nuclear-news

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

EDF appears to consider reduced final stake in Sizewell C nuclear to as low as 10%

New Civil Engineer, 24 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby

French state-owned energy giant EDF which is the sole operator of nuclear power plants in the UK has said it will consider becoming a 10-19.99% owner of Sizewell C, having previously committed up to 20%.

EDF previously confirmed in its 2024 half year results that Sizewell C is owned 76.1% by the UK Government and 23.9% by EDF.

Despite the final investment decision (FID) still not having been made, approximately £5.5bn of taxpayer money has been committed to the scheme, and contractors have been awarded £2.5bn of works which are underway ahead of main construction.

Speculation about the ownership of Sizewell C abounds because of the secrecy around the process, the potential for much of the £40bn investment to be stumped up by the taxpayer, and Centrica’s recent comments which weakened confidence in the scheme.

Centrica CEO Chris O’Shea said the energy company’s stake in Sizewell C could be “between 1% or 2% and 50%”.

“I’m not going to commit Centrica money for something that won’t give us the returns we need.”

EDF previously said it would own maximum 20% stake

In a press release from EDF on 20 December 2022, the company said: “EDF will only retain a minority stake of a maximum of 20% at final investment decision”.

Since the 20% figure was announced, French public spending watchdog Cour des comptes said EDF should scale back involvement in UK nuclear projects.

The auditor said “a final investment decision on [Sizewell C] should not be approved until a significant reduction in EDF’s financial exposure to the Hinkley Point project has been achieved.

………………….Ownership stake scaled back to 10-19.99%

EDF’s 2024 Annual results document laid out its contribution to the power plant which is “subject to some conditions, including … a share in ownership of the project of 10 to 19.99%, including a cap on financial exposure in value.”

It also requires “A return on capital expected by EDF as an investor in line with market return for this type of assets, risk allocation profile and its investment policy.”

It is understood that the reason for selecting 19.99% rather than 20% is because a company buying 20% would have to set up a subsidiary entity to take the ownership.

Another aspect of any ownership stake is a requirement to take on debt.

A UBS spokesperson told NCE: “The project would have something like £4bn of debt for every £2bn equity.”

Anti-Sizewell C groups say EDF appears to be attempting to ‘wriggle out’ of ownership

Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “The mention of this lower percentage stake (10%) in EDF’s results is significant.

“EDF’s leadership is clearly strapped for cash and doesn’t seem to buy its own rhetoric that replication could result in Sizewell C being built on time, significantly cheaper than Hinkley C – and neither do we.

“A reduction in EDF’s stake would leave the UK government with an even bigger costly void to fill.”

Downes also pointed out that regardless of EDF’s ownership status, the company would still likely get a construction contract since no other company has the relevant expertise.

Together Against Sizewell C spokesperson Chris Wilson said it was no surprise that “EDF hope to wriggle out of their financial commitment to the Sizewell project by suggesting a cap on their exposure and a reduction in their investment down to 10%”.

Wilson said this was not surprising given that EDF is “struggling to find investors to plug the £8bn- £13bn gap in the funding they need to finish the Hinkley Point C (HPC) build and the French state auditor’s advice to not take a final investment decision in Sizewell C until their exposure at HPC is reduced.”

“As the UK govt scrabble around for the likely £40 billion for the Sizewell C development, it’s hardly a good advert to potential investors that we now have EDF, the original promoter, hoping to reduce their exposure to as low as 10%”, Wilson said…………………………………………….. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edf-appears-to-consider-reduced-final-stake-in-sizewell-c-to-as-low-as-10-24-02-2025/

February 27, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France, UK | Leave a comment

We can’t afford Doug Ford’s nuclear fantasy

When it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production.

Feb. 26, 2025, By Mark Winfield. Mark Winfield is a professor of environmental and urban change at York University, co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative, and co-editor of Sustainable Energy Transitions in Canada (UBC Press 2023). https://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/we-cant-afford-doug-ford-s-nuclear-fantasy/article_818e4f2d-0f80-50bf-a4c4-7abaf277ebb1.html

Doug Ford’s proposal to bury Highway 401 lanes from Brampton or Mississauga in the west to Scarborough or Markham in the east, with an estimated price tag of at least $100 billion, has been described as being a “fantasy that would bankrupt” the province.

Although the 401 proposal has drawn the most attention among the Ford government’s increasingly grandiose infrastructure proposals, it actually isn’t the largest.

That status goes to the government’s plans to dramatically expand the province’s now aging fleet of nuclear reactors. A 10,000-megawatt (MW) facility proposed just before the election call for Wesleyville, Ont., between Coburg and Kingston, could break the $200-billion mark in capital costs alone.

That estimate is based on the actual costs of the most recently completed nuclear construction project in North American, the Vogtle plant in Georgia. That facility, completed last summer, came in at $50 billion (Canadian) for 2,200 MW capacity. A simple extrapolation of those costs to the Wesleyville project would give a figure of over $200 billion.

But there is even more to the Ford government’s nuclear plan.

A proposed new 4,800-MW facility at the Bruce nuclear site, would come in around $100 billion on the same basis. New estimates by the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority on the costs of the type of the four 300-MW reactors proposed for the Darlington site suggests costs in the range of $25 billion.

To this has to be added the costs of the refurbishments of the existing reactors at Bruce, Darlington and potentially, the Pickering B site, with potential costs of between $35 billion and $50 billion.

For context, the scale of Ontario’s nuclear proposals, relative to provincial GDP, would be comparable to that of the Muskrat Falls hydro project in Labrador. That project really did push the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to the brink of bankruptcy, save for a massive federal bailout.

At least the Muskrat Falls project was subject to external economic and environmental reviews. Unfortunately, the warnings flowing from those reviews about the project’s risks were ignored. In contrast, none of Ontario’s proposals have been subject to any form of meaningful external review in terms of their economic, technological or environmental rationality.

The Ford government’s nuclear heavy strategy appears to be premised on an assumption that a massive nuclear expansion program will turn Ontario into an electricity production and export “superpower.”

The fundamental problem with strategy is that Ontario has no comparative advantage in electricity production.

Comparative advantage in energy tends to be a product of accidents of geography. Ontario was the beneficiary of such an accident through the first half of the 20th century, where hydro-electricity, principally from Niagara Falls, provided the foundation of the industrial base that was built through the Golden Horseshoe around the western end of Lake Ontario, from Niagara to Oshawa.

But that advantage was lost from the early 1960s onward when the province ceased to be a hydro-dominated system, turning first to the construction of coal-fired plants, and then a massive nuclear construction program from the 1960s to the 1990s.

Ontario turned out to be no better at building and operating these types of plants than anyone else in North America.

The province therefore lost its comparative advantage in electricity production. The recent experience with attempts at constructing new nuclear facilities in the U.S. and Europe, like the Vogtle project, suggest such advantage cannot be restored through a nuclear expansion program. Renewable energy sources, combined with energy storage offer much more cost-effective, lower-impact and lower-risk options.

Instead, when it comes to energy, any economic strategy for Ontario has to focus on controlling energy costs and improving energy productivity, not energy production. The province is already taking $7.3 billion a year from general revenues, funds that otherwise would be spent, for example, on schools and hospitals, to artificially lower hydro costs for industrial and residential consumers.

The Ford government has given no indication of what its nuclear expansion program will cost or how it will be financed. Past experience tells us it will be Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers who are likely to be ultimately stuck with the bills.

Ontario needs to engage in a serious debate about the future of its energy systems. But it needs to look to pathways to decarbonize the province without risking bankrupting it in the process.

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

Nuclear site warns £2.8bn budget is ‘not enough’


 BBC 24th Feb 2025

Planned work to decommission the UK’s largest nuclear site could have to be slowed down or paused due to insufficient funding, managers have warned.

Sellafield Ltd, which manages the site near Seascale in Cumbria, said its £2.8bn funding for the 2025-26 financial year would “not be enough” for the planned operations.

The GMB union urged Sellafield to be transparent about the impact of the budget restraints on workers.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said Sellafield’s safety and security was their “top priority”.

In October the spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, said the site was not “value for money” and it had spent £1.9bn more than it earned in 2023-2024.

It is understood that while the funding for the 2025-26 financial year is similar to the one for the 2024-25, it does not take into account inflation and rise in energy prices.

Employee fears

The funding is indicative and is expected to be confirmed soon, but Sellafield said the forecast budget would impact its supply chain.

A spokesman added: “Critical work will continue but some projects will need to be slowed down, paused, or stopped.”…………………………..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2yvpx8xp1o

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

Sellafield nuclear site plans cuts as chief says £2.8bn funding ‘not enough’

Union concerned over safety as site’s bosses say budget does not cover work planned.

Alex Lawson and Anna Isaac, Guardian, 25 Feb 25

Sellafield has said nearly £3bn in new funding is “not enough” and bosses are now examining swingeing cuts, prompting fears over jobs and safety at the vast nuclear waste dump.

The Cumbrian nuclear site, which is home to the world’s largest store of plutonium, was last week awarded £2.8bn for the next financial year, the bulk of the total of just over £4bn funds allotted to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a taxpayer-owned and funded quango.

Sellafield’s chief executive, Euan Hutton, has told staff that the funding was “not enough” to carry out planned works, leaving bosses to make “difficult decisions” over spending, sources told the Guardian.

A spokesperson for Sellafield said: “While this is significant funding, it will not be enough for all our planned activities. Critical work will continue but some projects will need to be slowed down, paused, or stopped. This will impact parts of our supply chain.”

Hutton told employees at the site – which employs more than 10,000 people – that all areas of the business will be affected and spending reviewed.

It is understood that internal calculations had forecast that at least £3.1bn would be needed to meet Sellafield’s spending requirements next year, when accounting for rising costs. The site was awarded £2.8bn for the current financial year.

The public spending watchdog has said the ultimate cost of cleaning up Sellafield is expected to rise to £136bn, causing tensions with the Treasury as the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, attempts to tighten public spending and spur growth.

In 2023, the Guardian’s Nuclear Leaks investigation revealed a string of safety concerns at the site – from issues with alarm systems to problems staffing safety roles at its toxic ponds – as well as cybersecurity failings, radioactive contamination and allegations of a toxic workplace culture.

Hutton has not told staff which projects could be paused or stopped at the site, which covers two square miles and hundreds of buildings. Staff carry out a range of work from painstakingly emptying the toxic ponds to building new facilities to house nuclear waste.

Hutton said that safety and security would be prioritised and the site would adhere to legal and regulatory rules, sources said.

However, staff at the hazardous toxic site in north-west England remain concerned that cuts to spending could affect safety and jobs.

Dan Gow, a senior organiser at the GMB union, said: “GMB calls on Sellafield to be fully transparent about any cost-saving measures and to engage with us to ensure the workforce is protected.

“No worker should ever have to fear that budget cuts will put their safety at risk.

“GMB is urging all workers to stand together, stay informed, and ensure their voices are heard. Now more than ever, being part of a strong, organised union is the best way to protect jobs, rights and safety.”

The Office for Nuclear Regulation last week took Sellafield out of special measures for its physical security – but said concerns remained over its cybersecurity……………………………https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/24/sellafield-nuclear-site-cuts-funding-union-spending

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

UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear plant yet to attract new investors, says EDF boss .

 French energy group EDF has not yet found alternative investors for the
flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear project as a freeze in funding from its
Chinese partner places an “extra weight” on the debt-laden company.

Luc Rémont, chief executive of France’s state-owned electricity company,
said it had held talks during 2024 with “lots” of potential funders for
the Hinkley Point C project in Somerset, but was not yet able to proceed
with any of them. EDF was continuing to meet the financing costs but was
working to find alternative investors for the project with the support of
the British government, Rémont said, as the company reported its annual
results on Friday.

“In the current circumstances, the fact that our
partner CGN is not injecting any more capital into Hinkley Point
is . . . an extra weight for EDF,” he said, but added that the
project remained a potentially profitable investment.

His comments raise further questions for the future of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear
power station being built in the UK in a generation and a vital part of the
government’s plan to decarbonise power supplies. Hinkley Point C was
initially set to cost £18bn and to be completed in 2025, but the estimated
cost has since swelled to roughly £46bn in 2024 terms while the start date
has been pushed back to 2029 at the earliest, because of construction
delays.

EDF is developing the project with Chinese state-owned CGN as a
junior investment partner, which agreed to finance 33.5 per cent of the
original costs. However, CGN has balked at making further contributions to
help meet cost overruns after the UK government in November 2022 bought it
out of a sister project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, amid concerns about
China’s involvement in critical national infrastructure. Asked on
Thursday whether he was also interested in investing in Hinkley Point C,
Centrica’s chief executive Chris O’Shea said: “We clearly like
nuclear power. And I am open to any kind of conversation. “My focus at
the moment is on hopefully getting to a good place with Sizewell C.”

 FT 21st Feb 2025 https://www.ft.com/content/c546117d-1fbc-47c8-93a8-dd823311d2ac

February 24, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Small Nuclear Reactor developer groups raise $1.5bn amid race to power AI boom

Developers of small modular nuclear reactors have raised at least $1.5bn in
funding over the past year, tapping into a surge of investor interest
linked to power supply deals agreed with Big Tech.

They have also secured pledges of billions of dollars of support from governments, amid a global race to launch new technologies considered critical to powering the
artificial intelligence revolution.

The largest fundraising of $700mn was closed this month by X-energy, a US developer that added Jane Street and other institutional investors to a register that included technology giantAmazon,

Ken Griffin, founder and chief executive of Citadel and chemical
company Dow. Paris-based developer Newcleo raised $151mn in September and
US-based developers Blue Energy and Last Energy raised $45mn and $40mn
respectively last year.

Nano Nuclear Energy, a developer of microreactors
which listed in May, raised $134mn capital in 2024. Three SMR developers
listed in New York, Oklo, NuScale and Nano Nuclear, raised more than $700mn
through share sales and other financing mechanisms over the past 12 months,
according to a Financial Times analysis of public records and data from
PitchBook and BloombergNEF.

Westinghouse, Rolls-Royce, Holtec
International, GE Hitachi and Bill Gates’ TerraPower are also among a host
of companies investing in about 60 SMR projects globally, according to
World Nuclear Association data. Amazon’s purchase of a stake in X-energy
and Google’s power supply deal with SMR developer Kairos Power, which both
occurred in October, have shaken up a funding market that soured in 2023
because of high interest rates and inflation.

But analysts warn developers
still face technical, regulatory and funding risks despite the improved
sentiment.

FT 19th Feb 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/2d84198e-7eeb-4154-bbf2-9a469b0cc700

February 23, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

UK government in “poor negotiating position” as Centrica vague about investing in the new Sizewell C nuclear power station.

Energy supplier Centrica has announced plans to invest in the new Sizewell
C nuclear power station – but campaigners say the move demonstrates the
government’s “poor negotiating position”.

Stop Sizewell C, which is opposed
to the power station, said any investors in the project could demand higher
rates of return, piling further costs on consumer bills. The government has
announced that the power station will be part-funded by adding costs to
people’s energy bills.

A spokesperson for the group said: “Chris O’Shea’s
comments show what a poor negotiating position the government is in, having
committed so much taxpayers’ money to Sizewell C without any guarantees
that private investors will take a stake. “Any investors still interested
in this risky project can demand high rates of return, but the higher the
return, the greater the burden on consumer bills during Sizewell C’s
lengthy and uncertain construction. It’s a lose lose situation for
households.”

 East Anglian Daily Times 20th Feb 2025, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24951657.size-sizewell-stake-1-50/

February 23, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce ‘resists pressure’ to put Czech parts in mini-nuclear reactors. 

British engineering giant urged to award contract to Skoda
despite leaning towards Korean company. Rolls-Royce is under pressure to
buy Czech parts for its pioneering mini-nuclear power stations after
striking a deal with Prague to build a generator in the country.

The British engineering giant revealed in October that CEZ, the Czech state
energy company, had placed the first order for its small modular reactors
(SMRs) and was taking a minority stake in the venture as well. It was
hailed as a landmark deal that would see the Czech Republic benefit from
being part of the technology’s supply chain.

But according to local media
reports, Rolls and CEZ are in disagreement about where to source key
components from. CEZ has reportedly been pushing for its subsidiary Skoda
JS – a former part of the Skoda Works empire that is now separate to the
car company of the same name – to be awarded the contract to manufacture
reactor pressure vessels, according to Czech newspaper Ekonomicky denik.

However, the report claimed that Rolls is pushing for Doosan, in South
Korea, to be given the work instead because it can do a better job for a
lower price. Rolls was also said to be frustrated that CEZ had not agreed
to post engineers to Britain to help finish the company’s SMR designs.

 Telegraph 18th Feb 2025
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/02/18/rolls-royce-resists-pressure-put-skoda-parts-mini-nukes/

February 21, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

At Great Cost: The companies building nuclear weapons and their financiers show 260 profiteers from the nuclear weapons industry

19 Feb 25,  https://www.icanw.org/at_great_cost_dbotb_2024_analysis?utm_campaign=dbotb_bad_guys_launch_2025&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ican

The 2024 Don’t Bank on the Bomb analysis identifies 260 banks, pension funds, insurance companies and other financial institutions with significant finance or investment relations with the 24 main nuclear weapons producers.

The number of Institutions with significant financial exposure to companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry has dropped by a quarter since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons came into force in 2021 according to “At Great Cost: The companies building nuclear weapons and their financiers” a new report from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX. Read more about the significance of this trend here.

All nine nuclear-armed states are investing in their nuclear arsenals. Several of these countries contract the private sector to manufacture and service their nuclear weapons; the 24 most significant of these companies are identified in this report. The most significant contracts for nuclear weapons related work went to Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Boeing, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin and RTX.   download the PDF here.

February 20, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Uncertain nuclear partnership between ČEZ and Rolls-Royce.

Negotiations between ČEZ and Rolls-Royce
on cooperation are starting to falter. Negotiations on the capital
investment of the CEZ Group in the British company Rolls-Royce SMR and
subsequent cooperation on the development and construction of modular
reactors are not going smoothly.

On the contrary, according to two
well-informed sources of the Economic Daily, the negotiations are starting
to falter. The Czechs and the British have different expectations, for
example, regarding where the production of the main parts of the reactor
will be located – whether in the Pilsen-based Škoda JS or in Korea.

According to one source, the British claim that the best option would be to
outsource the production of pressure vessels, steam generators and other
large parts to the Korean Doosan; they are said to be able to produce them
cheaper and better than anyone in Europe. On the other hand, ČEZ is trying
to properly utilize the capacities of the manufacturing and engineering
company Škoda JS, which it took over at the end of 2022. It would like to
produce pressure vessels, internal parts of the reactor and other equipment
in Pilsen.

This is a lot of money, and supplies for up to dozens of
reactors are at stake. One of the sources contacted points to another point
of contention. Rolls-Royce management expected active participation of
Czech experts in completing the design of the 470-megawatt modular reactor.
However, ČEZ and its subsidiaries are keeping the shortage of nuclear
engineering experts “at home” and do not want to send them to Britain
for several years.

 Ekonomicky Denik 17th Feb 2025

February 20, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, UK | Leave a comment

 Amazon-backed nuclear power developer X-Energy threatens to move investment away from UK

 Amazon-backed nuclear power developer X-Energy delivered a potential blow
over the weekend by threatening to move investment earmarked for its first
next-generation plants in the UK elsewhere unless the government sets out a
clear regulatory and financial route to market, The Times reported this
morning. “We would like to go big in Europe from a base in the UK but we
don’t have to do a base in the UK,” said X-Energy’s chief executive Clay
Sell.

“We’ve got to get real and we’ve got to get going, otherwise we’re
going to go someplace else.” Based in Maryland in the United States, the
firm is reported to be in discussions with French energy group EDF to build
one or more units on the site of the Hartlepool nuclear power plant, which
is due to be decommissioned in 2027. X-Energy recently closed a $700m
funding round anchored by Amazon, as part of a broader partnership to bring
5GW of power on stream by 2039. However, Clay reportedly said he remains
“very optimistic” that it could get its 80MW modular reactors – which can
be scaled into “four pack” 320MW plant – built in the UK.

 Business Green 17th Feb 2025

February 20, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

French State Spars With EDF Over Multibillion-Euro Reactor Plan


French government officials took issue with Electricite de France SA’s plan to build six nuclear plants, saying cost estimates are too broad and reactor designs not firmed up, according to people with knowledge of recent talks.

Bloomberg News, Francois de Beaupuy, Feb 14, 2025 – https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/french-state-spars-with-edf-over-multibillion-euro-reactor-plan

EDF’s board met with state representatives last week amid growing concern that the company and its suppliers are far from ready to launch a project deemed key to France’s long-term energy security. The world’s biggest nuclear-plant operator needs to prove it has a credible plan after long delays and cost overruns at other reactor developments caused debts to balloon.

Officials at the Feb. 5 meeting characterized state-owned EDF’s presentation as unconvincing on both budget and reactor design, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing private talks.

A French state auditor said last month that a final investment decision on the six reactors should be made only once their design is well advanced and funding finalized. It said the estimated bill for construction, excluding financing costs, had swelled to almost €80 billion ($84 billion) when accounting for inflation.

The criticism at last week’s presentation went both ways. EDF Chief Executive Officer Luc Remont railed against the government for enacting a finance bill that doesn’t specify tax rates on future windfall revenues, the people said. Several board members also expressed concerns about the uncertainty surrounding the level of state aid for reactor projects, the people said.

Spokespeople for EDF and the government’s shareholding agency declined to comment.

Slow progress is not only fueling tensions between EDF and the government. It also threatens to undermine preparations along the supply chain for reactor construction. In the past two years, EDF has seen US and Korean competitors make inroads in European markets as its own proposals were overlooked.

Nuclear Revival

The difficulties faced by a nuclear behemoth such as EDF may also raise questions over the speed and breadth of an atomic-power renaissance across Europe, with many countries planning new reactors to cut emissions from power generation and bolster energy security.

Back in July, EDF’s Remont expressed hope that a state support package for the six new reactors would be agreed upon by the end of 2024, paving the way for a final investment decision by the end of 2025 or early next year. 

Already on the back foot, EDF must now move quickly to pin down costs and designs so that the government can work out the necessary support and seek approval from European competition authorities, the people said. The state aid needs to be fine-tuned to limit any remedies requested by Brussels, they said.

February 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

X-Energy threatens to pull out of building nuclear plants in Britain

Developer backed by Amazon demands clarity on financial and regulatory
support before building advanced modular reactor in Hartlepool.

X-Energy, based in Maryland in the United States, is in discussions with EDF, the
French state-backed energy group, over a project to build one or more units
on the site of the Hartlepool nuclear power plant in Co Durham, a
large-scale reactor that is due to be decommissioned in 2027.

The company, which is also backed by Dow, the American industrial group, is developing
its first advanced modular reactor at one of Dow’s manufacturing sites on
the Texas Gulf Coast, with support from the US government. Another project
for Amazon is also planned in Washington state.

While its preference was to
build its first European Xe-100 reactors in Britain, Clay Sell,
X-Energy’s chief executive, said that without greater clarity from the
government on financial and regulatory support mechanisms it would look to
other markets. “We would like to go big in Europe from a base in the UK
but we don’t have to do a base in the UK. We’ve got to get real and
we’ve got to get going, otherwise we’re going to go someplace else,”
Sell said.

A clear framework included sites being made available for
advanced modular reactors, some government support for early development
work for the first plant alongside private capital, and funding for
construction through the so-called regulated asset base model, which is
levied on electricity bills. Unlike the existing designs operating in the
UK, X-Energy’s technology uses helium as a coolant rather than water to
divert heat away from the core. It has also developed its own fuel, which
it claims can withstand four times the temperature of typical nuclear fuel.

 Times 17th Feb 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/x-energy-threatens-to-pull-out-of-building-nuclear-plants-in-britain-hk99djbps

February 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

US government tries to rehire nuclear staff it fired days ago

BBC, Brandon Drenon, 16 FEB 25

The US government is trying to rehire nuclear safety employees it had fired on Thursday, after concerns grew that their dismissal could jeopardise national security, US media reported.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) workers were among hundreds of employees in the energy department who received termination letters.

The department is responsible for with designing, building and overseeing the US nuclear weapons stockpile.

The terminations are part of a massive effort by President Donald Trump to slash the ranks of the federal workforce, a project he began on his first day in office, less than a month ago.

US media reported that more than 300 NNSA staff were let go, citing sources with knowledge of the matter.

That number was disputed by a spokesperson for the Department of Energy, who told CNN that “less than 50 people” were dismissed from NNSA.

The Thursday layoffs included staff stationed at facilities where weapons are built, according to CNN.

The Trump administration has since tried to reverse their terminations, according to media outlets, but has reportedly struggled to reach the people that were fired after they were locked out of their federal email accounts.

A memo sent to NNSA employees on Friday and obtained by NBC News read: “The termination letters for some NNSA probationary employees are being rescinded, but we do not have a good way to get in touch with those personnel.”…………………………………………………..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g3nrx1dq5o

February 18, 2025 Posted by | employment, USA | Leave a comment

India PM Modi ends foreign tour with nuclear deals in pipeline

By AFP, 14 February 2025 Daily Mail

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi concluded a whistle-stop diplomatic tour Friday having secured significant pledges of support from Washington and Paris to help step up his country’s nuclear energy programme.

New Delhi has vowed to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2070 partly by increasing the number of nuclear plants in the country from eight, which currently account for around three percent of power generation in India.

Modi’s White House meeting with President Donald Trump resulted in an agreement to build US-designed nuclear reactors in India.

“This path forward will unlock plans to build large US-designed reactors and enable collaboration to develop, deploy and scale up nuclear power generation with advanced small modular reactors,” a joint statement said Thursday.

India revealed a similar deal with France following Modi’s meeting with President Emmanuel Macron earlier this week.

Foreign secretary Vikram Misri said Wednesday that India and France aimed to initiate cooperation on developing small modular nuclear reactors, nothing that the technology was still in its “initial stages”.

“Our intent is to be able to cooperate in co-designing the reactors, co-developing them, and co-producing them,” he told reporters.

Both partnerships come days after Modi’s government announced plans to amend its strict nuclear liability law, which holds operators liable for any damage or accident, with exceptions made for certain situations including natural disasters……………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-14396859/India-PM-Modi-ends-foreign-tour-nuclear-deals-pipeline.html

February 16, 2025 Posted by | India, marketing | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »