nuclear-news

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

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.

“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.

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 | 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 AgencyThe 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Unfounded Health Concerns Are Powering a Solar Backlash

 SCHEERPOST, April 26, 2026

Kevin Heath had hoped there would be solar panels by now on his family farm in southeastern Michigan, roughly 50 miles outside Detroit.

About six years ago, he agreed to lease part of his land for a solar project. It would help him pay off debt and keep the farm in the family, he said. But the opportunity was thwarted when, in 2023, following pushback from some local residents, his township passed an ordinance that banned large solar projects from land zoned for agriculture.

In the fight over solar development, Heath said he was bombarded by just about every argument from critics — including claims that solar fields are a health hazard. “I’ve heard them say that, but I’ve never heard anybody prove that,” Heath said.

“The health and safety issue,” he added, “that is just a joke.”

Michigan has big prospects in solar farming — measured by the expected growth in the capacity of its farms to add electricity directly to the grid. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of the nation’s new capacity from this type of solar farm is planned this year for four states, including Michigan. The others, with their hot deserts and big-sky plains, seem more obvious: Texas, Arizona and California.

To some, in Michigan and beyond, this growth feels dangerous. They pressure public officials to stop, stall or otherwise complicate new solar projects with an array of arguments that now go beyond just land use to include public health.

There is little reputable evidence to back their claims. But health concerns have helped power a solar backlash that undercuts efforts to broaden energy sources even as customer costs are rising.

Restrictions on solar development are proliferating nationwide, “often rooted in misinformation or unfounded fears,” including ones that involve “potential environmental and human safety risks,” according to an article published late last year in the Brigham Young University Law Review.

To generate electricity, solar projects harvest energy from the sun. “And that’s really not that different from what a field of corn or alfalfa does,” said Troy Rule, the Arizona State University law professor who authored the article. “In fact, arguably, it’s even more environmentally friendly.”

Still, a state board in Ohio rejected an application for a solar project last month, citing local opposition, even though its staff initially said it met all requirements. Along with other concerns, according to the board, opponents “testified about the potential impacts on the health of residents.”

A bill in Missouri would halt commercial solar projects in the state, including those under construction, through at least 2027, as a state agency develops new regulations. The bill’s emergency clause says this is “deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety.”

And, on the eastern edge of Michigan, St. Clair County adopted a novel public health regulation last year that set limits on solar development and battery storage. The move was encouraged by the county’s medical director who, in a memo, warned of the threat of noise, visual pollution and potential sources of contamination. Some local residents have long pressed leaders to act, saying that intrusive noise could worsen post-traumatic stress disorder and other ailments.

Public officials don’t always examine the validity of health claims, according to Rule. And local deliberations rarely compare the impact of solar farms to common agricultural practices, which can lead to runoff from fertilizers and herbicides, for example, or waste lagoons from concentrated animal feeding operations.

People have many reasons for taking issue with large-scale solar development, said Michael Gerrard, an environmental lawyer and founder of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. But as for the feared health impact, he said, “there’s no basis for that.”

“People try to come up with a rationale to justify their dislike of things they dislike for other reasons,” Gerrard added.

President Donald Trump’s administration, meanwhile, is adding to the skepticism that renewable energy is worthwhile. Among other moves, it’s phasing out federal tax credits for the solar and wind industries.

It all takes a toll on the effort to build out solar infrastructure. Last year, new solar installations in the U.S. dropped by 14%.

Fear vs. Science

Large solar developments can transform hundreds, or even thousands, of acres of rural land, paneling them with crystalline silicon and tempered glass.

It’s a big change, and people have questions.

Locals worry that electromagnetism and even glare can pose a health risk. They wonder if toxic materials could leach into the soil and contaminate groundwater, if not while the solar site is operational, then some decades in the future, when it reaches the end of its life. That certainly has been the case with orphaned oil wells, which also were built with promises of safety.

But researchers point out that the most common types of panels have only small amounts of such materials, if any. They are encased and unlikely to leach into the soil. Rather than sitting in landfills when a site is decommissioned, most of the materials used in solar panels can be recycled (though the process can be costly).

Craig Adair, vice president of development at Open Road Renewables, which has pursued renewable energy projects in several states, has fielded a range of concerns over the years — from how soil could be contaminated to the possibility of electromagnetic fields causing cancer.

“Those questions, in just about every case, have an answer,” Adair said. “There is rigorous academic study, and there are examples of projects that have been operating.”

While the future farmability of the land is often a concern, many researchers — and farmers — say that a solar lease will help preserve it.

With proper planning on the front end, equipment can be removed from a decommissioned solar site and green space restored, said Steve Kalland, executive director of the NC Clean Energy Technology Center, which, along with its partners, provides technical assistance to local governments in the Carolinas.

And a person’s exposure to the electromagnetic field, or EMF, from a solar farm is roughly the same as what they would encounter from ordinary household appliances, according to researchers. EMF levels also decrease rapidly with distance.

Chronic exposure to noise is also a recurring complaint from critics. In challenging a proposed project from Adair’s company in Morrow County, Ohio, one woman said in a brief to the state siting board that she was troubled about how noise from the facility might affect people with neurological noise sensitivities, including her daughter………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Intense Battles in Michigan

In Michigan’s St. Clair County, it isn’t just a number of residents who are worried about large solar facilities. The Health Department’s medical director echoed their concerns.

In two memos to other county officials, Dr. Remington Nevin said that large solar sites are a public health risk for the area’s predominantly rural residents. The state’s solar standards, he wrote, weren’t enough to protect them from “environmental health hazards, the spread of sources of contamination, nuisance potentially injurious to the public health, health problems, and other conditions or practices which could reasonably be expected to cause disease.”

Any detectable tonal noise, he added, must be considered an unreasonable threat to public health. He recommended new regulations.

The county administrator at the time, Karry Hepting, noted that Nevin’s initial memo “does not address the question or provide support for what are the potential health/environmental risks,” according to internal emails provided to ProPublica. “It appears we will need to hire an outside expert to get the level of detail and supporting data necessary to consider potential next steps,” she added. Hepting said that she’d begun researching prospects.

But County Commissioner Steven Simasko — now the county board’s chair — wrote in an internal email that he accepted Nevin’s medical opinion “as a good standard for the protection of the public health of our citizens” and disagreed with the need for outside input.

Simasko told ProPublica in an email that he believed it wasn’t the role of the administrator to get involved in a public health matter, and that he objected “to essentially paying for a second public health medical opinion” more to Hepting’s liking. 

Hepting, who has since retired from her post at the county, disputed Simasko’s depiction of her motivations in a message to ProPublica. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” she wrote. “It had nothing to do with shopping for a different opinion. Mr. Nevin’s initial memo did not address the initial question posed by the Board. It did not state what the health risks were and what negative health impacts exist. It basically said it’s a risk because he said so.”

To legally justify the adoption of health regulations, Nevin said in his second memo, it wasn’t necessary for his department “to prove, with a precise scientific or medical rationale, that eligible facilities pose an unreasonable threat to the public’s health.” Instead, expert opinion, public comment and the consent of the local government were reason enough, he wrote.

In the end, county officials were persuaded to act. The commissioners approved the Health Department’s new policy for solar energy and battery facilities, including a nonrefundable $25,000 fee to cover the cost of reviewing a proposed project. It also said that policy violations were punishable by up to six months in prison.

An electric utility promptly sued, and a solar company joined the case. The Health Department, they argued, has no authority to issue what are, in effect, zoning regulations. What’s more, they said in legal filings, the county can’t override the solar standards established by the state………………………………………………..

Solar capacity in Michigan continues to grow, despite local pushback, but so far, only 2.55% of the state’s electricity comes from solar. In Ohio, it’s nearly 6%, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. In Texas, it’s nearly 11%. Michigan is requiring electricity providers to reach an 80% clean energy portfolio by 2035, and 100% by 2040.

Michigan has more local restrictions on renewable energy than any other state, according to the Sabin Center. “Practically nowhere in the country has seen more conflict” about where to allow large solar farms that add electricity directly to the grid than rural Michigan, according to a 2024 article in the Case Western Reserve Law Review authored by a Sabin Center senior fellow………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2026/04/26/unfounded-health-concerns-are-powering-a-solar-backlash/

May 4, 2026 Posted by | renewable, USA | Leave a comment

Renewables Mix Beats Nuclear on Price in Future Energy Systems

 A new way of assessing costs of different energy sources shows that an
optimal mix of renewables will be cheaper than nuclear power in future
energy systems, where linking different sectors together drives down costs.


David Pickup, manager of the electricity program for the Pembina Institute,
told The Energy Mix the new study, published in the journal Energy, echoes
what’s been shown in other analyses, that “a range of different
electricity supply types is needed to deliver the lowest-cost system.”
“It also highlights that growing low-cost wind and solar energy goes hand
in hand with smart and flexible electrification, including energy storage,
electric vehicle charging, and heat pumps,” he added.

Cost comparisons of
different energy sources are often presented through the levelized cost of
electricity (LCOE) metric, which identifies the cost of the production of
one unit of electricity, factoring in investment costs, a power plant’s
operation and maintenance costs, fuel costs, and other elements. But LCOE
only tells part of the story because it excludes the costs or savings of
operating that source within a larger energy system. Any given energy
source may be more or less expensive depending on the wider system into
which it is integrated.

 The Energy Mix 30th April 2026, https://www.theenergymix.com/renewables-mix-beats-nuclear-on-price-in-future-energy-systems/

May 4, 2026 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

Perspectives on nuclear power

Jens Weibezahn ab, Björn Steigerwald b, Arman Aghahosseini c, Christian von Hirschhausen bd, Mark Z. Jacobson e, Christian Breyer c Energy Policy (accessed), Scidence Direct, 26th April 2026

Highlights

  • •Nuclear competitiveness hinges on optimistic cost and financing assumptions.
  • •Renewables plus flexibility dominate least-cost decarbonisation pathways.
  • •New nuclear plays only marginal role under realistic system conditions.
  • •Empirical data contradicts optimistic nuclear deployment scenarios.
  • •Nordic case shows nuclear role shaped by policy and financing limits.

Abstract

This study reassesses the role of nuclear power in low-carbon electricity transitions under prevailing cost, finance, and system conditions. Using harmonised international data and observed 2024 operational metrics, we conduct a modelling-based stress test that evaluates how nuclear power performs when realistic construction, financial, and flexibility assumptions are applied.

The results show that large nuclear power shares in prior modelling studies emerge primarily under optimistic conditions: Low overnight capital cost, reduced financing risk, or constrained renewable energy portfolios. When empirically validated inputs and full flexibility options are included, least-cost system pathways are consistently dominated by renewable energy-based portfolios complemented by storage, demand response, and existing dispatchable assets, while new nuclear power contributes only marginally.

Empirical project evidence from recent builds corroborates the modelling results: prolonged construction duration and extended financing exposure significantly elevate effective project cost, irrespective of nominal levelised cost estimates.

The Nordic region provides a natural comparative lens, revealing divergent governance models and public acceptance trajectories across Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, yet a shared economic constraint shaped by financing structure, risk allocation, and system alternatives.

Overall, the findings indicate that under current techno-economic parameters and financing environments, renewable-centred energy portfolios form the cost-optimal foundation for power sector decarbonisation. Nuclear power remains a system- and policy-specific option that can contribute where governments assume substantial construction and financing risk and offer long-term capital recovery mechanisms. Transparent modelling assumptions and explicit financing terms are therefore essential for credible assessments of future nuclear deployment. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421526002752

April 30, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Amid an energy crisis, the renewables juggernaut gathers pace


The continuing collapse in the cost of renewables offers a stark contrast to
skyrocketing fossil fuel prices – and a cause for optimism. As emissions
continue to rise and governments fail to respond with anything like the
urgency required, it’s tempting to conclude that the prospects for a
liveable planet are growing dim.

But as spring arrives, there is one
striking spark of light. Sunlight, to be precise – captured on solar
panels and pumping out electrons down the wires, on a scale unimaginable
even a decade ago.The amount of solar installed worldwide doubled between
2022 and 2024 alone. In the first three quarters of 2025, it accounted for
83% of all new electricity-generating capacity. Key to this is the
continuing collapse in costs, which have fallen by close to 90% per kWh in
just the last decade.

Crucially, the cost of batteries – essential for
storing the power generated – has plunged by a similar amount in that
time. In his new book, Here Comes the Sun, veteran environmentalist Bill
McKibben highlights some of the consequences of this double whammy in price
and pace. In Pakistan alone, to give one example, enough solar has been
installed in the last 18 months to account for one-third of the country’s
current grid capacity.

 Positive News 25th March 2026, https://www.positive.news/environment/energy/amid-an-energy-crisis-the-renewables-juggernaut-gathers-pace/

April 28, 2026 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

“The scores are going off the charts”: Iran conflict boosts support for renewables and energy independence

 Anti renewable energy messages are no longer winning the battle of ideas,
for now, as sovereignty and independence become the new buzzwords, says
marketing expert Ed Coper.

The nays were gaining ground, albeit from a
small base, before the start of the Iran war, he says. But rapidly rising
fuel prices and shortages, as the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked to most
of the world’s oil and gas tankers, have supercharged the
already-powerful idea that renewable energy equals independence.
“Already, before Iran, energy independence was the most resonant
[message]. Now that the conflict has happened, it’s even more resonant.
The scores are going off the charts,”

Coper, the CEO of communications
agency Populares, tells Renew Economy. “Our assumption is that those
messages are only going to increase in strength over time. We’re
certainly seeing that with our testing at the moment.” Coper is basing
his view on the company’s in-house algorithm, which he says captures
millions of social media impressions on ideas and images being tested in
the market.

 Renew Economy  20th April 2026

https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-scores-are-going-off-the-charts-iran-conflict-boosts-support-for-

April 23, 2026 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

How efficiency measures could almost halve industrial energy demand globally

Stuart Stone, 15 April 2026

How efficiency measures could almost halve industrial energy demand
globally. Implementing proven efficiency measures could reduce energy
demand from heavy industry and carbon intensive sectors by up to 45 per
cent and slash global energy investment needs by an estimated $15tr through
to 2050. while enhancing energy and resource security, new study claims……………………….(Subscribers only) https://www.businessgreen.com/news-analysis/4528346/efficiency-measures-halve-industrial-energy-demand-globally

April 19, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

DONALD TRUMP: THE GREAT ILLUMINATOR

Jonathon Porritt April 2, 2026, https://jonathonporritt.com/trump-the-great-illuminator/

I know readers of my blog do not expect absolute consistency, blog by blog, but you may be somewhat surprised to see Donald Trump excoriated one week as the “Destroyer of Hope” and the next as “The Great Illuminator”! But here’s the thing: he’s inadvertently becoming the Great Illuminator (as in shedding light on the suicidal workings of the global economy today) precisely by virtue of applying himself so ruthlessly to destroying people’s hope for a better world.

Let’s start with the easy bit: day by crazy day, Trump’s war with Iran strips bare the true cost of our continuing addiction to fossil fuels: oil at $100 – $150 a barrel; chokepoints and straitened dependencies; multi-billion dollar fossil fuel investments brought low by a few home-grown drones; increasingly costly energy security; a rolling cost of living crisis, and, depending on what happens over the next couple of weeks, the very real possibility of a global recession.

That’s the downside. And it could be utterly horrendous.

The upside? Why would any single country on Earth (apart from the USA, Russia and the dozen or so petrostates that make up today’s fossil fuel incumbency) hesitate for a single second in expediting a transition strategy out of fossil fuels? If some have failed to understand the imperative rationale for this (and we all know why that’s the case!), there’s now not one residual doubt available to them.

The geopolitics of this is extraordinary. Conjure up for a moment the near-permanent beam on XI Jinping’s face as he gratefully accepts the free pass that Trump has given him to dominate the ‘post-fossil fuel energy economy’ as ruthlessly as the USA has dominated the fossil fuel energy economy.

(This may be a bit geeky, but check out what’s happening — as a direct consequence of the war in Iran — in the battle between the Petrodollar and the Petroyuan!).

Most people don’t appreciate this, but the renewables revolution is all but done, in large part because of China. It’s just a question of how long it takes. The batteries/storage revolution is in full swing, massively fast-tracking the renewables revolution in the process. And the wider ‘electrify everything revolution’ is gearing up nicely. In five years time, we’ll be wondering what took us so long!

Shine on, Donald!

Beyond that, five weeks into the war, The Great Illuminator’s spotlight is now moving on to reveal the reality of the suicidal food and agricultural system on which the world depends — every aspect of which is itself dependent on historically cheap fossil fuels.

Courtesy of the UK’s Joint Intelligence Committee we now have some cracking scenarios to show us how this ‘food insecurity crisis’ goes: the cost of essential inputs into today’s intensive agriculture (primarily fertilisers, pesticides and fuel, all of which depend on production in the Gulf — including about 35% of the world’s supply of fertilisers) continues to rise. And then rise again. Even if the war ends soon, costs stay high as producers struggle to repair the massive damage to infrastructure and supply chains that the war has already done.

Many experts believe that ‘an unprecedented global food crisis is now inevitable’. Equally inevitably, it will be the poor of the world who suffer most. The World Food Programme talks of “shock waves across the globe”, anticipating that the number of people who will experience acute food insecurity could soon exceed 350 million.

What the World Food Programme has not pointed out is the very meaty elephant in the room: prices for these inputs will now stay high for a long time, primarily because demand will stay high, primarily to maintain high yields of those commodity crops to feed the billions of animals that our meat-obsessed food economy depends on.

A bridge too far, perhaps? To suggest that today’s addicted beef-eaters are as threatened a species as addicted petrolheads? That per capita meat consumption will need to decline at least as rapidly as per capita dependence on fossil fuels?

Probably – but before we move on, have a look at one of the most eloquent summaries I’ve ever seen of why our dependence on animal-based protein is the principal cause of ecosystem collapse (https://www.plantist.org/briefing/)

Back to The Great Illuminator! And here you need to give your imagination full rein.

Have you spotted the emerging transition from TACO (Trump Always Cops Out) to TISOP (Trump Increasingly Shits on Our Parade)? An endorsement from Donald Trump these days is already something of a mixed blessing, but what if it soon becomes an out-and-out poison pill?

Many believe that Mark Carney only won the Canadian general election in 2025 because Trump so enthusiastically endorsed his neoliberal opponent (Pierre Poilievre), who was otherwise on track to do to the Canadian economy what Trump continues to do to the US economy.

In Italy, one imagines that Georgia Maloney will be a lot less lovey-dovey next time Trump is looming over her, having lost the recent ‘Trump inspired’ referendum in Italy to weaken the independence of the Italian judiciary.

And have you noticed, here in the UK, how Farage is rapidly transitioning from Arselicker-in-Chief to ‘Donald Who?’.

The most important test of this poison pill hypothesis takes place in 10 days time. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s Prime Minister, has been Trump’s thuggish Mini Me ever since Trump was first elected president back in 2016. It’s touch and go whether Orban’s adulation for Trump exceeds even his adulation for Putin.

If his opponent, Peter Magyar, wins on April 12th, this will be recognised around the world as a massive ‘up yours, Orban’, and, at one degree removed, ‘up yours, Putin’, and (please God!) ‘up yours, Trump’. (These days, I spend quite a lot of time transmitting positive vibes to Peter Magyar).

Shine on, Donald!

There’s one final speculative reason to be a bit more hopeful about the future than might be warranted by the horrors of the world today. Not least those going on in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Lebanon, courtesy of Trump and Netanyahu’s genocidal endeavours.

It’s this: what if Trump were to become THE poster child for the entire Billionaire Class dominating the world today?

I think most of us already have some seriously strong antipathy to the likes of Elon Musk, Jim Ratcliffe, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman, Bill Gates, etc., etc. But what if Donald J Trump Jnr (a rather lowly and inadequate billionaire, as it happens, if it’s sheer size that you’re looking for) were to become THE poster child for the entire Billionaire Class? In all his maximally corrupt, lethally psychopathic and irredeemably narcissistic glory?

Shine on, Donald, shine on!

April 3, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Will the New Brunswick Power Review finally shake up New Brunswick Power?

The report’s considerable emphasis on NB Power’s nuclear operations is justified: the plant’s poor performance is the main reason that the utility cannot lower its debt to asset ratio and loses money almost every year. As the report notes: “The benefits of nuclear are only achieved when the asset performs at a high-capacity factor…. A structure and organization that is focused on excellent nuclear performance is needed and it is not clear to us that this is possible under the existing corporate structure.”

Unfortunately, the main recommendation for the nuclear plant will simply kick the white elephant down the road. ………………… The report also noted that the utility’s debt related to nuclear power was $3.6 billion and suggested that an appropriate amount of debt be assigned to the new entity, presumably with the remaining debt picked up by taxpayers.

If there is any silver lining, it’s that the report barely mentions small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and at the media event, the panel stated clearly that New Brunswick should not go down that road.

by Susan O’Donnell, March 31, 2026, https://nbmediacoop.org/2026/03/31/will-the-nb-power-review-finally-shake-up-nb-power/

NB Power desperately needs a very big shake up. The NB Power Review report published on Monday rattled the utility but not nearly hard enough.

The NB Power Review was meant to chart a path to a better future for the public utility. Launched last April, the three-person review panel was tasked with reviewing the utility to address: “rising electricity rates, system reliability, and financial challenges, including a high debt-to-equity ratio.”

The shake-up needs to happen at the top. The report is rightly highly critical of NB Power’s organizational culture that lacks not only “operational excellence” but also basic project management procedures and practices. NB Power, the report clearly states, does not have the capacity and skills to manage all the projects planned, including “large hydro refurbishment, complex plant conversions, large software replacement, and transmission and distribution expansions.”

NB Power’s grid is a mess. The big power generators are liabilities more than assets. The Mactaquac dam needs repairs that will cost more than $9 billion. The Belledune coal-fired plant is federally mandated to close by 2030. The Point Lepreau nuclear plant performs so badly that the utility is losing millions, with millions more for costly repairs on the horizon. NB Power’s big fossil fuel generators – oil-fired Coleson Cove and gas-fired Bayside – need to wind down for the same reason Belledune will need to stop burning coal: the climate emergency.

Yet, the Review report does not mention the word “climate,” or “weather” or “storms” or give any indication that “Fit for the Future” (the title of the report) must include resilience and mitigation strategies for climate change.

As reported last April when the Review was announced, the panel’s mandate did not include consideration of climate action, which is evident in the report. For example, after pointing out that many homes in the province rely on baseboard heating, the report recommends “increased deployment of natural gas for heating purposes” suggesting that these homes should install gas furnaces. Heat pumps, the obvious and more cost-conscious and environmentally-responsible option, are barely mentioned and not included in the report’s 50 recommendations.

The report also misses an important opportunity to highlight the potential of wind energy and external financing for wind projects with Indigenous communities. A table in the report appendix lists NB Power’s power purchase agreements, including from three wind farms co-owned by Indigenous communities: Nuweg (25 MW capacity) Wisokolamson Energy (18 MW) and Wocawson Energy (20 MW) – without mentioning that these are Indigenous-partnered projects.

New Brunswick has tremendous wind resources, and First Nations in the province and their partners are building wind farms at a rapid pace, also not mentioned in the report. In fact, the most exciting energy infrastructure developments currently ongoing in New Brunswick are wind projects with Indigenous communities co-financed with the federal government.

In 2024, the federal government announced up to $1 billion in funding for new Indigenous-partnered wind projects in New Brunswick and currently five new Indigenous-partnered wind projects are in development. The Review panel should have mentioned this and recommended that NB Power actively explore with Indigenous and government partners how more of these wind projects could be developed and added to New Brunswick’s electric grid.

Where the report stands out is its lengthy discussion of nuclear power and NB Power’s capacity to operate a nuclear plant. The report includes only several paragraphs covering the challenges at the Mactaquac hydroelectricity plant and Belledune coal plant, but nuclear power gets five pages, plus an excellent four-page appendix with the history of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station detailing the operational problems.

The report’s considerable emphasis on NB Power’s nuclear operations is justified: the plant’s poor performance is the main reason that the utility cannot lower its debt to asset ratio and loses money almost every year. As the report notes: “The benefits of nuclear are only achieved when the asset performs at a high-capacity factor…. A structure and organization that is focused on excellent nuclear performance is needed and it is not clear to us that this is possible under the existing corporate structure.”

The panel acknowledges that NB Power does not have the capacity to operate the nuclear plant with New Brunswick talent. Currently the nuclear plant is managed under a contract with Laurentis Energy Partners, a business venture of Ontario Power Generation, a contract the review panel suggests will not alone achieve the needed improvement in the plant’s performance.

Unfortunately, the main recommendation for the nuclear plant will simply kick the white elephant down the road. The review panel recommends that the Point Lepreau plant be operationally separated from the rest of the utility’s power generators and that a new entity, Point Lepreau Nuclear, be set up with its own governance team of nuclear experts focused on the performance of the plant. The report also noted that the utility’s debt related to nuclear power was $3.6 billion and suggested that an appropriate amount of debt be assigned to the new entity, presumably with the remaining debt picked up by taxpayers.

It was almost amusing to read the review panel’s statement that hiving off the utility’s nuclear operations into a separate entity will “reduce stress and accountability” for the NB Power management and board. For sure, saying “it’s not my problem” is a good way to reduce stress but it doesn’t make the problem go away.

What about the stress experienced every month by New Brunswick ratepayers who can’t afford their utility bills? The panel, in its report and media event, acknowledged that electricity rates will continue to rise, energy poverty is real, and that “government needs to step in and provide financial support for those New Brunswickers who are considered vulnerable or for those targeted customers” but does not recommend developing such a program as one of its 50 recommendations. In any case, using general revenues to subsidize the costs of the nuclear operations is not a long-term solution.

As the panel clearly identified, the Point Lepreau nuclear plant is a big, central, problem for NB Power. If, as the report states, the contract with Laurentis Energy Partners is not enough, what will be enough? The existing contract with Laurentis is $88.4 million over three years (the value is not mentioned in the Review report). What will be the cost of hiring outside experts to set up and run the proposed Point Lepreau Nuclear entity? Does anyone believe that another group of outside experts will be able to magically bewitch the Lepreau plant so that it will make money, rather than lose it? “Silk purse” and “sow’s ear” come to mind.

If there is any silver lining, it’s that the report barely mentions small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and at the media event, the panel stated clearly that New Brunswick should not go down that road. As reported earlier by the NB Media Co-op, the NB Power review “could be the last nail in the coffin for the controversial technology in New Brunswick.”

However a further recommendation in the report is that the government consider “initiating the planning assessment phase for an additional large scale, proven technology nuclear plant to be sited alongside the Point Lepreau facility.” At the media event for the report launch, the review panel stressed they were not recommending a second reactor but rather that the utility take the time to conduct a thorough review about the future of nuclear in New Brunswick.

Another “big” reactor? Currently in Canada, only two firms are competing to build proposed big nuclear projects, in Ontario and Alberta. AtkinsRéalis (formerly known as SNC Lavalin) is proposing a CANDU design and Westinghouse its AP1000 design. The CANDU design has not made cost estimates public but two AP1000 reactors were recently completed in the U.S., at a cost of about $24 billion each in Canadian dollars.

This NB Power Review should have been the thorough review required to put NB Power’s future nuclear ambitions to rest. After its detailed discussion of NB Power’s debt problem and failure to operate the Point Lepreau nuclear plant successfully, it defies belief that the panel would recommend considering another nuclear reactor, one that would cost tens of billions of dollars. This is the very definition of nuclear hopium, not the big reality shake that the government and NB Power so badly need.

Susan O’Donnell, a member of the NB Media Co-op board, is the lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University and co-author of a recent report on SMRs in Canada

April 3, 2026 Posted by | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

How Iran war energy crisis strengthens case for renewables

Nehal Johri, 03/29/2026March 29, 2026,
https://www.dw.com/en/iran-war-strait-of-hormuz-oil-crisis-solar-wind-power-hydropower/video-76557387

The Iran war has exposed the fragility of the global energy system as countries remain dependent on fossil fuels. Could renewables like wind, solar, hydropower and photovoltaic shield people from the shock?

Global tensions have triggered an energy crisis reminiscent of the 1970s, exposing how dependent the world still is on fossil fuels.

Experts warn that disruptions like the current war involving Iran highlight the fragility of global supply chains and key chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz, where a fifth of global oil and LNG normally pass.

Today, around 80% of global energy still comes from fossil fuels, leaving economies vulnerable to shocks. Yet renewables are gaining ground: in 2025, wind and solar for the first time supplied more electricity to the EU than fossil fuels, driven by falling costs and rapid expansion.

Countries like Spain and Portugal already cover much of their demand with green energy, showing how a decentralized, resilient power system could reduce future risks.

April 2, 2026 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries