. SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio)chemical differences from those of existing reactors. “Molten salt and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive.”

No wonder the current push for SMRs does not emphasise that fraudulent story about wastes. For ordinary people it is probably the really ugliest and most off-putting aspect of any presentation of the wonders of small modular nuclear reactors.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | Christina's notes, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter.

This country has all the elements needed for a clandestine nuclear weapons program — if it so desired


Evan Dyer · CBC News · Jul 26, 2026, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-remains-antinuke-road-to-bomb-getting-shorter-9.7283194

For decades, Canada’s official policy on nuclear weapons has been that they shouldn’t exist, and there is no sign that principle is about to be abandoned.

But for reasons of history and geography, Canada is also one of the world’s non-nuclear countries with the easiest technical path to a nuclear weapon. And because of the particular design of its CANDU reactors, it would also be one of the countries best-positioned to produce weapons-grade fissile material without tripping international alerts — although such a move would carry huge geopolitical risks.

Technological changes that are expected in the coming years will likely make Canada even more of a threshold nuclear arms power than it is today, whether it chooses to cross that threshold or not.

“The only thing that inhibits Canada is the will to do it, the political decision to do it,” said nuclear weapons expert Steve Fetter of the University of Maryland, who served as head of national security and international affairs in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

He’s also a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control, and the originator of the “Fetter Model,” the standard technique used in arms control verification for detecting the presence of nuclear warheads through radiography.

“Canada was a major participant in the Manhattan Project, as was the U.K.,” Fetter told CBC News. “Immediately after the [Second World War], we froze you out and said, ‘No co-operation.’ So Canada decided — as did the U.K. — to develop its own completely indigenous program.”

The heavy water route

The U.K., of course, went on to become a nuclear arms power, while Canada did not.

Canada designed the CANDU heavy water reactors that use unenriched, natural uranium containing only about 0.7 per cent of the U-235 isotope needed to make nuclear weapons. Most of the world’s 440-odd nuclear reactors are light water units that require uranium enriched to about four per cent U-235 content.

For this reason, and despite being the world’s second-biggest producer of uranium, Canada has never enriched domestically.

However, the CANDU is anything but a proliferation-proof technology, because it is not only the best kind of reactor for producing the plutonium-239 isotope used in bombs, but also for concealing its production.

“You do produce plutonium in a light water reactor,” said Fetter. “But that plutonium is contained in highly radioactive spent fuel and it’s not really high-quality.”

Light water reactors work by loading enriched uranium, sealing the reactor core and then running it for 18-24 months before shutting down, reopening the core and replacing fuel. This makes it relatively easy to keep track of how much fuel is going in, and what is happening to the spent fuel that comes out. It’s impossible to secretly swap fuel rods while the reactor is generating power.

The Canadian heavy water reactor doesn’t work that way.

Harder to monitor

“All uranium-fuelled reactors produce plutonium. The issue with the CANDU is that it has online refuelling,” explained Ed Lyman, director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. “You’re refuelling continuously, which makes it harder for the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].”

Canada, which produces all of its own uranium, would be in a strong position to divert fissionable material undetected if so inclined, say the experts.

The plutonium produced in a heavy water reactor is also much easier to turn into a nuclear weapon, said Fetter.

“Of the countries that have made nuclear weapons with plutonium, many of them have used a heavy water reactor,” he said.

That’s why India used a Canadian heavy water reactor to produce its first nuclear weapon in 1974, an all-plutonium implosion-type bomb. The “Smiling Buddha” test was the first to break the nuclear monopoly of the “Big Five” UN Security Council powers.

Fetter said the U.S. had heavy water reactors only for the purpose of producing plutonium and tritium. (Tritium, also produced in abundance by the CANDU reactor, is another critical component of a modern two-stage thermonuclear weapon that Canada has in abundance.)

Using riskier fuels

Canada is also branching out into a new kind of technology that will require enriched uranium: the small modular reactor (SMR). Some of the proposed SMRs would use uranium enriched to a level as high as 20 per cent, known as high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

HALEU is already a proliferation concern in itself, said Lyman.

“Anything below 20 per cent is considered low-enriched uranium and has a much lower level of oversight. The IAEA considers it indirect-use material you can’t directly use in a bomb,” he explained. “But there’s evidence, both historical and technical, that that’s not true, and that the actual cutoff for weapon-usable uranium is below 20 per cent. Could be 15 per cent, could be 10 per cent.

“And so I worry about this push for advanced reactors, SMRs that use HALEU up near 20 per cent, like the ARC 100 in Canada, that the material itself is in the dangerous band. And if Canada were to pursue a whole fleet of SMRs using HALEU, and especially if they were to build their own enrichment plants to support that, that might give them a threshold capability for bombs, even if they never make highly enriched [over 20 per cent] uranium.”

ARC Canada points out that its proposed reactor in New Brunswick, which would become the only commercial fast-breeder reactor in the world outside Russia, mitigates against proliferation risks by having a long fuel cycle with a core that stays sealed for 20 years.

But there’s another factor: The arrival of SMRs that consume enriched uranium has got the government of Canada thinking about enrichment.

To enrich or not to enrich

“Any country which has a complete fuel cycle is a latent nuclear weapons country, in the sense that it is not far from making a nuclear weapon,” said former IAEA director and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei.

Scientists consulted by CBC News said Canada would probably have little economic motive to build its own enrichment facilities. Canada’s nuclear energy strategy foresees importation of enriched uranium from France and the U.S. in the immediate future, even though that often means buying back Canadian-mined uranium after other countries have added value.

But the strategy also notes that “geopolitical volatility has exposed fragility in nuclear fuel supply chains at every stage — mining, milling, refining, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication.”

Canada plans to double its exports of uranium in raw form, “but there is also a compelling case for expanding downstream capabilities selectively.”

Domestic enrichment might not save Canada money, but would increase its strategic autonomy.

“Canada will continue to monitor the energy security implications of these supply chains,” says the strategy. “The longer-term question of whether Canada should develop domestic enrichment capability remains under assessment.”

Enrichment could get easier

A handful of non-nuclear arms powers have developed enrichment facilities. They include Brazil, Japan, Argentina, Germany and the Netherlands, but only Brazil combines a modern centrifuge facility with a large domestic supply of uranium.

Japan could theoretically produce weapons-grade uranium, but its nuclear technology, like South Korea’s, is largely American, its nuclear program is subject to strict inspections, and it has no uranium mines of its own — in fact it buys much of its supply from Canada.

A Canadian company, Cameco, is currently exploring the next frontier of uranium enrichment. The SILEX method uses laser excitation to separate U-235 more quickly and efficiently than spinning it in a centrifuge.

Already, a centrifuge facility can fit in an area the size of a high school gym. SILEX, said Fetter, “potentially could be even smaller and use less energy than centrifuge enrichment, which would make it harder to detect a clandestine facility.”

The SILEX project has already received U.S. government funding and acquired land in western Kentucky for a plant expected to be operating by 2030.

Crossing the threshold

For all the Carney government’s talk of “a more dangerous and divided world,” there is still no public signal that Canada might abandon its long-held opposition to nuclear arms.

If the strategic situation were to change, Canada would have to decide whether to go the open route and formally depart the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), or pursue nuclear arms through a clandestine program as other countries have done with a mixed record of success.

Plasma physicist Tara Drozdenko worked on nuclear weapons issues under the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. She represented the United States on NATO’s Senior Group on Proliferation, and headed the Country/Regime Sanctions Unit at the U.S. Department of Treasury, where she managed the government’s nuclear-related sanctions on countries such as Iran and North Korea. 

Today, she’s not sure Washington remains committed to preventing proliferation, or how it would react to a Canadian decision to leave the NPT.

“In a normal administration, there would be condemnation, there would be reproach, there would be a lot of diplomatic efforts,” she told CBC News. “I don’t know what would happen in this administration. Would there be threats? Would there be some people that are like, yeah, everybody should have nuclear weapons? I really can’t predict what this particular administration would do.”

Clandestine plants and secret programs

So far, all the countries that have developed nuclear weapons — Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea — began their efforts in secret.

Drozdenko says Canada’s own nuclear industry, the design of its reactors and the fact that it has the world’s best uranium deposits would all give it a strong hand were it ever to pursue such a risky course.

“Canada is probably really well-positioned to do that, if Canada was determined,” said Drozdenko. “You have a lot of land that’s not heavily populated, and if you used technologies that didn’t have a lot of energy or thermal signature, I don’t think the U.S. has its intelligence assets pointed at Canada right now.”

At some point, such a program would inevitably become known.

“It would require withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty, which would be really impactful to the treaty worldwide, especially as a NATO country and up until now a pretty close ally of the U.S. I think that would be pretty catastrophic to that treaty,” Drozdenko said.

Fetter said Canada could probably easily assemble a simple “gun-type” nuclear weapon like the one used on Hiroshima, but would face scientific hurdles if it tried to build a modern thermonuclear weapon without conducting tests. North Korea required half a dozen tests to get there.

In the U.S., Russia and China, supercomputers today have replaced actual testing. Canada has the computing capacity but lacks the detailed data that nuclear arms powers have assembled on materials science, and the complicated timing and interactions inside a nuclear warhead — some of the most closely guarded secrets in the world.

But Fetter also said he didn’t expect North Korea to be able to put a modern, two-stage thermonuclear warhead on a ballistic missile and make it work.

“Canada has a lot of smart people,” he noted.

With Canada embarked on a new era of greater military spending, including the purchase of modern submarines and its first foray into the world of cruise missiles, it is clearly assembling elements that could bring it closer to “breakout” as a nuclear arms power, if it desired.

The question of how other countries would react is the unknowable factor, said Drozdenko.

“Does Canada want to be in the position of North Korea, the pariah state that’s making clandestine nuclear weapons?” she asked.

So far, the answer has always been no.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Uranium | Leave a comment

The rise of the military-technology complex

How Silicon Valley tech firms remade US defense contracting. And then opened the Pentagon’s checkbook—wide.

Bulletin, By Bernice Yeung, July 23, 2026

The tale of how the Pentagon lost its spirit of innovation often begins with an incident known as “the Last Supper.”

It was the fall of 1993. About two dozen executives from leading defense contractors had received an unexpected invitation to dinner at the Pentagon. After the meal, the group was ushered into a briefing room where William Perry, then the deputy secretary of defense (and soon, the defense secretary), gave a presentation that startled the room.

In the wake of the Cold War, he said, the defense industry should prepare for catastrophic cuts to military spending. “They should not look at it as a little dip here but as a new low plateau and adjust their plans accordingly,” Perry would later recall.

Within a couple of decades, the US defense industrial base shrank from dozens of firms to today’s so-called Big Five—Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman, which together receive about a third of the Defense Department’s annual contract obligations.

Two decades of defense contractor mergers and acquisitions consolidated the defense industry from more than 75 firms to the Big Five—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon (now RTX)—also known as “primes.” Chart [on original] by Thomas Gaulkin. Source: NASA, “Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry”

Silicon Valley executives, like Shyam Sankar of the tech firm Palantir, have pointed to that dinner as the start of a decades-long “decoupling of commercial innovation from defense.” The chill between the Defense Department and Silicon Valley grew so strong that Sankar dubbed it “the Great Schism” in a 4,000-word, viral-among-some manifesto he called The Defense Reformation.

During those years of estrangement, the Pentagon became increasingly entrenched in the status quo, buying and maintaining hulking weapons within a ponderous bureaucracy. Silicon Valley, for its part, dashed ahead with innovations around cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and product design—though usually to enhance consumer experiences in shopping, gaming, or food delivery.

The distrust and disdain between the two camps grew serious. “There’s plenty of people in Washington in the last 20 years who’ve made a point of how much, you know, they hate us,” Netscape founder-turned-VC-titan Marc Andreessen said in a 2025 podcast.

By the early aughts, there were people in both the Pentagon and Silicon Valley who knew that mending the breach was urgently needed. China’s leaps in technological advancement sounded an alarm in foreign policy circles. In October 2024, Sankar, who is Palantir’s chief technology officer, was still making a case for the reunification of tech and defense when he published the Defense Reformation.

Sankar began the essay by summoning the story of the Last Supper as a way to explain why the country was in a “state of undeclared emergency.” Consolidation had led to the demise of the defense industrial base, he argued. The China threat meant robust innovation adoption at the Pentagon was an imperative. To get there, speed and deregulation were required.

“We need a defense Reformation to … transform the way the government does business,” Sankar wrote.

Sankar and Palantir, the controversial data-mining company that provides AI-enhanced platforms for battlefield analysis, are powerful voices in a growing chorus. Anduril, which makes autonomous weapons systems, issued a 7,000-word decree pushing for policy changes, such as aligning Pentagon tech purchasing with “industry best practices” to “reboot the arsenal of democracy.” Venture capitalists like Andreessen Horowitz are investing upwards of $1 billion in defense tech, demanding deregulation because “America’s most innovative founders are building the tools our warfighters need—but the current system locks them out.”

In the past year, there have been indications that the Silicon Valley crowd is being heard. “Industry has become influential in shaping national security policy, with leading AI companies framing too much regulation as a national security liability,” said Emile Ayoub, senior counsel with the Brennan Center’s Liberty and National Security Program.

Within months of entering office, President Donald Trump issued a flurry of executive orders to accelerate AI adoption and streamline defense buying. To transform the US military into “an ‘AI-first’ warfighting force,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has mandated faster but riskier methods of acquiring frontier technologies. “This is the beginning of an unrelenting onslaught to change the way we do business …………………………………………………………………………………………………

AI-related defense tech contractors have been generous in their financial contributions to elected officials. The support goes well beyond the most conspicuous displays, such as Big Tech’s eye-popping donations to Trump’s re-election campaign, inauguration, and ballroom………………………………….

 Between 2022 and 2024, these nine trailblazing AI companies and their employees have increased their campaign contributions by about 60 percent to the members of Congress who control Pentagon policy. Their defense-specific lobbying has jumped from about $650,000 to $7.7 million in the past decade…………

………Simultaneously, the Trump administration has installed a revolving door between defense-tech companies and the Pentagon. 

…..If companies move quickly from “concept to combat,” “the Department’s checkbook is open.”

In the past decade, Palantir’s revenue from defense contracts grew by an annual average of 50 percent, among the fastest of any defense firm, according to a Brennan Center analysis. That translates to at least $1.4 billion in defense department payouts since 2008.

Thanks to a surge in work with the military, Palantir became profitable in 2022. And its slice of the Pentagon pie continues to expand. Recently, the Defense Department embedded Palantir’s AI platform, used for battlefield awareness and target recognition, throughout the military. Now, as a “program of record,” Palantir will receive ongoing and long-term funding from the department.

…………………………………………………………………………As the Valley grew into a hub of global capitalism, O’Mara observes, Washington looked to the tech industry as an economic engine and a source of campaign financing. It courted Silicon Valley dollars by offering tax breaks, subsidies, and skilled worker visas and promised to fill classrooms with computers and internet connections.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Meanwhile, organizations ranging from the United Nations, to the Pope, to a consortium of nonprofits and academics known as Stop Killer Robots, decry the use of AI in warfare, especially in the deployment of lethal autonomous weapons. They argue that there’s an inherent lack of transparency when the black box of AI models is further obscured by the opaque or classified nature of military operations.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………One of the companies joining this group of Silicon Valley heavy hitters is Reflection AI, a relatively new firm that receives VC funding from 1789 Capital. In yet another example of the red flags around conflicts of interest and self-dealing emerging from the Trump administration, Donald Trump, Jr., the president’s son, is a partner at 1789 Capital—in fact, the lead partner on the deal.

……………………………………………………….o understand what’s driving the renewed relationship between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon, it’s instructive to look at where venture capital is flowing. Between 2024 and 2025, venture capital investments to defense technology nearlydoubled, from about $27 billion to $49 billion, according to PitchBook, a repository of data on capital markets.

The Silicon Valley Defense Group analyzes the prospects of the top VC and private equity-backed defense tech firms, and its 2026 report found that In-Q-Tel is still the largest funder of defense tech. But BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm, significantly increased its focus on this sector in 2025. Not to be left out, the Big Five have also thrown funding at these companies through their own venture capital arms.

Overall, the Silicon Valley Defense Group observes “seismic” shifts in the sector……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Elke Schwarz, a professor at Queen Mary University of London who studies military AI, observed that Silicon Valley has successfully reshaped how the Pentagon does business—and to its benefit.

“With its focus on iteration, agility, risk, speed, and scale, the new defence culture performs both the logics of its new AI products and that of the VC companies that fund the startups,” she writes. “It is a holistic shaping of the environment towards the vectors that make Silicon Valley VC investors enormously rich.”

She adds: “[M]ove fast and break things is not a suitable motto for any conscientious military organization.”

San José State University professor Roberto González has been studying the rise of defense tech from the heart of Silicon Valley. He said there’s an analogy to be made with the California Gold Rush. “That’s just a part of the mentality of this part of the world—you have an opportunity to get rich quick, and you go for it,” said González, author of War Virtually:The Quest to Automate Conflict, Militarize Data, and Predict the Future.

But, he warns, there’s a crucial difference between the two.

“What we’re talking about, in the end, is taxpayer dollars,” González said of the money helping to fuel the defense tech boom. “A lot of the startups will fail. But in the meantime, the pot can just keep growing larger and larger, as long as we can be convinced, as taxpayers, to keep that Pentagon budget growing.” https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/the-rise-of-the-military-technology-complex/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=New%20investigation%3A%20The%20rise%20of%20the%20military-technology%20complex&utm_campaign=20260723%20Thursday%20Newsletter

July 29, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Can an AI Black Box Be Trusted to Run a Nuclear Reactor?

By Haley Zaremba – Jul 25, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Can-an-AI-Black-Box-Be-Trusted-to-Run-a-Nuclear-Reactor.html

  • China’s Chinese Academy of Sciences unveiled ADANES at WAIC in Shanghai, a five-layer AI system meant to control nuclear reactors from design through decommissioning.
  • Nuclear officials call full AI integration inevitable, but today’s opaque “black box” large language models clash with the transparency nuclear safety demands.
  • The push comes as Microsoft, NVIDIA and a wave of U.S. startups race into nuclear power to feed AI’s soaring energy needs, sometimes outpacing safety oversight.

China has unveiled a daring new plan to integrate artificial intelligence throughout the nuclear energy life cycle. This week, at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) revealed a new plan for safely integrating artificial intelligence into the nuclear sector, called ADANES – the Accelerator-Driven Advanced Nuclear Energy System. The system “fundamentally changes the safety logic that governs conventional nuclear reactors” and marks a major turning point in the AI revolution as well as the global nuclear renaissance.

While nuclear disasters are historically rare, their potential fallout is massive. But there is potential for artificial intelligence to lessen this risk. According to Interesting Engineering, “Disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima have reminded us time and again, that the risk of an accident remains with this technology, and we need to prepare for the worst scenarios. A technology like AI is well suited for this role as it can process large number of signals coming in from an operational reactor and shut it down in the earliest stages of a mishap.”

Wang Shoujun, the president of the Chinese Nuclear Society, makes the argument that the integration of large language models into every corner of the economy, including nuclear energy, is an inevitability. By accepting this as fact, the scientists behind the ADANES believe that the responsible thing to do is get ahead of the trend and focus on planning and safety measures, rather than trying to prevent AI from infiltrating the nuclear power sector. Wang says that, through the use of ADANES, “AI will play a core role throughout the full life cycle of nuclear energy by improving quality, efficiency and safety.”

However, today’s large language models operate under great opacity, and this ‘black box’ functionality is fundamentally at odds with stringent nuclear energy safety requirements. We need a far greater level of transparency and a deeper understanding of how large language models work and will be applied in this context. According to a recent report from China Daily, ADANES can be used to establish such an understanding.

“The AI architecture consists of five layers — a unified data infrastructure, physics-native world models, physical-system control, intelligent-agent coordination and continuous evolution — embedding AI throughout the system’s full life cycle, from design and commissioning to operation and maintenance,” the report states. China is also developing a national-scale supportive infrastructure to provide an “engineering verification platform” for ADANES in order to shore up the long-term stability and viability of the system.

It’s true that the artificial intelligence boom is already finding its way into the nuclear energy sector in various ways and to varying degrees. Earlier this year, tech giants Microsoft and NVIDIA announced that they are jointly rolling out an AI-powered toolkit designed to cut down on arduous permitting, design, and engineering processes that have made new nuclear plants notoriously slow and expensive to build in the United States.

Ushering in a new digital era for nuclear power, the toolkit “provides end-to-end tools that combine AI and digital twins for creating faster iterative design and engineering solutions,” according to a March report from Interesting Engineering. “Licensing and permitting is handled by Generative AI for document drafting and gap analysis.”

Furthermore, the push to develop new and advanced nuclear energy generation capacity is also being largely driven by the AI boom. Silicon Valley is getting increasingly involved in funding and developing next-gen nuclear technologies in order to fuel the rapidly growing energy demands of generative AI, which are projected to far outstrip energy additions unless we make some major breakthroughs. China is not the only nation making unsettlingly daring decisions when it comes to nuclear power. A wave of U.S.-based startups is also eagerly crowding into the sector with concerning disregard for safety measures, creating a concerning security environment in the world’s largest economies.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | China, technology | Leave a comment

A mad for nuclear world?

July 25, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-mad-for-nuclear-world.html

While renewables are being supported in the UK by private sector investment, most recently via the Contracts for Difference market system, with no direct government cash input, over 70% of the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero expenditure is now nuclear related. DESNZ’s annual report and accounts says that ‘Great British Energy – Nuclear has remained a key component of the Government’s approach to energy security and decarbonisation, with work continuing to support the delivery of new nuclear projects, providing greater certainty for industry and investors, supporting highly skilled jobs across the supply chain, and contributing to a resilient, low carbon energy mix’. 

It notes that through the Spending Review the department secured a capital settlement of £62.8bn from 2025-26 to 2029-30 and a resource settlement of £5.8bn from 2026-27 to 2028-29, including £8.3bn for GBE/GBE-Nuclear including SMRs and £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor.

However, the theory is that this government support will attract private sector investment, for example for new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The government has put aside £2.5 bn for its SMR programme, to be led by Rolls Royce, but  there are signs of entrepreneurial interests, with SGE, a consortium led by Polish billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow talking about a £35bn plan to build 14 GE/Hitachi Boiling Water SMRs, on three sites across the UK, possibly including on the former Olbury nuclear plant site. 

There have also been some UK government backed moves by US developers for SMR projects in the UK, including from X Energy, Holtec and TerraPower, but not everyone is convinced that any of them will be successful, certainly not soon, or sees the wider UK nuclear programme, including the big Sizewell project, as value for money, especially given that there are security risks. Will anyone want SMRs near them given the safety and security issues? The UK government has been revamping the planning system to make it easier for projects like this to go ahead, but local opposition is still likely.   In particular, Labour ministers in London have been slammed for identifying sites in Scotland for nuclear power plants despite the devolved Scottish Government’s ongoing opposition to new nuclear developments. Very provocative, especially given that Scotland often produces more green power than it needs and exports the rest south…

However, the big UK push to nuclear continues, with some odd twists. For example, enriched uranium is to be produced by UK based Urenco for use by Ukraine in its nuclear plants. This at a time when the US is making strenuous efforts to stop Iran from developing and using uranium enrichment technology. But then consistency is often not very apparent in nuclear policy around the world. For example the US is, it seems, keen to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium.  Meanwhile the UK is still importing enriched fuel for Sizewell B derived from Russia.  While its claimed  that this is only a temporary aberration (the UK is to build its own new specialist enrichment plant), some contrarian outliers see Russia as the EU’s best supplier!  

Will any of this help us deal with climate change? Not everyone is convinced that it will -based on past experience, we may need to be wary of nuclear hype.  It is interesting then to look at what is happening in China. An Australian review noted that China has been installing ‘record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear’. Based on 2024 data, it said that China had installed the wind & solar equivalent of 5 large nuclear plants per week, although, in output terms, that was more like 1 nuclear power equivalent, given the different capacity factors.  But the disparity in outputs has grown since 2024, with renewables roaring ahead as the favoured new energy option. 

By comparison, the USA is stalling on renewables and trying to push nuclear ahead as fast as possible, with US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm calling for ‘hundreds’ of new large plants by 2050. Not everyone is convinced that this is possible, even with the new US loan scheme, but the Trump government is obviously keen and is pushing for reduced worker and public radiation exposure standards to help, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seemingly being compliant on this and other related issues. Clearly some see NRC reg. changes as being vital for the success of multiple SMRs. And, following a court ruling,  it seems that NRC may no longer need to take account of climate issues in plant licensing decisions.  This at a time when nuclear plants in Europe are having to be shut down due to heat waves… 

So, with shifts like that underway, how is it likely to go in the USA? It’s not clear if any big new projects will go ahead, but there are a lot of new SMR players entering the game, and some progress has been made, for example with a go ahead on some micro SMR safety test programmes. However, it is very early days with SMRs and big technical and economic uncertainties remain. That’s true for new nuclear generally, a view that seems to be shared quite widely, as was summed up well in a recent letter in Lancet, which ended by calling for the focus to be on renewables instead. Quite so, along with storage and smart demand management…But then there are evidently people who think differently, for example in Germany and Japan, in relation to reactor restarts, although that risks  opening up old issues, not least, where to put the active wastes. Do we really need to face all that again? 

* Back in the UK, there has been no word yet on the nuclear issue from the new Labour Cabinet. Andy Burham has been supportive of nuclear in the past. Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, is seen as likely to be a strong supporter of Labours clean energy and decarbonisation strategy. But she was chair of the New Economics Foundation which has been consistently anti-nuclear.  So things may yet change.  As I argued in my last post, there is certainly a strong case for a rethink on new nuclear. 

July 29, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Approval for VVER uranium/plutonium fuel production in Germany

 VVER-440 fuel. A mixture of enriched uranium with RECYCLED URANIUM and PLUTONIUM received from the used nuclear fuel of other VVER reactors is used instead of a standard enriched uranium.

Friday, 24 July 2026,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/approval-for-vver-fuel-production-in-germany

The Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Protection, acting on behalf of the federal government, has approved an application from Framatome subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels to expand its facility in Lingen for the production of fuel for VVER-1000 reactors. The approval is subject to strict conditions.

Framatome subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF) applied in March 2022 under the Atomic Energy Act for permission to begin producing hexagonal pressurised water fuel elements under licence with TVEL, the fuel arm of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom. The fuel elements are to be manufactured using Russian licences and Russian technology in a joint venture with TVEL for the Eastern European market. The licence application includes some changes to some manufacturing and testing equipment and the installation of some additional equipment in existing buildings to enable the manufacture of VVER fuel elements.

The federal government had already clarified in a supervisory letter to the state that, given the current assessment by federal security authorities regarding the risk of sabotage or espionage, there was no legal basis for denying the permit.

The Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Protection has now announced that it has approved ANF’s application, subject to a number of conditions, as “after intensive review and inquiries, [it] had no legal grounds under the Atomic Energy Act to reject or limit the application”. The restrictions it has imposed include a general ban on entry to the facility for employees of TVEL or Rosatom, as well as persons authorised by them. Entry is only permitted in very limited cases and under the supervision of the regulatory authority.

In addition, the ministry said the hardware and software of the TVEL-licensed machines must undergo external security audits, and these machines must be data-integrated with the rest of the fuel element factory’s operational technology and information technology infrastructure. Also, the finished gadolinium fuel rods arriving from Russia must be 100% inspected for potential tampering using active and passive scanners according to the ‘four-eyes’ principle. Furthermore, ANF employees must receive regular training and awareness programmes to protect against espionage and sabotage.

Lower Saxony’s environment ministry said the approval could be revisited “if new risks are identified”, particularly in “national security”, Euractiv reported.

ANF was created in 1975 and currently employs around 400 people in Lingen. ANF fabricates fuel rods and assemblies for pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors for customers worldwide.

In recent years, especially since the war with Ukraine began, nuclear power operators in European Union countries who had previously relied on Russian-supplied fuel have sought alternative suppliers. Nineteen VVER reactors – developed during the time of the Soviet Union and historically reliant on Russian fuel supplies – are currently in operation in the EU, including four VVER-1000 reactors in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, and 15 VVER-440 reactors in the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Slovakia.

Framatome has “a dual-track approach” to supplying fuel to VVER reactors in operation in the EU. In the short term, it will fabricate fuel identical to the proven design currently used by the reactors. In parallel, Framatome is developing and qualifying European sovereign fuels of its own design for VVER-440 and VVER-1000 reactors. The qualification of a new design requires several years within the framework of regulatory and usual certification practices, Framatome notes.

Framatome had planned to produce both VVER-1000 and VVER-440 fuel under licence from and as part of a joint venture with Rosatom at its subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels in Lingen. However, it was recently reported that Framatome has now decided to produce the VVER-440 fuel at its Romans-sur-Isere fuel production site in south-east France. The company expects to submit a request to the French nuclear regulator, the Autorite de Surete Nucleaire et de Radioprotection, by the end of 2026 for approval of the changes needed at the French plant for the production of VVER-440 fuel.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium, Germany, reprocessing, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

‘Fire cloud’ over Bordeaux as France braces for new heatwave

A rare “fire cloud” has formed in Bordeaux as wildfires continue to
ravage France forcing British tourists to flee. The “apocalyptic”
fires, which have so far forced the evacuation of 360,000 people across
France and Spain, have created a “pyrocumulonimbus”, a fire cloud never
seen before in France. The giant cloud, normally caused during volcanic
eruptions, creates its own winds and lightning that can worsen fires.

Telegraph 27th July 2026,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/27/fire-cloud-over-bordeaux-as-france-braces-for-new-heatwave/

July 29, 2026 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

Republican senator breaks ranks with Trump over controversial nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia

Another GOP senator breaks with president on the Middle
East as war with Iran divides his party. A key Republican senator who has
previously stopped from going as far as publicly condemning the president’s
Middle East strategy is doing just that.

Sen. John Kennedy appeared Sunday
on CBS’s Face the Nation, where he questioned the idea of providing the
technology to another Gulf state at the same time that the U.S. was trying
to permanently shut down Iran’s nuclear program. Asked directly whether he
was comfortable with the Saudi deal, as it had been presented, Kennedy
replied: “Nope.”

Independent 26th July 2026, https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kennedy-senate-trump-iran-saudi-b3021839.html

July 29, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

As Trump boosts nuclear power, regulators seek to eliminate a longstanding radiation safety practice

Count On News 2. by: JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press, Jul 26, 2026 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to eliminate a foundational safety principle that has for 50 years minimized the radiation people in the United States are exposed to and that has been adopted around the world.

Currently, facilities such as nuclear plants, hospitals or academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure radiation exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” — the ALARA principle. The NRC proposal would abandon that philosophy while keeping a separate standard on maximum radiation exposure.

The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, while ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical under those limits. Research shows radiation exposure increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, a risk that increases as the dose increases.

The dose limits are not changing. But the NRC, which regulates civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “graded approach” that includes several actions facilities must take depending on the potential dose of radiation to workers. More rigorous radiation protection measures would be required when approaching dose limits to ensure they aren’t exceeded.

This comes as President Donald Trump attempts to quadruple domestic nuclear energy production because of surging electricity demand amid a data center and artificial intelligence boom. Reforming the NRC is one way Trump is trying to speed up nuclear reactor development. He instructed the federal agency in an executive order last year to “ adopt science-based radiation limits.”

The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months………………………………………………………………………………………….

Without ALARA, could radiation doses creep closer to the limits?…………………………………………………………….

Some experts question the wisdom of eliminating ALARA

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that some parts of the NRC proposal could raise permissible radiation doses in certain cases, while still staying below the cap. Lyman highlighted a proposed revision to radionuclide emissions standards, in particular.

Radiation exposure to the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. A typical dose of radiation from a chest X-ray is 10 millirem.

The NRC wants to increase its radionuclide emissions standards from a conservative 10 millirem per year dose to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house at the property line for a nuclear plant.

The NRC should improve, rather than eliminate, ALARA, Lyman said, to protect the public and workers. ALARA has become a political target because some people mistakenly believe radiation exposures have to be as low as possible no matter the cost, Lyman said. In reality, it allows tradeoffs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/ap-as-trump-boosts-nuclear-power-regulators-seek-to-eliminate-a-longstanding-radiation-safety-rule/

July 29, 2026 Posted by | radiation, UK | Leave a comment

An Iranian missile attack on the UK is no longer far-fetched. 

It is unsurprising that Iran considers the UK bases used by US bombers to attack
the country – RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the
Indian Ocean – to be “legitimate targets”.

Such threats might have been
dismissed in the past as unrealistic bombast, but in a year when warfare in
the Gulf and Ukraine has been dominated by drones, along with cruise and
ballistic missiles, nations that once believed themselves safe have
suddenly become vulnerable. Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia in
March which failed in flight or were shot down, but the Iranians clearly
believed they had the range to reach the island. Diego Garcia is 2,350
miles from Tehran, while London is 2,750 miles away.

iNews 25th July 2026, https://inews.co.uk/opinion/iranian-missile-attack-uk-no-longer-far-fetched-4660624

July 29, 2026 Posted by | Iran, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Campaign steps up opposition to south Wales nuclear project

They noted that Last Energy had not yet installed any SMRs anywhere in the world, branding nuclear projects unsafe, unclean, expensive, and unnecessary.

26 Jul 2026, Nation.Cymru Staff, https://nation.cymru/news/campaign-steps-up-opposition-to-south-wales-nuclear-project/

Campaigners have stepped up efforts to oppose plans for a new nuclear power project in a south Wales valley as public consultations come to a close.

Friends of the Earth Cymru is backing a campaign against proposals by micro-reactor company Last Energy to build four small modular nuclear reactors at Cwm Llynfi, near Maesteg.


Last Energy is a commercial developer of micro-modular PWR-20 nuclear power plants headquartered in Washington D.C.

Last Energy UK Limited, the company’s British subsidiary, announced plans to develop the clean energy project in south Wales in October 2024.

Formally titled ‘Prosiect Egni Glan Llynfi’, it is to be built on the 14-acre site of the former Llyfni coal-fired power station which ceased operation in 1977.

“Working to power and decarbonise industry in South Wales”, the company’s proposal includes development of up to four 20-megawatt micro-modular nuclear power plants, “intended to provide electricity to local industrial customers and to be privately financed”.

Last Energy UK intended to provide £300m financing, and expects the project to power 250,000 homes and create around 100 jobs for the local community.

In February 2025, Last Energy UK formally entered the site licensing process for the project, as the first commercial nuclear power reactor to seek licensing since 1978.

Michael Jenner, CEO of Last Energy UK, said that the process was “another critical milestone necessary to unlock nuclear power at scale in the UK, which will help meet growing energy demand and alleviate grid restraints.”

At the time, the company had said it aimed to complete construction on the first micro reactor in Wales by 2027. However, in July 2025 after a Preliminary Design Review by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, it was reported that they do not expect to receive site licensing until December 2027, “if necessary submissions to the required standard” are delivered according to schedule.

Friends of the Earth Cymru, local campaigners and anti-nuclear groups had voiced early opposition to the proposals, arguing the development would have long-term consequences for the environment and surrounding communities

In a May 2025 FoE Cymru blog post, Jenny Lloyd, Local Action and Community Campaigns Officer, supported by anti-nuclear activist Brian Jones, said: “The struggle to protect Wales from the dangers of nuclear is one that has been fought by communities for decades.

“Activists persuaded every county council in Wales to declare themselves “Nuclear Free Zones” in the 80s, marched to Greenham common to protest against the siting of guided nuclear missiles at the RAF base, and rallied against the redevelopment of Wylfa nuclear power station…”

They noted that Last Energy had not yet installed any SMRs anywhere in the world, branding nuclear projects unsafe, unclean, expensive, and unnecessary.

They continued: “If this proposal is allowed to go ahead it threatens our health, our environment and our communities for generations to come.”

In June 2026, Last Energy UK notified Welsh ministers that, in line with the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, it would make an application for a Significant Infrastructure Project.

It said: “The project comprises four PWR-20 modular reactor units with associated plant, substation, buildings, security and access infrastructure.”

They also provided two images to the Welsh Government’s planning portal, one with four reactors, and another with only one reactor and other operational buildings.

The company held four public consultations on the project in Bridgend, Porthcawl, and Maesteg throughout July.

FoE Cymru once again voiced their opposition with grassroots campaign group No Nuclear Llyfni, this time directing supporters to “show that we are against this damaging proposal” and sign a petition ‘No nuclear in Cwm Llynfi’.

Currently at almost 1,500 of 2,000 signatures, the petition via ActionNetwork reiterates that the project is unsafe, unclean, and expensive, adding that “To make a profit, the company aims to mostly sell the energy straight to businesses – we won’t benefit from this energy.”

They affirm that “Our community and our beautiful valley deserve better than this!”

 The petition is available here.

July 29, 2026 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Nuclear stagnates while renewables soar

  by beyondnuclearinternational

Solar and wind alone cut global greenhouse emissions by 12% writes David Toke [Good graphs]

Wind and solar power are making major cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions would be at least 12 per cent higher if not for solar and wind power. Almost all of today’s solar and wind generation has arisen since 2010. Meanwhile nuclear’s contribution has remained almost the same in volume terms (as in 2010), and has greatly declined in terms of proportion of total electricity generated. This is despite the never-ending talk of a ‘nuclear renaissance ’. 

Solar and wind’s contribution to world electricity generation has increased to nearly 20 per cent in 2025, whilst nuclear’s contribution has fallen from a peak of 18 per cent in 1996 to just 9 per cent in 2025. This can be seen in Chart 1. The fact that solar and wind are making increasingly large cuts in carbon emissions is often overlooked. In addition, the impact of the closure of the Hormuz Straits has been lessened by renewable energy. Again, the contribution of renewables is often overlooked. Renewables, alongside energy efficiency and batteries, are turning out to be the leading force for energy security.

Wind and solar’s undercounted contribution

When energy statistics are collected, there is a clear statistical, if not actual political, bias against non-fossil fuels other than nuclear power and biomass. This is because in energy statistics all of the energy output of producing energy is counted, even though most of it is wasted. Fossil fuel energy is also wasted when used in inefficient machines such as motor vehicles or gas boilers. In the case of nuclear power, only one third of the energy is turned into electricity – the rest is wasted in warm water sent to rivers and seas. So in the energy statistics nuclear power counts for three times as much as solar, wind or hydro-electricity.

But the real impact of non-biomass renewables in cutting carbon emissions is at least three times their actual output. That is because otherwise fossil fuels would be producing the electricity, and electric machines are much more efficient at point of use (eg cars). Efficiency varies among power plants, with gas-fired generation generally wasting less energy than coal or oil plants. Overall, around 60 per cent of world fossil fuel energy is wasted in producing electricity. 

But then, on top of this, you have to consider the carbon emissions that are saved by substituting fossil fuels for renewable electricity. For example, electric vehicles use around a third as much energy used by fossil fuel vehicles. Walking and cycling use even less! Heat pumps will use the electricity at least three times as efficiently as gas boilers. These gains are on top of the efficiencies gained in electricity production. 

Electricity now makes up over 22 per cent of world final energy use, and this proportion is increasing (see Here). However, the problem, globally, is not as one reads in the media that electricity use is hurtling upwards as a result of plans for data centres (many of which never get built). Rather, it is that electrification is not happening fast enough! We need a great push for energy-efficient technologies. The EU has set a target for electrification of 46 per cent of final energy by 2040………………………………………………………………………………….

Nuclear non-renaissance

Of course nuclear revival is always (in the media) just around the corner. Until, of course, little turns up afterwards. Tony Blair talked up a nuclear revival in 2006, soon after his US buddy George Bush had promoted laws, in 2005, which offered massive loans for new nuclear power plants. However, only two nuclear power plants were built, eventually, very much over-cost, especially to electricity consumers in Georgia where the plants were based (at the same site). Another two plants were started in South Carolina, but the projects proved disastrous and were abandoned unfinished.

Now we’ve got the same thing happening again under Trump – but with a twist – in the USA at least there aren’t any new plants being built at all! (see HERE). That’s despite Donald Trump’s government offering large loans to fund them. Ah yes, there’s the ‘small modular reactor’ programme. But that, as I have already discussed in an earlier post, is a fantasy. Their electricity would cost a lot more than even conventional reactors (see HERE).

But of course a small number of power plants will get built called SMRs. They will not be followed by any amount of capacity that will rival even Denmark’s renewable programme on its own. I understand a lot of stress is also being placed on the completion of small micro-reactors that are to be used by the US military (instead of diesels?). Well, US military, good luck with that. Just keep them away from the drones!

True, the Chinese have been building quite a few nuclear power stations – indeed, half of all nuclear power plants in the world under construction are in China. But then China’s nuclear programme is dwarfed by its renewable energy programme. Around 75 nuclear power plants might be built by 2035 in the world. However, what is often not mentioned is that this may not be much more than the number of plants that are retired, which runs at around 7 a year.

In the UK the latest excuse for the non-completion of the Hinkley C reactor is that the poor hapless (French) state-owned EDF is being forced to reduce the number of fish that it kills during operation. But is this an excuse for the plant being already behind its 2025 start-up date and heading for start-up beyond 2030? I think it is. Its sister plant, Sizewell C, which is slated to follow on, is, according to the UK Government’s own admission, already more expensive than Hinkley C. And that is before the rest of the cost overruns rack up and before any of that coveted first concrete is poured.

When will Sizewell C be in operation? I wouldn’t bet on it this side of 2040! The main function provided by new nuclear power to governments such as the UK and the USA is that of a notional fig leaf to exorcise a failure to push ahead more vigorously with a strategy based on renewables and energy efficiency.

Conclusion

The world needs energy to be used efficiently through electricity. It needs this to be supplied by renewable energy. Anything else that doesn’t help this is most likely a distraction at best. That also includes the methods used to count energy, which are dysfunctional because the bulk of the energy they count is wasted. This appears to reduce the real impact of renewables and electricity. Electrification means technologies like heat pumps and EVs, and the real power of electrification will be running heating, transport, and industrial mechanical activity through renewable energy.

David Toke is the author of the book ‘Energy Revolutions – profiteering versus democracy’ (Pluto Press); He is Reader in Energy Politics at the University of Aberdeen and Director of 100percentrenewableuk. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/26/nuclear-stagnates-while-renewables-soar/

July 29, 2026 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

U.S. Prioritizes Small Nuclear Reactors Across Southeast Asia

By Charles Kennedy – Jul 24, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Prioritizes-Small-Nuclear-Reactors-Across-Southeast-Asia.html

The U.S. has identified cooperation on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) as a key priority in its engagement with Southeast Asia as regional electricity demand continues to climb.

Speaking after Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Manila, U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN Kevin Kim said the administration was in “deep discussions” with several governments in the region over the new technology. 

The renewed push for SMRs comes on the heels of the memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea at the NATO summit on July 7. Under the agreement, the three countries will work together to accelerate the deployment of small modular reactors in third countries, initially across the Indo-Pacific.

While Kim declined to provide specifics on any potential deals, he emphasized that cooperation on SMRs was “an absolute priority for the administration,” adding that the reactors would play “a critical role” in meeting future energy demand.

The comments underscore a broader U.S. strategy to expand its energy footprint in Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on LNG, grid technologies, and small modular reactors. As part of that strategy, the U.S. unveiled a $1.5 billion investment platform in early June to support the build-out of energy security infrastructure in India and Southeast Asia.

Separately, the U.S. outlined several new energy initiatives alongside Rubio’s ASEAN meetings, including a $60 million grant to enable energy sector investment in the Philippines, $17 million in funding to secure critical mineral supply chains across the Mekong region, and $5 million to develop power markets across Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Washington’s latest efforts to expand its energy presence across Southeast Asia reflect the administration’s broader energy agenda: increase LNG exports, advance small modular reactor technology, and secure critical mineral supply chains.

July 28, 2026 Posted by | ASIA, marketing of nuclear, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Fukushima nuke plant struggles to clear radioactive waste debris

By TOMOYUKI SUZUKI/ Staff Writer, July 25, 2026 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16663961

Fifteen years after the nation’s worst nuclear accident, the upper floors of the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant remain littered with wreckage from a hydrogen explosion. 

Just clearing all the radioactive waste, a significant step toward decommissioning, remains a mountain to climb at the crippled plant, which suffered triple meltdowns. 

The huge amount of debris must be cleared before the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., proceeds with the removal of spent nuclear fuel assemblies stored in the water-filled cooling pool located on the upper portions of the No. 1 reactor building.

But the long-overdue clearance would require TEPCO to construct new interim storage facilities in a race against time to keep up with the increasing waste volume in what is likened to a “cat and mouse game.”

Experts on nuclear decommissioning say TEPCO and other stakeholders should tackle reducing the radioactive waste as an urgent priority in tandem with the greatest challenge of removing the melted nuclear fuel.

The No. 1 reactor building holds 392 spent fuel assemblies in the cooling pool, apart from the melted nuclear fuel.

A new crane installed on the upper floor is expected to load debris from the hydrogen explosion into containers for the transfer to an on-site solid waste storage facility. The clearing work began on June 22. 

The hydrogen explosion at the No. 1 reactor building occurred on March 12, 2011, the day after the magnitude-9.0 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami struck Japan’s eastern Tohoku region, resulting in the loss of power at the facility to cool the reactors.

The blast blew off the structure’s upper floors, scattering numerous pieces of the roof and the overhead crane.

Today, the No. 1 reactor building is shielded with a giant retractable cover, which measures 56 meters by 66 meters. The cover, together with a new crane, weighs about 7,900 tons, the equivalent of two Tokyo Towers.

The cover was installed in January to prevent radioactive dust from escaping into the air and rainwater from seeping inside during the spent nuclear fuel recovery, which is scheduled to begin between fiscal 2027 and 2028.

TEPCO has been conducting checks of the upper floors for potential large cracks. It has been moving some debris through a remote-controlled demolition system.

Containers holding the waste from the clearance work will be stored temporarily in a solid waste storage facility at the plant.

Known as the No. 10 storage facility, it consists of A, B and C buildings. Buildings A and B have been in use since 2024. The newest one, building C, is 50 meters by 180 meters and 20 meters in height.

Inside building C, containers are neatly stacked. Receptacles with readings of high levels of radiation are sited in the center of the building and surrounded by ones with lower readings, which serve as shields to lower air dose rates in the surrounding area. 

In contrast, the grounds outdoors appeared jumbled. Trees chopped down to create space for tanks and working space for operators were left lying on some parts of the grounds while waste containers were piled up in the open.

In addition, TEPCO still relies on makeshift storage in areas along the coast that stores waste on an impermeable liner spread underground and covered with soil.

The company intends to house all the radioactive waste in the indoor facilities by fiscal 2028 to safeguard the containers from fire risks and corrosion.

Before the nuclear disaster, the nuclear plant had eight waste storage facilities. The No. 9 and No. 10 facilities were added after the 2011 accident. Construction of the No. 11 facility is underway for the planned opening for May 2028.

If everything goes as planned, the nuclear plant’s capacity for waste storage would rise to 216,000 cubic meters by the end of fiscal 2028, sufficient for an estimated 207,000 cubic meters of waste to be produced by the time.

It is clear, however, that TEPCO may need additional storage space. The company is considering constructing a No. 12 facility, given that the plant’s storage capacity is projected to be full by fiscal 2035.

The entire situation is even more concerning as little progress has been made in the discussion of the final disposal of the vast amount of radioactive waste.

Moreover, waste produced from the treatment of contaminated water, such as slurry and sorbents, is not included in the materials bound for these storage facilities.

TEPCO will transport parts of such waste into the No. 1 large-scale waste storage facility during the current fiscal year. The storage area, which measures 23 meters by 186 meters and 17 meters in height, underwent seismic retrofitting recently and is ready for use.

The big question is the total amount of radioactive waste that will be generated.

The utility estimates that there will be around 800,000 cubic meters of waste by the end of fiscal 2036. But it has not provided a figure for the overall amount during the decommissioning process.

An Atomic Energy Society of Japan committee advising on the decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant estimates there will be about 5.6 million cubic meters of radioactive waste–equivalent to 4.5 Tokyo Domes–unless reduction measures are taken.

TEPCO plans to sort waste by radiation level for interim storage. Of the projected 800,000 cubic meters of waste, 70 percent is eligible to be held in solid waste storage facilities.

While the company aims to halve the volume of this waste, it is set to recycle the remaining 30 percent.

Scrap metal or concrete waste with a dose of 0.005 millisievert per hour or more will be cut or partially crushed to reduce the size. For waste with a dose of less than 0.005 millisievert per hour, TEPCO will consider having it melted for recycling.

But the facility for melting metal will likely be completed between fiscal 2032 and 2034, three years behind schedule, due to a design review.

The amount of melted nuclear fuel, or fuel debris, is estimated at 880 tons at the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors where the meltdowns occurred.

TEPCO plans to eventually retrieve all the fuel debris, but it has yet to determine the final disposal method.

Satoshi Yanagihara, a guest professor for nuclear decommissioning at the University of Fukui, called on TEPCO to more aggressively reduce the waste volume.

“Since utilities’ primary focus is on operating power plants, they tend to invest less in the management of nuclear waste in terms of money and human resources,” he said. “Recovering melted fuel is certainly a daunting challenge, but TEPCO should also grapple with how to lessen the waste volume simultaneously.”

July 28, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, Reference, wastes | Leave a comment

The hidden expansion of Britain’s nuclear strategy

 24 July 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/hidden-expansion-britains-nuclear-strategy

“CAN our nuclear subs fire missiles from under the Arctic ice?” This was a question posed jokingly at a meeting of the House of Commons defence committee earlier this summer.  

It did not need an answer. The intent was to validate Britain’s adoption of an additional airborne system for its nuclear strike force. It is with such levity that some of our legislators seem to frame the most deadly shifts in policy.

The July edition of the Bulletin of the Nuclear Scientists has outlined the background to this decision to finance a new and supplementary delivery system for Britain’s nuclear bomb. It was a decision only announced publicly in the very last week of the Starmer government and was closely linked to the fracas over the additional £15 billion for military hardware in the Defence Investment Plan.  

But why, anyway, should Britain be wanting to fire missiles from “under the Arctic ice.”


This again is linked to policy developments that have largely escaped public scrutiny. It concerns Britain’s leadership role within the Joint Expeditionary Force. Set up in 2014 this sounded like a fairly harmless left-over from some earlier war.

It is not. This “Force” is legally independent of Nato and not bound by any requirements for unanimity in the use of nuclear weapons. It is composed of the Baltic and Scandinavian states plus the Netherlands and Britain. Its territorial remit, within the current Nato division of responsibilities, is the “High North,” effectively Russia’s icebound Arctic frontiers. Hence the need for airborne nukes.  

We don’t yet know too much about the logistical implications of this decision. But earlier meetings of the Commons defence committee and also of the Scottish affairs committee give some strong indications. In terms of the deployment of supporting army, navy and air force units Scotland is seen to be the focus. Arbroath and Lossiemouth are cited. For the airborne nukes Lakenheath seems to be at least the interim base. But the nukes may also, for obvious logistical reasons, go north.


Are there deadlines for the implementation of these war preparations? Again the Commons defence committee minutes give some indications: 2030 onwards.  

And this brings us to the wider context. Britain has no particular economic interests in the “High North.” As one of Europe’s two nuclear powers, it is taking part in a wider division of labour whereby nuclear-armed France teams up with Germany to cover central Europe. And this again is within a still wider division of labour that allows the US to focus its full military might on China.  

Our media have built up “Russia” as the aggressor that threatens us all. But the bigger picture makes it quite clear that China is the overall strategic target.  

The current vacillations by Andy Burnham and some members of his Cabinet over the 3 per cent GDP target on arms by 2030 may indicate some awareness of the wider dangers implicit in this decision — as well as its dire consequences for the funding of any progressive social policies.  

The current issue of the US journal Foreign Affairs carries an article from Ely Ratner, formerly Joe Biden’s assistant secretary defence Asia-Pacific, making a clear bid for a more senior position in a future Democrat administration from 2030. His article is about how to hobble and, if necessary, militarily defeat a resurgent China.  


As we approach one further anniversary of Hiroshima, the trade union and labour movement need to mobilise alongside our working-class communities. The costs of potentially devastating warfare are being posed against what is needed for welfare — and for a war that ultimately serves a dying imperialist superpower. Decisions will be made over the next few weeks.

July 28, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries