Small Nuclear Reactor company’s focus turns to raising $500+ million.
COMMENT. The ask for $500-million has been out there for about two years. Deadbeats, all of them involved in this sorry excuse for a project. It’s pathetic.
It comes after review by Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound investment
Adam Huras, Jul 10, 2025,
https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smr-companys-focus-turns-to-raising-millions-to-finish-design-work
ARC Clean Technology says its focus is now raising what is likely still the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to finish the design work of its small modular nuclear reactor.
It’s a figure that’s likely upwards of $500 million, according to two former ARC CEOs.
That’s with the aim to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application hopefully by 2027, with a target commercial deployment at Point Lepreau in the early 2030s.
It comes after the completion of a review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound private investment.
Earlier this week, the country’s safety commission said it identified “no fundamental barriers” to licensing the ARC’s proposed sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor, after completing a second design review that had stretched on for over three years.
It’s a result that ARC is calling a “pivotal step” toward commercial deployment.
That’s while adding it gives the company new “global credibility” in a race to market.
Its focus now is raising new money.
“Our current focus is on advancing strategic partnership and investment discussions to set the stage for the next phase of design work to support a license to construct application,” ARC Clean Technology spokesperson Sandra Donnelly told Brunswick News.
Asked specifically how much money is needed, Donnelly declined to say.
“We continue to evaluate the going forward cost estimate through current discussions with strategic partners,” she said.
“We are not sharing specific numbers.”
ARC’s former CEO Bill Labbe had previously said the ARC-100 would cost $500 million to develop and needed an additional $600 million more in power purchase agreements to move the project forward.
That was after the Higgs government gave $20 million to ARC, while the feds awarded the company another $7 million.
Ottawa also provided NB Power with $5 million to help it prepare for SMRs at Point Lepreau.
The Gallant Liberal government also first spent $10 million on ARC and Moltex, the province’s other company pursuing SMR technology, as they set up offices in Saint John now roughly eight years ago.
In an interview with Brunswick News on Thursday, another former ARC president and CEO, Norm Sawyer, who left the company in 2021 and is now a board member at the National Research Council Canada, pegged the figure needed to likely be between US$500 and $700 million.
“A preliminary design is almost essentially complete,” Sawyer said of the Phase 2 review. “Obviously, the next step needs money.
“They would also have to staff up.”
Sawyer said further design work could involve upwards of 100 employees with intensive final engineering to be completed.
That doesn’t include the construction of a facility at Lepreau, Sawyer said.
Brunswick News first reported last spring that ARC had handed out layoff notices to employees, while confirming that, in parallel, its president and CEO since 2021, Labbe, was leaving the company.
Asked if staffing levels will now change, Donnelly said that’s now “being reviewed as part of preparations for the next phase of design work.”
“It’s a positive step for them, it’s just can they leverage it now to get to the next step which is really investment,” Sawyer said. “I think there’s value there for investors.
“It’s also up to how much risk investors are willing to take. I think the investor would want a PPA (power purchase agreement) first.”
A power purchase agreement is a long-term contract where a nuclear power plant sells electricity to a buyer, often a utility, government, or large energy consumer.
NB Power CEO Lori Clark told a committee of MLAs at the provincial legislature earlier this year that ARC is “looking for investors now.”
Clark herself travelled to South Korea last December to promote ARC’s “commercialization possibilities,” in part to drum up new financial support.
A trilateral collaboration agreement was announced last year between South Korea’s utility, ARC, and NB Power with the goal of establishing “teaming agreements for global small modular reactor fleet deployment.”
ARC also said that it welcomed in February “multiple delegations” from South Korea’s utility.
No financial agreement has been revealed as of yet.
Finding the money necessary to finish design work is integral to building timelines.
“Our next objective is to complete the required design work by 2027 to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application, with a target commercial deployment in early 2030s,” Donnelly said.
“Timelines will continue to be reviewed as design work and partnership discussions progress.”
The company still faces other challenges.
Brunswick News has also reported that ARC is still in search of a new enriched uranium supplier, after it originally planned to buy from Russia. It’s a problem Sawyer has suggested might result in a redesign of the company’s small modular nuclear reactor technology.
Asked if the concern over an enriched uranium source has been resolved, Donnelly said that “the availability of HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium) fuel remains an overall market issue.
“We are encouraged that the HALEU supply chain has advanced significantly over the past year with strong government support in multiple countries, and we continue to evaluate multiple options to secure a fuel supply for the first ARC unit,” she added.
The enriched uranium is an integral component of the company’s ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor.
But it’s not as simple as finding that enriched uranium closer to home. While Canada mines uranium, and there are currently five uranium mines and mills operating in Canada, all located in northern Saskatchewan, it does not have uranium enrichment plants.
The U.S. opened its first and only enrichment plant, operated by Centrus Energy in Ohio, amid a federal push to find a solution to the Russia problem. It remains the only facility in the U.S. licensed to enrich uranium, and has a lineup for SMR firms seeking its fuel.
That said, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the uranium front late last year as the Trudeau federal government’s fall economic statement promised support to strengthen nuclear fuel supply chains.
“To support demand for allied enriched nuclear fuel and bolster supply chain resiliency, the 2024 fall economic statement announces the government’s intent to backstop up to $500 million in enriched nuclear fuel purchase contracts from the United States or other allied countries, including high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), subject to further consultations with industry stakeholders on program details, and provide $4 million over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for Natural Resources Canada to administer the program,” reads the fall mini budget.
The current Carney government has yet to table a budget laying out whether that commitment will continue to go ahead.
Flamanville EPR shut down, no restart date announced
Having just exceeded the 60% power threshold, the Flamanville EPR was shut down as part of its tests but must remain so following a problem.
By Chrismaël Marchand, June 25, 2025, https://actu.fr/normandie/flamanville_50184/lepr-de-flamanville-est-a-larret-pas-de-date-de-redemarrage-annoncee_62823385.html
The Flamanville EPR (Manche) entered the operating phase in May 2024, with the loading of its fuel . Since then, it has validated its first divergence in September 2024 and the coupling to the electricity grid in December 2024. In 2025, it continues this intense start-up phase with a target of full power during the summer of 2025 .
It is even on schedule, it seems, since it reached 60% of its power , at the beginning of June 2025. It is now aiming for the 80% level where it will have to benefit from the approval of the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority (ASNR).
However, he will have to wait a little longer because unit number 3 of the Flamanville Nuclear Power Production Centre (CNPE) is no longer operating.
Investigation and repair on the agenda
On June 19, 2025, at 7:05 p.m., it was shut down as part of the reactor commissioning tests, which require the reactor to undergo numerous and significant power variations.
Reactor No. 2 is also delayed
On Monday, June 16, reactor No. 2 was disconnected from the power grid, “following the activation of the turbine’s automatic protections,” located in the non-nuclear part of the facility. “We detected an oil leak on a component,” EDF confirmed. “The reactor therefore went into automatic protection mode.” Initially, unit No. 2 was scheduled to restart on the evening of Sunday, June 22. However, repairs are taking longer than expected. A new date has therefore been set for Saturday, June 28. However, there is no guarantee.
“This shutdown allowed adjustment operations to be carried out in the engine room, a non-nuclear part of the facilities,” EDF explained . However, the production unit has still not restarted.
It is kept at a standstill to carry out investigations and adjustments on a protection valve of the main primary circuit.EDF, communications department
No official date has been announced yet. ” We are investigating and making repairs to continue the test session,” EDF concluded
What is an EMP?
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/06/29/what-is-an-emp/
A nuclear electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear detonation could affect billions explains Carlos Umaña in an interview
As a companion piece to Umaña’s article about the April 2025 blackout in Europe and his first fears that nuclear war had begun, we republish this interview from Tendencia in 2019.
In 2017, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) won the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its decade-long work to ban the atomic bomb.
ICAN is a global alliance whose goal is to raise awareness among people in all countries to pressure their governments to sign a treaty to ban nuclear weapons. The campaign was launched in 2007 and is now active in more than 60 countries.
Carlos Umaña, from Costa Rica, is a member of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), and a member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
What is a nuclear electromagnetic pulse?
A nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a brief, intense pulse of radio wave that is produced by a nuclear detonation.
Its radius is much greater than the destruction caused by the heat and shock wave of the nuclear weapon. For example, the pulse from an explosion about 100 km high would cover an area of 4 million km2. An explosion about 350 km high could, for example, cover most of North America, with a voltage of a power that is a million times greater than that of a lightning bolt from a thunderstorm. That is, if the detonation of a nuclear bomb is made from a sufficient height, even if there is no such great physical destruction, it could affect the lives of the inhabitants of an entire country or of several countries.
What would be the consequences of detonating a nuclear bomb from a sufficient height?
It would cause extensive disruption of all electrical equipment. Everything within the radius of the EMP wave would cease to function and would literally go dark.
The EMP energy would be absorbed by a large number of metallic objects, including power cables, telephone lines, railroads and antennas. It would be transmitted to computers and electronic equipment. This would directly affect essential circuits for telecommunications, computer systems, transportation networks, etc. In other words, it would affect practically everything to do with technology.
Why talk about humanitarian consequences, if we are talking about technology, not people?
Recently there has been an impetus for the humanitarian nuclear disarmament movement, where there has been talk about how weapons affect people. There is a lot of talk about the direct effects of destruction by heat, blast wave and radiation, the effects of which last for generations and cause a lot of suffering even today.
Today, this issue has become extremely relevant because civilization depends on technology for so many things, including health systems, and so many people would be affected both directly and indirectly, far beyond the catastrophic damage caused by the direct physical elements.
Nuclear bombs have been detonated before, why hasn’t this happened?
Yes, it has. This is known from the havoc they have wreaked at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945) and the 2056 nuclear tests that have been done since then.
The difference between then and now is that our dependence on technology is virtually absolute. If we think about it, almost every aspect of our lives, especially in the urban environment, is tied to technology, both in terms of the electrical devices that take care of more and more of the details of our daily lives, and the global communication and information network that we depend on to function as a society. We’re talking about things from basic telecommunication, to data in the cloud, to the stock market, to digital maps for international flights, and so on.
All cars and planes would be disabled. Police, ambulances and firefighters could not be called. Food could not be distributed, especially in urban centers, nor water. Imagine entire cities without electricity, lights, transportation and food. It would be the end of civilization itself. Modern life as we know it would simply cease to exist.
To what extent are the threats of this happening real?
While North Korea’s arsenal is much smaller than that of the United States, at times of tension between the two countries, the North Korean threat was to detonate a bomb in the U.S. atmosphere to disable a large part of the country.
Read the original interview in Spanish here.
The Unspoken Aspects of Iran’s Nuclear Program
by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network | Paris (France) | 27 June 2025
The implications of Iran’s nuclear program are not what we think. Tehran renounced the atomic bomb in 1988, but is attempting, with Russia’s cooperation, to discover the secrets of nuclear fusion. If it succeeds, it would help the Southern states decolonize by freeing themselves from oil.
As for the implications of the bombing of certain Iranian nuclear sites by the United States, they may also not be what we think.
This affair is all the more opaque because it is not possible today to establish a clear distinction between research on civilian nuclear fusion and military fusion.
ince the fall of Iraq, under the blows of the British and the United States, London and Washington have popularized the myth of Iran’s military nuclear program, following on from the myth of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This myth has been taken up by Israeli “revisionist Zionists” (not to be confused with “Zionists” per se) and their leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. For twenty years, Westerners have been inundated with this propaganda and have come to believe it, although announcing for such a long period that Tehran will have “the” bomb “next year” makes no sense.—
However, even if Russia, China, and the United States all agree that there is currently no Iranian military program, everyone clearly sees that Iran is doing something at its nuclear power plants. But what?
In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of the Islamic Republic, replacing Sayyed Mohammad Khatami. He is a scientist whose vision is to liberate colonized peoples. He therefore believes that by mastering the atom, he will enable all peoples to free themselves from Western oil transnationals.
Iran then develops training programs for nuclear scientists in numerous universities. It’s not about creating a small elite of a few hundred specialists, but about training battalions of engineers. There are now tens of thousands of them.
Iran intends to discover how to achieve nuclear fusion, whereas Westerners are content with fission. Fission is the splitting of an atom; while fusion is the joining of atoms, which releases immeasurable energy. Fission is used for our power plants, while, for the time being, fusion is only used for thermonuclear bombs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s project is to use it to generate electricity and share it with developing countries.
This knowledge is revolutionary, in the Khomeinist sense of the term, that is, it allows for an end to the dependence of the Southern states and their economic development. It clashes head-on with the British vision of colonialism, according to which His Majesty had to divide and rule and prevent the development of the colonized. We recall, for example, that London forbade Indians from spinning the cotton they grew themselves so that it could be spun by its factories in Manchester. In response, Mahatma Gandhi set an example for his people and spun his own cotton, defying the British monarchy. Similarly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s project challenges the power of the West and the Anglo-Saxon oil transnationals. It is perfectly understandable to be concerned about Iranian investment in nuclear power because these technologies are, by definition, dual-use, both civilian and military. It is clear that this is not the usual civilian use, and that the detailed discovery of fusion processes could also be used for military purposes. In any case, Iran is seeking an inexhaustible source of energy.
………………………….It should also be remembered that Iran is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It is for this reason that it is subject to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since 1988, the IAEA has never found any evidence suggesting that Iran still has a military nuclear program. However, the Agency has asked numerous questions to clarify certain aspects of its civilian program and has received no answers, which is perfectly understandable given the investment in Iranian-Russian fusion research. In practice, documents released by the Iranian press two days before the Israeli attack attest that the IAEA Director, the Argentinian Rafael Grossi, behaves like a spy in the service of Israel, to which he transmits all information from its inspectors; this is despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and therefore not a member of the IAEA.
Tehran submitted a proposal for the “Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East” to the United Nations Conference of the Parties to the NPT on May 4, 2010 [1]. This proposal was well received by all states in the region, with the exception of Israel. Indeed, Tel Aviv, which benefited from transfers of French technology from senior officials of the Fourth Republic, possesses the atomic bomb [2]…………………………………………………………………………………………https://www.voltairenet.org/article222538.html
Torness ideal for small modular nuclear reactor, says Britain Remade.
a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected
to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report
by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any
other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems,
solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas.
A UK campaign for accelerated infrastructure-building has said that
Torness is “a prime site” for the next generation of small nuclear
reactors. Britain Remade, a group co-founded by a former energy and climate
advisor to Boris Johnson, says Torness as an ideal target for small modular
reactors of the type the UK Government recently backed. ………………………………….
Britain Remade, which is strongly focussed on campaigning
for “nuclear power alongside the rapid roll-out of renewables” and
infrastructure-building to drive growth, hosted a public meeting in Dunbar
in April. The campaign also conducted a poll which found that half of the
SNP’s voters believe nuclear power should be part of Scotland’s mix of
clean energy generation.
But many in Scotland still maintain a strong objection to nuclear.
Pete Roche, who campaigned against Torness in the
1970s, founding the Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace, said:
“The last thing Scotland needs at Torness is more reactors, whether large
or small. Incidentally Rolls Royce’s so-called small reactors at 470MW are
only slightly smaller than Torness’s two 660MW reactors.”
Earlier this month, the UK Government announced its selection of Rolls-Royce SMR as the
preferred bidder “to develop small modular reactors, subject to final
government approvals and contract signature – marking a new golden age of
nuclear in the UK”. Dumitriu said: “SMRs are already being deployed in
Canada. The idea behind them is that because you build them in a factory
and 90% of the construction of them is done in a factory, you’re rolling
them off a production line and because of that you get all of the cost
reductions of economies of scale, of learning by doing and you’re able to
build them a lot cheaper than the current design.”
However a recent analysis of the technology in the United States said that SMR are projected
to be the most expensive of all electricity technologies per KW. The report
by management consultancy firm ICF found that they would cost more than any
other source of electricity, including battery energy storage systems,
solar, wind, combustion turbines and gas.
Campaigner Pete Roche said:
“There is no evidence that small modular reactors will be cheaper,
because almost none have ever been built. In fact it is beginning to look
like small reactors will be even more expensive than large reactors because
they won’t benefit from economies of scale.”
Energy Secretary Gillian Martin said: “Decommissioning Scotland’s nuclear sites will take
decades and will require the retention of a highly skilled workforce.
Meanwhile, the significant growth in renewables, storage hydrogen, carbon
capture and decommissioning are key opportunities for our future energy
workforce in Scotland – with independent scenarios from Ernst and Young
(EY), showing that with the right support, Scotland’s low carbon and
renewable energy sector could support nearly 80,000 jobs by 2050.“
Herald 28th June 2025,
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25261384.torness-ideal-small-modular-reactor-says-britain-remade/
Why Trump’s Golden Dome must be opposed – Bruce Gagnon & Dae-Han Song
19 Jun 2025
In January 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the US armed forces to construct a missile defense system – the ‘Golden Dome’ – a proposed multi-layer defense system, comparable to the Iron Dome system in Israel. It aims to place and maintain space weapons orbit, for the first time in history.
The proposed system will be exorbitant. According to US Congress sources it could cost several trillion dollars. This would require the US to cut every one of its remaining social programs. Such a military system would inflict ever more damage to the environment both on and around our planet.
Trump wants such a system, so that the US can launch a nuclear attack on another nuclear armed country and the US be confident that it has sufficient defenses to reduce the impact of any retaliatory missiles launched against US to levels deemed acceptable to US military planners. As the US advances its war drive, it is developing its military alliances with other countries and locking them into its war preparations.
Military coordination is being stepped up with increased ‘interoperability’ of hardware. In these alliances, such as NATO, it is always the US that is ‘in charge of the tip of the spear’.
Bruce Gagnon, in discussion with Dae-Han Song, explains why the proposed Golden Dome should be opposed. Bruce Gagnon has been organizing to stop the new arms race in space (Star Wars) since 1982. He began by coordinating the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice from 1983-1998. During those years, in 1992, he co-founded the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in space that he now coordinates. Bruce began his organizing career working for the United Farm Workers Union. He is a Vietnam war era veteran. He lives in Brunswick, Maine.
Website of The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space: https://space4peace.org/ The petition against the Golden Dome is here: https://space4peace.org/global-networ… Dae-Han Song is a part of the International Strategy Center and the Korea Policy Institute. He is a member of the international No Cold War collective.
EPR nuclear reactors are just not performing well at all
The French EPR reactor was supposed to be built in 4 or 4,5 years, and to
produce 13 TWh of electricity per year. (As for EDF:s promise, see for
example https://lnkd.in/dFXe5geb point 19.)
At 13 TWh/year and operating when planned to do so, the first 4 reactors, in Finland, France and China should have produced about 648 TWh by the end of 2024. According to new
data from the IAEA PRIS they have produced 123,4 TWh, a mere 19 % of what
was promised.
Much of this underachievement is explained by construction
delays, on average 8,5 years for the first 4 reactors. But even after they
have started to produce electricity, it is far less than the 13 TWh/year.
In fact, it is 8,4 TWh. Put it in another way, the ”load factor” is
low. Lifetime load factors through 2024 are Taishan 1: 55%, Taishan 2: 76
%, Olkiluoto 3: 77,6%. Flamanville 3 in France was connected to the grid
only in December 2024 so it is too early to tell.
But as for the other three, the weighted average so far is about 67 percent. 100 per cent is
impossible. The world average load factor is about 82 per cent, as real
world reactors have both planned and unplanned stops.
The EPR has consistently been marketed as being able to produce 13 TWh per year, for 60
years. The theoretical maximum for a 1600 megawatt reactor, 24/365, is just
above 14 TWh, so 13 TWh corresponds to a load factor of 92.8%.It is
conceivable that the load factors will increase but it is not sure. Taishan
is the oldest EPR in operation, and it is also the worst performer.
Frederik Lundberg 24th June 2025,
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7343320565471924224/
The nuclear mirage: why small modular reactors won’t save nuclear power
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are the nuclear industry’s latest shiny dream. It is more hope than strategy. SMRs only exist in the imagination of the nuclear industry and its supporters. SMRs can only be found on glossy PowerPoint slides. That is why Mycle Schneider dubbed SMRs “power point reactors.” There are no engineering plans, no blueprints, no working prototypes.
Climate and Capital Media, by Arnie Gundersen | Jun 20, 2025
Don’t believe the hype, says a 50-year industry veteran
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.”
Everywhere you look, the nuclear industry’s hype machine is in overdrive. Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy urges a “warp speed” nuclear revival. Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and the UK government all tout small modular reactors (SMRs) as the silver bullet for climate change and energy security. Tech billionaires are hiring nuclear veterans. Wall Street is whispering about “round-the-clock power” for AI data centers. The UK is betting billions on “mini nukes” to fill its looming energy gap.
For those old enough to remember, this should sound familiar. For those who don’t, listen up. I spent over 50 years in the nuclear industry, advancing to Senior Vice President and managing projects at 70 nuclear power plants. I hold a nuclear safety patent and co-authored three peer-reviewed papers on the spread of radiation after meltdowns.
I once believed in the dream. I helped build the dream. And now, watching this third act unfold, I can only shake my head at the déjà vu. Because the nuclear industry’s latest pitch is not a revolution, but a rerun — an expensive distraction from real climate solutions.
The nuclear industry’s latest pitch is not a revolution, but a rerun — an expensive distraction from real climate solutions.
What is an SMR, anyway?
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are the nuclear industry’s latest shiny dream. It is more hope than strategy. SMRs only exist in the imagination of the nuclear industry and its supporters. SMRs can only be found on glossy PowerPoint slides. That is why Mycle Schneider dubbed SMRs “power point reactors.” There are no engineering plans, no blueprints, no working prototypes.
Still, hope springs eternal, and the idea is to build advanced atomic fission reactors, typically defined as producing up to 300 megawatts of electricity per unit, less than a third the size of a conventional nuclear plant.
The “small” part refers to their reduced output and physical footprint, while “modular” means they’re designed to be built in factories, shipped to sites, and installed as needed, supposedly making them cheaper and faster to deploy than traditional reactors. In theory, you could add modules over time to scale up output, like snapping together Lego blocks.
Too small to succeed
But let’s not be fooled by the word “small.” Even a single SMR is a massive, highly radioactive industrial machine, capable of powering a mid-sized city and containing a radioactive inventory far greater than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The “small” label is relative only to the behemoths of the last century. In practice, a “small” reactor brings all the big problems of a conventional reactor: dangerous radioactive fuel, complex safety systems, and the risk of catastrophic failure or sabotage. The only thing that’s truly small about SMRs is their inability to benefit from the economies of scale that, in theory, were supposed to make large reactors affordable — but never actually did.
All risk, no advantage
So, the SMR is a lose-lose: all the risks and headaches of traditional nuclear, but with none of the cost or scale advantages that never materialized in the first place.
But that is not stopping nuclear power zealots from championing what will be another failed chapter in the sad legacy of commercial atomic power. Sensing blood, the battered commercial nuclear industry is back with its most audacious pitch yet: SMR lobbying of governments worldwide for taxpayer money. Why? No private investor will touch nukes with a ten-foot uranium rod.
The irony is rich: while Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and Amazon herald SMRs as the solution to everything from AI’s energy hunger to coal’s decline, the nuclear vendors themselves won’t promise atomic power will be cheaper than renewables. Perhaps they recall the Westinghouse executives who were imprisoned for defrauding the public on atomic project costs. They know what I know: it is pure fantasy to think smaller, less powerful SMRs will magically generate cheap power. Power generation doesn’t work that way.
A legacy of failure — and my place in it
I started my career in the early 1970s, a young engineer with a master’s degree and a reactor operator’s license, working on Millstone Unit 1 in Connecticut. We were going to make electricity “too cheap to meter.” Instead, we made it too expensive to afford — and too complex to run reliably…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
“The NRC is truly a captured agency… NEI complained that the agency’s proposed language for a new rule to weaken security for new nuclear reactors was too stringent. So, the NRC complied and completely eviscerated the draft. Pathetic,” said Dr. Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists
Who’s who in SMRs
But none of this has stopped nuclear vendors from pushing their SMR hopefuls:
- Holtec: It has never built a reactor. Its design has changed three times in three years, each version more complex. Larger and expensive than the last. At one point, Holtec claimed its reactor would be as safe as a chocolate factory. Willy Wonka would disagree.
Natrium: Backed by Bill Gates, it uses liquid sodium coolant and a thermal storage gimmick. The design is so complicated that the only thing it’s likely to generate is more press releases — and perhaps a few more government grants. And here’s the kicker: the only fuel available for Natrium’s first core load was to come from Russia. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the project was immediately delayed by at least two years, exposing the folly of building a new generation of reactors dependent on a single, geopolitically fraught source of fuel.- NuScale: The first to get NRC approval for an SMR design, but has no customers and just canceled its flagship project due to cost overruns. Its original 50 MW design was quickly upsized to 77 MW after the economics failed to pencil out. After revisiting the drawing board, the new version was just approved in May, but there are no unsubsidized potential buyers.
- Westinghouse: The old hand. Its AP1000 reactors in Georgia nearly bankrupted the company. Now it’s back with an even smaller AP300. Because if at first you don’t succeed, shrink the reactor and try again.
Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, and the UK: The new true believers
But never let facts get in the way of a good story. It’s almost touching to see the world’s financial and tech giants lining up behind SMRs, as long as they are subsidized by someone else……………………………………………….
Why nuclear can’t compete with renewables
The dream of the first nuclear plants was that mining uranium was a lot cheaper than mining coal. But while nuclear costs continue to rise, wind, solar, and battery storage are becoming increasingly cheaper and more reliable every year. And the sun and wind give energy for free. Renewables are now the lowest-cost source of new electricity in most markets. Nuclear, by contrast, has never achieved cost reductions through learning or mass production. Every new design is a new experiment, with new risks and new costs……………………………………………….
SMRs will never be built
Here’s the final irony: despite all the headlines and billions in taxpayer subsidies, an SMR will never be built — not in time to matter, and not at a price that makes sense. But that won’t stop the industry from burning through billions more in public money, chasing a fantasy that distracts and diverts resources from real, proven solutions. As Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” And as someone who’s lived through every act of this atomic opera, I can only add: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a third time? Well, that’s just nuclear insanity.
Arnie Gundersen is a former nuclear industry executive and Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education. He has testified as an expert on nuclear safety and reliability worldwide.
Scotland wants no part in further dangerous nuclear experiments
Frances McKie:
IN 1976 the British Government accepted the
findings of the Flowers Report, which advised: “It would be morally wrong
to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a
massive scale unless it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that
at least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes for the
indefinite future.”
In 1987, I attended a Venstre political conference in
Norway where Professor Torbjorn Sikkeland, the distinguished nuclear
physicist and radiation biophysicist, explained, with illustrations, that
nuclear fuels and nuclear waste would never be safely or securely
contained: they are simply too corrosive.
At the same conference, Professor
Sikkeland also declared that it was accepted by his colleagues that
hydrogen was the answer to world energy needs but it was unlikely to emerge
as an option while the nuclear lobby stood in the way of necessary research
and investment.
30 years later, radiation corrosion still plagues nuclear
reactors wherever and however they are built; there is still no safe
containment for the corrosive nature of nuclear waste In 2025, however,
despite the 40-year-old commitment to the common sense and morality of the
Flowers Report, we now have a desperate government in Westminster:
economically bankrupt, at the mercy of whatever corporate lobbyists come
their way.
Westminster, flailing around with post-Brexit bankruptcy, does
not have a meaningful energy, environment or defence policy: it has just
broadcast its latest version of panicky, ridiculous and dangerous ideas.
Scotland should have nothing to do with them – but continue calmly with
policies which bypass more failed nuclear experiments and the production of
nuclear waste that no-one, still, knows how to contain.
The National 20th June 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/community/25253405.scotland-wants-no-part-dangerous-nuclear-experiments/
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are nothing but a Big Boondoggle.
Guardian 13th June 2025, Dr Ian Fairlie
Independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment; vice-president, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
The more I read about the government’s nuclear intentions, the more it sounds like HS2 all over again, ie another financial boondoggle. Where are the detailed costings? What is our experience with cost overruns, eg at Hinkley Point C? What is the overseas experience with pressurised water reactors (the kind proposed for Sizewell C) at Olkiluoto, at Flamanville, at Taishan? Uniformly bad in all cases, actually.
No matter which way you look at this, viz the future cost overruns, the facts that we consumers will be on the hook for them, that reactors are never constructed on time, that nuclear wastes are unaudited, that we have to import all our uranium, that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in 2023 that renewables are 10 times better than nuclear at lowering carbon emissions, all point to a remarkably poor decision by the government, sad to say. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/13/spending-billions-on-unclean-risky-energy-what-a-nuclear-waste
Small modular nuclear reactors are NOT a “cutting edge” technology.
Sarah Darby, Emerita research fellow, Environmental Change Institute,
Guardian 13th June2025
As Nils Pratley says, Great British Energy’s budget has been nuked to divert funding away from local energy initiatives (11 June). But let’s get away from the idea that SMRs are a cutting-edge technology. Rolls-Royce is proposing a 470MW reactor, the same size as the first-generation Magnox reactors. Their “small” modular reactor, if it ever emerges, will use the familiar method of generating a lot of heat in a very complex and expensive manner, in order to boil water and turn a turbine. It will bequeath yet more radioactive waste to add to the burden and risk at Sellafield.
In the meantime, if government SMR funding continues, it takes money away from opportunities for cutting-edge technical and social innovation, discovery and training all around the country, as schools, hospitals, community groups, network operators and all of us get to grips with renewables-based systems. This sort of innovation is necessary, it’s already benefiting us and it needs full-on government support rather than uneasy compromises with an increasingly redundant nuclear industry.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/13/spending-billions-on-unclean-risky-energy-what-a-nuclear-waste
Spending billions on unclean, risky energy? What a nuclear waste!
Laurie Hill, MBA student, Cambridge Judge Business School 13 June 25
Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactors have powered British nuclear subs since 1966, but small modular reactors (SMRs) aren’t yet proven at scale anywhere on land (Rolls-Royce named winning bidder for UK small nuclear reactors, 10 June). Only three are operating worldwide: two in Russia, one in China. Argentina is constructing the world’s fourth; is Labour simply keen to keep up with historical geopolitical rivals (Sizewell C power station to be built as part of UK’s £14bn nuclear investment, 10 June)?
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) reported actual cost overruns of 300% to 700% for all four projects. Rolls-Royce claims costs of £35 to £50 per MWh; so should we triple this? The government says the SMR project would create 3,000 new low-carbon British jobs, but at what cost? The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, can’t know the true costs yet, and three reactors doesn’t scream “economies of scale”.
Yet £2.5bn is already 10 times more than Great British Energy has invested into simple, cheap rooftop solar, which democratises energy savings. The true cost of renewables must consider intermittency and balancing costs, but why not invest more in flexibility through distributed renewables and grid-scale storage? And what of energy security? SMRs may mitigate against Putin snipping offshore wind cables, but increased reliance on imported uranium, and a heightened nuclear waste security threat, are significant risks.
Last May, the IEEFA concluded that SMRs “are still too expensive, too slow and too risky”, and that we “should embrace the reality that renewables, not SMRs, are the near-term solution to the energy transition”. Has this truly changed? The climate crisis requires scaling all feasible solutions as fast as possible, but, with limited capital, we should prioritise those that make economic sense today. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/13/spending-billions-on-unclean-risky-energy-what-a-nuclear-waste
Elon Musk promises more risky launches after sixth Starship failure
Sara Webb, Lecturer, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology May 30, 2025, https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-promises-more-risky-launches-after-sixth-starship-failure-257726?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekender%2031%20May%202025&utm_content=The%20Weekender%2031%20May%202025+CID_582867a545e37e29eece86475cd84bb4&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Elon%20Musk%20promises%20more%20risky%20launches%20after%20sixth%20Starship%20failure
What goes up must come down, and earlier this week yet another of SpaceX’s Starships, the biggest and most powerful type of rocket ever built, came back down to Earth in spectacular fashion. In the sky above the Indian Ocean, it exploded.
This was the ninth test flight for the rocket, and the third catastrophic failure in a row, just this year.
Is this what we should expect from the very ship some are counting on to take humans further than we’ve ever been in the solar system? Or does this failure point to deeper concerns within the broader program?
A decade of development
The Starship program from Elon Musk’s space technology company, SpaceX, has been in development for more than a decade now and has undergone many iterations in its overall design and goals.
The Starship concept is based upon the SpaceX Raptor engines to be used in a multistage system. In a multistage rocket system, there are often two or three separate blocks with their own engine and fuel reserves. These are particularly important for leaving Earth’s orbit and travelling to the Moon, Mars and beyond.
With Starship, the key factor is the ability to land and reuse vast amounts of the rocket stages again and again. The company’s Falcon 9 vehicles, which used this model, were fantastically successful.
Initial tests of Starship began in 2018 with two low-altitude flights showing early success. Subsequent flights have faced numerous challenges with now four complete failures, two partial failures and three successes overall.
Just two days ago, during the latest failed attempt, I watched alongside more than 200 other space industry experts at the Australian Space Summit in Sydney. Broadcast live on a giant screen, the launch generated an excited buzz – which soon turned to reserved murmurs.
Of course, designing and launching rockets is hard, and failures are to be expected. However, a third catastrophic failure within six months demands a pause for reflection.
On this particular test flight, as Starship positioned itself for atmospheric re-entry, one of its 13 engines failed to ignite. Shortly after, a booster appeared to explode, leading to a complete loss of control. The rocket ultimately broke apart over the Indian Ocean, which tonnes of debris will now call home.
Polluting Earth in pursuit of space
We don’t know the exact financial cost of each test flight. But Musk has previously said it is about US$50–100 million.
The exact environmental cost of the Starship program – and its repeated failures – is even harder to quantify.
For example, a failed test flight in 2023 left the town of Port Isabel, Texas, which is located beside the launch site, shaking and covered in a thick cloud of dirt. Debris from the exploded rocket smashed cars. Residents told the New York Times they were terrified. They also had to clean up the mess from the flight.
Then, in September 2024, SpaceX was fined by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for 14 separate incidents since 2022 where the launch facilities discharged polluted water into Texas waterways. Musk denied these claims.
That same month, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed a fine of US$633,009 in civil penalties should be issued to SpaceX. This was on the grounds of using an unapproved launch control room and other violations during 2023. Musk denied these claims too and threatened to countersue the FAA for “regulatory overreach”.
It’s unclear if this suit was ever filed.
Two other failed launches in January and March this year also rained rocket debris over the Caribbean, and disrupted hundreds of commercial flights, including 80 which needed to be diverted and more than 400 requiring delayed takeoff to ensure they were entering safe air space.
Success of different space programs
Until last year, the FAA allowed SpaceX to try up to five Starship launches a year. This month, the figure was increased to 25.
A lot can go wrong during a launch of a vehicle to space. And there is a long way to go until we can properly judge whether Starship successfully meets its mission goals.
We can, however, look at past programs to understand typical success rates seen across different rocketry programs.
The Saturn V rocket, the workhorse of the Apollo era, had a total of 13 launches, with only one partial failure. It underwent three full ground tests before flight.
SpaceX’s own Falcon 9 rocket, has had more than 478 successful launches, only two in flight failures, one partial failure and one pre-flight destruction.
The Antares rocket, by Orbital Sciences Corporation (later Orbital ATK and Northrop Grumman) launched a total of 18 times, with one failure.
The Soyuz rocket, originally a Soviet expendable carrier rocket designed in the 1960s, launched a total of 32 times, with two failures.
No sign of caution
Of course, we can’t fairly compare all other rockets with the Starship. Its goals are certainly novel as a reusable heavy-class rocket.
But this latest failure does raise some questions. Will the Starship program ever see success – and if so when? And what are the limits of our tolerance as a society to the pollution of Earth in the pursuit of the goal to space?
For a rocketry program that’s moving so fast, developing novel and complex technology, and experiencing several repeated failures, many people might expect caution from now on. Musk, however, has other plans.
Shortly after the most recent Starship failure, he announced on X (formerly Twitter), that the next test flights would occur at a faster pace: one every three to four weeks.
China unveils world’s first AI nuke inspector
China creates artificial intelligence system to oversee nuclear warhead detection despite concerns it could leak tech secrets
China creates artificial
intelligence system to oversee nuclear warhead detection despite concerns
it could leak tech secrets. Chinese scientists have developed an artificial
intelligence system that can distinguish real nuclear warheads from decoys,
marking the world’s first AI-driven solution for arms control
verification. The technology, disclosed in a peer-reviewed paper published
in April by researchers with the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE),
could bolster Beijing’s stance in stalled international disarmament talks
while fuelling debate on the role of AI in managing weapons of mass
destruction.
South China Morning Post 30th May 2025, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3312270/china-unveils-worlds-first-ai-nuke-inspector
Trump’s new ‘gold standard’ rule will destroy American science as we know it
Guardian, Colette Delawalla, Victor Ambros, Carl Bergstrom, Carol Greider, Michael Mann and Brian Nosek, 29 May 25
The new executive order allows political appointees to undermine research they oppose, paving the way for state-controlled science.
Science is under siege.
On Friday evening, the White House released an executive order called Restoring Gold Standard Science. At face value, this order promises a commitment to federally funded research that is “transparent, rigorous, and impactful” and policy that is informed by “the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available”. But hidden beneath the scientific rhetoric is a plan that would destroy scientific independence in the US by giving political appointees the latitude to dismiss entire bodies of research and punish researchers who fail to fall in line with the current administration’s objectives. In other words: this is Fool’s-Gold Standard Science…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/29/trump-american-science
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 