nuclear-news

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

“Grow your own and buy local”: Networks seek change and flexibility to manage a 100 pct renewable grid.

RENEW ECONOMY. Giles Parkinson, Mar 19, 2026

The head of Australia’s peak network group has called for regulatory change and more flexibility for homes and their power assets, to help local networks manage the consumer-driven push towards 100 per cent renewables across the country.

Andrew Bills is the chair of Energy Networks Australia, and finds himself at the cutting edge of this transition as CEO of SA Power Networks, where the output of rooftop solar alone exceeds grid demand about every second day of the year.

South Australia is expected – within 18 months – to become the first gigawatt-scale grid in the world to reach 100 per cent “net” renewables (the net refers to the fact that it imports and exports at times and is not an isolated grid), and is already running at a 75 per cent share of wind and solar.

Much of that solar comes from households, with nearly half (48 pct) of all homes supporting a total of 3.2 gigawatts of rooftop solar capacity, which is significant in a grid with average demand less than half of that.

That solar penetration is also world leading, and at a level that stuns network peers in other countries. It is rapidly being followed by a faster uptake of home batteries (double that of the country average), and a growing interest in electric vehicles.

This has required South Australia to be at the forefront of key technologies designed manage this home energy revolution, initially with the blunt and rarely used “solar switch-off”, required by the market operator as a last resort to help maintain grid security.

That has been followed, more successfully, by the rollout of innovative technologies that allow for flexible exports for solar households, and no longer limits the amount of rooftop solar that can be installed.

iis now being augmented with the trial installation of home energy management systems and tariffs that reward homes for cutting imports, as well as exports, at key times………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://reneweconomy.com.au/grow-your-own-and-buy-local-networks-seek-change-and-flexibility-to-manage-a-100-pct-renewable-grid/

March 22, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, renewable | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’ TerraPower Finally Has a Permit for a Nuclear Reactor, but No Reliable Way to Fuel It.

“HALEU is not currently available from domestic suppliers, and gaps in supply could delay the deployment of advanced reactors,” the HALEU Availability Program website says. Filling the gap will involve “downblending”—or converting highly concentrated weapons-grade uranium into relatively low-concentration HALEU. This literally means dismantling warheads, melting the uranium, and rejiggering the concentration of the crucial fissile isotope.


 Gizmodo, By Mike Pearl, 5th March 2026

By unanimous vote, TerraPower, a Nuclear Power company founded and chaired by Bill Gates, just reached a major milestone by receiving the most important federal permit: clearance to build a commercial nuclear reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, scheduled to start operating in 2031. This places TerraPower at the front of the pack when it comes to small, cutting-edge nuclear reactors for generating power in the U.S.

Unfortunately, there’s currently no way to fuel this reactor.

The plant has already been under-construction since 2024, and a spokesman for TerraPower named Andy Hallmark confirmed to me that only the “nonnuclear sections of the plant” were being built at the time.

But while TerraPower’s Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor can now at least be constructed, it won’t put power into the Wyoming energy grid without high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is only made in commercial quantities by a company called Techsnabexport, which is a subsidiary of another company called Rosatom, which is owned by the Russian state.

This has been presenting a problem ever since 2022 when Russia invaded mainland Ukraine. At that point, “it became very clear, for a whole set of reasons — moral reasons as well as commercial reasons — that using Russian fuel is no longer an option for us,” TerraPower spokesman Jeff Navin told WyoFile. 

But Hallmark told me in 2024 that alternative suppliers “are expected to develop similar capacity as demand grows,” and that Terrapower believes a solution will materialize in time for the project to stay on track.

The US government has been prioritizing and cheerleading this project (along with similar projects), and has an alternative plan, which the Department of Energy calls the HALEU Availability Program.

“HALEU is not currently available from domestic suppliers, and gaps in supply could delay the deployment of advanced reactors,” the HALEU Availability Program website says. Filling the gap will involve “downblending”—or converting highly concentrated weapons-grade uranium into relatively low-concentration HALEU. This literally means dismantling warheads, melting the uranium, and rejiggering the concentration of the crucial fissile isotope.

It is, of course, unsustainable for commercial power plants to be fueled by the guts of the aging U.S. nuclear stockpile, and a real supply chain for HALEU has to exist if TerraPower’s plant is actually going to operate.

In the short term, TerraPower needs enough fuel from early sources like downblending to load its reactor for the first time, and then it can focus on staying online. One report says it needs about 150 metric tons of the fuel to run from 2028 through 2037—roughly 15 metric tons per year on average.

But according to Reuters, there’s only one U.S. company actually attempting to make HALEU by enriching uranium rather than downblending: Ohio’s Centrus Energy. But Centrus was projecting 900 kilograms per year in 2024—by my rough math that’s about 6% of what Terrapower’s Kemmerer plant will need per year. To stay Centrus needs to ramp-up quickly is an understatement.

Needless to say, Terrapower is racing to find alternatives, which include companies like South Africa’s ASP Isotopes, Inc.  with whom it launched a “strategic agreement” in 2024. As of last month, ASP was hoping to build a HALEU plant soon.  

At any rate, TerraPower’s Kemmerer plant can be built now, and that construction can now include its reactor. There’s not enough fuel for that reactor—unless of course the war in Ukraine ends, and Russia-U.S. relations get patched up in a hurry—but there are still five years between now and then, and a whole lot is riding on this. Generating nuclear fuel has always forced people to move mountains. Why should this plant be any different?

Gizmodo reached out to TerraPower for a statement, or additional information about any as-yet unreported sources of HALEU. We will update if we hear back.

00

.00

March 12, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

While Hinkley Nuclear Was Being Built, The UK Grid Decarbonized

Clean Technica, Michael Barnard, 6th March 2026

The latest announcement about Hinkley Point C was predictable. The first reactor at the plant in Somerset is now expected to begin generating electricity in 2030. The cost estimate has climbed again, now reaching roughly £35B in 2015 pounds or about £49B in current money according to Electricité de France. When the project received final approval in 2016, the expected construction cost was £18B and the first reactor was expected to begin operating in 2025. In the span of a decade, the expected capital cost nearly doubled while the schedule slipped by five years. The project illustrates the pattern described by Oxford megaproject scholar Bent Flyvbjerg. Large infrastructure projects tend to run over budget, over schedule, and deliver fewer benefits than originally promised. Hinkley Point C appears to be achieving the full trifecta.

To understand how the project arrived at this point it is necessary to revisit the electricity system that existed when Hinkley was first proposed……………………………Policymakers faced a looming capacity gap as aging coal plants approached retirement under European pollution rules and older nuclear reactors approached the end of their operating lives. Large baseload nuclear plants seemed like a logical replacement for retiring coal and nuclear capacity while maintaining system reliability and reducing emissions.

EDF entered the picture in 2008 when it acquired British Energy for about £12.4B. This acquisition gave the French utility access to several UK nuclear sites including Hinkley Point in Somerset……………………… T.he UK government supported the project through a Contract for Difference that guaranteed a strike price of £92.50 per MWh in 2012 pounds for 35 years. Adjusted for inflation that price is now roughly £120 to £130 per MWh in current money.

The timeline of the project reflects the slow progress typical of large nuclear builds………………………………………………………..  The most recent revision places the cost at about £35B in 2015 pounds with startup expected in 2030. If the schedule slips to 2031, EDF estimates another £1B in additional cost..

Hinkley is not an isolated example. The reactor design used at the site is the European Pressurized Reactor. Other projects using this design have experienced similar difficulties. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland began construction in 2005 and entered commercial operation in 2023. The project took roughly 18 years from start to finish and cost about €11B compared with an original estimate of about €3B. Flamanville 3 in France began construction in 2007 and only began producing electricity in 2024 after more than a decade of delays and cost escalation. These projects demonstrate that modern nuclear construction faces structural challenges including complex regulatory oversight, large supply chains, and one-off engineering work.

While Hinkley Point C progressed slowly, the electricity system around it began to change rapidly. UK grid carbon intensity fell from about 520 gCO2 per kWh in 2006 to roughly 120 gCO2 per kWh in 2025 according to National Grid data. That represents a reduction of about 77%. Coal generation collapsed during the same period. In 2012 coal still produced about 40% of UK electricity. By 2024 the last coal plant closed and coal generation fell to zero. Gas generation initially increased as coal declined, providing a bridge fuel that cut emissions roughly in half per kWh compared with coal. At the same time renewable energy expanded quickly.

Wind power became the largest contributor to this change. ……………………………………………………………………………..

The grid also evolved to accommodate the growing share of renewable energy. Market reforms played a significant role. The Contract for Difference program created long term price stability for renewable developers………………High voltage direct current interconnectors connected the UK to electricity markets in France, Norway, Belgium, and Denmark. These interconnectors allow power to flow between regions and help balance variable generation.

Grid operations also changed to manage a system with lower inertia and higher renewable penetration. Batteries began appearing in grid services markets around 2017. These batteries provide fast frequency response and reserve capacity. 

The economic dynamics of electricity generation shifted during the same period. Nuclear plants represent a form of megaproject economics. Each plant is a large custom built facility that takes many years to construct. Learning effects are limited because each plant is unique. Wind turbines and solar panels follow a different model. These technologies are manufactured in large volumes. Production learning and scale economies reduce costs over time. ………………………………………………………………..

The rising cost of Hinkley also raises questions about opportunity cost. The current estimated cost of about £49B in today’s money represents a very large capital investment. Offshore wind projects in Europe commonly cost between £2M and £3M per MW of installed capacity depending on location and turbine size. At £2.5M per MW, £49B could finance roughly 20 GW of offshore wind capacity. With a typical offshore wind capacity factor of about 45%, that capacity would produce around 79 TWh of electricity annually. Hinkley Point C is expected to produce about 25 TWh annually. The comparison is not exact because nuclear provides firm generation while wind is variable. The scale difference is significant.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The next UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, raises obvious questions about what lessons policymakers are drawing from the experience at Hinkley Point C. Sizewell C is planned as a near replica of Hinkley using the same European Pressurized Reactor design and similar capacity of about 3.2 GW. The estimated construction cost is currently around £20B to £30B depending on assumptions about financing and schedule. Unlike Hinkley, the project will be financed through a regulated asset base model that allows developers to collect revenue from electricity consumers during construction. This structure reduces financing risk for investors but shifts more cost exposure onto the public.

The core question is whether the UK energy system in the 2030s and 2040s still requires additional nuclear megaprojects built on decade long timelines when wind, solar, and storage technologies continue expanding on much shorter deployment cycles. A second question concerns opportunity cost. If Sizewell C ultimately approaches the capital intensity seen at Hinkley, the same level of investment could finance tens of gigawatts of renewable capacity or large expansions of grid infrastructure. Policymakers therefore face a strategic choice between continuing the megaproject model for firm low carbon generation or allocating capital toward technologies that can scale incrementally and rapidly across the electricity system.

The broader lesson from the Hinkley experience concerns the pace of technological change in energy systems. Large infrastructure projects require long planning and construction timelines. Energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries follow faster innovation cycles driven by manufacturing scale and global deployment. Between the time Hinkley Point C was conceived and the time it will enter operation, the UK electricity system transformed itself. Coal disappeared. Wind capacity expanded more than tenfold. Carbon intensity fell by more than three quarters. The project will arrive into a grid that has already undergone much of the transition it was designed to support.
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/03/06/while-hinkley-nuclear-was-being-built-the-uk-grid-decarbonized/

March 12, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

The Strait Is Closed: How Trump’s Strike on Iran Triggered a Global Energy Crisis.

At the heart of this crisis lies a profound failure of strategic judgment—one that belongs squarely to the Trump administration. The decision to assassinate Khamenei was not merely aggressive; it was tactically naive and strategically blind. Unlike targeted strikes on nuclear facilities or proxy militias, killing a sitting Supreme Leader is an act of regime decapitation—an existential provocation that guarantees total retaliation.

Phil Butler, March 09, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/03/09/the-strait-is-closed-how-trumps-strike-on-iran-triggered-a-global-energy-crisis/

The world entered a new era of energy insecurity not with a treaty or a market crash but with a single ill-conceived military decision.

On the weekend of February 28, 2026, the United States, in coordination with Israel, launched airstrikes deep inside Iran, killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and striking key command centers across Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump, in a recent address, declared that “combat operations will continue for several more weeks” to “degrade Iran’s capacity to threaten global stability.”

Monumental Blunder

Instead of restoring order, the strike achieved the opposite: it triggered a cascading collapse of the world’s most critical energy artery—the Strait of Hormuz—and exposed the fragility of Western assumptions about oil, power, and deterrence.

Within 48 hours, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) retaliated not just with missile barrages on U.S. bases in Iraq and Israel, but with a far more consequential move: it sealed the Strait of Hormuz. Using drones, fast-attack boats, and coastal missile batteries, Iranian forces disabled or turned back nearly all commercial traffic attempting to transit the narrow waterway. Satellite data confirmed only two tankers passed through on Monday—a fraction of the usual 20 million barrels per day that normally flow through this 21-mile-wide chokepoint.

The immediate effect was not panic, but paralysis. Over 3,000 vessels—tankers, container ships, and LNG carriers — now idle in Gulf ports from Basra to Doha, unable to move without risking destruction. Global oil benchmarks surged past $85 per barrel, with senior IRGC officials openly predicting prices could reach $200 if the blockade holds. As financial markets tumbled, London’s FTSE was down nearly 3%, Tokyo’s Nikkei shed over a month’s gains in three days, but the real crisis unfolded not on trading screens but in the physical reality of supply chains, refineries, and gas stations.

Europe’s Energy Illusion Shatters

For years, European leaders spoke of “diversification” and “energy security” while quietly relying on Middle Eastern oil and Qatari LNG to keep lights on and factories running. That illusion has now evaporated. With the strait closed, Europe faces a dual shock: soaring crude costs and disrupted natural gas flows from Qatar, whose LNG terminals feed German and Italian grids.

In Germany, diesel prices breached psychological thresholds, nearing levels last seen during the immediate aftermath of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Motorists formed long lines at filling stations, anticipating further spikes. The ADAC motoring association warned of “sustained pressure on household budgets,” while industry groups cautioned that prolonged high fuel costs could force manufacturing slowdowns.

France, meanwhile, signaled emergency measures, with Economy Minister Roland Lescure stating the government would intervene to cap pump prices if increases “deviate unreasonably” from underlying oil benchmarks. But such controls are stopgaps, not solutions. The deeper truth is this: Europe has no strategic alternative to Gulf energy. Its renewable transition remains incomplete, its Russian pipeline options politically toxic, and its domestic production negligible. In this moment, Europe is not a geopolitical actor—it is a hostage to geography.

The Strategic Blunder: Trump’s Fatal Miscalculation

At the heart of this crisis lies a profound failure of strategic judgment—one that belongs squarely to the Trump administration. The decision to assassinate Khamenei was not merely aggressive; it was tactically naive and strategically blind. Unlike targeted strikes on nuclear facilities or proxy militias, killing a sitting Supreme Leader is an act of regime decapitation—an existential provocation that guarantees total retaliation.

Worse, it ignored Iran’s asymmetric advantage: control of the Strait. For decades, U.S. naval doctrine assumed American carrier groups could keep the waterway open. But modern warfare has shifted. Iran doesn’t need to win a fleet battle; it only needs to make passage too costly. With cheap drones, anti-ship missiles, and layered coastal defenses, Tehran can impose a de facto blockade without firing a single shot at a U.S. warship.

Trump’s team appears to have believed that overwhelming air power would cow Iran into submission. Instead, it handed Tehran the perfect justification to execute its long-held threat: close the Strait and watch the global economy convulse. There is no indication that the White House modeled the second- and third-order effects on inflation, on allied economies, on global food and transport systems. This wasn’t strategy. It was performance dressed as policy.

And now, the U.S. finds itself trapped. Military escorts for tankers? Logistically daunting and politically untenable. Diplomatic off-ramps? None remain with Khamenei dead and the IRGC in full war mode. Sanctions? Meaningless when the adversary is already under maximum pressure.

The Quiet Realignment: Moscow and Delhi Step In

While Washington scrambles, a new axis is consolidating. Russia and India—long-time cautious partners—are accelerating energy cooperation at a striking pace. Indian refiners, facing potential shortages, have signaled intent to increase purchases of Russian Urals crude dramatically. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak confirmed “strong demand” from Asian buyers, while RDIF head Kirill Dmitriev framed Moscow as a “reliable partner in times of crisis.”

This isn’t opportunism. It’s systemic repositioning. As Western supply chains fracture, non-aligned powers are building parallel circuits of resilience. For India, Russian oil offers a lifeline. For Russia, it’s a chance to bypass sanctions and cement its role as the “energy balancer” of the Global South.

Meanwhile, defense and energy stocks surge—not because investors believe in peace, but because they’ve accepted a new reality: geopolitical risk is now permanent infrastructure. As one strategist put it, “Gold, defense, and critical infrastructure are no longer hedges—they’re core holdings.”

The Deeper Architecture of Collapse

Beneath the headlines lies a starker truth: the post-1991 energy order is finished. For three decades, the U.S. Navy guaranteed the free flow of oil, and the world priced accordingly. That era assumed unipolarity, predictable adversaries, and manageable risk.

Today, we live in a multipolar world where physical control trumps financial abstraction. Algorithms can’t reroute tankers around drone swarms. AI can’t refine crude. And no amount of market liquidity can replace a barrel that never leaves port. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is more than a crisis—it’s a revelation. It shows that sovereignty is not declared; it is enforced through pipelines, ports, and the willingness to burn the system down rather than surrender control.

Trump’s and Netanyahu’s strike didn’t secure peace. It exposed fragility. And in doing so, it handed the future to those who understand that the next world order won’t be coded in Silicon Valley—but carved in oil, steel, and silence.

March 10, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Study: Energy Efficiency Can Address Surging Electricity Needs at Half the Cost of Gas Plants

 Amid soaring U.S. electricity use, new analysis from the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) finds that the fastest and cheapest
way to alleviate rapid electric load growth is through expanding investment
in energy efficiency and demand flexibility. Even as families are already
struggling with energy affordability, utility regulators are being asked to
approve new gas power plants, putting utility customers on the hook for
expensive projects that may not be needed.

 ACEEE 4th Feb 2026, https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2026/02/study-energy-efficiency-can-address-surging-electricity-needs-half-cost-gas

March 7, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear power falls below half its historic peak share of global electricity generation.

Jim Green, 3 Mar 26

The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen to 8.7%. [1]
That is less than half its historic peak of 17.5% in 1996. [2] 
The International Energy Agency projects the share of renewables to rise from 32 percent in 2024 to 43 percent by 2030. [3]
Renewables have doubled then tripled nuclear generation over the past decade and by the end of this decade renewables will out-generate nuclear by at least a factor of 5. 
[1] p.23, https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/p15942-25-02880E_RDS-1-45_web.pdf 
[2] https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2025-HTML-version
[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2025/renewable-electricity

March 6, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Renewables projected to overtake gas on cost within five years, report finds

20 February 2026, https://eibi.co.uk/news/renewables-projected-to-overtake-gas-on-cost-within-five-years-report-finds/

Renewable electricity is set to become the most economically favourable source of power in the UK by 2028 to 2029, according to new analysis by the Renewable Energy Association (REA), even after accounting for the full costs of expanding grids, storage and transmission.

The findings are set out in the Renewable Energy Association’s Renewable Cost Analysis Report 2025, which models two scenarios for the electricity system. Under a ‘Clean Power 2030’ pathway, annual investment of about £40bn would expand renewable capacity and cut the share of unabated gas to below 5%.

An alternative ‘No New Renewables’ scenario assumes no additional wind or solar capacity until 2040, with natural gas meeting future demand, which would mean lower upfront spending but higher ongoing fuel costs.

The REA concludes that although electricity generation will remain expensive across all technologies, renewables represent the most cost-effective long-term option. Including employment impacts, the analysis suggests renewable generation becomes the net economic winner by the end of the decade.

The modelling assumes flat gas prices over the next five years. If gas prices fall by 25% between 2025 and 2030, the point at which renewables become cheaper is delayed by only one year when excluding job benefits.

The report says its analysis includes all additional grid, transmission, storage and system costs associated with higher renewable deployment, in contrast to traditional levelised cost estimates that focus on generation costs alone.

It also highlights wider benefits from renewables, including reduced exposure to volatile international gas markets, improved energy security and environmental gains such as lower carbon emissions and cleaner air.

The REA recommends continued government support to manage short-term electricity costs, including possible reductions to green levies and value added tax, alongside stable policy to encourage investment. It says early investment in renewables would deliver long-term  economic benefits, domestic employment and greater energy security for the UK.

Read REA’s Renewable Cost Analysis Report 2025.

March 2, 2026 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Fuel Supply Gap Could Hold Back U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance

  • The U.S. push to quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050 faces a near-term fuel bottleneck.
  • Centrus, Orano, and Urenco are expanding U.S. enrichment facilities, backed by billions in DOE funding.
  • Surging electricity needs driven by AI and data centers are accelerating urgency, with enrichment capacity needing to scale dramatically if nuclear power is to play a central role in meeting long-term U.S. energy demand.

By Tsvetana Paraskova Oil Price 25th Feb 2026- https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Fuel-Supply-Gap-Could-Hold-Back-US-Nuclear-Energy-Renaissance.html

March 1, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy is a distant prospect – wind and solar are here now

Sceptics don’t outright deny climate change but dismiss solutions as unrealistic

Sadhbh O’Neill, Irish Times 26th Feb 2026

Recent commentary on Ireland’s energy system is a reminder that not everyone is comfortable with change.

For people unconvinced by the potential of renewable energy to provide all our energy needs, the focus of energy policy should still be on large-scale sources of generation, as it was in the glory days of the ESB when it ran everything (and it took up to 18 months to get a grid connection).

Amid nostalgia for a simpler past, there are still voices making the case that fossil fuels and nuclear energy should form the backbone of the grid. This case is made on the basis that renewables can only match demand up to a certain point due to their intermittency, low energy densities and the challenges of integrating them into the grid.

And it is always hard to make the case for energy efficiency and demand management when fossil fuels, on paper at least, are plentiful, and there is no sign yet of the big energy producers slowing down extraction or divesting from fossil energy………………………………………………..

With regard to nuclear energy, there is a lot of interest in small modular reactors (SMRs), which, at approximately 400MW generating capacity, would be much more appropriate in scale for Irish electricity needs. The problem with nuclear energy is that traditional power plants, at about 1.3GW, are too individually large for Ireland, not to mention the likelihood of a nuclear plant taking decades to secure the required approvals and get built.

The ESB in its 2025 Emerging Technology Insights report notes that SMRs remain unproven due to a lack of demonstration projects. None of the SMR projects to date will have a demonstration plant completed before 2030.

Given that we are just four years away from key climate deadlines, nuclear power is so unrealistic in the context of what we need to do right now that it might as well be irrelevant.

The SEAI Energy in Ireland 2025 report highlights that Ireland needs proven, immediate solutions to avoid missing its second carbon budget (2026–2030). Luckily for Ireland, we have abundant renewable resources, which have never been so cheap to develop.

Renewable energy costs have come down so fast and by so much that even when you factor in the grid upgrades required, in 90 per cent of the world they outcompete new fossil fuel infrastructure easily, including the US. This is because wind and solar technologies are proven, scalable and cost-competitive over the long run, making them more attractive to investors…………………………………………. https://www.irishtimes.com/environment/climate-crisis/2026/02/26/nuclear-energy-is-a-distant-prospect-wind-and-solar-are-here-now/

March 1, 2026 Posted by | Ireland, renewable | Leave a comment

The End of Baseload Power as We Know It

By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles – Oil Price, Feb 23, 2026,

  • China and France are retrofitting coal and nuclear plants to operate more intermittently, reflecting how growing renewable penetration is reshaping traditional base-load generation economics.
  • Gas remains the dominant new-build fuel in the U.S. for now, but examples like California show renewables plus storage steadily displacing fossil generation.
  • Coal plants may see short-term life extensions, while new nuclear looks economically uncompetitive.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-End-of-Baseload-Power-as-We-Know-It.amp.html

February 28, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Fuel shortage threatens US nuclear resurgence, warns top supplier.


Centrus Energy says rising demand and ban on Russian imports risks uranium
enrichment ‘supply gap’.

One of the largest suppliers of enriched
uranium fuel to US nuclear power plants has warned of a looming supply
crunch because of fast-rising demand and a ban on Russian imports. Centrus
Energy chief executive Amir Vexler told the FT the company is racing to
build enrichment capacity at its Ohio plant to meet a $2.3bn backlog in
sales of enriched uranium to customers.

But the restart of several US
nuclear plants and upgrading of the reactor fleet to boost electricity
output would put pressure on the handful of western suppliers of enriched
uranium — a critical component in nuclear fuel, he said.

 FT 23rd Feb 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/717ed9ab-d6c0-4d4f-b2c6-386edfa5e71c

February 26, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, USA | Leave a comment

Why can’t people grasp that there’s much more to renewables than wind?

L McGregor, Falkirk. https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/25860226.cant-people-grasp-much-renewables-wind/

Why do Malcolm Parkin (Letters, February 12) and many others keep going on about the need for small nuclear reactors because the wind does not blow all the time, as if there were no other highly successful ways to produce energy

Have they never heard of the numerous other means of production? What about pumped storage? Nearly 50 years ago, I visited the Cruachan pumped storage site and learned how that could, when demand is high, release the water to produce electricity to fill any shortfall, and pump it back up to store for the next use. There are already places in Scotland where small, local, pumped storage systems are in operation and numerous larger ones are in construction, or operational, such as Foyers on Loch Ness. These systems could power millions of homes, wind or no wind.

Mr Parkin and others seem unaware that there are wave-powered and tidal systems already operating in Scotland and being further developed, for example around Orkney and the Pentland Firth. These have the advantage that there are two tides a day and constant waves all round our coasts, which would never stop providing energy. Such projects could have been much further advanced had Westminster not, years ago, withdrawn the funding for a major one of these schemes, thus retarding progress. Nevertheless, Scotland is a world leader in these technologies, providing 50% of the world’s such energy.

What need is there to consider any form of nuclear reactor? Whilst nuclear power produced may be clean, the building process and materials have an exorbitant cost, take years, and are highly carbon-producing. Storage of waste presents an insurmountable problem, with severe risks for centuries. Witness the ongoing occasional discovery of radioactive particles contaminating the beaches around Dounreay, years after the plant closed.

Small nuclear reactors are not yet fully developed, and our taxes are currently contributing to the “UK-wide” project, Hinckley Point reactor in South-east England, already 10 years late, nearly three times the original cost and still not completed. Moreover, we are now to share the cost of Sizewell C, of the same outdated design in the same area, final cost and operation date still unknown.

Meantime, Scottish renewables producers pay an exorbitant sum to connect to the Grid, whence 40% of their product goes to England, while our consumers pay the highest costs in Europe, and perhaps the world. Rather than moaning about wind energy and supporting nuclear, Mr Parkin and friends might ask why the Scottish Government does not receive payment for this export – an income which could help speed up our transition and make wind turbine eventually obsolete..

February 21, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power – A White Elephant in the Energy Debate

By Pete Roche, David Hume Institute 12th Feb 2026,
https://davidhumeinstitute.org/latest-news/2026/2/12/nuclear-power-a-white-elephant-in-the-energy-debate

As Scotland prepares for elections, pro‑nuclear lobbyists are urging the Scottish Government to lift its ban on new nuclear developments.Yet the evidence shows that building new nuclear power stations would be an expensive white elephant — too slow, too costly, and ultimately unnecessary for tackling climate change.

Investing in nuclear now risks diverting resources from cheaper, faster, and safer renewable alternatives that are ready to deploy and without the risk of hazardous waste.

Nuclear makes us more vulnerable

Recent events in Europe underline nuclear’s vulnerabilities in a warming world. In summer 2025, prolonged heatwaves forced several French nuclear plants to reduce output or shut down entirely because the rivers and coastal waters used for cooling became too warm to operate safely. At sites including Golfech and Blayais operators had to curtail production, while the Gravelines plant faced additional disruption when swarms of jellyfish clogged its cooling systems. These incidents show how our changing climate can turn nuclear plants into operational white elephants at precisely the time electricity demand is high as people try to cool homes and buildings.

All energy sources produce carbon emissions over their lifecycle, but nuclear power stations typically emit more CO₂ per kilowatt-hour than wind or solar when construction, uranium mining, and waste management are included. For example, Sizewell C, currently under construction in Suffolk, is not expected to offset the emissions generated during its build phase until the late 2030s — well after the UK should have largely eliminated fossil fuels from electricity generation. Renewables, by contrast, deliver low-carbon power from day one.

Nuclear increases risk

Nuclear also carries long-term environmental and security risks. Coastal and riverside sites face rising sea levels and heatwave-induced water shortages, creating further potential for nuclear plants to become white elephants. They produce long-lived radioactive waste with no permanent disposal solution, are vulnerable to terrorism or armed conflict, and uranium mining causes serious ecological damage. 

Advocates argue nuclear is needed for “baseload” power because wind and solar are variable. But baseload is an outdated concept.

Modern grid operators emphasise flexibility — blending renewables, storage, and demand management — rather than relying on inflexible generators. Large nuclear plants cannot easily ramp output to match demand and risk creating the same mismatch that critics cite for renewable variability. Proposed small modular reactors (SMRs) are similarly problematic: only two operate commercially worldwide, they are unproven at scale, and early evidence suggests they may be even more expensive per unit of electricity while producing more toxic waste — another potential white elephant. 

Voters need real solutions, not white elephants

Meeting Scotland’s energy needs with renewables is feasible and cost-effective. Analyses suggest a renewable-first strategy could save the UK hundreds of billions compared to nuclear-centric plans, making the most of Scotland’s wind, solar, and engineering expertise. In contrast, costly nuclear projects risk becoming long-term white elephants — expensive, slow, and unsafe — at a time when voters need solutions that work now, not in a far distant future.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

French nuclear modulation to rise 11% to 35 TWh – Kpler

France’s nuclear power modulation – ramping reactors up and down to meet
demand and optimise fuel usage – will likely increase by 11% to 35 TWh this
year, up from 31.5 TWh in 2025, Kpler power analyst Alessandro Armenia said
on Thursday.

Montel 5th Feb 2026, https://montelnews.com/news/0ce52b4f-c919-4c3a-abdf-1ee5a3b67f5f/french-nuclear-modulation-to-rise-11-to-35-twh-kpler

February 14, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, France | Leave a comment

We’re being turned into an energy colony’: Argentina’s nuclear plan faces backlash over US interests

Gioia Claro and Denali DeGraf in Cerro Cóndor, Guardian, Argentina, 10 Feb 26

Push to restart uranium mining in Patagonia has sparked fears about the environmental impact and loss of sovereignty over key resources

On an outcrop above the Chubut River, one of the few to cut across the arid Patagonian steppe of southern Argentina, Sergio Pichiñán points across a wide swath of scrubland to colourful rock formations on a distant hillside.

“That’s where they dug for uranium before, and when the miners left, they left the mountain destroyed, the houses abandoned, and nobody ever studied the water,” he says, citing suspicions arising from cases of cancer and skin diseases in his community. “If they want to open this back up, we’re all pretty worried around here.”

Pichiñán lives in Cerro Cóndor, a hamlet with a sparse Indigenous Mapuche population due to the area’s harsh summers, cold winters and little rain. The National Atomic Energy Commission (CNEA) mined uranium here in the 1970s and it is now in focus as President Javier Milei aims to shift Argentina’s nuclear strategy.

The remote region sees few visitors, but in November, a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency visited as part of an Integrated Uranium Production Cycle Review. Cerro Solo, adjacent to the shuttered mines, is one of CNEA’s largest proven uranium deposits, and restarting mining of the ore is the first step in Milei’s new nuclear plan.

The others are to develop small modular reactors, use them to power AI datacentres, export reactors and uranium, and partially privatise Nucleoeléctrica, the state-owned nuclear energy utility.

Yet the plan is facing fierce criticism from both pro- and anti-nuclear voices. Argentina’s non-military nuclear programme is 75 years old. It exports research reactors that produce isotopes for medical radiology and science, and its three nuclear plants – Atucha I and II and Embalse – provide about 5% of the country’s electricity.

Uranium production in Chubut declined in the 1980s, and the mines were closed in the 1990s; since another closed in Mendoza in 1997, Argentina has imported uranium, so many see restarting uranium extraction as a strategic move.

Adriana Serquis, a nuclear physicist, is not so sure. She was president of CNEA until 2024 and was recently elected to congress. She says: “The plan doesn’t seem oriented toward supplying our own plants, but rather exporting uranium directly to the US. It would appear the objective is to satisfy others’ needs while destroying our own capabilities.”

Dioxitek, a state-run subsidiary of CNEA, processes imported uranium into uranium dioxide for use in Argentina’s power stations, but signed a commitment in August last year with the US-based Nano Nuclear Energy to supply it with uranium hexafluoride. As Argentina’s reactors run on natural or low-enriched uranium oxide rather than uranium hexafluoride, it is likely that any uranium extracted in Argentina would be exported to the US rather than be used for local energy production.

In parallel, Nano Nuclear Energy signed a memorandum of understanding with the British-Argentinian company UrAmerica, which has large holdings in Chubut and plans to mine uranium. One of the stated goals of the agreement is “strengthening US energy security by sourcing materials for nuclear fuel from a reliable partner”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

All this comes in the context of Milei’s chainsaw-style dismemberment of public research and environmental protection agencies. “Milei took office with a potent discourse of stigmatising science and technology, and rapidly defamed them across the board, from CNEA to the National Water Institute to the National Weather Service to public universities,” Hurtado says. “It’s catastrophic.”

Trade unions claim that between 80% and 90% of CNEA workers receive salaries below the poverty line – increasing emigration and brain drain. In 2024, the country’s secretariat for innovation, science and technology only spent 7% of its allocated budget. Public universities have seen budgets slashed.

Partially privatising the public nuclear utility, Nucleoeléctrica, sets off other alarm bells. The plan, formally launched by the economy ministry in November, aims to sell 44% of the state company to a private investor. Although not holding an absolute majority, the buyer would have the largest stake, giving them decision-making control.

Demian Reidel, Milei’s lead on nuclear matters, was the chair of the council of presidential advisers until being appointed as head of Nucleoeléctrica, where he is now facing a scandal about the company’s procurement and alleged overpricing of service and software contracts……………………………………………………………………………………

Chubut has a broad-based and deeply entrenched grassroots anti-mining movement. A 2003 referendum on open-pit gold-mining received an 81% “no” vote, leading to a law prohibiting the practice throughout the province. In 2021, lawmakers tried to open the central steppe to mining but withdrew after protesters blocked highways, swarmed the capital and set fire to government buildings.

The anti-nuclear movement goes back to the 1980s, when a radioactive waste dump was proposed near Gastre, a remote village in central Chubut. After years of popular opposition scuttled the project, cities and towns across Patagonia passed anti-nuclear ordinances banning the presence or transit of nuclear materials.

Now, near the old mine sites in central Chubut, tens of thousands of tonnes of old uranium tailings sit behind only a chain-link fence and a sign that says “Restricted Area”.

Orlando Carriqueo, spokesperson for the Mapuche-Tehuelche parliament of Río Negro, an Indigenous organisation in another Patagonian province, says public opinion in the region is concerned about the consequences of uranium mining for fuel production and about waste management. “We’re being turned into an energy colony,” he says.

Reports by CNEA over the past three administrations show no radiation monitoring at the site. Less than a kilometre away, the Río Chubut flows past on its way to supply drinking water to the towns of Trelew, Gaiman and Rawson on the Atlantic coast.

Pichiñán, riding his horse past the abandoned mines, says he fears that future generations could be deluded by the same broken promises of the past. “What happened back then, when they told us we were going to be rich? Where’s all that wealth? Where are the people who were going to have work and money?” he asks.

“I don’t want my child to be 30, 40 years old one day and have to show them this kind of abandonment,” he says. “Whatever happens, we can’t let them do this.”

The CNEA declined to comment. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/feb/09/energy-colony-argentina-patagonia-uranium-nuclear-plan-backlash-over-us-interests

February 12, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, SOUTH AMERICA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »