nuclear-news

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

Forget Sizewell C nuclear – go for a warm home plan

April 12, 2025, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/04/forget-sizewell-c-go-for-warm-home-plan.html

Sizewell C will cost much too much and there are much better alternatives. So says a new plan by Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C and Colin Hines of the Green New Deal Group. They argue that ‘there is a clear political advantage from halting Sizewell C and redirecting the billions saved into making millions of homes more energy efficient, thus reducing fuel poverty’. They say this approach ‘will benefit every city, town, village and hamlet in Britain. It will generate long term, secure jobs, particularly for young people. It will be quick to implement, so by the next election new jobs and cheaper, warmer, healthier homes will have appeared in every constituency’

By contrast, they say ‘should Sizewell C go ahead, it is expected to cost around £40bn between now and when it opens, potentially around 2040: an average of £2.7bn per year for the next 15 years’. But, ‘deducting money already spent, if Sizewell is cancelled now, the public money saved by 2030 is £7.1bn, assuming (as seems likely) no private investors are found to share the cost.’ And they propose that ‘this £7.1bn should be added to the £6.6bn to be spent over the current Parliament on home energy efficiency, as promised in Labour’s 2024 manifesto.’ They say ‘this shift of funds would massively increase the chances of achieving the Government’s aim to ‘Make Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero’.   

It certainly does sound a strong case. On costs, they say that ‘no European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) project has ever been completed even close to budget or on time. All six EPR reactors worldwide have or will cost at least double their expected budgets and are, or have been, six to 14 years late. The case of Hinkley Point C is especially stark: EDF’s most recent estimates of the construction cost is up to £35bn [2015], or £46bn in 2023 money – almost double its £18bn [2015] budget when the FID was taken in 2016. These costs do not include financing costs, which EDF has said might double the total construction cost. Hinkley’s Unit 1 is now delayed to between 2029 and 2031, four to six years late, with the second reactor at least a year behind. EDF has made five cost and completion revisions for Hinkley since FID, and with several years to go, it is implausible that there will not be further revisions.’ 

Claims that there will be ‘replication’ cost savings seem to be illusory: ‘Taishan 1 & 2 in China took well over double the predicted build time and were reportedly 50% over budget. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland was 14 years late and three times over budget, and Olkiluoto 4 was cancelled. Flamanville 3 in France came online (though is not yet up to full power) 12 years behind schedule and four times over budget; £11.2bn [2015] for a single reactor. These repeated failures suggest that learning from previous EPRs has not happened, and at £17.5bn [2015] for each of Hinkley’s two reactors, replication seems to have increased cost’.

As an alternative, the report argues, we should cancel Sizewell and use the money saved to boost home energy efficiency and the Warm Homes plan. It notes that ‘Labour has promised to invest an extra £6.6bn over the next Parliament, doubling the existing planned government investment, to upgrade five million homes to cut bills for families.’ It says the Warm Homes Plan ‘will offer grants & low interest loans to support investment in insulation and other improvements such as solar panels, batteries and low-carbon heating to cut bills. Another aim is to ensure homes in the private rented sector meet minimum energy efficiency standards by 2030, potentially saving renters hundreds of pounds per year.’ 

And it says this could and should be dramatically expanded, ‘by more than doubling its budget to decarbonise and make the UK’s 30 million homes & buildings energy-efficient’. It notes that ‘the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group (EEIG) estimates that to carry out all of the necessary work needed to dramatically reduce emissions from homes between now and 2030 will require at least 250,000 more tradespeople’.  And the report says that ‘were the Government to scrap Sizewell C and transfer the £7.1bn saved to making UK homes more energy efficient, this would allow it to fund what the EEIG describes as an ambitious zero-carbon skills strategy, working with industry, unions, schools, and colleges, to tackle any skills gaps that could hinder progress. Examples of required skills include those for designers, builders, and installers of energy-efficient and zero-carbon heating, for which demand will increase sharply. This should also result in a major expansion of high quality and advanced apprenticeships, backed up with new sector-led national colleges.’ And why not!  And they should start with the fuel poor and the left behind. 

That is very much what the new green heat campaign also has in mind- something that is also being pushed by the Association for Decentralised Energy.   It’s part of Labour International’s green deal, looking at all the new green technology options, aiming to create jobs locally, not least by releasing money from having to be spent on high cash-cost heat, with added environmental costs. It says that ‘clean heat can play a major role in regenerating flagging local economies, making them more attractive to new inward investment due to the improved levels of disposable household incomes that result from reduced energy outgoings and increased opportunities to secure better employment and income.  Higher levels of local economic demand are most likely to be expended in the local economies in which they arose, growing local economies wealth, health, resilience and prospects; beneficial economic outcomes that will feed up into the national economy.’ 

Is this sort of future going to happen?  The official position is that Sizewell C will be funded by recourse to the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, with consumers paying up-front, in advance, before construction even starts. It is claimed that this would mean that, all being well, developers and backers will face less investment risks than otherwise, and can pass on savings to consumers.  But will they? And will all go well?  There can be big delays and overspends, as we have seen in the past. The report notes that ‘RAB would require residential consumers… to potentially financing half the total construction cost,’ and, if it goes bad, they could even be stuck with paying off excesses into the 22nd Century, when the plant is forecast to be retired. 

The other key message from the developers and government is that we need more nuclear- to balance variable renewables. Well this is easily squashed. The last thing you want, if you are trying to back up a variable energy source, is a large, costly and inflexible one that can only run continuously at full output. There are plenty of alternative option for flexible balancing systems including short and long storage. With renewables booming and storage at last getting established, who needs Sizewell? Well it seems not EDF- so the UK has had to provide a further £2.7bn!

April 15, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Spain’s Nuclear Shutdown Set to Test Renewables Success Story

Plans to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2035 remain unchanged even as other countries delay closures and plan to build more.

Spain is moving forward
with plans to shut down its seven nuclear reactors over the next decade,
despite calls to reconsider, and will instead rely on renewables and
battery storage to fill the energy gap.

 Bloomberg 11th April 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-11/spain-s-nuclear-shutdown-set-to-test-renewables-success-story

April 14, 2025 Posted by | renewable, Spain | Leave a comment

‘An incredibly powerful tool’: Can AI solve its own energy problem?

Amber Rolt, 10 April 2025

New IEA study explores how AI is set to drive huge electricity demand while
at the same time offering potential to unlock ‘significant opportunities’
in energy improvements and emissions reductions.

When BusinessGreen asked
‘how bad is AI for the environment?’, ChatGPT had plenty to say. The
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool patiently responded that training large
language models such as itself are “extremely energy intensive”, explaining
that they use millions of kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, consume more
than 700,000 litres of water for cooling methods, and that each query has a
carbon footprint of up to 10 grams of CO2. “Because these tools are used
millions of times a day, it adds up,” ChatGPT added.

So there you have it,
straight from the horse’s mouth: AI’s impact on the environment and energy
systems is immense. And, according to a special new report from the
International Energy Agency (IEA) dedicated to the subject today, that
impact is set for rapid growth in the coming years. So much so, in fact,
that it warns AI holds potential to “transform the energy sector” over the
next decade.

Still, precisely what that transformation will look like is up
for debate. On the positive side, the report suggests AI can help energy
companies improve efficiency, develop technologies, and could contribute to
emissions reductions. But will these promised efficiencies and
technological improvements be enough to offset the huge surge in energy
demand needed to feed the rapidly growing numbers of data centres that AI
relies on?

Business Green 10th April 2025
https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4412130/incredibly-powerful-tool-ai-solve-energy

April 13, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Finland backs green hydrogen as Fortum pauses nuclear expansion

28 March 2025, Helsinki Times 

Finnish utility Fortum has ruled out new investments in nuclear power in the near term, citing low electricity prices in the Nordic market and high construction costs. The announcement came as Finland inaugurated its first industrial-scale green hydrogen plant, marking a shift in focus toward alternative energy technologies.

Fortum concluded a two-year study into the feasibility of building new nuclear reactors and determined that such investments are not commercially viable under current market conditions.

New nuclear could provide new supply to the Nordics earliest in the second half of the 2030s, if market and regulatory conditions are right,” said Markus Rauramo, CEO of Fortum.

The company will instead focus on expanding renewable power generation, increasing storage capacity, and extending the life of existing nuclear facilities, including the Loviisa nuclear plant.

The company’s Vice President for New Nuclear, Laurent Leveugle, said a risk-sharing model would be required to make future nuclear investments possible.

“We are not saying that the state has to pay for it, but that the risk must be shared with the different parties: technology providers, investors, utilities, and also the state,” Leveugle told Reuters…………………….

While Fortum has paused new nuclear plans, Finland is pressing ahead with new green energy initiatives. On 26 March 2025, P2X Solutions inaugurated the country’s first industrial-scale green hydrogen production plant in Harjavalta. The event was attended by Alexander Stubb, President of the Republic of Finland.

“Finland has everything it takes to become a clean energy superpower,” Stubb said during his speech at the inauguration……………………………………………………………………………

As Fortum turns to renewables and lifetime extensions for existing nuclear facilities, and P2X accelerates hydrogen development, Finland’s energy policy is shifting toward flexible and decentralised solutions.

The Nordic power market has experienced prolonged periods of low electricity prices, driven by increased renewable capacity and lower demand growth. Fortum has warned that these conditions are not sufficient to support capital-intensive projects like nuclear reactors without regulatory reforms or direct financial support……………………………………………..

Finland’s approach to energy diversification comes amid broader European efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy security. Green hydrogen and advanced storage systems are seen as essential components of this transition.

Fortum’s position reflects growing caution among European utilities over the costs and risks associated with new nuclear builds. The company has yet to release any cost estimates for new reactors, but industry analysts say capital requirements often exceed €10 billion per unit and construction timelines stretch over a decade.

By contrast, modular hydrogen projects like those developed by P2X Solutions involve lower upfront costs and shorter lead times. They also benefit from growing political and financial support across the EU…………………….https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/business/26416-finland-backs-green-hydrogen-as-fortum-pauses-nuclear-expansion.html

April 1, 2025 Posted by | Finland, renewable | Leave a comment

As Nuke Power Dies, Lithium Must Not Be the New Plutonium

 https://columbusfreepress.com/article/nuke-power-dies-lithium-must-not-be-new-plutonium-2 30 Mar 25

Atomic Energy’s death spiral has spawned a run to green power.  

But the toxic mineral lithium has become a critical pitfall…with clear ways around it that demand attention. 

 Humankind’s 400+ licensed large commercial reactors embody history’s most expensive technological failure.

Once hyped as “too cheap to meter,” just three “Peaceful Atom” plants have opened in the US since 1996, all of them very late and hugely over budget.  Four at Japan’s Fukushima blew up in 2011, with ever-escalating economic, ecological and biological costs.  Two in South Carolina are outright $9 billion failures.  Projects in Georgia (US), Finland, France and the UK have come with catastrophic delays, overruns and cancellations.  So have much-hyped Small Modular Reactors, and the taxpayer-funded idea of restarting nukes already dead.  

And in the post DeepSeek era, gargantuan projected power demands for Artificial Intelligence and crypto are coming back to Earth.  

Meanwhile the US now gets far more usable electricity from solar, wind and geothermal than from coal or nuclear.  China’s wind/solar investments now dwarf its nukes, whose new construction plans are shrinking fast .  Likewise those for the world as a whole (except among countries wanting to build nuclear weapons). 

Despite nearly seven decades of operation, commercial atomic power still can’t get comprehensive private insurance against the next Fukushima.  The recent (likely Russian) February 24, 2025 explosion at Chernobyl warned that a single drone or military mis-hap could ignite yet another mega-radiation release. 

None of which will deter a radioactive grab for taxpayer billions.  While gutting government, Team Trump is hell-bent to spew still more money at this dying technology.  New nukes, SMRs and zombie reactor revivals will get gargantuan sums while generating little if any actual electricity.  Corporate Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer will do all they can to stall the green revolution.  

Nonetheless, amidst the global rush to renewables, the toxic, expensive mineral lithium is slated for millions of batteries worldwide.

Some will be at the heart of electric cars.  Others will back up solar and wind turbines for “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.”

Powerful, efficient, and relatively lightweight, lithium has been viewed as essential for use in electric vehicles and stationary storage.  Billions of dollars have been invested in mining, milling and  processing lithium, with far more to come.  At its best, it has been envisioned at the core of any green-powered transition.

But lithium is volatile, flammable, toxic, challenging to mine, sustain and re-cycle, with ecological, labor and health issues that must be addressed. 

On January 15 and February 18, 2025, fire devastated the 300mgw Moss Landing, California, battery storage facility, among the world’s largest.  Faulty maintenance and major techno-failures set 80% of the plant ablaze, emitting massive toxic fallout.  So have Tesla vehicles burned in accidents, wildfires and protests.  

Health impacts already reported by lithium downwinders tragically recall symptoms from poisonous disasters like Bhopal (India), East Palestine (Ohio), Three Mile Island (PA) and elsewhere.  Lithium mining can be ecologically destructive, with significant health and labor issues.

Thankfully, there are superior substitutes on the near horizon.  Sodium Ion batteries are heavy, but can be far cheaper, cleaner to mine and easier to recycle than lithium.  Chinese auto giant BYD now offers a sodium iron battery sedan cheaper than a lithium Tesla.  Iron air, aqueous (water) metal ion, gallium nitride and other unexpected players are likely (sooner or later) to have their place.  

When it comes to the millions of solar panels poised to bury nuke power worldwide, activists concerned with electric/magnetic radiation warn that DC/AC “dirty” current must also be carefully managed, requiring updated filters, inverters, micro-grids and more.  There are also the on-going problems of eco-destructive bio-fuel production and persistent turbine bird kills.  

Fossil/nuclear backers are forever happy to weaponize such techno-challenges.  Solartopian advocates have no choice but to fully face them.

Lithium may be a long way from plutonium, high level radioactive waste, or the airborne fallout that cursed Hiroshima andNagasaki, Fukushima and Chernobyl.  There are known solar solutions to EMF/inverter challenges.  The kwh/bird kill problem has been steadily improving.

While wind turbines don’t kill fish, fossil/nuke burners kill trillions.  Agri-voltaics on solarized farmland can be hugely productive.  Micro-grids are orders of magnitude safer, cleaner and more efficient than the utility power lines that ignite our forests and cities.  

But on a planet we must preserve, in a volatile political and ecological climate, mere “trade-offs” may not be good enough.

With VERY significant economic realities on our side, green advocates can and must phase out not only King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes, Gas) but also lithium and other toxic elements, along with EMF emissions, poorly deployed inverters, bird kills, disrupted desert eco-systems, faulty grids, and more.  

Perfection may not always be possible…but we need to rapidly evolve to pretty damn close.

Thankfully, unlike the forever escalating cost overruns, delays, techno-failures and eco-impacts of fossil/nuclear fuels, the barriers to overcome on the way to Solartopia seem largely curable, at prices that are sustainable and rewards that are essentially infinite.  

March 31, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

How bloated energy supply projections are usually wrong – a history of energy efficiency tells us why

David Toke, Substack, Mar 23, 2025

There’s a general belief going around about surging energy demand in developed countries like the USA and the UK. Goldman Sachs, for example, has been leading the chorus proclaiming massive AI-led increases in energy demand (See HERE). But such claims are likely much exaggerated. They are the latest in a history of falsely predicted energy bubbles. These have served the interests of the big energy corporations and their bizarre demands for state funding of technologies like small modular reactors (see my post HERE). I want to discuss this history of bloated projections of future energy consumption. I want to talk about how it is that they are false prophets, both in history and now.

Yes, we need to electrify the economy to make it more energy-efficient using things like heat pumps and EVs. These technologies will increase electricity demand, but they will actually reduce overall energy demand, not increase it. The stories about ‘surging’ energy demand imply absolute increases in energy consumption, not relative shifts.

The (historical) role of bloated projections of future energy consumption has been to distract attention from energy efficiency improvements. These are important, if not the overriding, means through which the bloated energy projections are confounded. It is doubly true today when we desperately need to encourage energy efficiency through electrification. This will reduce emissions, increase energy security and create more demand for renewable energy.

A history of bloated energy projections

Bloated projections in the USA

Yes, we’ve been here before. The big energy corporations with their demands for massive investment in centralised power plant trade on the fact that the general public do not remember the past and the inaccuracy of the past claims of massive increases in energy consumption.

In the 1970s it became clear that the world could not survive unsustainable increases in energy production and pollution. This was, by the way, before climate change became a major issue even within the green movement. Amory Lovins led the way in charting a strategy based on decentralised energy consumption in a book called ‘Soft Energy Paths’. published in 1977. He noted how the US Government and its agencies were predicting a doubling of energy consumption in the year 2000 compared to 1975 (note: all energy not just electricity). They were predicting a massive increase in reliance on coal and nuclear power.

Lovins talked about what he called an alternative ‘soft energy path’ to this ‘hard energy path’. In his projection total energy projection increased by only around a third by 2000, and thereafter began to decline (pages 29 and 38 compared)1. He mused about how solar photovoltaics ‘could be used, to increase the range of functions now performed by electricity’ (page 143). Amazingly his projection of total US energy consumption by 2000 turned out to be broadly correct, even though many of his general policy rescriptions were not adopted. Energy consumption increased by only around a third compared to the confident predictions made by Government agencies and reports supported by big corporations.


Exaggeration of future energy demand is the usual practice of the Government. The US Government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes a lot of very useful data about energy. However its future energy projections are riddled with overestimations………………………………………..

I am focusing on the USA because I have more data for this discussion. The same general position holds in the UK………………………………

As we can see, overblown energy projections are now manifesting themselves in new ways. In Australia, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) is being criticised for imagining a future natural gas supply shortage. This is despite the fact that natural gas use in Australia is declining because of increasing electrification of services (See HERE).

How energy efficiency deflates bloated energy demand projections

Energy efficiency is the creeping destroyer of energy demand projections. I call it ‘creeping’ energy efficiency because this is often missed by people who are modeling projections of future energy. They simply do not know what improvements in energy efficiency there are going to be. But they do know how much is generated by power stations or supplied by gas. So they just do multiplication sums involving the supply-side data they do know about and they do not make radical enough assumptions about the development of energy efficiency.

Recently I have seen projections of the impact of AI on energy consumption derived by assuming a constant relationship between the amount of AI and data centres and energy consumption. They then multiply the expected expansion of AI by the current expected energy consumption of AI and arrive at some very large quantities. But this is stupid.

It is as if somebody in the year 1900 was projecting how much coal was going to be used in power stations in the future relying on the energy efficiency of a coal-fired power plant existing in 1900. This was around 10 percent (ie 10 percent of the coal’s energy was converted into electricity). Of course, this energy efficiency increased, ultimately to over 40 percent. So anybody doing these sums about future coal consumption would have gotten their answers absurdly wrong. Nowadays coal is on its way out, in the West, at least. But as will coal-fired power plants, the efficiencies of AI will improve. This may happen very rapidly.

Early 2025 saw the emergence of DeepSeek, an AI system that is radically cheaper than other US based systems. They, reportedly, have reduced energy consumption by around 75 per cent (see HERE), or perhaps even more according to some estimates (see HERE). Other companies will have to try to emulate their success since they will struggle to compete if they do not. According to an analysis of the company’s efforts:

‘DeepSeek’s research team disclosed that they used significantly fewer chips than their competitors to train their model. While major AI companies rely on supercomputers with 16,000+ chips, DeepSeek achieved comparable results using just 2,000. This strategic approach could mark a turning point in AI energy efficiency and resource allocation.’ (see HERE)

After the emergence of DeepSeek, much of the conversation on the energy demand from AI centres briefly paused. Then, the lessons of the example of DeepSeek apparently lost the cacophony of voices carried on from before in the vein of talking about ‘surging’ AI-related demand for energy.

So as was the case with coal-fired power plants, the efficiencies of AI will improve. This will happen very rapidly indeed if DeepSeek is anything to go by since the other AI companies will have to keep up with improving efficiencies and cutting costs if they are to keep up with the competition.

…………………. even in the case of the USA, it has all been much overblown. Certainly AI and data centers are unlikely to produce a substantial increase in energy demand in the UK. Indeed, AI is likely to induce declines in energy consumption, as I argue in an earlier post (see HERE).

Energy Efficient lighting

A good case study of how energy efficiency almost silently hacks away at energy is lighting…………………………………………………………………………….

Future energy efficiency

Often talk about likely increases in electricity consumption to power more energy-efficient technologies like EVs and heat pumps becomes confused with talk about surges in energy demand through data centres (which are overblown, as I argue). Heat pumps and EVs will reduce energy consumption overall – by pretty large amounts. Battery-electric technology will expand to all of transport (ultimately even including aircraft). Heat pumps will provide residential, commercial, and industrial space heating. The energy-saving potential is immense. Up to half of all energy consumption could be saved. Energy consumption has already stabilised in most western states – and has reduced in some such as the UK.

Conclusion

As we have seen, in the past clams of projected surges in energy demand have been undermined by greater energy efficiency. So why is it that demands for energy supply increases to meet overblown estimations of surges in energy demand receive so much more publicity than energy efficiency?

One major reason is that big corporations whose interests are concerned with building large power stations have concentrated political power. The lobby for greater energy efficiency has a much more diffuse base. But today the renewable energy lobbies and the energy efficiency lobbies should have a much keener interest in working together. To create a much bigger market for renewable electricity, electrification needs to be rapidly developed.

One problem that obscures this, and makes the energy supply lobby ignore energy efficiency, is that the electricity supply and natural gas supply interests are intertwined. AEMO in Australia feels the need to bang the drum for natural gas, even though electrification is more efficient and more sustainable than natural gas. The big energy corporations tend to sell both electricity and gas, and so they will try and promote both of them.

We need to combat the influence of the big corporations. We need to put our shoulders on the wheel in backing incentives and regulations to be shifted in favour of energy efficiency. Otherwise the energy transition will take much longer to happen.
https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-bloated-energy-supply-projections

March 25, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

27-year-old chemist discovers a process for recycling rare earths.

Gordon Edwards, 17 Mar 25 – The article copied below, translated by Google Translate, adds an optimistic note to the rise of renewables as the most affordable choice for rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Toxic materials are often used in the construction and operation of industrial infrastructure of many kinds. This includes renewable energy equipment such as wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables.

The so-called “rare earths” (also named “lanthanides”) are a group of 17 metals in the 
periodic table that have unusual properties that are ideal for use in electronic and electricity generating devices. Mining these metals is very dangerous for the workers and the environment. The metals themselves have a high chemical toxicity. But they are needed for renewable energy systems as well as many other electronic applications.

Note, however, that wind and solar do not create toxic waste. They simply make use of these naturally-occurring toxic materials that can, in principe, be recycled and used again and again. Recycling and reusing such toxic materials ought to be an essential built-in requirement of renewable energy systems.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, literally creates hundreds of highly toxic new elements that cannot be recycled or re-used for civilian purposes simply because they are too radioactive – meaning their atoms are unstable and will spontaneously disintegrate, giving off biologically damaging atomic radiation. A radioactive variety (“isotope”) of any given element is always much more toxic than the non-radioactive variety of the same element.

Even the finest stainless steal and zirconium-alloy structures used in the core of a nuclear reactor will have to be kept out of the environemnt of living things for thousands of years as radioactive waste. These originally non-radioactive metals have become intensely radioactuve. 

Such is not the case with materials used in wind and solar. No new toxic materials are created, and those toxics that are used can be recycled and reused many times.

Ironically, one of the reasons why rare earths are so dangerous to mine is because of the inevitable presence of radioactive elements – uranium, thorium and their decay products – leading to excessive exposure to radon gas and radioactive dust that can be very harmful over the long term. It turns out that rare earths have a strong geochemical affinity with uranium and thorium, the two principle primordial radionuclides on Earth.

P.S. 
One of the reasons why Donald Trump wants to acquire Greenland is because there is a mountain of rare earth ores near the Inuit community of Narsaq. Thanks to Nancy Covington and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Canada (IPPNWC) (then called Physicians for Global Survival) I was sent to Narsaq in 2016 to explain the radioactive dangers of mining that mountain, called Kvanefjeld in Danish or Kuannersuit in Greenlandic (the native Inuit language).

ETH Chemist Discovers Process for Recycling Rare Earths 

The mining of rare earths is environmentally harmful and controlled by China. Chemist Marie Perrin (27) has developed a method that could solve both problems.

“Why is the sky blue? How do clouds form?” Marie Perrin asked herself as a child. “Even then, I was very curious,” she recalls. Her curiosity not only ensured that the daughter of two scientists understood the world around her better with each passing year. It could also soon be a reason why this world is changing. The now 27-year-old and her team at ETH Zurich have developed a method for recycling rare earths.

Important Resource for the Energy Transition
Rare earths are 17 metals that are used in all modern devices: in batteries, smartphones and computers, in wind turbines and electric cars. “They’re all around us,” says Perrin, “but only one percent of all rare earths are recycled.” Recycling is important because the energy transition is requiring ever more rare earths. Their extraction is not only expensive but also highly harmful to the environment and often releases radioactivity.

There’s also a geopolitical problem looming over them: Around 70 percent of rare earths are mined in China. What this could mean for the rest of the world became clear in 2010, when a conflict arose between China and Japan. China informally stopped exports of rare earths to Japan. Prices rose by over 1,000 percent, and supply shortages arose around the world. “If you compare it to oil, the largest exporting countries have a market share of 30 to 40 percent,” explains Marie Perrin.

Lightbulbs made from ETH waste 
“We were lucky to have discovered this method,” recalls Perrin. Originally, her research had nothing to do with the recycling of rare earths. But she discovered that the molecules she was studying had the potential to do just that. The chemist devoted herself to her research: “I fished old energy-saving light bulbs out of the ETH recycling bins and experimented with them in the lab,” says Perrin. Until she succeeded in separating the rare earth europium from the light bulb.

Perrin compares the process to baking pizza: Imagine mixing a pinch of salt into pizza dough. How can you recover the salt that has now dispersed throughout the dough? You need something that can distinguish and separate the elements in the dough from those in the salt. 

In Marie Perrin’s case, this ingredient is called tetrathiometalate. “Using the known methods, this process had to be repeated several times,” explains Perrin. “This requires an enormous amount of resources.” With Perrin’s process, the rare earth europium can be separated from the other elements in a light bulb in a high degree of purity in a single step.

Initiative Required 
Perrin’s research team published their results in the journal Nature Communications, filed a patent, and was faced with the question: What next? “Either you sell the license to larger chemical companies or you develop the technology further in-house,” explains Perrin. “It was clear to me that I wanted to do it myself.” The risk of the process gathering dust in a drawer at a large company was too great for her – as was her curiosity to find out where the technology could lead her. 

Together with an old school friend and her doctoral supervisor, Marie Perrin founded the startup REEcover. The goal: to make the process scalable with light bulbs in a first step. In a second step, it will be expanded to include other of the 16 remaining rare earths. “I’m a researcher and had no entrepreneurial experience,” says the Frenchwoman. But her curiosity drives her forward here too: “There’s something new every day, which is fun.

“A Promising Future“
Our timing is good,” Perrin is aware. The European Union passed a law on critical raw materials in 2024. One of the goals of the law is to reduce dependence on rare earths from China. This is another reason why REEcover is considered one of the most promising startups at ETH.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | renewable | Leave a comment

How the IEA is grossly biased against renewables – the IEA should be scrapped

David Toke, Mar 11, 2025

The International Energy Agency (the IEA) is hopelessly biased against renewable energy both in terms of the projections of future energy development it has made and also in the way it frames the statistics about energy supply. The statistical methods used by the IEA favour fossil fuels and nuclear power. The IEA does not give sufficient attention to energy efficiency. These things can be illustrated by reference to analysis of its past energy projections and also by analysing the way it counts energy statistics. The question that must be posed, is what is the point of the IEA if it gets things so badly wrong…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Conclusion

The way that the IEA compiles its statistics is grossly biased against renewable energy and in favour of fossil fuels and nuclear power. Its future energy projections have been abysmal, and this failure illustrates its appalling bias. The IEA’s approach also obscures the impact of energy transition which will involve increasing dominance by electric-battery and heat pump technologies. The IEA fails to give priority to energy efficiency. Rather it tends to talk more about absolute increases in energy consumption, such as in data centres (for example see HERE).

Yet such notions of accelerated absolute increases in energy consumption have already proved to be overblown. This is demonstrated by China’s DeepSeek AI project which is being powered by a small fraction of the energy consumption of earlier AI projects (See HERE). The IEA is also keen on pushing nuclear power fantasies, including small modular reactors (see HERE).

In general the IEA tends to talk about energy security rather than energy transition, as can be seem in the executive summary of its 2024 World Energy Energy Outlook (see HERE). Yet energy transition will implicitly give us energy security. It will do through the replacement of of insecure and volatile fossil fuel supplies with renewable energy and electrically based energy efficient technologies.

The key to understand this is that the IEA is not independent in focus or finance. The IEA is financed by a collection of mostly western governments. We should remember that the IEA was formed to, in effect, help western countries cope with the fact that the western based oil companies lost control of oil markets after 1973. The Secretariat is based in nuclear-dominated France. The information it gives is seriously flawed.

The conditions which led to the IEA’s formation have fundamentally changed. Our biggest challenge now is energy transition and the climate struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IEA’s projections are wholly unreliable and its statistics give a false impression of what is happening.

The main energy trade groups already have their own trade associations – eg IRENA for renewables, the WNA for nuclear, and we know that the oil and gas companies look after themselves. The IEA serves no useful purpose. It needs to be scrapped. A new intergovernmental organisation could be created, to which the IEA staff could be redeployed, with a mission of promoting energy efficiency technologies. https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-the-iea-is-grossly-biased-against

March 14, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY | Leave a comment

Most Contaminated U.S. Nuclear Site Is Set to Be the Largest Solar Farm.

Plans to transform Hanford, which was integral to the nation’s nuclear arsenal after World War II, had just begun inching forward when President Trump started his second term.

New York Times, By Keith Schneider, Reporting from Richland, Wash, March 5, 2025, 

In the weeks since President Trump has taken office, he has pushed to unleash oil and gas production and has signed executive orders halting the country’s transition to renewable energy.

But in Washington State, a government-led effort has just started to build what is expected to be the country’s largest solar generating station. The project is finally inching forward, after decades of cleaning up radioactive and chemical waste in fits and starts, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a sweep of desert that was pivotal to the nation’s weapons arsenal from 1943 until it was shut down in 1989. A developer, Hecate, was brought on last year to turn big stretches of the site into solar farms.

Hecate will have access to 10,300 acres that the government has determined sufficiently safe to redevelop. The company has already started site evaluation on 8,000 acres, an area nearly 10 times the size of Central Park in New York and enough space for 3.45 million photovoltaic panels. (Hanford’s site is nearly 400,000 acres.)

If all goes according to plan, the Hecate project, which is expected to be completed in 2030, will be by far the largest site the government has cleaned up and converted from land that had been used for nuclear research, weapons and waste storage. It is expected to generate up to 2,000 megawatts of electricity — enough roughly to supply all the homes in Seattle, San Francisco, and Denver — and store 2,000 more in a large battery installation at a total cost of $4 billion. The photovoltaic panels and batteries will provide twice as much energy as a conventional nuclear power plant. The nation’s current biggest solar plant, the Copper Mountain Solar Facility in Nevada, can generate up to 802 megawatts of energy.

The big unknown still hanging over the plan is whether the Trump administration will thwart efforts that the Biden administration put in place to develop more clean electricity generation………………………………………….

While a clean energy project may clash with Mr. Trump’s policies, there’s a reason the administration may allow Hecate’s solar development to move forward: the revenue the government will get for the land lease. Hecate and the Energy Department declined to discuss the land’s market value, but private solar developers in the region said such easements typically paid landowners $300 an acre annually.

Two officials at the Energy Department, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, said that neither the president nor the leaders of the administration’s effort to reshape federal agencies had yet to intervene in the solar project, but that the future of the initiative was uncertain. One of the officials said the new energy secretary, Chris Wright, a former oil executive, had not yet reviewed the project as of late February.

Alex Pugh, Hecate’s director of development, said the company was moving ahead despite shifting political winds. “The fundamentals of the project are strong regardless of policy direction,” he said. “The region needs the project. There is a huge demand for electricity here.”

…………………….Hecate identified the large expanse of open ground alongside high-voltage transmission lines at Hanford as a potential site for its plant several years ago, Mr. Pugh said — long before the Energy Department solicited proposals. The potential benefits, he said, were plainly apparent.

………………….What they also have, however, is risk. The site where Hecate plans to build its photovoltaic panels is near an area where groundwater and soil were decontaminated and alongside an experimental 400-megawatt nuclear reactor complex that was decommissioned in 2001. It’s also about 20 miles south of B Reactor, the world’s first full-scale nuclear reactor, which produced the plutonium for the atomic

March 7, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

UK Energy Secretary Signals China Pivot

By Irina Slav – Feb 28, 2025,
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Energy-Secretary-Signals-China-Pivot.html

UK’s energy secretary is reportedly scheduled to travel to China next month in a bid to forge a closer relationship with the country, despite it being seen by previous governments in London as a threat to national security.

The report comes from Reuters, which spoke to unnamed sources close to Ed Miliband, who said the top energy member of the UK cabinet will discuss alternative energy sources in China. What he will not discuss, per the sources, is nuclear energy.

The UK’s Labour government is looking to mend fences with China after the last series of Conservative cabinets all demonstrated mistrust and suspicion to Beijing, in sync with the EU and the United States. However, the Starmer government has signaled it was willing to change this, diverging from the EU/U.S. course of import tariffs and accusations of national security attacks on the part of the Chinese.

In the energy sector, Chinese equipment and components are crucial for the Starmer government’s transition efforts as the country is the largest producer of things such as solar panels, wind turbines, and inverters. It is also the lowest-cost producer, ironically thanks to the amount of coal-powered generation Chinese manufacturers use to make the transition components.

The UK has some of the most ambitious transition goals in the world, aiming to generate as much as 95% of its electricity from non-hydrocarbon sources. As part of efforts to achieve this, the government has committed to doubling onshore wind energy by 2030, quadrupling offshore wind, and trebling solar power by the end of the decade.

To do this, the Starmer government would need to speed up the pace of growth in wind and solar capacity considerably. In offshore wind alone, the government would need to approve more offshore capacity in the next two annual renewable energy auctions, than it has approved in the last six auctions, the country’s grid operator warned last year.

March 3, 2025 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Solar a beacon of hope as Ukrainians yearn for peace

Solar a beacon of hope as Ukrainians yearn for peace. Solar energy has been
essential for survival in Ukraine during nearly three years of war since
the Russian invasion in 2022. As citizens hope for peace, PV will be
instrumental in supporting post-war recovery, whenever it comes.

PV Magazine 19th Feb 2025,
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/02/19/solar-a-beacon-of-hope-as-ukrainians-yearn-for-peace/

February 23, 2025 Posted by | renewable, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Green power- not for us?


 Renew Extra 15th Feb 2025

The Social Market Foundation, a cross-party think-tank, says that 48% of UK survey respondents felt the ‘green transition’ was ‘happening to them, not with them’.  And 63% thought it wouldn’t work anyway. Certainly there has been some opposition to some green polices, and there have been claims that Starmer’s plan to remove ‘infrastructure blockers’, for example local objectors to green energy projects like wind and solar farms, and the extra grid links needed for them, could backfire.  Although Labours plans for ‘pushing past nimbyism’ and putting many new small nuclear plants around the country could also attract fierce local opposition. In this case, small isn’t green- indeed, as well as potentially costing more, SMRs may actually increase security, safety and waste management problem. Lots of issues there too then…………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………  for the present, wind, on and offshore, and solar, large and small, are by far the main contenders for UK power supply, with wind, now at 30% of UK power, already overtaking natural gas.  That’s good news, but, as David Toke has noted, with heat supply still not seriously being addressed, if we really do want to get to net zero soon, then the pressure will be on to get all the existing renewable options expanding even more rapidly- along with storage. And, I would add, also getting inputs from new sources like tidal turbines as fast as possible.  As well as paying proper attention to energy saving and energy efficiency- the cash and carbon saving option that few oppose, but sadly too few actually adopt.       https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/02/green-power-not-for-us.html

February 17, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Octopus Energy launches renewables investment platform for consumers

 Octopus Energy, the UK’s largest energy supplier, has launched an
investment platform allowing consumers to buy shares of a renewable energy
project. Octopus has launched ‘the Collective’ which it says is a
first-of-its-kind initiative that enables customers to invest in renewables
themselves. There is a minimum investment requirement of £25 but, since
there are no fees and the Collective is free to join, all returns go to the
investor. A YouGov survey revealed that 33% of Brits want to invest in
green power; Octopus says that by becoming the first energy company in the
UK with a retail investment platform regulated by the Financial Conduct
Authority (FCA), it will meet this demand.

 Current 10th Feb 2025 https://www.current-news.co.uk/octopus-energy-launches-renewables-investment-platform-for-consumers/

February 13, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Prioritizing nuclear power and natural gas over renewable energy is a risky move for Ontario’s energy future

Norman W. Park, The Conversation, 11 Feb 25

The demand for electricity is growing rapidly as the world transitions from fossil fuels to low carbon-emitting forms of energy. However, making this transition will be difficult.

Ontario is projected to require 75 per cent more electricity by 2050, spurred by increasing demand from the industrial sector, data centres, electric vehicle (EV) adoption and households, according to the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO).

To meet this demand, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce has proposed transforming the province into an “energy superpower” by aggressively expanding nuclear energy and natural gas while cutting support for wind and solar renewable energy.

This plan was spelled out in a policy directive from Lecce instructing the IESO to consider bids from all energy sources, opening the door to allow bids from natural gas and nuclear energy.

This is a departure from previous policies. Previously, under former Energy Minister Todd Smith, the IESO had stipulated bids for the electrical grid should only be from wind, solar, hydro or biomass.

The Ontario government should reconsider these plans. Non-renewable energy sources are costly, rely on new, expensive technologies, ignore the harm to human health and ignore the consequences for global warming.

Expanding nuclear

A central pillar of the Ontario government’s energy plan is the aggressive expansion of nuclear power. The province has committed to refurbishing 14 CANDU reactors at Bruce, Darlington and Pickering, and has proposed constructing new reactors at Bruce.

Ontario is also the first jurisdiction in the world to contractually build a BWRX–300 small modular reactor project at Darlington, despite not knowing its projected cost.

The cost of this small modular reactor may be much higher than similarly sized solar, wind and natural gas projects. This is unsurprising, given that the costs of nuclear projects are often much higher than projected.

Ontario encountered a similar issue when the Darlington nuclear generating station was constructed. The actual costs of nuclear projects were more than double projected costs and took almost six years longer to complete than projected.

Given these historical challenges and uncertainties, the province’s push for nuclear expansion is a cause for concern.

Opposition to wind and solar

Despite significant cost reductions in utility-scale wind and solar farms, which makes them less expensive than nuclear and fossil fuels in many parts of the world, Ontario’s recent policy directive reduced support for these non-emitting renewable energy sources…………………………………………………………..

Reconsidering Ontario’s energy transition

Ontario’s energy transition must involve supplying more energy to an expanding electrical grid while ensuring it remains reliable and resilient. The current government’s plans to turn the province into an “energy superpower” will commit Ontario to decades of costly expenditures and relies on unproven new technologies.

The government’s proposal to increase natural gas to supply the electricity grid and new buildings will increase the risk of premature death and serious illness to Ontarians and will increase greenhouse gas emission, undermining efforts to combat global warming.

Lecce should reconsider his current policy directive to the IESO. Future bids for the electrical grid should instead be evaluated for their impacts on the health of Ontario residents and climate change.

Ontario’s energy policies should also be guided by knowledgeable experts outside of government, rather than solely by politicians. Establishing a blue-ribbon committee comprising energy scientists and environmental specialists would provide needed oversight and ensure the province’s energy strategy is cost-effective, technologically sound and aligned with climate goals.

Ontario has an opportunity to lead by example in balancing energy needs with environmental and health priorities.  https://theconversation.com/prioritizing-nuclear-power-and-natural-gas-over-renewable-energy-is-a-risky-move-for-ontarios-energy-future-246289

February 12, 2025 Posted by | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

With calls for nuclear, are Scottish Labour stuck in the 70s?

BE careful what you wish for. I’ve dreamt all my life of the harnessing of robots
and artificial intelligence, enabling a wondrous and liberated human
civilisation. And now you tell me their power needs mean we must build more
domestic nuclear reactors? Sometimes the big narratives really don’t line
up.

We live in a country where renewable energy provided 113% of
Scotland’s overall electricity consumption in 2022 – and it’s set to
ascend over the coming decades. It’s an infrastructural build-out which
is, rightly, one solid plank in the economic and societal case for
independence.

The sense that a Scottish national future is desirable comes
significantly from the vigour, the virtue – and the permanence – of our
renewables sector. So it was jarring, as well as embarrassing, to hear Anas
Sarwar deride John Swinney in Holyrood on Thursday as “trapped in the
1970s”, as the First Minister resisted Labour’s calls for a new wave of
nuclear power plants across the UK. What could be more 70s than
atomics+computers = progress!

 The National 8th Feb 2025 https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24920161.calls-nuclear-scottish-labour-stuck-70s/

February 11, 2025 Posted by | politics, renewable, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »