nuclear-news

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

Buzz around nuclear shows the hole that [?]green shipping is in.

COMMENT. Note the headline – they’re still pretending that nuclear is “green”

Nuclear shipping is great in theory, but not a serious plan for decarbonisationSMRs are not the done deal their cheerleaders make them out to be

They have advantages over hydrogen, as long as money is no object

On paper, new nuclear for shipping offers great promise. But the fact it is being taken seriously shows how forlorn efforts to replace diesel have become in 2025

 Lloyd’s List 24th Oct 2025, https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1155212/Buzz-around-nuclear-shows-the-hole-that-green-shipping-is-in

October 27, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

ED MILIBAND’S NUCLEAR NIGHTMARES

Jonathon Porritt, 22 Oct 25, https://jonathonporritt.com/uk-nuclear-subsidies-desnz-spending/

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the legions of nuclear fat cats residing here in the UK are smiling very broadly indeed. It would appear that both Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband have nothing better to do with our money, as taxpayers, than to go on filling up their subsidy saucers more or less on demand.

Taxpayers really don’t know very much about how DESNZ spends our money. More problematically, not a lot of the UK’s more or less mis-informed energy correspondents are particularly interested in helping taxpayers to understand what’s really going on – for the most part because they’re ‘ideologically captured’, with very little interest in the truth.

A bit harsh? Well, why is it, for instance, that not one of them provides any serious analysis of DESNZ’s annual expenditure? Not least as the details of this (on p.18 of its 2024-2025 Annual Report & Accounts) are completely mind-blowing. To summarise:

DESNZ TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL SPEND

Total departmental spend:     £8.6 billion

Total spend on nuclear power:   £5.1 billion (60%)

Total spend on everything else:  £3.5 billion (40%)

See what I mean? Literally mind-blowing! A few more details on the nuclear side of things:

*Great British Nuclear: £26 million (the more or less useless quango overseeing this fiasco).

*Nuclear Decommissioning Agency : £3 billion (dealing with the legacy of past nuclear programmes).

*Support for Sizewell C power station: £1.67 billion.

*UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA): £400 million (doing bonkers stuff like nuclear fusion).

That’s the size of the nuclear sink hole: roughly £5.1 billion! Leaving roughly £3.5 billion for everything else, including all direct support for renewables, ‘delivering affordable energy’, science, research and ‘capability’, as well as other arm’s length bodies. Moreover, even that low figure is not quite what it seems: roughly £450 million is set aside for another of Ed Miliband’s sink holes, namely Carbon Capture and Storage.

Do you need any more persuading that this is obviously a completely mis-titled Department: instead of DESNZ, it really should be called DNPB&B – the Department of Nuclear Power and Bits & Bobs.

Where the hell are you, Rachel Reeves? For those sick of your hangdog ‘black hole blathering‘, it would be wonderful to think you might instruct just a few of your civil servants to instruct the ever-well-meaning Ed Miliband to undertake an exercise in zero budgeting for FY 25/26. Great British Nuclear could go at a stroke of a pen – no one would notice. The UKAEA’s budget could be halved, leaving it to focus on decommissioning redundant reactors and dealing with nuclear waste. Subsidies for Sizewell C could be massively reduced – although the Department did such a poor deal with various private sector investors that there will be significant compensation to be paid.

Sadly, of course, there is nothing that can be done about the £3 billion set aside, EVERY YEAR, for dealing with the legacy of earlier nuclear programmes – decommissioning, site security, managing nuclear waste and so on. Nuclear campaigners have struggled for years to explain that our ‘nuclear legacy’ is in fact our ‘current nuclear reality’, and that this is a figure which can only grow and grow over the years. The Public Accounts Committee looked recently at the cost of decommissioning many of the facilities at Sellafield, currently assessed at £396 million through to 2070, and couldn’t have made their incredulity any clearer. On top of that, we have the looming additional cost of building a long-term Geological Disposal Facility, for which taxpayers will be paying hundreds of billions of pounds through to the end of this century.

Ask the Treasury or officials at DNPN&B what they believe that total legacy figure will be in FY2030/2031,or FY2040/2041, and you can be absolutely guaranteed to get literally no answer at all.

And yet – AND YET – we go on pouring yet more billions into NEW waste-generating nuclear monstrosities like Hinkley C and now Sizewell C.

It’s nearly 50 years since the highly influential Flowers Report was published in 1976. Its single most important recommendation was as follows:


“There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future.”    

We are, truly, led by nuclear donkeys.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, all this never-ending filling-up of the industry’s subsidy saucers has massive opportunity costs for what we should really be doing with precious taxpayers’ money.

As in:

  • getting as enthusiastically as possible behind the potential for tidal power (see yesterday’s blog).
  • getting as enthusiastically as possible behind retrofitting and the green economy (see tomorrow’s blog).

I’ll return to the whole question of just how many billions Rachel Reeves could divert from these nuclear sink holes as we get a little closer to the budget in November.

Managing our ‘Energy Legacy’: £85 million (roughly half the total figure).

October 26, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear construction workers plan third strike.

 Construction workers employed by contractors at a nuclear site are to go
on strike for a third time in two months in a dispute over pay. Unite
members at Sellafield in Cumbria will take action from Monday until 2
November after previously striking earlier in October and for four days in
September.

The union said it was because construction workers at other
nuclear projects received pay premiums that contractors at Sellafield did
not match. Sellafield Ltd said it did not directly employ those taking part
in the action but “safety and security” would continue to be its priority
throughout the strike.

 BBC 24th Oct 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy16l08eldo

October 26, 2025 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Inside Oklo: the $20bn nuclear start-up without any revenue.

Nuclear technology company Oklo has no revenues, no licence to operate
reactors and no binding contracts to supply power.

But this has not stopped
the Silicon Valley-based start-up from riding a wave of investor enthusiasm
that has propelled its stock market valuation above $20bn, a rise of more
than 500 per cent since the turn of the year.

The company, backed by
technology boss Sam Altman and with close ties to Donald Trump’s energy
secretary, has set ambitious targets to deliver commercial power to its
first customers in 2027, having broken ground on its pilot in Idaho last
month. Oklo, led by the husband-and-wife team Jacob and Caroline DeWitte, envisages a future powered by a new generation of small modular reactors that use liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant.

FT 22nd Oct 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/cdf09f0e-d673-41f4-8faa-fe795a2b872e

October 25, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Trump Furloughs Top Nuclear Weapons Staff (What Could Go Wrong?)

The workers responsible for protecting the U.S. nuclear arsenal are now being furloughed.

Robert McCoy, October 21, 2025, https://newrepublic.com/post/202015/trump-furloughs-nuclear-weapons-staff-shutdown

The government’s nuclear watchdog agency is poised to be understaffed, as Politico reports the Trump administration has placed about 80 percent of its personnel on furlough amid the ongoing government shutdown.

The National Nuclear Security Administration is a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy that maintains the U.S. nuclear stockpile, responds to nuclear emergencies domestically and abroad, and works to prevent nuclear proliferation globally. The NNSA’s staff of fewer than 2,000 workers oversees about 60,000 contractors.

On Monday morning, the administration sent out furlough notices to about 1,400 employees, Politico reports, leaving just 375 staff members on the job for the time being. This is an unprecedented action in the agency’s 25-year history.

Last week, when the then-impending cuts were first reported, Energy Secretary Chris Wright called the workers “critical to modernizing our nuclear arsenal.”

This is just the latest controversial NNSA staffing news to come out of the second Trump administration. The agency previously faced scrutiny for terminating hundreds of workers at the behest of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, before scrambling to rehire some of them as Wright confessed he’d “made mistakes” and moved “a little too quickly.”

October 22, 2025 Posted by | employment, USA | Leave a comment

Livret A: Will part of French savings soon be used to finance nuclear power?

Traditionally, the money in the Livret A savings account is intended to support social housing and local public infrastructure.

This announcement comes as the government seeks to diversify funding sources for a nuclear program estimated at colossal sums


 Le Monde De L’Energie 13th Oct 2025

This is a historic turning point for French public savings. The Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations (CDC) has confirmed that a portion of the funds from the Livret A savings account could be used to finance the construction of new EPR nuclear reactors. This unprecedented move symbolizes the rapprochement between public finance, industrial strategy, and national energy sovereignty.

An unprecedented agreement between the State, EDF and the Caisse des Dépôts

Traditionally, the money in the Livret A savings account is intended to support social housing and local public infrastructure.  But on Thursday, October 10, CDC CEO Olivier Sichel announced a major development: “We have reached an agreement with Bercy and EDF on using the Savings Fund.” This statement, made to the Association of Economic and Financial Journalists, marks the first official confirmation of the Livret A’s involvement in financing the French nuclear program.

This shift, both energy-related and financial, is part of the government’s desire to revive civil nuclear power. The state plans to build six new EPR reactors by 2038, at a total cost estimated at less than €100 billion, according to estimates by former Energy Minister Marc Ferracci.

A crucial step: the Brussels agreement

Before the transaction can become a reality, one key step remains: European approval. “The French government will present its proposal to Brussels to obtain approval for the overall financial model,” Olivier Sichel explained. The stakes are as much legal as they are political: the European Commission will have to verify that this financing scheme does not violate competition or state aid rules.

The Brussels agreement will make it possible to secure access to part of the Savings Fund, funded by French savings, while guaranteeing that investments remain safe and profitable for depositors.

A treasure of 400 billion euros at the nation’s disposal

The Caisse des Dépôts currently manages approximately €400 billion in regulated savings, collected in particular through the Livret A (Livret A), the Livret de développement durable et solidaire (LDDS) (Sustainable and Solidarity Savings Account), and the Livret d’épargne populaire (LEP) (People’s Savings Account). Just over half of these funds are already allocated to long-term loans to finance social housing or regional policies.

The remainder, invested in financial assets, could now contribute to financing the country’s energy infrastructure, including new nuclear reactors. “Nuclear power is obviously part of our energy sovereignty,” explained Olivier Sichel, adding that this direction aims to strengthen France’s capacity to produce stable, carbon-free electricity.

This announcement comes as the government seeks to diversify funding sources for a nuclear program estimated at colossal sums, in a context of constrained budgets and strong tension on the energy markets…………………………………..

 this development is already raising questions. Some social housing stakeholders fear that this shift will reduce the funds available for their projects. ………….

Asked about financial risks, Olivier Sichel also warned of the tensions threatening global markets, particularly in the technology sector. “The colossal investments in artificial intelligence are drawing parallels with the internet bubble of the late 1990s,” he warned, urging caution.

A major turning point for public investment policy

By linking popular savings to the country’s energy strategy, the government and the Caisse des Dépôts are redefining the role of the Livret A savings account in the French economy. This investment, held by more than 55 million French people, is becoming not only a social financing tool, but also a pillar of industrial and energy recovery.

If Brussels gives the green light, France will usher in a new era: one in which every euro placed in a Livret A savings account could, indirectly, contribute to fueling the nation’s future nuclear reactors. …… https://www.lemondedelenergie.com/livret-une-partie-de-lepargne-des-francais-bientot-mobilisee-pour-financer-le-nucleaire/2025/10/13/

October 21, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France | Leave a comment

Desperately seeking submariners: why keeping nuclear-powered boats afloat will be Australia’s biggest Aukus challenge.

Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Oct 25

A vast and highly trained workforce is needed to command, crew, supply and maintain nuclear submarines. Some say that’s impossible for Australia.

“Vice-Admiral Mead, you’re free to go home … good to see you cracking a smile.”

The head of the Australian Submarine Agency had spent a withering three hours before Senate estimates, parrying a barrage of questions about Australia’s ambitious Aukus nuclear submarine plan: interrogatives on consultants, on hundreds of millions of dollars sent to US and UK shipyards, on sclerotic boat-building on both sides of the Atlantic.

But while so much focus has been on Australia’s nuclear submarines’ arrival, their price tag and their “sovereign” status, the greatest challenge to the Aukus project, Mead told the Senate, would be finding the people to keep them afloat and at sea.

“Ensuring Australia has the workforce to deliver this program remains our biggest challenge,” he said.

If Australia’s nuclear submarines arrive on these shores – and that remains a contested question, with expert opinion ranging from an absolute yes to a certain no – will Australia be able to crew, supply and maintain them?

“It is a challenge we are continuing to meet,” Mead told senators. “Australian industry and navy personnel continue to build critical experience through targeted international placements.”

Others are less sanguine.

“The Aukus optimal pathway is a road to a quagmire,” says a former admiral and submarine commander, Peter Briggs, arguing that Australia’s small submarine arm can’t be upscaled quickly enough. “It’s not going anywhere. It will not work.”

Onshore trades, too, are perilously short. Without an additional 70,000 welders by 2030, that trade’s peak body says: “The Aukus submarine program is at serious risk of collapse.”

Mead was asked directly by senators: “Are you still confident of meeting the government’s agenda and timings?”

“Yes,” he replied, “I am.”

‘An eye-wateringly long process’

Briggs, a past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, says the Aukus plan reads like one “designed by a political aide in a coffee shop”.

The navy’s submarine arm is approximately 850 sailors and officers (the defence department declined to give exact figures). The former chief of navy previously told parliament it needed to grow to 2,300 by the 2040s.

But Briggs estimates that to crew and support Australia’s Virginia-class, and later, Aukus-class submarines, the navy will need to more than treble its existing complement to about 2,700.

Virginias are massive submarines – nearly 8,000 tons – and carry a crew of 134, more than twice the existing Collins-class crew of 56. The Aukus submarines to be built in Adelaide will be bigger again. More tonnage, more people.

“That’s a huge increase in what is already in very scarce supply,” Briggs argues…………………………………………………………

The new generation of submariners is needed for between three and five Virginia-class submarines, then up to eight Australian-built Aukus boats.

“To get to be chief engineer of a nuclear submarine takes 16 to 18 years,” Briggs says. “It’s an eye-wateringly long process and of course you lose people along the way.

“That’s why you need a broad base, a critical mass, and Australia simply doesn’t have that right now. There is no way a navy the size of ours can manage this mix.”

Briggs does not believe the US will withdraw from Aukus: the presence of nuclear submarine bases on Australian soil is too great a prize for a superpower wanting to project power into the Pacific. But Australia’s unreadiness could lead to nuclear submarines under domestic command being delayed.

“We’ve got no warranty clause, no guarantee of anything. The cop-out could come in 2031, the US might say, ‘Look, you’re not quite ready yet, let’s push everything back three years, check in again in 2034.’ And it’s Australia that’s left exposed.”

‘Beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous’

Beyond the complexity of commanding and crewing a nuclear submarine, the vessels need a vast and highly trained workforce to keep them supplied, afloat and at sea………………………………………………………………………

“This is not just a workforce challenge,” its chief executive, Geoff Crittenden, said in a statement. “It’s a full-blown capability crisis … If we don’t address this issue now, Aukus will fail.”

Aukus represented a “perfect storm”, he said, and failure to address worker shortages was “beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous”.

“A once-in-a-generation opportunity like Aukus demands a long-term, strategic response, not just investment in ships and steel, but in people. We estimate that Australia will be at least 70,000 welders short by 2030. Without immediate action, the project is doomed to delays, cost blowouts, or worse.”…………………………………………………………………………

The first cohort won’t be Australian. “In the short term there will have to be an influx of international talent, as we train and upskill our own people.”

Tier two is a nuclearised workforce of skilled professionals – scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technical managers, reactor operators and health physicists – with advanced training and between seven and 10 years’ experience. The majority of a submarine crew would sit in this tier. Obbard estimates that about 5,000 tier-two workers will be needed.

Tier three is a further cohort of “nuclear-aware” workers – between 5,000 and 6,000 again – tradespeople including machinists, fitters and welders, who will require some nuclear training.

“The Aukus plan cannot work without building this workforce and the wider engineering community this workforce is drawn from.”

Does it make sense?’

Jack Dillich is uniquely placed to observe Australia’s transformation to a nuclear submarine power. A former submarine officer, he holds an advanced degree in nuclear engineering and served on the executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, where he was responsible for the country’s sole nuclear reactor, and as head of the regulatory branch at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. He now teaches a nuclear course at the Australian Defence Force Academy………………………………….

[Dillich says] Australia needs to be asking, ‘Does it make sense to try to build a tiny fleet here?’ Maybe 25 years from now, Australia could have eight nuclear-propelled submarines: they would be very, very expensive.”……………………………..https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/20/aukus-submarine-workforce-nuclear-powered-boats-australia

October 21, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, employment | Leave a comment

Deloitte to pay $34mn over audit work on US nuclear fiasco.

Deloitte has agreed to pay $34mn to investors who blamed the auditor for
losses stemming from the collapse of one of US’s largest nuclear power
projects, a rare legal settlement by a Big Four firm.

Former shareholders in the South Carolina utility Scana said Deloitte failed to spot red flags and allowed management to hide mounting problems with the construction of two nuclear reactors a decade ago. Scana shares tumbled when it eventually abandoned work on the reactors in 2017, leading to its cut-price sale to a rival utility and jail time for its former chief executive, who pleaded guilty to misleading regulators. The fiasco also pushed construction company Westinghouse into bankruptcy.

 FT 17th Oct 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/f9fc0a78-ff10-40f3-8253-220d9acd56bb

October 20, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Key US nuclear agency to send 80% of workforce home as shutdown drags on.

About 1,400 staff at NNAS, which manages America’s nuclear weapons stockpile, to be furloughed on Monday

Joseph Gedeon , 18 Oct 25, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/17/government-shutdown-nuclear-agency-nnsa

The agency that maintains the US nuclear arsenal will be sending home 80% of its workforce as the government shutdown drags through its 17th day and into the weekend, now the longest full funding lapse in US history.

House armed services committee chair Mike Rogers said in a Friday press conference that the National Nuclear Security Administration has now exhausted its carryover reserves.

“We were just informed last night that the National Nuclear Security Administration, the group that manages our nuclear stockpile, that the carryover funding they’ve been using is about to run out,” said Rogers, a Republican from Alabama. “These are not employees that you want to go home. They’re managing and handling a very important strategic asset for us.”

The NNSA, which operates as part of the department of energy, does not directly control operational nuclear weapons – a Pentagon responsibility – but plays a strategic role in keeping warheads secure and functional without conducting explosive tests. The agency also runs non-proliferation programs aimed at preventing nuclear materials from reaching hostile nations or terrorist organizations.

Around 1,400 NNSA employees will be furloughed without pay starting on Monday, leaving only 375 staff members designated as essential to continue working, according to an agency notice obtained by Politico. A department of energy spokesperson confirmed the approximate workforce numbers.

The spokesperson also said that NNSA’s office of secure transportation, which is responsible for transporting government-owned nuclear material across the country, is funded through 27 October, and added that Chris Wright, the energy secretary, will be at the NNSA site in Las Vegas on Monday to “further discuss the impacts of the shutdown on America’s nuclear deterrent.

Under the agency’s 2025 contingency protocols in the event of a shutdown, the skeleton crew on duty will focus exclusively on hyperspecific safety operations: monitoring nuclear materials, maintaining unique equipment, ensuring reactor safety for navy vessels, and continuing international nonproliferation work it deems essential for security.

But most scientific research, stockpile maintenance, and global security programs will be suspended, potentially creating delays in sensitive national defense projects that need rigid and consistent oversight.

The current impasse has now become the longest complete government-wide shutdown in US history, surpassing a 16-day funding lapse in 2013. Previous lengthier shutdowns affected only portions of the federal government.

Speaker Mike Johnson blamed Senate Democrats for the crisis, saying earlier this week the country is “barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history, unless Democrats drop their demands”. Republican leaders are also now worried about potential airport disruptions during the upcoming Thanksgiving travel period if the stalemate continues.

Hundreds of thousands of federal employees, including congressional and agency staffers, remain either furloughed or working without pay.

October 19, 2025 Posted by | employment, USA | Leave a comment

Fears raised that specialist Vulcan MoD work could shift to Sellafield

By Iain Grant, John O’Groat Journal, 16th Oct 2025

Concern has arisen that the plans to put the clean-up of Vulcan in the hands of next-door Dounreay could lead to the break-up of a long-time, specialist Ministry of Defence (MoD) support team in the far north.

The MoD has yet to comment on speculation that the intended transfer of the Rolls-Royce workforce to NRS Dounreay could lead to future work in support of the UK nuclear submarine fleet being switched to the Sellafield plant in west Cumbria.

The suggestion has emerged in the wake of the UK government’s confirmation that the decommissioning of Vulcan is to be undertaken by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which currently oversees only the clean-up of redundant civil nuclear reactor sites.

A Vulcan worker has told the Caithness Courier that the transfer has triggered a lot of disquiet.

“The majority of the workforce don’t want transferred to the NDA as they would have to re-train to support a general decommissioning role,” said the individual, who wants to remain anonymous.

“They would much rather continue to work on the existing MoD contract to make best use of their specialist skills that they have taken years to develop.”

Rolls Royce had earlier this year been informed by the MoD to expect more work involved with the current submarine programme to come to Vulcan.

But the worker claims that the site management has since been told that this is now scheduled to go to Sellafield.

“We don’t think that is right as it is unlikely that Sellafield will deliver the work on time,” said the individual. “The Sellafield programme has slipped for the last few years whereas Vulcan has been consistently hitting its delivery targets and we have been praised for it.

“If this work goes to Sellafield, the great specialist team that has been built up at Vulcan will be broken up and forced to move into a decommissioning role which does not need the same specialist skill set.”

The worker maintains retaining the work in Caithness represents the best value for the taxpayer.

“The workforce don’t think that it is right that the MoD are going to break up the team at Vulcan when highly skilled people are desperately needed in the nuclear sector and it will take many years to train any other team up to this level of specialism.

“We don’t think that delivers best value to the taxpayers of this country. We think that highly skilled jobs being taken from Scotland to England would be unjustifiable if publicly challenged.

“This work is the next phase of the programme that has already been safely and efficiently been conducted at Vulcan over the last 60 years.”

At the end of March, then-junior defence minister Maria Eagle announced that Vulcan’s nuclear submarine support role would continue until at least April 2027…………………………

Both the MoD and Rolls-Royce declined to respond to the speculation about work being redirected to Sellafield. https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fears-raised-that-specialist-vulcan-mod-work-could-shift-to-416873/

October 19, 2025 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear stocks mixed after U.S. Army launches program to deploy small reactors.

Spencer Kimball CNBC, Wed, Oct 15 2025

Key Points

  • The U.S. Army on Tuesday launched a program to build micro nuclear reactors.
  • Investors have speculated heavily on the fortunes of NuScale, Oklo and Nano Nuclear despite the fact that none of the companies have deployed a reactor yet.

Nuclear stocks traded mixed Wednesday after the U.S. Army launched a program to deploy small reactors…………..

The U.S. Army on Tuesday unveiled a program to build micro nuclear reactors in partnership with the Defense Innovation Unit. The microreactors will be commercially owned and operated with the goal of helping developers scale up their businesses, according to the Army.

The Army launched the “Janus Program” in response to President Donald Trump’s May executive orders that aim to speed the deployment of advanced reactors. Trump ordered the Defense Department to have a reactor operating at a domestic military installation no later than Sept. 30, 2028.

Investors have speculated heavily on the fortunes of NuScale, Oklo and Nano Nuclear despite the fact that none of the companies have deployed a reactor yet. Oklo and Nano Nuclear have not generated any revenue…..

Artificial intelligence power demand and Trump’s executive orders have fueled a wave of market enthusiasm about nuclear power. Goldman Sachs recently told investors to exercise caution on Oklo.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/15/army-nuclear-reactor-trump-oklo-nuscale-nano-centrus.html

October 18, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Why big tech’s nuclear plans could blow up

By Mike Wendling, BBC, 15th October 2025

Eager to find new energy sources to power artificial intelligence, big tech companies are betting on nuclear – even though there are still huge questions over public perception, cost and, perhaps most importantly, the time it will take for a potential new nuclear technology to become viable.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………. Big tech is making a big bet on nuclear – Microsoft has even recently joined the industry’s lobbying group, the World Nuclear Association.

The maker of the Xbox is not alone. Google, Amazon and others are also funding nuclear projects, albeit taking a different tack with a newer technology known as small modular reactors (SMRs).

SMRs run at cooler temperatures, theoretically reducing the risk of a meltdown, and their smaller size also means lower construction costs.

Two such small reactors already provide a relatively small amount of power to electricity grids, one each in China and Russia’s far east. So in some respects, SMRs sound like the perfect solution to the growing energy AI demand – if only it were that simple.

“Most SMRs are on paper” and haven’t progressed beyond the testing stage, says Allison Macfarlane, the former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now a professor at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

Commercialising the technology will be difficult, Macfarlane says, because a smaller reactor core also means a less efficient reactor – producing less energy from the same amount of fuel. She estimates SMRs are years away from being financially viable.

“You just can’t get around economies of scale,” she says. “These are fun ideas. But the tech bros don’t seem to be grounded in reality.”

Undaunted, energy companies and tech giants are ploughing resources into research and pilots.

Kairos Power, Google’s partner, is hoping to generate 50 megawatts of nuclear power by 2030 – equivalent to the amount of energy needed to power a small town.

The company has set up shop in Oak Ridge, Tennessee – another noteworthy American nuclear site, one that provided crucial support to the Manhattan Project which produced the first atomic bomb.

Kairos calls Oak Ridge a “proving ground” and in a statement to the BBC said that advanced construction techniques will increase efficiency and lower costs.

But even though the company aims to boost energy generation tenfold by 2035, practically it still won’t help meet the supercharged energy demands of AI – which is ramping up right now.

“Small modular reactors can provide 24/7 clean [??] energy near data centres,” says Haider Raza, an expert in AI and energy use at the University of Essex. “But they won’t come close to solving the coming demand issue in the next year or two.”

A report released in April by the International Energy Agency noted that the power demand from data centres, which currently account for around 1.5% of the world’s electricity consumption, could double in the next five years. Beyond that, there’s huge uncertainty – both in the amount of future demand and what sources might rise to meet it.

Nuclear reactors, Raza and other experts say, may have a role in meeting the AI energy crunch, but only years into the future – and only if the industry can convince an often-sceptical public………………………………………………………………………………………….

And then there’s the issue of what to do with radioactive waste. Researchers at Stanford found that SMRs actually produce more such waste than larger conventional reactors, because more subatomic particles escape from a smaller nuclear core, contaminating surrounding materials……………………………….. https://www.bbc.co.uk/worklife/article/20251008-why-big-tech-is-going-nuclear

October 18, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

The Troubling Data on Data Centers

Below is an extract from a pro nuclear article. It was rather subtly pro-nuclear. But I decided not to give its rather dubious pro nuclear arguments any publicity on this ste.

One example – the author praises the “cheapness” of France’s nationalised nuclear power, ignoring its downside of debt and climate-accelerated shutdowns.

Nuclear Is Here To Save AI. But What About Your Energy Bills? October 12, 2025, Brian Boyle, The Daily Upside

A nuclear boom is directly downstream from the AI boom, with $350 billion in nuclear spending in the US planned by 2050, per Bloomberg.

The artificial intelligence revolution is officially upon us. If the abrupt improvement in your co-worker’s email grammar didn’t tip you off, the drastic increase in your power bill is a hard-to-miss clue. (And if your bill hasn’t changed much yet, consider yourself lucky.)

As the massive, power-hungry data centers that power AI’s expansion come online, they’re competing for power with everyone else. That’s driving up energy bills for industry and consumers alike, while testing the limits of US energy production capacity and stressing an aging power grid.

Silicon Valley has a solution: nuclear energy. Big Tech is investing heavily in the long-shunned (in the US, at least) energy source to power its AI moment, mostly in the form of so-called small nuclear reactors (SMRs), the next-gen version of nuclear tech that can (theoretically) be mass-produced and strategically deployed. (For the uninitiated, it might be helpful to think of SMRs as gas generators on radioactive steroids.) Now, a nuclear boom is directly downstream from the AI boom: According to a recent Bloomberg Intelligence report, soaring power demand from AI will spur $350 billion in nuclear spending in the US by 2050.

The US government, which views dominance in the AI sphere as crucial to continued economic and geopolitical dominance around the globe, is entirely on board. In a rare instance of bipartisan consensus, both the current and previous administrations have moved fast to cut red tape, overhaul oversight processes, and pour capital into the resurgent nuclear industry. 

“We’re in a very serious bind. We’ve already tapped out traditional oil and gas technologies. There’s an eight-, nine-year queue for diesel generators, the most expensive form of energy, and now also gas turbines,” Kevin Kong, founder and CEO of AI-driven nuclear compliance platform Everstar, told The Daily Upside. “Renewables are not dense enough … Data centers run 24/7, and are extremely power-dense. And so the only technology that’s left that was overlooked and under-invested in is nuclear.”

In other words, if we’re going to have an AI revolution, we’ll need plenty of nukes. But will the industry insulate Americans from rising energy bills? Maybe.

The Troubling Data on Data Centers

For years, experts had estimated energy demand growth in the years and decades to come based on banal drivers such as population growth, economic expansion and development of emerging economies, as well as the electrification of everything, including major industries like manufacturing and transportation. It would be predictable and hence manageable, they believed. 

Then came ChatGPT. Now? Most estimates predict that global energy demand will nearly double by 2050. A recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that over 50% of that growth will be driven by AI expansion. For example, a ChatGPT query requires roughly 10 times the energy, on average, needed for a Google search. To put it in even starker perspective, the IEA estimates that a typical AI-focused data center consumes as much electricity as 100,000 homes, while the largest such data centers consume 20 times that amount.

According to a recent Goldman Sachs report, data center power demand is expected to increase 160% by 2030 alone, and meeting 60% of that demand will require new energy generation capacity. Meanwhile, a report produced by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and published by the Department of Energy estimates that data centers will consume more than 12% of total US electricity by 2028, up from 4.4% in 2023.

The triple-digit growth figures are already having a triple-digit impact on those suddenly, and sometimes unwillingly, competing with data centers for electricity. According to a recent Bloomberg analysis of energy data, monthly electricity costs in areas near data centers are now 267% higher than just five years ago, at the dawn of the AI age (that compares with a cumulative overall inflation rate of about 25%).

“Without mitigation, the data centers sucking up all the load is going to make things really expensive for the rest of Americans,” said David Crane, chief executive officer of Generate Capital…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

One Bubble After Another: While SMRs are likely to deliver consistent energy supplies to massive data centers, a valuable proposition in its own right, not everyone is convinced it will be delivered cheaply. 

According to data from Wood Mackenzie recently seen by the Financial Times, the “levelised cost of energy” for SMRs, or the cost for power that should be charged for the project to break even, will be around $182 per megawatt hour in 2030. That compares to $133 per megawatt-hour from traditional nuclear power plants, such as Vogtle, $126 for natural gas, and even less for wind and solar. https://www.thedailyupside.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/nuclear-is-here-to-save-ai-but-what-about-your-energy-bills/

October 15, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, technology | Leave a comment

UK small businesses and charities say nuclear levy could add thousands to bills.

Charge from next month expected to have disproportionate impact after energy-intensive industries given exemption.

Jillian Ambrose  Guardian, 13 Oct 25

British charities and small businesses have warned that a new levy on energy bills, intended to support the government’s nuclear power ambitions, could raise their costs by thousands of pounds a year.

The extra charge could mean a significant cost hike for charities and small businesses with high energy use, meaning community services may be cut and economic growth curtailed, according to trade groups.

For most charities, the levy, which takes effect in November, will mean an increase in costs of between £100 and £240 a year, but some could experience increases of up to £2,500, according to Social Investment Business, an organisation that offers loans and financial support to charities.

Nick Temple, the chief executive of Social Investment Business, said: “Adding yet more charges on top of charity electricity bills penalises our most vital community spaces at a time when they are already struggling.”

For small business, including those in hospitality, the extra costs could undermine growth in the UK economy and make the shift from fossil fuels to low-carbon electricity more expensive, according to trade associations.

The levy is designed to pay back investors in the Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk while the power plant is under construction.

Households can expect the levy to add about £12 a year to their energy bills, but organisations with high energy use will shoulder a greater cost burden. This will have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses and charities with high energy demands because energy intensive industries such as steel, cement and glass-making have been granted exemption.

A Bristol-based community arts organisation, Spike Island, has been told to expect a hike of £1,ooo a year from the nuclear levy alone. The company, which provides subsidised studios for underrepresented artists, expects the extra costs to put a strain on its work……………………………………………………..

Business groups have also said that the costs are a “huge concern” for smaller companies, which they say will be forced to carry a disproportionate cost burden because larger companies were given exemptions………………………………………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/12/uk-small-businesses-and-charities-say-nuclear-levy-could-add-thousands-to-bills

October 14, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Italy’s Second General Strike for Gaza Brought 2 Million Workers into the Streets

The next day, one million people joined a demonstration in Rome, which highlighted Italy’s complicity in the genocide.

By Laura Montanari , Truthout, October 11, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/italys-second-general-strike-for-gaza-brought-2m-workers-into-the-streets/?utm_source=Truthout&utm_campaign=b6b31995af-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_10_11_04_35&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbb541a1db-b6b31995af-650192793

It seemed impossible for Italy to strike for Palestine more successfully than it did the first time, yet it happened: 2 million people returned to the streets on October 3, blocking everything again. The second general strike was called by Si Cobas labor union on September 18, and circulated broadly after September 22, the date of the first strike.

After Israel attacked the Global Sumud Flotilla on the evening of October 1, CGIL (the biggest Italian union) and USB (the union that called the earlier general strike) joined the call. This landmark event marked the first time that all the leftist labor unions in the country decided to go on strike together.

The days preceding the strike were filled with constant mobilization. People took to the streets as soon as the attack on the flotilla was reported through media channels. A spontaneous rage and a will to act took over, with people rushing to the main squares in different Italian cities. After two years of genocide witnessed through phone and laptop screens, people of all ages gathered together physically in continuous and heterogeneous demonstrations. On October 2, the day after the attacks, people were in the streets again, in a diffuse vibrant and electric atmosphere that foreshadowed what would happen over the next two days.

As Marika Giati — a PhD student at the University of Pisa and part of the Women’s Assembly of the Migrants Coordination in Bologna — told Truthout, “In these demonstrations, a new consciousness could be felt — one that exploded and connected with the massive mobilizations stretching from Spain to France, Germany, the Netherlands, Greece, Tunisia, Mexico, and Morocco.”

People were enraged by the Italian government as well. Deputy Prime Minister Antonio Tajani, speaking about Israel’s illegal control of the international waters adjacent to Gaza, said that international law is important, “but does not always matter” — justifying both the Israeli blockade, and the fact that the Italian frigate accompanying the flotilla abandoned the flotilla while it was being attacked and while Italian citizens were being illegally arrested by Israel.

October 14, 2025 Posted by | employment, Italy | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »