A nuclear play in New Brunswick is facing a fragile outlook.
14 Apr 25
- What’s happening: The British owner of New Brunswick’s small modular reactor startup has entered insolvency, throwing its assets on the auction block.
- Why it matters now: The Canadian subsidiary says it’s forging ahead, but with delays, money troubles and fading momentum, Ottawa’s nuclear play is wobbling.
- The broader view: It’s a gut check for Canada’s SMR strategy – and a reminder of how fragile government-backed innovation can be when the scaffolding cracks.
Moltex Canada pushes on with nuclear project as U.K. parent struggles
Matthew McClearn, Globe and Mail, Toronto, 14 Apr 25
The British owner of New Brunswick small modular nuclear reactor developer Moltex Energy Canada Inc. is up for sale as part of a U.K. insolvency proceeding.
Moltex Energy Ltd., a private company based in Stratford-upon-Avon, announced last month the appointment of two insolvency practitioners from accounting firm Azets Holdings Ltd. to manageitsaffairs. Azets hired appraisers Hilco Valuation Services to solicit offers for its assets, which are due May 7.
It’s the latest complication fortaxpayer-sponsored efforts to construct small modular reactors, or SMRs, in New Brunswick.
Moltex’s wholly owned Canadian subsidiary is one of two vendors partnered with New Brunswick Power to build reactors at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. Moltex Canada’s is known as the Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner (SSR-W), and it’s also developing a plant to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The second company, ARC Clean Technology, is working on another reactor called the ARC-100.
Both were originally promised by 2030. But developing a novel nuclear reactor is a painstaking, resource-intensive process that can require hundreds of employees, billions of dollars and decades of effort. New Brunswick and the federal government backed startups with only one or two dozen employees, and they’ve struggled to raise funds privately.
Moltex’s British holding company was founded in 2014 by Ian Scott, who previously worked in the biological-sciences field including as a senior scientist at Unilever PLC. (A co-founder, John Durham, stepped down as a director in October.) According to its latest financial report, published in January, it employed two people during the year ended March 31, 2024, and lost £630,000 (about $1.1-million). For several years its reports raised uncertainty about its ability to continue as a going concern.
Britain’s administration process is similar to proceedings under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act; according to the British government, it’s intended to provide “breathing space” while a rescue package or sale of assets is executed.
According to Moltex Energy Ltd.’s financial statements, its shareholders had provided its equity throughout its history; it carried no long-term debt. The company reported in 2023 that its future depended on raising external capital; it had enough cash flow to survive through December, 2025, albeit “there would need to be cuts.”
Rory O’Sullivan, chief executive officer of Moltex Energy Canada, was also a director of the parent company for much of the past several years. He said the British company’s shareholders would not approve the Canadian subsidiary’s fundraising efforts, effectively stalling them.
“The key here is we needed to get someone else in control of Moltex Energy Ltd. so that we could have a competitive sale process,” Mr. O’Sullivan said…………………………..
New Brunswick’s government attracted Moltex and ARC to establish offices in the province in 2018. The two companies have each estimated that it would cost around $500-million to develop their respective technologies…………………………
As for ARC, its CEO and other employees suddenly departed last summer; ARC has published no announcements on its website since then. The ARC-100 is undergoing a prelicensing review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Spokesperson Sandra Donnelly said the company will complete its design by 2027 to support an application for a construction licence.
NB Power’s CEO, Lori Clark, presented SMRs as playing a crucial role in her utility’s plans to achieve “net zero” emissions. More recently, however, she acknowledged that neither project is likely to follow its original schedule, and the utility is now considering other reactors for construction at Point Lepreau.
Spokesperson Dominique Couture wrote in a statement that NB Power has been working on an environmental impact assessment for the ARC-100 during the past year. And it assisted Moltex’s development efforts for reprocessing spent fuel.
All this is far less than what the federal government envisioned in the SMR Roadmap, a 2018 document developed with extensive input from the nuclear industry. It promised demonstration projects across the country; successive federal budgets allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support them.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories was to have an SMR called the Micro Modular Reactor up and running at its Chalk River facility by 2026. But its partner in that project, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., initiated a court-supervised sale process under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in October. Another partner, Ontario Power Generation, pulled out last year.
Of the demonstration projects contemplated in the SMR Roadmap, only one appears to be on track: OPG’s proposal to build a “grid-scale” SMR at its Darlington Station. This month it received a construction licence from the CNSC to build its first reactor, a BWRX-300 designed by U.S. vendor GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. If completed on schedule by 2028, it would be the first SMR in any G7 country. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-moltex-canada-pushes-on-with-nuclear-project-as-uk-parent-struggles/#comments
Up to date costs of Sizewell C nuclear are over £40 billion, not the £20 billion quoted.
Letter: Dr Sarah Darby, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford.
Nuclear power’s bill: You cite the estimated cost of Sizewell C
nuclear power station as £20 billion (“Starmer powers ahead with plan
for new nuclear plant”, news, Apr 10). But this was the original estimate
and is a long way from the more recent figure of £40 billion, which itself
is well below any final sum once the costs of capital, decommissioning and
disposal are factored in.
The prime minister and the power company EDF
appear determined to see nimbyism as the main obstacle to nuclear power.
Yet the laws of physics and the experience of engineers tell us that
nuclear plants remain a complex, risky, time-consuming and expensive method
of producing steam to run turbines. It is not too late to steer the funding
in more productive directions. As industrialists and policymakers
increasingly recognise, renewables, efficiency and storage offer attractive
options for meeting our energy needs.
Times 12th April 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/comment/letters-to-editor/article/times-letters-tariffs-backdown-america-donald-trump-lrmsg87k6
TEPCO’s rehabilitation plan delays expose limits to nuke power reliance.
It was unreasonable in the first place for the power company to draw up a rehabilitation scenario relying on atomic power despite having caused a serious nuclear plant accident.
April 9, 2025 (Mainichi Japan), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20250409/p2a/00m/0op/029000c
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Holdings Inc. has postponed the revision of its business rehabilitation plan, which it had scheduled to carry out by the end of fiscal 2024. The company attributed the postponement to a lack of prospects for restarting the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture, which it had seen a trump card in improving its earnings.
Will the utility be able to fulfill its responsibility in the recovery from the Fukushima disaster and the stable power supply amid such a state of affairs?
TEPCO has borrowed money from the national government to deal with the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns. This includes funds needed for compensation payments to affected residents and the decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. It has also taken out bank loans to fund its electric power business. The rehabilitation plan was supposed to form the premise for this financial aid.
The plan was first formulated in 2012, the year after the onset of the Fukushima disaster, and has since been updated almost every three years. The cost for handling the nuclear catastrophe was initially estimated at 6 trillion yen (approx. $41.27 billion), but that figure swelled to 21.5 trillion yen (148 billion) under the current plan outlined in 2021. The cost further rose to 23.4 trillion yen (approx. $161 billion) when taking into account compensation for fishery operators due to the release of treated water from the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant, among other expenses.
The cap on borrowing from the national government was subsequently raised to 15.4 trillion yen (approx. $106 billion). Based on these developments, calls grew to update TEPCO’s rehabilitation plan.
While TEPCO is scheduled to repay 500 billion yen (approx. $3.45 billion) annually to the national government, the actual repayment amount has hovered around 400 billion yen (around $2.76 billion) on average in recent years due to the firm’s poor performance.
The primary factor behind TEPCO’s sluggish earnings is that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant has yet to be restarted. TEPCO had initially expected to resume the plant’s operations in fiscal 2019, eyeing a balance improvement of 100 billion yen (approx. $688 million) per reactor brought back online. But following a series of scandals including inadequate antiterror measures at the plant, the prospect of gaining local consent for its restart has waned.
TEPCO’s injection of more than 1 trillion yen (approx. $6.88 billion) into safety measures has also taken a heavy toll on its management, weighing down its cash flow. There are concerns that the utility may not even be able to afford capital investment essential for a stable power supply.
It was unreasonable in the first place for the power company to draw up a rehabilitation scenario relying on atomic power despite having caused a serious nuclear plant accident. In the amendments to be made to the rehabilitation plan by the end of fiscal 2025, the utility should completely overhaul its strategy.
TEPCO must accelerate its business realignment to improve its earning capacity. Its thermal power generation sector was integrated into Chubu Electric Power Co. in 2019, yet TEPCO needs to expand collaboration with other firms in renewable energy and other sectors with high growth potential. It urgently needs to streamline operations to stave off deterioration of its finances.
The company is urged to carry out a rehabilitation plan that is not reliant on nuclear power generation.
Walt Zlotow: Trump, Hegseth off by nearly 1 trillion on national security budget
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 11 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/trump-hegseth-off-by-nearly-1-trillion-on-national-security-budget/
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is applauding Trump’s boast to push through America’s first trillion dollar defense budget.
“Thank you Mr. President! COMING SOON: the first TRILLION dollar [Defense Department] budget.” Hegseth was echoing boss Trump who chortled “Nobody’s seen anything like it. We have to build out military, and we’re very cost-conscious, but the military is something we have to build, and we have to be strong,”
Trump’s defense policy and these quotes epitomize America’s decline as a peaceful, caring nation. Spending that trillion on militarism and warfare worldwide while Trump’s oligarchs are slashing a trillion from the social safety net is putting America into a death spiral from which it may never recover.
But they should really be high-fiving a national security budget that will be approaching $2 trillion based on Trump’s defense agenda.
That’s because the current defense budget under the National Defense Authorization Act of $900 billion just funds the Pentagon. When factoring in the Department of Veterans Affairs, special operations, Homeland Security and the national security share of US debt interest, the total for Fiscal ‘25 national security approaches $1.8 trillion. Regarding special ops, Trump’s failed month long Yemen bombing to stop their resistance to US enabled Israeli genocide in Gaza has already passed a billion bucks.
Current wars US supports in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and possible upcoming wars in Iran and China, don’t come cheap. Add in cost of over 750 bases in 80 countries hosting over 150,000 military personnel puts the approaching $2 trillion dollar cost in perspective.
Spending all that treasure on national offense (nope, not defense), becomes problematical when Trump is pushing thru trillion dollar tax cuts for his oligarch buddies.
What to do? Of Course, send in oligarch clown Musk to cut a trillion or more from everything that makes life livable for Joe Sixpack.
It is no surprise Trump plans to ravage the social safety net to spend $2 trillion on worldwide military adventurism while giving $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years mainly to those who don’t need them.
But do Trump and Hegseth have to brag about it?
New EDF boss at mercy of ‘to-do list’ that ousted his predecessor
The new boss of French state-owned energy group EDF faces the same nearly
impossible tasks that led to the ousting of his predecessor: satisfying the
government’s often contradictory demands for cheap power to help industry
and the construction of costly new nuclear reactors.
Bernard Fontana, nominated as chief executive on March 21, is a seasoned industrialist who
has run EDF’s engineering arm Framatome for nearly nine years. He will
seek to avoid the fate of the previous chief executive Luc Rémont, removed
last month after just over two years because of repeated clashes with the
state.
On Fontana’s to-do list will be repairing relations with the
government, the company’s only shareholder, striking energy supply deals
with some of EDF’s biggest industrial clients, while also advancing plans
to build six nuclear reactors in just over a decade — a key initiative of
French President Emmanuel Macron, which was announced three years ago.
Fontana’s main challenge is to balance competing pressures of delivering
low rates for power, demanded by government and industry, while generating
profits that will help support vast investments required to launch new
nuclear reactors.
The company ran over budget and behind time on the
completion of Flamanville, a new nuclear reactor in northern France, and
faces budget and timing issues with the UK’s Hinkley Point. It has also
faced criticism that it is yet to outline timelines and costings for the
project to build the six new nuclear reactors, which were originally due by
the end of 2024.
Last month, the government pushed back the launch date
from 2035 to 2038, although observers have long considered the 2035 target
unachievable. In short, Fontana’s success will depend on whether he can
walk the tightrope of running EDF profitably while delivering the vast
capital outlay needed to reboot France’s nuclear sector. This will
require a major shift from Rémont’s uncompromising approach. “If
Fontana has taken the job, he’s understood the lesson [from Rémont’s
sacking]. If he hasn’t, he’s an idiot,” said another adviser.
FT 6th April 2025 https://www.ft.com/content/b9f39568-6029-4016-9c5f-0242dd8b9174
Cost of EPR2 : Reporterre publishes a censored alert.
By Émilie Massemin April 4, 2025 https://reporterre.net/Cout-des-EPR2-Reporterre-publie-une-alerte-censuree
The guarantor of the public debate on the EPR2 project in Bugey (Ain) was alarmed by the lack of economic information provided by EDF . His letter was removed from the website of the National Commission for Public Debate three hours later… Reporterre reveals it.
The public debate on the project for two EPR2s at the Bugey nuclear power plant (Ain) is becoming explosive. On February 27, David Chevallier, the guarantor who headed the team responsible for organizing the debate [1] , sent a letter to the president of the National Commission for Public Debate ( CNDP ), Marc Papinutti. In this letter , revealed by Reporterre , he openly raises the question of the continuation of the debate and believes that, if it can continue, ” its modalities must evolve “ .
Mr. Chevallier’s annoyance stems from a lack of information on the cost and financing of the EPR2 program —the daily newspaper Les Échos had just revealed that the estimate for the future reactors had been pushed back to the end of the year—and on the ” decision-making and legislative framework “ that governs the program of six EPR2s . This letter was posted on the public debate website on March 10 at around 10 a.m. and, in a rare occurrence, was unpublished three hours later.
Great uncertainty surrounding the cost
Let’s rewind. The construction program for six EPR2 reactors in France was announced by Emmanuel Macron during his speech in Belfort on February 10, 2022. These new 1,670 megawatt ( MW ) reactors are to be built in pairs on existing nuclear sites, in Penly (Seine-Maritime), then in Gravelines (Nord) and finally in Bugey. Preparatory work for this last pair could begin in the second half of 2027, with a target of commissioning at the beginning of the 2040s. The public debate on this project opened on January 28 and will end on May 15.
It seemed possible and important […] that the public debate on Bugey would finally provide clarification on two key issues that were not addressed in the two
previous public debates in Penly and Gravelines , “ wrote David Chevallier in his letter to the CNDP :
” clarification of the decision-making and legislative framework “ and
” clarification of the costs and financing of this six EPR2 program. “
Regarding the first point, the president of the special public debate commission ( CPDP ) on the EPR2 project in Bugey notes the absence of an energy and climate programming law .
” How can we work in dialogue if we don’t have this information ? “
But it is especially on the second point that he dwells. The estimate of the overall cost of these new reactors continues to be revised upwards: from 51.3 billion euros in April 2021, it rose to 67.4 billion euros in February 2024. The Court of Auditors, in
a January 2025 report , mentioned a bill of 79.9 billion euros. Its president even spoke of a cost ” likely to exceed 100 billion euros “ .
” EDF had assured us that the cost update would take place during the debate “
, writes Mr. Chevallier. The CPDP had even planned a public meeting by videoconference on April 29, on the theme ” What costs ? Who finances ? “ .
This is why the announcement of the postponement of the cost estimate fell like a hammer blow to the guarantors, both in substance and in form.
” On the same day, we had indicated during a public forum that the debate would continue on the question of costs. We are in dialogue with the director of public debate at
EDF every day. And it is through the press that we learned that there will be no update. How can we work in dialogue if we don’t have this information ? “ , the guarantor was indignantly interviewed by Reporterre .
Hence the letter to the CNDP , written in an unfriendly tone, and its publication on the debate website.
” We said to ourselves that we had to make our thoughts within the team public. We had started the public debate by asking the public about trust, both in this procedure and with regard to the project leader. It emerged that this debate had to provide information ,
“ continues David Chevallier. The letter also emphasizes the need to debate
” the appropriateness of the EPR2 program “ and alternatives to the project,
” including without nuclear energy. “
” The State and EDF must provide transparent and sincere answers to the public “
Was it under pressure from the CNDP , EDF , or both, that this famous letter was unpublished from the site three hours later ? ” Before publishing it, we sent it to EDF and
RTE , who did not appreciate it, because they were working on what they could say in the context of this debate. That is also why we removed the letter, it was worth remaining in dialogue, “ replied Mr. Chevallier, while specifying that unpublishing a document ” is not usual . “ Asked about this episode, the CNDP replied that ” it was an internal letter, which is why [it] was unpublished. “
It nevertheless responds in an opinion published on Tuesday, March 25, in which it reaffirms that ” the public debate must in particular guarantee the public respect for its right to access complete, objective and qualitative information “ and that ” the State and
EDF must provide transparent and sincere answers to the public concerning the cost and progress of each of the EPR2 pairs , as well as the financing scheme .
“ Also contacted, EDF sent an email to Reporterre in which the letter is not mentioned and which simply says that ” the public debate is an essential step for the integration of the project into the territory . “
” Serious and serious failings on the part of EDF “
The CPDP is not the only one to question the possibility of organizing a quality public debate.
” We note serious and serious failings on the part of
EDF , which is incapable, on the one hand, of providing studies concerning the state and flow of the Rhône by 2100 and, above all, of producing a definitive overall cost and a financing plan for the entire project , “ warned eleven associations [2] in
an open letter to the guarantors of the public debate dated March 19, in which they request a ” postponement “ of the debate pending this information. Jean-Pierre Collet, president of Sortir du nucléaire Bugey, clarified to Reporterre that when sending this letter, the associations were not aware that the CPDP had itself written to the CNDP to share its concerns.
The CPDP responded to this letter with a letter sent on Monday, March 31, in which it rejected the associations’ proposal.
” Not knowing the cost and financing of such a program – and therefore the projected price of the electricity produced by this equipment – constitutes, in our view, a significant gap in the public’s right to information and participation, “ wrote Mr. Chevallier.
However, ” suspending the debate would mean waiting for the right moment when information on costs and financing would be sufficiently advanced and reliable to be able to be put up for debate, and we do not control this timetable. Furthermore, the debate would suffer from this interruption: resuming it would be difficult in terms of organization and communication with the public
These warnings come at a time when participatory democracy and the public’s right to information are under particular strain . A decree aimed at removing all industrial projects from the scope of the CNDP was rejected by the Council of State, the media outlet Contexte revealed on March 21. But the executive does not intend to stop there and is expected to try again by way of an amendment to the
so-called economic simplification bill , which began to be examined by a special committee on March 24.. “
Although nuclear projects are not affected by this reform, this letter affair shows that public information and participation during public debates remain largely insufficient.
” The post-debate and the possible ongoing consultation that would take place following the public debate must already be considered, “ the guarantor wrote in his letter.
Miliband pours £2.7bn into nuclear power plant after EDF cuts stake
Sizewell C’s funding boost means UK taxpayers have now spent £8bn on the project
Ed Miliband has sunk an extra £2.7bn into Sizewell C after EDF slashed
its stake in the nuclear power project. The Energy Secretary said the
additional money would boost energy security, jobs and the race for net
zero.
However, anti-Sizewell campaigners questioned the wisdom of pouring
billions into a project that the Government has still not taken a final
decision to build.
UK taxpayers have so far spent a total of £8bn on the
nuclear power station. The latest cash is thought to be aimed at building
confidence in the project, potentially attracting other investors as EDF
steps back. The French energy giant recently reduced its stake from 24pc to
16pc amid pressure from Emmanuel Macron, the French president, to cut back
on risky overseas commitments.
EDF was told it should instead focus on
making a success of multibillion-euro projects at home, ensuring they were
profitable and built on time. Sizewell C is a proposed 3.2-gigawatt nuclear
power station planned for the Suffolk coast, potentially generating power
for 6m homes. Its design would be similar to the Hinkley Point C power
station being built by EDF in Somerset, whose start date has been delayed
by a decade to the mid-2030s (sic?) with costs that have doubled to £40bn.
EDF’s decision to trim its involvement has forced the UK Government into
an undignified search for alternative investors. Those approached are said
to include Centrica, the owner of British Gas, Emirates Nuclear Energy,
Amber Infrastructure Group and Schroders Greencoat, with Barclays advising
the Government.
Telegraph 4th April 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/04/miliband-pours-27bn-into-nuclear-power-plant-after-edf-cuts/
SMRs most expensive of all electricity technologies per kW generation
31 Mar, 2025 By Tom Pashby
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are projected to be the most expensive source per kW of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables.
(behind a paywall)
Mini nuclear reactor rush has a short half-life.
By Rob Cyran,
The rush to produce mini nuclear reactors on the cheap might have a short
half-life. In search of vast quantities of power for the data centers
fueling artificial intelligence, Meta Platforms, Alphabet and Amazon have
backed a goal, to triple the world’s nuclear power capacity by 2050.
The prospects for nuclear are indeed brightening, but it is still more
expensive and far slower to build than renewables. The upstart approach of
making smaller, identikit reactors will struggle even harder to close that
gap. Theoretically, SMRs can reduce costs by simplifying the underlying
design into a set of mass-produced, standard parts made off-site. About 95
companies are actively chasing this dream, according to John Ketchum, chief
executive of NextEra, the nation’s largest power developer.
Big names are in the fray, like OpenAI chief Sam Altman and his side project Oklo, or
Google and Amazon, which have invested in Kairos and X-energy,
respectively. UK-based engineering giant Rolls-Royce is urging the British
government to begin moving ahead with new projects.
This idea isn’t entirely new. The U.S. built some small commercial reactors in the 1960s.
But bigger reactors benefit from economies of scale, requiring
proportionately less material and fewer operating staff, resulting in a
one-third advantage versus smaller plants in costs per kilowatt of power,
Reuters 31st March 2025
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/mini-nuclear-reactor-rush-has-short-half-life-2025-03-31/
UPDATE ON THE BANKRUPTCY OF USNC – Ultra Safe Nuclear.
Paul Richards 2 April 2025
In March 2025, NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. acquired the major assets of the bankrupt Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC), including microreactor technology and advanced nuclear fuel, renaming the Micro Modular Reactor (MMR) Energy System as the KRONOS MMR.
Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) – Stakeholder Loss Breakdown
1] Estimated Liabilities vs. Assets
Liabilities: $50M – $100M
Assets: $10M – $50M
2] Asset Fire Sale Proceeds
Standard Nuclear, Inc. (Initial Offer – Stalking Horse Bid): $28M (for selected assets)
NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. (MMR® System & IP): $8.5M
Other minor asset liquidations (estimated): $5M
3] Total Asset Sale Revenue
Estimated total recovery: ~$41.5M
4] Estimated Stakeholder Losses
Uncovered Liabilities [after asset sales]: $8.5M – $58.5M
Equity Investors [USNC shareholders]: Likely 100% loss
Creditors [unsecured debt holders]: Majority loss expected
Government Grants & Subsidies: Unrecoverable investments
5] Key Observations
USNC’s core intellectual property, including its Micro Modular Reactor (MMR®) system, was sold at a deep discount to NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. ($8.5M).
Despite an initial $28M stalking horse bid, the final liquidation resulted in a total sale value well below USNC’s peak valuation.
Significant capital losses for early investors, especially venture capital firms and institutional stakeholders.
This reflects a fire-sale scenario, where strategic assets were sold at fractions of their development costs due to financial distress.
Buyer sought for nuclear energy developer as it collapses into administration
By Adam Beech, 31 Mar 2025, https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/buyer-sought-for-nuclear-energy-developer-as-it-collapses-into-administration
A nuclear energy developer based in the West Midlands has been placed into administration, with a buyer now sought.
Jonathan Amor and Richard Oddy of Azets were appointed as administrators of Moltex Energy Ltd on 17 March following “the failure to achieve the majority shareholder consent to new investments” or “the sale of its assets”.
While the company is in administration, the subsidiary undertakings of Moltex Energy Canada Inc and MoltexFLEX Limited will continue to trade as usual and are unaffected.
The administrators intend to market the business and assets for sale, including the intellectual property and shareholdings of the subsidiary operations.
The intention is to seek an acquirer that is “well-positioned and suitably funded to develop the technology interests of the company further for the benefit of all stakeholders”.
UK Treasury confident Sizewell C nuclear power investors will soon be‘teed up’ – crunch time for Sizewell.
Ministers will decide whether to proceed with delayed
Suffolk scheme in June spending review. A senior Treasury minister has said
he is confident private financing for the Sizewell C nuclear power station
will be “teed up” in time for a final investment decision in June over
whether to proceed with the delayed project.
Darren Jones, chief secretary
to the Treasury, told the Financial Times that the crunch point for the
planned project in Suffolk was coming in just 10 weeks, at the time of the
government’s three-year spending review. “We have to make the final
investment decision [FID] which we will do at the spending review,” he
said. “FID will be taken in June.” Jones added: “You wouldn’t take
FID unless you’ve got all of your investors teed up. We will do.”
The UK government and French energy group EDF, the initial backers of Sizewell
C, have been trying to raise billions of pounds from investors and had
previously hoped to reach a final decision on investment last year. But the
process has dragged on and the price tag has soared since its £20bn
estimate given as recently as 2020.
Government officials and industry
executives expect Sizewell C will get billions of pounds of funding from
British taxpayers alongside investment from sovereign wealth funds and
institutional investors. The government has been negotiating with investors
including Centrica, Emirates Nuclear Energy Company, Amber Infrastructure
Group and Schroders Greencoat. They may not invest and ministers could yet
balk at the huge costs of the project. But Jones said the government had
already released a couple of billion pounds for the current year for
enabling works at the site.
FT 1st April 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/4a889ad7-6d41-47a9-a946-c2535ae2aaa6
‘Greedy landlords are cashing in and forcing us out of town’.
The construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk
coast is a key part of the government’s growth programme. But some locals
fear being forced out, accusing landlords of cashing in on a jobs boom by
evicting tenants and raising rents to unaffordable levels. The plant is due
to open in 2031, and although a final investment decision has not yet been
made, groundwork is already well under way.
The construction project will
require a predicted workforce of 7,900, of which about two-thirds will be
from outside the area. About 2,400 workers will be based on site with 500
others living at the former Pontins holiday park at Pakefield, near
Lowestoft. The remaining contractors, however, will have to move into
properties in or around the town of Leiston – population 5,508 – where some
rents have doubled to more than £3,000 a month.
BBC 31st March 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce98ljn1gzno
Why the nuclear renaissance is far from certain.
NEW RESEARCH: A new report from consultancy ICF found a nuclear
renaissance was “far from certain”, citing doubts over economic
viability, technological scalability and long timelines. SMRs are the most
expensive source.
FT 28th March 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/82d77aa5-c4cc-47b6-833a-0a1f2c188b0c
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (118)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 