Cost needs for the growing nuclear industry

“The industry body has estimated that achieving the existing governments’ nuclear ambitions of 1,446 GWe by 2050, which would be more than tripling current capacity, would require around $6 trillion of nuclear investment over the next 25 years. That’s an average of approximately $250 billion per year, roughly three times today’s annual investment of $75 billion, the association said.”
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/World-Nuclear-Association-6-Trillion-Needed-to-Hit-2050-Capacity-Goals.html

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

A stormy future? Financial impact of climate change-related disruptions on nuclear power plant owners

Ali Ahmad , Andrei Covatariu , M.V. Ramana, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178722001485

Highlights

•Globally, climate change driven extreme events are impacting nuclear power plants.
•Nuclear reactors in Western Europe are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.
•We project an increase in climate-linked unplanned outages in Western Europe nuclear reactors.
•Adaptation options include financial and contractual measures and maintenance planning.

Abstract

In recent years, extreme weather events potentially caused by climate change have led to several nuclear power plants being shut down for varying periods, and such unplanned outages will become more frequent in the future. Nuclear plants are already finding it difficult to compete in electricity markets due to the availability of cheaper alternatives. We quantitatively assess the additional impact of such extreme weather events on the finances of plant owners using Western Europe as a case study and draw some policy implications for existing owners and those considering new nuclear plants.

Introduction

In May 2022, Electricite de France (EDF) warned that unusually warm river temperatures would likely result in it being forced to reduce power generation from its nuclear power plants (Starn, 2022), an increasingly frequent event in recent years; the concern was not misplaced. In 2018, EDF was forced to halt operations of three power plants due to heatwaves, showcasing the utility’s vulnerability to extreme weather events, especially at its river-based nuclear power plants (WNISR, 2021). With increasingly sophisticated methods employed to demonstrate the attributability of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change, it has become more apparent that the kind of hot weather events that disrupted these nuclear power can be linked to climate change with a high degree of attributability (Diffenbaugh, 2020; Schiermeier, 2019). IEA, 2021, the IPCC Working Group I report reported that “recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system” (IPCC et al., 2018).

Other kinds of extreme events are also becoming more frequent. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that human-induced warming “has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events” and predicted that almost all parts of the world would record increased climate disruptions (IPCC et al., 2018). Other international and scientific bodies have come to similar conclusions.

Many agencies, like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), posit that an expansion of nuclear power will be a critical component of any effort to mitigate climate change (IAEA, 2020; IEA, 2021). For nuclear power to significantly reduce global emissions, new nuclear plants would have to be built in many countries (Deutch et al., 2003). Many of these areas will be subject to extreme weather events in the coming decades.

At the same time, nuclear power generation is vulnerable to climate change-related extreme weather events (Ahmad, 2021). Climatic disruptions affect nuclear power plants for days or weeks (Becker et al., 2020; D’Agostino, 2021; Lyons, 2020; Neuhauser, 2019). Financial institutions realize the challenges that climate change brings to the financial position of nuclear power plant owners (Lahiri, 2020).

To give an illustration of the financial impact of climate change on nuclear power, we build on earlier work on the vulnerability of nuclear plants to extreme weather events (Ahmad, 2021) by quantifying the impact of extreme weather events on nuclear power plant operations by estimating the losses in energy production and revenues in Western Europe. The region consists of six countries with active nuclear power programs.

Together, these nuclear plants generated 565 TW h of electricity in 2020, approximately 42 percent of the total electricity generation in Western Europe – see Fig. 1. Almost two-thirds of this electrical generation is in France, which generated around 70 percent of its electricity in 2020 from nuclear power plants. The reason behind choosing Western Europe as a case study is the availability of data and the fact that it has a higher reliance on nuclear power than any other region.

Section snippets

The Economics of Nuclear Power

Before discussing the financial impact of climate change-related extreme events, we briefly discuss the economics of nuclear power. In 2003, an influential interdisciplinary study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated, “Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice” (Deutch et al., 2003). That study compared nuclear power to coal and natural gas plants.

In the two decades since, what has changed enormously is the cost of other low-carbon non-fossil-fuel alternative

The effect of extreme weather events on nuclear generation

In recent years, the impact of extreme weather events on the reliability of electricity provision in many parts of the world has become more noticeable (Perera et al., 2020).³ Extreme weather can disrupt all energy sources and the grid that connects them. As such, the high frequency,

Method

We use a “bottom-up” approach that identifies climate-linked disruptions in nuclear power plants and aggregates the impact of climatic disruptions over the last decade (2010–2019) in Western Europe to assess the effects of extreme weather events on the economics of nuclear power generation. The methodology is based on the same type of analysis presented in (Ahmad, 2021). However, in comparison to that analysis, which provided a global view of climate-linked power outages, this paper adds two….

Results

The first set of insights that can be obtained from the analyzed data is related to the time distribution of climatic outages of nuclear power plants in Western Europe. Fig. 3 shows the monthly probability distribution of such outages once they took place, based on actual historical data. Climate-driven outages can happen at any time of the year. However, they seem to be most probable in the summertime. As shown in Fig. 3, about two-thirds of the total climatic outages occur between June and

Policy recommendations

Extreme weather events have numerous policy implications for nuclear power. Because of the expected increase in the frequency of outages, nuclear power plant operators will have to undertake various adaptation measures. The financial impacts of these measures make the role of nuclear even more precarious than it already is, due to the high costs and the combination of safety and financial risks.

One adaptation measure might involve aligning plant shutdowns for refueling and maintenance with…..

REFERENCES ………………………………………

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, climate change | Leave a comment

Nuclear needs $6tn investment surge to meet 2050 ambitions

Huge world wide opportunity in nuclear growth predicted for the next 25 years

29/07/2026, https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/29/nuclear-needs-6tn-investment-surge-to-meet-2050-ambitions/

Global nuclear investment must rise above $250 billion (£187bn) a year to meet growing electricity demand and triple generating capacity by 2050, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Its new investment guide estimates the sector represents a cumulative opportunity worth around $6 trillion (£4.5tn) over the next 25 years.

The Roadmap to Mainstream Finance sets out how nuclear could move away from bespoke, state-led funding and become a mainstream infrastructure asset backed by banks, pension funds and other institutional investors.

Investment will be needed not only for new reactors but across the nuclear fuel cycle, supply chains and supporting infrastructure required to deliver projects at scale.

The association said nuclear must expand beyond a handful of established markets if it is to strengthen energy security and support global decarbonisation.

Its roadmap identifies six conditions needed to attract capital: stronger institutional support, standardised business models, clearer risk and reward, market frameworks that properly value nuclear power, mature supply chains and mechanisms to move projects from development into operation.

It argues other capital-intensive industries including offshore wind and liquefied natural gas have followed similar paths when governments, developers and investors created common frameworks.

Dr Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of World Nuclear Association, said: “The challenge is not a shortage of capital. The challenge is creating the confidence, capability and investment architecture that allow capital to flow to nuclear projects at scale.“

Financial institutions are being urged to improve their understanding of nuclear, build teams capable of assessing projects and support clearer allocation of construction, regulatory and market risks.

Early transactions could then help establish the track record needed to unlock larger pools of private capital.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Nuclear revival needs $250bn a year, industry says

Banks urged to unlock
private capital as governments consider more atomic energy projects. Global
annual investment in nuclear power needs to triple to about $250bn if
governments want to meet their stated energy goals, the industry’s main
lobby group said as it urged banks to channel more private capital into the
sector.

Nuclear power has recently enjoyed a revival as countries around
the world seek reliable low-carbon electricity to meet rapidly rising
demand. Countries that had previously shut down nuclear stations, such as
Japan and Taiwan, are bringing them back online while German Chancellor
Friedrich Merz has said the country’s decision to shut down its plants in
2013 was a “serious strategic error”.

But the industry continues to
struggle to attract investment because new plants are expensive, take years
to build and carry significant construction and political risks. Bilbao y
León the director-general of the World Nuclear Association, argued the
sums were not excessive when set against spending elsewhere in the energy
system. The International Energy Agency expects about $665bn to be invested
in renewable power globally this year, while spending on oil, gas and coal
is forecast to reach $1.2tn.

FT 29th July 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/f78ab650-062d-4058-bbcb-315901a1eeb6

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

“Jobs Jobs Jobs” screams the media again as the nuclear lobby plans to brink Japan’s nuclear wastes to Cumberland

COMMENT Plan to Bring Failed Japanese Fast Breeder Reactor’s Contaminated Sodium to Workington – https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/plan-to-bring-failed-japanese-fast

Japanese reactor decommissioning to bring jobs to UK

Federica Bedendo 26 July 26, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0kmxl6ydpjo

New “highly skilled jobs” have been promised in the UK as part of plans to clean-up a nuclear reactor in Japan.

Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum are planning to build a facility at the Port of Workington, Cumbria, to support the decommissioning of the Monju Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), in Fukui Prefecture, Japan.

Cumberland Council, which owns the port, said the plant would support skilled jobs directly and across the supply chain.

Leader Mark Fryer said: “This is fantastic news for the port as this new development, subject to the necessary approvals, will bring good quality jobs to Workington.”

The construction phase is expected to be worth more than £25m and employ about 20 people during its seven-year operation, those behind the plans said.

The FBR was a sodium-cooled reactor that had been designed to burn most of its spent fuel, however it encountered several problems during its lifespan.

The Workington plant would be treating the sodium coolant, turning it into sodium hydroxide, a commercially usable product.

West Cumbria is a well-known area for the nuclear sector, due to the presence of the Sellafield nuclear plant, which is being decommissioned.

The Labour-led council has started work to clear the land at Workington’s Oldside as part of its wider regeneration plans in the town.

The aim is for the area to become a hub for clean energy, manufacturing and logistics, the council said.

A Cavendish Nuclear and Amentum spokesperson said: “We are fully committed to adding real social value to west Cumbia and this new venture will contribute to the regeneration on the Port of Workington and support the local economy.”

July 31, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, Japan, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

A mad for nuclear world?

July 25, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-mad-for-nuclear-world.html

While renewables are being supported in the UK by private sector investment, most recently via the Contracts for Difference market system, with no direct government cash input, over 70% of the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero expenditure is now nuclear related. DESNZ’s annual report and accounts says that ‘Great British Energy – Nuclear has remained a key component of the Government’s approach to energy security and decarbonisation, with work continuing to support the delivery of new nuclear projects, providing greater certainty for industry and investors, supporting highly skilled jobs across the supply chain, and contributing to a resilient, low carbon energy mix’.

It notes that through the Spending Review the department secured a capital settlement of £62.8bn from 2025-26 to 2029-30 and a resource settlement of £5.8bn from 2026-27 to 2028-29, including £8.3bn for GBE/GBE-Nuclear including SMRs and £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor.

However, the theory is that this government support will attract private sector investment, for example for new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The government has put aside £2.5 bn for its SMR programme, to be led by Rolls Royce, but there are signs of entrepreneurial interests, with SGE, a consortium led by Polish billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow talking about a £35bn plan to build 14 GE/Hitachi Boiling Water SMRs, on three sites across the UK, possibly including on the former Olbury nuclear plant site.

There have also been some UK government backed moves by US developers for SMR projects in the UK, including from X Energy, Holtec and TerraPower, but not everyone is convinced that any of them will be successful, certainly not soon, or sees the wider UK nuclear programme, including the big Sizewell project, as value for money, especially given that there are security risks. Will anyone want SMRs near them given the safety and security issues? The UK government has been revamping the planning system to make it easier for projects like this to go ahead, but local opposition is still likely. In particular, Labour ministers in London have been slammed for identifying sites in Scotland for nuclear power plants despite the devolved Scottish Government’s ongoing opposition to new nuclear developments. Very provocative, especially given that Scotland often produces more green power than it needs and exports the rest south…

However, the big UK push to nuclear continues, with some odd twists. For example, enriched uranium is to be produced by UK based Urenco for use by Ukraine in its nuclear plants. This at a time when the US is making strenuous efforts to stop Iran from developing and using uranium enrichment technology. But then consistency is often not very apparent in nuclear policy around the world. For example the US is, it seems, keen to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium. Meanwhile the UK is still importing enriched fuel for Sizewell B derived from Russia. While its claimed that this is only a temporary aberration (the UK is to build its own new specialist enrichment plant), some contrarian outliers see Russia as the EU’s best supplier!

Will any of this help us deal with climate change? Not everyone is convinced that it will -based on past experience, we may need to be wary of nuclear hype. It is interesting then to look at what is happening in China. An Australian review noted that China has been installing ‘record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear’. Based on 2024 data, it said that China had installed the wind & solar equivalent of 5 large nuclear plants per week, although, in output terms, that was more like 1 nuclear power equivalent, given the different capacity factors. But the disparity in outputs has grown since 2024, with renewables roaring ahead as the favoured new energy option.

By comparison, the USA is stalling on renewables and trying to push nuclear ahead as fast as possible, with US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm calling for ‘hundreds’ of new large plants by 2050. Not everyone is convinced that this is possible, even with the new US loan scheme, but the Trump government is obviously keen and is pushing for reduced worker and public radiation exposure standards to help, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seemingly being compliant on this and other related issues. Clearly some see NRC reg. changes as being vital for the success of multiple SMRs. And, following a court ruling, it seems that NRC may no longer need to take account of climate issues in plant licensing decisions. This at a time when nuclear plants in Europe are having to be shut down due to heat waves…

So, with shifts like that underway, how is it likely to go in the USA? It’s not clear if any big new projects will go ahead, but there are a lot of new SMR players entering the game, and some progress has been made, for example with a go ahead on some micro SMR safety test programmes. However, it is very early days with SMRs and big technical and economic uncertainties remain. That’s true for new nuclear generally, a view that seems to be shared quite widely, as was summed up well in a recent letter in Lancet, which ended by calling for the focus to be on renewables instead. Quite so, along with storage and smart demand management…But then there are evidently people who think differently, for example in Germany and Japan, in relation to reactor restarts, although that risks opening up old issues, not least, where to put the active wastes. Do we really need to face all that again?

* Back in the UK, there has been no word yet on the nuclear issue from the new Labour Cabinet. Andy Burham has been supportive of nuclear in the past. Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, is seen as likely to be a strong supporter of Labours clean energy and decarbonisation strategy. But she was chair of the New Economics Foundation which has been consistently anti-nuclear. So things may yet change. As I argued in my last post, there is certainly a strong case for a rethink on new nuclear.

July 29, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclearelectrica’s proposal to review SMR options rejected by Romania ministry

Thursday, 23 July 2026,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/nuclearelectricas-proposal-to-review-smr-options-rejected-by-ministry

Romania’s state-owned nuclear company had asked shareholders to approve “the initiation of steps to reassess the initial development strategy for small modular reactors by expanding the analysis to include other SMR technologies and broadening the list of potential sites (in the event of a decision to scale up

In a statement after the proposal was voted against by shareholders, including the majority shareholder, the Ministry of Energy, Nuclearelectrica (SNN) said: “The company’s intention was for our shareholders to approve the conduct of a technology benchmarking study and multiple scenarios, based on recent technological developments, to serve as the foundation for an informed decision-making process leading to the most advantageous solution for Romania, given that a number of conditions associated with the Final Investment Decision for the Doicești Project could not be met for reasons beyond the control of both Nuclearelectrica and the project company RoPower Nuclear SA.”

As the vote was against the proposal, Nuclearelectrica says it “will continue, in accordance with the shareholders’ approval from February 2026, their efforts to reach a commercial consensus with NuScale regarding the terms for the acquisition of the SMR modules and the Framework Agreement, in parallel with discussions with representatives of the Romanian government regarding the feasibility of fulfilling the other conditions, some of which were requested by the majority shareholder, the Ministry of Energy, itself”.

A Final Investment Decision was taken by Nuclearelectrica shareholders in February for the small modular reactor (SMR) project, which is aiming for 462 MWe installed capacity, using NuScale technology with eventually six modules at the former coal plant site at Doicești – about 90 kilometres northwest of Bucharest – each with an installed capacity of 77 MWe.

The company said in its statement – issued on the day of the meeting on 15 July – that discussions were continuing with the Ministry of Energy regarding conditions relating to the Final Investment Decision and financial support. It also stressed that a first-of-a-kind project “by its very nature, entails a higher degree of technical, operational, and financial complexity than in the case of replicated projects”.

In a press statement the following day, the Energy Secretary Cristian Bușoi said: “The proposal submitted for approval did not concern an actual strategy nor the concrete update of the Small Modular Reactors Project Implementation Strategy, but exclusively the initiation of steps to assess the opportunity for a possible update. Under these circumstances, in the absence of sufficient data, analysis and substantiation, we considered that the request addressed to the … [shareholders meeting] is not justified and not addressed appropriately. The documentation, substantiation and initiation of such an approach falls under the responsibility of the Company’s executive management, which is obliged to take all necessary steps to assess the situation and protect the interests of the Company and its shareholders.

“As Secretary of State responsible for international relations and the implementation of nuclear projects, I am in permanent dialogue with the SNN (Nuclearelectrica) leadership, but also with American partners, through bimonthly videoconference working meetings with the responsible team from the US Department of Energy, to assess the most appropriate decision regarding the continuation of the SMR project, including by examining the opportunity to use other American SMR technologies.”

In a statement to World Nuclear News, NuScale said: “NuScale continues to work with SNN and RoPower to satisfy the conditions that were attached to the shareholders’ approval of the Financial Investment Decision.”

The background

The partnership between the USA and Romania on SMRs began in March 2019 with a memorandum of understanding between state-owned nuclear power corporation Nuclearelectrica and NuScale to study potential developments. In 2021, NuScale and Nuclearelectrica signed a teaming agreement to deploy a NuScale VOYGR-6 power plant in Romania by the end of the decade. In June 2022, the two companies signed a memorandum of understanding to begin conducting engineering studies, technical reviews, and licensing and permitting activities for the project.

NuScale Power and RoPower Nuclear – owned jointly by Nuclearelectrica and Nova Power & Gas – completed Phase 1 of a Front-End Engineering and Design (FEED) study in late 2023, which analysed the preferred site of the first VOYGR-6 SMR power plant. The FEED 2 study has also been completed – this saw Fluor Corporation provide RoPower Nuclear with the design and engineering services required for the implementation of the project, including an updated cost estimate and schedule as well as the safety and security analyses needed for the final investment decision.

The US Export-Import (Exim) Bank approved in 2024 a USD98 million loan for pre-project services, and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and Exim also issued Letters of Interest for potential support of up to USD1 billion and USD3 billion, respectively, for project deployment.

July 28, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Saudi Arabia, the Khashoggi murder case: the nuclear connections with Terra Power, Bill Gates, Breakthrough etc.

US Nuclear Energy Policy & Khashoggi Murder: Appeasement Or Threat? Clean Technica, December 12th, 2018 by Tina Casey “…………..The Nuclear Energy Connection

Either way, that brings us around to the idea that the corporate world needs to step up and press for meaningful action on the Khashoggi case, since the White House is falling down on the job.

In particular, the tech sector is feeling the pressure not only because of its financial ties to Saudi Arabia, but also because of the high profile of its biggest players.

That brings us right back around to the nuclear energy angle, where the US nuclear company TerraPower has been making waves.

TerraPower was formed back in 2006 and crossed the CleanTechnica radar during COP 2015, when it popped up in relation to a newly launched investor umbrella organization called the Breakthrough Energy Coalition.

Breakthrough is a tech incubator with a focus on clean energy and rapid decarbonization, and nuclear energy makes the cut.

As a global organization, Breakthrough can provide TerraPower with a platform for pitching its technology overseas — a key consideration, given the morbid state of demand for new nuclear power plants here in the US.

So far TerraPower has been focusing on foreign markets, particularly China, for its new technology.

If all of this is beginning to ring some bells, that’s where the tech and Silicon Valley connections kick in.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates is financial backer of TerraPower and chairman of its board.

Gates is also the chair of the Breakthrough Coalition’s Breakthrough Energy Ventures, where you’ll find a host of other familiar top-dollar investors with an interest in decarbonization including Jeff Bezos, Richard Branson, Vinod Khosla, and Michael Bloomberg.

Saudi Arabia is represented among Breakthrough members through Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who is Chairman of Alwaleed Philanthropies and a supporter of Gates’s “giving pledge.”

Saudi Arabia is also represented among the 24 countries (including the EU) that support the Mission Innovation clean energy initiative, which is in turn receives considerable support from Breakthrough, so there’s that.

Not for nothing, but as of last August the Department of Energy has supported a TerraPower molten salt reactor project with $28 million in cost-shared funds.

When Will The Silicon Valley Crickets Stop Chirping And Start Acting?

All this is by way of saying that when it comes to the Saudi government, the Khashoggi murder, and the cash flow, all roads lead back to Silicon Valley and the US tech sector.

The New York Times raised a red flag on Saudi financial ties to Silicon Valley last year. Among other developments since then, Tesla has been ramping up its profile in the country, and Google has expressed interest in building data centers there.

Perhaps it’s not fair for the tech sector to take all the heat, but on the other hand these are the guys who promised to make life better for millions if not billions of people all over the world. More is expected of them than, say, the CEO of a local pest control company.

The Trump family’s financial ties with Saudi Arabia seem to be the driving force behind Trump’s response to the Khashoggi murder, and now it seems those same ties have silenced the US tech sector.

The fact is that the Khashoggi murder is not going away. New details about the murder are emerging on a regular basis, and even Trump’s Republican allies have finally stirred into action.

In the latest development, today the US Senate is reportedly set to debate cutting off US support for the Saudi-lead war in Yemen. The measure has been linked directly to outrage over the country’s role in the Khashoggi killing.

Meanwhile, CleanTechnica is reaching out to TerraPower for comment, so stay tuned for more on that.

Follow me on Twitter. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/12/us-nuclear-energy-policy-khashoggi-murder-appeasement-or-threat/

July 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | 1 Comment

A nuclear deal for the Saudis, media blackout for Kushner’s corruption

Judd Legum, Rebecca Crosby, and Noel Sims, Jul 23, 2026,
On Wednesday, the Trump administration signed a 30-year nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia that paves the way for the kingdom to enrich its own uranium. The Saudi government has been aggressively seeking such a deal for years, eager to gain an edge over regional rivals. The agreement lacks safeguards that previous administrations, and many independent foreign policy analysts, viewed as essential to prevent nuclear proliferation.

The deal comes after the Saudi government’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) invested $2 billion in Jared Kushner’s private equity fund, Affinity Partners. Since 2021, Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law, has collected over $110 million from the Saudi government in management fees. In March, Kushner was seeking billions more from the Saudis. (After Kushner’s fundraising was exposed, his efforts were purportedly put on hold.)

Kushner also has a close personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) — the pair are known to communicate regularly over WhatsApp. In 2021, when the PIF committee originally recommended rejecting Kushner’s proposal due to the high price and Kushner’s inexperience, MBS overruled the recommendation.

As he continues to collect fees from the Saudi government, Kushner has resumed his role as a top foreign policy aide to Trump. He has played a key role in virtually every significant foreign policy negotiation since Trump returned to the White House.

.Kushner’s specific involvement in the nuclear pact, if any, has not been disclosed. But the fact that one of the president’s top foreign policy advisors is receiving large, ongoing financial payments from the Saudi government is unquestionably relevant to the story.

July 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Saudi Arabia, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

“the chances of Sizewell C being delivered on schedule are slim to none, and the new prime minister and energy secretary would be better off cancelling it now.”

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/innovative-geotechnical-sub-alliance-formed-for-sizewell-c-construction-22-07-2026/

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.

In an announcement on 17 July, Sizewell C said the GSA “is thought to be the first geotechnical sub-alliance of its kind in the UK” and will “deliver a range of specialist ground engineering solutions – including piling, soil mixing, diaphragm walls and plastic cut-off walls”.

The GSA was “created to maximise operational safety, capability, quality, and delivery”, and it “will create a stable and watertight platform capable of supporting the immense loads associated with the construction of the new nuclear power station”, Sizewell C said.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

You are here:Latest

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

“Together and as part of the CWA at Sizewell C, we are creating the foundations to power our future, excited to be contributing to the build and completion of this vital investment in new infrastructure for Britain.”

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering managing director Jane Towse-Laval said: “Sizewell C represents one of the most significant infrastructure projects in the UK, and we are proud to bring our specialist geotechnical expertise to this pioneering sub-alliance.

“By working collaboratively, we will combine innovation, technical excellence and our collective expertise, laying the essential foundations for the safe and efficient delivery of this nationally significant energy asset.”

Sizewell C CEO Nigel Cann said: “This unique alliance reflects what our project is all about – true partnerships bringing together world-leading expertise, delivering big gains in innovation and productivity.”

Separately, Sizewell C’s latest annual report has provided further insight into the project. Published on 6 July, it is titled Sizewell C: Annual Report & Accounts FY25/26.

On 15 July, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister of state Michael Shanks issued a written statement about Sizewell C.

“The [report] provides a comprehensive account of the company’s activities during 2025-26, recording a year of major milestones for the project, including the expansion of construction activity on site, growth in the workforce, and continued development of the project’s delivery arrangements.

You are here:Latest

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

Why and how the Civil Works Alliance changed Sizewell C tunnel designs from Hinkley Point C

UK ‘most expensive’ in the world for nuclear projects due to complex regulation, taskforce finds

Sizewell C challenged on cost overruns transparency and provides infrastructure update

Sizewell C reaches financial close by securing £5bn loan and signs power contract

Sizewell C has awarded almost £1bn in local contracts at two-year mark of construction

Sizewell C’s financing places more risks on public purse ‘than other electricity projects’

Separately, Sizewell C’s latest annual report has provided further insight into the project. Published on 6 July, it is titled Sizewell C: Annual Report & Accounts FY25/26.

On 15 July, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister of state Michael Shanks issued a written statement about Sizewell C.

“It also provides updates on the project’s strategic priorities looking ahead, project finances, governance arrangements, and its approach to managing delivery risks and opportunities.”

The also report includes a diagram showing “key milestones in the Sizewell C power station life”, which says the project is currently between “financial Close and Revenue Commencement – Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model and financing arrangements in place”, which happened in November 2025, and in future “main earthworks” which includes site preparation, excavation and groundworks, scheduled to take approximately three years.

The report does not specify when the main earthworks will begin.

After reviewing the report, a Stop Sizewell C spokesperson told NCE: “Sizewell C’s Annual Report broadly complies with Ministers’ obdurate refusal to give any useful information about how long Sizewell C will take to build, which, considering that taxpayers and householders are stumping up vast quantities of cash, is unjustifiable and disrespectful to struggling local communities.

“The only reveal is that “J-zero” is expected sometime in 2029. Given the complex site de-watering, cut-off wall construction and platform raising, it is little wonder that it will be at least five years since works formally began, in January 2024, before Sizewell C can even begin above-ground construction.

“We maintain that the chances of Sizewell C being delivered on schedule are slim to none, and the new prime minister and energy secretary would be better off cancelling it now.”

University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy and Energy Policy editor-in-chief Steve Thomas told NCE that the construction timeline in the report shows “how hollow all the Fingleton nonsense was, that it takes five years of site prep to get to construction start. Not because of regulation or planning.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 in November 2025, which was also called the Fingleton Review. It found that regulations including the planning system were to blame for the delays and cost overruns faced by nuclear projects.

July 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Germany greenlights controversial joint French-Russian nuclear project

Germany’s environment ministry on Wednesday approved a French-Russian project to produce fuel rods used in Russian-designed reactors in the northwestern German town of Lingen. The joint venture project by a subsidiary of French company Framatome and Russia’s state-owned Rosatom sparked fears of Russian spying, but German authorities said they had “no legal possibility to reject” it.

FRANCE 24, 22 July 26

German authorities said Wednesday they were giving the green light to a controversial French-Russian nuclear project which critics fear will enable spying and sabotage by Moscow.

The planned joint venture by a subsidiary of French company Framatome and Russia‘s state-owned nuclear power agency Rosatom is aimed at producing fuel rods used in Russian-designed reactors.

The project would be based at Framatome’s fuel rod assembly facility in the town of Lingen in the state of Lower Saxony.

Framatome’s subsidiary ANF (Advanced Nuclear Fuels) applied for permission for the project in March 2022, just weeks after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The state’s environment ministry said in a statement Wednesday it had “decided to approve” the project.

This was despite the state’s environment minister, Christian Meyer, restating his position that “dealings and close co-operation with Putin’s nuclear agency are totally wrong”.

He said however that his ministry had “no legal possibility to reject or put a time limit to the application” in the absence of sanctions on Rosatom.

Rosatom has been exempted from the successive rounds of EU sanctions imposed against Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

‘Dangerous to security’

Meyer said that one of the conditions of the approval was that Rosatom employees or those from Russian nuclear fuel manufacturer TVEL would only be allowed to enter the site “in very limited cases and accompanied by the relevant inspectorate”.

The ministry also stressed that the approval could be revisited “if new risks are identified”, particularly “in the area of national security”.

Roderich Kiesewetter, a prominent member of Chancellor Friedrich Merz‘s centre-right CDU party, said Wednesday that the federal government should intervene to prevent the project from going ahead.

The decision by Lower Saxony was “dangerous to security and must be reversed,” Kiesewetter told the Politico website…………………………………………………https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260722-germany-greenlights-controversial-joint-french-russian-nuclear-project

July 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Germany | Leave a comment

US and Japan clash over meltdown liability in $40bn nuclear power deal

Japan’s participation in a $40bn nuclear power project in the US has hit
a roadblock over fears that its lenders might have to assume liability for
any meltdown on American soil.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi agreed during
a visit to Washington in March that Japan would provide funding and
industrial co-operation to build next-generation small modular reactors in
Tennessee and Alabama.

The project was agreed as part of Tokyo’s
commitment to invest $550bn in the US, a promise given in return for lower
US tariffs on Japanese exports under Donald Trump’s “liberation day”
regime. But details of the project are still being thrashed out between
Tokyo and Washington because of concerns on the Japanese side about their
potential liability in a nuclear accident, according to four people
familiar with the discussions.

The US commerce department has offered
verbal reassurance that the state-backed Japan Bank for International
Cooperation and other Japanese institutions would not take on any liability
for a potential nuclear accident, said the people. A person close to
commerce secretary Howard Lutnick said he had personally assured Japan it
would not have any liability in relation to the projects. However, that
promise has not been put in writing in legal terms — a process that could
take months or years of complex regulatory discussion to settle, said the
people.

FT 23rd July 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/4b9d0e1a-c423-4b14-a7fe-d4988e24c7c0

July 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Japan, USA | Leave a comment

Russia’s Financial Crisis Casts a Shadow Over Central Asia’s Nuclear Future

By Eurasianet – Jul 20, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Russias-Financial-Crisis-Casts-a-Shadow-Over-Central-Asias-Nuclear-Future.html

Rosatom is cutting its investment program by nearly 50% and reducing operating costs amid worsening economic conditions.
The spending cuts raise concerns about delays to planned nuclear projects in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Both Central Asian countries are increasingly exploring alternative nuclear partners, including China and the United States.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan may soon have to rethink their plans to develop nuclear energy. Rosatom, the Russian nuclear entity that has agreements to build nuclear plants in both Central Asian nations, is experiencing major financial difficulties.

Alexei Likhachev, Rosatom’s boss, has announced the entity is cutting its investment program by nearly 50 percent this year due to “poor economic conditions.” Likhachev also said Rosatom would strive to slash operating costs by 10 percent within the next 18 months.

“We immediately abandoned a number of projects or shifted the deadlines for their implementation to a later date, guided by several criteria, the main of which is efficiency in the horizon until 2030, that is, more profit and revenue per ruble of investment,” Likhachev was quoted as saying by the Reuters news agency.

The company’s troubles are widely linked to the Kremlin’s ongoing campaign in Ukraine, which has generally sapped Russia of its financial strength. International sanctions have also hampered Rosatom.

Likhachev did not specify which projects are being slashed or delayed. Kazakhstan awarded Rosatom a contract in 2025 to build the Central Asian state’s first nuclear power plant on the shores of Lake Balkhash. Since then, the project has been hit by delays and disputes, which many observers suspected were linked to Rosatom’s difficulties in obtaining financing. Likhachev’s announcement raises further doubts that the project can meet a tentative completion deadline in the mid-2030s.

Rosatom also has a preliminary agreement in place to build small-scale nuclear plants in Uzbekistan. Company officials in early 2026, seeking to dispel Uzbek worries about financing, offered to expand the deal to create a nuclear cluster. Likhachev’s announcement is likely to stoke further skepticism in Tashkent.

Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have alternatives to Rosatom. Astana already has an agreement in place for a Chinese company to build two nuclear plants in the country. And both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan have expressed interest in working with the United States to develop small modular nuclear plants.

Rosatom, historically a cash cow for the Russian government, is not the only major Russian entity experiencing financial woes. The stock price of the energy giant Gazprom has tanked over the past three months, and the company’s market capitalization now stands at a mere $25 billion.

July 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Russia | Leave a comment

European Investment Bank Approves €800 Million For Cernavodă-1 Nuclear Plant Refurbishment

By David Dalton, 20 July 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/european-investment-bank-approves-eur800-million-for-cernavoda-1-nuclear-plant-refurbishment-7-1-2026

Romania also pushing ahead with plans for two new large-scale units at site

The European Investment Bank (EIB) has approved €17.4bn ($19.8bn) in financing to strengthen Europe’s energy autonomy, including an €800m loan for the refurbishment and life extension of one of two reactors at Romania’s Cernavodă nuclear power station.

The EIB said the financing, which covers Unit 1, is for key component replacements and system upgrades, enabling a new cycle of reliable and safe operation.

It said Cernavodă, Romania’s only commercial nuclear power station, generates around 20% of the country’s electricity.

combined €620m with a banking syndicate led by J.P. Morgan to advance the refurbishment of Cernavodă-1 and preparatory work for Cernavodă-3 and -4.

It also signed two agreements with subsidiaries of France’s EDF related to key projects for the Cernavodă-1 refurbishment.

In December 2024, Nuclearelectrica signed the main engineering, construction, and procurement contract to extend the life of Cernavodă-1 at a cost of about €1.9bn. The contract is with a consortium of four companies, comprising Canada’s AtkinsRealis, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and Italy’s Ansaldo Nucleare.

In September 2023, Canada announced €1.8bn in export financing to Nuclearelectrica towards the construction of the two new plants at Cernavodă.

July 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

A Contract for Difference for nuclear lifetime extension for Sizewell B – a nice save for the nuclear industry?

Jérôme à Paris, Jul 22, 2026

A few days ago, the British government announced the extension of the production life of the 1.2 GW Sizewell B nuclear power plant for 20 years, from 2035, and that included the fact that the electricity produced will be sold under a CfD at a price of 70.50 GBP/MWh (in 2025 prices, to be indexed). ……….

it is proper that the power also be sold to ratepayers at a fixed price. The existence of the CfD will also allow the owners to achieve a lower cost of capital (possibly through limited-recourse financing, but in any case through more favorable corporate funding as such a revenue line underpins their balance sheet), ensuring that the price achieved could be more competitive….

Secondly, this puts the production cost risk on the operator (EDF in this case, with Centrica having a 20% stake), as they will have to deliver power at a fixed price, irrespective of what they need to spend to keep the plant running (I have not checked if they can wiggle out of the contract by stopping production earlier in case it becomes too costly to run, but I see that this would have other likely consequences, including reputational, for the operator in any case).

The third point is that this puts a very visible price tag to nuclear plant lifetime extension. There’s often the blithe assumption that existing plants can continue to run at a very low cost. This reminds everybody that it is not the case, and existing plants definitely have ongoing operating costs – and older plants have significant heavy maintenance, refurbishment and safety costs to manage. The price level proposed here can be seen as attractive for baseload decarbonated power, but it’s certainly not low or the most competitive available these days.

The big question is whether the price is actually the right one. There can only be rather limited competition for nuclear lifetime extension CfDs, so one must consider the temptation for the operator to pad its costs and ask for a price that ensures as profitable an operation as possible (I presume that the price level was negotiated on the basis of detailed cost assumptions provided by the operator and checked by the regulator and experts). There is also the risk that the operator could ask later on for relaxation of safety or other standards in order to lower its ongoing costs (including possibly via the direct or indirect threat to stop operations.

Against that is the fact that the nuclear industry cannot afford to show that it is materially less competitive than alternatives, in particular than offshore wind, the renewable sector with the most similar characteristic as nuclear (large capacity plants, higher capacity factor). If the ask price for extension is barely competitive against new-build offshore wind, what would that say about new-build nuclear? Hinckley Point negotiated a CfD a decade ago, which EDF is not very happy with, even though it is already quite a bit higher (it was 89.5 GBP/MWh for 35 years (rather than 20), indexed from 2012, which means its current level is 131 GBP/MWh, and we’re still some years before operations), given all the cost overruns experienced in the meantime……………………………….. https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/a-cfd-for-nuclear-lifetime-extension

July 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »