nuclear-news

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

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) defends Sizewell C funding which puts risk on taxpayer.

 Representatives of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)
have defended the government’s funding model for Sizewell C, which places
risk on taxpayers rather than private investors.

Under the agreed final
investment decision (FID), private investors won’t have to pump more
equity into the nuclear project even if construction costs spiral.

At an oral evidence session of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on Monday (8
June), DESNZ civil servants were grilled about the findings of a recently
published report by the National Audit Office (NAO) into the delivery of
the 3.2GW nuclear plant, which concluded that private investors are reaping
“high” rewards from the project.

 Utility Week 8th June 2026,
https://utilityweek.co.uk/desnz-defends-sizewell-c-funding-which-puts-risk-on-taxpayer/

June 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Screwed again: small investors to bail out billionaires from SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic

In the past, companies had to wait, and have a track record of revenues and profits.

But that rule is gone. Now, a newly public company can qualify, simply based on size—how big it is.

This is work the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be doing. That’s what the Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be asking questions about. Instead it’s left to “Where’s your Ed at?” and a handful of podcasts who are showing the world that the investment thesis for the entire American AI industry is blowing up. Costs are rising, not falling.

Inside China / Business, Kevin Walmsley, Jun 07, 2026

SpaceX will soon go public, in an offering that will value the company at over a trillion dollars.

Anthropic and OpenAI are Artificial Intelligence companies, who also plan IPO’s for later in the year.

Recent changes to indexing rules will compel massive share buys into these companies by retirement and pension plans, and by passive ETF’s and mutual funds.

In the past, new companies were required to wait until insiders sold most of the shares after the lockup periods before being added to investment indices. Companies also needed to show a strong history of growth and sound financial practices.

The heads-up on this story comes from one of our favorite Substacks, Gold and Geopolitics. Our concern is that the public, normal people, are at least unaware, and maybe even indifferent, to how really screwed they are at the highest level, and by people at the highest level. It’s not the kind of story that is felt tangibly, at least not at first, like a big spike in gas or food prices. And it’s also difficult to follow, and that’s exactly what the architects of our financial and political system are counting on.

It involves the qualification requirements for a new company to be included in the NASDAQ-100. The regulators changed those rules, so that new public companies can be part of the index. In the past, companies had to wait, and have a track record of revenues and profits. Because trillions of dollars’ worth of pension investments—which is money invested on behalf of workers, millions of private retirement plans, plus exchange-traded funds and other mutual funds, are invested in those indices. And they do so, assuming that the top 100 tech companies, in this case, are well-managed and profitable businesses.

But that rule is gone. Now, a newly public company can qualify, simply based on size—how big it is. And they changed the definition of “public”. Companies can qualify as a megacap public company simply by being large at the time of its IPO, then limiting how many shares they sell to the public. The index now accepts a weighting multiplier. That is what “small float” means—insiders of the company still own almost all of shares, and so completely control the company, even though it’s “public”.

They also threw out the rule for four consecutive quarters—one full year—of profits.

With these rule changes, the guardrails are down and regular Americans will be forced to buy shares of bad companies, that don’t make money.

The NASDAQ, in this case, gets big fees from the Initial Public Offerings of companies that want to avoid the rules that used to govern the industry, and protect small investors, somewhat, and SpaceX, in this case, will have tens of millions of passive investors buying their shares. That massive, passive buying will put a floor under the stock price no matter what happens, at the same time that insiders are allowed to dump their stock. Insiders and early investors are restricted from selling their shares during the IPO; they must wait to do so, until later.

That was previously a major risk to company insiders, and early investors: if the IPO price is set too high, or if the company does poorly after the IPO, their shares will be worth far less than they had hoped, just as they and all the other insiders are selling. But with these rule changes, passive investors will be buying shares, every single month, because they’re buying the index.

This is the source document. Paragraph 2 explains the new “fast entry” rules for new companies that list on the NASDAQ exchange. If the company’s market cap is in the top 40 of companies already there, it’s a Fast Entry addition, and will be put into the index after 15 trading days. So 15 days after the IPO, SpaceX will go into the index. The company will be exempt from “seasoning and liquidity requirements”—seasoning is how much experience the company has, earning money, and liquidity is how much money it has in the bank. Exempt………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

This is work the Wall Street Journal is supposed to be doing. That’s what the Securities and Exchange Commission is supposed to be asking questions about. Instead it’s left to “Where’s your Ed at?” and a handful of podcasts who are showing the world that the investment thesis for the entire American AI industry is blowing up. Costs are rising, not falling. AI data centers today are budgeted to cost $50 billion per gigawatt to build—and they’re not getting built anyway. Soon they’ll cost $80 to $100 billion per.

And the costs are rising just as companies who use the AI are realizing they’re not getting their money’s worth. Uber is a client of Anthropic, and has already spent its entire 2026 budget. Will they load up on some more tokens, to get through the rest of the year? Doubt it—it was a “head exploding moment” to learn how much Uber spent on tokens, which did NOT result in useful consumer features.

Alibaba is a Chinese company, and their Qwen large language model is the world’s most popular AI tool for business owners outside the United States. Airbnb tried to use ChatGPT to design a new reservation feature on their app, and even though the CEO of Airbnb is good friends with Sam Altman at OpenAI, his company switched over to Qwen instead. It works faster and costs less.

And that is catching on. Other companies are quietly making the switch to Chinese large-language models because they cost far less, and they’re open source and easier for their teams to use in their companies. The performance of Chinese models is similar to Silicon Valley’s best products, and are easier to use, cost less, and are more efficient. Companies are enterprise users—they pay for tokens, and executives lose their jobs if other executives heads blow up when they see their AI bill and ask what they’re getting for it. Companies are looking for alternatives to OpenAI and Anthropic, and signing up for DeepSeek instead. That also means that data is not going through US data centers, it’s coming to China instead, where electricity also happens to cost a lot less.

That could be the biggest challenge of all. For active investors – not the passive ones — business models matter. Revenues and profits – they matter. And the cost of compute is what is driving these corporate users of AI. They pay for the AI. Their engineering teams use it, every day, to develop new tools and applications, and they’re switching over to Chinese LLM’s.

Anthropic and OpenAI are fundamentally bad companies, with bad valuations, and produce financial reports that not even their own top executives trust. Their customers are moving away. And that used to mean that the insiders cannot cash out and make billions of dollars. They might even go to jail. But that was before they changed the rules, and so they’ll make you buy them instead.

Be Good.

Resources and links:……………………………………………………………………………………….. https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/screwed-again-small-investors-to?publication_id=3320368&post_id=200908108&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

June 11, 2026 Posted by | business and costs | Leave a comment

Industrial dispute on Hinkley C site sees large police presence

A LARGE early morning police presence was needed at Hinkley Point C as
tempers flared while hundreds of workers were locked out of the site during
unofficial industrial action. The dispute arose after claims a dangerous
crane lift on the nuclear power station construction site has put workers
at risk. MEH Alliance workers, who are delivering Hinkley C’s mechanical,
electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning installations,
staged protest sit-downs in canteens. The site’s management then withdrew
access rights for the workers ‘to avoid any further disruption, limit
impacts to other HPC team members, and allow time for discussions’.

West Somerset Free Press 6th June 2026, https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/industrial-dispute-on-hinkley-c-site-sees-large-police-presence-914669

June 10, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Expert Warns of ‘Rubber Stamp’ Approvals as Ontario Expands Nuclear Spending

the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.”

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 3, 2026, Nathaniel Crouch, https://www.theenergymix.com/expert-warns-of-rubber-stamp-approvals-as-ontario-expands-nuclear-spending/?utm_source=The+Energy+Mix&utm_campaign=7f479c951f-TEM_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc146fb5ca-7f479c951f-510028305

Federal impact assessment reviews for two Ontario nuclear projects risk serving as little more than procedural approvals, a Toronto environmental studies professor says, as they move through the process without first identifying the reactor types to be built.

Ontario’s Wesleyville Project in Port Hope has several reactor technologies under consideration, and the Bruce C expansion near Kincardine has not yet selected a technology, either. Both are undergoing federal impact assessment.

Mark Winfield, a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University, told The Energy Mix he is also concerned that proposed federal approval reforms, combined with Bill C-5 passed last summer, and the newly announced National Electricity Strategy, could lead to what he called “the explicit politicization of decision-making on nuclear projects.” Where “once projects are designated as being in the national interest,” he said, “they will be approved regardless of what the technical reviews find.”

That would be “a very dangerous situation when dealing with what will be first-of-kind reactors in Canada, or in some cases globally,” he added.

Winfield said the changes effectively shift final authority from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to cabinet if concerns arise during assessment. It also shifts accountability if those decisions eventually go wrong—although the elected officials involved would likely be out of office by the time the full impacts were known.

“The implication of going to cabinet is that the regulator’s concerns could be overridden for political or economic reasons,” he said, recalling Harper government’s 2008 decision to fire the CNSC chair after the rejection of the MAPLE reactors at Chalk River.

Winfield said Canada’s new electricity strategy seemed to “aggressively skate over” the cost implications of its nuclear heavy focus, as nuclear energy continues to be subject to enormous capital costs and construction delays.

“Essentially the federal strategy seems to be following Ontario’s lead—a heavy emphasis on gas and nuclear, and mostly ignoring the global movement in the direction of renewables.”

Ontario, Ratepayers Confront Growing Nuclear Costs

Critics have warned that Ontario’s nuclear expansion strategy could carry major long-term financial consequences.

In May, the Ontario government announced a $300-million cost-sharing agreement with Bruce Power to advance early planning for the expansion of the Bruce C nuclear complex, a project the province said would support 18,900 jobs and help make Ontario home to the largest nuclear generating facility in the world.

The announcement marked one of the clearest signals yet that Premier Doug Ford’s government sees large-scale nuclear expansion as the backbone of Ontario’s future electricity system. It also landed amid criticism that the province is shifting billions in electricity costs onto taxpayers, obscuring the long-term price of nuclear refurbishments, new reactors, and small modular nuclear projects.

Ontario’s 2026 budget led the province into a $13.8-billion deficit, with energy expenditures— and nuclear energy in particular—central to the shortfall. The government’s budget documents flagged large “amounts for electricity cost relief” and related line items, but stopped short of detailing long-term capital costs. That omission drew sharp criticism from electricity system experts.

Winfield said the budget “goes on at some length about how wonderful [nuclear projects] are in terms of their economic contributions, but never actually talks about costs.” Using figures the province provided for electricity supports, Winfield calculated that electricity-related spending accounted for roughly half the deficit—about $6.9 billion on the books—but said it would be difficult to figure out exactly how much of that line item in the budget is nuclear related because the figures are “deliberately opaque.”

Environmental Defence Canada Programs Director Keith Brooks too linked the deficit to rising nuclear and legacy refurbishment costs, as well as growing use of gas power plants to meet growing demand while the nuclear plants are being brought online.

29% Rate Hike

Last November, Ontario raised its basic electricity rate by 29% and simultaneously expanded rebate programs, which the government framed as short-term relief and a change in cost allocations. Both Winfield and Brooks said those measures masked the underlying driver: rising costs tied to refurbished and new nuclear plants. “What they seem to be doing is setting a precedent—allowing the costs for these projects to be charged to ratepayers before they’re built,” Winfield said, adding that the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

the combination of the proposed new builds, the SMR pilots, and refurbishments will push capital expenditures “north of $400 billion”.

June 8, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Police at Hinkley Point C as thousands of workers locked out

 Police attended Hinkley Point C on Wednesday (June 3) as part of an
ongoing industrial dispute that has seen thousands of workers locked-out of
the site. MEH Alliance workers staged a sit-in protest in the site canteen
on Tuesday (June 4).

The protest related to several issues alleged by
workers, including a change in shift patterns to include weekends. Workers
had previously held a vote to overwhelmingly reject the shift pattern
change. Following the protest, EDF has barred MEH Alliance workers from
attending site without pay this week – with no decision made on when they
can return.

 Bridgwater Mercury 6th June 2026, https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/26169782.police-hinkley-point-c-thousands-workers-locked/

June 8, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Up to 2,000 workers temporarily kicked off Hinkley Point C site after protest

 EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands.

The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms.

The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

 Construction News 4th June 2026,  EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands. The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms. The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

 Construction News 4th June 2026 EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands. The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms. The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

 Construction News 4th June 2026,  EDF has told around 2,000 mechanical and electrical (M&E) workers to stay
away from the Hinkley Point C construction site until next Monday (8 June)
after they downed tools in a dispute over shift patterns and other
grievances, Construction News understands. The client for the £46bn
Somerset nuclear project suspended the passes of workers from the MEH
Alliance who took part in a sit-down protest on Tuesday (2 June). It is
understood that operatives refused to undertake scheduled tasks on site and
instead sat down for long periods in areas including the canteen and
changing rooms. The workers are believed to be unhappy with a proposed
change to shift patterns being introduced in July that will see them on
duty for 10 days in a row every fortnight.

 Construction News 4th June 2026, https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/supply-chain/up-to-2000-workers-temporarily-kicked-off-hinkley-point-c-site-after-protest-04-06-2026/

June 8, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce under fire for outsourcing parts of UK nuclear project to South Korea

 Multibillion-pound contract to build three small modular
reactors was signed with government body in April. Rolls-Royce is facing
mounting criticism from politicians and industry figures for a decision to
outsource the core parts of a multibillion-pound UK government plan for
three small nuclear reactors to South Korea.

The announcement by the
British engineering giant, the lead investor in a consortium developing the
reactors, has raised questions about whether the government’s target of
70 per cent of the project being British-made will be met.

Rolls-Royce
SMR’s selection of South Korea’s Doosan Enerbility to finalise designs
for key components for the small nuclear reactors has triggered warnings
from industry representatives that the UK is squandering a chance to build
its own supply chain for the technology. Liam Byrne, Labour MP and chair of
parliament’s business and trade committee, said he would be writing to
ministers seeking clarification as to how Rolls-Royce’s announcement is
compatible with the 70 per cent target.

 FT 5th June 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/dcc90c25-43e7-4456-84bb-35458dc6726c?syn-25a6b1a6=1

June 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Canadian nuclear company Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000)bribery system to win over municipalities.

World Nuclear News, 2 June 2026

Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000) Regional Municipal Readiness Assessment Fund to support municipalities in the Bruce, Grey, and Huron counties in advancing planning related to the proposed Bruce C Project. The fund is designed to support studies and assessments that help municipalities prepare for the potential opportunities and impacts associated with Bruce C – a proposed new power plant of up to 4.8 GW at the Bruce Power site in Ontario – with individual projects to be completed by the end of 2027.

“Municipal leadership is critical in planning for large-scale infrastructure opportunities,” Pat Dalzell, Bruce Power’s Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Market Development, said. “This new fund will help to ensure communities are well positioned to capture economic benefits while maintaining the services and quality of life residents depend on.”

brennainlloyd . 3June 26

Bruce Power has launched a CAD1 million (USD722,000) Regional Municipal Readiness Assessment Fund to support municipalities in the Bruce, Grey, and Huron counties in advancing planning related to the proposed Bruce C Project. The fund is designed to support studies and assessments that help municipalities prepare for the potential opportunities and impacts associated with Bruce C – a proposed new power plant of up to 4.8 GW at the Bruce Power site in Ontario – with individual projects to be completed by the end of 2027.

“Municipal leadership is critical in planning for large-scale infrastructure opportunities,” Pat Dalzell, Bruce Power’s Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Market Development, said. “This new fund will help to ensure communities are well positioned to capture economic benefits while maintaining the services and quality of life residents depend on.”

June 5, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power and Other People’s Money

Arnie Gundersen, https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/05/28/nuclear-power-and-other-peoples-money/

Nuclear Power would never have existed without government handouts and ratepayer subsidies. The commercial nuclear power Gordian knot, from mineral extraction to component manufacturing to reactor operation to Price-Anderson Nuclear Insurance, and ending in waste disposal, exists only because of opium, whoops, OPM, Other People’s Money, in the form of taxpayer subsidies. Intense political pressure from the DC-based Nuclear Energy Institute prevents national and state politicians from cutting that twisted knot into pieces.

The financial problems associated with constructing and operating commercial nuclear power plants and the need for federal subsidies had been identified as early as 1958 by Time Magazine.

“The program needs a strong infusion of Government aid because

commercial nuclear power is so new, complex, and costly that private

companies cannot carry that burden alone,”[1]

And again at the turn of the 21st century according to Scully Capital Services Inc, a Washington-based investment and financial services firm, when the “Nuclear Renaissance” was being hyped by NEI:

“without government participation, some risks and costs of new nuclear reactors may remain at unmanageable levels.” [2]

Just before the Fukushima meltdowns in February 2011, the Union of Concerned Scientists again identified how heavily subsidized nuclear power had been and continued to be:

Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away… Piling new subsidies on top of existing ones will provide the industry with little incentive to rework its business model to internalize its considerable costs and risks.[3]

In 2018, sixty years after that Time Magazine subsidy analysis, the United States Congressional Research Service issued an analysis[4] of total government energy research and development funding spanning 71 years between 1948 and 2018. The report concluded:

Energy-related research and development (R&D)—on coal-based synthetic petroleum and on atomic bombs—played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the postwar era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. … For the 71-year period from 1948 through 2018, nearly 13% went to renewables, compared with nearly 5% for electric systems, 11% for energy efficiency, 24% for fossil, and 48% for nuclear.

The graph [on original]shows that for seventy years after the secrets of the atom were unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, America plowed almost half (48%) of its research funds into more nuclear subsidies. What did those expenditures buy us? At the peak of the Atoms for Peace nuclear building spree in 1990, nuclear power provided about 20% of America’s electricity. But electricity is only a small part of the total energy America consumes; most of the US energy consumption comes from fossil fuels for transportation and heating. The nation’s overall energy consumption shows that nuclear power provides about 9 percent of the energy that our society runs on[5]. The bottom line is that half of America’s research expenditures over 70 years subsidized nuclear power’s 10% energy contribution. That is hardly a worthwhile investment unless you are the companies receiving all that cash!

I can understand that subsidizing a nascent industry in 1950 might be a reasonable policy decision, but nuclear subsidies have continued for eight decades. When your kids return from college, letting them have their bedroom back might be reasonable. But when the kids turn eighty years old, it’s long past time to end that subsidy. And ending those subsidies is exactly what the Nuclear Energy Institute was created to prevent.

It’s time to pick up the pieces from Atoms for Peace. Without subsidies, nuclear power is simply not competitive with renewable energy.

power is simply not competitive with renewable energy.

NOTES

1. February 10, 1958 Time Magazine ↑

2. July 2002 Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants, Scully Capital Services, Inc. ↑

3. https://www.ucs.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies?utm_source=SP&utm_medium=more&utm_campaign=NuclearSubsidies-02-23-11-more ↑

4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS22858, Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Electric Systems R&D, CRS Product Number RS22858 ↑

5. https://usafacts.org/articles/what-kinds-of-energy-does-the-us-use/ ↑

Arnie Gundersen is the Chief Engineer, board member, and resident “science guy” at the Fairewinds Energy Education NGO. Since the catastrophe at Fukushima, Arnie focuses his energy worldwide on the migration of radioactive microparticles. During his multiple trips to Japan, Arnie has met and trained community-volunteer citizen-scientists to study the migration of radioactive microparticles from Fukushima in two co-authored peer-reviewed scientific articles.

May 30, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Spending watchdog warns £38bn cost of Sizewell C nuclear plant is ‘risky’

risks surrounding the project “could easily turn Sizewell C into a financial disaster” while the funding model meant its investors were “the only ones who can’t lose”.

National Audit Office says potential benefits are ‘considerable but uncertain’ while risks are ‘immediate and substantial’

Jillian Ambrose Energy correspondent, Guardian, 20 May 26

The cost of the government’s £38bn nuclear plant in Suffolk is subject to “significant uncertainty” and may outweigh the benefits for UK households until at least 2064, according to the government’s spending watchdog.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has warned that although the potential benefits of the Sizewell C nuclear plant are considerable, they remain uncertain. The risks, however, are “immediate, substantial and borne by the public”.

The government claims the nuclear reactor, expected to generate the equivalent of enough low-carbon electricity to power 6m homes when it begins operations in the late 2030s, could save £2bn a year from the electricity system compared with using other low-carbon technologies.

However, for households the overall savings could be outstripped by the cost of supporting its construction until almost halfway through its 60-year operational life. The project could take even longer to “break even” if there are cost overruns or delays, the NAO warned.

“Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers,” said Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the chair of the public accounts committee, which oversees the work of the NAO. “Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.”

Sizewell C is being developed by French state nuclear company EDF as a successor project to the Hinkley Point C reactor in Somerset, the first nuclear plant to be built in the UK in a decade. It has invested £1.1bn to take a 12.5% stake in the project alongside the UK government, which has invested £14.2bn as the majority stakeholder.

British Gas’s parent company, Centrica, owns 15% of Sizewell C while the Canadian pension fund La Caisse and the investment fund Amber Infrastructure own 20% and 7.6%, respectively……………………………………………….

Households began paying for the Sizewell C project via home energy bills at the start of the year to help fund construction. This financial framework, known as a regulated asset base model, is a marked change from the Hinkley Point deal, which will begin to earn a guaranteed stream of revenues from home energy bills only once it begins generating in the early 2030s.

Critics of the regulated asset base model, including the campaign group Stop Sizewell C, have warned that any construction delays could mean that bill payers support Sizewell without receiving power for longer than expected, while the government would be on the hook for the project’s financial risk.

Stop Sizewell C said the risks surrounding the project “could easily turn Sizewell C into a financial disaster” while the funding model meant its investors were “the only ones who can’t lose”.

The NAO has urged the government to mitigate the risk by using “close monitoring, greater transparency to parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment”. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/may/20/spending-watchdog-warns-38bn-cost-of-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-is-risky

May 24, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

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

That DESNZ went ahead with the Sizewell C investment decision on the basis that consumers would not benefit until 2064 beggars belief.

New Civil Engineer 20 May, 2026 By Tom Pashby

The financing of Sizewell C has been scrutinised by the National Audit Office (NAO), which found it “places more risks on taxpayers and consumers than other electricity projects” and that benefits to consumers will only outweigh costs after 2060.

In July 2022, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) announced it had secured the final investment decision (FID) for the project on the Suffolk coast, which is expected to produce 3.2GW of electricity.

Achieving the FID meant that investors and the government had agreed the terms on which investment would be put into the project, how returns on investment would work, and what this meant for consumers.

The government confirmed that the project would cost “around £38bn”, nearly double the original £20bn estimate stated by EDF in 2020.

Today’s [20 May] NAO report, simply titled Sizewell C, assessed “the implications of the deal for taxpayers, electricity consumers, and investors, and provides a baseline against which progress can be measured.”

A statement from the NAO, announcing the report, said DESNZ’s “delivery model for Sizewell C places more risks on taxpayers and consumers than other electricity projects, but the Department believes this model has reduced finance costs and will allow the project to be delivered on time and to budget.”

It added that the “novel approach has costs and relies on big assumptions

Once construction at the plant has been completed, the government’s modelling “predicts that the net benefits for consumers could be up to £18bn, primarily delivered through energy bill savings and reduced electricity costs compared to other ways of reaching net zero,” the NAO said.

“However, as a large infrastructure project, DESNZ’s modelling of these benefits shows they will not outweigh the costs to consumers until after 2060.”

The report also assessed the claims by Sizewell C that it will be easier to build because it is largely copying the designs of Hinkley Point C.

The NAO pointed out that Hinkley Point C “is currently expected to cost double its initial projected cost, with a seven-year delay”, and that this “has sparked concerns that these problems may be mirrored in Sizewell C”.

The spending watchdog said DESNZ hoped to avoid repetition of mistakes by “applying the lessons and final designs from Hinkley Point C”, and, as such, “Sizewell C’s plans are already at a much more advanced stage than Hinkley’s were at the equivalent point”.

NAO head Gareth Davies said: “Sizewell C forms a significant part of the government’s plan for a secure and affordable clean energy supply. There has been a concerted attempt to learn from the problems of previous nuclear power construction projects and other large infrastructure schemes.

“This has resulted in a novel financing structure and DESNZ will need to monitor the risks to taxpayers and billpayers closely.”

Public Accounts Committee chair Geoffrey Clifton-Brown commented on the report, raising concerns about the “substantial” risks of Sizewell C, which are being borne by the public.

“Sizewell C is a project of exceptional scale, complexity and significance for taxpayers. Costs are estimated to be £38.2bn, largely financed by government”, he said.

“While the potential benefits are considerable, they remain uncertain; by contrast, the risks are immediate, substantial and borne by the public. Consumers are already contributing through their electricity bills, and the government has assumed most of the project’s financial risk.”

He added: “Experience from comparable nuclear projects in the UK and overseas highlights their vulnerability to delays and cost overruns.

“Although the government has introduced a new delivery and financing model to mitigate these risks, it must now ensure it works in practice through close monitoring, greater transparency to Parliament, and by securing value for money from the significant public and private investment.”

Reaction to the report..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Steve Thomas gave NCE his reaction to the NAO report, asking, “Is this the best NAO can do after a year of effort?”

He pointed to a line from the NAO press release about the report, which said: “Sharing risk between the investors and taxpayers and consumers appears to have reduced the cost of financing Sizewell C, but the rewards for investors still appear high.”

He said the statement that financing costs had been reduced was “rubbish on two grounds”.

“First, the finance costs are being paid by consumers in the construction period under the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) surcharge. Getting someone else to pay does not reduce them, it just shifts them.

“Second, the finance is being provided by the government National Wealth Fund and the interest rate will be whatever the government tells it to charge, so if finance charges are lower because the interest rate is reduced, that is because the government has imposed the interest rate.”

The press release also said: “Investor financial returns will cost consumers over £4bn but will be justified if they help the project to cut construction costs and speed up delivery times.” Thomas described this as “unclear”.

He said: “If it refers to the 4.8% of the 10.8% real rate of return investors will be given, that will be a gift from consumers to investors, it is an underestimate. Centrica says that of its £3bn equity contribution, only £1.3bn will come from itself, the rest will come from this 4.8% which investors are required to use as equity contribution.

“Centrica euphemistically describes this as ‘RAB Growth’.”

The NAO statement adds that DESNZ assumes “the involvement of private investors is justified, as their expertise will reduce construction costs and speed up delivery.”

In response, University of Greenwich academic Thomas asks: “What expertise does La Caisse, Centrica, NLF have on building nuclear projects? EDF has expertise but that didn’t stop Hinkley, Flamanville, and even Taishan going horribly wrong.”

He also questions the government’s use of £38.2bn as a baseline cost for Sizewell C, describing it as “wrong”, because the lower regulatory threshold cost is £40.5bn, which the government is using as its central estimate.

“£38.2bn is clearly the lower end of the range. A very basic element of project appraisal is to use central estimates, not bottom of the range ones,” he added.

A Stop Sizewell C spokesperson told NCE that the campaign group shares a lot of the NAO’s concerns, and asked for the government to commit to a public, “realistic” completion date for the project.

“The NAO’s report confirms what we already suspected – that ‘big assumptions’ and the ‘significant uncertainty’ of factors underpinning DESNZ’s claimed benefits could easily turn Sizewell C into a financial disaster, with its investors – thanks to RAB – being the only ones who can’t lose,” the spokesperson said.

“As the NAO confirms, households are relying on those investors to produce significant savings and reduce Sizewell C’s construction time to justify the nuclear tax on our energy bills, but we share the NAO’s questions about whether investors can or have the incentives to do this.”

They added: “We had asked the NAO to look at Sizewell C before it reached Final Investment Decision and are dismayed it did not do so, but at least some critical information withheld by the government is now in the public domain.

“We agree with the NAO that DESNZ must provide transparency of forecast cost and schedule for Sizewell C. We call for the government’s promised Sizewell C Strategy and Delivery plan, containing a public, realistic completion date, to be laid before parliament immediately.”

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) also called for the NAO to “carry out a review of the Value for Money assessment supporting the government decision” to pursue Sizewell C.

TASC spokesperson Chris Wilson told NCE: “The NAO report regarding the Sizewell C project confirms that this government’s ideological pursuit of nuclear power is based on hope and belief rather than objective judgement.

“Ignoring all the warnings and project risks, the usual optimism bias regularly expounded by the nuclear industry is there in spades, at the same time negative assumptions are made about the cost of renewables

“That DESNZ went ahead with the Sizewell C investment decision on the basis that consumers would not benefit until 2064 beggars belief.

“The NAO report highlights a stark imbalance in DESNZ’s Sizewell C funding model: the investors are shielded from risk while reaping massive profits, leaving the public purse and electricity consumers to shoulder an unfair and excessive financial burden.”

Wilson added: “A major concern highlighted by the NAO is the lack of incentive for EDF to complete Sizewell C on time and budget – they will get paid to develop and supply major components while receiving a guaranteed return on their investment.

“EDF have been involved in every previous EPR reactor project and all of them have gone woefully over time and budget – they now have the added distraction and priority of building the new EPR2 reactor programme in France. What could possibly go wrong?”

May 23, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Power from Sizewell C will be more expensive than Hinkley Point, says UK watchdog

 National Audit Office report says consumers will pay higher
amount for energy from Suffolk project compared to its Somerset
counterpart. Electricity from the Sizewell C nuclear project is set to be
more expensive than power from Hinkley Point, even though the Suffolk plant
is cheaper to build, Britain’s public spending watchdog has said.


Sizewell C is on course to cost about 22 per cent less than Hinkley Point
C, which is being built in Somerset. But the latter has agreed to sell its
electricity at a fixed price, limiting the cost to end users because
developer EDF has to absorb any cost overruns.

A National Audit Office
report published on Wednesday estimates that if construction costs are in
line with forecasts of £38bn-£48bn, electricity from Sizewell C will cost
between £131-£155 per megawatt hour in 2024-2025 prices. This compares to
£129 per MWh for electricity from Hinkley Point C.

The government and a
consortium of developers had regularly highlighted that Sizewell C would be
cheaper to build than Hinkley amid concerns about the cost of the project.
But the NAO report says: “Although Sizewell C should cost less to build
than Hinkley Point C, it is likely that consumers will pay more for
energy . . . because the price of Hinkley’s electricity was set
before its cost over-ran (which has been borne by EDF), and the cost of
borrowing has also increased since then.”

 FT 20th May 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/c3bf8b2d-5f9f-4f3a-bd30-e86bb9a320f2

May 23, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | 1 Comment

5 Stocks That Benefit From the Government’s $94 Million Spending Spree on Nuclear Reactors.

The Trump administration is giving out money to small
nuclear reactor projects, and a handful of public companies should benefit.
The Energy Department announced $94 million worth of cost-sharing grants to
build out America’s nuclear infrastructure.

The government will pay for
up to 50% of the projects. It’s the second such grant given out to
nuclear players. The first one went to the Tennessee Valley Authority, a
federally controlled utility, and Holtec, a privately held nuclear operator
that’s building small reactors. Holtec is expected to go public sometime
this year.

The government’s involvement is meant to fast-track a U.S,
nuclear renaissance, which has moved slowly so far because most private
companies don’t want to take the financial risk.

 Barrons 15th May 2026,
https://www.barrons.com/articles/nuclear-reactor-stocks-e23d92f1

May 21, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Questions grow in Belgium over plan to nationalize Engie nuclear plants.

Government faces scrutiny over reactor restart costs and long-term energy strategy

Seyma Erkul Dayanc, 15 May 2026,

Questions are growing in Belgium over the government’s plan to acquire the Belgian nuclear activities of French energy company Engie, according to French daily Le Monde on Friday.

The project, backed by Prime Minister Bart De Wever, comes as five of Belgium’s seven nuclear reactors remain shut down, with some already undergoing dismantling procedures.

Le Monde reported that restarting the inactive reactors could require investments estimated between €3 billion ($3.4 billion) and €4 billion ($4.5 billion), particularly to comply with post-Fukushima safety standards.

The Belgian government has already decided to extend the operation of two reactors — Tihange 3 and Doel 4 — by 10 years.

The report added that financial and technical audits will be carried out before a memorandum of understanding (MoU) expected by Oct. 1.

“There is always a possibility that there will be no agreement,” Belgian Energy Minister Mathieu Bihet said.

AA 15th May 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/questions-grow-in-belgium-over-plan-to-nationalize-engie-nuclear-plants/3938781

May 19, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE | Leave a comment

While Pentagon Spends Billions on War, Military Families Say They’re Getting Short-Changed

Spouses of deployed military say they’re struggling with the costs of child care, groceries, housing.

 CAPITAL & MAIN, 13, 2026, By Marcus Baram

On April 21, nearly two months into the Iran war, the Pentagon unveiled a $1.5 trillion budget request that promised to bolster services for members of the military and their families. 

The proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins in September includes $90 million in additional funding specifically for the design of military child development centers and barracks, as well as pay increases ranging from 5% to 7% for service members. 

“With this funding request, we directly invest in our people, recognizing and respecting our warfighters, their families and the daily sacrifices they both make for our nation,” said Lt. Gen. Steven P. Whitney, who oversees force structure, resources and assessment at the mammoth agency.

But for some military families whose loved ones are currently deployed overseas, those changes may be too little, too late. The vast sums being spent on the war effort, at least $29 billion as of May 12, has not prompted the Trump administration to provide enough support services to help those families cope with their extra burdens.

The war-related inflation — gas prices rising more than $1.50 a gallon, higher energy bills and more expensive groceries — is hitting military families especially hard, say spouses of active-duty military and advocacy groups for military families. They also say that they’re not seeing the support services that have been offered during previous wars, such as the Iraq War.

“Our costs keep rising and it’s hard to keep up,” said the wife of a serviceman deployed overseas in the Mideast since last fall. She lives near a cluster of military bases south of Denver, has a full-time job and is studying at night for her PhD, forcing her to pay for babysitting for her 8-year-old son. She and another spouse of active-duty military deployed in the Middle East requested anonymity to speak openly due to their fears of reprisal.

The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.

Before the government shutdown last fall, the Military Families Advisory Network surveyed members and found that one in four active duty military families were struggling with food insecurity. The group is finalizing a more recent survey and already sees that the degree of food insecurity has “significantly increased,” said Shannon Razsadin, the executive director of the group. 

“One of the things that families are citing as a pain point is the rising cost of groceries, which is one of the first times that we’ve seen that specifically called out in the research.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://capitalandmain.com/while-pentagon-spends-billions-on-war-military-families-say-theyre-getting-short-changed

May 16, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »