nuclear-news

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

Trump Sweetens the Nuclear Energy Pot, But Will Anyone Play?

By Thomas A. Firey, July 6, 2026, https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-sweetens-nuclear-energy-pot-will-anyone-play

Last week, the Trump administration announced it is offering $17.5 billion in financing to build five new two-reactor nuclear power plants featuring Westinghouse Electric’s AP1000 large reactor. The offer comes on the heels of last November’s Trump announcement of an $80 billion deal with Westinghouse intended to jump-start a fleet of new US reactors.

Government doling out money (and other breaks) to nuclear power is old hat. But the two announcements, taken together, put a new spin on the practice of politicians picking winners and losers in the marketplace: Under the November deal, Uncle Sam could get a 20 percent equity stake in Westinghouse if its nuclear business booms in the coming years. Writing at the time, I predicted that it probably won’t happen: Nuke makes lousy business sense, as energy economist Steve Thomas recently detailed in Cato’s policy magazine Regulation, and it’s doubtful energy companies would take on such risk. Apparently, my prediction’s been right so far, so the Trump administration is offering a sweetener to get things going. 

The announced financing envisions $3.5 billion in federal loan money per plant, with Westinghouse and the recipient energy companies contributing a billion dollars of their own money to each project, giving them some “skin in the game.” According to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, there is “tremendous interest” in the initiative. 

But interest is one thing, and completed nuclear plants are something else entirely.

The last time Uncle Sam meddled in nuke was back in the early 2000s under George W. Bush’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Enticed by government loan guarantees and rate subsidies, energy companies quickly proposed some 30 reactors. But interest faded after those companies crunched the financial numbers and found they didn’t add up. Only four reactors went into construction, and just two—Units 3 and 4 at the A.W. Vogtle power station in Georgia—ultimately entered service. 

Vogtle shows why the other energy companies backed off: Construction of those two units—featuring Westinghouse AP1000s, it bears noting—began in 2013 (though site work started in 2009). Completion was expected in 2016/2017 at a cost of a little over $14 billion. But the reactors didn’t come online until 2023/2024, at a cost of $30 billion. That’s a common pattern with nuke: Expect it to take twice as long and cost twice as much as projected. 

When asked about Vogtle’s $30 billion plant cost compared to the $4.5 billion envisioned by the Trump financing initiative, Wright averred that things will be different this time. Building “at fleet scale” will let the industry avoid Vogtle’s cost burden, which he attributed to bad planning, supply-chain snags, and the pandemic (which happened 3–4 years after Vogtle was to be completed). In his mind, nuclear plants are like cars on an assembly line: The more units you build, the lower the total cost per unit. But as Thomas explains in his Regulation article, nuclear plants are bespoke and offer minimal economies of scale.

This push for nuke is perplexing not just because the economics are grim, but also because of other Trump policies. If the administration really is interested in increasing America’s electricity supply (in part to power new data centers), then why is it spending billions of taxpayer dollars to get wind companies to not build generation? Moreover, why is the administration so keen on nuclear, given its hostility to climate change concerns (though even a reasonable carbon tax wouldn’t make nuclear competitive with other low- and no-emission power sources).

Perhaps the answer is nuclear socialism: Trump wants to boost an industry in which Uncle Sam could have an equity stake. This is part of the broader pattern of Trump corporate socialism, with government stakes in Intel, US Steel, MP Materials, Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals, Vulcan Elements, ReElement Technologies, Korea Zinc, USA Rare Earth, L3Harris Technologies, Anduril, xLight, and others. 

Circling back to nuclear power specifically, is there no way the technology will ever make economic sense? Never say never, but the odds are long. That goes not just for large reactors like the AP1000, but also the “small modular reactors” (SMRs) now lionized by some politicians and parts of the industry. As Thomas explains in his article, SMRs face the same problems and are bespoke like their bigger brothers, but with much less output. Again, never say never, but it’s bad policy for politicians to be pushing this mature technology—whether large reactor or small—on taxpayers and ratepayers.

My Cato colleague Travis Fisher said it best when he questioned the executive branch’s becoming so deeply embedded in the electricity business, especially when some future administration could offer sweeteners to different technologies entirely. Removing barriers to entry and letting energy companies build generation that passes a market test remains a much better policy than government picking winners and losers—especially when it’s acting as owner, banker, and regulator of those competitors.

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Francesca Albanese: “The World Is Not Sleeping—It Is Looking Away”

 Francesca Albanese – by Mr. Fish

July 8, 2026, SCHEERPOST, Joshua Scheer

United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese shares stories of the immense suffering in Palestine and laments the gutting of international law in her new book, “When the World Sleeps”.

As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues and international institutions face mounting questions over their ability—or willingness—to enforce international law, few voices have attracted as much global attention as Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Praised by supporters for her uncompromising investigations and criticized by her opponents with equal intensity, Albanese has become one of the most prominent legal figures documenting allegations of apartheid, occupation, and genocide. In a wide-ranging conversation with Chris Hedges about her new book, When the World Sleeps, Albanese discusses the human stories behind her reporting, the treatment of Palestinian civilians and medical workers, the pressures she says have been brought against her personally, and why she believes the crisis in Gaza represents not only a regional tragedy but a profound test of the international legal order itself.

Throughout the conversation, Albanese also discusses the personal consequences of her work, from financial sanctions and frozen assets to the challenges of publishing her book in the United States. At the heart of the discussion is a question she believes the international community can no longer avoid: whether governments, institutions, and ordinary citizens will continue to remain passive in the face of mounting evidence of suffering—or act before, as her book’s title suggests, the world once again sleeps through another historic injustice.

You should read the full transcript below [on original]—and, even more importantly, the book itself—but one passage that particularly stood out was Albanese’s reflection on where power truly resides, what governments ultimately respond to, and the remarkably small number of people who control an extraordinary share of the world’s wealth. As we move toward what many fear could become an increasingly dystopian future, she argues this is not, as some dismissively claim, a conspiracy theory. It is a reality unfolding in real time.

Francesca Albanese said

Yeah, I think those who have read the book, and then I’d like also to say a few words about how difficult it’s been to have this book made available to the US readership, because there has been such pressure from pro-Israel support groups against it. You guess why. Yeah, for me, Palestine has been a revealer. It’s not that all of a sudden, we woke up in a world that is dominated by the US, especially the world we are part of politically, militarily, strategically, the US is the dominant character here. And Israel is a sort of extension of it in the Middle East. It’s an extension of Western power and Western supremacy. I know that the Israelis do not like it, but I do also believe that they do not realize how instrumentalized they are because of interests that are above all of us. We tend to think in terms of states as the ultimate decision makers. We think of it in democracies. We think of it in dictatorships. But, in fact, I don’t think that states are the decision makers. States today, more than before, more than a few decades ago, respond to certain interests, economic, military and financial interests that are connected to the main power holders in this world. I mean, and there are numbers. What I’m saying may sound like conspiracy theories to people who might not know enough about the inequality of the world.

The Thomas Piketty Institute in its most recent inequality report mentions this data, which I found shocking, staggering, the fact that half of the world population retains altogether one third of the wealth which is retained by 50,000 people in the world. I repeat, 50,000 people in the world retain three times the wealth retained by half of the world population. How is it possible? Who are these? Clearly, they are not just individuals like you and I. They retain pockets of power. And it’s those connected to the extractive industry for the control of natural resources, those connected to securing the use of force, military power and surveillance, and those connected to financial transactions, corporations and banks and pension funds. So, these are the main powers with certain corporations like pharmaceuticals more influential than others, or those related to tourism for example. However, this is the brain power of those 50,000 people.”

Transcript ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/08/francesca-albanese-the-world-is-not-sleeping-it-is-looking-away/

July 12, 2026 Posted by | media | Leave a comment

Stirling nuclear site plan mooted in new report as politicians hit out

A report from Great British Energy Nuclear has highlighted a number of potential sites in Scotland which could host a nuclear power station – with a location in Stirling among them.

Stuart McFarlane, 07 Jul 2026, https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/stirling-nuclear-site-plan-mooted-37398446

A report identifying Stirling as a possible location for a future nuclear power station has been met with criticism.

The report was penned by Great British Energy Nuclear on behalf of UK Government Energy Secretary Ed Miliband amid a possible push into increasing the capacity of nuclear power across the UK.

As part of the document, a number of potential sites across Scotland are put in the spotlight for being host sites if the Scottish Government’s opposition to hosting nuclear sites was to change in the future.

Among the six locations of interest is the south bank of the River Forth in Stirling.

The experts commissioned for the report state: “Parts of the south bank of the River Forth meet key siting criteria, offering flat land, access to transport networks and proximity to an established energy producing region.

“Cooling water availability is likely to be a limiting factor, with reliance on river abstraction and no supporting flow data currently available.

“The inland nature of the area suggests smaller scale reactors and cooling units may be more appropriate than large GW-scale deployment. Flood risk, interaction with other river users and nearby COMAH sites require further assessment.”

Stirling is mentioned alongside Torness in East Lothian, the land around the existing nuclear site at Dounreay in Caithness, Hunterston in North Ayrshire, the north shore of the Firth of Forth Estuary and the coastline of Angus and Aberdeenshire as possible locations.

But Mid Scotland and Fife Green MSP Mark Ruskell hit out at UK Government ministers and energy chiefs for the report.

Mr Ruskell said: “Labour’s obsession with forcing a new generation of nuclear power on Scotland rides roughshod over devolution and ignores the will of the Scottish Parliament.

“It is also a costly and counterproductive distraction from the real energy priorities facing Scotland.

“It’s an absurd suggestion from the Labour Westminster Government that there could be a nuclear power station in the Stirling area.

“We generate far more energy than we need locally, with wind farms and hydro power schemes benefiting the climate, energy security and local communities. We can’t let this Westminster Government impose a toxic legacy on Scotland. Folks in Stirling do not want to be part of this costly nuclear power experiment.

“Instead of pouring money into expensive nuclear projects, the UK Government should be backing renewable energy that can create jobs, cut bills and strengthen energy security at a fraction of the cost.

“Our priority should be creating clean, green, secure jobs that support nuclear workers into new industries while revitalising communities across Scotland

The opposition was echoed by Stirling MSP Alyn Smith, who posted on his Facebook page: “This very odd paper just published by Labour’s GB Energy Nuclear has identified Stirling as a suitable site for a nuclear plant, but also seemingly dismissed it, read for yourself.

“The paper also recognises that Scotland’s government will block any new nuclear, and quite right too because we don’t need this old expensive tech when Scotland has won the energy lottery with renewables.”

July 12, 2026 Posted by | environment, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Great British Energy –  Nuclear offers £1bn contract for SMR partner

The company is seeking aid in delivering its programme of building a power plant by the 2030s.

Energy Voice July 7th 2026, 

Great British Energy – Nuclear is seeking a delivery partner for its small modular reactor (SMR) programme in a £1.08 billion procurement contract.

The successful applicant will support the state-backed company deliver its programme by providing expertise across programme management, infrastructure delivery, commercial management, engineering support, and risk management.

Working alongside GB Energy – Nuclear, the company will help drive collaboration across suppliers, support effective programme delivery, and ensure value for money over the lifetime of the programme

The procurement process will include an initial selection stage, followed by tender. evaluation, dialogue, due diligence and a final selection stage before the appointment of a preferred bidder. Tenders must be submitted by 6 August 2026.

The long-term deal has the possibility of running until 2046.

Great British Energy – Nuclear interim chief commercial officer Beverley Grey said. “The appointment of a delivery partner will help ensure we have the capability, expertise and capacity needed to support the successful development and delivery of our Small Modular Reactor programme.

“This is a significant long-term procurement which will bring together technical, commercial and project delivery expertise to help us achieve our objectives and support the delivery of new nuclear capacity in the UK.”

GB Energy – Nuclear has £2.6bn to spend on its SMR programme and previously brought in Rolls‑Royce to provide the design the reactors………………………..

The government-run scheme aims to deliver a new nuclear power plant using SMRs by the mid-2030s, helping the UK seize part of a market estimated to be worth £500bn by 2050. https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/600336/gb-energy-nuclear-smr-partner/

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Agreement could see Odin prototype microreactor built at Berkeley


Chiltern Vital Group has signed a letter of intent with Cambridge Atomworks to consider the construction of the prototype Odin microreactor on the Berkeley Green Science and Technology Park in Gloucestershire, England.

In September last year, a planning application was submitted for a new nuclear energy-focused facility on a brownfield site that was once part of the Berkeley nuclear power plant in south-west England. Planning and development consultancy Turley submitted the outline planning application for the proposal, which would feature nuclear and clean energy research and development facilities, on behalf of Chiltern Vital Berkeley (CVB), part of Chiltern Vital Group (CVG).

The site comprises a parcel of previously developed land which formed part of the wider Berkeley nuclear power station. It is currently occupied by the Gloucestershire Science and Technology Park, acquired by CVB in 2024, and has an established history for nuclear, employment and education uses. If approved, the development will offer up to 600,000 square feet (5.6 hectares) of new R&D, laboratory, office, manufacturing, and education facilities, creating up to 1,000 jobs.

CVB says it is in final-stage negotiations with multiple nuclear and energy technology companies wishing to locate on the Berkeley Green site.

Cambridge Atomworks has now announced that it has signed a letter of intent with CVG on building its prototype Odin microreactor on the site.

The Odin microreactor is described as “a low-pressure, molten-salt-cooled, solid-fuel fission reactor integrated with power conversion and heat rejection systems, enabling substantial and compact, standalone electricity supply without external connections”. Cambridge Atomworks plans to have an operational prototype by 2030………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/agreement-could-see-prototype-microreactor-built-at-berkeley

July 12, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Report From House Dems: Trump Used 250th Planning to Hide Corruption

By these and other means, Freedom 250, built on deception and manipulation from the beginning, effectively, in the House report’s terms, “sold access to the President, solicited foreign money in America’s name, and enabled the President to enrich himself.”

Trump’s Freedom 250 shadow organization was a vehicle for soliciting political donations, a new report contends.

By Tyler Walicek , Truthout July 7, 2026

The U.S.’s vaunted semiquincentennial anniversary celebrations on July 4 were not, ultimately, the moment of civic unification that had been envisioned a decade ago, when planning for the event began. It was inevitable that the ceremonies would be tainted by the tense and polarized state of the nation. President Donald Trump, however, in his signature way, managed to exacerbate and accelerate the existing grotesqueries and absurdities of the occasion.

From the ramshacklepropaganda-infused Great American State Fair to a Washington, D.C. Fourth of July rally that was filled with jingoist demagoguery from Trump — who boasted of annihilating Iran and took shots at recent “communist” wins in Democratic primaries — the ceremonies were a fitting reflection of a divided and tottering empire in its 250th year.

But a look at the converging interests that produced the kitsch-suffused debacle shows the commemoration’s true depths of venality. In fact, the misuse of the semiquincentennial has extended far past negligent planning and propaganda and reaches, some Congressional Democrats allege, all the way into willful corruption and conspiracy to defraud donors, taxpayers, and the public.

Party Partisans

In months leading up to the weekend, two dueling event-planning commissions struggled over the tone and emphasis of the events. America250 is the congressionally approved semiquincentennial event planning group; since 2016, it has been tasked with producing a nationwide program involving numerous festivals and public-spirited educational events, charity drives, a parade with marching bands and floats, a student essay contest, and much more.

Trump’s initial attempt to domineer the festivities involved adding a puppet executive director to the existing planning group, appointing one Ariel Abergel to lord over America250 in May 2025. Abergel was a former Fox News producer; he was also 25 years old at the time of his appointment. Abergel’s contentious tenure was marked by his efforts to shift the content of the celebrations to a veneration of both Trump and his right-wing ideals. Abergel was fired by the bipartisan Semiquincentennial Commission that oversees America250………………………………………………..

After Abergel’s ouster, Trump, true to form, pursued even less subtle tactics to seize control of the proceedings……………………………………………….

The redundant Freedom 250 committee, incarnated, in a highly unusual structure, as a limited-liability corporation within the federal, nonprofit National Park Foundation, would go on to plan the pro-Trump flop known as the “Great American State Fair.” ……………………………………

Unaccountable Accounting

Freedom 250’s funding structures present even deeper problems than its staging of manipulative right-wing propaganda at an ostensibly nonpartisan occasion. (The tonal dissonances and reactionary kitsch reached a low, perhaps, with the AI-generated talking George Washington in the PragerU “Freedom Truck” display………………………………………………………………

a grab for power and money was already apparent and in full view. As mentioned, the unnecessary Freedom 250 committee was embedded, jarringly, in the National Park Foundation, where it captured federal grants and diverted millions in funding from the America250 semiquincentennial budget to itself. …………………………………………………………………..

Trump has continued to buy and sell stocks in his personal portfolio throughout his presidency, including stock in companies, like Palantir, that have given to Freedom 250. The president’s 2026 disclosure reveals no less than $2.2 billion in gains through trading practices that have continued unobstructed: Trump’s terms in office have rendered the term “conflict of interest” inadequate, failing as it does to capture the breadth and magnitude of such flagrant affronts to executive ethics.

But the funding structure of Freedom 250 indicates a new variety of sleight-of-hand. By creating an LLC within nonprofit fundraisers like the National Park Foundation (which would normally function simply to raise donations for the National Park Service), Zibel explained, “They’ve been able to take these nonprofit structures and use them as an opaque slush fund, essentially, where anybody can donate, and there’s really no requirement for timely disclosure of who’s funding this stuff. We have no idea. We only know the names of the corporate donors because they’re listed on the Freedom 250 website.”

Those sponsors and partners include major oil companies, multiple military contractors, healthcare giants, tech and AI companies, credit card companies, agribusiness and more. “There’s no legal requirement that these be disclosed, because this has never happened before — and we have no idea how much they’re donating,” said Zibel. The American Prospect reported on the pitch deck for Freedom 250’s donor solicitation package, which offered sponsorship tiers up to and above $10 million. OpenSecrets has also documented, as a sort of proxy metric to give insight into corporate influence on the 250th, a broader surge in disclosed lobbying by some of the same companies sponsoring Freedom 250.

“Many of these companies have interests before the federal government,” Zibel commented. “Obviously, the defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, and Palantir are huge — Raytheon, which is now called RTX — some of the biggest federal contractors in the country, and they’re all sponsoring it. There are some oil and gas companies, which are pretty allied with the administration. So, most of the companies have some sort of regulatory interest or contracting interest before the government, and presumably want to stay on Trump’s good side. He’s known, of course, for punishing companies and people who aren’t on his good side.”

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………By these and other means, Freedom 250, built on deception and manipulation from the beginning, effectively, in the House report’s terms, “sold access to the President, solicited foreign money in America’s name, and enabled the President to enrich himself.”

“Donald Trump’s takeover of the 250th is an affront to the American people,” as Toni Aguilar Rosenthal, program director of investigative projects at the Revolving Door Project, a corruption watchdog, told Truthout. “The semiquincentennial could have, and should have, provided the country an opportunity to come together to engage with shared, complicated, and often inconvenient, truths about our nation’s history.”

Rosenthal offered a fitting summation of what transpired instead: “This administration has turned the anniversary into something akin to a private party handcrafted for the President’s personal tastes, and a major windfall for the private political allies of his administration. The American public, meanwhile, will be left picking up the tab long after Trump’s toxic-250 smog has finally settled over D.C.” https://truthout.org/articles/report-from-house-dems-trump-used-250th-planning-to-hide-corruption/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=08b91d81e0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2026_07_07_09_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-08b91d81e0-650192793

July 12, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Extensions to improvement notices following asbestos shortfalls at Torness

6 July 2026, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2026/07/extensions-to-improvement-notices-following-asbestos-shortfalls-at-torness

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has granted extensions to four improvement notices – two each served on EDF and contractor Trillium Flow Services UK Ltd – following asbestos shortfalls at Torness Nuclear Power Station.

The incident occurred during a planned outage at the East Lothian site in Scotland, in March 2026, when workers could have been exposed to asbestos in a valve within the steam system while carrying out overhaul activities. 

There was no risk to nuclear safety, the public or the environment.  

ONR has recognised that both companies have made progress towards meeting the requirements of the notices and so extensions have been granted to allow EDF and Trillium Flow Services UK Ltd more time to demonstrate full compliance.

Trillium Flow Services UK Ltd must comply with both of its notices by 30 September 2026.  

EDF now has until 27 January 2027 to comply with the first notice for failing to maintain a written plan identifying areas of the site where asbestos is, or may be, present. 

And it now has until 30 October 2026 to comply with the second notice, which relates to a failure to prevent or adequately reduce employee exposure to asbestos during valve overhaul activities.

ONR will continue to monitor both companies to ensure full compliance is achieved.

July 12, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Targets Faster Nuclear Licensing With  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Streamlining Proposal

Sonal C. Patel,  Power Mag 9th July 2026

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed a major rewrite of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules, opening yet another front in the agency’s fast-moving campaign to modernize as directed by a series of recent executive orders, statutory NEPA amendments, and a Supreme Court precedent.

The rule proposed on July 7, “Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act,” seeks to revise 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC’s environmental review framework for domestic licensing and related regulatory actions, to focus NEPA reviews on impacts the agency has authority to regulate rather than broader project effects outside its licensing authority. The shift would move many nonradiological project effects, such as construction noise, dust, air quality, water quality, and ecological impacts, outside the core NRC NEPA review unless the agency has authority to prevent or mitigate them.

………………………………….. The changes are geared toward applicants seeking NRC approvals that trigger environmental review, including new reactor developers, utilities pursuing construction permits or combined licenses, early site permit holders, license-renewal applicants, fuel-cycle and materials licensees, and petitioners for rulemaking. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.powermag.com/nrc-targets-faster-nuclear-licensing-with-nepa-streamlining-proposal/

July 12, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) signs Sizewell civil works agreement

7 July 26. The Construction Index

 AtkinsRéalis has signed a new five-year framework agreement to continue its civil works role at Sizewell C.

AtkinsRéalis will act as design partner for the permanent civil works, providing multidisciplinary design and engineering services across the permanent plant design at Sizewell C, including the conventional island, balance of plant, heat sink buildings and ancillary works.

“AtkinsRéalis has played a significant role in design and engineering management at Sizewell C since 2019 ……………….. https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/atkinsralis-signs-sizewell-civil-works-agreement

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Commercial Shipping Still Fails The Business Case

Nuclear merchant ships keep returning as a concept, but the commercial case still fails.

Michael Barnard, Michael Barnard’s TFIE Strategy Briefing 26th June 2026

A while ago, I published a sexy-versus-practical quadrant chart for maritime shipping decarbonization. Sharp-eyed readers pointed out that nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping was missing. I make no claim that every chart I produce is encyclopedic, but I do try to be reasonably thorough, and the omission was not because I was trying to dodge the subject. It did not occur to me to include it because nuclear commercial shipping is so far outside the useful center of the transition that it sits closer to historical recurrence than to a likely commercial pathway.

That changed briefly when I found myself on a panel at Stena Sphere’s technical summit in Glasgow with Giulio Gennaro, CTO of Core Power, a firm promoting nuclear propulsion for commercial shipping. That was a useful forcing function. It made me think through the argument in a more structured way, not as a generic anti-nuclear reaction but as a shipping business case, route case, vessel case, port case and technology-readiness case.

The starting point is the maritime denominator. My current Briefing maritime shipping projection is not built around replacing today’s fuel demand one-for-one with alternative molecules. It starts by shrinking the fuel pool. Fossil-fuel cargoes are a very large part of bulk shipping, and coal, oil and gas volumes decline in a serious transition. Iron ore volumes are also exposed as more scrap is used, more processing moves closer to mines and more clean electricity is used in industrial production. Container shipping grows, but not enough to offset the decline in the bulk categories that were built around moving fossil fuels and raw materials through the 20th-century industrial system.

That matters for nuclear because the strongest pitch for nuclear merchant ships depends on a subset of very large vessels on very long routes with high, steady energy demand and known endpoints. That points first toward the biggest bulk carriers and crude carriers. But those are precisely the ship classes most exposed to decline in a decarbonizing world. Building expensive nuclear-powered ships for a shrinking segment is not an obvious commercial strategy. It is especially weak when the vessels most naturally suited to nuclear propulsion are linked to cargo categories that are likely to contract.

The Briefing maritime shipping projection and graphics make this clearer than a fuel-comparison table does. The transition is not “today’s ship fuel, but green.” It is a changing freight system. Inland shipping and much of short-sea shipping are increasingly battery candidates. Some ships will become hybrid, and every battery replacement cycle will tend to extend electric range and reduce liquid-fuel burn. Operational changes, efficiency and route-specific electrification reduce the amount of fuel the sector needs before the residual molecule question is even asked. The hard blue-water segments remain, but they are a smaller and more filtered problem than the usual alternative-fuels debate implies.

That is the context in which nuclear has to compete. It is not competing against every tonne of today’s bunker fuel. It is competing against a future in which a lot of shipping demand disappears with fossil cargoes, a lot of shorter shipping electrifies, and the remaining fuel pool is served by cheaper, simpler and less institutionally awkward options. Nuclear has to win after the denominator changes, not before.

Core Power’s argument, as I understood it, was that the biggest ships on the longest routes are where the emissions problem is largest. That is true in the narrow sense. I am not proposing that ultra-large crude carriers or very large ore carriers should cross oceans on batteries. The question is not whether the largest ships use a lot of energy. They do. The question is whether nuclear is the practical commercial answer for those ships, their routes, their owners, their ports, their insurers, their regulators and their replacement cycles………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. For ordinary merchant fleets, nuclear remains outside that useful set. Batteries, hybrid systems, shore power, port electrification, operational efficiency, wind assistance in some cases, constrained biofuels and a smaller residual fuel pool are less dramatic. They are also much closer to the actual structure of the shipping transition. https://briefing.tfie.io/p/nuclear-commercial-shipping-business-case

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment