nuclear-news

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

Climate change exacerbates nuclear risks in the Arctic. And we are not ready

The Arctic under a nuclear umbrella. A main source of increased nuclear dangers in the Arctic is the intensified geopolitical competition among interested nuclear-armed powers. Increased cooperation between Beijing and Moscow and the expansion of NATO to encompass seven of the eight Arctic states have reshaped Arctic geopolitics around growing competition between Russia and, increasingly, China on one side, and the United States and NATO on the other. This happens as the entire Arctic region now finds itself under a nuclear umbrella.

These strategic changes in the Arctic extend beyond deterrence calculus and into an urgent need for regional cooperation.

By Nikita Gryazin, Iren Marinova | Analysis | July 29, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/climate-change-exacerbates-nuclear-risks-in-the-arctic-and-we-are-not-ready/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Nuclear%20risks%20in%20the%20Arctic&utm_campaign=20260730%20Thursday%20Newsletter

Editor’s note: This article is published as part of a continuing collaboration between the European Leadership Network and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 

Climate change is transforming the Arctic: Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, and changing maritime accessibility are opening new territories, resources, and shipping routes while reshaping the region’s strategic landscape. These changes have placed the Arctic at the center of a geopolitical competition between Russia, NATO states, and increasingly China. But the significance of these developments extends beyond economic interests and regional rivalry.

The Arctic hosts critical military infrastructure, strategic nuclear assets, and key pathways for power projection, making it a geopolitical magnifying glass in the evolving global security environment. But while climate change is widely recognized as a threat multiplier in the Arctic, regional governance has not yet adapted to this new reality. Climate change, geopolitical competition, and nuclear risk are typically treated as separate policy challenges, managed by separate institutions with different mandates. The global climate governance institutions approach the Arctic primarily through a focus on climate change effects and environmental management, while the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the bedrock of the global nuclear order, addresses nuclear risk through the traditional pillars of non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. At the regional level, the Arctic Council, the leading intergovernmental forum for Arctic governance and cooperation, explicitly excludes military security from its mandate. The result is a growing governance gap that no longer reflects the magnitude and complexity of issues in the Arctic.

The governance of the Arctic remains organized around institutional silos that treat climate, security, and nuclear issues as separate rather than mutually reinforcing threats. This disconnect leaves policymakers ill-prepared to manage the security consequences of a rapidly changing Arctic as global tensions are rising and the nuclear order is already under strain. Addressing the governance deficiency in the Arctic is now both a regional and a nuclear risk-reduction imperative. It requires a complementary risk-reduction dialogue—potentially structured as a Track 1.5 mechanism—alongside Arctic-specific planning within NATO, greater attention to regional risks through the NPT process, and renewed bilateral risk-reduction channels.

The Arctic under a nuclear umbrella. A main source of increased nuclear dangers in the Arctic is the intensified geopolitical competition among interested nuclear-armed powers. Increased cooperation between Beijing and Moscow and the expansion of NATO to encompass seven of the eight Arctic states have reshaped Arctic geopolitics around growing competition between Russia and, increasingly, China on one side, and the United States and NATO on the other. This happens as the entire Arctic region now finds itself under a nuclear umbrella.

This strategic competition carries important nuclear dimensions.

The Arctic remains central to Russia’s second-strike nuclear deterrent, hosts critical military infrastructure, including early-warning systems and two-thirds of its sea-based nuclear forces. The region also serves as a key operating environment for Russia’s strategic submarines, which have historically relied on Arctic ice cover for concealment from NATO anti-submarine warfare assets, using the region’s unique acoustic environment and under-ice operating conditions to reduce detectability. Climate change has begun to erode the very geography underpinning this strategy. At the same time, China has expanded its economic, scientific, and military footprint in the region through closer cooperation with Russia and growing interest in Arctic shipping routes and resource development.

For the United States, the Arctic is central to homeland defense and nuclear deterrence, serving as a key theater for missile warning, strategic surveillance, and submarine operations. In response to Russia’s growing Arctic posture, NATO has significantly expanded its own presence through exercises, deployments, and anti-submarine warfare activities.

Finland and Sweden, by joining NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively, have altered deterrence dynamics and the broader nuclear balance in the Arctic. Their accession has changed the Nordic region from being a peripheral space of nuclear restraint to becoming a strategically integrated frontline of the alliance’s deterrence posture. For decades, both Nordic countries remained non-aligned and staunch promoters of non-proliferation, and even NATO members Denmark and Norway maintained cautious policies on the peacetime stationing of nuclear weapons on their territories. The extension of NATO’s nuclear umbrella resulting from their accession has marked a critical strategic shift in the Arctic. While nuclear stationing in the region remains politically sensitive, NATO’s expansion across the European Arctic increases the strategic significance of the High North and heightens the potential for escalation surrounding Russia’s Arctic-based nuclear assets.

In early 2026, the US administration’s coercive rhetoric over Greenland generated significant political tensions across the North Atlantic. But the Greenland crisis, combined with general shifts in US foreign policy towards Europe in the last year, has raised serious concerns among European allies over the long-term credibility of the US nuclear umbrella. The Nordic interest in complementary European deterrence arrangements involving France and the United Kingdom has also intensified as a result.

Nuclear dangers in the Arctic. A less predictable Arctic means a less predictable deterrence environment. Melting ice and increased maritime access raise the likelihood of submarine detection, close military encounters, and miscalculation between nuclear-armed powers operating in increasingly contested waters. These strategic changes in the Arctic extend beyond deterrence calculus and into an urgent need for regional cooperation.

Novaya Zemlya, the archipelago hosting Russia’s nuclear test infrastructure, sits atop a far older problem. Between 1955 and 1990, the Soviet Union conducted 224 nuclear detonations there, releasing a total of around 265 megatons of explosive energy, and scuttled more than 100 decommissioned nuclear submarines in the surrounding Barents and Kara seas. Plutonium and cesium from both sources are detectable in regional sea sediments and soil beneath glaciers. Permafrost, which used to keep much of this contamination stable, is now thawing. Researchers showed that the Arctic’s Cold War nuclear legacy is one of the least-understood consequences of global warming, as radioactive isotopes locked in frozen soil for decades are now finding new pathways in the environment. Novaya Zemlya remains largely closed to independent researchers, and Russia has offered minimal transparency about current contamination levels at the test site.

The Arctic is also increasingly becoming a theater for nuclear signaling. Russia has repeatedly invoked its nuclear capabilities in the context of confrontation with NATO, embracing more aggressive forms of signaling and appearing more willing to blur the thresholds surrounding potential nuclear use. The result is a region where climate disruption, military competition, and nuclear deterrence are becoming mutually reinforcing pressures.

A fragmented governance system frozen in place. Existing governance institutions have not yet adapted to the rapidly evolving nature of these multifaceted threats in the Arctic. The region’s governance remains reliant on a fragmented and complex ecosystem of international treaties, UN bodies, and regional forums that primarily dictate shipping, resource management, and environmental protection. But the unique complexity of challenges in the Arctic and the rising geopolitical tensions require a more integrated approach.

Geopolitical tensions have removed many of the mechanisms that historically helped manage Arctic issues. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Arctic Council has been largely paralyzed, scientific cooperation has deteriorated, and global arms control structures have continued to erode. No treaty governs nuclear activities in the region, and the collapse of US-Russia arms control frameworks has left few institutional safeguards in place.

These overlapping gaps compound one another: Regional governance relies on multiple different institutional arrangements; the Arctic Council cannot discuss military activity; and the NPT review process does not address region-specific escalation risks. This results in a structural blind spot that leaves states without agreed rules of the road at precisely the moment when the risk of miscalculation is rising. The absence of any dedicated forum that brings together climate scientists, arms control experts, and defense officials means that the linkages between environmental change and nuclear risk remain invisible to policymakers until a crisis makes them undeniable.

Closing the governance gap.

Read more: Climate change exacerbates nuclear risks in the Arctic. And we are not ready

 The disconnect between siloed governance bodies and self-reinforcing risks in the Arctic demands concrete responses across several institutional levels. Despite its current constraints, the Arctic Council remains the region’s most successful institutional forum for circumpolar cooperation. Institutional bridges should be built around it as a cornerstone. But cooperation through the Arctic Council has been resilient precisely because its mandate explicitly excludes military security and instead focuses on scientific cooperation, sustainable development, and participation of indigenous populations.

Rather than expanding the Arctic Council’s mandate to encompass military security, the Arctic states should instead focus on closing the governance gap between climate change, geopolitical competition, and nuclear risks. This could be achieved through a complementary Arctic risk-reduction dialogue, potentially structured as a Track 1.5 mechanism, that operates alongside the Arctic Council and brings together foreign ministers, defense officials, coast guards, scientific experts, and representatives of indigenous communities. It could potentially be convened by an Arctic state with a strong record of regional diplomacy, such as Norway or Iceland, or a UN-affiliated body. The purpose would be to bring together experts in different areas to discuss the changing and multi-faceted threat environment in the Arctic.

Initially, such a forum could focus on practical areas of shared concern, including maritime incidents, search and rescue, environmental problems, critical infrastructure, and nuclear risk mitigation. Creating formal channels of communication would provide a venue for identifying and managing the increasingly interconnected climate, geopolitical, and nuclear threats emerging in the Arctic.

Complementary institutional responses should be established above the immediate regional level as well. Building on the Strategic Concept’s recognition of climate change as a threat multiplier, NATO should translate this commitment into Arctic-specific planning by incorporating climate-driven deterrence instability into its strategic planning and pursue dedicated Arctic incident-prevention protocols, including direct communication channels modelled on existing incidents-at-sea agreements, to reduce the risk of miscalculation.

At the multilateral level, the NPT review process should give greater attention to the interconnected nuclear risks in the Arctic by encouraging voluntary transparency, expert assessment, and reporting on climate-related vulnerabilities, radioactive contamination and nuclear legacies in the region, including at sites such as Novaya Zemlya. Finally, even amid the current political environment, the United States and Russia should prioritize the Arctic by pursuing or renewing Arctic risk-reduction channels, including incidents-at-sea arrangements and joint environmental monitoring of thawing contaminated sites. While these are minimal confidence-building measures that do not require broader arms control consensus, they could meaningfully reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation.

Rapid warming in the Arctic has opened the door to intense geopolitical competition in the High North at the same time that the region is being placed under a broader nuclear umbrella. In the Arctic, these issues can no longer be addressed as separate concerns but rather as reinforcing one another and heightening regional and global insecurity. Existing governance institutions in the region must adapt to these new security challenges.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | ARCTIC, climate change, Reference | Leave a comment

AI Wants Your Land, Water, Power

The bigger data centers, which are in vogue, being built right up next to hospitals, schools, and residences willy nilly use anywhere from 1-to-7 million gallons of water per day. On average, equivalent to moving 15,000-20,000 new families into a neighborhood.

Robert Hunziker, July 27, 2026, https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/07/27/ai-wants-your-land-water-power/

“This is just like a free-for-all. There’s really no oversight. There’s really no regulation.” (Erin Brockovich, Brockovich AI Data Center Reporting)

Erin Brockovich is a well-known American consumer advocate who made her name by exposing evidence that Pacific Gas & Electric poisoned groundwater in Hinkley, California (1996) with toxic hexavalent. Now, she’s investigating AI datacenters.

AI date centers are everywhere, in every state throughout the land. They are starting to quasi-own American citizens via appropriation of resources, both human and natural. This is an invasion of the land, the water, the power, the intellectual resources of America.

Erin Brockovich was recently interviewed about her commitment to investigating AI development by Katie Couric, appearing on YouTube.

Erin: “I’ve never seen in 30 years anything like this… This is every town in every state, and all our resources at once happening.”

The common thread in submissions from individuals in communities across the land: “it feels to them like a takeover.” First, there is a lack of transparency. Local city councils, where “the people” should be represented are hijacked via non-disclosure agreements signed by local officials. This is step number one in gaining approval to build where city regulations and city code control the land. The locals are left out of decisions.

Datacenters Consume Natural Resources

Smaller data centers use about 500,000 gallons of water per day. The average family of four uses ~350 gallons of water per day. Therefore, a newly constructed small data center is equivalent to moving 1,428 new families into a neighborhood.

The bigger data centers, which are in vogue, being built right up next to hospitals, schools, and residences willy nilly use anywhere from 1-to-7 million gallons of water per day. On average, equivalent to moving 15,000-20,000 new families into a neighborhood.


“So, if we build 1,200 data centers… that’s the projection for the total and you just take an average of those between 500,000 to seven million, and the average is 5 million gallons per day, and multiple that by 365 days. You’re looking at numbers of 2.2 to 2.7 trillion gallons of water per year… that are on already drought restricted lands.” (Erin)

(There are already 4, 542 active data centers, 1,500 more are in the planning stage.)

A recent study by The Guardian found that 2/3rds of the planned data centers in the U.S. are in drought-stricken areas.

Datacenters disrupt the regular flow of water. For example, residents sent reports to Erin “of water bills going from $40/month to $250/month… and we’re seeing the exact same thing with electrical.”

According to Katie Couric, Sam Altman, CEO of Open AI, dismisses concerns about AI water use, “fake, completely untrue, totally insane, and having no connection to reality.”

In response, Erin wondered if Altman lives in the areas and experiences what residents report to her. He is implying that the reports by residents are false (16,000 total submissions to Erin by individuals involving various AI issues). “It is insulting.”

Erin asked AI itself in a query to the faceless genius a question of placement of data centers assuming the entire network were to start all over again from scratch, redesigned. AI responded that it would place new data centers based upon one simple rule: “Zero conflict with human resources.” Hmm.

“The people” who submit to Erin from all 50 states are saying the opposite of Sam Altman. And she’s going with the people as a more credible source. After all, they live in the immediate area of data centers. He does not.

Data Center Noise – Wow!

The “hum,” the “buzz” can extend a couple of miles away from a data center. The endless humming is a 24/7 annoyance that’s driving some people nuts. Residents are informing Erin of dizziness, nausea, headachy experiences. This is a common issue tbat’s reported from every one of the facility areas in the country.

Locals Fighting Back

Three hundred (300) municipalities have established moratoriums on data center development, some for one year, some for two years, some six months, some are flat-out bans.

But according to Erin, as usual, “many of them won’t be able to withstand the pressure by huge corporations that have got all the money in the world.”

Yet, public protests can exercise powerful influence. For example, in Utah it was clearly via public opposition that the governor had to scale back the size of the facility coming in.

And New York is the first state to ban development of new data centers as a moratorium for one year and direct state regulators to create standards focused on environmental impacts, energy demand, water usage and other factors: “As datacenter development threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers, it’s my responsibility to take action and lead,’ Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement.” (New York Becomes First State to Impose One-Year Pause on New AI Datacenters, The Guardian, July 14, 2026)

According to Katie, a recent Gallup poll shows 7 out of 10 Americans oppose data centers being built near them, making it one of the few contemporary issues that has broad bipartisan agreement, republicans and democrats alike do not favor AI datacenters in their locales.

Meanwhile, the power source for data centers is passed off to consumers. Infrastructure is required. Erin has received submissions from people stating their utility bills normally $75 went up to $425. A recent submission by a resident out of Texas, which has the most data centers at 417, said their city notified residents to expect a 75% electrical bill increase.

Stated by Katie: According to The New York Times, PJM, the nation’s largest electrical grid operator’s results of an electricity auction will add $6.3 billion costs to consumers within the next 3 years, an increase driven by the power demands of data centers.

AI Ownership

Katie Couric’s interview of Erin Brockovich brought to light the impact AI has on the country’s natural resources but did not discuss nontangible resources like music or speech or art. These human resources, similar to natural resources, are public resources. Who owns these resources?

Bernie Sanders has an interesting take on ownership of resources: “The foundation of AI is based on our collective human intelligence. Our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images, and ideas span generations. The reality is that Big Tech oligarchs have fed this knowledge into their AI models without permission, without acknowledgement, and without compensation. The creative work of many millions of people – writers, artists, musicians, journalists, teachers, scientists and ordinary people- has been stolen by the wealthiest people in the world. In the coming weeks I will be introducing the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. This legislation would give the public a direct ownership stake in the largest AI companies in our country. Through a one-time 50% tax, not on the profit of the largest AI companies in the US but something that is far more valuable than that: The Stock. Under this bill the federal government would have the power through its voting shares and an equal representation on each company’s board to block decisions that hurt the public and to push for policies that help them. When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth.”

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | environment, technology | Leave a comment

EU considers emergency meeting as nuclear shutdown leaves Hungary facing energy crisis

By Sandor Zsiros, 31/07/2026, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/07/31/eu-considers-emergency-meeting-as-nuclear-shutdown-leaves-hungary-facing-energy-crisis

Hungarian PM Péter Magyar has warned of an energy crisis after record-low Danube water levels forced the shutdown of the Paks nuclear plant, which supplies nearly half the country’s power.

The European Commission says it is prepared to convene an emergency meeting of its Electricity Coordination Group over the shutdown of Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant, as the country’s prime minister warned of a looming energy crisis.

“Although the operator has emergency measures in place to guarantee nuclear safety, an event of this kind could further strain the regional electricity balance,” the Commission’s spokesperson, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, told Euronews. “The Commission stands ready to convene an ad hoc meeting of the Electricity Coordination Group.”

Hungarian Prime Minister Péter Magyar has warned that the country could face an energy crisis as early as next week, after Paks – which supplies almost half of Hungary’s energy needs – was taken offline following record-low water levels in the Danube, which is used to cool the reactors. It is the first time the plant has been shut down completely since it opened 42 years ago.

“This means 2,000 megawatts will be lost from Hungarian energy production from Monday at the latest, while demand for residential and public consumption continues to rise because of the heat,” Magyar said on Thursday evening.

The government has asked the public and businesses to cut energy use during the peak hours between 5pm and 10pm, urging people to avoid using air conditioning and washing machines in particular.

Magyar explained that the government has also drawn up an emergency plan to limit consumption at industrial facilities on a rotational basis. The output of other power plants in Hungary will also be increased.

“Given the severity of this unprecedented situation, we are asking everyone – large consumers and the public alike – to act responsibly,” he said. “It is in our common interest to avoid unplanned outages and the kind of unexpected system collapse seen in Western Europe and the Balkans.”

András Perger, an expert at the Hungarian NGO Energiaklub, told Euronews that the country stands to lose 25–30 percent of its energy output from Monday, describing the situation as a serious test of Hungary’s energy supply.

“From Monday, when consumption is expected to rise and the Paks plant remains offline, a more serious situation will begin,” Perger said. “This will be a serious test for Hungarian and regional supply alike.”

He added that some of Hungary’s demands could be met through imports from neighbouring countries, though the availability of hydroelectric power is itself limited in the region.

In Romania, the shutdown of one reactor poses less of a problem, given that nuclear energy makes up a smaller share of the country’s energy mix.

“Although the situation in Hungary is stretched, I don’t expect this to cause serious regional problems,” Perger said.

Friends of the Earth Hungary, an environmental NGO says the development around the Paks Nuclear Plant is not an isolated incident but a climate adaptation challenge.

“Hungary needs to speed up its transition into a more resilient, decentralised energy system that relies less on climate-vulnerable infrastructure and more on energy savings, flexibility and renewable energy,” Executive President Ákos Éger said in a statement sent to Euronews.

The Commission’s Itkonen said Brussels is closely monitoring the electricity supply situation in both Hungary and Romania, though she stressed there are currently no immediate energy security concerns.

According to the Commission, the Electricity Coordination Group could aim to facilitate information-sharing and coordinate next steps among countries in the region. The process will be watched closely as Hungary heads into what officials on both sides describe as a critical test of the country’s energy resilience.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Vice President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera warns that modular nuclear reactors are still projects, not an immediately available energy solution.

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Informat.ro Călin Nicolescu, 21 July 2026,

Small modular nuclear reactors can become a component of the European energy system, but they do not yet represent a solution that can be used immediately to reduce emissions or cover the increase in electricity consumption, said the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera. She urged governments not to delay investments and reforms already necessary while waiting for technologies that still need to be demonstrated and commercially implemented.

In short Teresa Ribera says that the choice of the energy mix, including the share of nuclear energy, belongs to each member state. The Commission must ensure compliance with common safety, competition, and public money usage standards. Small modular reactors benefit from European research programs and a Commission strategy aimed at launching the first projects in Europe in the early 2030s. Ribera warns that modular reactors remain, for now, projects in development. Governments should not postpone investments in grids, energy efficiency, renewable sources, or emission reductions until 2035. Building new reactors and extending the operation of existing plants often requires public funding, guarantees, and the state taking on part of the project risk. The Commission will check whether these forms of support produce overcompensations, subsidized prices, or advantages that affect competition among energy technologies and consumer access to electricity.

Teresa Ribera responded to a question about the future of nuclear energy and small modular reactors during the inaugural session of the sixth edition of the summer course “The great current challenges of the European Union,” held in San Sebastián. The Executive Vice-President said that opinions on nuclear energy differ profoundly among states and that European policy must respect each country’s right to establish its own electricity production mix.

Some governments have decided to build reactors, modernize existing plants, or extend their operational lifespan, while others base their strategy on renewable sources, storage, interconnections, and reducing consumption. The role of the Commission is not to impose the same energy structure on everyone, but the institution verifies compliance with European nuclear standards, safety requirements, and state aid legislation.

Small modular reactors, known by the acronym SMR, are designed for lower capacities than conventional nuclear plants. Their components are expected to be manufactured to a greater extent in industrial units and transported to the site for installation or assembly, a model that the industry claims can standardize construction and reduce some delays and costs. The Commission estimates that such reactors could provide electricity and heat for industry, urban heating systems, hydrogen production, and large consumers such as data centers.

Ribera insisted, however, on the gap between technological potential and commercial availability. The modular reactors currently being discussed are still projects, and the first European installations are expected for the early 2030s, not to address immediate energy needs. The European strategy adopted in March 2026 aims to accelerate the development and commissioning of the first projects during this period, confirming that the technology is still ahead of extensive commercial implementation………………………………………………….

The issue of public cost occupied an important part of Ribera’s response. Building new nuclear plants and extending the operation of existing ones typically required both public funding and guarantees through which the state takes on part of the project risks. These interventions may be necessary to attract capital into a sector with very high initial investments and long timelines, but they raise questions about the advantages granted to the producer and the effect on the market.

The Commission announced that it will create a guarantee of 200 million euros to support private investments in the first commercial units based on innovative nuclear technologies. The guarantee is intended to reduce risk for investors and should be seen as a tool for preparing the first projects, not as sufficient funding for building an entire fleet of reactors.

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Ribera specifically warned about the possibility that public funding could influence electricity prices. Guaranteed contracts, support schemes, and risk coverage can provide stability to a nuclear project, but they can affect competition with renewable sources, storage, or other technologies if the support is not proportional and transparent.

The Commission’s analysis does not start from the idea that nuclear energy should be treated identically to any ordinary investment. Plants involve special safety requirements, very long operating periods, and obligations regarding decommissioning and waste. These characteristics may justify specific mechanisms, but do not eliminate the obligation of states to demonstrate the necessity, proportionality, and effect of support on the market.

The European strategy presents SMRs as a possible internal source of low-emission energy, capable of supporting energy security and decarbonizing hard-to-electrify industries. The Commission estimates that the installed capacity of these reactors in the EU could reach between 17 and 53 GW by 2050, but these figures are development scenarios, not capacities already under construction or guaranteed.

The first projects will need to show whether modular production can reduce the costs and delays that have affected many conventional nuclear plants. The economic advantages depend on the standardization of models, the number of units ordered, the capacity of factories, coordinated authorization, and the existence of a sufficiently large market for repeating the same design.

The debate on SMRs is therefore conducted on two levels. The Commission is investing in preparing a technology that could become important in the coming decades, but warns that projects should not be presented as an already available alternative to the investments that need to be made now.

The message conveyed by Ribera in San Sebastián was that technological neutrality does not mean suspending decisions until all options reach maturity. States can support nuclear energy and modular reactors, but they must continue in parallel to reduce emissions, modernize infrastructure, and expand sources that can produce results before the first European SMRs come into operation.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Japan begins 22nd release of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into ocean

  July 31, 2026, https://en.people.cn/n3/2026/0731/c90000-20483845.html

Japan on Thursday began a new round of discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea, marking the 22nd such release since the controversial operation began in 2023.

According to the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO), about 7,800 tonnes of wastewater containing approximately 1.3 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium will be released into the ocean.

The latest discharge, also the fourth round of wastewater release for fiscal 2026, is scheduled to continue through Aug. 17.

In the fiscal year that began in April, TEPCO plans to release a total of about 62,400 tonnes of wastewater in eight rounds.

Struck by a 9-magnitude earthquake and the ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

Despite concerns and opposition from the international community, Japan unilaterally launched the ocean discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the Fukushima Daiichi plant in August 2023. So far, TEPCO has completed 21 rounds of discharges, and around 165,000 tonnes of wastewater have been released into the sea. 

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

China makes major nuclear expansion move, adds four new projects in $25 billion energy investment

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province.

Interesting Engineering, By Bojan Stojkovski, Aug 01, 2026

China is moving forward with a major expansion of its nuclear energy capacity after approving four new power projects expected to attract more than $25 billion in total investment.

The newly approved facilities include Phase II of the Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang Province, Phase III of the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province, and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province.

Together, the projects will add eight new nuclear power generating units, according to media reports, as China continues to increase its reliance on nuclear energy as part of its broader energy strategy.

Six-unit nuclear base in Zhejiang with upgraded reactor technology

The Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant is set to become the fourth nuclear energy base in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, as China continues expanding its low-carbon power infrastructure. The plant’s Phase II development will use Version 2.0 of Hualong One, China’s domestically developed third-generation nuclear reactor technology, while also allowing participation from private capital. ……

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, according to CGN Power Co. Each reactor unit at the facility will have a generating capacity of 1,217 megawatts, with the six-unit plant expected to produce more than 55 billion kWh of electricity annually once fully operational. 

Meanwhile, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province represent new nuclear development sites, according to statements from the companies involved.

The Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province will feature two Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology, according to SPIC Industry-Finance Holdings Co. Each unit will have a generating capacity of 1,543 megawatts, marking another addition to China’s expanding nuclear power infrastructure.


Moreover, with an investment of around $18 billion, the Laiyang plant is expected to become China’s largest nuclear power station by installed capacity once all six units are completed. The project also marks the beginning of large-scale, standardized construction of Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology…………………..https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-makes-major-nuclear-expansion-move

August 4, 2026 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

Burnham is wrong – increased nuke spending will lose more jobs than create

July 30, 2026, https://cnduk.org/press-release-burnham-is-wrong-increased-nuke-spending-will-lose-more-jobs-than-create/

Prime Minister Andy Burnham has made his inaugural trip as Prime Minister to BAE’s shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness, announcing a £8.4 billion contract for the latest phase of Britain’s Dreadnought nuclear-armed submarine programme.

Ahead of the trip, Burnham made the claim that the spending would help revitalise the economy and local community.

“Keeping this country safe is the first responsibility of any government – but security is not only about what we build; it is about who builds it, and who benefits from it,” Burnham said ahead of the trip. Downing Street said that this phase of contracts would support 18,000 extra jobs in nuclear weapons sector and 22,000 additional apprentices by 2035.

“To every young person across the country, I want you to know that there is a path for you into a reindustrialised Britain, and it starts with the apprenticeships we are funding through this investment today,” Burnham added.

Successive British governments have claimed that hikes to military spending will result in improving the economy.

However, the government’s own data shows that the ‘defence’ industry is jobs-poor. For the same level of spending, double the number of jobs are created in social care for instance. This is because the vast majority of the spending goes on the weaponry and on profits for the arms companies like BAE.

Burnham has gone along with the Defence Investment Plan – of which £64 billion has been allocated to nuclear weapons. This is being funded through at least £7 billion in cuts to public services. Research by the Transition Security Project has found that this will result in a net loss of at least 10,000 jobs.

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:

“Spending billions of pounds on nuclear weapons is not keeping us safe. In fact, Britain’s role in replacing its nuclear submarines and buying the US F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets is only increasing the risk of nuclear weapons being used. The government is making Britain less safe because of its aggressive, expansionist nuclear and foreign policy. British bases like RAF Fairford are now a target because the government has continued to allow Trump to use this base to illegally bomb Iran.

“On the economic front, the argument that Burnham is making – that more money for nuclear and military spending will revitalise the economy – is totally false and not backed up by facts. The Defence Investment Plan – precisely because it is based on cuts to far more jobs-rich areas like health, transport and education – will result in a net loss of jobs. This will only drive social deprivation even further.

“Right now, thousands of people are dying in this country because of the underfunding to our health service and because of the total lack of preparedness to tackle the climate-driven extreme heatwave.

“The British government needs to fundamentally shift direction. It needs to focus on diplomacy and dialogue, and scrap its nuclear weapons and cut back its military spending. It needs to prioritise funding our hospitals, schools, and mitigating climate change. That should be the priority of this government, not preparing for the next war that could lead to a nuclear confrontation.”

August 4, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Kremlin Still Key for US Atomic Power Despite Looming Import Ban


The vulnerability is growing more urgent as Washington promotes a nuclear
revival driven by power demand from data centers and electrification. The

US nuclear industry remains heavily dependent on Moscow for the enriched
uranium that fuels reactors generating about a fifth of the nation’s
electricity, highlighting the challenge of meeting a 2028 deadline to end
Russian purchases.

US reactor operators bought about 3.28 million
separative work units, or SWUs, of Russian enrichment services in 2025,
equal to almost 26% of their total purchases, according to data published
Wednesday in the Energy Information Administration’s latest uranium
marketing report. That compares with 17% a decade earlier.

 Bloomberg 30th July 2026,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-07-30/kremlin-still-key-for-us-atomic-power-despite-looming-import-ban

August 4, 2026 Posted by | Russia, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

What links Palestine Action arrests with Burnham’s nuclear weapons splurge?

MASS arrests of peaceful Palestine solidarity demonstrators in London were the backdrop to Andy Burnham boasting of his commitment to enlarging Britain’s nuclear arsenal in Barrow-in-Furness this week.

The left has a lot of work to do to turn the existing majority against British complicity in Israeli genocide, and the growing hostility to military partnership with a Donald Trump-led United States, into a more consistent rejection of the militarist agenda being forced down the country’s throat.

Not many will see a connection between the Palestine Action ban and Trident renewal, and many will even oppose the former while supporting the latter.


But the ban on Palestine Action — itself part of a wider project to suppress public solidarity with Palestine, from new police powers to outlaw protests to the prosecutions of peace movement leaders like Ben Jamal, Chris Nineham, Alex Kenny and Sophie Bolt — was never a random act of repression.

Nor — though this view is common on the left — was it primarily about banning criticism of Israel or a result of pressure from the Israeli state or its supporters, though of course both welcomed it.

The huge Palestine solidarity movement is a threat because it exposes the ugly truth about British foreign policy and the role the British military plays in the world.

A state which tries to warn international courts off investigating genocide is no defender of international law or human rights.

The armaments companies that help supply the weaponry for that genocide are complicit in it. They are also the beneficiaries of Labour’s militarist splurge.

And a military which actively assists the army committing the genocide — through the way bases like RAF Akrotiri act as staging posts for weapons supplies, or all those RAF surveillance flights over the killing fields of Gaza — is not a force for good in the world.


Early in the course of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, militarist pundit Paul Mason urged that it be reined in because outrage over Palestine would undermine support for the military more widely and for Britain’s interventions in other conflicts, notably Ukraine.

He was right to worry, though actually the implications of our complicity in Israeli war crimes, and more recently in the illegal US-Israeli war launched against Iran, are not widely enough recognised.

British military power is not used to deter aggression, but to enable it. Our principal allies are the most warlike countries on Earth, the readiest to resort to violence and the likeliest to plunge us into a new world war.

Once that is understood, the reckless rearmament drive — which itself is the result of pressure from President Trump — is much harder to justify. It makes Britain and the world more dangerous.

And support for rearmament rests anyway on shaky foundations. A plurality of the public oppose increased arms spending if it means tax rises or public service or welfare cuts.

Constant government hysteria has failed to instil war fever in the general public. Half of young people (aged 16-29 in a major poll this spring) say they would never fight in a war and ministers admit to a recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces.

The causes are complex, with MPs like Clive Lewis pointing out rightly that many young people see little worth fighting for given Britain’s grotesque inequality and lack of decent jobs or affordable housing. But the success of the Palestine movement in opening eyes to the truth about our foreign policy and our allies should not be disregarded.
The ruling class wants war, or at least a population ready to be sacrificed in defence of the US-led imperialist order should war be required to shore it up.

That explains the rearmament drive. It also explains the continued repression of dissenting voices. Authoritarianism and militarism go hand in hand: we must oppose both.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Common Sense & the Pentagon Budget

time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.

Eisenhower said the following:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed“

By Dennis Laich
Eisenhower Media Network, July 31, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/07/31/common-sense-the-pentagon-budget/

July 31, 2026

For Americans, the courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex, writes Dennis Laich.

The first sentence of Thomas Paine’s classic 1776 essay, Common Sense, urged the American people to challenge the legitimacy of the English Crown, something that had never been challenged before.

He wrote:

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them a great favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” 

Two hundred and fifty years later, time and reason strongly suggest that the U.S. “defense” budget is out of control, unsustainable and absent of accountability.

Only the American people can rein it in

The “defense of custom” in this case will come from the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex (MICC) of which President Eisenhower warned us in 1961 in his farewell address, and drove home the consequences of in his famous “Cross of Iron” speech in 1953. In his address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower said the following:

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

All of these forces benefit by exaggerating threats to our national security which justify a huge U.S. “defense” budget, larger than the next eight nations (most of whom are allies) in the world combined, while American citizens lack health care, childcare and other basic needs.

The defense industry’s lobbyists team up with U.S. politicians, who receive campaign financing from the industry, to draft the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy, the expensive weaponry to be purchased and the overall military budget

The industry takes the ensuing windfall and puts it toward stock buybacks, which increase the share price, making the rich richer; dividend payments for shareholders; eight-figure annual compensation packages for corporate executives; and the continual political graft (campaign contributions and lobbyists) that keeps the wheel spinning. Incredibly, some contracts stipulate that only the contractor may repair and maintain equipment. 

The most embarrassing example of this practice is the F-35 Stealth Fighter, which is grossly over budget, behind schedule and is only 25 percent fully mission capable.

The principal beneficiaries of the MICC’s practice of vastly overstating foreign threats are the Pentagon and the invertebrate senior uniformed bureaucrats who occupy it and secure lucrative post-retirement employment with the MICC.

The massive Pentagon budget provides the Pentagon with a premier position within both the government and society. Money talks in America, but few members of Congress choose to talk about the $39 trillion national debt to which military spending is a major contributor.

Unfortunately, the uniformed bureaucrats lack the courage to stand up against a draft dodger and a Rambo-wannabe in order to protect their profession or the institution of the military.

Government employees, including military officials, are fired for specious reasons and no one, not even those who were fired, dare speak up regarding the negative impact on morale, discipline and readiness. Nor do they speak up when the U.S. supports genocide in Gaza, extrajudicial murders in the Caribbean, or attacks the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.

These recent developments will serve to accelerate a decline in the U.S. military’s performance. Since WWII, the U.S. has won one war (the first Gulf War), lost four (Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran) and tied one (Korea). Iran may be as much an embarrassment as a loss.

The United States has failed to achieve its stated objectives in any recent war, despite having a military budget larger than the next eight countries combined and being easily the most defensible of any peer nation (with two friendly, stable nations to its north and south and oceans on its east and west). What football coach could keep his job with a 1-4-1 record?

Additionally, the Pentagon cannot tell the American taxpayer where the money went, since it is unable to pass a financial audit as required by law — something every other department of the federal government is able to do.

Now, they are requesting a 50 percent increase in the defense budget to S1.5 trillion. This is equivalent to your child asking for more money a day after receiving his/her allowance. When you ask what happened to the money he/she received yesterday, the child can’t answer the question, but you give him/her more money regardless.

This represents a level of arrogance and incompetence that the American people should not be asked to tolerate.

Thomas Paine understood something that seemed impossible in 1776. On paper, the American colonies had no chance against the greatest empire on Earth. Britain possessed the world’s most powerful military, immense wealth, and overwhelming resources.

The colonies had none of those advantages. What Paine recognized as “common sense” was that wars are not won by budgets alone. They are won by legitimacy, purpose, and the willingness of a free people to defend their own liberty.


The $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request represents more than S9,000 per individual taxpayer.

If we Americans are tired of seeing our tax dollars spent on endless wars, bombing campaigns, and military excess while our own communities struggle with the costs of health care, child care, education, and infrastructure, then the time has come to do what Thomas Paine asked Americans to do 250 years ago: challenge the assumptions that have become accepted simply because they are old. The courage required today is not to defeat an empire abroad, but to confront one at home — the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex — and reclaim a government that serves the American people rather than the interests of perpetual war.

Major General Dennis Laich, U.S, Army, retired, is executive director of the Eisenhower Media Network, an organization of expert former military, intelligence and civilian national security officials who have an independent, alternative story to tell.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

DR Congo’s cobalt boom carries an unwanted cargo: uranium

On the southern border of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the lumbering
trucks carrying cobalt into Zambia may soon have to pass through towering
radiation detectors — a sign of mounting concerns about uranium
contamination in the ores that are powering the electric revolution.

The DR Congo is the world’s largest producer of cobalt, an essential metal for
batteries. But the frequent presence of radioactive materials at some of
its biggest cobalt mines has led to health risks for workers, rejected
shipments and concerns about safeguarding nuclear material, according to an
investigation by the FT and Lighthouse Reports, a journalism non-profit.


With limited state oversight in mining regions, non-proliferation
specialists and Congolese officials worry that uranium-laced cobalt ore and
other radioactive material could fall into the wrong hands or enter a
covert supply chain hidden from international regulators. Uranium occurs
naturally across the country’s vast “copper belt” region, which
includes the mine that produced the uranium used in the atomic bombs in the
second world war.

New research shows the amount of uranium mingled with the
country’s cobalt exports is much greater than previously believed:
between 2000 and 2024 it was enough to produce 600 nuclear weapons, or fuel
a large 1GW nuclear reactor for a decade, if extracted and enriched.

 FT 30th July 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/77815def-6f50-4adf-8ba3-3643de7bf8ab

August 4, 2026 Posted by | AFRICA, radiation | Leave a comment

Suffolk nuclear power plant on alert over wildfire

 Firefighters are racing to contain the Suffolk fire before the wind
changes direction and starts blowing smoke and flames towards the Sizewell
B nuclear plant. Westerly winds have so far pushed the blaze across the
heathland towards the coast, away from most human habitation and the power
station. But from early evening the wind is forecast to shift, pushing the
blaze and fumes first southwards and then south west. This could
potentially take them inland towards settlements like Leiston and the area
around Sizewell.

A nuclear industry source warned that if smoke started
blowing towards Sizewell B, it could force the station to shut down. There
is a risk of the smoke clogging the filters of the site’s heating,
ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which draws air from
outside.

This week, Sizewell B has restarted one reactor after refuelling
and plans to restart the second within days. On Thursday, EDF said Sizewell
had so far not been impacted by the blaze, but said it was “continuing to
monitor the situation”. As well as changing direction, the breeze is also
set to double in speed overnight – increasing from around 5mph on
Thursday to between 10 and 12mph through Friday, according to weather
website

Windy.com whose forecasts are based on the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. ‘Low risk’ to under-construction
Sizewell C. The fire poses a “low risk” to Sizewell C, a nuclear power
plant being built next to Sizewell B, due to its distance from the fire and
the watercourses in between. A spokesman said: “Our sites and offices
remain open and operating as normal. “We are continuously assessing smoke
conditions and any impacts on the road network to help keep people safe and
ensure emergency services have priority access. “We remain ready to
support the local community, working closely with the local council, police
and fire and rescue service.”

 Telegraph 30th July 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/30/wildfire-in-suffolk-just-four-miles-nuclear-power-plant/

August 4, 2026 Posted by | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

News indirectly related to the nuclear industry

Some bits of good news –  How to stitch a massive wildlife corridor through the Rocky Mountains.    Indonesia’s free nutritious meal program reaches 62.4 mln beneficiaries.   White Storks Return to the Midlands After Six Hundred Years

TOP STORIESZelensky’s Dangerous Gambit To Merge The Iran And Ukraine Wars . Not Even Israelis Are Willing To Die For Israel.
A nuclear deal for the Saudis, media blackout for Kushner’s corruption.

From the archives: Saudi Arabia, the Khashoggi murder case: the nuclear connections with Terra Power, Bill Gates, Breakthrough etc

Climate ‘The heat took him from me’: India’s death toll rises amid escalating heat crisis. 

‘Fire cloud’ over Bordeaux as France braces for new heatwave. Uganda begins emergency food handouts after 19 die from hunger,

AUSTRALIA

. AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater. 

Coalition MPs push for nuclear-powered data centres. 

The Quiet Surrender of our Nation’s Sovereignty

ATROCITIES. Israel Is Erasing Entire Gaza Families From The Civil Registry. 
CIVIL LIBERTIES. Suffolk fire live: Hundreds of firefighters battle ‘unprecedented’ wildfire near nuclear plant. 
ECONOMICS. Nuclear revival needs $250bn a year, industry says. Nuclear needs $6tn investment surge to meet 2050 ambitions. 
MEDIA. ‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy‘ Delivers A Penetrating Insight Into The Heart Of Our Dystopia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz7MfkVAC40&t=110s
OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR .Campaign steps up opposition to south Wales nuclear project. 

POLITICS .

POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.

Saudi Arabia stares down Trump whiplash US‑Saudi nuclear deal invites proliferation risks … unless safeguards are written in on nuclear deal.

The Saudi Nuclear Deal Invites Disaster (Wall Street Journal)

The US-Saudi nuclear deal.

Trump stuns Saudis by pinning nuclear deal to Israel ties.

UK’s New Defence Minister Called Israel ‘Rogue State’.

The nuclear lobby getting cold feet about public acceptance? 

RADIATION. As Trump boosts nuclear power, regulators seek to eliminate a longstanding radiation safety practice. 
SAFETY. No more sheltering or iodine tablets: Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan? 
SECRETS and LIES. Israel Is Paying Millions to Train AI Chatbots How to Talk About Gaza – It’s Working. Trump’s Phantom Enemies. 

WAR and CONFLICT.

WASTES. White House wants to entice ‘willing states’ to take nation’s nuclear waste with promises of economic boost. 5 states offer to accept nuclear waste in exchange for help developing nuclear energy! 

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | Christina's notes | Leave a comment

Venture Capitalists Money Floods Into U.S. Nuclear Startups as AI Power Demand Explodes

By Haley Zaremba – Jul 31, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/VC-Money-Floods-Into-US-Nuclear-Startups-as-AI-Power-Demand-Explodes.html

  • Global VC funding for nuclear fission and fusion startups has already topped $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026, on pace to beat 2025’s $6.2 billion record.
  • Big Tech figures including Sam Altman and Bill Gates are pouring money into fusion to keep up with AI’s ballooning electricity demand.
  • Critics warn the startup boom is skipping voluntary safety guardrails and pulling attention from proven large-scale reactor technology.

Venture capitalists are taking a major interest in nuclear energy start ups. Funding is surging for both nuclear fusion and fission firms as the technology becomes an increasingly essential part of a feasible pathway toward sustainable energy security in the face of the artificial intelligence boom.

According to reporting by Axios, global investment in both fission and fusion has topped USD $4.5 billion across 81 companies in 2026 so far. At this pace, by year’s end, this year will shatter 2025’s previous record of $6.2 billion for 93 companies.

Data center hyperscalers are driving up energy demand projections to previously unthinkable levels that will require an all-of-the-above approach to energy development that is likely to prominently feature nuclear energy as a round-the-clock source of zero-emissions electricity. In the United States, the public and private sectors alike are extremely bullish on the technology and clearly eager to usher in a new nuclear era. As a result, the majority of this year’s funding surge is going to U.S. companies.

Big Tech has taken a particular interest in expanding nuclear energy deployment and technological advancement to feed its own ballooning energy needs. Some of the tech sector’s biggest names, including Bill Gates and OpenAI’s Sam Altman, are major investors in and advocates of nuclear fusion as an answer to AI’s ballooning energy problem. “There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” he said at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “It motivates us to go invest more in fusion.”

The Trump administration, too, is a major proponent of nuclear energy expansion, with a particular focus on next-gen nuclear technologies as part of a broader push to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy” and “produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market.” To this end, Executive Order 14301, signed by Trump in May 2025, mobilizes significant resources from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Reactor Pilot Program to fast-track the testing and commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies in order to bring them to scale.

These advanced technologies include nuclear fusion as well as small modular reactors (SMRs) which hold major promise for overcoming some of the hurdles that have been causing nuclear energy to fall out of fashion in the United States. Traditional nuclear power plants are enormously costly and face long timelines and miles of red tape to come online. The country’s most recent traditional nuclear power plant, Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, finally came online years late and billions over budget. The hope is that modular and alternative technologies won’t face the same issues, as they can be built offsite relatively cheaply.

SMRs are still an emerging technology. While one SMR design has been officially approved for development in the United States, and many more firms are seeking approval for their plans, zero SMRs have yet come online in the country. “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission took about six years to approve the first advanced small reactor design, from fission developer NuScale,” Axios reports. “President Trump has sought to accelerate the process, aiming for 18 months. But that still could give first movers a major advantage in locking down contracts with data centers and electric utilities.”

With the backing of both the federal government and Silicon Valley, it’s no surprise that nuclear startups are going gangbusters. But while the increasing fragmentation and privatization of the nuclear energy sector could be great for innovation and expansion of the technology, it also poses some key drawbacks. For one thing, nuclear startups have so far shown a concerning disregard for voluntary safety guidelines that were tacitly accepted in the nuclear sector until now.

In addition to safety concerns, some critics have argued that a focus on cutting-edge nuclear energy technologies and startups may be diverting energy and funding from proven technologies that would better serve nuclear power capacity addition goals. A recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal argued that “The administration is chasing unproven technology when it could encourage Wall Street investment in large-scale reactors,” and, as a result, Trump’s nuclear renaissance is stalling.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Europe’s heatwave strains nuclear output

To date, six NPPs across Europe are closed or facing power reductions due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels, as operators respond to environmental and cooling water constraints.

July 31, 2026, https://www.power-technology.com/news/europes-heatwave-strains-nuclear-output/?cf-view

t least ten nuclear reactors have been temporarily shut down or had their power output curtailed across Europe due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels during June and July.

While no plants have been directly closed by wildfires, the Sizewell B nuclear power station in the UK has been placed on “high alert” due to a major 100-acre wildfire burning just four miles away.

The vast majority of disruptions have occurred in France, where state-owned EDF is legally bound to close reactors or reduce power to prevent discharged cooling water from pushing river temperatures past environmental thresholds. A record-breaking drought has caused the Danube River to drop to historic lows, affecting nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Switzerland’s Beznau NPP has also been impacted.

As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.

In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.

As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.

In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.

Bulgaria has classified the current crisis as a force majeure event, noting that the river is continuing to drop by up to 2cms every day. In response, the Kozloduy plant has deployed emergency “special measures”, including riverbed dredging and the preparation of secondary pumps to try and keep the intake channels clear enough to avert an immediate blackout.

Switzerland’s Beznau NPP on the Aare River has been heavily disrupted, cycling between full emergency shutdowns and massive 50% power cuts over the past month. Both reactors were taken completely off the grid on 26 June when the Aare River first spiked to the 25°C threshold, and remained offline for several weeks. They are currently capped at roughly 50% of normal generation capacity to limit environmental thermal pollution.

Grid operators are replacing the missing nuclear electricity using a mix of fossil fuel generation, rapid energy imports, solar surges and mandated demand-reduction tactics.

August 3, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries