nuclear-news

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

America Is Betting Big on a New Generation of Small Nuclear Reactors

In addition to private-sector development, the U.S. Army has taken the lead in microreactor development in recent years, following Trump’s Executive Order 14299 – Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security, which established the Army as the lead agency for military nuclear energy efforts. The directive required the Army to create an official programme with a deadline for an operational reactor at a domestic military installation by September 30, 2028.

In August, the U.S. Army announced plans to award up to $2.2 billion to five companies to construct new-generation microreactors at military bases across the United States. The deployment of these reactors will be supported by the federal easing of regulations for innovative reactor designs.

The Army will provide financing to Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWX Technologies at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York, with the aim of deploying at least one microreactor by the third quarter of 2028. The companies will be expected to raise billions in private investment to support development efforts.

By Felicity Bradstock – Sep 05, 2026, 2:00 PM CDT

  • The U.S. Army has selected five companies and five military installations for its Janus microreactor program, backed by up to $2.2 billion in federal funding.
  • The Army aims to have at least one microreactor producing usable electricity at a military installation by September 30, 2028.
  • Private developers, including Aalo, are also advancing reactor technology, supported by federal programs and efforts to streamline nuclear regulation.

Governments worldwide are racing to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of their plans for a nuclear power renaissance, with significant progress being seen in recent years. However, the United States appears to be leading the way in nuclear microreactor development, with significant investment in the technology recently announced by the U.S. Army……………

A microreactor is even smaller than an SMR, for which a range of designs are currently under development in the United States with the aim of launching the first versions within the next decade. The compact nuclear reactors will be small enough to be transported by truck, boat, or plane ……

Microreactors will be produced and assembled in factories for transport to a wide range of sites, reducing capital costs and accelerating production. They are expected to have a simple, responsive design that allows them to self-adjust without requiring many specialised operators to make these changes, and will be developed with safety systems to prevent overheating or a reactor meltdown.

Most microreactors are being designed to generate between 1 MW and 20 MW of thermal energy, which could be used directly to heat or converted into clean electricity. They will run on a higher concentration of uranium-235 than is currently used in conventional reactors and can be connected to microgrids alongside renewable energy sources. They may also be useful for use in emergency response following a natural disaster. In addition, they can operate for up to 10 years without refuelling and be quickly removed from sites and replaced with new ones.

In the United States, the Department of Energy (DoE) supports a variety of advanced reactor designs, in line with President Trump’s support for a nuclear power resurgence. Trump has voiced support for a wide range of nuclear technologies, from conventional nuclear plants to SMRs and microreactors, aiming to quadruple nuclear power production in the United States by 2050.

In July, Texas-based Aalo announced that its Critical Test Reactor (CTR) had achieved criticality – the point at which a nuclear reactor is capable of sustaining a controlled, self-supporting chain reaction. Aalo said in a statement, “Our CTR went from groundbreaking to a sustained chain reaction in less than eight months – one of the fastest reactor builds in 80 years – and our company has gone from founding to fission in less than three years.” Aalo is focusing on producing 10 MWe reactors for deployment in 50 MWe Aalo Pods to power AI data centres.

In addition to private-sector development, the U.S. Army has taken the lead in microreactor development in recent years, following Trump’s Executive Order 14299 – Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security, which established the Army as the lead agency for military nuclear energy efforts. The directive required the Army to create an official programme with a deadline for an operational reactor at a domestic military installation by September 30, 2028.

In August, the U.S. Army announced plans to award up to $2.2 billion to five companies to construct new-generation microreactors at military bases across the United States. The deployment of these reactors will be supported by the federal easing of regulations for innovative reactor designs.

The Army will provide financing to Antares Nuclear at Fort Bragg in North Carolina; BWX Technologies at Fort Campbell in Kentucky; General Atomics at Fort Hood in Texas; Radiant Industries at Fort Benning in Georgia; and Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum in New York, with the aim of deploying at least one microreactor by the third quarter of 2028. The companies will be expected to raise billions in private investment to support development efforts.

Jeff Waksman, the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, stated, “We believe that this will be the spear tip not just for microreactors but for all advanced reactors in the United States… There have been a lot of microreactor companies that have popped up recently, but we need to get them over the hump.”

While there has been greater discussion around SMR development, the United States is also investing heavily in microreactor construction, aiming to launch the first reactors within the next two years. Funding from the DoE and support from favourable national policies and regulations are expected to help rapidly advance development in the coming years. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/America-Is-Betting-Big-on-a-New-Generation-of-Small-Nuclear-Reactors.html

September 8, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Consortium formed for Swedish SMR project

Thursday, 3 September 2026

Studsvik has selected GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy and Samsung C&T as its strategic partners for an initial four-unit BWRX-300 small modular reactor project, either at its existing licensed nuclear site in Nyköping or at the Målma site in Valdemarsvik.

Swedish nuclear technical services provider Studsvik, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GVH), GE Vernova Financial Services, DS Investment Partners and Samsung C&T announced the signing of an agreement to advance the ReFirm nuclear programme at Studsvik’s sites in Sweden. The agreement is exclusive for a fixed period, which the parties may extend.

ReFirm is a multi-site small modular reactor (SMR) and new nuclear development programme that became part of the Studsvik Group through the acquisition of Kärnfull Next earlier this year. The programme is focused on light-water SMR technology, with plans for multiple units at “SMR parks”. Its plan is for the first unit to be commissioned in the mid-2030s. Kärnfull Next has worked with GE Vernova Hitachi on BWRX-300 deployment in Sweden since 2022 and entered a strategic teaming agreement with Samsung C&T in December 2024.

Under the new agreement, the partners will begin joint development work immediately, including commercial, technical, regulatory and financing activities during the exclusivity period. Studsvik will lead permitting, the environmental impact assessment, site rights, community engagement and the dialogue with the Swedish state. GVH will lead reactor design, licensing support and cost estimation and acts as design authority, and, together with Samsung C&T, acts as the execution team, giving the project single-point responsibility for design and construction delivery. During the exclusivity period, South Korean investment firm DS Investment Partners will lead the investment and GE Vernova Financial Services participates in an advisory and financial structuring capacity in support of the consortium.

A joint project company will be established to support development, financing, construction, ownership and operation of the plants, with details to be finalised in definitive agreements, Studsvik said. It noted that the agreement marks the next phase of development and does not constitute a final investment decision or authorisation to construct.

September 8, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Sweden | Leave a comment

Nuclear Liability Beyond Earth: Who Pays for an Incident on the Lunar Surface?

 European Journal of International Law by Yunus Emre Bakiler and Güneş Ünüvar, September 2, 2026

Lunar exploration during the 20th century sought to reach, explore and, in some cases, return from the Moon,; rather than to serve as successive stages in the construction of permanent lunar infrastructure. Today, lunar missions are mostly about establishing the long-term infrastructure necessary to remain there. Under the Artemis Programme, NASA is developing phased infrastructure for long-term operations and an enduring human presence near the lunar south pole. The International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), led by China, is envisaged as an expandable facility capable of long-term robotic operation and shorter periods of human participation. Commercial entities are already involved in lunar delivery and landing services, while prospective activities extend to communications, mobility, power supply, prospecting and the use of lunar resources.

For sustained operational presence anywhere, power is a common dependency. This is certainly the case for the Moon, and nuclear power is one alternative. In January 2026, NASA and the US Department of Energy announced that they would work towards deploying such a fission surface power system  by 2030. NASA now describes “Lunar Reactor-1” as a reactor intended to land on the Moon in that year. Nuclear surface power is therefore becoming part of near-term planning for sustained lunar operations.

These developments form part of a broader and increasingly global debate over lunar governance. Among the legal questions raised is the liability regime that would apply if a nuclear incident occurred on the lunar surface, but the interaction between the international space law liability framework and the civil liability regimes developed for nuclear installations has yet to receive any scholarly and policy attention. Can a state be held liable for a nuclear incident occurring on the face of the Moon under international law? The blog post will argue that instruments available under international law, while entirely relevant, fall short of providing a conclusive answer to the question. It will also suggest a tentative model for the way forward…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The existing UN Principles on Nuclear Power Sources and the 2009 UN–IAEA Safety Framework provide important safety guidance, but they do not create a detailed governance framework or a compensation regime. The development of lunar nuclear power should be accompanied by an equally serious effort to identify the applicable liability architecture embedded within a robust, comprehensive lunar governance framework. Once a reactor is operating on the Moon, uncertainty over fault, compensable damage, competent fora and available financial resources will be immediate realities. The legal framework should be developed alongside the technology and not in response to its first, potentially catastrophic, failure. https://www.ejiltalk.org/nuclear-liability-beyond-earth-who-pays-for-an-incident-on-the-lunar-surface/

September 7, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, space travel | Leave a comment

UK government does not know what datacentres are being used for, FoI request shows

Lack of information raises fears over environmental impact of the AI boom

Pippa Neill Environment reporter, Wed 2 Sep 2026 ,
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/02/uk-datacentres-ai-boom-foi-environment

The UK government does not know what the country’s datacentres are being used for despite fears over the growing environmental impact of the AI boom.

When asked in a freedom of information (FoI) request who was using the largest sites and what for, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said it did “not hold the requested information”. The ministry has since been dissolved.

With hundreds of datacentres awaiting planning permission and 315 queueing to connect to the National Grid, there is growing concern over a lack of transparency and justification for these projects given their environmental impact.

Ministers announced plans in January to allow qualifying datacentres to opt into the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project scheme. This lets developments bypass local planning committees by securing approval from the government. Campaigners say this “insulates” datacentres from local scrutiny.

Zack Polanski, the Green party leader in England and Wales, said: “The government plans to steamroller over local opposition so private companies can build these facilities – yet they can’t even explain what the benefits are and who is benefiting.”

Datacentres use a huge amount of resources. The Guardian revealed last month that two planned sites will have higher carbon emissions than ExxonMobil in the UK, with concerns raised over how this will fit within the country’s carbon targets.

The government designated datacentres as critical national infrastructure in 2024 and campaigners fear this could mean the water-hungry sites are prioritised over households in times of drought. Water UK, the trade body representing water companies in Britain and Northern Ireland, warned in July that the UK did not have enough water for the datacentre expansion.

Polanski said: “What is more ‘critical’ than people’s access to water? What is more ‘critical’ than our need to transition to a low-energy, low-pollution world so we can put the brakes on climate extremes?”

While there is consensus that datacentres can provide some essential services, there are concerns that developments with a huge environmental impact and local opposition are being prioritised regardless of their use.

Oliver Hayes of Global Action Plan, the environmental charity which submitted the FoI request, said: “It’s highly likely that we’re going to end up seeing datacentres given favourable and preferential treatment when it comes to resources that are actually running chatbots or enabling people to do benign and very wasteful, pointless things.

“At the more serious end, these datacentres could be powering chatbots that enable people to nudify teens without their consent and much worse, frankly.”

With reports that the Scottish government is inching toward a moratorium on new datacentres, there is growing pressure for the UK government to follow suit.

Friends of the Earth is calling for a ban on new sites until environmental safeguards are in place. The campaign group wants the government to publish clear environmental rules for new and existing datacentres, including requirements for 100% additional renewable energy generation for new projects.

Anisah Khan, the campaigns manager at Global Action Plan, said: “When individuals across the country are facing hosepipe bans and essential housebuilding is being delayed because datacentres are gobbling up grid connections, what we need is not more chatbots at any cost.”

The government did not respond to a request for comment over its failure to say what large datacentres were being used for.

A spokesperson said: “A pause on building new datacentres would simply send investment and good jobs abroad, while leaving Britain dependent on other countries for the processing of sensitive health and defence data. Put simply: it would be a disaster for jobs and national security.”

September 7, 2026 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear microreactors move towards operational capability for military, space energy solutions

Robert Dougherty, Space Connect, 04 September 2026

Advanced nuclear microreactors are moving towards operational capability as military and space energy solutions, according to recent comments from Antares Nuclear co-founder and CEO Jordan Bramble.

Bramble, speaking to a US House science committee on 2 September, confirmed that the microreactors are expected to have major implications for military energy resilience, national security, and space power.

Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 reactor reportedly reached criticality on 4 June this year at Idaho National Laboratory, and the company plans to operate its Mark-1 reactor at INL for six months in 2027, followed by military deployments at Fort Bragg and Joint Base San Antonio in 2028.

He also credited the US ADVANCE Act of 2024 and 2025 presidential executive orders with streamlining regulatory processes and establishing a Department of Energy Reactor Pilot Program.

“As Antares ramps up production, we are actively exploring commercial applications to provide resilient power to compute capabilities, remote oil and gas hubs, austere mining environments, fulfilment and distribution centres, and more,” Bramble said.

“We are also building nuclear power for space. In December 2025, President Trump signed his Space Superiority executive order 14369, which was followed in April 2026 by the National Science and Technology Memorandum-3, the National Initiative for American Space Nuclear Power. We at Antares are responding to this charge.

“The same heat-pipe architecture, passive safety, TRISO fuel, and manufacturability that define our terrestrial microreactor form the design basis for space applications. This dual-use approach aligns directly with NASA’s plans for lunar fission surface power and the Space Reactor-1 Freedom pathfinder. Let me be clear, Antares is eager to build to support NASA’s planned 2028 nuclear electric propulsion demonstration mission as well as lunar surface reactors ready for launch by 2030.”

Bramble speculated around first deployment of an advanced small modular reactor at a military installation by 2028, aligning with an existing executive-order target for an Army-regulated reactor………………………………… https://www.spaceconnectonline.com.au/industry/7263-nuclear-microreactors-move-towards-operational-capability-for-military-space-energy-solutions

September 7, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, space travel | Leave a comment

Big Tech’s Debate Over “Open” and “Safe” AI Leaves Corporate Power Unquestioned

Techno-optimism turns this hierarchy into a story of liberation, presenting corporate technologies as neutral instruments of progress while concealing who owns them and who bears their costs.

 September 2, 2026, By Tim Scott

Two seemingly contradictory letters emerging from the AI industry point toward the same future.

On July 24, 2026, an initial coalition of 25 technology companies and organizations, including NVIDIA, Microsoft, and Meta, released the Open Weights and American AI Leadership letter, calling for wider adoption of AI models that institutions can download and modify. By August 3, more than 270 companies and organizations had signed, spanning Big Tech, venture capital, investment management, and the defense and security industries. Four days after Open Weights’ release, another letter, Pacing the Frontier, organized by employees of frontier AI companies with support from two AI-policy nonprofits, drew more than 1,300 signatures. It warned that leading companies may be close to automating AI research, accelerating development beyond society’s ability to understand or control the resulting AI systems.

The letters seem to argue for opposite futures. One presents wider access and fewer restrictions as the route to security and prosperity. The other asks the U.S. government to support an international effort to slow frontier development before competitive pressures make coordinated restraint impossible.

But they address different levels of the industry. Open Weights seeks to deepen AI’s already pervasive presence by making customizable models easier to embed throughout the economy and public life. Pacing the Frontier proposes government-backed management of frontier AI, the industry’s term for its most advanced and broadly capable models. That framework could make the small circle of companies building these systems indispensable to defining the dangers and writing the rules meant to restrain them.

Read together, the letters point toward a two-tier arrangement. AI becomes entrenched across society while ownership of its most powerful systems, infrastructure, and governance remains concentrated at the top. Their connection requires no secret agreement. It lies in what both take for granted: AI development will continue, public institutions will finance and adopt it, and private ownership and corporate power will remain intact.

The letters leave out harder questions: Who will own AI and decide its direction? How will it be used in surveillance and war, and how will it reshape work and deepen inequality? Whose lives and futures will be valued, and does the public have any right to limit or refuse a technology presented as inevitable? Beneath the language of openness and safety lie deeper a general agreement over corporate power, military dominance, elite rule, and the authoritarian currents shaping Silicon Valley’s vision of the future.

Open Weights Are Not Open Source

An AI model is the underlying system that generates answers, predictions, images, or other outputs. Its “weights” are the billions of numerical settings developed from patterns in training data. Releasing those weights allows organizations with computing power and expertise to download, run, and modify the model rather than use it only through a company-controlled service such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude.

Researchers can examine these models, test their weaknesses, and build specialized tools, while organizations can run them locally rather than send sensitive information to a commercial service. Yet proprietary, company-controlled services such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude are not inherently safer: their operators can keep flaws from public scrutiny, monitor how people use them, impose restrictions, raise prices, or withdraw access.

But releasing a model’s weights does not by itself make the AI system open source. Under the Open Source Initiative’s definition, open-source AI must provide the necessary materials and the legal freedom to use, study, modify, and share the system for any purpose. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Ideology Behind the Two-Tier System

Both letters treat AI’s advance as inevitable, leaving the public to adapt and government to manage its deployment. That technological determinism merges with Silicon Valley solutionism: questions about ownership, labor, surveillance, military power, and the right to refuse AI shrink into matters of design and oversight. Within that shared premise, Open Weights gives institutions greater freedom to deploy AI, while Pacing the Frontier places corporate laboratories, experts, and officials at the center of determining whether and when AI development poses an unacceptable danger. The public remains a population to manage rather than a political force empowered to decide whether and how the technology should be developed and used……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Despite their differences, these ideological currents converge around the pursuit of ever-more-powerful AI. Accelerationists seek more computing power, faster deployment, and fewer restraints, convinced that technological growth will produce abundance and solve social problems. Longtermist safety frameworks may urge greater control over the pace of development, but they often leave that underlying project and its private corporate ownership and direction unquestioned. In the framework developed by Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres, these visions share a tendency to centralize power, elevate technical elites as humanity’s guardians, and invoke “safety” or universal benefit while pushing out of view the exploitation, discrimination, and environmental destruction already affecting dispossessed peoples.

They trace transhumanism, singularitarianism, longtermism, and related ideologies to Anglo-American eugenics. In their account, transhumanism recast improving the “human stock” as creating enhanced or “posthuman” beings.  The language shifted from compulsory breeding to innovation and personal choice, but the sorting logic endured: ideas about race, intelligence, productivity, able-bodiedness, and capacity for enhancement continue to shape whose lives and futures are valued. Eugenics has not disappeared. It has been updated for an age in which powerful elites imagine redesigning humanity through technologies that reproduce existing hierarchies.

Techno-optimism turns this hierarchy into a story of liberation, presenting corporate technologies as neutral instruments of progress while concealing who owns them and who bears their costs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

None of this means every signer or developer endorses the Trump administration or shares the ideological commitments described here. The point is structural: both letters operate within a political order built around private infrastructure, concentrated wealth, U.S. geopolitical dominance, and interstate competition for AI-enabled military and technological superiority. The race (especially between the United States and China) to develop AI for weapons, intelligence, surveillance, cyberwarfare, logistics, and military planning turns continued expansion into a national-security imperative and makes restraint appear to be strategic surrender. Open weights accelerate diffusion, frontier-safety governance can legitimize control by insiders, and public institutions supply the money, data, infrastructure, legitimacy, and users. AI spreads throughout society, but ownership, power, and wealth remain concentrated. https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/02/big-techs-debate-over-open-and-safe-ai-leaves-corporate-power-unquestioned/

September 6, 2026 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

Great British Energy -Nuclear (GBE-N) reveals £20bn SMR TP Contract forecast breakdown after saying it didn’t have budget details

Tom Pashby, Sep 03, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/gbe-n-reveals-20bn-smr-tp-contract?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=213980624&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has admitted it does have a breakdown of the forecast £20bn initial estimate for its small modular reactor (SMR) technical partner contract (TP Contract), despite having previously said it didn’t have details of the budget.

GBE-N is the UK Government’s body responsible for building the UK’s first government-supported SMRs. Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected by GBE-N to built three of its SMRs at the Wylfa nuclear site in North Wales.

In May, GBE-N announced it had awarded Rolls-Royce SMR stage 1 of the SMR TP Contract. It said: “The forecast Stage 1 price of the TP Contract is £359,000,000. This forecast price may change.

“The forecast Stage 2 price of the TP Contract is approximately £8,168,000,000. This forecast price is indicative only as the pricing mechanism for Stage 2 remains subject to negotiation during Stage 1.”

Taken together, that placed the forecast cost of the total TP Contract at £8,527,000,000. It is worth noting that the TP Contract does not capture the full cost of GBE-N’s Wylfa SMR project.

The contract award announcement also said: “The estimated total value within the tender notice for the two-stage TP Contract was £20,000,000,000 excluding VAT. This value was indicative only and based upon GBE-N’s initial understanding of the potential costs of developing a first of a kind technology.

“This estimated total value was based on the fact that in the tender notice GBE-N reserved the right to make up to four awards, although GBE-N also reserved the right to award three, two or only one contract(s). GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”

Given that the notes say GBE-N had an initial estimated £20bn for the TP Contract, and that it reserved the right to make up to four awards, it could reasonably be assumed that it had estimated each contract would have a value of £5bn. However, this was unclear.

Via the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, GBE-N was asked to provide a breakdown of the £20bn figure.

In response, New Civil Engineer revealed that GBE-N said: “Following reasonable and proportionate searches of our records, we confirm that Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) does not hold the information you have requested.”

20 Working Days challenged this response via a request for an internal review and GBE-N chief financial officer Neil Cooper responded to say that upon further inspection, the organisation did have a breakdown of the figure.

“In our original decision, we concluded that GBE-N does not hold the information requested,” Cooper said.

He went on to say that, following the internal review, GBE-N concluded that it “does hold information within the scope of your request.

“Our review has found that our original decision did not identify this information because it sits within a document whose predominant purpose is not to explain the calculation of the £20bn figure and which was therefore not considered to fall within the scope of your request.

“We consider it was reasonable to have concluded initially that the document did not contain information within the scope of your request. On further review, however, we are satisfied that it does, and we have therefore continued to assess whether the information we hold is disclosable under the EIR (Environmental Information Regulations).”

However, he added: “Our review has concluded that the information held by GBE-N should be withheld from disclosure under the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (The course of justice and inquiries) of the EIR.”

He went on to explain this further, saying: “We are withholding the requested information in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which permits a public authority to refuse to disclose information to the extent that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.

“The information you have requested includes inter alia vendor cost estimates, government funding assumptions, the approach to negotiation strategies, and assessments of vendor capability relating to the Small Modular Reactor Technology Selection Process.

“Much of this information was obtained through confidential market engagement, and the information is identified as being market-sensitive.”

Cooper did find that he was able to provide an explanation for the £20bn figure without releasing internal documents.

“Although we have concluded that the information that you have requested is exempt from disclosure, we have set out below an explanation of how the £20bn figure was derived,” he said.

“The £20bn estimated total value in the Contract Notice of 2023 was an indicative, best-estimate at the time figure, published to meet the legal requirement to state the total potential value of the contract award including all options on the number of sites and technology providers.

“It was arrived at on an objective basis reflecting GBE-N’s understanding at the time, and anticipating a procurement capable of supporting up to two small modular reactor projects (broadly £10bn per project), across the whole life of a project, from early development through to commercial operation.”

It is unclear whether a single SMR ‘project’ would cover the three Rolls-Royce SMRs which are proposed for the Wylfa site, or whether that would mean a single reactor.

Cooper continued: “Because the technology is first-of-a-kind and yet to be developed, the estimate necessarily carried significant uncertainty, as the Contract Notice made clear.

“The detailed assumptions underpinning the figure comprise commercially sensitive vendor cost information and funding and negotiating assumptions obtained through confidential market engagement, and to the extent that they fall within the scope of your request these are withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR for the reasons set out in this response.”

GBE-N was approached for comment.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

“Pink Corridor” to Explore Nuclear-Powered Transatlantic Container Shipping

Sep 3, 2026 by The Maritime Executive, https://maritime-executive.com/article/pink-corridor-to-explore-nuclear-powered-transatlantic-container-shipping

A new project focusing on the challenges of developing a so-called “pink corridor” for nuclear-powered transatlantic container shipping is taking shape. It will be led by Lloyd’s Register and A.P. Moller – Maersk working with the ports of Charleston, South Carolina, and Felixstowe in the UK to examine the security and safeguarding requirements for the theoretical deployment of a nuclear-powered containership route

It comes as the prospects of nuclear-powered commercial shipping continue to entice the industry and regulators. Earlier forays into nuclear power for commercial shipping failed to gain traction in the 1950s and early 1960s other than the U.S. demonstration project Atoms for Peace that resulted in the passenger-cargo ship NS Savannah. Japan experimented with nuclear propulsion and the Soviets built a ship, Sevmorput, that remains active, as the industry is reawakening to the potential from a new generation of small nuclear reactors.

Last week, US Secretary for Transportation Sean Duffy posted, highlighting the potential for nuclear propulsion. It came as the US Maritime Administration signed a new agreement with UK-based Core Power’ that envisioned a fleet of 50 nuclear-powered merchant vessels. MARAD also announced agreements with the Port of Long Beach, California, and the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, to explore nuclear projects.

According to the organizers, the Pink Corridor aims to provide a structured basis for collaboration, helping stakeholders understand the practical requirements, gaps and future work needed before any potential nuclear maritime corridor could be considered. Centered on a conceptual nuclear-powered container ship, the Pink Corridor will examine the requirements for theoretical port access on the specified route. Lloyd’s, Maersk, and the ports will focus on key areas including ship security, safeguards, cyber resilience, emergency response, insurance regimes, and alignment between maritime and nuclear regulatory expectations.

Nick Gross, Global Containerships Segment Director, LR, highlights they are taking a practical, collaborative approach to explore the issues. “The partnership brings together industry-leading players across shipping, ports and classification, reflecting the growing interest in nuclear technology as a route to more sustainable maritime operations,” says Gross.

The work is expected to support broader maritime development under the US-UK Technology Prosperity Deal and its bilateral commitment to explore civil maritime nuclear applications, including the potential creation of a shipping corridor between the two nations.

The collaboration also builds on LR and Core Power’s 2024 regulatory assessment study, which was formalized with Maersk through a joint development project exploring the safety, operational, and regulatory requirements for applying advanced nuclear power to container shipping.

The outcomes of the initial phase of the Pink Corridor project will inform the scope of a potential second phase, including areas requiring further study across engineering, regulatory, legislative, security and safeguards frameworks for nuclear merchant ships.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Blykalla seeks state aid for second SMR plant

Wednesday, 2 September 2026,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/blykalla-seeks-state-aid-for-second-smr-plant

Sweden’s Blykalla has applied for state support for its proposed small modular reactor power plant at Untra in the Tierp municipality, for which the company applied for governmental approval last week.

On 25 August, Blykalla submitted a proposal to the Swedish government for a nuclear power plant at Untra which would feature up to eight lead-cooled small modular reactors (SMRs) with a total capacity of up to 440 MWe. The application followed an earlier one, submitted in May, for a six-unit project in Norrsundet in the Gävle municipality, which is also in the same region of east central Sweden.

Blykalla has established Untra Nuclear Power AB as the licence holder and financing vehicle for the Untra plant, with strategic and financial investors expected to enter its ownership over time. Blykalla – through Untra Nuclear Power – has now applied for state support for the construction of the Untra plant, having applied in early June for government financing for its planned power plant in Norrsundet.

The Swedish state aid framework is designed to support new nuclear power through a state loan, a two-way contract for difference and a risk-sharing mechanism. The detailed terms of the state aid are agreed between the project company and the Swedish state, and any support would require approval by the European Commission in accordance with EU State aid rules. Negotiations on the terms of state support begin once the government decides to proceed with the application.

Following the receipt last week of Blykalla’s application to establish the nuclear power plant at Untra, the government has tasked the County Administrative Board in Uppsala County with preparing a proposal for a facility plan. This plan will guide how land and water areas should be used when establishing a nuclear facility. According to recent legislation, the government may approve an application if there is a valid facility plan for the facility in question. The proposed construction plan must be accompanied by an environmental impact statement and a plan description. This statement must include a description of the planning conditions and how the plan can be implemented. The plan must be submitted no later than 30 April 2027……………

Blykalla – formerly called LeadCold – is a spin-off from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, where lead-cooled reactor systems have been under development since 1996. The company – founded in 2013 as a joint stock company – is developing the SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor). The company’s goal is for its first 140 MWt/55 MWe SEALER-55 commercial reactor to be ready for operation in the early 2030s.

In October 2022, Sweden’s incoming centre-right coalition government adopted a positive stance towards nuclear energy. In November 2023, it unveiled a roadmap which envisages the construction of new nuclear generating capacity equivalent to at least two large-scale reactors (2,500 MWe) by 2035, with the equivalent capacity of up to 10 new large-scale reactors (which may include SMRs) coming online by 2045. A new act on state aid entered into force on 1 August 2025, since when interested companies have been able to apply for the aid.

So far, approval has been sought for nuclear facilities at five sites with a total output of up to 3,700 MWe. In addition, the government has received applications for financial support to build nuclear reactors at two additional locations, with seven projects applying for state aid.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Sweden | Leave a comment

A nuclear reactor is being installed a mile underground in Kansas

Deep Fission has just received safety approval from the US Department of Energy for a reactor design that it plans to install at the bottom of a deep hole

By Vanessa Bates Ramirez, New Scientist 2nd Sept 2026

Nuclear power start-up Deep Fission wants to put a reactor where no reactor has gone before: a mile underground. The California-based company received safety approval for its reactor design from the US Department of Energy earlier this month, and is preparing the site for its commercial pilot outside Parsons, a small city in south-east Kansas. 

The company hopes that placing a reactor deep underground will cut installation and operational costs, particularly since the bedrock can provide natural containment and pressure for the reactor. This eliminates the need for a heavy-duty concrete containment dome like those that enclose conventional nuclear reactors, which account for a significant portion of their cost and the time it takes to build them. But independent engineers say it is unclear how successful the approach will be. ………………….(Subscribers only)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2587049-a-nuclear-reactor-is-being-installed-a-mile-underground-in-kansas/

September 6, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Taxpayers Must Not Be on the Hook for Bailing Out the AI Industry

If AI goes south, we should expect major pressures from the Trump administration for a debt- or taxpayer-funded bailout.

 SCHEERPOST, September 3, 2026,By C.J. Polychroniou

Hundreds of billions of dollars are flooding the AI industry. Economist Gerald Epstein says this bubble could burst.

The U.S. economy is heading toward uncharted territory. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming business operations and all areas of finance, the national debt is on an unsustainable fiscal path, and most middle-income Americans cannot keep up with rising costs. Moreover, as hundreds of billions of dollars are flooding into artificial intelligence, there are serious concerns that an AI bubble could trigger another bailout with taxpayer money.

In the interview that follows, leading progressive economist Gerald Epstein, who initiated and directs the Game Changers project at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, talks about AI’s impact on finance and the bailout problem and how a transformative public finance strategy can revive democracy, promote equity and social justice, and build strong and sustainable communities. Epstein is professor of economics and founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute. 

C.J. Polychroniou: AI is possibly the fastest-growing technology in history and is already reshaping the U.S. economy in innumerable ways as organizations of all kinds are deploying AI tools across every functional area. But there are many public concerns surrounding AI, including whether it is becoming “too big to fail.” If so, taxpayer money may be used yet again to bail out private companies and institutions from collapse. What are the dangers here?

Gerald Epstein: There are indeed many public concerns about the economic and financial implications of AI. But let me focus on AI’s impact on finance as there are legitimate fears that the government may be asked at some point to bail out the AI industry, especially given the close ties of the Trump administration to AI firms.

As Marc Jarsulic and I argue in our Game Changers policy analysis “No More Bailouts,” the AI investment boom is increasing the level of risk for AI-related firms. The reason is that for these investments to be profitable, AI revenue will need to grow substantially. But some financial analysts doubt that the revenue will materialize. For example, in Bain’s Technology Report 2025, it is estimated that capital expenditures of $500 billion per year would be required to cover anticipated AI demand. To fund this investment, annual AI revenue would need to increase to $2 trillion. However, after accounting for likely cost reductions at the AI firms, Bain’s research concluded that their annual revenues would fall $800 billion short of that mark.

In that context, some of the risks of the AI-led investment boom have been shifted to financial markets as the AI boom is relying increasingly on debt. The revenues of the tech monopolies are extraordinary, but they are insufficient to pay all the costs of data centers. In 2025, the capital expenditures of the top five hyperscalers were more than 30 percent of their total revenue. They are projected to rise to more than 40 percent by the end of 2026. This has forced these companies to turn to debt and equity markets for finance. In 2025, major tech hyperscalers alone issued $120 billion in debt, but the figure was pushed toward $175 billion in 2026 and is expected to rise to $300 billion annually in the coming years.

A distorted government response to an AI-bust is in the cards. A rational policy response to an AI bust would not include bailouts of AI-related firms or their creditors. The investment boom, and the debt that helps finance it, have been engineered by sophisticated actors aiming to dominate a potentially lucrative innovation. There is no ex ante (“before the event”) government safety net for financial bets of this kind. Caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) applies to the firms playing the AI domination game if it ever applied to anyone. Unfortunately, we cannot count on a rational response from the current administration. Extensive conflicts of interest and cronyism mean that government bailouts for insiders would be on the table. Hyperscalers and other AI-related firms have received extraordinary government support. The Trump administration has taken over 90 federal actions to help the AI industry, including executive orders easing permitting for massive data centers, federal support for AI exports and reducing regulatory barriers for the industry. The Trumpian transactional quid pro quo is apparent. Nvidia and Intel have given the government equity to curry favor. A number of major AI companies contributed several million dollars to Trump’s White House demolition — a.k.a. his “ballroom” — fund. And AI firms continue to finance MAGA. This is business as usual for Trump.

If AI goes south, we should expect major pressures from the Trump administration for a debt- or taxpayer-funded bailout.

Bailout operations are a trademark of neoliberalism. That being said, what is the actual problem with bailouts, and how do we put an end to the bailout problem?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://scheerpost.com/2026/09/03/taxpayers-must-not-be-on-the-hook-for-bailing-out-the-ai-industry/

September 5, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, technology, USA | Leave a comment

200-MWe marine microreactors could power ports, desalination and electro-fuel plants.

The nuclear barge could supply power to ports, isolated regions and coastal industries. (Ed – they don’t mention the wastes)

By Atharva Gosavi, Aug 29, 2026, https://interestingengineering.com/energy/200-mwe-marine-reactors-could-power-ports-desalination-and-electro-fuel-plants

A consortium led by advanced reactor developer newcleo has begun studying a floating nuclear power plant designed to supply low-carbon electricity to ports, coastal industrial hubs and isolated regions.

Named n-Floating, the project will examine a non-self-propelled barge housing multiple lead-cooled LFR-AS-200 reactors, each capable of producing 200 MWe.

The initiative has received nearly €1 million through a Bpifrance-managed program supporting the decarbonization of the maritime sector.

Work is underway and will continue for approximately 18 months, with potential industrial deployment targeted by 2036.

Multiple reactors aboard one floating unit

newcleo is working with classification society Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore and French engineering company ABMI Groupe.

Together, the three companies will assess whether advanced nuclear reactors can be safely and competitively integrated into floating infrastructure.

The initial phase will focus on conceptual studies for the nuclear barge. Researchers will evaluate possible applications, including electricity supply for ports, associated industrial facilities, coastal areas and regions that may face land, grid or infrastructure constraints.

The barge could also support energy-intensive processes such as desalination and the production of low-carbon fuels.

However, the project remains at the study stage, and its technical feasibility, regulatory requirements and commercial prospects still need to be evaluated.

“Maritime deployment of advanced reactors opens a broader and still largely unexplored market for nuclear energy,” said Stefano Buono, CEO of newcleo.

“Floating nuclear offers an opportunity to bring reliable, low-carbon power to applications at sea and in coastal locations,” he added.

Borrowing experience from offshore energy

The concept will draw on established methods used by the maritime, oil and gas industries to design, construct and operate floating facilities for energy production, storage, liquefaction and regasification.

Building and integrating major plant systems inside a controlled shipyard environment could support greater standardization and repeatable construction.

Once completed, the unit could then be transported to its intended operating location rather than being built entirely at the deployment site. Bureau Veritas will contribute expertise in classification, certification and risk assessment.

Its work will help the consortium examine the safety, regulatory and technical questions created by combining a nuclear installation with a floating maritime platform.

ABMI Groupe will contribute engineering and project-delivery experience from complex maritime and nuclear programs.

The consortium will also establish a development roadmap covering the steps required to move from the present conceptual phase toward possible construction and deployment.

Safety and licensing remain central

Floating reactors would need to comply with both nuclear and maritime safety requirements. Licensing, physical security, operations and regulatory oversight will therefore form important parts of any future development program.

The study begins as international discussions around maritime nuclear technology gather pace.

The International Atomic Energy Agency launched its ATLAS initiative on August 26 to encourage dialogue and improve technical understanding of innovative nuclear applications and their safety and regulatory implications.

The consortium ultimately aims to create a standardized floating energy system that can be deployed at scale. Under its current roadmap, the nuclear barge could progress toward industrial deployment by 2036.

September 4, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Trump’s shipping race with Xi goes nuclear

COMMENT AA BB

Have they factored in the staggeringly huge cost of the multi decades long decomissioning process and disposal of the reactor and nuclear waste? NS Savanna was built 1961, out if service 1972 – the reactor and ship will ‘remain regulated until 2031″ (wikipedia)

Backing from Washington should help address regulatory challenges as well as insurance issues, which represent one of the main hurdles to expanding nuclear propulsion beyond military submarines, aircraft carriers and a handful of Russian icebreakers.

Whereas shipping lines today require coverage for damage to their vessels, the loss of cargoes and injuries to employees, the new ships will need a new level of insurance against nuclear incidents.

US bets uranium-powered British vessels can challenge China’s maritime dominance

Christopher Jasper, Transport industry editor, 29 August 2026

Donald Trump has opened up a new battleground in his trade war with Beijing, and a British start-up building nuclear-powered ships has found itself on the front line.

A US effort to challenge China’s dominance in shipping by building a fleet of nuclear-fuelled vessels is being led by UK-based Core Power.

The start-up, which has 100 employees and moved to London from Singapore in 2020, says it is unique outside Russia and China in having the expertise to integrate reactors with commercial ships, and the White House seems to agree.

Mikal Bøe, the Norwegian founder and chief of Core Power, flew to Washington last week to sign a seven-year pact with the US Maritime Administration…………….

The deal aims to deliver a fleet of zero-emission vessels that travel at 30 knots, or twice the pace of today’s ships, which typically sail slowly to conserve fuel.

They would be assembled in a multibillion-dollar nuclear yard operated by Core Power in the US. Work is slated to commence by 2028, with the first deliveries in 2033.

Trump hopes the plan can revive American shipbuilding and provide a ready market for a nuclear industry.

While China is developing its own maritime nuclear propulsion, the sector is one of the few in which the US is confident it has a major lead.

Onboard reactors heat water to create steam, which generates electricity to drive the engines, providing a permanent source of power and “free speed”, Bøe said…………

The deal aims to deliver a fleet of zero-emission vessels that travel at 30 knots, or twice the pace of today’s ships, which typically sail slowly to conserve fuel.

While the nuclear vessels would cost around $700m (£515m), compared with up to $250m for a large merchant ship, their speed would let them complete far more journeys………………..

Establishing the business case for nuclear power over traditional engines will open up a market to replace 8,000 ships over the next 25 years, Bøe estimates……

Bøe said the Trump administration had been instrumental in accelerating its plans……………

Core Power plans to announce a supplier of nuclear reactors for its ships as early as next month, with BWX Technologies viewed as the frontrunner.

The company is already partnered with BWX – which helped develop the first nuclear submarine in the 1950s – on plans for floating nuclear power plants to supply coastal industrial complexes.

A decision on the location for its nuclear shipyard will follow in the next six months.

A facility capable of producing three vessels a year would have construction costs of about $3bn, increasing to $15bn to churn out ships for the global market………………….

Backing from Washington should help address regulatory challenges as well as insurance issues, which represent one of the main hurdles to expanding nuclear propulsion beyond military submarines, aircraft carriers and a handful of Russian icebreakers.

Whereas shipping lines today require coverage for damage to their vessels, the loss of cargoes and injuries to employees, the new ships will need a new level of insurance against nuclear incidents.


‘The talk of the industry’

Britain’s dominance of the maritime insurance industry could see it play a key role in establishing an insurance regime.

The Technology Prosperity Deal signed by Trump and Sir Keir Starmer last year included a commitment to explore civil nuclear applications at sea and the establishment of a UK-US corridor, which could form the basis of a maritime nuclear insurance zone…………..

Core Power has $200m in financing and will seek to raise a further $600m next year. While existing investors are mostly shipbuilders and owners, the next round will seek to bring in private equity, venture capital and energy companies.

It has also agreed an alliance with authorities in Corpus Christi, Texas, a major US port, to lay out plans for new infrastructure that will be needed for nuclear-propelled tankers.

Mr Bøe said the door was also “wide open” for Britain to become involved in the sector.

Establishing the business case for nuclear power over traditional engines will open up a market to replace 8,000 ships over the next 25 years, Bøe estimates.

He said the first ships could operate on transatlantic routes and that Washington was open to allies – including Britain – becoming involved in the project, although ships were unlikely to be built here.

Bøe said the Trump administration had been instrumental in accelerating its plans.

“The pace at which both nuclear reactors and maritime policy and an action plan to build back shipbuilding capacity have been developed is remarkable,” he said.

“You cannot compete with Beijing on its own terms, we cannot outbid them. But we can put these two things together and establish the world’s first programme for civil maritime nuclear propulsion which creates a whole new adventure and competes with China.”

Core Power plans to announce a supplier of nuclear reactors for its ships as early as next month, with BWX Technologies viewed as the frontrunner.

The company is already partnered with BWX – which helped develop the first nuclear submarine in the 1950s – on plans for floating nuclear power plants to supply coastal industrial complexes.

A decision on the location for its nuclear shipyard will follow in the next six months.

A facility capable of producing three vessels a year would have construction costs of about $3bn, increasing to $15bn to churn out ships for the global market.

The hulls for the ships will be built in Japan or South Korea and floated to the US to be fitted with reactors and engines. The same yard will undertake maintenance and midlife refuelling once supplies of uranium are spent.

Backing from Washington should help address regulatory challenges as well as insurance issues, which represent one of the main hurdles to expanding nuclear propulsion beyond military submarines, aircraft carriers and a handful of Russian icebreakers.

Whereas shipping lines today require coverage for damage to their vessels, the loss of cargoes and injuries to employees, the new ships will need a new level of insurance against nuclear incidents.

September 3, 2026 Posted by | technology, USA | Leave a comment

US Army to spend $2 bln on nuclear microreactors for bases

The Army program uses the military’s “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can’t find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors

DW Sean Sinico with AP, Reuters, August 27, 2026

The US Army has announced a plan to install what it calls nuclear microreactors at five of its bases across the country. The move would ensure the facilities’ energy independence from the rest of the electric grid.

The United States Army said Wednesday that it will award $2.2 billion (€1.7 billion) in contracts to five companies to build and operate small nuclear reactors on military bases. The program set a goal of deploying the first such reactor by the end of September 2028.

Called microreactors, developers say each of the nuclear plants would be easy to transport and provide up to 20 megawatts of power.

The reactors will adhere to all environmental and safety regulations that apply to commercial reactors, but an Army spokesperson said the reactors will be regulated by the Army rather than the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates commercial reactors.

“The whole idea here is that at the back end of this we want a commercial product,” said Jeff Waksman, principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment.

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll said the awards will speed up the military’s ability “to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations.”

“We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids,” he added………………………………………………………………………

‘Hidden subsidy’ for expensive reactors, critics say

Critics of microreactors say they will be expensive compared to conventional reactors. Safety advocates point out that nuclear technology carries significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don’t, such as the danger of accidents or targeted attacks.

The Army program uses the military’s “deep pockets to provide a hidden subsidy” to nuclear companies that can’t find private-sector customers for their hypothetical and uneconomical reactors, Alan J. Kuperman, associate professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin and coordinator of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project, told the AP news agency.

The Army’s Waksman said nobody thinks that microreactors will be lower in cost than conventional plants.

“What we are trying to do here with Janus … is to flesh out how can we get those prices down,” he said.

What will happen with the radioactive waste?

Waksman said the microreactors would safely shut down in case of a failure and that the Army wouldn’t add them to installations without being certain they are safe.

He added that the Army is working on a deal with the Energy Department to remove radioactive waste, and there won’t be any long-term storage on these installations.

Last month, five states offered to accept nuclear waste in exchange for federal support in developing nuclear energy facilities.

Trump pushing nuclear power in US

Executive orders signed by US President Donald Trump in May 2025 aimed to accelerate the development of nuclear power. Trump has called for the US to quadruple its nuclear energy production — just two new large reactors have been built from scratch in the United States in nearly 50 years. Those two reactors were completed years late and at least $17 billion over budget, AP reported.

The nation’s 94 nuclear reactors supply about 19% of U.S. electricity, compared to about 60% for fossil fuels and 21% for renewables, according to the US Energy Information Administration. https://www.dw.com/en/us-army-to-spend-2-billion-on-nuclear-microreactors-for-bases/a-78518374

September 2, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Three of four reactors at Ontario’s refurbished Darlington nuclear power plant face frequent outages.


MATTHEW MCCLEARN, The Globe and Mail, Aug 28, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontario-darlington-nuclear-power-plant-three-reactors-out-of/

Three of four reactors at Ontario’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station are experiencing prolonged outages, data from the Independent Electricity System Operator show, even as the province faces a further large drop in nuclear power generation in just a few weeks’ time.

Ontario Power Generation completed a $12.8-billion, decade-long refurbishment of its station in Clarington, Ont., in March. Although provincial officials have portrayed that overhaul as an unqualified success, Darlington’s units have meandered in and out of service ever since.

The most recently refurbished unit, Unit 4, suddenly stopped generating power on Aug. 1 – its third outage since returning to service. Two days later, Unit 2 abruptly stopped supplying power to the grid. Unit 3 had already been out of service for several months because of long-planned work, leaving Unit 1 as the lone operational unit.

Officials have disclosed little about the causes and implications of the outages at Units 2 and 4, nor when they might return to service. In response to questions from The Globe seeking details of the outages, OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly wrote in a statement that the two units were taken offline “to complete required maintenance.” He added that Unit 2 is expected to restart in September, and Unit 4 will follow in October.

Braeson Holland, a spokesperson for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, wrote in a statement that OPG reported the forced outages of Units 2 and 4 to its staff.

“CNSC inspectors maintain regulatory oversight of the outage work to verify that the appropriate actions are being taken. CNSC staff are satisfied that these events do not present a risk to the health and safety of persons or to the environment,” he wrote.

Representing nearly 900 megawatts of generating capacity each, Darlington’s units are the largest in Ontario. The station boasts a total generating capacity of roughly 3,500 megawatts, making it the province’s second largest, eclipsed only by the eight-reactor Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Tiverton, Ont., operated by Bruce Power.

Ontario’s third nuclear power plant, OPG’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, is just weeks away from shutting down. Its four operational reactors, representing 2,100 megawatts of generating capacity, are scheduled to come offline next month for their own $26.8-billion refurbishment, expected to wrap up in the mid-2030s.

Will soaring electricity rates kill Ontario’s nuclear expansion?

Michael Dodsworth, a spokesperson for the Independent Electricity System Operator, said his organization had no concerns that the outages would affect Ontario’s ability to meet electricity demand in the coming months.

“Ontario’s electricity system has remained reliable this summer thanks to our diverse supply mix, bolstered by recent investments in new generation and energy storage,” he wrote.

In a July filing to the Ontario Energy Board, OPG forecast that there would be 286 outage days at Darlington in 2026 – the most taken in any year since at least 2008. Nonetheless, the forced outages of Units 2 and 4 seem likely to push the actual total higher still.

OPG forecast planned outages totaling 512 days in 2027, including a major outage for work on Unit 2’s steam generators. The entire Darlington station will be out of service next year for nearly 46 days to allow work on its vacuum building, which is designed to suck out and condense steam from a reactor during a major accident.

Since outages of a single reactor can cost a utility $1-million or more a day in lost revenue – and because large, unexpected fluctuations in power generation can stress power grids, utilities invest considerable manpower and resources to avoiding unplanned outages, according to David Novog, a professor of engineering at McMaster University who specializes in nuclear safety and maintenance.

“Of course there’ll be unplanned outages,” he said. “But because of the value that the reactor represents on the grid and the amount of revenue it provides, it is probably one of the most looked-after assets that the government has.”

Ontario’s proposed nuclear plants could cost nearly $300-billion, study finds

However, several of this year’s outages at Darlington have been entirely unexpected. Unit 4 was officially returned to service on March 13 following a refurbishment lasting nearly three years. Since then, it has been taken offline three times with little explanation; OPG has disclosed only that the first outage was taken “to assess an operational matter unrelated to the refurbishment” and that it had completed repairs.

“When you stop and start and stop and start, that’s atypical of how we would typically choose to run the reactors,” Prof. Novog observed.

The Bruce and Darlington plants suffered many unplanned outages in their early years of operation, he added. During the years leading up to refurbishment, however, Darlington’s units were “exceptionally well-run.”

Prof. Novog said OPG should pro-actively publish more information about outages.

“When you’re not upfront with the information, it can lead to speculation and a lack of confidence,” he said.

“Without knowing the details, it’s hard to even tell whether it’s teething pain [at Darlington] or whether it is something else.”

The provincial government has said that Ontario’s nuclear projects were completed ahead of schedule and under budget, which Energy Minister Stephen Lecce repeated Tuesday at a press conference in St. Clair Township.

As the output of Ontario’s nuclear fleet has fallen because of refurbishments and outages, the province has increasingly relied on natural gas-fired plants to supply electricity. On Thursday afternoon, the 11 operational reactors provided 38.5 per cent of the province’s electricity, as compared to 31.5 per cent from gas plants, according to the Gridwatch monitoring web site.

For 2024 and 2025, the nuclear plants provided roughly half of Ontario’s power; gas plants provided less than 20 per cent.

September 2, 2026 Posted by | Canada, technology | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »