Small Modular Reactors: Déjà Vu All Over Again
Arnie Gundersen, August 1, 2025, https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/08/01/small-modular-reactors-deja-vu-all-over-again/
Storm clouds began to form in America’s Atoms for Peace construction program during the late 1950s. Clear-headed analysts identified many pitfalls in constructing commercial atomic power reactors that continue now, 70 years later. This February 10, 1958, opinion piece in Time Magazinewas not just prescient for the failure of the Atoms for Peace program, but also applies to the Small Modular Reactor (SMR) marketing ploy in 2025:
“Industry Asks More Government Help to Speed Program”
… to many U.S. businessmen, a stronger atomic defense is only one side of the coin… they insist that commercial nuclear power must be sped up, or else the U.S. will fall far behind other nations.
The main argument is over how much help the U.S. Government should give private industry. AEC’s [Atomic Energy Commission]position is that nuclear power for peaceful purposes should be largely a private venture, with AEC supplying only limited funds.
Originally, businessmen supported the idea, lest nuclear energy grow into a giant public-power program. Now their position has changed. Even the stoutest private power men feel that the program needs a strong infusion of Government aid because commercial nuclear power is so new, so complex, and so costly that private companies cannot carry the burden alone. …“There isn’t a reactor manufacturer in the U.S. who doesn’t favor Government assistance to get them over the hump.”
The big hump is the fact that conventional U.S. power is so cheap—and nuclear power so expensive—that the U.S. itself has no pressing domestic need for a crash program. … U.S. industry is learning, to its sorrow, that there is a vast gulf between atomic power in the lab and in commercial quantities. Costs have shot up to the point where they discourage even the richest companies… Even the biggest companies find the going rough…. G.E., like the others, thinks that if it could build three big plants in a row, it could learn enough to produce competitive power. But G.E. has no plans at the moment. As one reactor builder says: “Private industry has found that there is no money in atomic energy and no prospect of making any money”… For U.S. consumers, the lag in the commercial nuclear program is no great worry…the U.S. can afford to wait…. There is little doubt among nuclear experts that the U.S. must push ahead much faster than AEC Chairman Strauss is willing to go…. But until nuclear power becomes competitive with present power, he wants the Federal Government to make cash contributions to pay most of the difference between nuclear-and conventional-power construction costs… “The only way our country can achieve competitive nuclear power is through the building of a series of full-scale plants …. Our program must be accelerated.” [1][Emphasis Added]
Several themes from the 1958 Time Magazine opinion piece are identical to today’s unfounded marketing ploys announced by SMR manufacturers and supporters.
First, SMR corporations appeal to nationalistic pride by asserting that the U.S. will fall far behind other nations.
Second, the financial demands by today’s SMR investors and manufacturers are almost identical to those made during the 1950s that emphasized the need for Government subsidies. “There isn’t a reactor manufacturer in the U.S. who does not favor Government assistance to get them over the hump.”
Third, there is an unfounded belief that repeatedly building the same design will somehow reduce costs. “G.E., like the others, thinks that if it could build three big plants in a row, it could learn enough to produce competitive power.”
Forth, the Small Modular Reactor vendors are creating a sense of urgency, pushing nuclear regulators faster than necessary.
“There is little doubt among nuclear experts that the U.S. must push ahead much faster than AEC Chairman Strauss is willing to go…The only way our country can achieve competitive nuclear power is through the building of a series of full-scale plants …Our program must be accelerated.”
Fifth, much less expensive and proven technologies are available to produce electricity, so there is no reason to develop a new, untested, cost-prohibitive SMR nuclear technology. “For U.S. consumers, the lag in the commercial nuclear program is no great worry… the U.S. can afford to wait. …But until nuclear power becomes competitive with present power, he wants the Federal Government to make cash contributions to pay most of the difference between nuclear and conventional-power construction costs”
Following the 1958 Time Magazine Opinion, the business-friendly Forbes Magazine published an excellent one-sentence summary 30 years later pronouncing the utter failure of every single U.S. atomic construction project. By 1985, the economic debacle of building nuclear plants had reached the front cover of Forbes Magazine.
The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.[2]
Forbes was one of the first major business magazines to identify the adverse economic implications associated with nuclear power. As a financial magazine, it was a nuclear agnostic, conceptually neither in favor of nor against nuclear, it had no dog in the nuclear fight! It was following the money. In the intervening 40 years since the prescient Forbes cover story, nuclear remains much more costly than renewable alternatives.
The financial and schedule collapse of every nuclear project ever proposed in the U.S. during the last 60 years has been well-documented in thousands of mainstream media articles, in academia, assessments by financial analysts, Statehouses, and, of course, in Congress, before Federal Agencies, and in review by Environmental watchdogs and community nonprofits. Yet in 2025, policymakers and politicians remain enthralled with yet another of the nuclear industry’s latest marketing ploy disguised this time as the Small Modular Reactor.
To rephrase Yogi Berra, Building Small Modular Reactors appears to be “Déjà vu all over again”.
NOTES
1. February 10, 1958, Time Magazine ↑
2. Forbes Magazine, Cover Story, February 1985 ↑
Arnie Gundersen is the Chief Engineer, board member, and resident “science guy” at the Fairewinds Energy Education NGO. Since the catastrophe at Fukushima, Arnie focuses his energy worldwide on the migration of radioactive microparticles. During his multiple trips to Japan, Arnie has met and trained community-volunteer citizen-scientists to study the migration of radioactive microparticles from Fukushima in two co-authored peer-reviewed scientific articles.
All energy costs rise but small nuclear most reactive.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
By Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson, July 29 2025 , https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9027259/all-energy-costs-rise-but-small-nuclear-most-reactive/
Next-generation nuclear reactors are the most expensive of all energy-producing technologies, a report has found, and would significantly increase electricity prices in Australia.
Establishing a large-scale nuclear power plant for the first time would also require more than double the typical costs, and estimates for wind projects had inflated by four per cent due to unforeseen requirements.
The CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, released its GenCost report on Tuesday, revealing rising construction and finance costs would push up prices for energy projects of all kinds in the coming years.
The findings come after a heated debate about introducing nuclear power to Australia and after members of the federal coalition questioned the nation’s reliance on renewable energy projects to achieve net zero by 2050.
The final GenCost report for 2024-2025 analysed the cost of several energy-generating technologies, including variations of coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind projects.
Renewable technology continued to provide the cheapest energy generation, the report’s lead author and CSIRO chief energy economist Paul Graham said.
“We’re still finding that solar PV and wind with firming is the lowest-cost, new build low-emission technology,” he told AAP.
“In second place is gas with (carbon capture storage) … then large-scale nuclear, black coal with CCS, then the small modular reactors.”
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
The 1200-megawatt development is estimated to cost $23.2 billion and will be the first commercial small modular reactor built in a Western country.
The new reactors produce one-third the power of typical nuclear reactors and can be built on sites not suitable for larger plants, but have only been built in China and Russia.
“This is a big deal for Canada – it’s their first nuclear build in 30 years,” Mr Graham said.
“It’s not just about meeting electricity demand … they’ve said a few things that indicate they’re trying to build a nuclear SMR industry and export the technology.”
In addition to the cost of different technologies, the report estimated “premiums” for establishing first-of-a-kind energy projects, with the first large-scale nuclear project expected to command 120 per cent more and the first offshore wind development expected to cost an extra 63 per cent.
The cost of wind projects also grew by four per cent as researchers factored in building work camps to accommodate remote employees, and capital financing costs rose by one per cent.
Developing energy projects was also expected to cost between six and 20 per cent more by 2050, the report found, due to the rising price of materials such as cement and wages, as detailed in a report by Oxford Economics Australia.
Findings from the CSIRO report would help inform the design of future energy infrastructure, Australian Energy Market Operator system design executive general manager Merryn York said.
“We’ll use the capital costs for generation and storage from GenCost in the upcoming Draft Integrated System Plan in December,” she said.
Nuclear technology is banned as an energy source in Australia, which has a target of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy in the national grid by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.
UK Government drops plans to include smaller nuclear fusion energy plants in NSIP regime
The government has announced it will incorporate all nuclear fusion energy facilities generating at least 50 megawatts (MW) in England into the streamlined nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) planning regime, but will drop its proposal to include such developments that fall under this threshold.
by Natasha Norris, Planning 24th July 2025,
https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1926726/government-drops-plans-include-smaller-nuclear-fusion-energy-plants-nsip-regime
2
Fusion energy start-up claims to have cracked alchemy.
A fusion energy start-up claims to have solved the millennia-old challenge
of how to turn other metals into gold. Chrysopoeia, commonly known as
alchemy, has been pursued by civilisations as far back as ancient Egypt.
Now San Francisco-based Marathon Fusion, a start-up focused on using
nuclear fusion to generate power, has said the same process could be used
to produce gold from mercury.
In an academic paper published last week,
Marathon proposes that neutrons released in fusion reactions could be used
to produce gold through a process known as nuclear transmutation.
FT 22nd July 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/06f91e0d-3007-40bd-b785-86fef4890809
Sizewell’s Exploding Budget Exposes Europe’s Nuclear Blindspot
Michael Barnard, 20 July 25,
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/07/20/sizewells-exploding-budget-exposes-europes-nuclear-blindspot/
The recent announcement that the UK’s Sizewell C nuclear generation construction’s projected cost has doubled from £20 billion in 2020 to nearly £38 billion today is shocking but predictable. For anyone following Europe’s nuclear power saga, such an escalation is not an anomaly but rather a continuation of a deeply entrenched pattern. This project, part of Europe’s broader push for nuclear power to meet climate goals, is again raising fundamental questions about whether European governments and utilities have truly laid the groundwork for successful nuclear power scaling, or if they continue to underestimate the scale of the task.
To assess what has gone wrong, we can turn to a clear set of criteria for successful nuclear programs that history provides. These criteria are based on the best available evidence from nuclear build-outs globally, and importantly, are grounded in repeated successes and failures documented by energy historians and experts. Seven specific factors emerge as crucial: first, nuclear power programs require a strategic national priority with consistent government oversight and support. Second, successful nuclear programs historically have close alignment with military nuclear objectives, benefiting from established skill sets, infrastructure, and strategic imperatives. Third, reactor programs thrive only when standardized around a single, fully proven reactor design. Fourth, large-scale reactors in the gigawatt range provide significant economies of scale. Fifth, there must be a comprehensive, government-supported training and human resources program. Sixth, deployment should be rapid, continuous, and sustained over two to three decades to leverage learning effects. Finally, successful nuclear deployments involve constructing dozens of reactors, not just a few isolated units, to benefit from economies of scale and accumulated knowledge.
Evaluating Europe’s EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) program against these criteria provides a sobering picture. The strategic national priority criterion has only partially been met. European governments have indeed supported nuclear in principle, yet actual oversight has varied considerably, often shifting responsibilities between private entities, state regulators, and multinational utilities, diluting accountability. There has been no consistent, comprehensive governmental stewardship. Each reactor site faces a new web of bureaucratic complexity rather than benefiting from streamlined regulatory oversight.
The second criterion, integration with military objectives, is entirely absent in the European context. Historically, successful nuclear programs like those in France, the United States, or Russia have been intertwined with military nuclear efforts. The absence of military nuclear integration in contemporary European programs removes a critical element of strategic urgency, funding, and workforce stability. Europe’s nuclear effort remains civilian-only, losing these historical advantages.
Standardization of reactor design has also fallen short. Although the EPR was intended to be Europe’s standardized reactor, actual implementations have seen multiple design modifications, extensive site-specific customizations, and evolving regulatory requirements. Each new European EPR has effectively become another first-of-a-kind construction project, losing almost all potential learning curve benefits. The changes between Flamanville in France, Olkiluoto in Finland, and Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom illustrate starkly how the promise of standardization has not materialized.
While the fourth criterion of large-scale reactors in the gigawatt class is technically met, this alone has not guaranteed success. Indeed, the EPR’s massive scale of around 1.6 GW per reactor, designed specifically to capture economies of vertical scaling, has perversely contributed to complexity and cost overruns due to an insufficiently mature supply chain, workforce, and management capability. Size alone cannot substitute for weaknesses elsewhere in the development ecosystem.
A major factor missing from Europe’s nuclear plans has been a centralized, government-led workforce training and human resource strategy. Nuclear construction is complex and requires extremely well-trained, specialized and security-cleared personnel who work effectively in teams. Europe’s nuclear workforce remains fragmented, project-based, and heavily reliant on temporary contractors. This workforce structure prevents accumulation of essential expertise and institutional memory. By contrast, successful nuclear builds historically, such as France’s 1970s and 1980s fleet or South Korea’s more recent nuclear expansions, relied explicitly on stable, state-backed workforces built over decades.
The sixth factor, rapid and sustained deployment over a defined two- or three-decade timeframe, has been consistently unmet in Europe. Instead, construction schedules stretch over a decade or longer for individual projects, with significant gaps between reactor starts. Olkiluoto took nearly 18 years from groundbreaking to full commercial operation, while Flamanville has similarly ballooned from a five-year schedule to more than 17 years. Such prolonged and intermittent build-outs destroy continuity, erase institutional memory, and eliminate any hope of learning-based improvements.
Finally, the criterion of dozens of reactors to benefit from learning economies and consistent improvements has not even been approached. The small number of participating European nations have each built just one or two reactors each, without sustained replication. Instead of dozens, Europe’s EPR build-out has delivered exactly two completed reactors outside of China, one each in Finland and France, both massively over budget and delayed. The United Kingdom’s ongoing struggles with Hinkley Point C and now Sizewell underscore the near-complete failure to leverage scale and experience across multiple similar projects.
Bent Flyvbjerg’s extensive research on megaprojects offers important context here. His data demonstrate consistently that nuclear projects routinely underestimate complexity, overestimate potential cost savings, and ignore historical evidence of prior overruns. Flyvbjerg’s findings indicate average overruns for nuclear reactors often range from 120 to 200% above initial estimates. Europe’s EPR experiences align closely with his analysis, underscoring that the fundamental issue is systemic rather than isolated mismanagement or technical miscalculations. The repeated pattern of underestimated costs and schedules aligns precisely with Flyvbjerg’s warnings.
Taking Sizewell C specifically, the now nearly doubled budget and uncertainty about its schedule mirror previous European EPR outcomes. Although the UK government adopted the regulated asset base model to theoretically reduce investor risk, the reality is consumers bear the brunt of these overruns, undermining the economic and political rationale for nuclear. This situation further confirms that without fundamental changes in approach, future EPR projects across Europe will likely replicate these troubling patterns.
The essential takeaway is clear. Unless European governments and industry stakeholders directly address and fulfill the criteria outlined above, nuclear power development in Europe will continue to repeat these costly cycles. Establishing clear national priorities, enforcing rigid reactor standardization, implementing centralized workforce training, committing to sustained rapid deployment, and genuinely standardizing the regulatory environment are non-negotiable if nuclear is to play a significant, reliable, and economically sensible role in Europe’s energy future.
In stark contrast to Europe’s nuclear struggles, renewable energy growth on the continent has significantly exceeded expectations during the same period. Between the mid-2000s, when the first EPR reactors entered construction, and today, Europe’s wind and solar capacity has expanded rapidly, consistently outperforming deployment targets and experiencing steady cost declines. Wind power, both onshore and offshore, has grown by more than tenfold, with major projects routinely delivered within budget and schedule.
Solar power installations have seen even more impressive expansion, driven by sharp decreases in module prices and efficient scaling of supply chains. Unlike nuclear, renewable projects benefit from short construction cycles, standardized designs, and continuous incremental improvements, underscoring Europe’s missed opportunity with nuclear and emphasizing the practical effectiveness of the renewables approach. These advantages show clearly in Flyvbjerg’s data, with wind and solar projects, along with transmission, being the three megaproject categories most likely to come in within initial budgets and schedules.
The stark doubling of Sizewell’s budget is not just a financial shock, it should be a wake-up call. The EPR reactor story in Europe does not have to remain one of perpetual disappointment, but without a realistic recognition of what successful nuclear scale requires, these overruns and delays will continue indefinitely, destroying the business cases that led to their approval in the first place. Europe must either meet these demanding but historically validated conditions for nuclear success or shift decisively toward alternatives capable of meeting its climate and energy goals without the drama and expense that have defined the European nuclear experience to date.
Oxford fusion pioneer risks running out of cash within months
First Light scrambles for funding despite Labour promise to invest £2.5bn in nuclear
research. A British nuclear fusion pioneer has warned it risks running out
of cash within six months as it races to raise millions of pounds in
funding to secure its future. First Light Fusion, which is based in Oxford,
is in talks with investors to raise £20m after burning through tens of
millions of pounds to develop its novel fusion technology. The start-up,
founded in 2011, had sought to develop what it called “projectile
fusion”, developing a giant gas-powered gun that would fire a 5p-sized
projectile at extreme speeds into a fuel source, sparking a fusion
reaction. However, the company abandoned plans to build a prototype reactor
earlier this year as it struggled to raise funds.
Telegraph 20th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/20/oxford-fusion-pioneer-running-out-of-cash/
Miliband bets on nuclear fusion in bid to lead (?)clean power race.
Energy Secretary to make it easier for developers to build reactors with planning shake-up
Ed Miliband has taken a bet on nuclear fusion one day powering Britain by
making it easier for developers to build new reactors with minimal planning
restrictions.
Fusion plants are to be included in the UK’s national
infrastructure planning system, meaning they can be built in any part of
Britain without needing consent from local authorities and with little
opportunity for local people to object. Mr Miliband said the aim was to
ensure fusion, if it ever works, could rapidly become part of the UK energy
system.
Telegraph 18th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/18/miliband-bets-on-nuclear-fusion-by-making-it-easier-to-buil/
Small Nuclear Reactor company’s focus turns to raising $500+ million.
COMMENT. The ask for $500-million has been out there for about two years. Deadbeats, all of them involved in this sorry excuse for a project. It’s pathetic.
It comes after review by Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound investment
Adam Huras, Jul 10, 2025,
https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smr-companys-focus-turns-to-raising-millions-to-finish-design-work
ARC Clean Technology says its focus is now raising what is likely still the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to finish the design work of its small modular nuclear reactor.
It’s a figure that’s likely upwards of $500 million, according to two former ARC CEOs.
That’s with the aim to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application hopefully by 2027, with a target commercial deployment at Point Lepreau in the early 2030s.
It comes after the completion of a review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound private investment.
Earlier this week, the country’s safety commission said it identified “no fundamental barriers” to licensing the ARC’s proposed sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor, after completing a second design review that had stretched on for over three years.
It’s a result that ARC is calling a “pivotal step” toward commercial deployment.
That’s while adding it gives the company new “global credibility” in a race to market.
Its focus now is raising new money.
“Our current focus is on advancing strategic partnership and investment discussions to set the stage for the next phase of design work to support a license to construct application,” ARC Clean Technology spokesperson Sandra Donnelly told Brunswick News.
Asked specifically how much money is needed, Donnelly declined to say.
“We continue to evaluate the going forward cost estimate through current discussions with strategic partners,” she said.
“We are not sharing specific numbers.”
ARC’s former CEO Bill Labbe had previously said the ARC-100 would cost $500 million to develop and needed an additional $600 million more in power purchase agreements to move the project forward.
That was after the Higgs government gave $20 million to ARC, while the feds awarded the company another $7 million.
Ottawa also provided NB Power with $5 million to help it prepare for SMRs at Point Lepreau.
The Gallant Liberal government also first spent $10 million on ARC and Moltex, the province’s other company pursuing SMR technology, as they set up offices in Saint John now roughly eight years ago.
In an interview with Brunswick News on Thursday, another former ARC president and CEO, Norm Sawyer, who left the company in 2021 and is now a board member at the National Research Council Canada, pegged the figure needed to likely be between US$500 and $700 million.
“A preliminary design is almost essentially complete,” Sawyer said of the Phase 2 review. “Obviously, the next step needs money.
“They would also have to staff up.”
Sawyer said further design work could involve upwards of 100 employees with intensive final engineering to be completed.
That doesn’t include the construction of a facility at Lepreau, Sawyer said.
Brunswick News first reported last spring that ARC had handed out layoff notices to employees, while confirming that, in parallel, its president and CEO since 2021, Labbe, was leaving the company.
Asked if staffing levels will now change, Donnelly said that’s now “being reviewed as part of preparations for the next phase of design work.”
“It’s a positive step for them, it’s just can they leverage it now to get to the next step which is really investment,” Sawyer said. “I think there’s value there for investors.
“It’s also up to how much risk investors are willing to take. I think the investor would want a PPA (power purchase agreement) first.”
A power purchase agreement is a long-term contract where a nuclear power plant sells electricity to a buyer, often a utility, government, or large energy consumer.
NB Power CEO Lori Clark told a committee of MLAs at the provincial legislature earlier this year that ARC is “looking for investors now.”
Clark herself travelled to South Korea last December to promote ARC’s “commercialization possibilities,” in part to drum up new financial support.
A trilateral collaboration agreement was announced last year between South Korea’s utility, ARC, and NB Power with the goal of establishing “teaming agreements for global small modular reactor fleet deployment.”
ARC also said that it welcomed in February “multiple delegations” from South Korea’s utility.
No financial agreement has been revealed as of yet.
Finding the money necessary to finish design work is integral to building timelines.
“Our next objective is to complete the required design work by 2027 to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application, with a target commercial deployment in early 2030s,” Donnelly said.
“Timelines will continue to be reviewed as design work and partnership discussions progress.”
The company still faces other challenges.
Brunswick News has also reported that ARC is still in search of a new enriched uranium supplier, after it originally planned to buy from Russia. It’s a problem Sawyer has suggested might result in a redesign of the company’s small modular nuclear reactor technology.
Asked if the concern over an enriched uranium source has been resolved, Donnelly said that “the availability of HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium) fuel remains an overall market issue.
“We are encouraged that the HALEU supply chain has advanced significantly over the past year with strong government support in multiple countries, and we continue to evaluate multiple options to secure a fuel supply for the first ARC unit,” she added.
The enriched uranium is an integral component of the company’s ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor.
But it’s not as simple as finding that enriched uranium closer to home. While Canada mines uranium, and there are currently five uranium mines and mills operating in Canada, all located in northern Saskatchewan, it does not have uranium enrichment plants.
The U.S. opened its first and only enrichment plant, operated by Centrus Energy in Ohio, amid a federal push to find a solution to the Russia problem. It remains the only facility in the U.S. licensed to enrich uranium, and has a lineup for SMR firms seeking its fuel.
That said, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the uranium front late last year as the Trudeau federal government’s fall economic statement promised support to strengthen nuclear fuel supply chains.
“To support demand for allied enriched nuclear fuel and bolster supply chain resiliency, the 2024 fall economic statement announces the government’s intent to backstop up to $500 million in enriched nuclear fuel purchase contracts from the United States or other allied countries, including high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), subject to further consultations with industry stakeholders on program details, and provide $4 million over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for Natural Resources Canada to administer the program,” reads the fall mini budget.
The current Carney government has yet to table a budget laying out whether that commitment will continue to go ahead.
Flamanville EPR shut down, no restart date announced
Having just exceeded the 60% power threshold, the Flamanville EPR was shut down as part of its tests but must remain so following a problem.
By Chrismaël Marchand, June 25, 2025, https://actu.fr/normandie/flamanville_50184/lepr-de-flamanville-est-a-larret-pas-de-date-de-redemarrage-annoncee_62823385.html
The Flamanville EPR (Manche) entered the operating phase in May 2024, with the loading of its fuel . Since then, it has validated its first divergence in September 2024 and the coupling to the electricity grid in December 2024. In 2025, it continues this intense start-up phase with a target of full power during the summer of 2025 .
It is even on schedule, it seems, since it reached 60% of its power , at the beginning of June 2025. It is now aiming for the 80% level where it will have to benefit from the approval of the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority (ASNR).
However, he will have to wait a little longer because unit number 3 of the Flamanville Nuclear Power Production Centre (CNPE) is no longer operating.
Investigation and repair on the agenda
On June 19, 2025, at 7:05 p.m., it was shut down as part of the reactor commissioning tests, which require the reactor to undergo numerous and significant power variations.
Reactor No. 2 is also delayed
On Monday, June 16, reactor No. 2 was disconnected from the power grid, “following the activation of the turbine’s automatic protections,” located in the non-nuclear part of the facility. “We detected an oil leak on a component,” EDF confirmed. “The reactor therefore went into automatic protection mode.” Initially, unit No. 2 was scheduled to restart on the evening of Sunday, June 22. However, repairs are taking longer than expected. A new date has therefore been set for Saturday, June 28. However, there is no guarantee.
“This shutdown allowed adjustment operations to be carried out in the engine room, a non-nuclear part of the facilities,” EDF explained . However, the production unit has still not restarted.
It is kept at a standstill to carry out investigations and adjustments on a protection valve of the main primary circuit.EDF, communications department
No official date has been announced yet. ” We are investigating and making repairs to continue the test session,” EDF concluded
What is an EMP?
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/06/29/what-is-an-emp/
A nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could affect billions explains Carlos Umaña in an interview
As a companion piece to Umaña’s article about the April 2025 blackout in Europe and his first fears that nuclear war had begun, we republish this interview from Tendencia in 2019.
In 2017, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its decade-long work to ban the atomic bomb.
ICAN is a global alliance whose goal is to raise awareness among people in all countries to pressure their governments to sign a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The campaign was launched in 2007 and is now active in more than 60 countries.
Carlos Umaña, from Costa Rica, is a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), and a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
What is a nuclear electromagnetic pulse?
A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a brief, intense pulse of radio wave that is produced by a nuclear detonation.
Its radius is much greater than the destruction caused by the heat and shock wave of the nuclear weapon. For example, the pulse from an explosion about 100 km high would cover an area of 4 million km2. An explosion about 350 km high could, for example, cover most of North America, with a voltage of a power that is a million times greater than that of a lightning bolt from a thunderstorm. That is, if the detonation of a nuclear bomb is made from a sufficient height, even if there is no such great physical destruction, it could affect the lives of the inhabitants of an entire country or of several countries.
What would be the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb from a sufficient height?
It would cause extensive disruption of all electrical equipment. Everything within the radius of the EMP wave would cease to function and would literally go dark.
The EMP energy would be absorbed by a large number of metallic objects, including power cables, telephone lines, railroads and antennas. It would be transmitted to computers and electronic equipment. This would directly affect essential circuits for telecommunications, computer systems, transportation networks, etc. In other words, it would affect practically everything to do with technology.
Why talk about humanitarian consequences, if we are talking about technology, not people?
Recently there has been an impetus for the humanitarian nuclear disarmament movement, where there has been talk about how weapons affect people. There is a lot of talk about the direct effects of destruction by heat, blast wave and radiation, the effects of which last for generations and cause a lot of suffering even today.
Today, this issue has become extremely relevant because civilization depends on technology for so many things, including health systems, and so many people would be affected both directly and indirectly, far beyond the catastrophic damage caused by the direct physical elements.
Nuclear bombs have been detonated before, why hasn’t this happened?
Yes, it has. This is known from the havoc they have wreaked at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) and the 2056 nuclear tests that have been done since then.
The difference between then and now is that our dependence on technology is virtually absolute. If we think about it, almost every aspect of our lives, especially in the urban environment, is tied to technology, both in terms of the electrical devices that take care of more and more of the details of our daily lives, and the global communication and information network that we depend on to function as a society. We’re talking about things from basic telecommunication, to data in the cloud, to the stock market, to digital maps for international flights, and so on.
All cars and planes would be disabled. Police, ambulances and firefighters could not be called. Food could not be distributed, especially in urban centers, nor water. Imagine entire cities without electricity, lights, transportation and food. It would be the end of civilization itself. Modern life as we know it would simply cease to exist.
To what extent are the threats of this happening real?
While North Korea’s arsenal is much smaller than that of the United States, at times of tension between the two countries, the North Korean threat was to detonate a bomb in the U.S. atmosphere to disable a large part of the country.
Read the original interview in Spanish here.
The Unspoken Aspects of Iran’s Nuclear Program
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 27 June 2025
The implications of Iran’s nuclear program are not what we think. Tehran renounced the atomic bomb in 1988, but is attempting, with Russia’s cooperation, to discover the secrets of nuclear fusion. If it succeeds, it would help the Southern states decolonize by freeing themselves from oil.
As for the implications of the bombing of certain Iranian nuclear sites by the United States, they may also not be what we think.
This affair is all the more opaque because it is not possible today to establish a clear distinction between research on civilian nuclear fusion and military fusion.
ince the fall of Iraq, under the blows of the British and the United States, London and Washington have popularized the myth of Iran’s military nuclear program, following on from the myth of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This myth has been taken up by Israeli “revisionist Zionists” (not to be confused with “Zionists” per se) and their leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. For twenty years, Westerners have been inundated with this propaganda and have come to believe it, although announcing for such a long period that Tehran will have “the” bomb “next year” makes no sense.—
However, even if Russia, China, and the United States all agree that there is currently no Iranian military program, everyone clearly sees that Iran is doing something at its nuclear power plants. But what?
In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of the Islamic Republic, replacing Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. He is a scientist whose vision is to liberate colonized peoples. He therefore believes that by mastering the atom, he will enable all peoples to free themselves from Western oil transnationals.
Iran then develops training programs for nuclear scientists in numerous universities. It’s not about creating a small elite of a few hundred specialists, but about training battalions of engineers. There are now tens of thousands of them.
Iran intends to discover how to achieve nuclear fusion, whereas Westerners are content with fission. Fission is the splitting of an atom; while fusion is the joining of atoms, which releases immeasurable energy. Fission is used for our power plants, while, for the time being, fusion is only used for thermonuclear bombs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s project is to use it to generate electricity and share it with developing countries.
This knowledge is revolutionary, in the Khomeinist sense of the term, that is, it allows for an end to the dependence of the Southern states and their economic development. It clashes head-on with the British vision of colonialism, according to which His Majesty had to divide and rule and prevent the development of the colonized. We recall, for example, that London forbade Indians from spinning the cotton they grew themselves so that it could be spun by its factories in Manchester. In response, Mahatma Gandhi set an example for his people and spun his own cotton, defying the British monarchy. Similarly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s project challenges the power of the West and the Anglo-Saxon oil transnationals. It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about Iranian investment in nuclear power because these technologies are, by definition, dual-use, both civilian and military. It is clear that this is not the usual civilian use, and that the detailed discovery of fusion processes could also be used for military purposes. In any case, Iran is seeking an inexhaustible source of energy.
………………………….It should also be remembered that Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It is for this reason that it is subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since 1988, the IAEA has never found any evidence suggesting that Iran still has a military nuclear program. However, the Agency has asked numerous questions to clarify certain aspects of its civilian program and has received no answers, which is perfectly understandable given the investment in Iranian-Russian fusion research. In practice, documents released by the Iranian press two days before the Israeli attack attest that the IAEA Director, the Argentinian Rafael Grossi, behaves like a spy in the service of Israel, to which he transmits all information from its inspectors; this is despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore not a member of the IAEA.
Tehran submitted a proposal for the “Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East” to the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the NPT on May 4, 2010 [1]. This proposal was well received by all states in the region, with the exception of Israel. Indeed, Tel Aviv, which benefited from transfers of French technology from senior officials of the Fourth Republic, possesses the atomic bomb [2]…………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.voltairenet.org/article222538.html
Torness ideal for small modular nuclear reactor, says Britain Remade.
a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected
to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report
by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any
other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems,
solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas.
A UK campaign for accelerated infrastructure-building has said that
Torness is “a prime site” for the next generation of small nuclear
reactors. Britain Remade, a group co-founded by a former energy and climate
advisor to Boris Johnson, says Torness as an ideal target for small modular
reactors of the type the UK Government recently backed. ………………………………….
Britain Remade, which is strongly focussed on campaigning
for “nuclear power alongside the rapid roll-out of renewables” and
infrastructure-building to drive growth, hosted a public meeting in Dunbar
in April. The campaign also conducted a poll which found that half of the
SNP’s voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland’s mix of
clean energy generation.
But many in Scotland still maintain a strong objection to nuclear.
Pete Roche, who campaigned against Torness in the
1970s, founding the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, said:
“The last thing Scotland needs at Torness is more reactors, whether large
or small. Incidentally Rolls Royce’s so-called small reactors at 470MW are
only slightly smaller than Torness’s two 660MW reactors.”
Earlier this month, the UK Government announced its selection of Rolls-Royce SMR as the
preferred bidder “to develop small modular reactors, subject to final
government approvals and contract signature – marking a new golden age of
nuclear in the UK”. Dumitriu said: “SMRs are already being deployed in
Canada. The idea behind them is that because you build them in a factory
and 90% of the construction of them is done in a factory, you’re rolling
them off a production line and because of that you get all of the cost
reductions of economies of scale, of learning by doing and you’re able to
build them a lot cheaper than the current design.”
However a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected
to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report
by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any
other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems,
solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas.
Campaigner Pete Roche said:
“There is no evidence that small modular reactors will be cheaper,
because almost none have ever been built. In fact it is beginning to look
like small reactors will be even more expensive than large reactors because
they won’t benefit from economies of scale.”
Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said: “Decommissioning Scotland’s nuclear sites will take
decades and will require the retention of a highly skilled workforce.
Meanwhile, the significant growth in renewables, storage hydrogen, carbon
capture and decommissioning are key opportunities for our future energy
workforce in Scotland – with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young
(EY), showing that with the right support, Scotland’s low carbon and
renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.“
Herald 28th June 2025,
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25261384.torness-ideal-small-modular-reactor-says-britain-remade/
Why Trump’s Golden Dome must be opposed – Bruce Gagnon & Dae-Han Song
19 Jun 2025
In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US armed forces to construct a missile defense system – the ‘Golden Dome’ – a proposed multi-layer defense system, comparable to the Iron Dome system in Israel. It aims to place and maintain space weapons orbit, for the first time in history.
The proposed system will be exorbitant. According to US Congress sources it could cost several trillion dollars. This would require the US to cut every one of its remaining social programs. Such a military system would inflict ever more damage to the environment both on and around our planet.
Trump wants such a system, so that the US can launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear armed country and the US be confident that it has sufficient defenses to reduce the impact of any retaliatory missiles launched against US to levels deemed acceptable to US military planners. As the US advances its war drive, it is developing its military alliances with other countries and locking them into its war preparations.
Military coordination is being stepped up with increased ‘interoperability’ of hardware. In these alliances, such as NATO, it is always the US that is ‘in charge of the tip of the spear’.
Bruce Gagnon, in discussion with Dae-Han Song, explains why the proposed Golden Dome should be opposed. Bruce Gagnon has been organizing to stop the new arms race in space (Star Wars) since 1982. He began by coordinating the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice from 1983-1998. During those years, in 1992, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in space that he now coordinates. Bruce began his organizing career working for the United Farm Workers Union. He is a Vietnam war era veteran. He lives in Brunswick, Maine.
Website of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space: https://space4peace.org/ The petition against the Golden Dome is here: https://space4peace.org/global-networ… Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.
EPR nuclear reactors are just not performing well at all
The French EPR reactor was supposed to be built in 4 or 4,5 years, and to
produce 13 TWh of electricity per year. (As for EDF:s promise, see for
example https://lnkd.in/dFXe5geb point 19.)
At 13 TWh/year and operating when planned to do so, the first 4 reactors, in Finland, France and China should have produced about 648 TWh by the end of 2024. According to new
data from the IAEA PRIS they have produced 123,4 TWh, a mere 19 % of what
was promised.
Much of this underachievement is explained by construction
delays, on average 8,5 years for the first 4 reactors. But even after they
have started to produce electricity, it is far less than the 13 TWh/year.
In fact, it is 8,4 TWh. Put it in another way, the ”load factor” is
low. Lifetime load factors through 2024 are Taishan 1: 55%, Taishan 2: 76
%, Olkiluoto 3: 77,6%. Flamanville 3 in France was connected to the grid
only in December 2024 so it is too early to tell.
But as for the other three, the weighted average so far is about 67 percent. 100 per cent is
impossible. The world average load factor is about 82 per cent, as real
world reactors have both planned and unplanned stops.
The EPR has consistently been marketed as being able to produce 13 TWh per year, for 60
years. The theoretical maximum for a 1600 megawatt reactor, 24/365, is just
above 14 TWh, so 13 TWh corresponds to a load factor of 92.8%.It is
conceivable that the load factors will increase but it is not sure. Taishan
is the oldest EPR in operation, and it is also the worst performer.
Frederik Lundberg 24th June 2025,
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7343320565471924224/
The nuclear mirage: why small modular reactors won’t save nuclear power
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are the nuclear industry’s latest shiny dream. It is more hope than strategy. SMRs only exist in the imagination of the nuclear industry and its supporters. SMRs can only be found on glossy PowerPoint slides. That is why Mycle Schneider dubbed SMRs “power point reactors.” There are no engineering plans, no blueprints, no working prototypes.
Climate and Capital Media, by Arnie Gundersen | Jun 20, 2025
Don’t believe the hype, says a 50-year industry veteran
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.”
Everywhere you look, the nuclear industry’s hype machine is in overdrive. Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy urges a “warp speed” nuclear revival. Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and the UK government all tout small modular reactors (SMRs) as the silver bullet for climate change and energy security. Tech billionaires are hiring nuclear veterans. Wall Street is whispering about “round-the-clock power” for AI data centers. The UK is betting billions on “mini nukes” to fill its looming energy gap.
For those old enough to remember, this should sound familiar. For those who don’t, listen up. I spent over 50 years in the nuclear industry, advancing to Senior Vice President and managing projects at 70 nuclear power plants. I hold a nuclear safety patent and co-authored three peer-reviewed papers on the spread of radiation after meltdowns.
I once believed in the dream. I helped build the dream. And now, watching this third act unfold, I can only shake my head at the déjà vu. Because the nuclear industry’s latest pitch is not a revolution, but a rerun — an expensive distraction from real climate solutions.
The nuclear industry’s latest pitch is not a revolution, but a rerun — an expensive distraction from real climate solutions.
What is an SMR, anyway?
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are the nuclear industry’s latest shiny dream. It is more hope than strategy. SMRs only exist in the imagination of the nuclear industry and its supporters. SMRs can only be found on glossy PowerPoint slides. That is why Mycle Schneider dubbed SMRs “power point reactors.” There are no engineering plans, no blueprints, no working prototypes.
Still, hope springs eternal, and the idea is to build advanced atomic fission reactors, typically defined as producing up to 300 megawatts of electricity per unit, less than a third the size of a conventional nuclear plant.
The “small” part refers to their reduced output and physical footprint, while “modular” means they’re designed to be built in factories, shipped to sites, and installed as needed, supposedly making them cheaper and faster to deploy than traditional reactors. In theory, you could add modules over time to scale up output, like snapping together Lego blocks.
Too small to succeed
But let’s not be fooled by the word “small.” Even a single SMR is a massive, highly radioactive industrial machine, capable of powering a mid-sized city and containing a radioactive inventory far greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The “small” label is relative only to the behemoths of the last century. In practice, a “small” reactor brings all the big problems of a conventional reactor: dangerous radioactive fuel, complex safety systems, and the risk of catastrophic failure or sabotage. The only thing that’s truly small about SMRs is their inability to benefit from the economies of scale that, in theory, were supposed to make large reactors affordable — but never actually did.
All risk, no advantage
So, the SMR is a lose-lose: all the risks and headaches of traditional nuclear, but with none of the cost or scale advantages that never materialized in the first place.
But that is not stopping nuclear power zealots from championing what will be another failed chapter in the sad legacy of commercial atomic power. Sensing blood, the battered commercial nuclear industry is back with its most audacious pitch yet: SMR lobbying of governments worldwide for taxpayer money. Why? No private investor will touch nukes with a ten-foot uranium rod.
The irony is rich: while Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and Amazon herald SMRs as the solution to everything from AI’s energy hunger to coal’s decline, the nuclear vendors themselves won’t promise atomic power will be cheaper than renewables. Perhaps they recall the Westinghouse executives who were imprisoned for defrauding the public on atomic project costs. They know what I know: it is pure fantasy to think smaller, less powerful SMRs will magically generate cheap power. Power generation doesn’t work that way.
A legacy of failure — and my place in it
I started my career in the early 1970s, a young engineer with a master’s degree and a reactor operator’s license, working on Millstone Unit 1 in Connecticut. We were going to make electricity “too cheap to meter.” Instead, we made it too expensive to afford — and too complex to run reliably…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“The NRC is truly a captured agency… NEI complained that the agency’s proposed language for a new rule to weaken security for new nuclear reactors was too stringent. So, the NRC complied and completely eviscerated the draft. Pathetic,” said Dr. Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists
Who’s who in SMRs
But none of this has stopped nuclear vendors from pushing their SMR hopefuls:
- Holtec: It has never built a reactor. Its design has changed three times in three years, each version more complex. Larger and expensive than the last. At one point, Holtec claimed its reactor would be as safe as a chocolate factory. Willy Wonka would disagree.
Natrium: Backed by Bill Gates, it uses liquid sodium coolant and a thermal storage gimmick. The design is so complicated that the only thing it’s likely to generate is more press releases — and perhaps a few more government grants. And here’s the kicker: the only fuel available for Natrium’s first core load was to come from Russia. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the project was immediately delayed by at least two years, exposing the folly of building a new generation of reactors dependent on a single, geopolitically fraught source of fuel.- NuScale: The first to get NRC approval for an SMR design, but has no customers and just canceled its flagship project due to cost overruns. Its original 50 MW design was quickly upsized to 77 MW after the economics failed to pencil out. After revisiting the drawing board, the new version was just approved in May, but there are no unsubsidized potential buyers.
- Westinghouse: The old hand. Its AP1000 reactors in Georgia nearly bankrupted the company. Now it’s back with an even smaller AP300. Because if at first you don’t succeed, shrink the reactor and try again.
Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and the UK: The new true believers
But never let facts get in the way of a good story. It’s almost touching to see the world’s financial and tech giants lining up behind SMRs, as long as they are subsidized by someone else……………………………………………….
Why nuclear can’t compete with renewables
The dream of the first nuclear plants was that mining uranium was a lot cheaper than mining coal. But while nuclear costs continue to rise, wind, solar, and battery storage are becoming increasingly cheaper and more reliable every year. And the sun and wind give energy for free. Renewables are now the lowest-cost source of new electricity in most markets. Nuclear, by contrast, has never achieved cost reductions through learning or mass production. Every new design is a new experiment, with new risks and new costs……………………………………………….
SMRs will never be built
Here’s the final irony: despite all the headlines and billions in taxpayer subsidies, an SMR will never be built — not in time to matter, and not at a price that makes sense. But that won’t stop the industry from burning through billions more in public money, chasing a fantasy that distracts and diverts resources from real, proven solutions. As Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” And as someone who’s lived through every act of this atomic opera, I can only add: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a third time? Well, that’s just nuclear insanity.
Arnie Gundersen is a former nuclear industry executive and Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education. He has testified as an expert on nuclear safety and reliability worldwide.
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 