nuclear-news

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

Germany: One exit and back? The role of nuclear power in the Merz coalition.

April 14, 2025, by Joachim Wille Note, abbreviation, background, and translation – Dieter Kaufmann, Working Group Against Nuclear Facilities, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

“SMRs will hardly be able to produce electricity more cheaply than conventional new nuclear power plants, unless thousands of them are mass-produced, which is not at all foreseeable.”

Although desired by some members of the Merz coalition, there will be no comeback for nuclear power plants. Joachim Wille philosophizes about the reasons.

Berlin – For a while, it looked as if the future Merz coalition would reverse the shutdown of the most recently shut-down nuclear power plants. The CDU/CSU, by far the largest partner, pushed for reversing the phase-out. The paper from the grand coalition’s “Energy and Climate” exploratory group stated – colored in the CDU/CSU blue – the CDU/CSU’s wish: “Nuclear energy can play a significant role, particularly with regard to climate goals and security of supply.”

Union backtracks on nuclear power: Coalition agreement seals Germany’s nuclear phase-out

But the coalition agreement recently presented by Merz and his colleagues no longer mentions any of this. This is an unmistakable signal: Germany is sticking to its nuclear phase-out, which was initiated in 2011 by CDU Chancellor Angela Merkel after the Fukushima disaster.

And this despite the fact that the public image of nuclear power has turned positive. The last three nuclear power plants in Germany were shut down two years ago. Today, however, according to a survey, a narrow majority of Germans (55 percent) support a return to nuclear energy, while 36 percent oppose it.

In politics, the CDU/CSU could have seen its pro-nuclear stance vindicated. It wanted to investigate whether the recently shut-down reactors could still be reactivated, and possibly even build new mini-reactors, as well as invest more money in the promising future of nuclear fusion. In the current representative Verivox survey, almost a third of respondents (32 percent) favor building new nuclear power plants, while another 22 percent would like to see only the most recently decommissioned plants brought back online.

After the Fukushima disaster: The Bundestag in Berlin voted in 2011 to shut down nuclear power plants

The phase-out of nuclear power, which at its peak provided around a third of the electricity consumed in Germany, was finally sealed by the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster. In 2011, the Bundestag passed a cross-party resolution to gradually shut down the 17 nuclear power plants still in operation at the time.

After the reactor meltdowns in Japan, which rendered an entire region uninhabitable, there was a consensus: the “residual risk” of even Western nuclear technology is too great, and a phase-out is necessary. Ultimately, safety calculations showed that even with nuclear power plants made in Germany, serious accidents with radioactive contamination of large areas in the surrounding area, including entire cities, could not be ruled out.

Polls at the time showed high levels of support for the decision pushed forward by Merkel. The physicist’s legendary utterance when she saw the explosions at the Fukushima nuclear power plants on TV was legendary: “That’s it.”

Note: In 2011 polls, over 80 percent of the German population wanted to shut down all nuclear power plants after Fukushima


After the end of the Merkel era: The Union included plans for a return to nuclear power in coalition negotiations

After the end of the Merkel era, the remaining nuclear fans in the Union felt they had the upper hand again. It also looked as if they had a good chance of prevailing in the negotiations with the SPD. In particular, their demand for an “assessment of whether … a resumption of operation of the most recently shut-down nuclear power plants is still possible at a reasonable technical and financial cost,” as stated in the energy policymakers’ paper, seemed to have a good chance of success.

But there is no mention of this in the coalition agreement. Only fusion research plays a role here. “Our goal is: The world’s first fusion reactor should be located in Germany,” it states. However, the time perspective here is two or more decades. So, have Klingbeil’s Social Democrats, who have been pushing for a phase-out since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, prevailed with their course against the CDU/CSU’s nuclear fans?

The energy industry doubts the CDU/CSU’s plan to reactivate nuclear power plants.

The most recent election platform clearly stated: “Nuclear power has been shut down in Germany, and that’s a good thing.” The anti-nuclear NGO “ausgestrahlt” sees it this way, accusing the SPD of having “burst the Union’s nuclear soap bubbles.” In fact, it’s at least as likely that the Union leaders realistically assessed the problems of the nuclear power renaissance. The dismantling of the nuclear power plants is already well advanced, and restarting them would be extremely expensive and very time-consuming due to the need for new permits.

A return to nuclear power is hardly possible: Nuclear power plant operators have closed their chapter.

In addition, the three current nuclear power plant operators, EnBW, PreussenElektra, and RWE, have practically closed the chapter on nuclear power. None of them would voluntarily take the entrepreneurial risk of reversing the decommissioning process. Before the start of the grand coalition negotiations, the line was clear. EnBW’s nuclear power chief Jörg Michels said: “The decommissioning status of our five nuclear power plants is, in practical terms, irreversible.”

PreussenElektra stated that it was not “engaged in such thought experiments.” RWE CEO Markus Krebber stated: “We are past the point in this country where we should bring decommissioned nuclear power plants back online.”

Estimates by the nuclear power plant service provider Nukem show how expensive the restart would have been. He estimates the cost of repairing the six reactors shut down between 2021 and 2023 at one to three billion euros per nuclear power plant, depending on how far the decommissioning has progressed.  This would therefore involve a sum of ten billion euros or more, which would likely have had to come from the federal budget in Berlin.

Nukem CEO Thomas Seipolt told bild.de that he sees “a realistic possibility of a comeback for nuclear power” by 2030 and is therefore making a corresponding offer to the future German government. For his company, which specializes in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and the management of nuclear waste, such a renaissance of nuclear power would have been extremely lucrative. But the fact remains: Despite the federal government’s €500 billion special fund for infrastructure and climate protection, such a massive cash injection for the nuclear power plant operators would have been virtually impossible to implement.

Further arguments against nuclear power: Green electricity now dominates the electricity market

But other arguments may have slowed the nuclear renaissance. “A return to nuclear power doesn’t fit in a market increasingly dominated by green electricity,” said Christoph Pistner, nuclear power expert at the Öko-Institut, to the Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper. The share of renewables in the grid is growing rapidly; currently, it’s already 60 percent, and according to current plans, it’s expected to reach around 80 percent by 2030 and even 100 percent by 2035.

The same applies, by the way, to the mini-nuclear power plants (Small Nuclear Reactors) proposed by the CDU/CSU, which, according to Pistner’s estimates, could not be ready for series production and built until the mid-2030s at the earliest. And: “As things stand today, SMRs will hardly be able to produce electricity more cheaply than conventional new nuclear power plants, unless thousands of them are mass-produced, which is not at all foreseeable.”

And then Pistner recalled a politically critical aspect: “A return to nuclear energy has the potential to jeopardize the search for a final storage site in Germany.” The search for a final storage site was restarted after the Fukushima nuclear phase-out, which eliminated the previously hotly contested Gorleben site, which proved to be geologically unsuitable. A Gorleben 2.0 would probably be the last thing the Merz grand coalition needs – https://www.fr.de/politik/warum-sich-die-neue-koalition-gegen-eine-atom-rueckkehr-entschied-93684231.html Groko (Grand Coalition) is an abbreviation for grand coalition.


Background: Nuclear phase-out in Germany

The first phase-out of nuclear energy in Germany took place in 2000. As early as 2006, it was clear that the conservative parties (CDU/CSU), also known as the Union, wanted to return to nuclear energy with a new government change in 2009. This happened in 2010. But then Fukushima happened in 2011, and Chancellor Merkel withdrew from nuclear energy after just a few months. The resolution was supported by all parties in the federal parliament in Berlin that the last nuclear power plants would be shut down on December 31, 2022. We would have preferred to phase out nuclear power sooner.

All social groups have prepared for the nuclear phase-out. Then Russia, Putin’s country, invaded Ukraine in February 2022 for the second time since 2014. Natural gas and oil became very expensive. Electricity prices also rose. In addition, half of all nuclear power plants in France were shut down in the winter of 2022/2023 for various reasons. The Union then wanted to re-enter nuclear energy. But it was too late. Nuclear power plant operators in Germany were annoyed. Planning security looks different. Nuclear power plants are not kettles that can be switched on and off.

An agreement was reached with the nuclear power plant operators, and the remaining three nuclear power plants were extended until April 15, 2023, as long as the nuclear fuel still allowed. Certain fuel elements were converted once again in the core area of ​​the three nuclear power plants. Then it was over.

April 18, 2025 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Texas Budget Throws a Lot of Tax Dollars at Unproven Nuclear Technology

The initial $750 million tax dollars invested could swell to $2 billion

 Public Citizen 11th April 2025

AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas House of Representatives gave initial approval early Friday to a state supplemental budget that includes $750 million in taxpayer giveaways to developers of advanced nuclear reactors, putting what could ultimately become a $2 billion bet on unproven technology.

The appropriation is part of House Bill 500 – a supplemental budget bill for the 2026-27 biennium – and directed toward the Texas Nuclear Power Fund. This new program would be created by another bill pending before the Legislature.

The initial $750 million in funds could become a $2 billion cost to taxpayers because of the program’s completion bonuses.

“Lawmakers have various strategies to choose from to fix the grid stability problems exposed by 2021’s Winter Storm Uri,” said Adrian Shelley, Texas director of Public Citizen. “With this budget’s subsidies for unproven nuclear technology, lawmakers are again going with the pricier, much harder-to-implement option that its proponents admit will take years to pay off. It’s a promise that comes with a giant “if” and wastes valuable time in the race to fix the grid’s predicted demand and supply issues.”

Gov. Greg Abbott prioritized nuclear energy at the start of the legislative session. In response, legislators proposed the Texas Nuclear Power Fund to incentivize the development of so-called small modular reactors (SMR). However, the technology is not cost-competitive with other forms of power generation, including wind, solar and fossil fuels. The only publicly traded company in the United States trying to build SMRs has canceled six proposals in Idaho after cost overruns of 250%………..
https://www.citizen.org/news/texas-budget-throws-a-lot-of-tax-dollars-at-unproven-nuclear-technology/

April 14, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Labour leader to improve investment for Sizewell nuclear plant

However, campaign groups opposed to Sizewell C, including Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), have accused the prime minister of ignoring cost and time overruns and the environment impact of the project.

“the prime minister is prepared to pre-empt the spending review – and potentially flout the national pre-election period – by soon announcing that the government will commit billions more in taxpayers’ money to Sizewell C, in a flawed attempt to bolster his growth agenda.”

By Dominic Bareham, 11 April

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer is set to give the final go ahead for the Sizewell C nuclear power station at the government’s spending review in the summer.

Reports in the national media suggested the Labour leader would approve investment for the nuclear plant – as well as unveiling plans for small modular reactors (SMR) around the country – before a government spending review in June.

A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) confirmed a decision on whether to proceed would be taken in the spending review and the new plant would play an “important role” in helping the UK achieve energy security.

In July 2022, Kwasi Kwarteng, the then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, gave the go ahead for the Suffolk coastal plant, which is expected to cost in the region of £20 billion and provide power for six million homes.

Since then, the government has approved various tranches of funding for the project, including £2.7 billion in the autumn budget, in addition to £1.2 billion made available to the project since July last year.

However, campaign groups opposed to Sizewell C, including Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), have accused the prime minister of ignoring cost and time overruns and the environment impact of the project.

………….. a TASC spokesperson said the funding for Sizewell C would have been better spent on renewables.

He said: “It is staggering that Starmer is willing to sacrifice one of the UK’s most biodiverse areas and the precious Suffolk Heritage Coast for an ideological pursuit of growth in the form of new nuclear.

“Few can disagree that nuclear power is costly, potentially dangerous, slow to deploy, capital (not labour) intensive and is not ‘clean,’ condemning future generations to deal with the toxic legacy of thousands of tonnes of spent nuclear fuel.”

Campaigners launch legal challenge against Sizewell C planning decision

Alison Downes, from fellow campaigners Stop Sizewell C, said: “Despite huge pressures on public funding, news reports suggest the prime minister is prepared to pre-empt the spending review – and potentially flout the national pre-election period – by soon announcing that the government will commit billions more in taxpayers’ money to Sizewell C, in a flawed attempt to bolster his growth agenda.

“The reality is that Sizewell C will cost at least £40 billion for less than a thousand long term Suffolk jobs at the station.

“Yet very unpopular cuts are being made to other areas of spending, and even in the energy field that money could be put to better use.

“It could, for example, be used to bolster the Warm Homes Plan, which would lower household bills, reduce energy consumption and create many thousands of sustainable jobs nationwide, improving Labour’s chances of winning the next election.”

April 14, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Keir Starmer set to approve nuclear plant in bid to power up economic growth.

The prime minister is pinning his hopes of economic growth on a major nuclear plant and a series of mini nuclear sites

Archie Mitchell, Political correspondent, Independent 10th April 2025

Sir Keir Starmer is expected to approve a major nuclear power plant alongside a slew of mini reactors in a bid to boost Britain’s stagnant economy.

The prime minister will approve investment for the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk before the June spending review, The Times reported, as well as unveiling plans for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs) across the UK.

Sizewell C is expected to be up and running in 2035 and will provide 7 per cent of Britain’s energy demand at a cost of £20 billion……………………

Sizewell C is yet to be signed off by the government.

A decision on whether to give Sizewell C the green light has formed part of the government’s upcoming spending review, but Sir Keir has been bringing announcements forward in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The PM has been desperately trying to spur on growth amid fears the US president’s trade war will cause Britain’s economy to stagnate and force further cuts in the autumn Budget.

EDF, the French energy giant that owns and runs Britain’s nuclear fleet, and the government, which has committed £6 billion so far, were the first backers of the project.

But they have been trying to raise billions more from prospective investors, including British Gas owner Centrica.

The government in January was forced to deny reports the expected costs of Sizewell C had spiralled to £40bn due to inflation and the knock-on effects of delays at Hinkley Point C.

Whitehall sources told The Independent the government is hugely supportive of Sizewell C, but that an announcement on its approval and funding would not come before June.

Sources told The Times Sir Keir wants to make a “nuclear moment” by combining the approval of Sizewell C with an announcement on a generation of SMRs.

The government has been running a competition to develop the reactors, which are potentially cheaper, much faster to build and easier to deploy, with Rolls-Royce and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy the frontrunners. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-nuclear-growth-trump-tariffs-b2730868.html

April 13, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Walt Zlotow: Trump, Hegseth off by nearly 1 trillion on national security budget

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 11 Apr 25 https://theaimn.net/trump-hegseth-off-by-nearly-1-trillion-on-national-security-budget/

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is applauding Trump’s boast to push through America’s first trillion dollar defense budget.

“Thank you Mr. President! COMING SOON: the first TRILLION dollar [Defense Department] budget.” Hegseth was echoing boss Trump who chortled “Nobody’s seen anything like it. We have to build out military, and we’re very cost-conscious, but the military is something we have to build, and we have to be strong,”

Trump’s defense policy and these quotes epitomize America’s decline as a peaceful, caring nation. Spending that trillion on militarism and warfare worldwide while Trump’s oligarchs are slashing a trillion from the social safety net is putting America into a death spiral from which it may never recover.

But they should really be high-fiving a national security budget that will be approaching $2 trillion based on Trump’s defense agenda.

That’s because the current defense budget under the National Defense Authorization Act of $900 billion just funds the Pentagon. When factoring in the Department of Veterans Affairs, special operations, Homeland Security and the national security share of US debt interest, the total for Fiscal ‘25 national security approaches $1.8 trillion. Regarding special ops, Trump’s failed month long Yemen bombing to stop their resistance to US enabled Israeli genocide in Gaza has already passed a billion bucks.

Current wars US supports in Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and possible upcoming wars in Iran and China, don’t come cheap. Add in cost of over 750 bases in 80 countries hosting over 150,000 military personnel puts the approaching $2 trillion dollar cost in perspective.

Spending all that treasure on national offense (nope, not defense), becomes problematical when Trump is pushing thru trillion dollar tax cuts for his oligarch buddies.

What to do? Of Course, send in oligarch clown Musk to cut a trillion or more from everything that makes life livable for Joe Sixpack.

It is no surprise Trump plans to ravage the social safety net to spend $2 trillion on worldwide military adventurism while giving $4.5 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years mainly to those who don’t need them.

But do Trump and Hegseth have to brag about it?

April 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Belarus should reinstate its nuclear-weapon-free status, NGOs urge at the Human Rights Council

Geneva, April 8, 2025, https://www.unfoldzero.org/belarus-should-revive-its-nuclear-weapon-free-status-ngos-urge-at-the-human-rights-council/

Belarus should reinstate its constitutional status as a nuclear-weapon-free country, return the nuclear weapons deployed in its territory to Russia, and revive its earlier proposal for the establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central and Eastern Europe, according to a submission made to the Human Rights Council in Geneva by a group of seven non-governmental organizations. The submission was made as part of the Universal Periodic Review of Belarus’ adherence to its human rights obligations under international law.

“The threat of nuclear war has increased markedly through conflicts involving nuclear armed and allied states, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine”  according to the submitting organizations which include Aotearoa  Lawyers for Peace (New Zealand), Basel Peace Office (Switzerland), Citizens for Global Solutions (USA), International Centre for Civil Initiatives “Our House” (Belarus), World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy (Netherlands/International, World Future Council (Germany/International), and Youth Fusion (Czech Republic/International). “The Russian nuclear weapons recently deployed in Belarus – Iskander-M short-range nuclear missiles and free-fall nuclear bombs deliverable by Belarussian SU-30 fighter-attack planes – elevate this threat.”

Belarus, and other nuclear armed and allied States, should adhere to the commitment they made at the UN Summit of the Future last September to make “every effort to avert the danger of such a war, bearing in mind that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  

Further, the organizations remind Belarus of the 2018 UN Human Rights Committee affirmation that “The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law.”  This declaration strengthened the general prohibition against the threat or use of nuclear weapons affirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1996.

“The deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus, which President Lukashenko has said that he is ready to use without hesitation in case of aggression against Belarus is in direct violation of international law,” says Rebecca Shoot, Executive Director of Citizens for Global Solutions. “This violation is particularly alarming when the threat of nuclear conflict has never been greater, according to the Bureau of Atomic Scientists. The actions of States at this critical moment are all that stands against a cataclysmic threat to humanity and the planet.”

In the early 1990s, a newly independent Belarus took some exemplary actions for peace and disarmament: relinquishing all nuclear weapons that were remaining on its territory following the break-up of the Soviet Union, acceding to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear State, and adopting a constitution that confirmed Belarus as a “neutral, nuclear-weapon-free country” with a foreign policy based on the “non-use of force or the threat of force, the inviolability of frontiers and the peaceful settlement of disputes.”

“The recent reversal by Belarus of these important actions is cause for alarm, increases regional tensions and elevates the risk of nuclear war threatening our collective future,” says Alyn Ware, Director of Basel Peace Office. “We call on Belarus not only to reinstate its status as a nuclear-weapon-free nation, but also to support adoption of no-first-use policies and replacement of nuclear deterrence with common security to help build a shared future based on peace rather than the spectre of nuclear war.”

“The land of Belarus once chose to silence the hum of nuclear warheads and listen instead to the quiet breath of its forests, lakes and swamps,” says Olga Karatch, founder and director of the International Centre for Civil Initiatives – Our House. “It is time to remember that promise of peace.”

“Russian nuclear weapons deployed in Belarus – along with other nuclear weapons deployed by nuclear-weapon States in Europe and globally – threaten the lives and wellbeing of non-combatants, including youth and future generations” says Ayleen Roy, Core Team Member of Youth Fusion. “Youth in Europe and around the world want to transcend borders, cooperating as friends to build a better future, not as enemies divided by nuclear threats.”

The submission welcomes the proposal for a Central and Eastern Europe Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone which Belarus submitted to the UN General Assembly in 1990. It calls for Belarus to review, revive and reshape such a proposal, which could help in building security guarantees against the threat or use of nuclear weapons in the region.

“Most countries in the global South are part of legally declared Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs),” says Prof. Dr (med) Andreas Nidecker, President of the Basel Peace Office.  “This has helped to build common security and end nuclear threats in these regions. The concept of a European NWFZ could potentially contribute to discussions on security of Belarus, Ukraine and other European nations at this time.”

And the submission calls on Belarus and all other nuclear-reliant States to a replace their reliance on nuclear deterrence with common security. This would include full adherence to the UN Charter and universal acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in order to resolve international conflicts peacefully through law, without recourse to the threat or use of war.

“True security is not built through nuclear arsenals, but through trust, transparency, and international cooperation,” concludes Olga Karatch “Belarus can be a bridge, not a battleground.”

Contact:
Alyn Ware alyn@pnnd.org. Mobile +41 788 912 156. WhatsApp +420 773 638 867  

Read the full submission:
Nuclear weapons policies and practices of Belarus with respect to international human rights law: List of Issues Submission to the UN Human Rights Council during its Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Republic of Belarus.

April 10, 2025 Posted by | Belarus, politics | Leave a comment

£2.7bn more taxpayer funding for Sizewell C confirmed

 

The government has announced that a further £2.7bn of taxpayer cash has made available for Sizewell C, bringing the total to £6.4bn ahead of the final investment decision (FID) on the nuclear power station.

A FID is needed before main construction can start on the planned nuclear power
station in Suffolk. The FID will confirm who is to pay for the construction
and through what model.

As of January, £2.5bn of contracts had already
been agreed for works towards the project. It is expected that the FID
decision, which is not a foregone conclusion, will come at or around the
conclusion of the Spending Review, scheduled for 11 June 2025.

Rumours have swirled around which investors might help with getting the FID over the
line. Centrica chief executive Chris O’Shea said the multinational energy
company’s stake in Sizewell C could be “between 1% or 2% and 50%”,
and EDF has been slowly having its stake in the plant eroded by taxpayer
cash injections while it inputs no further of its own funds.

NCE approached
DESNZ to clarify the status of the previously announced £5.5bn development
expenditure (Devex) scheme, and what the total figure for public investment
in Sizewell C stands at. A DESNZ spokesperson confirmed that the £2.7bn
announced on 4 April is not from the Devex fund. “The government has
committed £3.9bn from the Devex scheme – so £1.6bn is left,” the
spokesperson told NCE. “£8bn has been ringfenced for Sizewell C, and
£6.4bn made available for the project.”

  By Tom Pashby, New Civil Engineer 7th April 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/2-7bn-more-taxpayer-funding-for-sizewell-c-confirmed-07-04-2025/

April 10, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Federal regulator approves Canada’s first small modular reactor

the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations.

Matthew McClearn,  April 5, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-regulator-approves-canadas-first-small-modular-reactor/

The federal nuclear safety regulator has authorized construction of an American small modular reactor (SMR) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., a crucial milestone for a project that has garnered worldwide attention.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted the license to Ontario Power Generation on Friday for its Darlington New Nuclear Project. OPG has said it will finish building the first 327-megawatt reactor by the end of 2028, and begin supplying electricity to the province’s grid the following year. The reactor’s cost has not been disclosed publicly, but estimates suggest it could be several billion dollars.

“We now await the go-ahead from the Ontario government to proceed,” said OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly.

The Darlington SMR would represent a host of firsts, accompanied by larger risks and anticipated benefits. It would be the only nuclear reactor under construction in the Western hemisphere, and Canada’s first reactor start since the mid-1980s.

It would also represent the first SMR in any G7 country. And it would be the first BWRX-300; utilities in other jurisdictions (including Saskatchewan, the U.S., Poland and Estonia) have announced plans to build reactor fleets based on the same design.

The BWRX-300 is being designed by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a leading American reactor vendor. Its construction would make Canada more reliant on U.S. suppliers for enriched uranium fuel and other critical inputs at a moment when relations between the two countries are rapidly deteriorating.

Yet this has not diminished support from Canadian officials. In a statement Friday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce called the license “a historic milestone” for his province and the country.

“Ontario is realizing its potential as a stable democratic energy superpower, and I look forward to sharing next steps for this exciting project in the coming weeks.”

OPG applied for the license in late 2022. During hearings held this fall and winter, the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

But the commissioners dismissed this concern, finding OPG had supplied adequate information. They noted that an OPG representative told them the design was 95 per cent done; CNSC staff said in other countries, licenses are typically issued when designs are less than one-third complete.

Intervenors also said that the BWRX-300 lacked two fully independent emergency shutdown systems, because it features two systems that insert the same set of control rods into the reactor. The CNSC’s own staffers confirmed this, but told the Commission the probability both insertion systems would fail was “very low.” The Commission said OPG would have to provide additional information about this at a later date.

In response to concerns from certain First Nations concerning OPG’s and the CNSC’s obligation to engage with them, the CNSC imposed what it calls “regulatory hold points.” The first occurs before construction begins on the reactor building’s foundation, another before OPG can install the reactor’s pressure vessel, and a third before testing and commissioning of the facility can begin. The Commission delegated responsibility for supervising these license conditions to CNSC chief regulatory operations officer Ramzi Jammal.

“The Commission is satisfied that the honour of the Crown has been upheld and that the legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous interests has been satisfied,” the commissioners wrote in their decision.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations. In February the Federal Court granted an application from Kebaowek First Nation for a judicial review of the CNSC’s decision to approve construction of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Chalk River Laboratories. Justice Julie Blackhawk found that the commissioners erred when they declined to apply the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ordered a resumption of consultations.

The CNSC’s authorization applies only to OPG’s first SMR. Since the 1960s, Ontario’s long-standing practice has been to build “four-packs,” power plants with four identical reactors sharing workers and common infrastructure. In 2023, the Ontario government instructed OPG to begin planning for another three BWRX-300s at Darlington.

Over the past several years the utility has cleared and re-graded the site for the first reactor; ongoing excavation has reached 8 metres below ground level. OPG has been installing utilities all four reactors would share, such as water and sewer lines and network cabling.

OPG’s pivot to SMRs means the plant will generate far less power than originally envisioned. Under an earlier plan the site was licensed for up to 4,800 megawatts, whereas the BWRX-300s would possess a quarter of that capacity. (According to rough industry estimates, a single BWRX-300 could meet electricity demand from a city the size of Markham or Vaughan, Ont.)

Also working on the project are AtkinsRealis Group Inc., serving as architect-engineer, and construction giant Aecon Group Inc. Major reactor components are to be built by subcontractors in Ontario: BWX Technologies, for example, is preparing to build its massive pressure vessel at its plant in Cambridge. A 2023 study by the Conference Board of Canada said the four-reactor plant would increase Canada’s GDP by $15.3 billion over 65 years, and support 2,000 jobs.

Promoters, including OPG, have argued that building the first SMR will grant Ontario “first-mover” advantage and allow its nuclear industry to participate in subsequent BWRX-300 constructions worldwide. With numerous U.S. federal officials proclaiming an era of American energy “dominance” and imposing punishing tariffs on allies and trading partners, some observers now doubt this will happen. Mr. Lecce, though, appeared to dismiss that concern in his statement Friday.

“Our government has insisted and successfully negotiated that local Ontario and Canadian businesses must be overwhelmingly used to build SMRs for the world.”

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

‘Another significant show of confidence’ in Sizewell C, – making the total of taxpayers’ money going into the project a staggering £6.4bn)

The government has confirmed that £2.7bn promised to the Sizewell C
project in the Autumn Budget is now available. The Department of Energy
Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said the money will be drawn down by the
project company according to spending plans agreed with the government. The
sum – available under what is called the Devex (development expenditure)
scheme -is in addition to £1.2bn which was made available to the project
since July last year. (making the total of taxpayers’ money going into the
project a staggering £6.4bn).

 East Anglian Daily Times 4th April 2025
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/25065158.another-significant-show-confidence-sizewell-c/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | 2 Comments

Germany’s  Conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU)  mulls reactivation of nuclear power plants

 Germany’s Conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party is
considering restarting six of the country’s recently deactivated nuclear
power plants. According to newspaper Handelsblatt on April 1, a new working
paper of the CDU’s parliamentary group demanded an investigation on
whether a reactivation of the power stations was technically possible and
economically feasible. If the current owners of the plants in question –
energy companies E.On, RWE and EnBW – were not willing to restart the
reactors themselves, a State-owned enterprise reportedly could take over
ownership of the infrastructure.

 Brussels Signal 2nd April 2025 https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/04/germanys-cdu-mulls-reactivation-of-nuclear-power-plants/

April 5, 2025 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Democracy should not be an April Fools’ Day Joke!


 NFLA 1st April 2025

At a time when, across the Atlantic and in Europe, democracy seems to be increasingly challenged and in peril, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities finds it incongruous and worrying that undemocratic practices can be discovered nearer to home when it comes to plans to locate a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Cumbria.

The GDF would be the eventual repository for Britain’s high-level legacy and future radioactive waste.

Cumberland Council replaced three existing Councils – Allerdale District Council, Copeland District Council and Cumbria County Council – with their powers and resources being subsumed into the new unitary authority.

During the period of the Conservative – Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, Councils were invited to express an interest in participating in investigations for a site for a deep repository in West Cumbria. After four years of involvement, Cumberland’s predecessor Cumbria County Council vetoed the process, when in January 2013, the Council’s Cabinet voted to withdraw its support.

At that time, Council leader Eddie Martin explained the rationale behind the decision: “Cabinet believes there is sufficient doubt around the suitability of West Cumbria’s geology to put an end now to the uncertainty and worry this is causing for our communities. Cumbria is not the best place geologically in the UK and the government’s efforts need to be focused on disposing of the waste underground in the safest place, not the easiest. Members have remained concerned throughout on the issue of the legal right of withdrawal if we proceed to the next stage.”[i]

The County Council’s decision trumped the continued support for the process shown by the lower Allerdale and Copeland District Councils, and so it effectively ended the process at the time.

In the latest attempt to bring a GDF to Cumbria, Allerdale and Copeland again choose to support Nuclear Waste Services, with both Councils becoming the Relevant Principal Local Authorities which are necessary to keep the process going.

Although the County Council was the biggest amongst the three former Councils merged into the new unitary authority, Cumberland Council ignored its opposition and instead chose to ape the position taken by the two lower district councils; this despite the fact that Nuclear Waste Services had already withdrawn from Allerdale citing ‘insufficient’ suitable geology and that Copeland was only taken into the GDF process by the Council’s Executive of only FOUR senior Councillors, including some holding appointments on the West Cumbria Site Stakeholder Group which are renumerated by Nuclear Waste Services. The whole Council was not asked to agree.

Now campaigners at Radiation Free Lakeland have launched a petition calling on Cumberland Council to convene a belated special meeting of the Full Council where Councillors can debate and then vote upon whether to continue to remain engaged with the process of investigating sites for a GDF in Mid- and South-Copeland and to remain represented on the two Community Partnerships. Should most Councillors vote against engagement and representation, in either Mid- or South-Copeland, then the process in that area would cease and NWS would withdraw.

In the third area under consideration for a GDF, the Theddlethorpe Search Area in Lincolnshire, the Leaders of both Relevant Principal Local Authorities, East Lindsey District Council and Lincolnshire County Council, have recommended to their Executives that they should withdraw. The East Lindsey District Council Executive meets tomorrow (2 April) to decide upon the issue. The decision of Lincolnshire County Council must follow the elections held for that body on 1 May. If both recommendations are accepted and are backed by Councillors on their respective Scrutiny Boards, the process will end. This is what happened at South Holderness where the East Riding of Yorkshire Council overwhelmingly voted to withdraw from the process.

The Radiation Free Lakeland sponsored petition reads:………………………………….. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/democracy-should-not-be-an-april-fools-day-joke/

April 4, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Disappointing but predictable: Government minister’s reply on nuke treaty

 In February 2025, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities was a
signatory alongside academics and peace campaigners to a letter drafted by
the United Nations Association UK (UNAUK) that was sent to Prime Minister
Sir Keir Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy.

NFLA Chair Cllr Lawrence O’Neill and NFLA Secretary Richard Outram co-signed for the
NFLAs as did signatories from twenty-five other organisations, including
community advocates from Kiribati, an island nation impacted by British
nuclear weapons testing carried out in the 1950’s and by the United
States in 1962.

As the islanders were not evacuated both they and the
participating servicemen were impacted by radiation. The letter called on
the UK Government to send an observer to the 3rd Meeting of States Parties
(3MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) which was
held in New York until 7 March. The UK Government did not take up this
opportunity.

 NFLA 29th May 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/A434-NB320-Disappointing-but-predictable-Government-ministers-reply-on-nuke-treaty-ban.-May-2025.pdf

April 1, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Will Texas Become ‘the Epicenter of a National Nuclear Renaissance’?

A new bill would create a taxpayer-funded incentive program of at least $2 billion for nuclear power plants.

By Arcelia Martin, 24Mar 25

 Texas lawmakers are considering a bill to
resuscitate the state’s nuclear power industry through a taxpayer-funded
incentives program. State Rep. Cody Harris, a Republican from Palestine in
East Texas, proposed allocating $2 billion toward a fund to create the
Texas Advanced Nuclear Deployment Office. The bill proposes using public
dollars to help fund nuclear construction, provide grants for reactors and
fund development research. HB 14 would also create a state coordinator to
assist in the state and federal permitting processes.

Inside Climate News 24th March 2025,
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24032025/texas-national-nuclear-renaissance/

March 31, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

DOE Reissues $900M Nuclear SMR Opportunity, Scraps Community Criteria to Focus on Technical Merit

Power, Mar 26, 2025, by Sonal Patel

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reissued a $900 million funding opportunity to accelerate deployment of Generation III+ small modular reactors (SMRs), removing community benefit requirements and shifting the focus solely to technical merit—a move that reflects the Trump administration’s revised energy and industrial priorities.

The funding opportunity announcement (FOA)—officially designated DE-FOA-0003485—was first issued in October 2024, backed by funds appropriated through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. The effort remains jointly administered by the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), with technical support from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Community Requirements Dropped 

According to the FOA, eligible Tier 1 projects must feature Generation III+ light-water reactor (LWR) designs ranging between 50 MWe and 350 MWe per unit. (To be considered, total plant output, including process heat loads, must be below 350 MWe.) Projects may involve single-unit or multi-unit configurations with no cap on total site output. Designs must meet a minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, signaling sufficient maturity for system-level validation and procurement.

The FOA also stresses that cost-sharing is a core requirement. “DOE cannot contribute more than 50% of the overall project cost; therefore, the total award value will be no less than $1.6 billion, if the full government share is awarded.” It adds that “DOE will pay out based on previously agreed milestone amounts upon their completion,” and that “the agreed upon milestone payment from DOE cannot account for more than 50% of the project costs incurred in completing the milestone.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The most prominent change— as highlighted above—is that the March 24 submission formally eliminates all community benefit obligations that were central to the October 2024 solicitation. That includes the removal of the Community Benefits Plan, which had been a required five-page submission outlining how projects would support community and labor engagement, workforce investment, and equity objectives. It also eliminates the “Program Policy Factors” section, which the DOE previously used after technical review to prioritize projects based on geographic diversity, local job creation, engagement with disadvantaged communities, and alignment with broader social goals such as the Justice40 Initiative. The reissued FOA now states that “applications will be evaluated solely on technical merit.”……………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.powermag.com/doe-reissues-900m-nuclear-smr-opportunity-scraps-community-criteria-to-focus-on-technical-merit/

March 29, 2025 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

A nuclear Svengali on Capitol Hill?

  Linda Pentz Gunter   by beyondnuclearinternational

Attempts by the Breakthrough Institute’s Ted Nordaus to derail NRC commissioner candidacies have met with mixed success, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

We’re getting used to the swagger of entitlement and the complacency of corporate nuclear lobbyists on Capitol Hill.  They, in turn, have become accustomed to getting their way — usually through the powerful persuasion of big money or saturation propaganda campaigns financed with those large stashes of handy corporate cash.

But when that isn’t enough, then a nice smear campaign should do. One who appears to enjoy such an endeavor is the Breakthrough Institute’s founder, Ted Nordhaus, who has made it his business of late to decide who does and does not get a commissioner seat at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Those who should not, in Nordhaus’s views, are the Democratic candidates or incumbents who have too much of a regard for nuclear safety as a priority.

Safety is a big ticket item for the nuclear power industry. Literally. Maintaining, upgrading and replacing aging parts in these decades-old dinosaurs of the 20th century, many of them running well past their sell-by date, is an expensive undertaking. But a relaxation of — or looking the other way on — some of those pesky safety regulations would be made easier by more compliant NRC commissioners.

Cue Nordhaus, Capitol Hill’s nuclear Svengali. 

His most recent target was Matthew Marzano, the candidate for the long vacant fifth seat on the NRC commission. Nordhaus pulled out all the stops to derail Marzano, beginning last September prior to Marzano’s hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Nordhaus prepared a veritable death warrant in which he claimed, among other things, that Marzano would, if approved, be “the least qualified commissioner ever seated on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission”. Nordhaus also wrote that Marzano, if chosen, “will not be a voice for reform and modernization on the commission.”

Never mind that Marzano, who was then an official at the Idaho National Laboratory, has a pretty solid nuclear background, having worked both on commercial reactors and as an instructor for the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program at the US Department of Energy. (As a side note, this exemplifies once again the two-way street and inexorable link between the civil and military nuclear sectors.)

“Modernization” is Nordhaus’s absolutely most favorite word. He used it, or a derivation of it, nine times in his public assassination-by-blogpost of Marzano’s qualifications (accusations that were obediently re-quoted by senators during Marzano’s hearing.)

“Modernization” is code of course. What it really means is “weakening” or “emasculation,” because what Nordhaus, the Republicans and far too many Democrats are now intent on doing is to transform the NRC from what is already a lame safety regulator into an even meeker nuclear industry lapdog.

The same hand of influence belonging to Nordhaus and his Breakthrough Institute had earlier been felt when legislation was passed on Capitol Hill designed specifically to weaken the NRC. At that time, the Breakthrough Institute railed on its website that the NRC’s “national progress is hindered by its self-imposed narrowly defined mission, primarily concentrated on nuclear safety, which leads to unwarranted delays in reactor licensing.”

Last June, the Senate voted almost unanimously for a bill introduced by Senator Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan —S.870 – A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance grant programs, to advance the benefits of nuclear energy, and for other purposes. Ostensibly designed to provide improved benefits and safety conditions for firefighters, it included an entire section on the NRC straight from the Nordhaus playbook.

The bill required the NRC to “update the mission statement of the Commission to include that licensing and regulation of the civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy be conducted in a manner that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit—

(1) the civilian use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy; or

(2) the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society.”

Afraid of appearing to throw firefighters under the bus, all but two senators voted for the bill. Predictably, the dissenters were Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the only consistent anti-nuclear voices on Capitol Hill…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What has really crippled the nuclear power sector is its exorbitant costs. But the ruse to undermine the NRC and weaken (“modernize” or “reform”) safety oversight is precisely because it is nuclear power’s immense dangers that cause its costs to sky-rocket.

None of this fazes Nordhaus, however, who insists that new reactors constitute “a new generation of even safer reactors” and that nuclear power has “substantial environmental public health benefits”. 

The former assertion is strongly challenged by physicists such as Edwin Lyman at the Union of Concerned Scientists and M.V. Ramana at the University of British Columbia, who happen to understand the science and know that the untested, recycled and long ago rejected design ideas for small modular reactors are replete with radiological risks and serious and unsolved uncertainties around safety.

As for the substantial health benefits of nuclear power, perhaps Mr. Nordhaus would like to say that to the (non-White) faces of Native Americans coping with the deadly legacy of abandoned uranium mines and to the mothers of childhood leukemia sufferers living near nuclear plants, who would beg to differ.

This article is adapted from a piece that first appeared in the February/March 2025 edition of Ralph Nader’s newspaper, Capitol Hill Citizen, available in print only.
https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/03/23/a-nuclear-svengali-on-capitol-hill/

March 28, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »