Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator.”
As someone born in Peace River and raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, I care deeply about the land, water, and communities that would be affected by the proposed nuclear facility in northwestern Alberta. Although I live in Edmonton now, I work as a Municipal Energy Manager for a small rural municipality in the province, and my family still lives across the region — from McLennan to Marie-Reine.
Though I’m relatively new to public service, I bring over 20 years of experience in project management, systems analysis, and strategic planning across various sectors, including energy, agriculture, and technology. I’ve worked with municipalities, nonprofits, and institutions across Alberta on energy efficiency, infrastructure modernization, and rural economic development. I hold an Honours degree in Sustainability Management from MacEwan University, and continue to deepen my training in energy policy and climate adaptation as I prepare to do my Master of Sustainable Energy Development at the University of Calgary. I’ve also published and presented research on how geothermal energy can support rural economies—work that reflects my broader commitment to clean, decentralized solutions that benefit communities like the one I come from.
In contrast, Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). Most renewable projects are completed in under five years, with many rooftop and community systems operational in less than one. In 2022, solar became the world’s fastest-growing source of new electricity capacity.
They’re also far more cost-effective. Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy+ estimates nuclear at $141–$251 per megawatt-hour, compared to just $37–$81 for wind and $38–$66 for solar. Nuclear is up to six times more expensive than renewables, and that doesn’t include long-term waste management, decommissioning, or liability coverage—costs that often fall to the public. Clean energy isn’t just cheaper—it’s better for jobs. A dollar invested in solar or wind creates 2.8 to 5.7 times more employment than the same dollar spent on nuclear, according to peer-reviewed research in energy policy. These are jobs in construction, maintenance, engineering, and operations, many of which can be located in rural and underserved communities.
Even if built, nuclear doesn’t align with the needs of modern energy systems. Grids today depend on flexibility, not constant output “baseload” plants like nuclear reactors that can’t adjust quickly to changing demand. When renewable energy production is high, inflexible nuclear can force the grid to waste clean power. In contrast, renewables combined with battery storage, smart grid controls, and demand-side response offer more adaptable, resilient energy systems. Research in Joule and PNAS shows that 100 per cent renewable grids with storage are not only viable, they’re more stable than those relying on nuclear.
In the time it would take to bring Peace River’s reactors online, Alberta could: • Deploy 10 to 15 GW of solar and wind, • Install 1–2 GW of grid-scale storage, • Retrofit public buildings and homes for energy efficiency, • Launch locally led clean energy partnerships, and • Create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.
The local risks are just as serious. A nuclear facility would withdraw millions of litres of water per day from the Peace River for cooling, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems and fish spawning habitats. A 2021 study in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that thermal pollution and water drawdown from nuclear plants disrupt river ecosystems.
Public submissions and academic research have also raised critical concerns about the cultural and social impact of this project. The proposed site lies within Treaty 8 territory—an area with deep spiritual, cultural, and subsistence significance. According to The Canadian Journal of Native Studies (2022), long-term nuclear waste storage near such lands threatens intergenerational safety and undermines the cultural integrity of surrounding communities. The Land Use Policy journal emphasizes the importance of free, prior, and informed consent under Canada’s obligations to UNDRIP—yet many affected communities report they have not been meaningfully engaged. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has already documented frustration with inaccessible technical documents and limited public engagement in its summary of issues.
We don’t need to go down this road. Alberta already has the tools to reduce emissions, create good jobs, and support rural communities—without waiting decades or spending billions on a legacy system that doesn’t serve our needs.
The Peace River nuclear proposal would delay real climate action, raise electricity costs, and place long-term environmental and financial burdens on the very communities it claims to help. We already have faster, cleaner, and smarter options. We should be investing in them now.
Patrick Jean is a holistic sustainability consultant, policy analyst, and municipal energy manager based in Edmonton. He holds an honours degree in sustainability management, has over 20 years of experience in systems analysis and project management, and has published research on rural energy innovation. He was born in Peace River, raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, and maintains strong family and community ties across the region. His comprehensive comments are available on the Government of Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency.
Thousands of construction workers have walked out unofficially at the massive Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant against bullying management. As we go to press, they are still out. It has been estimated that there are 12,000 workers on the site, organised by Unite and the GMB, and it is reported that anything from 2,000 to 4,000 workers are involved in this dispute, reportedly at MEH Alliance – bringing together Altrad Services, Cavendish, Balfour Beatty, NG Bailey and Altrad Babcock.
“This bullying has been going on for far too long.”
Staff at Hinkley Point C walked out on an unofficial strike on Wednesday over alleged bullying. An unconfirmed number of workers in the MEH group of contractors have downed tools at the nuclear power station construction site in Somerset yesterday (July 9). A person involved in the staff walk out told the Local Democracy Reporting Service it was a response to bullying from senior management. They said: “This bullying has been going on for far too long.”
The UN has named dozens of multinationals in a report for profiting from Israel’s genocide in Gaza. . Stephanie Tran reports.
A landmark United Nations report has named dozens of multinational corporations that are aiding and profiting from Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, accusing them of complicity in war crimes and calling for urgent accountability.
Authored by Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the report details the role of weapons manufacturers, tech firms, energy companies and financial institutions in sustaining an “economy of occupation turned genocidal.”
But the list of named companies is just the beginning. Albanese describes the report as “the tip of the iceberg,” noting that more than 1,000 corporate entities were investigated for their involvement in Israel’s war machinery.
Weapons and warfare
At the centre of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza is a heavily militarised economy supported by Western weapons manufacturers.
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is identified as a central player, providing F-35 and F-16 fighter jets that have enabled Israel to drop an estimated 85,000 tonnes of bombs since October 2023. Their use has left more than 179,000 Palestinians dead or injured and destroyed vast swathes of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
According to the report, the F-35 program represents Israel’s largest-ever defence procurement project, involving over 1,650 companies.
Israel’s own arms manufacturers are also central to the genocide. Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, two of the country’s top weapons companies, are responsible for much of the surveillance, drone and targeting systems deployed in Gaza.
The report notes that Israel’s repeated military campaigns have made it a testing ground for emerging weapons technologies. These systems are later marketed as “battle-proven”
At the centre of Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza is a heavily militarised economy supported by Western weapons manufacturers.
U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is identified as a central player, providing F-35 and F-16 fighter jets that have enabled Israel to drop an estimated 85,000 tonnes of bombs since October 2023. Their use has left more than 179,000 Palestinians dead or injured and destroyed vast swathes of Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.
According to the report, the F-35 program represents Israel’s largest-ever defence procurement project, involving over 1,650 companies.
Israel’s own arms manufacturers are also central to the genocide. Elbit Systems and Israel Aerospace Industries, two of the country’s top weapons companies, are responsible for much of the surveillance, drone and targeting systems deployed in Gaza.
The report notes that Israel’s repeated military campaigns have made it a testing ground for emerging weapons technologies. These systems are later marketed as “battle-proven”
Independent journalist and author Antony Loewenstein — whose award-winning book, podcast and film series The Palestine Laboratory exposes how Israel’s occupation has become a global model for repression — told MWM:
“This landmark report goes to the heart of why Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine has lasted so long; the longest in modern times. Far too many corporations and individuals are making money from oppression. I’m honoured that the report frequently cites my work, The Palestine Laboratory, a book, podcast and film series that details how Israel’s occupation is a key model and inspiration for many around the world.”
“Cutting off Israel’s financial lifeline is the only way that this abomination will end.”
Surveillance and Silicon Valley
The UN report devotes substantial attention to the role of Silicon Valley in enabling Israel’s high-tech war.
Palantir Technologies, the U.S. surveillance firm founded by Peter Thiel, expanded its support for the Israeli military after October 2023. The company has provided “automatic predictive policing technology, core defence infrastructure for rapid and scaled-up construction and deployment of military software, and its Artificial Intelligence Platform, which allows real-time battlefield data integration for automated decision-making.”
In January 2024, Palantir’s board met in Tel Aviv “in solidarity”. In April 2024, CEO Alex Karp dismissed concerns about civilian casualties by stating that Palantir had killed “mostly terrorists.”
Microsoft operates its largest research centre outside the U.S. in Israel, and has been “integrating its systems and civilian tech across the Israeli military since 2003”. In October 2023, Microsoft’s Azure platform supported the Israeli military’s overloaded cloud systems. According to an Israeli colonel quoted in the report, “cloud tech is a weapon in every sense of the word.”
Amazon and Google, through their $1.2 billion Project Nimbus contract, provide Israel with core cloud infrastructure for the military and government agencies.
IBM, which has operated in Israel since 1972, has operated the central database of the Population and Immigration Authority, “enabling collection, storage and governmental use of biometric data on Palestinians, and supporting the discriminatory permit regime of Israel.”
Hewlett-Packard (HP) “has long enabled the apartheid systems of Israel,” supplying technology to the military, prison system, and police.
NSO Group, infamous for its Pegasus spyware, is cited as a textbook case of “spyware diplomacy.” Founded by former Israeli intelligence officers, the company has licensed its tools to repressive governments worldwide and used them to surveil Palestinian activists, journalists, and human rights defenders.
Financing Occupation
The financial industry underpins much of the infrastructure of occupation and genocide. Israeli treasury bonds, underwritten by global banks such as Barclays and BNP Paribas, have provided critical financing to the Israeli government. Asset managers like Blackrock, Vanguard and Allianz’s PIMCO were among more than 400 investors from 36 countries to purchase these bonds.
Blackrock and Vanguard are also among the largest shareholders in Lockheed Martin, Palantir, Microsoft, Amazon, and Chevron. Their funds distribute these investments across global markets via ETFs and mutual funds, spreading complicity to millions of unwitting investors.
Energy and resources
Glencore and Drummond Company dominate coal exports to Israel, primarily from Colombia and South Africa. Even after Colombia announced a suspension of coal exports to Israel in 2024, shipments continued through subsidiaries.
Chevron, which supplies over 70% of Israel’s energy, paid $453 million in royalties and taxes to the Israeli government in 2023. The company profits from the Leviathan and Tamar gas fields and owns a stake in the East Mediterranean Gas pipeline, which passes through occupied Palestinian maritime territory.
BP, the British energy giant, expanded its presence in 2025 with new exploration licences in maritime zones off the Gaza coast, areas Israel occupies in violation of international law.
Machinery
Heavy machinery has long played a role in Israel’s occupation through the demolition of Palestinian homes and the construction of illegal settlements.
Caterpillar Inc. has supplied the Israeli military with bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes and infrastructure. Since October 2023, Caterpillar equipment has been used to “carry out mass demolitions – including of homes, mosques and life-sustaining infrastructure – raid hospitals and burying alive wounded Palestinians”. In 2025, the company signed another multi-million-dollar contract with Israel.
Heavy machinery producers Volvo and HD Hyundai have also been linked to the destruction of Palestinian property. After October 2023, Israel increased the use of this equipment, levelling entire districts in Gaza, including Rafah and Jabalia. The Israeli military reportedly obscured the logos of the machinery during these operations.
Volvo is also tied to the settlement economy through its joint ownership of Merkavim, a bus manufacturer serving Israeli colonies.
Shipping, Tourism and Logistics
Multinational logistics firms are another key part of the war economy. A.P. Moller–Maersk, the Danish shipping conglomerate, is responsible for transporting weapons parts, military equipment, and raw materials to Israel. Since October 2023, the company has facilitated the continued flow of US-supplied arms.
Tourism platforms like Airbnb and Booking.com are profiting from the settlement project. Booking.com listings in the West Bank have increased from 26 in 2018 to 70 in 2023; Airbnb listings have grown from 139 in 2016 to 350 in 2025. These platforms promote illegal settlements while restricting Palestinian access to land and resources.
Calls for sanctions
Albanese’s report is a damning indictment, not only of Israel’s genocide in Gaza but of the global political and economic architecture that enables it. The evidence it presents leaves no ambiguity, multinational corporations are not peripheral actors but central to the machinery of occupation, apartheid and now genocide.
Albanese urged states to impose a full arms embargo on Israel, halt all trade and investment ties with companies implicated in violations of international law, and freeze the assets of individuals and entities facilitating human rights abuses.
She called on the International Criminal Court and national courts to investigate and prosecute corporate executives for their role in war crimes and for laundering the proceeds of genocide.
China has reopened its market to seafood from Japan after a nearly two-year ban over the discharge of slightly radioactive wastewater from the tsunami-destroyed Fukushima nuclear power plant. A notice from the customs agency said the ban had been lifted Sunday and that imports from most of Japan would be resumed. The ban, imposed in August 2023, was a major blow to Japan’s fisheries industry. China was the biggest overseas market for Japanese seafood, accounting for more than one-fifth of its exports.
The EU will contribute up to €25 million, while the United Kingdom will contribute up to €6.7 million, with both pledges being made at today’s ICCA Assembly meeting in London. The money will be used to fund emergency repairs to the NSC following the Russian drone attack in February 2025.
That strike has severely affected the NSC’s two primary functions: (i) containing radiological hazards and (ii) supporting long-term decommissioning. Key systems designed to ensure the NSC’s 100-year lifespan have been rendered non-operational, with a significant risk of further deterioration in the absence of swift emergency repairs. While it is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the cost of repairs to the NSC at the moment, the scale of the damage and the complex radiological environment suggest that the total cost of the emergency works could exceed €100 million.
Balthasar Lindauer, EBRD Nuclear Safety Department Director, said, “These new pledges to the ICCA are a manifestation of the international community’s unwavering support for Chornobyl and its togetherness in the face of the major radiological threat that the damaged NSC poses. We are grateful to the EU and the United Kingdom for their contributions to the ICCA.”
The ICCA was established by the EBRD in November 2020 at the request of the Ukrainian government. It was set up as a multilateral fund to support the development of a comprehensive plan for Chornobyl. The EBRD manages the ICCA, which currently holds some €25 million in donor funds. Following the occupation of the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone (CEZ) at the start of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the scope of the ICCA was broadened to support the restoration of safety and security within the CEZ, as well as wider nuclear safety measures across Ukraine.
The international community has contributed around €2 billion to EBRD-managed programmes in Chornobyl since 1995. In addition, the Bank has made more than €800 million of its net income available for Chornobyl-related projects.
All sides are keen to reach an investment decision in July after years of delay and months of negotiations. Centrica is set to take a 15 per cent stake in the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear project after years of delay and months of drawn out negotiations. All sides are keen to reach a final investment decision on the project before parliament’s recess on July 21, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The final cost of Sizewell — set to be only the second new nuclear plant built in a generation in Britain — could be close to £40bn, the Financial Times reported in January based on assumptions from industry experts. Sizewell’s management has rejected that figure although no new estimate has been given.
The planned investment by Centrica means that the FTSE 100 energy company behind British Gas would have the same size stake in Sizewell C as French state-owned energy group EDF, which has progressively reduced its position in the Suffolk project to 15 per cent.
Centrica already holds a 20 per cent stake in the parent company of the entity that operates EDF’s existing nuclear assets in the UK. The investment in Sizewell could still come in time for French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to London for an Anglo-French summit on July 8. However, timetables have slipped, according to the people familiar with the situation, putting that goal in doubt.
.The power plant is due to stop generating by the end of March 2030. However, that will not be the end of the story, with decommissioning work expected to get under way there afterwards. A spokesperson for EDF, which manages the plant, said: “Decommissioning happens in stages. “Removing all the spent fuel from the reactors will take about four years and will be carried out by EDF.
“The site will then transfer to Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) to carry out deconstruction. “It will take around 15 years to remove all the buildings from site, with the exception of the reactor building.
“It will be left in situ, in a state called ‘Safestore’, for around 70 years, until final site clearance.” The decommissioning staffing structure is yet to be agreed at the power station, which currently employs about 550 full-time EDF employees, plus more than 180 full-time contract partners.
Staff consultation is yet to begin, but the spokesperson added: “Every site is different but, as a rough guide, at Hunterston B, the number of EDF staff being transferred to NRS is about 250, which is around half the generation headcount. “This has been a managed reduction which has been taking place over a number of years and has largely been accommodated through redeployment, retirement and voluntary redundancy.
“During defueling, we will go through formal consultation with staff to see who wants to stay at site and who would like to leave. “Decommissioning offers lots of new opportunities, but we have found at other sites that not everyone who works at a site during generation wants to stay and be part of deconstruction. “Those who do want to stay and secure a role in the decommissioning structure will transfer over to NRS.
Policy Exchange launches its new Nuclear Enterprise Commission today, which will study how the Government should combine and amplify its civil and military nuclear programmes.
The Commission will be chaired by former Cabinet Secretary Rt Hon Simon Case CVO – a leading authority on the nuclear deterrent – and will include other internationally renowned nuclear experts.
As many nuclear states seek to update their capabilities, the Commission will examine the UK’s force posture in a multipolar world, the future of the NATO Nuclear Planning Group, the US nuclear shield and tactical nuclear weapons.
The overlapping civil and military benefits of expanded nuclear capacity must be encouraged, and Policy Exchange’s Commission will address how the Government can break-out of over-regulation to get building.
The Commission will bring together internationally renowned experts on civil and military nuclear, with representation from the UK, America, Europe, and Asia. The programme will run for six months, holding public and private events and publishing Research Notes on the key themes pertaining to the nuclear enterprise.
To mark the launch of the commission, Policy Exchange today publishes two studies on the history of the UK’s civil and military nuclear programmes.
a “complicated economic equation … unless someone has found a magic wand”
Insiders say Fontana’s stance signals he is aligned with the French government unlike his predecessor. EDF’s new boss is conducting a portfolio review that could lead to the French energy group selling some assets, as he seeks to meet government demands to focus on building new nuclear reactors in France.
Bernard Fontana has told insiders that he wanted to assess which assets were not profitable or did not fit with the state-owned group’s strategic priorities, according to several people with knowledge of the situation. Fontana, who took over as chief executive of the state-owned group last month, told the people that sales could come after the review, although he has not yet concluded which parts of the business should be sold off.
The state “has said that we have to make the new nuclear programme in France a success, and exploit the current nuclear centres. For the rest, if there aren’t the means, we’ll have to arbitrate”, said one of the people.
Its other assets and subsidiaries include the construction engineering division Framatome — of which Fontana was previously CEO
— renewable installations in France and across the world, Italian utility business Edison and services company Dalkia.
Several people familiar with EDF said Dalkia and Edison are among the business units that could be sold. Renewable assets, with the exception of EDF’s hydraulic power projects, could also be under consideration, the people said.
Still, the company’s aims could be complicated if it tries to sell assets during a difficult economic environment, potentially forcing it to offload some assets at deep discounts, especially in the US where it has a number of offshore wind and solar projects.
Asset sales would also do little to meet the enormous costs of delivering the new EPR2 programme, people familiar with the business said. The government and EDF recently agreed a funding mechanism for the project, but the total cost is yet to be determined.
Building the EPR2s and meeting EDF’s other priorities such as guaranteeing low energy prices to consumers and industrial groups, and completing Hinkley Point make for a “complicated economic equation … unless someone has found a magic wand”, said one of the people.
Israel’s war with Iran is costing the country an estimated $200 million per day, according to early assessments reported by The Wall Street Journal—a staggering figure that is quickly becoming a major constraint on the duration of the conflict, Anadolu reports.
The most expensive burden is the interception of Iranian missiles, which alone can run into tens or even hundreds of millions daily, the WSJ reported on Thursday.
Systems like David’s Sling and Arrow 3—each interception costing between $700,000 and $4 million—have been activated repeatedly in response to over 400 missiles launched by Iran in recent days.
Offensive operations are also increasing costs. Deploying Israeli F-35s over 1,000 miles to hit targets in Iran costs approximately $10,000 per hour per jet, in addition to the price of precision bombs like JDAMs and MK84s.
Altogether, the Aaron Institute for Economic Policy estimates that a month-long war could cost Israel $12 billion.
“This war is far more expensive than Gaza or Hezbollah,” said economist Zvi Eckstein. “The ammunition—defensive and offensive—is the big expense.”
The economic pressure is leading to calls for a shorter war, though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not indicated any intention to halt operations before achieving strategic objectives such as crippling Iran’s nuclear and missile programs.
While Israeli markets remain stable—some even rising—damage on the ground is mounting.
Engineers estimate that reconstruction costs from missile strikes will exceed $400 million, as hundreds of buildings have been damaged, and more than 5,000 civilians have been evacuated.
Israel’s largest oil refinery was temporarily shut down after being hit, and work in several critical infrastructure sectors has been suspended.
Former Bank of Israel Governor Karnit Flug told the WSJ that the duration of the conflict is key to economic sustainability: “If it is a week, it is one thing. If it is two weeks or a month, it is a very different story.”
The European Union estimates it will require $277 billion in investments for conventional nuclear power expansion by 2050.
Some EU countries are considering Small Modular Reactors and other advanced nuclear technologies as alternatives or supplements to traditional large-scale nuclear plants.
The EU is also pursuing nuclear fusion research as a potential long-term solution for energy independence and decarbonization.
The European Union countries planning to expand their nuclear power capacities will need as much as $277 billion (241 billion euros) in investments by 2050, according to Brussels’ estimates.
That’s only the investment needed for the conventional large-scale nuclear reactors currently in the plans of nearly half of the EU member states. The sum doesn’t include investment in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs), or microreactors, or investment in nuclear fusion efforts.
Some EU countries are open to returning to nuclear power generation, but only via SMRs and other advanced nuclear energy technology—not conventional large-scale nuclear power plants. These will require additional billions of U.S. dollars in investment.
Delivering the EU’s current plans to boost nuclear energy capacity will require $277 billion (241 billion euros), both for lifetime extensions of existing reactors and the construction of new large-scale reactors, the European Commission said in its latest assessment of nuclear investment needs by 2050.
While the EU’s biggest economy, Germany phased out nuclear power in 2023, some other EU countries see nuclear energy as an important part of their decarbonization, industrial competitiveness, and security of supply strategies.
…………………………………………………… the required investment in SMRs will be in addition to the $277 billion the EU estimates is necessary for large-scale conventional reactors.
So, the price tag of Europe’s nuclear power ambitions will be much higher. While SMRs hold promise, they are unlikely to be deployed commercially before the 2030s, and large-scale conventional reactors are notoriously facing delays and cost overruns.
s part of last week’s spending review, the government announced a further investment of £14.2bn for the Sizewell C nuclear power station. This puts the state’s total commitment into the project at £17.8bn.
Despite the scale of these numbers, the government’s pledges for Sizewell C seem to only cover a minority of the plant’s construction costs. That’s because, per leaks to the FT, Sizewell C’s construction budget is likely to balloon to over £40bn.
Government spokespeople have defended these costs by pointing out that Sizewell C is set to be significantly cheaper than the Hinkley Point C plant — conservatively, using CPI inflation, the latter’s construction costs are set to run up to £46.8bn in 2025 prices. The lessons from Hinkley Point C, which is a virtually identical facility that also uses the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) architecture, are apparently being realised into cost savings.
However, this does conceal the big point: the EPR plants are both grossly expensive, relative to Britain’s historic plants. Sizewell B, the last new nuclear plant built in Britain, came online in 1995 and cost £2,030mn in 1987 prices — £5.85bn in 2025, using CPI inflation.
Even accounting for the fact that Sizewell B’s nameplate capacity is 1,250MW compared to the 3,260 MW of the two EPRs, the capital costs per MW are far more expensive. The construction costs of the cheaper EPR, Sizewell C, are set to stand at £12.3mn per MW. By comparison, Sizewell B’s construction costs amount to £4.7mn per MW. So even adjusting for inflation and plant size — which should nominally reduce the cost per MW via economies of scale — the EPR reactors are nearly three times more expensive than their predecessors.
So why has nuclear become so much more expensive?
One elephant in the room is the EPR architecture. The system was designed with the ethos of risk minimisation at all costs, employing countless redundancies. Whereas many contemporary pressurised water reactors minimise risk through passive safety systems, EPRs build in countless new pumps and active countermeasures to avert a disaster. The result is an orders of magnitude increase in plant complexity, and thus cost.
However, while there’s much to be said about the faults of EPR, it probably takes a backseat to a more pressing structural problem: the way that Britain funds nuclear projects……………………………………………………….
These heightened costs are felt by consumers — Hinkley Point C’s energy via exceptionally high energy prices through a pre-agreed Contract for Difference (CfD) price, and Sizewell C’s via increased energy bills during construction via a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) price hike. While in the long-run RAB is a better model than CfD for cost-minimisation, both still push up energy prices by forcing consumers to cover the far more expensive private debts of investors………….. https://thecritic.co.uk/sizing-up-sizewell-c/
Funding for electricity group EDF, the UK’s largest ever private credit deal, eases pressure on the troubled project. US private capital group Apollo will provide £4.5bn in debt financing to support the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, easing mounting financial pressure on the delayed and over-budget project. The investment-grade package will be provided as unsecured debt at an interest rate just below 7 per cent, according to people familiar with the matter. EDF, which is building two new nuclear reactors at the site in Somerset, said it will be able to borrow £1.5bn each year over three years as part of the package. The debt has a maximum maturity of 12 years. The debt package addresses a significant gap in the finances of the project, which has struggled with a shortfall since China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), which was supposed to provide a third of the cost of the project, stopped providing further financing in 2023.
President Trump has fired one of the five members of the independent commission that oversees the nation’s nuclear reactors. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Christopher T. Hanson was terminated on Friday, according to a brief email seen by NPR from Trent Morse, the White House Deputy Director of Presidential Personnel. The e-mail said only that Hanson’s “position as Commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is terminated effective immediately.”
“All organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly told NPR via e-mail. “President Trump reserves the right to remove employees within his own Executive Branch who exert his executive authority.” In a statement shared with NPR, Hanson said that he was fired “without cause,” and that he had devoted his term to “preserving the independence, integrity and bipartisan nature of the world’s gold standard nuclear safety institution. … I continue to have full trust and confidence in their commitment to serve the American people by protecting public health safety and the environment.”
Hanson was appointed to the NRC by President Joseph Biden in 2020 and then reappointed in 2024. His current term was set to expire in 2029, according to a bio on the NRC’s website that has since been removed. Some observers of the nuclear industry were sharply critical of the decision. “I think that this coupled with the other attacks by the administration on the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could have serious implications for nuclear safety,” says Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental watchdog group. “It’s critical that the NRC make its judgements about protecting health and safety without regard for the financial health of the nuclear industry.”
nuclear-news 