nuclear-news

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

More hype about Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), but  they may curb nuclear development .


Energy Revolutions by David Toke, 15 Sept 25

The amount of hype about SMR development seems to grow at inverse
proportion to the likelihood of real SMR deployment. We are now witnessing
a blast of PR about SMRs timed for the visit of Donald Trump to the UK. In
practice the imaginary SMR surge, which appears mostly in press releases
rather than real projects, may well signal a lack of development of nuclear
reactors in the West.

In an earlier post I discussed how so-called SMRs do
not exist as a concept. That is as a concept distinct from earlier attempts
to develop mainstream nuclear power using reactors that are smaller than
today’s mainstream projects. The nuclear industry gradually increased the
size of reactors to reduce costs per MW through capturing economies of
scale. Logic dictates that SMRs will be more, not less, costly than the
conventional contemporary nuclear projects.

However, SMRs could be more of
a burden for the nuclear industry than a boon. That is because instead of
building large conventional projects, small ones are being done ..
For example, in the USA the last completed nuclear reactor project, Vogtle
3&4, is around 2200 MW. Projected SMRs are in the 100-400MW range. The
policy drive for SMRs has recently been doubted by the former Chairman of
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Alison Macfarlane. Her (co-authored
analysis) implies that nuclear waste problems from SMRs will be worse than
with conventional reactors. The paper also says that ‘many studies show
that the economics of SMRs will be much costlier than that of large LWRs,
thereby will not be competitive or profitable.’ https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/two-stories-1-how-smrs-may-curb-nuclear

 

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Rolls Royce “Small” nuclear reactors are not at all small!

Dr Paul Dorfman Letter: Further to your report “Deal with US to
fast-track mini nuclear reactors” (Sep 15; letter, Sep 16), small modular
reactors (SMRs) are defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as
reactors that generate up to 300MW power.

At 470MW, the Rolls-Royce design is not an SMR: it is larger than the UK Magnox reactor, more than half the size of the 900MW reactors that make up the bulk of the French nuclear fleet, and about a third the size of the very large EPR reactor design at Hinkley Point C.

This matters because the Rolls-Royce design will need big
sites, standard nuclear safety measures, exclusion zones, core catchers,
aircraft crash protection and security. All this is important because in
calling its design an SMR, or small, Rolls-Royce appears to me to have been
economical with the truth — and all that implies for its other claims,
especially about time and cost.

As for the nuclear waste problem, the former chair of the US government Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports
that SMRs would produce more reactive waste per kWh — the key parameter — than large reactors.

Times 17th Sept 2025. https://www.thetimes.com/comment/letters-to-editor/article/times-letters-ethics-of-danny-krugers-defection-to-reform-uk-3rbg90m3b

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Small Modular nuclear reactors sound great, but won’t be ready any time soon.

The UK government has announced a raft of tiny nuclear power projects, while Russia, China and a host of tech giants are also betting big on small nuclear reactor designs. Does the idea make sense and can they really be built any time soon?

By Matthew Sparkes, New Scientist 15th Sept 2025,

Bruno Merk at the University of Liverpool in the
UK says Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear energy organisation, recently
finished building a batch of small reactors for a highly specific use in
nuclear-powered icebreaker ships. Crucially, they then continued building
more, showing either that there is demand from somewhere, or that Rosatom
is taking a risk and building them as a commercial demonstration in the
hope of selling more despite a raft of energy sanctions imposed after its
invasion of Ukraine.

China, too, has built a Linglong One small nuclear
reactor, but it is not clear whether it will yet be a commercially viable
product.

And giant technology firms like Amazon, Google and Microsoft are
investing in these sorts of nuclear technologies, too. David Dye at
Imperial College London says tiny reactors make sense for remote military
installations or Arctic sites, but is sceptical about using tiny nuclear
reactors to power these tech giants’ needs. He says it is far easier to
build data centres near a ready supply of energy instead. Michael Bluck at
Imperial College London says there is no engineering or scientific reason
we can’t build tiny nuclear reactors, and build them fast. He points out
the first experimental reactors were small, and many devices of a similar
size operate in universities and military submarines around the world
still. “Size is not the issue. It’s the modularity, it’s the building
it on a production line, it’s the standardisation of components. It’s
really practical. It’s standard engineering,” says Bluck.

But there are certainly plenty of drawbacks to miniaturising nuclear reactors. Merk says for nuclear power, scale brings useful efficiencies in both cost and
energy. Small and large reactors both require the same thickness of
concrete shielding to safely contain their reactions and, because the
volume of a reactor grows faster than its surface area when you make it
larger, bigger reactors are cheaper per megawatt of capacitySmaller reactors also make less energy from the same amount of fuel because of inefficiencies in the chain reaction of neutron fission – smaller amounts
of fuel lose more neutrons at the surface, rather than harnessing them to
continue the reaction. Bluck says there are two different approaches
involved in the new government announcements: X-Energy has designed a
gas-cooled reactor called the Xe-100 which uses a somewhat unusual design
and a type of fuel that could take 10 years to achieve regulatory approval,
while Last Energy’s PWR-20 reactor is a relatively familiar pressurised
water reactor, the same type as Sizewell B nuclear power station in
England, using the same fuel. The former could be the way forward, but the
latter may be able to come to market sooner. But even with standard fuel
and familiar technology, Bluck says Last Energy is likely five years from
having even a prototype reactor built in the UK. “Everyone would like it
tomorrow,” he says. “But I think they’re aware that energy isn’t
like that.” https://www.newscientist.com/article/2496252-modular-nuclear-reactors-sound-great-but-wont-be-ready-any-time-soon/

September 20, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Communities Push Back against SpaceX in Tamaulipas

Conibio, which partners with federal conservation programs, expects to see the loss of more endangered turtles because of launches from Starbase. “It’s like launching bombs on their habitat,”

A Mexican conservation group says Elon Musk’s rocket launches from South Texas are killing turtles, damaging homes, and littering Tamaulipas beaches with debris.

Pablo De La Rosa, The Border Chronicle, Sep 10, 2025

Three miles south of Starbase, Texas, where SpaceX launches rockets into orbit, the beaches of Tamaulipas begin at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Further south along the water’s edge, generations of families from northern Mexico have spent Sundays on the shores of Playa Bagdad’s recreational area, renting small wooden palapas for shade. Local fishermen live off the seafood they catch nearby in the Gulf of Mexico. They sell their fried fish, spicy shrimp kabobs, and raw oysters to visitors who sunbathe and swim on the beach.

Many Tamaulipecos have grown up with fond memories of Playa Bagdad, and Jesús Elías Ibarra Rodríguez is one of them. Rodríguez is a Matamoros-based veterinarian and the founder and president of Conibio Global A.C., a nonprofit conservation organization based in the state of Tamaulipas.

For several years, residents of Brownsville and other border towns have protested losing access to public beaches and the harm to the environment and communities caused by many SpaceX rocket explosions. In August, several Texas border organizations demanded that the Federal Aviation Administration halt more rocket launches until a complete environmental impact statement is conducted.

A protest movement is also building in neighboring Mexico, Rodríguez said, as the number of launches and tests has increased. “We’ve been here years before SpaceX, working to conserve these precious ecosystems,” he said. “But everything is changing now. The beach is changing. Even people’s homes, old houses going back generations, are getting damaged from the launch vibrations.”

In 2019, SpaceX launched its first rocket prototype from Starbase, called Starhopper. Rodríguez said that during early tests, most noise and debris were contained north of the U.S.-Mexico border. But in recent years, SpaceX “began building rockets of great size, considered the largest rockets ever constructed on the planet.” It was around this time that communities in Tamaulipas began to feel the greater effects from the vibrations of engine tests and rocket launches.

A 2024 study from Brigham Young University found that the rocket launches at Starbase produced sound levels similar to “a rock concert or chainsaw” up to six miles away. The data also showed the blasts were powerful enough to cause structural damage to nearby homes and buildings.

Concerns increased in Mexico as residents in Tamaulipas began to find industrial debris on the beach, some labeled with the names of manufacturers of materials used in the space industry. “They started letting debris fall into Mexican territory,” said Rodríguez. “That was what really worried us, alarmed us, and upset us.” Rodríguez says that his organization has documented debris from SpaceX rocket launches along a 40-kilometer stretch of Tamaulipas beach.

Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, said in June that the federal government was looking into a possible lawsuit against SpaceX based on damage sustained in the region from rocket launches. That same month, El País reported that Elon Musk had reached out to the Mexican government in the days after Sheinbaum’s comment for help in recovering any debris found in Tamaulipas that might still belong to the company.

Rodríguez says that Sheinbaum has assigned a local task force that is now present during launches along with Conibio staff and will soon make available a special team of divers to prepare reports on any major debris that is still under Mexican waters.

Rodríguez says that Conibio, which partners with federal conservation programs, expects to see the loss of more endangered turtles because of launches from Starbase. “It’s like launching bombs on their habitat,” said Rodríguez. “You have the sound and vibration of the explosions, and you have tons of millions of little pieces of plastic that are bait for them. And we worry about sea life in general consuming all that.”

Conibio reports that some 900 endangered turtles have died this year because they were trapped in their underground nests by compacted sand from Starbase launch and test vibrations, including from an accidental explosion of a rocket in June that occurred on the ground while it was still attached to its launch arm………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

While some community members in South Texas have rallied behind the Starbase project in hopes of jobs and economic benefits, that tradeoff does not exist for people in Tamaulipas.

“People here are very unhappy with this,” said Rodríguez. “There are hundreds, even thousands of Mexicans who want to join in, come together, and show that Mexico is united and that we will demand change, that those rockets explode somewhere else.” https://www.theborderchronicle.com/p/communities-push-back-against-spacex?publication_id=373432&post_id=173185930&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

September 12, 2025 Posted by | SOUTH AMERICA, space travel | Leave a comment

Small reactors: cash flow alert for Newcleo, Europe’s largest nuclear start-up.

The company, which employs a thousand people, is burning through
too much cash. Its continued existence could be threatened without a new
round of financing.

But both private and public stakeholders remain
cautious. While waiting for fresh money, Newcleo is scaling back. Without a
new capital increase in the next twelve months, the company’s continued
existence is threatened, the Italian press reported in early August. The
articles, notably published in the business daily Il Sole 24 Ore , are
based on the findings of an audit of Newcleo’s 2024 accounts conducted by
KPMG, which La Tribune has seen.

The startup has notably abandoned its
ambitions in the United Kingdom, leading to the elimination of 150
positions. It also intends to reduce its engineering contracts with
external service providers.

 La Tribune 29th Aug 2025, https://www.latribune.fr/climat/energie-environnement/petits-reacteurs-alerte-sur-la-tresorerie-de-newcleo-plus-grosse-start-up-europeenne-du-nucleaire-1031500.html

September 5, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Golden Dome is already a turning point for American space policy.

As the space community awaits the upcoming deadline for a Golden Dome architecture, perhaps the biggest story on Golden Dome is how the program is resonating through the industry.

Last month, a new report by the Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy identified Golden Dome (and its prominence within the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 defense budget request) as a significant turning point for American space policy, Pentagon spending priorities and the role of the Space Force.

The report said that “the introduction of Golden Dome is arguably the most important development affecting the defense space budget since the inception of the Space Force.”

As SpaceNews’ Sandra Erwin wrote:

For the relatively young Space Force, established in 2019, Golden Dome represents a significant expansion of resources and responsibilities. Sam Wilson, budget analyst at the Center for Space Policy & Strategy and author of the report, views the initiative as creating “a major opportunity for the Space Force as it brings extra resources for some of Space Force’s priorities such as missile warning satellites that the service already was planning to develop.”

“This is an opportunity to get those funded at higher levels,” Wilson told SpaceNews.

The article describes how Golden Dome’s prominence – and the level of attention paid to it – is elevating space issues within broader defense planning. It’s also a program that could benefit new and old space firms alike while calling broader public attention to the military’s role in and influence over space.

Investors feel the same. A note from Capital Alpha Partners this week highlighted that “Golden Dome gave something new for U.S. contractors to talk about and position for,” but so far details are scarce. At last month’s industry summit in Huntsville, Alabama, defense firms got little more than high-level overviews.

“Even if it’s classified, clarity on the architecture may provide something more meaningful for companies to discuss in the October-November earnings season,” the Capital Alpha note read….(Read more at link –
https://spacenews.bluelena.io/index.php?action=social&chash=980ecd059122ce2e50136bda65c25e07.830&s=d7cea81a8b3dc478fa14dbee41fab337

September 5, 2025 Posted by | space travel, USA, USA election 2024 | Leave a comment

Why NuScale Power Stock Slid 31% Last Month

By Brett Schafer – Sep 3, 2025 ,
https://www.fool.com/investing/2025/09/03/why-nuscale-power-stock-slid-31-last-month/

Key Points

  • NuScale Power’s stock has pulled back after a huge gain coming from a recent executive order signing.
  • The company has a small modular nuclear reactor approved, but has not won a customer contract.
  • The stock trades at an expensive price, even though it generates barely any sales and has no customer wins.

The nuclear energy stock doesn’t generate much in revenue and is losing a lot of money.

Shares of NuScale Power (SMR 8.15%) fell 31% in August, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The nuclear energy upstart and designer of small modular reactors (SMRs) is experiencing wild gyrations with its stock price. The stock is up 432% in the last year and trades at a market cap of $11.5 billion, even though it generates minimal revenue and is burning a lot of cash.

It’s been a roller-coaster ride for nuclear start-ups

Nuclear energy stocks soared at the beginning of this summer, with the current presidential administration’s push to accelerate the development of nuclear energy to keep up with data center demand around artificial intelligence (AI). President Trump signed an executive order for advanced nuclear reactor technologies, of which NuScale Power is one.

In fact, NuScale Power is the only SMR company to have its design approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which could give it a head start in winning customer contracts. However, it has failed so far to win any customer contracts outside prospective contracting from a Romanian power company that’s exploring whether to use SMRs for its upcoming energy needs.

With close to zero revenue and a history of burning cash, NuScale Power is a stock that trades with a ton of volatility. As the air comes out of the post-executive order excitement, it is no surprise to see NuScale Power stock hit a bit of a rough patch. The company has no fundamental basis to anchor its $11.5 billion market cap, which makes it a risky stock to invest in.

NuScale Power’s uncertain future

NuScale Power has a few energy projects in the works that it could potentially win deals on, including a recent proposal from the Tennessee Valley Authority. Bringing these to fruition could help it actually develop an SMR to be deployed in the real world instead of talking about it, which has been all the company has done since its inception.

Even if these projects get approved, NuScale Power won’t generate much in revenue to warrant its $11.5 billion market cap, with revenue not showing up for years due to the long project life for nuclear energy developments. It is foolish to buy a stock valued at over $10 billion that’s generating zero revenue. Therefore, investors should avoid putting NuScale Power in their portfolios, given its uncertain future.

September 4, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

A new arms race in space must be stopped in its tracks .

A new treaty banning all weapons in space is the only way to prevent a future calamity.

August 31, Bruce K. Gagnon, https://www.pressherald.com/2025/08/31/a-new-arms-race-in-space-must-be-stopped-in-its-tracks-opinion/

Bruce K. Gagnon is the coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

I read with great interest the recent Associated Press article titled “Hijacked satellites and orbiting space weapons: In the 21st century, space is the new battlefield.” It was full of half-truths and manipulations that we’ve come to expect from the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.

While in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I read the infamous Pentagon Papers that revealed how our government lied to the public, the Congress and the media to create the support for the war. We witnessed a similar story repeated in 2003 with “shock and awe” in Iraq and supposed weapons of mass destruction.

I’ve been coordinating the Global Network since its founding in 1992 while then living in Florida. In 1997, we obtained a copy of the Space Command’s internal document “Vision for 2020” that declared the U.S. would “control space, dominate space and deny other nations access to space.” Since that time the Pentagon and the aerospace industry have done everything possible to create a new arms race in space that they long ago stated would be “the largest industrial project in human history.”

For more than 30 years, China and Russia have gone to the United Nations proposing a new space treaty called PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space). At the general assembly, in a vote on the nonbinding resolution, it overwhelmingly passes despite the U.S. and Israel voting “No.” The treaty proposal is then sent to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament for negotiation. There the U.S. and Israel block the treaty.

The official position of the U.S. (through Democrat and Republican administrations) has been “There are no weapons in space, we don’t need a new treaty.” The Global Network’s position has always been “Close the door to the barn before the horse gets out.” But the U.S. has always intended to be the dominant power in space. That is how wars are created.

China and Russia have steadily responded, telling the U.S. that they will not allow Washington to be the “Master of Space” — a slogan over the doorway at the Space Command HQ in Colorado.

NASA has long predicted that war in space will create the Kessler Syndrome — a cascading field of space debris as satellites are destroyed. The outcome would be that much of the Earth would go dark as so many things in our high-tech civilization are linked to space satellites.

Posted inOp-edsOpinion

A new arms race in space must be stopped in its tracks | Opinion

A new treaty banning all weapons in space is the only way to prevent a future calamity.

Posted August 31

Bruce K. Gagnon

3 min readFont size +Gift Article

Bruce K. Gagnon is the coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He lives in Brunswick.

I read with great interest the recent Associated Press article titled “Hijacked satellites and orbiting space weapons: In the 21st century, space is the new battlefield.” It was full of half-truths and manipulations that we’ve come to expect from the Pentagon and the military industrial complex.

While in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, I read the infamous Pentagon Papers that revealed how our government lied to the public, the Congress and the media to create the support for the war. We witnessed a similar story repeated in 2003 with “shock and awe” in Iraq
and supposed weapons of mass destruction.

I’ve been coordinating the Global Network since its founding in 1992 while then living in Florida. In 1997, we obtained a copy of the Space Command’s internal document “Vision for 2020” that declared the U.S. would “control space, dominate space and deny other nations access to space.” Since that time the Pentagon and the aerospace industry have done everything possible to create a new arms race in space that they long ago stated would be “the largest industrial project in human history.”

For more than 30 years, China and Russia have gone to the United Nations proposing a new space treaty called PAROS (Prevention of an Arms Race in Space). At the general assembly, in a vote on the nonbinding resolution, it overwhelmingly passes despite the U.S. and Israel voting “No.” The treaty proposal is then sent to Geneva’s Conference on Disarmament for negotiation. There the U.S. and Israel block the treaty.

The official position of the U.S. (through Democrat and Republican administrations) has been “There are no weapons in space, we don’t need a new treaty.” The Global Network’s position has always been “Close the door to the barn before the horse gets out.” But the U.S. has always intended to be the dominant power in space. That is how wars are created.

Advertisement

China and Russia have steadily responded, telling the U.S. that they will not allow Washington to be the “Master of Space” — a slogan over the doorway at the Space Command HQ in Colorado.

NASA has long predicted that war in space will create the Kessler Syndrome — a cascading field of space debris as satellites are destroyed. The outcome would be that much of the Earth would go dark as so many things in our high-tech civilization are linked to space satellites.

The Pentagon has a plan, though. Its strategy is to fund a slew of launch providers around the world to, in a short time during a war in space, put into orbit new military mini-satellites to replace those that were destroyed. One such potential launch provider is bluShift Aerospace in Brunswick.

The CEO of bluShift, in answering a question from me, admitted that his corporation was being funded by NASA and the U.S. Space Force to launch mini-satellites in a time of crisis in order to keep China and Russia from filling up the already overly congested Lower Earth Orbit (LEO).

The only way to peace and security in space is via a new treaty to ban all weapons in space. We delay such a move at our own peril.

September 4, 2025 Posted by | space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

On fusion liability, Energy Minister completely sidelines the issue.

 NFLA 27th Aug 2025

NFLA Secretary Richard Outram is disappointed that the new Energy Minister has completely missed the point that taxpayers should not be on the hook for unlimited liabilities to the nuclear fusion industry ‘resulting from incidents involving nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion activities relating to the STEP programme’.

On July 21, Climate Minister Kerry McCarthy issued a Departmental Minute to Parliament indicating that the Government will assume these liabilities for STEP (the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) project, the fusion experimental plant being built on a former power station site in West Burton with taxpayer money.

Richard wrote to his MP, Debbie Abrahams protesting that ‘As a citizen, I do not want my future taxes in hoc to a private company whose insurance risk for its nuclear activities would reside 100% with the future taxpayer. The procedure is certainly experimental; it may also be risky’. He asked that a request be placed with the Minister ‘with a full published risk analysis for STEP’ prior to a Parliamentary debate and vote.

In response, Ms Abrahams advised Richard that she had written to ‘the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to make further enquiries about the STEP programme and make representations about your concerns’. 

Ms McCarthy has now written back with a standard response in which she waxes lyrical about the supposed benefits that will be delivered through nuclear fusion, yet this is a technology described in the minister’s response as ‘nascent’, a euphemism for currently non-functioning.

The Minister makes a summary assessment that the risk presented by fusion is low, yet concedes there is no private insurance market to provide cover to UKIFS (UK Industrial Fusion Limited) or their industry partners for liabilities in the unlikely event that radiological material or radiation is released from STEP outside of permit conditions‘.

This could suggest that the private sector might not want to insure any emerging nuclear fusion market because of the risk it presents, and if this is the case His Majesty’s Government might ultimately also have to indemnify nuclear fusion operators other than STEP in the future.

The Ministerial Direction effectively saddles the British taxpayer with responsibility to indemnify UKIFS for an unlimited amount of money, for an unlimited time’.

And there is ambiguity in the timescale as some sources suggest STEP will be operational by 2040, whilst the Minister’s statement of 21 July says ‘by the 2040s’. This could mean 2049.

Finally, Richard was gratified to hear that the Minister’s letter was made in response to ‘a number of constituents’ suggesting some level of public disquiet with the Government’s decision………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/on-fusion-liability-energy-minister-completely-sidelines-the-issue/

August 31, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, technology, UK | Leave a comment

The nuclear fusion delusion -Government proposals re Nuclear Fusion Siting Policy

 Twelve months after a consultation on a proposed new siting policy for
nuclear fusion concluded in July 2024, the Department for Energy Security
and Net Zero finally published the government’s response to the
submissions received. This new policy (EN-8) mirrors that under development
for nuclear fission (EN-7). Consequently, the NFLAs submitted a response to
both consultations which shared many similarities.

It is clear from the
flavour of the government response that the new Climate Minister Kerry
McCarthy MP has like her predecessors been drinking from the fusion ‘Kool
Aid’, continuing to believe that fusion technology will be deployable on
time and at scale to provide a remedy to climate change.

 NFLA 26th Aug 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/A438-NB324-Govt-proposals-over-nuclear-fusion-siting-policy-Aug-2025.pdf

August 31, 2025 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

How AI and surveillance capitalism are undermining democracy

Bulletin, By Suresh Venkatasubramanian | August 21, 2025

On March 6, 2025, Axios reported that the State Department had launched a new social media surveillance program called “Catch and Revoke.” The intended goal of this program was to use artificial intelligence to assist in reviewing “tens of thousands of student visa holders’ social media footprints” to find “evidence of alleged terrorist sympathies expressed after Hamas’ attack on Israel.”

Whether you find this a horrifying development, an exciting application of AI, a flagrant violation of First Amendment rights, or even just a headscratcher, this incident captures the dynamics of how artificial intelligence, surveillance, and threats to democracy all come together. In a nutshell: AI’s promise of behavior prediction and control fuels a vicious cycle of surveillance which inevitably triggers abuses of power.

Throughout history, humans have always searched for ways to predict (and control) behavior, whether this constituted consulting an oracle, throwing bones, reading tea leaves, or even examining the shape of a person’s face and body to determine personality traits (which seems awfully contemporary if you start diving into the literature on “emotion AI”). As people became more adept at collecting data of various kinds, the field of statistics emerged to aid them in using data for prediction. (One of the amusing facts about AI research is that virtually every debate one encounters about the appropriate use of artificial intelligence in some social setting has parallels in history, often much earlier, which make it clear that efforts to predict and control behavior was never about AI at all.)

The problem with using data to make predictions is that the process can be used as a weapon against society, threatening democratic values. As the lines between private and public data are blurred in modern society, many won’t realize that their private lives are becoming data points used to make decisions about them. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://thebulletin.org/2025/08/how-ai-and-surveillance-capitalism-are-undermining-democracy/#post-heading

August 30, 2025 Posted by | technology | Leave a comment

Angry Denver International Airport neighbors quash nuclear power idea in 48 hours flat.

Why waste money on an unproven, enormously expensive, extremely toxic nuclear power plant, with no place in the nation accepting the eventual radioactive waste, in a spot with hundreds of thousands of neighbors and 100 million visiting passengers a year? 

Airport shelves $1.5 million study of “modular” nuclear power after local district uproar.

Michael Booth The ColoradoSun, Aug 20, 2025

If you have a snazzy new idea for miniature nuclear power plants in the middle of Denver International Airport that could be forced to store their spent nuclear waste onsite for centuries, maybe check with the neighbors first? 

Denver’s mayor and airport chief touted a whiz-bang, $1.5 million exploratory study of small, “modular” nuclear power plants buried underground somewhere on DIA property to fuel decades of economic and passenger growth. The rah-rah news conference happened to be on a Wednesday that was also the 80th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. 

By that Friday, the study was back on the shelf, not to be revisited until city and airport officials completed some of the explaining they needed to do for local city council members and residents, who said they’d never been consulted on the (big) (radioactive) idea. 

“I’m proud to say that community advocacy still works, but you really have to be within the community,” said City Council member Stacie Gilmore, whose northeast District 11 includes DIA. “People are paying attention, and they don’t trust the airport, and they don’t trust this administration, unfortunately.” 

Gilmore said her constituents’ objections and questions were the same as those of reporters and environmental justice advocates who queried DIA chief Phil Washington and Mayor Mike Johnston at the Aug. 6 news conference launching the study: Why waste money on an unproven, enormously expensive, extremely toxic nuclear power plant, with no place in the nation accepting the eventual radioactive waste, in a spot with hundreds of thousands of neighbors and 100 million visiting passengers a year? 

Especially at a time when Johnston is having to fire hundreds of current Denver city employees to make up for a major budget deficit? The airport can argue its funding for the study comes from airline and other fees, not city tax money, but still, opponents said … the optics?

“The optics are really crazy,” Gilmore said Tuesday. The date of the nuclear-curious news conference did not escape the notice of Gilmore, who has family members with parents who were in Japan when the first A-bomb dropped. “And it was just tone deaf to anything about the community, or the close proximity to Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge and its Superfund site,” Gilmore said.  …………………………………………………………………………

Clean energy advocates said that none of the new generation of small modular reactors are actually plugged in and working yet, and that only a small handful of new nuclear power units have been approved nationwide since the 1970s. Cost overruns are the norm with nuclear, they add, and all existing nuclear power plants in the U.S. must store their highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel onsite because no federal repository has been opened. ………………………………… https://coloradosun.com/2025/08/20/dia-nuclear-power-study-shelved/

August 22, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Reckon you can put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?

You have until Thursday August 21 to respond if you do

The Register, Richard Speed, Fri 15 Aug 2025 

NASA’s plans to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon have moved on – the agency has now put out a Request For Information (RFI) to gauge industry interest in the project.

An RFI is not an invitation to bid for the work. Interested parties need to register their interest by 21 August, and only later, there’s a chance that they could be used to “finalize a potential opportunity later this year.” It comes after a directive from NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy that called for the US to be the first to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon.

Things will need to move fast if the agency is to meet the goal of being ready to launch by the first quarter of fiscal year 2030.

Dubbed the Fission Surface Power System, the reactor must have a mass of less than 15 metric tons, have a minimum power output of 100 kWe, and utilize a closed Brayton cycle power conversion system.

NASA is no stranger to nuclear power. It had rovers and spacecraft powered by the technology and has looked into Brayton cycle power conversion for nuclear electric propulsion on Mars missions [PDF].

The Apollo missions used Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) to power experiments to be left on the lunar surface. These contained plutonium-238, and one returned to Earth on Apollo 13, remaining on the lunar module. The container for the plutonium is now at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, and no release of radiation has been detected.

One hundred kilowatts of power is, however, an order of magnitude greater than the nuclear power sources launched by NASA to date. It would be enough to power the International Space Station (ISS), which currently charges its batteries using electricity generated by solar arrays attached to the outpost………………………https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/15/nuclear_moon/

August 16, 2025 Posted by | space travel, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear developers turn to Special Purpose Acquisition Companies.

Three nuclear energy developers are seeking to raise more than $500mn
through mergers with special purpose acquisition companies as investors
rush to tap into an atomic energy boom.

Terra Innovatum, Terrestrial Energy
and Eagle Energy Metals said the transactions, which they expected to be
completed by the end of the year, would accelerate the development of small
modular reactors.

Several other companies developing nuclear technologies
are considering listings via initial public offerings, including Holtec
International and Quantum Leap Energy, a division of ASP Isotopes.
“Investors now realise that nuclear energy is here to stay because it is
needed to power the artificial intelligence revolution and this is
turbocharging interest, particularly in the US,” said Nick Lawson, the
chief executive of Ocean Wall, an investment group advising ASP Isotopes on
the QLE spin off.

Shares in nuclear energy companies surged near record
highs last week as optimism about a nuclear renaissance gathered pace owing
to AI power demand and political support from the Trump administration.
Last month Westinghouse outlined plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors
in the US at a meeting in Pittsburgh attended by President Donald Trump,
who has set a target of quadrupling American nuclear power capacity in the
next 25 years.

FT 11th Aug 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/087f3fac-52ca-4ca7-8827-734125af4a2b

August 12, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

A Second CANDU Reactor for Point Lepreau? Let’s Ponder.

A new CANDU reactor does not exist. The current reactor at Point Lepreau is a CANDU 6, the same model as the one Hydro-Québec shut down permanently in 2012 and is now in the process of decommissioning. There are no plans to design a new CANDU 6.

August 6, 2025, Susan O’Donnell and Frank Greening, https://www.theenergymix.com/a-second-candu-reactor-for-point-lepreau-lets-ponder/

Over the summer, New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt mused to journalists about building a second CANDU reactor at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy.

“A second CANDU is not far-fetched,” she told the Telegraph Journal. On the weekend, Holt enthused about the idea in a CBC story about the Eastern Energy Partnership pitch to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

A new CANDU reactor for New Brunswick? It’s a puzzling thought, worth pondering.

Let’s put aside for a moment that the current CANDU reactor at the Point Lepreau site is an economic nightmare, its poor performance the main reason NB Power loses money almost every year. Overspends on the original reactor and the rebuild together represent almost two-thirds of NB Power’s nearly $6-billion debt.

Let’s forget that more than 25 years ago in Ontario, the provincial utility Ontario Hydro was similarly effectively bankrupt before it was split up, leaving a $20-billion stranded debt, largely left over from its CANDU nuclear construction program. Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers were left holding the bag for that $20 billion, paying it back on their electricity bills. A recent investigation found that: “In 2050 Ontario will still be paying the debt of the nuclear program of the 1970s and 80s.”

Let’s also try to forget that the New Brunswick government gets its nuclear advice from NB Power (the utility that loses money almost every year), the same utility that in 2018 recommended the province invite two start-up companies from the United Kingdom and the United States that had never built a nuclear reactor to come to New Brunswick and, with their experimental reactor designs, start a new nuclear export industry.

It was a breathtakingly risky recommendation that can most kindly be described as “wishful thinking.” In the seven years since, despite more than $95 million to the companies from provincial and federal taxpayers, their two “advanced” designs for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) have failed to attract enough private sector financing and almost certainly will never be built in New Brunswick.

Finally, are we willing to ignore the fact that the Peskotomuhkati Nation never consented to the current CANDU reactor on its homeland at Point Lepreau, has made numerous interventions against plans to put the two SMRs on the site, and is highly unlikely to consent to a second CANDU?

For this ponder, let’s park all those troubling facts and focus on what we know about a potential second CANDU reactor for Point Lepreau.

A new CANDU reactor does not exist. The current reactor at Point Lepreau is a CANDU 6, the same model as the one Hydro-Québec shut down permanently in 2012 and is now in the process of decommissioning. There are no plans to design a new CANDU 6.

AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin) owns the exclusive rights to design a new CANDU. The engineering firm announced in late 2023 that its new CANDU design is called Monark. So far, the CANDU Monark is a computer model, currently registered with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as in a “familiarization and planning” stage with the start date for regulatory reviews “to be determined”.

Although AtkinsRéalis has released almost no technical details about its proposed design, the company did predict the CANDU Monark’s capacity factor, an important parameter for evaluating a nuclear reactor design. The capacity factor is a measure of efficiency, how often a nuclear reactor (or any other kind of power plant) operates at maximum power output over a specific period.

Predicted capacity factors require years of reactor operation to prove reliability. In 2023, the global average nuclear power plant capacity factor was 81.5%. Predicting a higher average capacity factor would mean AtkinsRéalis believes the CANDU Monark design can produce power more consistently and at a greater percentage of its potential than the average reactor.

This “new” CANDU Monark design has similar features (cooled and moderated with heavy water, similar core channels and heat transport system) to the design of the reactor at the Darlington nuclear site in Ontario, the last CANDU ordered in Canada more than 30 years ago. The lifetime average capacity factor for Darlington’s four CANDU units is 83%, in line with the global average.

Yet a paper sponsored by AtkinsRéalis at the June 2024 conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society claims the annual capacity of the CANDU Monark design is more than 95%, much higher than the global average or the actual number at Darlington.

How does AtkinsRéalis plan to boost this CANDU’s average capacity factor from 83% to 95%? The answer: more wishful thinking!

Now, back to the existing CANDU 6 reactor at Point Lepreau—which is currently, again, closed for repairs, this time for five months. After refurbishment, from the start of 2013 to the end of 2024, its capacity factor was 78%, below the global average. Last year, with a multi-month, unplanned shutdown for a generator repair, the reactor operated at 32% capacity. An investigation by CBC predicts that 2024  may be its worst operational year ever.

Earlier this year, the NB Power CEO said the root of the reactor’s problems can be traced to when the reactor was refurbished from 2008 to 2012. To save money, the plant’s supporting infrastructure was not upgraded, and now that infrastructure is breaking down.

Lack of money is a core constraint for New Brunswick’s nuclear plans. In 2024, another CBC investigation revealed a consultant report that linked the poor performance of NB Power’s nuclear reactor to the fact that since the refurbishment, the utility has not spent nearly enough to maintain it.

The basic problem is that New Brunswick lacks the capacity to operate a nuclear reactor. In addition to a financially stretched utility with a small grid, the province lacks nuclear management expertise.

When the plant reopened in 2012 after refurbishment, NB Power contracted a management team from Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Later, the utility hired a manager living outside the country. He billed the utility for travel expenses from his home to his work in New Brunswick in addition to his salary, a total that reached $1.3 million but delivered no improvement in the reactor’s performance. In 2023, NB Power said goodbye to the American and contracted OPG management again.

Across the globe [pdf], it is hard to find an electrical grid as small as NB Power’s with a nuclear reactor. The International Atomic Energy Agency recommends that: “A single power plant should represent no more than 10% of the total installed grid capacity.” NB Power’s Point Lepreau plant exceeds 15% of its grid capacity, including the energy available under power purchase agreements.

For decades, the utility has had oversized nuclear ambitions. As far back as 1972, a federal Department of Finance official warned [pdf] against subsidizing a power reactor for “a small, high-cost utility with barely enough cash flow to finance its present debt,” calling New Brunswick’s nuclear plans “the equivalent of a Volkswagen family acquiring a Cadillac as a second car.”


The nuclear industry depends on wishful thinking, plus its hubris and supreme confidence that have bamboozled generations of energy ministers and premiers into believing its overblown hype.

So, a second CANDU at Point Lepreau? The Premier would be wise to ignore the promotion and sales puff from NB Power and its nuclear industry friends and review the facts. Follow the money, or in this case, the billions the province has lost so far. A decision to build a second CANDU at Point Lepreau would be not only puzzling, but economically reckless.

Dr. Susan O’Donnell is a social scientist specializing in technology adoption and an Adjunct Research Professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University. Dr. Frank Greening is nuclear research scientist with a PhD in Chemistry, retired from Ontario Power Generation (OPG). This story was first published by NB Media Co-op, and is republished by permission.

August 11, 2025 Posted by | Canada, technology | Leave a comment