ENERGY « nuclear-news

“No economic case:” Global experts say nuclear has role in some countries, but makes no sense in Australia

Giles Parkinson, Oct 12, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-economic-case-global-experts-say-nuclear-has-role-in-some-countries-but-makes-no-sense-in-australia/

As Australia’s ultra conservative political parties embark on a headlong race towards nuclear and away from renewables, a major new report by global experts says nuclear has a role in some countries, but makes no sense and will only cause delays and increased costs in Australia.

The new report from the Energy Transitions Commission, a think-tank comprising dozens of energy experts around the world, including those in the nuclear industry, says nuclear capacity could double over the next three decades or so, but it will stay play a relatively minor role in the overall transition away from fossil fuels.

And, they point out in the report – “The Role of Nuclear in the Energy Transition: Complementary but Limited” – it will only make sense in a few countries – a situation the report suggests will not be greatly changed by the hype and interest generated by AI and the push for massive energy-hungry data centres around the world.

For countries like Australia, rich in lower cost renewable resources like wind and solar, the report says nuclear makes no economic sense at all, and trying to build a system around them will simply lead to delays and increased costs.

“In these countries, which include most of Africa, and much of Latin America and Australia, renewables (particularly solar) and batteries will provide the fastest and cheapest option for scaling electricity supply at suitable increments to align with financing availability and system needs,” the report says.

“In these markets, investing in nuclear concentrates scarce capital in a small number of centralised projects, committed roughly a decade before operations, during which the power system could change substantially.

“Developing nuclear would deliver no total system cost benefit, and would require a reliance on foreign nuclear supply chains, which would reduce energy security. Pursuing nuclear programmes in these countries would divert resources from cheaper alternatives, and nuclear shares should remain close to 0%.”

These conclusions, of course, are well understood by the energy industry in Australia, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, the CSIRO, policy makers and regulators, the network operators, the renewables industry and the major utilities who currently burn coal and gas for a living.

But the global fossil fuel and climate denial industry still has its tentacles around the conservative parties in Australia – particularly One Nation and its less popular sidekicks in the Liberals and Nationals – all of whom are determined to slow or even stop the renewable transition in Australia, legalise nuclear and have the government invest countless billions into the tech.

The Energy Transitions Commission highlights the folly of such an approach, and the report would make sobering reading for those politicians, assuming they would be bothered to read it.

Like the World Nuclear Status report released more than a week ago, it punctures a major hole in the nuclear hype, including the assumption that small modular reactors (SMR) will somehow change the game.

“Small modular reactors remain 1-2 decades away from wide deployment, despite attracting large investment and political attention amid surging AI-driven power demand,” the report notes.

“Early US cost estimates range from ~$US140–$US270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $US40–$US190 per MWh. Similar reactor designs can cost 4–9 times more to build in the US and Europe than in China and South Korea – financing costs are key factor.”

The report also notes that depending on nuclear power would intensify supply chain risks, rather than easing them. Russia, it notes, controls 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, and key nuclear equipment manufacturing is concentrated in just six countries.

“Nuclear supply chain concentration poses the greatest risk, rather than safety and waste management,” the report says.

The report looks at the recent commitment to treble nuclear capacity across the globe by 2050 to around 1,500 gigawatts of capacity. This it says, would require around 500 GW of nuclear extensions (although that itself might be too optimistic), and it struggles to see how 1,000 GW of new capacity could be built.

It says that would require a six-fold increase in contraction compared to recent years. And even if it was delivered, it wouldn’t reduce the need for new wind and solar, which would still have to be built at a rate of 1,500 GW each year, rather than over the next 25 years.

“While this contribution to the energy transition is useful in targeted countries, even this scale of nuclear buildout would be dwarfed by the required scale of investment in renewables to transition to low-carbon energy systems,” the report says.

“An investment of $200 billion per year in new nuclear build is likely to be less than 10% of the $2,200 billion per year needed in renewables, grids and storage.”

The report is at pains to note that nuclear technology may make sense in some countries, those with limited renewable resources and also those with billions already invested in the nuclear industry, including those with nuclear weapons.

More importantly, nuclear’s system value is highest where land is scarce and solar and windresources are weakest

October 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy could double by 2050, but AI-driven power demand does not change the economic case

New global assessment finds nuclear is not cost-competitive with solar and wind in most countries, despite renewed interest arising from AI datacentres and energy security concerns

Key findings:

Global nuclear capacity could grow 2–3x to ~550–1,000 GW by 2050, holding a ~10% share as electricity demand also grows 2–3x. Reaching ETC’s central estimate of ~750 GW requires new build to rise 3–5x, from 5 GW/year over the past 20 years to 15–25 GW/year, and investment to rise from ~$50bn to ~$200bn a year.
Small modular reactors remain 1-2 decades away from wide deployment, despite attracting large investment and political attention amid surging AI-driven power demand. Early US cost estimates range from ~$140–270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $40–190 per MWh.
Similar reactor designs can cost 4–9 times more to build in the US and Europe than in China and South Korea – financing costs are key factor.
Russia controlled 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, and key nuclear equipment manufacturing is concentrated in just five countries. Nuclear supply chain concentration poses the greatest risk, rather than safety and waste management.

London, 6 October 2026 — Surging power demand from AI data centres and energy security fears sharpened by the Russia-Ukraine war and the Strait of Hormuz crisis have revived interest in nuclear power. A new report from the Energy Transitions Commission, The Role of Nuclear in the Energy Transition: Complementary but Limited, offers a measured assessment: nuclear could provide up to 10% of global electricity supply by 2050 — roughly doubling today’s 380 GW capacity to 750 GW — but expansion only makes economic sense in a limited number of countries. Delivering this share requires average new nuclear capacity to grow to 15–25 GW annually until 2050, from an average of 5 GW per year over the past 20 years, backed by $200bn annually compared to $50bn today. This high deployment rate was previously achieved in the 1970-80s across the US and EU, in part driven by an oil crisis.

The vast majority of the remaining 90% of decarbonised electricity will come from solar and wind, which are cheaper and faster to build in almost every country. In most developed countries, new solar and onshore wind are typically 20–50% cheaper than new nuclear, while offshore wind costs are comparable or lower. Cost reductions in battery storage are increasingly enabling solar and wind to provide cost-competitive ‘round the clock’ power.

“The nuclear debate has been too binary for too long: reject it outright over safety and waste concerns or insist it must carry the whole transition. This report settles it with evidence: extend existing plants where safe, and build new ones where costs can be managed to competitive levels. On average this might mean 10–20% of a country’s future power generation coming from nuclear plants. In most places, however, solar and wind win decisively on cost, speed and security. So for countries without existing nuclear delivery capabilities, diverting resources to nuclear will increase costs and delay the transition.” said Adair Turner, Co-Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.

“SMR investor hype was built on cost assumptions that have not materialized. US SMR CAPEX estimates have inflated from $3,000–10,000 per kilowatt to $12,000–15,000 per kilowatt in just a few years, hit by the same cost overruns as large reactors. Costs will only fall with manufacturing scale and standardisation, but with over 70 competing designs, achieving either will take time. SMRs may have a role in the 2040s, but deployment at scale in the 2020s is unlikely. For businesses needing reliable clean power, grid-scale renewables plus storage and power purchase agreements with existing nuclear are proven, cheaper alternatives.” said Jules Kortenhorst, Co-Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.

SMR hype is outpacing the technology’s readiness

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are attracting heavy investment amid AI’s power surge, and pilot projects are underway in China and Canada, but the ETC estimates widespread deployment will not occur until the late 2030s and 2040s and only if costs decline. Early US cost estimates range from ~$140–270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $40–190 per MWh. While modular reactor designs could reduce costs by 20–30%, this depends on design consolidation from over 70 competing SMR designs globally and standardisation across regulations in different countries to enable sufficient project pipelines and cross-border learning effects.

Why nuclear is economic in some countries, but not most

A country’s optimal nuclear share depends on two factors: the nation’s ability to deliver projects quickly at competitive costs, and the benefit to the electricity system. Similar nuclear designs cost 4-9 times more in US and Europe than in China and South Korea, and result in over 3 times higher final electricity prices. The gap reflects: higher standardisation and replication in recent Chinese and South Korean projects, leading to shorter construction timelines compared to “first-of-a-kind” Western projects; more effective regulatory architecture in fleet-build programmes; and lower financing costs. Chinese state-backed projects raise capital at around 1–3%, compared with 8–10% for privately financed projects.

Benefits to the grid vary greatly by country. The UK, with expensive offshore wind and high balancing costs, could economically support up to 20% nuclear generation instead of increasing reliance on ultra-long duration storage and overbuilding renewable capacity. In India, the optimal share of nuclear is only roughly 10%-20%, as abundant solar resources paired with batteries provide the cheapest source of electricity. Countries with lots of renewable resource and no established nuclear industry—for example, most of Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Australia—have no economic case for nuclear; the same institutional and financial resources devoted to renewables deliver faster, cheaper decarbonisation.

Lifetime extensions are safe and the most cost-effective new capacity

The cheapest path to maintaining nuclear capacity is safely extending existing reactor lifetimes from 60 to 80 years. Life extensions cost $500–$1,100 per kilowatt versus $2,000–$18,000 per kilowatt for new builds, yielding electricity costs below $40 per megawatt-hour. 12 US plants have been approved for 80-year operation since 2019. Extending existing global capacity to 80 years could retain 230 GW that would otherwise retire by 2050, reducing new-build requirements by a third.

Russia’s stronghold on supply chains is nuclear’s vulnerability

Approximately 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025 ran through Russia. It supplied around 20% of EU enriched uranium in 2024, even after the EU took measures to reduce Russian imports after the invasion of Ukraine. Reactor pressure vessels, turbines and control systems are manufactured in just six countries: France, South Korea, Japan, the US, China and Russia. While in aggregate, supply chain capabilities can meet the ramp up in nuclear build rates needed to reach up to 1,000 GW by 2050, it could take a decade or more to diversify these capabilities to reduce nuclear supply chain concentration.

Download the report: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/nuclear-in-the-energy-transition/

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Palisades investigation indefinitely halts refueling (Is Holtec competent?)

October 1, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/palisades-refueling-indefinitely-halted-by-investigation/

On September 26, 2026, the Detroit Free Press(opens in new tab) headlined its news story “Nuclear regulators probe fuel assembly installation mishap at Palisades”. The news article regards the occurrence of a nuclear fuel handling mishap at the very end of August 2026 involving Holtec International’s mishandling of a used radioactive nuclear fuel assembly that was one of 136 scavenged used radioactive fuel assemblies being reloaded into the Palisades reactor core as part of the company’s “recommissioning” following certified permanent cessation of power operations by its former owner/operator, Entergy Corp, and last legitimate holder of the Palisades operating license in Covert, Michigan on the shore of Lake Michigan. Palisades was permanently ceased operations on May 20, 2022.

As some background, Holtec acquired ownership of Palisades as a “possession only” license transfer from Entergy Corp as approved by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Palisades license transfer included a Decommissioning Trust Fund approximately $552 million was finalized making Holtec the new owner on June 22, 2022 solely for the purpose of decommissioning the reactor, decontamination and clean up of the reactor site. However, in an unprecedented move not recognized by NRC regulatory guidance, Holtec announced that was no longer pursuing the decommissioning of the reactor as previously certified to the federal agency but instead on September 23, 2023 formally filed on September 23, 2023 with the NRC to to refurbish and “recommission” Palisades back into commercial power operations to the end the original initial license renewal period, and even provided an exemption if NRC granted Holtec with an reactor operating license, out to March 24, 2031. Furthermore, on June 23, 2025, Holtec filed a formal Letter Of Intent (LOI) to the NRC announcing that it would be seek a second 20-year renewal of the operating license extending it out to 2051.

When Entergy Corp certified the permanent cessation of operations, the nuclear operator was required to completely defuel the reactor core from the reactor pressure vessel transferring all of the used fuel to the spent fuel storage pool, including the most recent refueling.

The fuel mishandling event involved just one of 136 highly radioactive fuel assemblies from the reactor’s most recent refueling cycle where restart commenced on October 10, 2020 before the Palisades previous owner/operator, Entergy Corp, permanently ceased power operations on May 20, 2022. The used fuel being loaded into Palisades by Holtec was operational for 578 days and therefore is extremely radioactive. When the mishandling accident happened, Holtec was salvaging used nuclear fuel assemblies that was stored in the spent fuel pool. Each one of these used fuel assemblies contains 214 highly radioactive fuel rods. The full reactor core complement for the Palisades reactor constitutes 204 fuel assemblies. Only 68 fuel assemblies are will unused new fuel in the reloading.

When Holtec started reloading the Palisades reactor core using the highly radioactive nuclear fuel assembly was being moved in the reverse direction from the nuclear power plant’s spent fuel storage pool shielded under 40 feet of water through a water filled fuel transfer channel back into the reactor containment building to be reloaded into the water filled reactor core in an opened reactor pressure vessel. There it was apparently misplaced by Holtec International operators such that radioactive fuel assembly tilted over, out of alignment in the reactor core and detached from the reactor’s fuel handling machinery. Holtec must now get a license amendment approved procedurally explaining how it will retrieve the misplaced and highly radioactive fuel assembly and evaluate if it can be still be used in the reactor core.

The irradiated nuclear fuel handling accident went unreported to the public for weeks by both Holtec International, now turned unlicensed and inexperienced reactor operator, and the NRC. When confronted, both the company and the regulator claimed that the mishap had not risen to the level of a publicly reportable safety event. However, the mishandling of highly radioactive nuclear fuel is not a minor event without accountability. Palisades already represents a highly controversial and genuinely contested unprecedented effort to refuel and restart the world’s first “permanently closed” nuclear power plan.

The fuel mishap accident represents a warning , a red flag, question the competence of Holtec safety culture and competence. Palisades should not be allowed to balk on fulfilling a 2020 joint decommissioning agreement(opens in new tab) made between Entergy Nuclear and Holtec International, and certified to the NRC on conditions of the reactor license transfer. The joint agreement recognized Palisades to permanently cease operations, permanently defuel, decontaminate, decommission and site mitigation. Holtec International has radically reversed its intention to decommission the reactor and instead proceeded to restore the previous power operating license to be followed by the submission of an application to the NRC for a twenty-year operating license extension out to 2051(opens in new tab).

October 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Solar surpasses nuclear power globally for first time

Solar and wind are increasingly outpacing nuclear power globally, with solar generation surpassing nuclear for the first time in 2025, according to WNISR 2026. The report highlights nuclear’s slow growth, lengthy construction timelines and limited small modular reactor deployment, contrasting them with rapid renewables and battery expansion.

By Emiliano Bellini, 29 Sep 2026, https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/09/29/solar-surpasses-nuclear-power-globally-for-first-time/

he World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) 2026, overseen by French nuclear energy consultant Mycle Schneider, shows that wind power alone surpassed nuclear generation on a monthly basis in March 2025, followed by solar in April – the first time global monthly solar generation exceeded nuclear output.

From March 2025 through June 2026, either solar or wind individually generated more electricity than nuclear every month. In March, April and May 2026, both technologies independently surpassed nuclear generation.

Increasing gap

According to the report, the gap between renewables and nuclear widened substantially in 2025. Global solar capacity increased by 510 GW to 2,383 GW, up 27% year on year, while wind added a record 159 GW to reach 1,291 GW, an increase of 14%. By comparison, installed nuclear capacity rose by just 1.5 GW to 399.5 GW, while operating nuclear capacity declined by 0.5 GW to 368.6 GW. The report notes that nuclear capacity has remained essentially flat for more than 25 years, while wind and, particularly, solar have expanded rapidly.

The report’s PV figures, however, are based on relatively conservative estimates. More recent data from IEA PVPS indicate that global PV additions reached around 690 GW in 2025, about 180 GW more than the figure used by WNISR. This suggests the gap between solar and nuclear capacity – and their respective growth rates – was even wider than indicated in the report.

“The reality of the nuclear industry on the ground is quite sobering for those who expected to find a booming sector,” Schneider told pv magazine. “Recently, U.S. nuclear company Holtec put an initial public offering (IPO) on hold just days before its planned stock market listing, through which it had hoped to raise almost $1 billion. Its peer, Fermi, has lost about 80% of its stock value since it was first listed in October 2025.”

“The main reason? These companies have little or nothing to show on the ground to convince investors to continue providing cash,” he added. “Meanwhile, the world’s operating nuclear fleet increased output by 1.1% – with output declining outside China – while global solar power generation jumped by a stunning 30%, surpassing nuclear’s annual electricity production for the first time. One is tempted to say: It’s the growth rates, stupid!”

The report identifies falling battery costs as a potential enabler of continued PV expansion, particularly as grids contend with growing volumes of variable renewable generation and periods of low or negative electricity prices. Grid-scale battery deployment accelerated sharply in 2025, with 104 GW and 257 GWh connected during the year. More than 78% of cumulative battery energy storage system (BESS) capacity was installed between 2023 and 2025.

Slow expansion

The report shows that the global nuclear sector is expanding slowly, with most new activity concentrated in China and Russia. As of July 1, 2026, 411 reactors were operating in 31 countries, excluding 30 units in long-term outage, with operating capacity at 374.7 GW. In 2025, nuclear plants generated 2,703 TWh, up 1.1% year on year, largely driven by a 7.6% increase in China. Outside China, nuclear generation declined by 0.2% and remained well below its 2006 level. Nuclear’s share of global electricity generation slipped to 8.8%, its lowest level in four and a half decades and roughly half its 1996 peak of 17.5%.

Four reactors started supplying electricity in 2025, while seven closed, resulting in the first negative annual reactor balance since 2021. Between 2006 and 2025, 104 reactors started up and 106 closed. China accounted for 53 of those startups and no closures, meaning the rest of the world recorded a net decline of 55 reactors. Although global nuclear capacity increased by a net 21.5 GW over the two decades, China alone added 52.3 GW, while capacity outside the country fell by almost 30.7 GW.

The construction pipeline has nevertheless expanded. Seventy-three reactors were under construction as of July 1, the highest number since 1987, with China accounting for 37. Russia remains the dominant international supplier, with Russian technology involved in 29 reactors under construction worldwide, including 22 outside Russia. Nine out of 10 reactors being built are in Asia or Eastern Europe.

Long construction times and delays remain a feature of new nuclear projects, according to the report. None of the 16 reactors connected to the grid between 2023 and 2025 was completed on schedule, with an average construction period of 10.9 years. Of 13 reactors scheduled to start generating electricity in 2025, only four did so. Some projects have experienced exceptionally long timelines, including Slovakia’s Mochovce-4, where construction began more than 40 years ago, and Iran’s Bushehr-2, where construction originally started in 1976.

Construction starts accelerated in 2025, however, reaching 12 units, the highest annual total since 2010. Nine were in China, two in Russia and one in South Korea. Of the 52 reactor construction starts recorded worldwide between 2020 and 2025, all but one involved the Chinese or Russian nuclear industries, either domestically or abroad.

Limited progress on small modular reactors

The report questions whether small modular reactors (SMRs) can deliver on their long-standing commercial promises, noting that progress remains limited despite growing government support and public funding.

“For decades, small modular reactors have been held out as holding great promise for expanding nuclear power into various new markets. Remarkably similar claims have been made by the nuclear industry in multiple countries. Nowhere have these claims come true,” the authors said.

The authors challenge several claimed advantages of SMRs, including lower costs, modular construction, improved safety, reduced waste and easier siting. Many commercially proposed designs are 300 MW or larger, while an analysis cited in the report suggests some SMR designs could generate between two and 30 times more nuclear waste than larger reactors.

The report also questions whether modular manufacturing can achieve economies of scale without a large and predictable market. Still, SMR projects are advancing in several countries. Canada began construction of GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300 in 2026, while China continued testing its Linglong One demonstration reactor. Russia is developing floating and land-based SMRs, while the Czech Republic and Sweden are pursuing Rolls-Royce projects. The report questions whether the EU can meet its goal of deploying its first SMRs by the early 2030s.

The United Kingdom has committed £2.6 billion ($3.5 billion) to advance three Rolls-Royce reactors at Wylfa, with a final investment decision expected in 2029. At 470 MW, the design exceeds the commonly used 300 MW threshold for SMRs.

In the United States, federal funding supports projects involving GE Vernova, TerraPower, X-energy and Kairos Power. While some have reached permitting or construction stages, many remain years from commercial operation. Overall, the report says SMR development remains heavily dependent on public funding, while commercial deployment, construction timelines and the claimed benefits of modular construction remain uncertain.

Global overview

The report also provides detailed country-level assessments covering developments in major nuclear markets and potential newcomer countries, as well as nuclear decommissioning, the Fukushima disaster and Russia’s nuclear interdependencies.

These sections examine reactor operations, newbuild plans, closures, policy developments and the challenges associated with aging fleets. The report also tracks the dismantling of closed reactors, developments in Japan 15 years after the Fukushima accident, and the nuclear industry’s continuing technology, fuel and supply-chain links with Russia

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

Report: Energy efficient office buildings over three times cheaper to run

Michael Holder,

Research by real estate giant JLL argues ‘the case for efficiency has
never been stronger’ following latest energy price spikes and tightening
building performance rules. The gap between the cost of running the most
and least efficient office buildings in major cities worldwide has widened
significantly in recent years, making investments in energy efficiency
measures more worthwhile.

Business Green 22nd Sept 2026, https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4536093/report-energy-efficient-office-buildings-times-cheaper-run

September 26, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Nuclear power is not the answer for energy needs.

1st Sep 2026, Paul Dorfman, University of Sussex, Brighton

Brian Wilson suggests that renewables are the problem, with fossil fuels and nuclear as the way forward (Scotsman, 29 August). Perhaps he should consider the following:

In 2025, wind and solar became the bedrock of European energy self-reliance, with power generation from renewables in Europe reaching a new record of 384.9 TWh. Meanwhile, Norway has just said no to nuclear power, and Nato now backs renewables as the solution to energy security.

In 2025 renewables made up 85.6 per cent of all new global power capacity additions. Renewables are now 53 per cent cheaper than nuclear for total system costs and, with a doubling cost over-run, nuclear remains the most expensive power source. With construction of just one station taking 20 years-plus, nuclear projects in Europe run years behind schedule and vastly over budget. Nuclear power construction has an average time over-run of 64 per cent.

The fact is, each year nuclear adds only as much net global power capacity as renewables add every two days. For Scotland, the direction of travel is clear. The challenge now is not just generation, but how quickly grids, batteries and flexibility can be deployed.

Too dangerous, is the worst possible time for Brian to be promoting nuclear power.

George Morton, Rosyth, Fife

I have quite a high regard for Brian Wilson, but am dismayed by his ongoing advocacy of nuclear power in his article on energy supply.

His cost argument fails to include guarding dangerous fission-products for centuries, and the fact that nuclear power plants have the advantage of being state-insured against litigation for environmental damage.

Most importantly, they’re potential war-targets (we know that from Iran and Ukraine). And it needn’t be a strike on a reactor; even a destroyed waste-storage facility would, on an adverse wind, require the evacuation of hundreds of thousands. Just think of Chernobyl.

The US predictionists at Polymarket are offering odds of 25 per cent (a one in four chance) of a NATO/Russia clash before the year is out (excluding cyberattacks). Now is the worst possible time for Brian to be promoting nuclear power.

September 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Expert Comment: New nuclear capacity won’t fix today’s energy problems

Dr Bettina Wittneben, Lecturer in Management at Oxford’s Saïd Business School and Associate Fellow at Pembroke College and the School of Geography and the Environment, sets out four risks that policymakers should weigh before committing to new nuclear capacity.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2026-08-20-expert-comment-new-nuclear-capacity-wont-fix-todays-energy-problems

The Fukushima nuclear disaster on 11 March 2011, triggered by a tsunami and leading to multiple reactor meltdowns, shook confidence in nuclear safety well beyond Japan. In Germany, it was a turning point: Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government suspended nuclear power’s earlier lifetime extensions and ultimately pursued a phase out, with broad parliamentary support.

Fast forward to today, and in parts of Europe, nuclear power is being re-cast as the answer to decarbonisation and energy insecurity, as highlighted by the Israel/US-Iran conflict. Some German politicians went so far as to call the country’s decision to end nuclear power a mistake.

This is a useful reminder that nuclear policy is not only about engineering and economics; it is also about political legitimacy and how much risk the public is willing to accept.

But despite recent enthusiasm for nuclear power, a close examination shows that the risks of increasing nuclear capacity are high. Policy makers and the public need to consider four types of risk: climate, security, capacity and financial risks.

Climate risk: Nuclear power plants are not climate resilient

As Europe experiences climate impacts such as heatwaves and drought, several nuclear power plants have had to be at least partially shut down to accommodate low water levels and risks to aquatic life in natural water systems. When a nuclear plant is shut down, it continues to draw on electricity generated elsewhere to avoid a meltdown.

Given that global heating is a reality today, nuclear power generation is no longer a viable long-term option in hotter temperatures and drier climates. In Britain, we have had to come to terms with the fact that an approaching wildfire could have catastrophic consequences for a nuclear power plant.

The strategic point for policymakers is straightforward: If the climate is changing how we operate existing plants, it should also shape the way we assess the benefits of new build.

Nuclear power is sometimes hailed as a climate mitigation instrument as it is low carbon at the point of generation. However, the bulky concrete structures mean that it has a large amount of embodied carbon and, of course, it is not a renewable energy as it requires the mining of uranium, bringing with it carbon costs in terms of extraction and transport. Nuclear waste disposal and decommissioning must also be factored into the carbon budget of nuclear energy generation.

Security risk: Nuclear power poses real security risks

As we have seen in Ukraine and now also in the UAE, nuclear power plants are favoured sites for drone and other attacks and can be the scene of intense battles. A small drone exploding on the radiation shield of the ill-fated Chernobyl nuclear reactor caused major global concern as repairs to this vital safety structure are risky, and the associated costs of maintaining safety are extremely high.

Capacity risk: Nuclear power contributes to grid overload during electricity generation peaks

For the past decade, energy experts have insisted that, as consumers of solar and wind-generated electricity, we need to be concerned about the times when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, referred to as Dunkelflaute (dunkel=dark, flaute=lull). How do we keep the lights on and the economy whirling away during these dark, windless times? This is also the narrative of fossil fuel advocates, who present fossil gas as the saviour of the baseload, or the electricity that is available when renewables fall short. Fossil fuel sceptics point instead to nuclear power as a reliable baseload technology.

Making decisions based on Dunkelflaute anxiety is no longer rational, however. With renewables rapidly expanding – driven by low prices and the need for energy independence – grids are facing the opposite problem: energy surplus. For example, in May 2025 Germany experienced negative electricity prices on 21 days of the month. These occurrences resulted from the Hellbrise (hell=bright, brise=breeze): a situation where wind and solar generated more electricity than national demand.

In many European countries national grids cannot cope with these peaks of production meaning that electricity is either wasted or diverted if it cannot be stored. Nuclear power plants, which are slow and costly to turn off, only amplify our grids’ Hellbrise challenge.

Financial risk: Nuclear power generation remains very costly

Back in 2011, the Fukushima accident turned the public against nuclear power in Germany. Over the past decade, the nuclear industry has reeled from this. The solution from this industry is to build smaller, modular reactors, with the aim of diminishing risks and reducing costs via economies of scale.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is flawed. Nuclear waste is expensive to store safely, and engineers continue to struggle to identify long-term waste disposal sites.

Decommissioning costs must be factored into the financing of the power plant as it is highly expensive to dispose of the large concrete buildings and remaining radioactive materials. Otherwise, decommissioning and long-term waste storage falls to the taxpayer of the future.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is flawed. Nuclear waste is expensive to store safely, and engineers continue to struggle to identify long-term waste disposal sites.

In addition, there are other financial costs and risks: acts of war are still entirely possible and exceedingly dangerous; uranium mining commits providers to continued social and environmental impacts; renewables remain more competitive on cost.

Given the risks of nuclear power, there are better energy solutions

Nuclear power production does not help us cope with the challenge emerging from our power grids and the future of electricity production – the Hellbrise.

Instead, we should focus on improving flexibility of grids and energy demand, increasing energy efficiency, and addressing the technical challenges of energy storage. This strategy will more effectively support economies than nuclear power ever could.

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

Data centres drive Ireland to reopen nuclear power debate.

Rising electricity consumption by Ireland’s insatiable data centres has prompted
the government to do something that has been unthinkable for decades:
reignite a debate about nuclear power.

Data centres account for nearly a
quarter of all electricity used in Ireland — a share set to rise to at
least 30 per cent by 2032. Their consumption grew 10 per cent last year
from 2024, far outstripping the 2 per cent growth of all other users.

But unlike France and the UK, nuclear power has never been an option in
Ireland. Several high-profile protests beginning in 1978 succeeded in
killing plans for a nuclear plant on the south-east coast. Bans against the
technology since 1999 have ensured things stay that way.

FT 23rd Aug 2026
https://www.ft.com/content/d8279eab-023e-4403-8f0f-b0b64393dcbb

August 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, Ireland | Leave a comment

Romania Restarts Coal Plant as Danube Drought Forces Nuclear Shutdown

By Michael Kern – Aug 18, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Romania-Restarts-Coal-Plant-as-Danube-Drought-Forces-Nuclear-Shutdown.html

Romania has this week restarted a 300-megawatt coal-fired power plant to partially offset the generation lost by the closure of nuclear electricity output after the low water level on the Danube river forced a shutdown of the country’s only nuclear power plant.

Romania, which lost 20% of its power generation with the closure of both rectors at its Cernavoda nuclear power plant, has restarted the Rovinari Group 4 coal-fired power unit. The additional coal-fired generation is adding nearly 300 megawatts (MW) to the National Energy System, Cristian Bu?oi, State Secretary at Romania’s Ministry of Energy, told local media.

The two reactors at the Cernavoda nuclear power plant have 680 MW installed capacity each, and typically generate about 20% of Romania’s power output.

However, the lowest water levels on the Danube in 90 years forced Romania in recent weeks to shut down both reactors amid insufficient water supply to cool the reactors.

At the end of last week, Romania began shutting down its only remaining operating nuclear reactor as record-low water levels on the Danube have forced nuclear power shutdowns in central and eastern Europe in recent weeks.

Nuclearelectrica launched the process to disconnect the one operating reactor at Romania’s only nuclear plant at Cernavoda on the Danube, the Romanian state-owned nuclear power plant operator said August 13.

Nuclearelectrica had shut down the other reactor at Cernavoda at the end of July as scorching temperatures and drought in Europe this summer have sank the water levels on the Danube to the lowest in 90 years.

“We do not foresee a restart within the next ten days,” the director of the Cernavoda plant, Romeo Urjan, told AFP last Thursday.

The low water levels on the Danube has affected Hungary’s only nuclear power plant, too. Hungary is sinking barges in the Danube to keep its Paks nuclear power plant, which generates a third of the country’s electricity, running.

August 21, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, EUROPE | Leave a comment

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 | 1 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

« Previous Entries