ENERGY « nuclear-news

More Than Two-Thirds Of The Power Sought For US Data Centers Will Never Materialize

Zero Hedge, by Tyler Durden, Aug 14, 2026

It was almost a year ago, in November 2025, when we first calculated that the AI supercycle was facing a huge problem: namely, a power shortfall of (at least) 44 nuclear power plants, or GW or energy, by 2028.

Fast forward to last week when we made another stunning discovery: the reason why Texas Gov Abbott froze the rollout of new data centers in his state is because the number of interconnection requests facing ERCOT had risen to a mindblowing 474 GW (of which 90% were data centers), when the state’s highest ever power demand just hit 91GW. Needless to say, this will never happen in (maybe) a hundred years, but it does prompt the question we have been asking for years: where will the energy come from.

Well, as it turns out, the answer is nowhere. According to new projections from Wood Mackenzie, zmore than two-thirds of the electricity sought for the artificial intelligence boom in the US isn’t likely to materialize due to “phantom” projects and long-shot pitches.

The consultancy, which was inspired by not only our recent use of the term “bragawatts”, but the Bernstein report it came from (link here for pro subs) which reached the same conclusion…

… said it sees US grid operators and utilities likely committing to about 28% of the 1,066 gigawatts requested for data center projects (as most know by now, a gigawatt is the equivalent generating capacity of a traditional nuclear reactor: enough energy to power about 750,000 households for a year, or about 10-30 data centers).

While certainly no one expects every proposed project to be built, Bloomberg notes that the data reveals how inflated projections of future power demand complicate planning and budgeting by utilities and grid operators. That can translate into higher utility bills, since capital costs for upgrading infrastructure are typically covered through rate hikes.

“Everyone’s trying to figure out the rules of the road in order to make this the most efficient process without increasing grid prices,” said Alex Klaessig, co-founder of energy market intelligence firm Halcyon.

Developers have been taking a shotgun approach to pitching projects to utilities, seeking to get ahead in the AI build-out. That’s overwhelming US grids and creating even more data center bottlenecks. The explosion of requests is stretching approval timelines, forcing more applications to be vetted than ever before, and threatening to undermine US efforts to compete in the global AI race. It’s what prompted Texas to put a pause on all data center construction.

Of course, the counterfactual by the pro-AI lobby immediately emerged, to wit: “If we don’t allow these data centers to come online as fast as we can, then we might lose the future benefits of AI,” Klaessig said, …………………………………………………………………….

Of course, the 1,066 gigawatts of applications cited by Wood Mackenzie would require a staggering jump in US electric capacity. The amount represents 83% of the nation’s total utility-scale generation capacity at the end of last year, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Making matters worse and adding to the chaos, many applications are from firms with no prior experience building facilities with energy needs that can rival mid-sized cities. The projects of those first-time developers are often disproportionately large, though generally less likely to come to fruition than those from well-established big technology firms, said Wood Mackenzie analyst Caitlin Connelly……………………………….

As we reported previously, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered regulators on Aug. 3 to audit every data center seeking access to the state’s main grid, effectively pausing those projects’ approvals until reviews are complete. His surprise call puts $13 billion in industry revenues at risk and threatens to delay almost a fifth of America’s data center pipeline in the medium term, according to BloombergNEF……………………………………………………..

Bottom line: very little of the bombastic projections you see and hear every single day about the pace and size of the AI rollout will ever materialize. That also means that so much of the capital already invested in said rollout will be wasted. The question is how big the negative impact on stocks will be when people finally do the math. https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/most-two-thirds-power-sought-us-data-centers-will-never-materialize

August 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

UK Nuclear output sinks to 40-year low

Lastest stats from DESNZ show the pressures of the transition in terms of generation, demand and fuel mix

Energy Live News 30th July 2026

UK nuclear generation fell to its lowest level since the 1980s last year, forcing greater reliance on gas even as renewable output reached another record.

Official DESNZ figures show nuclear generation dropped 12% in 2025 to 35.9TWh because of refuelling, planned maintenance and unplanned outages across the ageing fleet. The decline helped push the low-carbon share of electricity generation down slightly to 64.3%.

The fall comes at a difficult time for Britain’s power system.

Electricity demand increased 1.2% to 323TWh while the Government is preparing for much sharper growth from electric heating, transport, industrial electrification and data centres.

New nuclear projects are not expected to arrive quickly enough to replace all the output lost as older stations close. That creates a growing gap between the existing fleet and future projects including Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and planned small modular reactors………………………………………………………

Renewable generation rose 5.9% to a record 153TWh and supplied 52.1% of UK electricity. It was only the second year in the published series that renewables provided more than half of generation………………………………………

Data centres are becoming an increasingly important part of that picture. DESNZ estimates they consumed 4.5TWh of grid electricity in 2024, up from 1.3TWh in 2020.

That represents an increase of 246% in four years and helps explain Ofgem’s concern in the surge in speculative data centre connection applications………………………………………………https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/30/nuclear-output-sinks-to-40-year-low-as-power-demand-rises/

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear stagnates while renewables soar

July 26, 2026 by beyondnuclearinternational

Solar and wind alone cut global greenhouse emissions by 12% writes David Toke [Good graphs]

Wind and solar power are making major cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions would be at least 12 per cent higher if not for solar and wind power. Almost all of today’s solar and wind generation has arisen since 2010. Meanwhile nuclear’s contribution has remained almost the same in volume terms (as in 2010), and has greatly declined in terms of proportion of total electricity generated. This is despite the never-ending talk of a ‘nuclear renaissance ’.

Solar and wind’s contribution to world electricity generation has increased to nearly 20 per cent in 2025, whilst nuclear’s contribution has fallen from a peak of 18 per cent in 1996 to just 9 per cent in 2025. This can be seen in Chart 1. The fact that solar and wind are making increasingly large cuts in carbon emissions is often overlooked. In addition, the impact of the closure of the Hormuz Straits has been lessened by renewable energy. Again, the contribution of renewables is often overlooked. Renewables, alongside energy efficiency and batteries, are turning out to be the leading force for energy security.

Wind and solar’s undercounted contribution

When energy statistics are collected, there is a clear statistical, if not actual political, bias against non-fossil fuels other than nuclear power and biomass. This is because in energy statistics all of the energy output of producing energy is counted, even though most of it is wasted. Fossil fuel energy is also wasted when used in inefficient machines such as motor vehicles or gas boilers. In the case of nuclear power, only one third of the energy is turned into electricity – the rest is wasted in warm water sent to rivers and seas. So in the energy statistics nuclear power counts for three times as much as solar, wind or hydro-electricity.

But the real impact of non-biomass renewables in cutting carbon emissions is at least three times their actual output. That is because otherwise fossil fuels would be producing the electricity, and electric machines are much more efficient at point of use (eg cars). Efficiency varies among power plants, with gas-fired generation generally wasting less energy than coal or oil plants. Overall, around 60 per cent of world fossil fuel energy is wasted in producing electricity.

But then, on top of this, you have to consider the carbon emissions that are saved by substituting fossil fuels for renewable electricity. For example, electric vehicles use around a third as much energy used by fossil fuel vehicles. Walking and cycling use even less! Heat pumps will use the electricity at least three times as efficiently as gas boilers. These gains are on top of the efficiencies gained in electricity production.

Electricity now makes up over 22 per cent of world final energy use, and this proportion is increasing (see Here). However, the problem, globally, is not as one reads in the media that electricity use is hurtling upwards as a result of plans for data centres (many of which never get built). Rather, it is that electrification is not happening fast enough! We need a great push for energy-efficient technologies. The EU has set a target for electrification of 46 per cent of final energy by 2040………………………………………………………………………………….

Nuclear non-renaissance

Of course nuclear revival is always (in the media) just around the corner. Until, of course, little turns up afterwards. Tony Blair talked up a nuclear revival in 2006, soon after his US buddy George Bush had promoted laws, in 2005, which offered massive loans for new nuclear power plants. However, only two nuclear power plants were built, eventually, very much over-cost, especially to electricity consumers in Georgia where the plants were based (at the same site). Another two plants were started in South Carolina, but the projects proved disastrous and were abandoned unfinished.

Now we’ve got the same thing happening again under Trump – but with a twist – in the USA at least there aren’t any new plants being built at all! (see HERE). That’s despite Donald Trump’s government offering large loans to fund them. Ah yes, there’s the ‘small modular reactor’ programme. But that, as I have already discussed in an earlier post, is a fantasy. Their electricity would cost a lot more than even conventional reactors (see HERE).

But of course a small number of power plants will get built called SMRs. They will not be followed by any amount of capacity that will rival even Denmark’s renewable programme on its own. I understand a lot of stress is also being placed on the completion of small micro-reactors that are to be used by the US military (instead of diesels?). Well, US military, good luck with that. Just keep them away from the drones!

True, the Chinese have been building quite a few nuclear power stations – indeed, half of all nuclear power plants in the world under construction are in China. But then China’s nuclear programme is dwarfed by its renewable energy programme. Around 75 nuclear power plants might be built by 2035 in the world. However, what is often not mentioned is that this may not be much more than the number of plants that are retired, which runs at around 7 a year.

In the UK the latest excuse for the non-completion of the Hinkley C reactor is that the poor hapless (French) state-owned EDF is being forced to reduce the number of fish that it kills during operation. But is this an excuse for the plant being already behind its 2025 start-up date and heading for start-up beyond 2030? I think it is. Its sister plant, Sizewell C, which is slated to follow on, is, according to the UK Government’s own admission, already more expensive than Hinkley C. And that is before the rest of the cost overruns rack up and before any of that coveted first concrete is poured.

When will Sizewell C be in operation? I wouldn’t bet on it this side of 2040! The main function provided by new nuclear power to governments such as the UK and the USA is that of a notional fig leaf to exorcise a failure to push ahead more vigorously with a strategy based on renewables and energy efficiency.

Conclusion

The world needs energy to be used efficiently through electricity. It needs this to be supplied by renewable energy. Anything else that doesn’t help this is most likely a distraction at best. That also includes the methods used to count energy, which are dysfunctional because the bulk of the energy they count is wasted. This appears to reduce the real impact of renewables and electricity. Electrification means technologies like heat pumps and EVs, and the real power of electrification will be running heating, transport, and industrial mechanical activity through renewable energy.

David Toke is the author of the book ‘Energy Revolutions – profiteering versus democracy’ (Pluto Press); He is Reader in Energy Politics at the University of Aberdeen and Director of 100percentrenewableuk. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/26/nuclear-stagnates-while-renewables-soar/

July 29, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | renewable | Leave a comment

Two Geothermal Bets Are Starting to Undercut Nuclear on Cost

By ZeroHedge – Jul 13, 2026,

Fervo’s third-generation well design cut drilling time 70%, with its latest well reaching 19,448 feet in just 21 days.
Quaise Energy closed the first tranche of a $134 million Series B, pushing total funding to roughly $230 million for its superhot geothermal plant in Oregon.
Fervo’s Cape Station is tracking toward $5,500/kW installed, well below the $10,000 to $15,000/kW final cost of Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear reactors.

…………………………………………………………………………….. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Geothermal-Energy/Two-Geothermal-Bets-Are-Starting-to-Undercut-Nuclear-on-Cost.html

July 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

The clear winner of Trump’s war in the Middle East is… China, says new report

By Amy Hawkins | Analysis, Article | July 4, 2026, https://thebulletin.org/2026/07/the-clear-winner-of-trumps-war-in-the-middle-east-is-china-says-new-report/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Winner%20of%20Trump%20s%20war%20in%20the%20Middle%20East%20is%20%20%20China%2C%20says%20new%20report&utm_campaign=20260702%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

China has emerged as the sole winner in Asia from the strait of Hormuz crisis, according to a report published on Tuesday.

The report by the geopolitical consulting firm Asia Group concluded that China had weathered the storm of the global commodities crisis resulting from the closure of the Middle Eastern waterway, and also stood to gain from the economic and geopolitical trends sparked by the wider conflict.

Iran virtually closed the strait, a vital waterway through which much of the world’s oil and gas flows, after the US and Israel launched joint strikes on February 28, targeting government and military sites and killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. The ensuing crisis has sent global energy prices soaring, with Asia particularly exposed.China has emerged as the sole winner in Asia from the strait of Hormuz crisis, according to a report published on Tuesday.

The report noted that before the strait’s closure, roughly 80 percent of the oil and nearly 90 percent of the liquefied natural gas transiting the waterway was destined for Asian markets, along with a significant share of other critical commodities.

The report looked at Asia’s largest economies—China, India, Japan and South Korea—as well as emerging markets across south-east Asia. The researchers mapped the economic and political repercussions of the crisis and its impacts across key sectors including manufacturing, energy and agriculture.

They concluded that China was a clear winner from the crisis caused by Donald Trump’s foray into the Middle East.

The country’s large stockpiles of oil and the hugely ambitious rollout of renewable energy mean it has been less exposed to the energy shock than other countries.

China has long maintained strategic reserves of energy, and last year took advantage of cheap prices to build up even bigger stockpiles. Its crude imports grew from 11.1 million barrels a day to 11.6 million in 2025, with over 80 percent of that increase being sent to stockpiles, according to analysis by Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy. As of January, China had enough stockpiled to cover 104 days of imports at the 2025 level.

The country has also been building massive amounts of renewable energy infrastructure in recent years. Last year it installed 315 gigawatts of new solar capacity, more than half of the world’s new solar. The year before, it added 277 gigawatts. Beijing is aiming for half of China’s energy to come from non-fossil sources by 2030, with the share from wind and solar reaching 30 percent, up from 22 percent in 2025.

Although China’s energy mix is still largely based on coal, which accounts for more than 50 percent, renewables’ share is increasing rapidly.

The Asia Group’s report said: “With 1.4 terawatts of operating renewable capacity already online and a reported 90-110 days of crude import cover in reserve, China weathered the initial shock better than any regional peer.”

China has also benefited from other countries reacting to the crisis by accelerating its clean energy buildout. Beijing dominates the global supply chain in solar and other clean technology industries and in recent years has been pushing much of this production overseas at low prices, to the chagrin of western leaders worried about their own industries.

China’s electric vehicle exports soared by more than 110 percent in May compared with the previous year, while solar shipments in April increased by 60 percent.

Beijing has called for a ceasefire in the Middle East, and when Trump visited in May and met China’s president, Xi Jinping, he claimed the two countries were united in wanting to find a settlement. But the Asia Group report noted: “The crisis allows Beijing to cast the United States as the destabilizing actor whose Middle East entanglements impose costs on the world.”

There are some risks to China from the instability. Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, said: “It’s tempting to see any loss of credibility in the US as a benefit for China, but that’s not necessarily the case for Beijing, which does not want to supplant Washington as a Middle East hegemon or provider of security for the region.”

Wen-Ti Sung, a non-resident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub, based in Taiwan, said the crisis could also make Beijing think twice about a future military assault on Taiwan because it showed the difficulty of navigating ships through hostile territory.

The Asia Group’s report concluded: “Ultimately Beijing views the pain points not as existential threats, but as challenges to be managed and even opportunities to be exploited.”

July 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, ENERGY | Leave a comment

£8.2bn Scottish datacentre development running out of steam?

by Chris Newbould, July 6, 2026,
https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/8-2bn-scottish-datacentre-development-running-out-of-steam/

A huge Scottish datacentre development has misrepresented its plans to channel a nuclear reactor’s worth of power to a site in rural Scotland, according to a new Guardian investigation.

When the £8.2bn AI datacentre complex in Lanarkshire was announced in January, built by the US firm CoreWeave and the Scottish company DataVita, the government promised that it would be powered entirely from on-site renewables and built by 2030 – indeed, a central plank of the viability of the project, designed to help with Britain’s ambitions to keep up in the global AI race, was its ability to power itself.

CoreWeave, meanwhile, claimed that CoreWeave Lanarkshire would become “one of the most advanced AI sites anywhere in the world” following the completion of their plans.

Documents obtained by The Guardian under an FoI request, however, suggest the datacentre has virtually no chance of meeting that goal.

Internal correspondence obtained by the paper, however, suggest that the government and the site’s developers were privately acknowledging that the site had an “issue” with “power provision” and that this would not happen, even as they publicly promised that the Lanarkshire site would have up to 1GW of “new energy infrastructure”.

The government told The Guardian that the Lanarkshire complex would connect to the national, meaning it would join a years-long queue alongside housing and hospitals, although a government spokesman insisted the site’s needs would still be met “overwhelmingly” with renewables.

Energy is a particular issue for power-hungry data centres in the UK, where it is more expensive than anywhere else in Europe and there is an eight to 10-year queue for new developments to connect to the grid.

DataVita said it will power the site in Airdrie with more than 1GW of renewable energy, including 400MW of solar power and 800MW of wind. That is more than one and half times the wind energy produced by Whitelee, the UK’s largest onshore windfarm, also in Scotland, which occupies an area half the size of Bristol. It is roughly the power needed to supply 800,000 Scottish homes, although where this power is coming from for the Lanarkshire development remains unclear at this point.

July 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

The World Is Racing to Develop New Nuclear Fuels

Oil Price, By Felicity Bradstock – Jun 28, 2026,

Advanced reactors and SMRs increasingly require fuels such as HALEU, but commercial supplies remain limited outside Russia and China.
The U.S. and U.K. are investing heavily in domestic uranium enrichment to strengthen nuclear fuel security.
Several reactor developers are adopting LEU+ as a more readily available alternative while domestic HALEU production expands.

…………………………………………………………….. Accessing HALEU and TRISO at scale remains a challenge, as the China National Nuclear Corporation is the only commercial-scale producer of TRISO fuels, and Russia’s TENEX is the only commercial-scale supplier of HALEU. This has driven several companies in the United States and across Europe to explore alternative fuels to power SMRs, to shift reliance away from Russia and China.

While several companies continue to rely on Russia for their uranium supplies, some countries are looking to develop a domestic HALEU production capacity, while many companies are exploring the potential of using alternative, more easily accessible uranium fuels to power operations. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-World-Is-Racing-to-Develop-New-Nuclear-Fuels.html

July 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Even If the Strait of Hormuz is Open, it Ain’t Open

22 June 2026 by Larry C. Johnson , https://sonar21.com/even-if-the-strait-of-hormuz-is-open-it-aint-open/

It is open. Nope, it is closed. Wait… It is open. What? Closed again? If you are following the media reports on the Strait of Hormuz you are probably dizzy from hearing about the changing status of the Strait of Hormuz. If you think that getting a firm agreement between Iran and the US to open the Strait of Hormuz will result in an instant solution to restoring global oil reserves, think again.

Even if Iran agrees to a 60-day moratorium on charging ships entering and leaving the Persian Gulf a “usage fee” (Trump calls it a “toll”), and the moratorium starts this week, the world still faces some serious economic shocks from the disruption of Crude Oil and LNG. Crude Oil and LNG production will take time to ramp back up to the pre-Ramadan War levels. We still do not have a full assessment of the damage to the Oil and LNG infrastructure in the Gulf nations. Even if all those systems are intact and functioning — they are not — there is still the problem of having the tankers that carry the Black Gold ready to take the shipments.

The tankers, aka ships, that have been sitting idle in the warm, salty waters of the Persian Gulf for four months face months of the maintenance recovery cycle before they will be ready to get back to the task of hauling oil and LNG. An expert in this field explained it to me this way:

Oil tankers are likely to lose weeks to months depending on fouling, coating condition, and drydock access. LNG carriers are likely to lose longer because the hull problem is coupled to cargo-system and gas-management reliability.

For planning, assume crude/product tankers lose 1-3 months in the median case and 3-6 months in the heavy case. Assume newer LNG carriers lose 2-4 months and older/system-stressed LNG carriers lose 4-9+ months. Some vessels will be faster, but the market should plan for a long tail of slow, disputed, or yard-bound tonnage.

The global perspective is clear: physical movement will recover first; commercial availability will recover second; fleet efficiency will recover third. The market will separate clean, documented, charter-ready tonnage from vessels that are merely moving. The maintenance backlog will be the next bottleneck after Hormuz.

Besides the delay in getting tankers back on the high seas, there is the problem of the Middle-Distillate Inflection Point. What the hell is that? As you can see in the image at the top of this article, a barrel of oil is not like a can of Coca Cola, i.e., a consistent liquid from the top to the bottom of the can. A barrel of Oil consists of segments, with the middle-distillate portion of the barrel providing the raw material from which both diesel and jet fuel are derived. That segment is the critical fuel for the real economy because diesel runs freight, rail, agriculture, construction, and distribution, while jet fuel supports both civil aviation and military air operations.

The structural constraint at the heart of the current energy crunch is the refinery barrel itself. Military jet fuel (JP-8) and civilian diesel are not refined from separate barrels — they compete for the same distillate cut from every barrel processed. So if Trump orders the Pentagon to start bombing Iran again, that will trigger draw downs on stocks — assuming the ops tempo in the Gulf is sustained — and refiners will face pressure to tilt output toward JP-8, which directly squeezes the supply of diesel and civil aviation fuel. In other words, there is no free barrel; every gallon of military fuel is a gallon not available to a trucking company, a farmer, or an airline.

Of all the downstream effects, diesel tightness is the most economically dangerous and the fastest-moving. Unlike gasoline, which is a consumer cost, diesel is an input cost — embedded in every freight shipment, every food delivery, every industrial process. When diesel tightens, the price increase doesn’t stop at the pump; it cascades through supply chains and lands simultaneously on freight rates, grocery prices, manufacturing margins, and retail costs. That kind of broad-based input inflation is one of the more reliable causes of recession, because it compresses margins economy-wide while simultaneously suppressing consumer purchasing power.

This helps explain why Donald Trump pivoted so quick to support the MoU with Iran. The real allocation question is not whether to release the SPR or whether to jawbone OPEC into producing more — it is how hard to run the war. Every incremental increase in operational intensity consumes distillate that the domestic economy cannot easily replace, tightening a transmission belt that runs directly from the Strait of Hormuz into Main Street prices. The tradeoff between war intensity and economic stability is not an abstract strategic concern; it is a daily refinery scheduling decision with macroeconomic consequences

Here is the problem: currently, the US has approximately a 30-day supply of diesel. It is estimated that somewhere between 8% (VLCC class alone) and a figure approaching 15–20% of the broader crude and product tanker fleet is either stranded or effectively withdrawn from global circulation — a supply shock to shipping capacity that compounds the underlying oil supply disruption. This means there is no ready, quick solution to fill that gap in 30 days. In fact, the delay to restore the US supply of diesel could last as long as 60 days. In short, oil is not going to flow fast enough globally to meet existing demand, which probably accounts for Trump sudden decision last week to sign the MoU with Iran. A knowledgeable expert who provided me with this information believes that we will hit the wall of diesel shortage in July.

How’s that for cheery news?

June 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, MIDDLE EAST | Leave a comment

SMRs axed from New Brunswick Power’s energy plan

it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Looming integrated resource plan likely to leave out new nuclear, a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released

Adam Huras, Telegraph Journal, Jun 09, 2026

NB Power’s new plan to meet New Brunswick’s electricity needs likely won’t include any new nuclear power, according to the utility.

It’s a dramatic change from the last plan the utility released just three years ago that relied heavily on adding small modular nuclear reactors over the next decade as a linchpin to meeting demand.

And it’s a move that raised eyebrows when first delivered by NB Power CEO Lori Clark at a major industry forum last week in Saint John set up to push forward new nuclear power in the province.

“In the short term, our integrated resource plan would say it’s gas plants, batteries are part of the solution going forward,” Clark said at the Pioneering New Nuclear in Atlantic Canada forum at the Saint John Trade & Convention Centre. That’s despite her openly backing new nuclear as the solution.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released.

In a statement to Brunswick News, NB Power spokesperson Tracey Stephenson confirmed a new integrated resource plan, to be released in early fall, “focuses on least cost options” and, as a result, “it is likely that new nuclear will not be a part of the base case.”

Stephenson added that “existing nuclear” will be included in the plan.

“Sensitivities will be provided for new nuclear.”

Clark made clear her interest in pursuing additional nuclear capabilities in New Brunswick………………………………………………………………………..

Regardless, the new plan looks to say something different.

NB Power must release a new integrated resource plan every three years to reflect the changing energy landscape and customer expectations.

It ultimately lays out several likely scenarios NB Power can take in the decades ahead to balance demand for more power, calls from customers to keep rates stable, federal mandates, and provincial government direction.

The plan just three years ago was based heavily on small modular nuclear reactor development.

“SMRs are a critical part of the future of electricity in New Brunswick,” reads the 2023 plan. “They provide a unique opportunity for New Brunswick to offer stable and predictable carbon-free generation.”

Four scenarios developed by NB Power in 2023 banked on at least 450 megawatts of power from SMRs by 2034-35.

That ranged upward to 750 megawatts.

The only analysis that removed SMRs from future projections suggested the need for “extreme volumes of wind and solar builds,” over 4,000 megawatts, would be needed in its place.

Under the province’s Electricity Act, NB Power is legally required to seek out the lowest-cost options for energy generation.

That said, amendments to the act passed into law by the former Higgs government in December 2023 mandated the utility to purchase electricity generated by small modular nuclear reactors, even if it wasn’t the lowest-cost option.

Then-Energy Minister Mike Holland said that may have prevented power purchase agreements with SMR operators.

NB Power said in an email that “the mandate regarding the purchase of electricity from small nuclear reactor technology remains,” while pointing to the provincial government for further clarity.

With the Holt government in power, it has become increasingly clear that faith in small modular technology is fleeting.

Two SMR companies that have set up in New Brunswick have both pushed back timelines.

Amid delays, NB Power has said it’s completing pre-development work at Lepreau to accommodate a wide variety of SMRs working towards commercialization, giving the utility the flexibility to eventually choose a viable winner that might not be a made-in-New Brunswick design.

Energy Minister René Legacy said last October that the Holt government wasn’t interested in building a “first-of-a-kind” SMR at Lepreau, adding they’re “always the most expensive.”

Those words came after the federal government pledged $2 billion toward the building of four small modular nuclear reactors at Ontario’s Darlington nuclear plant, with that model now becoming an eventual option for New Brunswick.

More recently, Premier Susan Holt unveiled what she called an “action plan” in response to an independent review of the troubled utility’s finances and its recent pattern of large rate increases for customers.

That said, it delays decisions on things like splitting the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station into its own separate company, as well as a recommendation to build a second larger nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau.

Clark also stated that legislation calls on the utility to pick the lowest-cost option to meet demand.

It means new nuclear power will largely be ruled out in a plan that’s soon to be released. https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smrs-axed-from-nb-powers-energy-plan

June 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power Returns to the Forefront of Quebec’s Energy Debate

“It’s an industry that’s generally heavily subsidized by the government, because the private sector is less willing to take on these risks,” adds Jean-Pierre Finet. He points out that the majority of nuclear power plant construction projects, which typically span about a decade, exceed their scheduled timelines and budgets. “Public funds are used to mitigate the risks of these projects,” he notes, adding that customers are then called upon to absorb the excess costs.

Nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

French-language article, by Juliane C Lelarge, Le Devoir, June 3 2026

As Ottawa accelerates its nuclear development, Quebec evaluates various energy scenarios, and new Liberal leader Charles Milliard says he is open to the sector. Nuclear power is resurfacing in the public debate. Presented by its supporters as a carbon-free solution to meet growing electricity demand, nuclear power continues to polarize the debate. Here’s why.

Why is there a resurgence of interest in nuclear power?

The electrification of society and the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels, particularly in transportation and buildings, are expected to lead to a marked increase in electricity demand over the coming years, explains Karim Zaghib, a professor of chemical engineering at Concordia University and former director of research at Hydro-Québec. He also highlights the rapid growth of artificial intelligence and data centers, which is likely to exacerbate this pressure.

Current geopolitical instability and aspirations for energy independence are also fueling a global resurgence in the nuclear industry. And the development of new technologies, such as small modular reactors, is reinforcing this trend, although some experts are calling for caution.

This interest was particularly evident in the preliminary drafts of the Integrated Energy Resources Management Plan (PGIRE), published in March, which explores a scenario involving a return to nuclear power, even though many industry stakeholders question the influences behind this inclusion.

“We know, for example, that in Quebec, the firm AtkinsRéalis [formerly known as SNC-Lavalun] is lobbying in this direction. There are also American corporations exerting pressure,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet, an analyst with the Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie.

Does nuclear energy have advantages?

Nuclear power is among the energy sources with the lowest CO2 emissions over its entire life cycle, on a par with wind and hydroelectric power. “Compared to wind power, it also has the advantage of being quieter and having no significant impact on the landscape or land use,” explains Karim Zaghib, who notes that Quebec’s geography—and its multitude of waterways—is well-suited to the installation of power plants.

According to Guy Marleau, a professor in the Department of Engineering Physics at Polytechnique Montréal, nuclear infrastructure also has a much longer lifespan: 60 years for a power plant, compared to an average of 12 years for a wind turbine. The electricity production of a nuclear power plant is also incomparable to that of renewable energy sources, he notes.

Karim Zaghib views nuclear power as a complement to wind and solar energy, and stresses the importance of diversifying energy sources to ensure the grid’s resilience. This is because nuclear power provides a more stable baseload energy supply, he explains.

In Jean-Pierre Finet’s view, however, nuclear power’s inflexibility is a disadvantage. “With hydroelectric power, we can adapt to demand. With nuclear, it’s like having the pedal to the metal all the time,” he explains, noting that energy produced during periods of low demand is sold at a low price, or even at a loss. “That’s why we buy a lot of low-cost energy from Ontario, which sometimes has no choice but to offload it.” Advances in energy storage also put the issue of renewable energy’s intermittency into perspective, he says.

“Nuclear power is sometimes seen as an alternative for more climate-skeptical stakeholders who reject renewables on principle,” notes Philippe Gauthier, an energy analyst at the Rivières Foundation, citing the energy strategy implemented by the Trump administration in the United States as an example.

What would reinvesting in the sector in Quebec entail?

“It would be extremely expensive,” Philippe Gauthier states right off the bat, noting that nuclear development is one of the most costly forms of energy production.

Another challenge: Quebec’s nuclear expertise is disappearing. “To shut down the Gentilly plants, Hydro-Québec had to reach out to its retirees, who were the only ones left with that expertise,” recalls Philippe Gauthier. This lack of expertise makes the industry still very much an American one, asserts Jean-Pierre Finet, who rejects the argument for energy sovereignty. He points out that Canada’s largest federally-owned nuclear facilities, the Chalk River Laboratories, have been managed since 2025 by a private American consortium, some of whose largest companies are linked to the U.S. defense sector.

Is the issue of safety still relevant today?

“Today, safety is a given,” argues Karim Zaghib, noting that accidents are now very rare. The issue that remains a subject of debate is radioactive waste. “With our current drilling capabilities, we’re able to bury it tens of kilometers underground,” says the researcher.

“The waste issue is far from resolved,” counters Jean-Pierre Finet. He cites as an example the discharge of toxic wastewater from the Chalk River facilities into the Ottawa River in 2024. The nuclear project, which in recent weeks received a federal grant of $2.2 billion, calls for the burial of large quantities of radioactive waste near the surface. This part of the project is the subject of litigation, including with the Anishinaabe community of Kebaowek, which won a victory on this matter on May 28 in the Federal Court of Appeal.

More broadly, experts criticize the nuclear industry for a real lack of transparency. “The current oversight process is practically nonexistent,” laments Philippe Gauthier, who believes the ties between the industry and regulatory bodies are too close. He cites as an example the case of the 62.8 tons of irradiated uranium fuel that was transported in secret on Quebec’s roads in the summer of 2025.

Several experts interviewed believe that the global trend toward a return to nuclear energy must also be analyzed in light of the phenomenon of nuclear rearmament. “The military industry needs the civilian industry to develop its expertise,” explains Philippe Gauthier. “We cannot ignore the fact that military applications are still part of the nuclear equation.”

Is the development of nuclear power part of a transition strategy?

“We must not confuse adding carbon-free generation with decarbonization,” explains Jean-Pierre Finet. “All we’ve done so far is add carbon-free generation without reducing the rest of our [fossil fuel] consumption, which doesn’t reduce GHG emissions. It’s mainly a pretext for further industrialization.”

According to him, the issue isn’t about increasing energy production, but about better managing its distribution and consumption, particularly through more efficient use and storage.

More broadly, experts are calling on governments to dare to talk about energy conservation. “It seems like we’re doing all this to avoid having to change our behaviors, and then our lifestyles. The extractivist approach is not sustainable,” argues Mr. Finet.

June 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy is too slow and too expensive for the energy transition

In terms of CO2 emissions, a nuclear power plant can compete with wind turbines and solar panels. Otherwise, however, the disadvantages and inertia outweigh the advantages.

May 27, 2026, Mario Petzold, https://www.golem.de/news/studie-kernenergie-zu-langsam-und-zu-teuer-fuer-die-energiewende-2605-209099.html

A study by the Öko-Institut commissioned by the Federal Environment Agency The report certifies that nuclear energy has an excellent climate record. According to the report, CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour (kWh) fed into the grid are _at the same level as those of photovoltaics and wind power.

In all other crucial aspects, however, nuclear energy exhibits numerous practical disadvantages. The study therefore considers a scenario in which nuclear power plays a decisive role globally to be unrealistic.

The cost of electricity generation is a major obstacle to the rapid spread of this technology. The authors estimate costs of 15 to 19 cents per kWh in Europe and 15 to 16 cents per kWh in North America. In contrast, wind power and photovoltaic electricity cost significantly less than 10 cents. Onshore wind power is estimated at an average of 3.6 cents per kWh.

Practical reasons speak against nuclear energy

But it’s not just the pure costs that argue against the rapid expansion of nuclear power plants. The annual addition of capacity would have to be at least 30 gigawatts (GW) per year, which corresponds to 25 to 30 large nuclear reactors.

In recent decades, the rate has been around 10 GW, which was just enough to compensate for the output of decommissioned nuclear power plants. According to the study, such a significant acceleration in construction seems unlikely.

And even if the number of planned projects were to increase, the long construction time of up to 20 years alone argues against nuclear energy playing a relevant role in global energy production by 2050.

Furthermore, the interaction with renewable energy sources is extremely poor. The controllability of nuclear power plants is minimal and requires a certain lead time. In contrast, a high share of wind and solar power in the energy system necessitates rapid load changes, which nuclear power cannot provide.

Climate change is an obstacle to nuclear power

Besides the risks posed by a serious reactor accident, which cannot be reliably quantified, climate change itself also hinders the expansion of nuclear energy. A location by the sea would be ideal, because sufficient cooling water with virtually constant temperatures is available.

However, rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather events are increasing the risk of unforeseen incidents precisely in these areas. Along rivers, heat waves, droughts, or heavy rainfall could jeopardize the reliable operation of a nuclear power plant.

Overall, the study authors assume that, in the best-case scenario, nuclear power plants will be able to supply nine percent of global energy production in the future. This corresponds to the current share and requires an increase in the current rate of expansion of nuclear reactors. In 1996, the share was still at 17 percent; according to the study’s calculations, it is most likely to be between three and four percent by 2050.

June 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Nuclear needs to build up to 8,000 SMRs just to catch up with wind and solar. By 2035, they might have 5

Giles Parkinson, May 27, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-needs-to-build-up-to-8000-smrs-just-to-catch-up-with-wind-and-solar-now-by-2035-they-might-have-5/

Australia’s almost indistinguishable far right political parties – the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation – are pushing the nuclear barrow once again, not for climate reasons but because of the “anything but wind and solar” ideology demanded by their fossil-fuelled benefactors.

So it came as a timely reminder on Wednesday, when one of the world’s leading green energy analysts, Michael Liebreich, underlined just how useless nuclear energy is for dealing with climate change, and how far the small nuclear reactors championed by many are from competing with surging wind and solar.

Liebreich is the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and his address to the Energy Efficiency Council’s National Conference also touched on the perils of net zero targets (because it puts the focus on what’s really hard rather than what’s readily achievable), and the overwhelming push for electrification for “just about everything.”

But it was the nuclear hype that he was also keen to puncture, if only to underline the sheer scale and dominance of wind and solar, and its rapidly growing share of “useable” energy, as opposed to “primary energy” that ignores the massive inefficiencies of fossil fuels.

SMR are still not being built but they are championed by some of the world’s richest people, the AI and social media “tech bros” who are looking for ample energy sources to power their massive data centre needs (while contracting tens of gigawatts of wind and solar in the meantime).

“They (the tech bros) love nuclear, and they’re going to be very angry when they discover what everybody discovers, which is nuclear is kind of expensive and long and complicated,” Liebreich said.

“But even if they succeed, it’s not going to be a climate solution,” he said. And the reason is that simply to match the output of wind and solar in the 2024 calendar year, the industry would need 1,250 of the 470 MW SMRs that are being developed by Rolls Royce, or up to 8,000 of the much smaller SMRs pushed by the likes of Oklo.

“If they build five by 2035 that will be a big win,” Liebreich said. “And so, as a climate solution, by the time you did build 2000 Westinghouse SMRs, where do you think wind and solar is going to be?

“It’s obviously going to have grown. That green curve is not stopping, it is taking off, and you can see it’s taking off even in the countries that are really trying to build nuclear.”

The nuclear push is usually associated in Australia by calls to abandon net zero targets, with the main argument being – without evidence – that it is trashing the economy.

Net zero has been criticised by others supportive of strong action. Andrew Forrest, aiming for real zero at Fortescue’s giant iron ore mines by 2030, says net zero is an excuse to do not much and use offsets instead of cutting emissions, others say a 2050 target is used by an excuse to do not much anytime soon.

Liebreich’s criticism is that it makes everything sound too hard. “By focusing on zero, immediately your eye is drawn to doing the difficult bits, and the difficult bits are expensive, and we just don’t have to have those discussions right now.

“If we can’t do aviation, there’s … a smorgasbord of opportunities right in front of us that we should be doing first and quickly, because time matters. Carbon has a time value, once it’s up there, it stays up there.”

As an example of that smorgasbord, Liebreich pointed to EVs, and specifically the Nissan Leaf, which from its 2011 version to its 2026 version had trebled the size of its battery, quadrupled its range, doubled the power, and cut the cost by one third.

Simply looking at efficient technologies can also achieve so much.

“If you go from coal-fired incandescent light bulb to an LED, same energy service, you cut primary energy by 95 per cent.

“Electric cars are the same, you go from a fossil car to electric car, (you get a) 75 per cent cut in primary energy. Same for heating, you go from a boiler to a heat pump, (you get) a 75 per cent reduction in primary energy.”

Liebreich says the greater efficiency of wind ands solar – useable energy as opposed to the primary energy championed by the fossil fuel industry trying to pretend that non-hydro renewables have no impact – will accelerate that change.

“What it does is it pushes fossil off the system, it’s a transition, and if you think about it, when we went from analog to mobile and digital telephony, we didn’t measure it by how many landlines were disconnected in 1995.

“We just asked how many people have got mobile phones. Peak landline happened over 30 years after the invention of the mobile phone, in 2006. So if you had said in 2000 there’s no transition, it’s failed, it’s troubled, it’ll never happen, you look pretty stupid now.

“Peak horse in the US was 1920. The car was invented in 1886. So you measure a transition by the growth of the new, not the crushing of the old.

“And I also think … the politics of talking about how we’ve got to stop this and block this and destroy that, and so it’s very, very difficult.

“We’re telling people you’re going to stop them from using things, whether it’s coal or petrol or diesel or their boiler, or whatever, it is politically difficult. Well, it’s unacceptable. So I think we’ve got to talk about growing anew. That brings me to electrification, and electrification, I think, is the solution to all of the above.”

And for more on that, please see our recent story on Liebreich’s recently released Elecrification Staircase – From cars to coastal shipping, we can electrify almost everything, according to Electrification Staircase.

May 31, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Energy Department takes steps toward allowing plutonium, historically used in weapons, in nuclear fuel

by Rachel Frazin – 05/26/26, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5896154-energy-department-plutonium-nuclear-power/

The Energy Department may allow up to five companies to use its surplus plutonium — which it has historically been used in nuclear warheads — as fuel.

The department has selected the firms for “advanced negotiations regarding the potential allocation of surplus plutonium materials,” a spokesperson for its nuclear energy office said Tuesday.

The five companies entering advanced negotiations are: Oklo, Exodys Energy, Shine Technologies, Standard Nuclear and Flibe Energy, Inc.

The Energy Department has historically used plutonium in nuclear warheads. It produced a significant amount of it during the Cold War.

In March, the White House issued an executive order directing the department to halt a prior program that sought to dilute and dispose of the plutonium. The order also directed the department to instead set up a program making surplus plutonium available to the nuclear energy industry.

In October, the Energy Department said that the available surplus for the program includes weapons-grade, fuel-grade, reactor-grade or mixed plutonium.

According to the department, the plan to give plutonium to energy companies “is anticipated to help companies unlock the next level of private funding to broaden domestic nuclear fuel supplies, spur innovation on American recycling technologies, and unlock private sector funding to fuel the nation’s nuclear renaissance.”

However, critics argue that repurposing plutonium for civilian energy could have security and other risks.

“Plutonium-based fuels and reprocessing have a poor track record when introduced in civilian nuclear energy programs,” Ernest Moniz, who was energy secretary under former President Obama, wrote last year, adding that it could lead to “the creation of additional stocks of weapons-usable materials.”

Meanwhile, Oklo cofounder and CEO Jacob DeWitte said in a written statement on Tuesday that the Energy Department program could help speed up the development of nuclear energy.

“Fuel supply constraints are a key throttle to advanced reactor development,” DeWitte said. “This program creates a pathway to use existing surplus material as bridge fuel for advanced reactors to bring more reactors online sooner.”

May 31, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Am I the only one who doubts the need for more electricity?

Ken Collier, Fri, May 8, 26

Am I the only one who doubts the need for more electricity? There might be an argument for a better grid as a security and safety measure. Do we really need more electricity to manufacture cars that clog the roads and pollute the environment? More plastic? More disposable consumer goods? More entertainment of dubious quality? Manipulate huge amounts of data anf faster?

Most of the debate seems to be about whether solar, wind, hydro, etc. are better able to meet the increasing demand than nuclear or fossil fuels. Some of it is about how best to provide employment, especially for the union organized sector.

I think cutting back, or at least making better judgements about goals for energy use, would be a more productive way to exercise our actions in a way that recognizes how damaging it is to just seek more and better energy while providing our insights free to the energy industry. (even if they don’t heed it).

May 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Scots are right to back renewables over nuclear energy.

By Dr Paul Dorfman, Bennett Institute, University of Sussex; Dr Keith
Baker FRSA, Glasgow Caledonian University; Professor Peter Strachan, Robert
Gordon University; Professor Steve Thomas, University of Greenwich; Dr
David Toke, University of Aberdeen.

POLLING released a couple of weeks ago
found that nuclear power has a “miserable” level of support in
Scotland, with more than half of those surveyed saying that the main focus
should be on renewables. According to the facts, this makes sense. Solar
and wind now dominate global electricity generation. Worldwide, solar and
wind power will both surpass nuclear in 2026.

This surge has halted the
fossil fuel power generation rise, with renewables overtaking coal,
supported by battery storage providing system flexibility at scale. All
this points to a shift in the dynamics of the power system. When renewable
energy generation exceeded the rise in global electricity demand last year,
an important threshold was crossed. In 2025, solar became the EU’s top
power source, with wind and solar now the bedrock of European energy
self-reliance. Power generation from renewables in Europe has reached a new
record of 384.9 Terrawatt-hours (TWh).

Meanwhile, Scottish wind power has
also set new records. More renewable energy is produced in the Scottish
Highlands per household than any other area of the UK. Annual renewable
generation across the Highlands is staggering. Renewable energy development
will be further supported by SSEN’s investment of £7 billion in Scotland
in 2026-31, creating 17,500 jobs. More than 100% of Scotland’s
electricity demand has been produced by renewables for the first time,
supporting more than 42,000 jobs and an economic output of more than
£10.1bn.

New UK nuclear plans would be yet another blow to electricity
bill-payers, when Scottish families are already paying what amounts to a
“nuclear tax” to fund the two most expensive nuclear power plants in
the world, England’s Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.

Meanwhile, the
Norwegian Nuclear Committee has just said no to nuclear power in Norway.
Due to new nuclear construction timescales – up to 17 years according the
UK Government – and the vast cost over-runs, fissile fuel is a policy
dead end, diverting scarce resources away from realistic climate and energy
solutions.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are another a costly distraction.
They are still in development and decades away from deployment at scale.
All this means that new nuclear is too late for the climate and energy
crises. What’s worse, every pound invested in nuclear is a pound not
invested in renewables, energy efficiency, storage and grid resilience –
investments that would provide a much bigger pay-off.

The National 6th May 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/business/26081051.scots-right-back-renewables-nuclear-energy/

May 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries