Great British Energy – Nuclear offers £1bn contract for SMR partner
The company is seeking aid in delivering its programme of building a power plant by the 2030s.
Energy Voice July 7th 2026,
Great British Energy – Nuclear is seeking a delivery partner for its small modular reactor (SMR) programme in a £1.08 billion procurement contract.
The successful applicant will support the state-backed company deliver its programme by providing expertise across programme management, infrastructure delivery, commercial management, engineering support, and risk management.
Working alongside GB Energy – Nuclear, the company will help drive collaboration across suppliers, support effective programme delivery, and ensure value for money over the lifetime of the programme
The procurement process will include an initial selection stage, followed by tender. evaluation, dialogue, due diligence and a final selection stage before the appointment of a preferred bidder. Tenders must be submitted by 6 August 2026.
The long-term deal has the possibility of running until 2046.
Great British Energy – Nuclear interim chief commercial officer Beverley Grey said. “The appointment of a delivery partner will help ensure we have the capability, expertise and capacity needed to support the successful development and delivery of our Small Modular Reactor programme.
“This is a significant long-term procurement which will bring together technical, commercial and project delivery expertise to help us achieve our objectives and support the delivery of new nuclear capacity in the UK.”
GB Energy – Nuclear has £2.6bn to spend on its SMR programme and previously brought in Rolls‑Royce to provide the design the reactors………………………..
The government-run scheme aims to deliver a new nuclear power plant using SMRs by the mid-2030s, helping the UK seize part of a market estimated to be worth £500bn by 2050. https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/600336/gb-energy-nuclear-smr-partner/
Agreement could see Odin prototype microreactor built at Berkeley
Chiltern Vital Group has signed a letter of intent with Cambridge Atomworks to consider the construction of the prototype Odin microreactor on the Berkeley Green Science and Technology Park in Gloucestershire, England.
In September last year, a planning application was submitted for a new nuclear energy-focused facility on a brownfield site that was once part of the Berkeley nuclear power plant in south-west England. Planning and development consultancy Turley submitted the outline planning application for the proposal, which would feature nuclear and clean energy research and development facilities, on behalf of Chiltern Vital Berkeley (CVB), part of Chiltern Vital Group (CVG).
The site comprises a parcel of previously developed land which formed part of the wider Berkeley nuclear power station. It is currently occupied by the Gloucestershire Science and Technology Park, acquired by CVB in 2024, and has an established history for nuclear, employment and education uses. If approved, the development will offer up to 600,000 square feet (5.6 hectares) of new R&D, laboratory, office, manufacturing, and education facilities, creating up to 1,000 jobs.
CVB says it is in final-stage negotiations with multiple nuclear and energy technology companies wishing to locate on the Berkeley Green site.
Cambridge Atomworks has now announced that it has signed a letter of intent with CVG on building its prototype Odin microreactor on the site.
The Odin microreactor is described as “a low-pressure, molten-salt-cooled, solid-fuel fission reactor integrated with power conversion and heat rejection systems, enabling substantial and compact, standalone electricity supply without external connections”. Cambridge Atomworks plans to have an operational prototype by 2030………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/agreement-could-see-prototype-microreactor-built-at-berkeley
Last Energy nabs $40M to realize vision of super-small nuclear reactors
These investors are joining the wave in public and private financing of nuclear energy that has swelled to $14 billion so far this year — double last year’s total, according to Axios. Investment in new fission technologies, such as microreactors, has increased tenfold from 2023.
The startup wants to mass-manufacture 20MW nuclear reactors that can be built and shipped within 24 months. It’s looking to get its first reactor online in Europe.
By Eric Wesoff, 29 August 2024
A startup looking to build really small nuclear reactors just announced a big new funding round.
Last Energy, a Washington, D.C.–based next-generation nuclear company, announced that it closed a $40 million Series B funding round, a move that will add more financial and human capital to the reinvigorated nuclear sector.
The startup aims to eventually deploy thousands of its modular microreactors, though to date it has not brought any online. The first reactor might appear in Europe as soon as 2026, assuming Last Energy manages to meet its extremely aggressive construction, financial, and regulatory timelines — not a common occurrence in the nuclear industry. Venture capital heavyweight Gigafund led the round, which closed early this year but was revealed only today. The startup has raised a total of $64 million since its 2019 founding.
Last Energy is part of a cohort of companies betting that small, replicable, and mass-produced reactors will overcome the economic challenges associated with building emissions-free baseload nuclear power — and restore the moribund U.S. nuclear industry to its former glory. But the microreactor dream has yet to be realized; few of these small modular reactors (SMRs) have been built worldwide. None have been completed in the U.S., though one design from long-in-the-tooth startup NuScale Power has gotten regulatory approval.
The 20-megawatt size of Last Energy’s microreactor stands in stark contrast to that of a conventional nuclear reactor like the recently commissioned Vogtle units in Georgia, which each generate about 1,100 megawatts. A Last Energy microreactor, the size of about 75 shipping containers, might power a small factory, while a Vogtle unit can power a city.
Instead of the cathedral-style stick-built construction of modern large reactors, SMRs and microreactors are meant to be manufactured at scale in factories, transported to the site, and assembled on location. Rather than develop an advanced reactor design with exotic fuels — an approach taken by other SMR hopefuls, including the Bill Gates–backed TerraPower — Last Energy chose to scale down the well-established light-water reactor technology that powers America’s 94 existing nuclear reactors.
“We came to the conclusion that using the existing, off-the-shelf technology was the way to scale,” CEO Bret Kugelmass said in a 2022 interview with Canary Media. “We don’t innovate at all when it comes to the nuclear process or components — we do systems integration and business-model innovation.”
The startup claims that its microreactor is designed to be fabricated, transported, and built within 24 months, and is the right size to serve industrial clients. Under its business model, Last Energy aims to build, own, and operate its power plant at the customer’s site, avoiding the yearslong wait times to plug a new generation project into the power grid.
Like an independent power producer, Last Energy doesn’t sell power plants; instead, it sells electricity to customers through long-term power-purchase contracts.
“Data centers and heavy industry are trying to grapple with a very complex set of energy challenges, and Last Energy has seen them realize that micro-nuclear is the only capable solution,” said Kugelmass, who claims in today’s press release that the startup has inked commercial agreements for 80 units — with 39 of those units destined to serve power-hungry data center customers.
Last Energy isn’t the only microreactor company attracting venture funding. There are several other examples from this month alone: Aalo Atomics raised $27 million from 50Y, Valor Equity Partners, Harpoon Ventures, Crosscut, SNR, Alumni Ventures, Preston Werner, Earth Venture, Garage Capital, Wayfinder, Jeff Dean, and Nucleation Capital to scale up a 85-kilowatt design from the U.S. Department of Energy’s MARVEL program. While Deep Fission, a startup aiming to bury arrays of microreactors 1 mile underground, just raised $4 million led by 8VC, a venture firm founded by Joe Lonsdale.
These investors are joining the wave in public and private financing of nuclear energy that has swelled to $14 billion so far this year — double last year’s total, according to Axios. Investment in new fission technologies, such as microreactors, has increased tenfold from 2023.
Investors happen to be backing startups in a heavily subsidized market. Tens of billions of dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the U.S. DOE’s Loan Programs Office, and the Inflation Reduction Act support the development of a non-Russian supply of enriched uranium; the IRA also introduced a ridiculously generous $15-per-megawatt-hour production tax credit, meant to keep today’s existing nuclear fleet competitive with gas and renewables, as well as a similarly charitable investment tax credit to incentivize new plant construction.
The flood of funding comes as nuclear power enjoys the most public support it has had in years. Nuclear now has a favorable public opinion, with the majority of Americans supporting atomic energy and its record of safety and performance. And nuclear energy is one of the few topics that Democrat and Republican politicians have been able to agree on in recent memory.
Still, despite the rising financial, political, and public support, the U.S. nuclear industry remains frozen, plagued by a legacy of cost and timeline overruns for conventional reactors and regulatory challenges around new designs. It’s unclear when the country will get another nuclear reactor online — as of last year, the leading contender was an SMR project from NuScale, but that fell apart due to cost. In all likelihood, the next reactor to plug into the grid will be the mothballed Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan, which won government support for an unprecedented effort to recommission the plant by the end of next year.
For its part, Last Energy is not banking on the U.S. to lead the charge; it’s targeting industrial customers in Poland, Romania, and the U.K. for its initial sites, in the hopes that it will find a more favorable regulatory and financial environment.
Ryan McEntush of investment firm a16z suggests in an essay that “the success of nuclear power is much more about project management, financing, and policy than it is cutting-edge engineering or safety.”
That’s Last Energy’s philosophy too — and it’s going to need more money and more years to prove it’s the right one.
We condemn the attempted offshore rocket launch by the military, Hanwha, and the Jeju Provincial Government!
Gangjeong Villagers’ Association Against the Naval Base, Gangjeong Daily Resistance Action, Gangjeong Friends, People Making Jeju a Demilitarized Peace Island, People Opposing Space Militarization and Rocket Launches, Justice Party Jeju Provincial Chapter, Jeju Green Party, Islands’ Solidarity for a Sea of Peace, HotPinkDolphins
On June 30, the military and Hanwha attempted to conduct the fourth test of a solid-propellant space launch vehicle off the coast of Seogwipo, Jeju, but were ultimately forced to cancel it [mainly due to technical reasons]. This occurred less than a month after the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon.
An investigation into the cause of the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon has revealed some facts. Hanwha has consistently ignored workers’ requests to improve their working conditions. Furthermore, Building 56—the explosives cleaning facility where the tragedy occurred—was an unlicensed structure.
At Hanwha Aerospace’s Daejeon plant, at least 13 workers lost their lives in explosions in 2018, 2019, and 2026. The company even went so far as to cover up the 2016 accident. At a time when all efforts should be focused on a thorough investigation of the facts and holding those responsible to account, we are outraged that Hanwha has gone ahead with a sea-based launch off the coast of Jeju.
Hanwha’s anti-human rights and anti-life practices, which disregard workers’ human rights and lives, are clearly evident in the Jeju offshore launch as well. In Gangjeong and Daepo Villages—where the sea launch took place—most residents, with the exception of fishing cooperatives that had to suspend operations, did not receive proper advance notice. The residents were not even aware that the object floating in the sea was a launch pad. In the case of Daepo Village, residents were preparing to operate their yachts and boats even on the very day of the launch. The villagers’ right to know about their own living environment and their right to safety were completely disregarded. The Jeju Provincial Government also bears significant responsibility for aiding and abetting the Jeju offshore launch by collaborating with the military and Hanwha.
For this fourth launch of the military’s solid-propellant space launch vehicle, Hanwha Aerospace is providing the launch vehicle, Hanwha Systems is providing the reconnaissance satellite, and Hanwha Ocean is providing the launch pad platform. In other words, this launch—which brings together all three of Hanwha’s major subsidiaries—is entirely for military purposes. On the one hand, this experiment marks the full-scale beginning of efforts to upgrade the military’s satellite network, a long-standing ambition; on the other hand, it serves to conceal even more lethal missile launch tests. Furthermore, the development of solid propellants—which caused the explosion at Hanwha Aerospace in Daejeon—could lead to the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This means that Hanwha will continue to generate profits in collaboration with military capabilities, leveraging the military infrastructure provided by the Jeju Naval Base.
On May 6, three major Hanwha subsidiaries met with former Pacific Command Commander Harry Harris and others to emphasize that the ROK-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Hanwha’s defense industry. However, the Jeju Space Center, which Hanwha constructed last December in the Jeju mid-mountain Groundwater Special Management Zone, is depleting and polluting the drinking and agricultural water that is the lifeblood of Jeju residents. The planned solid- and liquid-fuel engine test facilities on the site cannot rule out the possibility of explosions similar to those in Daejeon. The adjacent river in the Absolute Conservation Area will no longer serve as a lifeline for the island’s residents. The numerous debris and chemicals, such as hydrochloric acid, generated during sea-based launches will affect areas hundreds of kilometers away from the launch site, causing suffering and even death to many non-human beings, including endangered marine species. If sea-based launches continue in this manner, the sea—which sustains the people of Jeju and countless marine beings—will soon become a sea of death. The Jeju Provincial Government deserves to be condemned for turning a blind eye to the violation and exploitation of the groundwater and the sea—which are vital to the lives of Jeju residents—for the sake of the military interest and weapons manufacturers’ profits.
On June 29, civic groups in Daejeon and Jeju who had gathered 306 signatures from individuals and organizations nationwide delivered them respectively to Daejeon Mayor-elect Heo Tae-jeong, and Jeju Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, urging the central and local governments to conduct a comprehensive review of the space and defense industries that threaten life and peace. Governor-elect Wi Seong-gon, who has pledged to carry on the legacy of Governor Oh Young-hoon’s administration and make the space industry a core industry for Jeju, must heed the anger and warnings of citizens, including the people of Jeju. Stop the offshore launch in Jeju. We condemn the plan for an offshore launch in Jeju. Halt the space industry, which is turning our shared living environment into ruins.
We want life and peace, not warships and rockets! We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches!
We are absolutely opposed to sea-based rocket launches which threaten the survival of Jeju’s marine life!
Stop the Hawon Techno Campus project, which is polluting Jeju’s groundwater and soil and threatening the survival of the local community!
Stop the Hawon Techno Campus Project, which is procedurally unjust and will further militarize Jeju!
A boon for the military, but poison for the people—Stop the space industry cluster!
For more photos, see. https://cafe.daum.net/space4peaceK/bs4u/44
CNBC Helps SpaceX Pull Off Trillion-Dollar Pump-and-Dump
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
Wilson Korik, FAIR, July 3, 2026
Elon Musk became—at least temporarily—the world’s first trillionaire on June 12 after his space, telecommunications and AI company SpaceX had the largest initial public offering in history. Initially priced at $135 per share for a valuation around $1.77 trillion, shares opened at $150 and peaked on June 16 at $225.64 (a valuation of nearly $3 trillion). The price spiked after Musk announced, before markets reopened on June 15, that he believes “SpaceX might be able to reach approximately $1T revenue in 2030” (CNBC, 6/15/26).
Since its June 16 peak, however, SpaceX’s share price has fallen, steadily declining until June 22 and settling around $160 since. Markets closed on Thursday, July 2, with a share price of $162.00.
SpaceX’s big slump coincided with a mass tech sell-off last week, prompted by mounting concerns that tech firms cannot generate the returns necessary to pay off the colossal debts financing massive AI infrastructure buildouts, especially as companies are beginning to rein in their spending on AI (404 Media, 6/24/26; TechCrunch, 6/24/26).
That was likely a surprise to viewers of CNBC, whose full-day IPO coverage pumped the stock by inviting sources with vested interests to celebrate Musk’s cult of personality and obfuscate the magical thinking behind the company’s projections.
All in on business-facing Grok
According to its own S-1 filing with the SEC, SpaceX anticipates that its greatest earnings potential does not come from the rocket business for which it is famous, but from selling AI to other businesses. The breathless CNBC discussions entirely omitted the dubious origins of SpaceX’s gargantuan estimate of its maximum potential revenue—a key investor metric known as total addressable market (TAM).
In its S-1 prospectus, SpaceX claims a TAM of $28.5 trillion, larger than the entire GDP of China.
The document separates this figure into SpaceX’s three sectors: space, connectivity and AI. Although the filing argues that space “represents the largest economic frontier in human history,” space makes up just $370 billion, or 1.3%, of SpaceX’s supposed TAM. Meanwhile, AI makes up $26.5 trillion, or 93%, the vast majority of which is for “enterprise applications.”
Enterprise AI is a broad category of business-oriented applications for firms looking to simplify and accelerate workflows, like converting text files into presentation formats, writing and debugging string code, and automating some sales, marketing, HR and IT functions. The most popular AI assistant by far is OpenAI’s ChatGPT, followed by Google’s Google Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude (TechCrunch, 6/16/26).
A closer reading of SpaceX’s S-1 filing reveals that its $22.7 trillion estimate for enterprise AI applications does not actually represent the TAM of the company’s enterprise AI, but is instead an estimate of the size of the entire digital economy—posing a hypothetical wherein xAI’s Grok Business and Grok Enterprise monopolize all digital commerce. It’s worth noting that xAI currently has extremely limited enterprise AI market share, with a March Enterprise Technology Research survey finding that just 7% of respondents use Grok (Wall Street Journal, 5/11/26).
Note also that subscriptions to xAI‘s consumer AI, SuperGrok, on X (labeled “consumer subscriptions” in the chart) alone make up $760 billion, or 2.7% of SpaceX’s TAM. That’s calculated
based on the global population of individuals aged 10 and over in 2025 … multiplied by the weighted average monthly subscription revenue of $12, resulting in an annualized market opportunity of approximately $760 billion.
So if every person on the planet over the age of 9 sends SpaceX $12 every month to use Grok, the X chatbot that spent four days last year calling itself MechaHitler and promoting the Great Replacement Theory, SpaceX will take in $760 billion per year. Sounds like a business plan!
SpaceX’s public offering has all of the hallmarks of a pump-and-dump scheme, using a “staggered lock-up” schedule that allows insiders to sell off shares much earlier than most other publicly traded firms—enabling them to cash out while the stock is still grossly overvalued. This gambit is also called a “bagholder” scheme, as retail investors are left holding a rapidly depreciating asset.
While most IPOs prevent insiders from selling shares for the first 180 days of public trading, SpaceX uses an expedited schedule that allows most insiders to sell much sooner—selling off overvalued shares to retail customers.
While this pump-and-dump began with retail consumers who bought shares on the first day of public trading, these massive wealth transfers are being thrust upon working people whether they like them or not, as Musk successfully negotiated new rules that fast-track SpaceX’s inclusion in major index funds, including the Russell 1000 and NASDAQ funds—transferring rapidly devaluing stock from SpaceX insiders to working people’s retirement accounts.
But none of this was explored on CNBC the day of the SpaceX IPO launch. FAIR could find not a single guest or anchor that mentioned that “Elon Musk’s rocket company” valued the potential for SuperGrok X subscriptions at more than twice the total projected TAM for the space industry, nor that SpaceX’s TAM is based on a scenario in which business-facing Grok controls all e-commerce—and certainly not that the IPO would essentially serve as a massive wealth transfer from retail investors to SpaceX insiders.
‘You should have bought as much as you could’
Instead, in the hours leading up to SpaceX’s first trade, CNBC viewers were primed by Squawk Box co-host Joe Kernen (6/12/26) lamenting that orders were being snatched up by large institutional investors, and hoping that trades would begin at under $300 per share. He assured viewers that, although he’s nervous, “whenever we’ve worried about any of these great tech companies…wherever it was on opening day, you should have bought them as much as you could.”
The rest of the influential three-hour morning program was as much of a commercial for SpaceX as this opening scene. Squawk Box‘s guests included SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell (interviewed by Morning Call host Morgan Brennan), Elon Musk biographer Walter Isaacson, long-time Musk investor David George, head of financial technology research at Citizens Bank Devin Ryan, and venture capitalist and investor Ben Narasin.
All but one of these guests have vested interests or are members of Musk’s inner circle, and used their airtime to generate excitement around the stock by focusing on Musk as a visionary key man. Kernen, co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin and guest host Melissa Lee offered no pushback………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‘A number so large it destroys your credibility’
This isn’t to say that CNBC’s coverage of SpaceX’s IPO was completely without critical perspectives: Squawk on the Street’s David Faber (6/12/26) spent much of his onscreen time grilling insider guests on whether they’ll sell early, and pushing back on vague, aspirational framing around the AI and space industries.
Faber repeatedly reminded his audience that the S-1 prospectus specifically sees most of SpaceX’s potential in enterprise AI. He skeptically took the projected $22.7 trillion TAM for enterprise AI as given, but pointed out that “it’s not clear” how SpaceX’s Grok could compete with other enterprise AI products:
It’s interesting, as much as we talk about SpaceX, as much as we hear Musk talking about space and then Starlink, the real opportunity in terms of addressing this enormous number is actually still the same opportunity that’s being sought after by Anthropic, and OpenAI, and Alphabet and others.
Squawk on the Street also featured the most critical guest by far, NYU business school professor Aswath Damodaran, who came closest to questioning the origin of the TAM of any host or guest on any of the programs:
When I read [the S-1], I thought Grok had written the prospectus, because we know AI is subject to hallucinations…. I don’t know if it’s a banker who wrote it, I would be embarrassed to even put that number out. I mean, it’s a big market. Why do you need to make up a number, a number so large it destroys your credibility?
But even in scrutinizing SpaceX’s prospects, or the true size of the enterprise AI market, Squawk on the Street’s criticism missed the bigger picture: SpaceX’s record-setting IPO is a pump-and-dump, and retail investments provide the exit liquidity for insiders looking to get out of a failing AI company.
Every day, dozens of guests representing various companies advertise their stock on CNBC for retail consumers, who trust the judgment of their favorite program hosts to give completely uncontentious interviews, essentially constituting a series of infomercials, rather than actual financial journalism. FAIR (3/18/09, 2/3/20) has criticized CNBC on this basis for decades.
So when CNBC invites SpaceX insiders with vested interests to pump the valuation of their stock on the air shortly before dumping it on retail consumers, it seems obvious why even the most critical host cannot alert his viewers to what is really going on: because CNBC’s reporting exists to boost stock, rather than protect consumers. https://fair.org/home/cnbc-helps-spacex-pull-off-trillion-dollar-pump-and-dump/
AI is changing biological and nuclear risks; governance must change accordingly
Bulletin, By Stephen Herzog, Allison Berke, Yanliang Pan, William C. Potter, Douglas B. Shaw June 18, 2026
On April 7th, Anthropic announced that it was restricting public access to its most advanced artificial intelligence (AI) model, Claude Mythos Preview, because the system could discover and exploit unknown security vulnerabilities in software. The developer is far from alone in these concerns; such risks extend well beyond hacking and digital security.
A major industry safety report from 2026 found that several frontier AI labs have recently added restrictions to their systems since they could not rule out that their models might assist novices in developing chemical or biological weapons. AI companies usually become aware of serious risks long before governments and international organizations can respond, making their involvement in shaping oversight rules critical from the start. But when it comes to restricting their own commercially valuable AI models, the industry has often stopped short. Moving beyond ad hoc restraint requires a standing forum where AI developers and outside security experts can jointly determine which emerging capabilities warrant closer scrutiny or limits.
Against that backdrop, the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies convened a host of experts on April 8 and 9 at California’s Asilomar Conference Grounds. The setting was fitting, as Asilomar has long been associated with landmark efforts to govern transformative technologies. More than 100 experts gathered to discuss how AI may affect nuclear and biological weapons. Participants included representatives from universities, think tanks, research institutions, the national laboratories, governments, and crucially, the AI industry. The meeting launched a new Asilomar Process to develop practical safeguards for AI-related nuclear and biological risks as the technology continues to advance.
AI will affect nuclear and biological threats in different ways, but those ways connect to common governance problems…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Governments have begun to acknowledge these nuclear dangers. In December 2025, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on risks from AI in nuclear command, control, and communications. Likewise, while AI may improve monitoring and verification, recent research also warns that it may eventually help potential proliferators overcome bottlenecks to building the bomb. AI could also expose nuclear personnel and facilities to combined cyber, physical, and information attacks. Yet, at the 2026 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, specific language on AI-related nuclear risks was removed from the final draft outcome document.
Taken together, the nuclear and biological cases reveal a fundamental gap in international AI governance. ……………………….
Following the Asilomar meeting and subsequent deliberations, the conference Secretariat adopted seven principles for governing AI applications in nuclear and biological security. The novelty of these principles lies in trying to build a bridge between the AI industry, which may encounter new capabilities first, and the experts and regimes trying to prevent the spread of nuclear and biological weapons. As the first public statement of the new Asilomar Process, they are reproduced below in full.
The Asilomar principles for governing AI applications in nuclear and biological security. These principles are intended to recognize AI’s potential contributions to human safety, as well as its capacity to create or amplify global catastrophic risks. As the first statement of an ongoing Asilomar Process, the principles aim to set an agenda for further research and implementation work, while remaining open to refinement as experience and capabilities evolve.
AI must protect human survival. AI systems must reinforce—and never erode—barriers against the use of nuclear and biological weapons. These armaments pose extinction risks to humanity that predate the development of AI. Such risks must not be accelerated or exacerbated by AI systems. The protection of human survival should therefore be the first priority in the deployment of AI tools affecting these domains.
Nuclear weapons use decisions must remain under meaningful human control. AI systems must not initiate, authorize, or otherwise cause the use of nuclear weapons. Human decision-makers must retain the ability to review and override AI outputs, even under severe time pressure and in circumstances where automation bias may distort judgment. Any AI system involved in nuclear-decision support must accordingly be auditable in both data and logic—by civilian and military authorities—in peacetime and in crises. New intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems and nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) architectures should be deployed only when they are shown to decrease the risk of nuclear weapons use.
AI governance must strengthen nonproliferation and strategic stability. Nuclear and biological research activities must be made safer, more secure, and more proliferation-resistant in light of AI’s disruptive potential. Existing practices of restraint must evolve to address new risks introduced by AI, including through commitments that reduce the dangers of AI-enabled escalation, miscalculation, or proliferation. Behavioral arms control and confidence-building measures should be pursued alongside the responsible use of AI tools to improve crisis communication.
AI-enhanced monitoring and verification must be responsible and ethical. AI systems may significantly improve the monitoring and verification of peaceful nuclear and biological activities, as well as efforts to detect diversion in support of weapons of mass destruction programs. Because these judgments carry high stakes, the use of AI must not weaken established standards for explainability, objectivity, validity, data provenance, and ultimate human accountability. AI should be used in ways that protect privacy and personal safety, while also guarding against the disclosure of sensitive nuclear or biological information that could aid malicious actors or undermine strategic stability. AI models used for monitoring and verification must themselves be protected, so that they do not become tools for helping proliferators evade detection.
AI governance must be globally inclusive. International collaboration—aligned with frameworks such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)—should ensure that the benefits of AI accrue to all humanity without deepening security or development divides. This work should cultivate shared strategic understanding, reducing rather than compounding the risks of nuclear proliferation, nuclear escalation, war, and catastrophic biological events. Measures that restrict access to dangerous capabilities should therefore be paired with efforts to reduce the incentives that drive states or other actors to acquire them.
AI must not enable disinformation or attacks on nuclear and biological facilities. False or manipulated information concerning the use or development of nuclear and biological weapons can be highly damaging. Safeguards should be established to prevent actors from using AI to create or disseminate highly realistic falsehoods in these domains. Active resilience must also be developed against AI-enhanced physical and cyberattacks on nuclear and biological facilities, including attacks intended to enable material theft or sabotage. These measures should address both crisis decision-making and public perceptions of nuclear and biological threats. The societal, economic, and psychological effects of information warfare may be difficult to reverse.
From principles to practice. Moving forward, the Asilomar Process should create a collaborative environment for developing thresholds about when emerging AI capabilities present serious concerns. In nuclear security, this means asking whether an AI system changes crisis stability dynamics or proliferation risks. In biological security, this means assessing whether a model materially shortens the path to producing a pathogen capable of causing an outbreak. Such judgments cannot remain informal or hidden behind commercial secrecy. Clearer evaluation protocols should guide risk mitigation measures so that developers and governments can act before dangerous capabilities spread.
Ultimately, this work should inform national authorities and the international institutions charged with reducing nuclear and biological threats to humanity. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Biological Weapons Convention are at the heart of this governance architecture. But neither was designed for a world in which commercial AI capabilities may reshape security risks faster than multilateral processes can respond. The Asilomar Process is intended to connect technical evaluations of emerging AI capabilities to the policy choices that governments make under these regimes. Without that bridge, states may confront AI-enabled nuclear or biological catastrophe only after the most important decisions have already been made. https://thebulletin.org/2026/06/ai-is-changing-biological-and-nuclear-risks-governance-must-change-accordingly/
Gaza: How We’re Learning to see the AI-Driven Genocide
“Indeed, this is the first genocide in history where artificial intelligence has been deployed as a primary tool for slaughter and devastation. Furthermore, this genocide is backed by a dedicated propaganda apparatus designed to instantly rationalize every atrocity.“
June 28, 2026, https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/28/gaza-how-were-learning-to-see-the-ai-driven-genocide/
People can be consciously aware of atrocities without experiencing the moral outrage those horrors warrant. This emotional detachment is particularly pronounced when atrocities target “those who are different,” occur in seemingly “remote” lands, or repeat so frequently that they dissolve into a familiar, predictable monotony. Psychological frameworks explain this affective insularity through cognitive biases like the “just-world fallacy,” which blocks empathy in otherwise deserving cases to protect one’s own psychological comfort. Alternatively, it manifests as victim-blaming to rationalize aligning with the oppressor, or as compliance with propaganda narratives designed to dehumanize victims and render them unworthy of concern.
The rendering of atrocities into something ordinary through repetitive exposure systematically erodes the human capacity for a fittingly shocked response. This was vividly demonstrated as Israeli forces systematically targeted hospitals across the Gaza Strip one after another, until such strikes became routine footnotes in daily news cycles. A similar desensitization occurred regarding the targeted attacks on United Nations facilities. Once an initial war crime is permitted to pass, its predictable repetition fosters a form of emotional conditioning among the public—even alongside the abstract knowledge that a grave violation is occurring. The global public has grown accustomed to watching high-rise residential blocks collapse in seconds under Israeli bombardment. Consequently, this recurring crime no longer registers as an anomaly, so long as it remains confined to Gaza.
This shift can be measured by comparing the fierce global condemnation that followed the May 15, 2021, destruction of Gaza City’s 11-story al-Jalaa Tower with the relative apathy with which the systematic destruction of Gaza’s remaining residential high-rises through a series of Israeli airstrikes was met in September 2025. Breaking free from this paralyzing sense of desensitisation is a profound challenge if our world is to avoid acclimatizing to atrocities in the twenty-first century.
Another critical dilemma is that our perception of the gravity of such brutality can be disrupted when they are executed through modern, highly sophisticated tools.
“Human horror is easily triggered by the primal image of a vicious killer in ragged clothes holding a blood-dripping blade over a helpless victim. Yet, that killer becomes entirely invisible when stationed in a distant control room, calmly orchestrating mass slaughter against innocent civilians in Gaza by pressing glowing buttons while sipping American coffee in front of a screen—a method inherently more efficient than a primitive blade.“
This dilemma deepens when the act of killing is fully outsourced to technology, such as unmanned drones or autonomous AI-driven targeting systems, both of which the Israeli occupation military relied upon to perpetrate genocidal atrocities in Gaza. While this modern machinery is faster, deadlier, and vastly more devastating than primitive butchery, it acts as a powerful buffer, inducing a profound emotional numbness toward the horrors being inflicted.
Modern brutality often wears friendly masks that shield the observer from immediate shock or revulsion. It does not slit children’s throats with knives; instead, it obliterates their bodies entirely. At times, children literally vaporize under the impact of advanced, multi-ton munitions dropped onto impoverished refugee camps. The viewer is ultimately presented with nothing but a massive crater, concealing the gruesome details of mass slaughter and vast destruction. Despite this, numerous Israeli officers and soldiers have refused to suppress their appetite for hunting humans, abusing captives, and indulging in primal cruelties—frequently filming their actions to boast about them on social media.
It is vital to recognize how this genocide has operated on a scale that completely caught contemporary generations off guard. Many believed that such staggering atrocities belonged strictly to a black-and-white past, assuming that fascism and war crimes would only reappear alongside the vintage, recognizable imagery of defunct regimes. The human psyche was unprepared to comprehend that a twenty-first-century genocide could be so highly organized, technologically advanced, and meticulously targeted.
“Indeed, this is the first genocide in history where artificial intelligence has been deployed as a primary tool for slaughter and devastation. Furthermore, this genocide is backed by a dedicated propaganda apparatus designed to instantly rationalize every atrocity.“
It deploys tightly woven narratives delivered by leaders, spokespersons, and commentators skilled in rhetorical evasion and body language, all working in tandem to divert global attention away from the killing fields of the Gaza Strip.
Awakening the human conscience to the reality of the horrific genocide perpetrated in the Gaza Strip for at least two years demands an unrelenting effort to expose its chapters, re-open its cases, and launch intensive, coordinated initiatives. These efforts must elevate field testimonies and documented facts from independent international reports into the active domain of human awareness. It is only fair to acknowledge that significant journalistic, creative, and grassroots efforts have been made worldwide in this regard, but the sheer duration of this genocide demands increasingly creative and unyielding approaches.
Consider the profound impact of reimagining the scenes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, total destruction, and manufactured starvation through diverse literary, artistic, and cinematic works. Such creative interventions can produce world-class, brilliant pieces, even if Hollywood and mainstream institutions maintain their traditional indifference toward Palestine. Imagine visual works depicting this modern genocide in stark black-and-white, a stylistic choice that emotionally and intellectually links Gaza to past mass killings and crimes against humanity already solidified in the global conscience. This framing positions Gaza’s horrors as a logical continuation of historical brutality, which they undeniably are. This approach has already been successfully championed by highly conscious grassroots movements. For instance, in the Basque Region of Spain, highly artistic public demonstrations have repeatedly linked the atrocities in Gaza to the horrors of Guernica, famously immortalized by Pablo Picasso in 1937. Such initiatives are indispensable to confronting and exposing the deep-seated tendency of genocide denial pushed by prominent global leaders and elites.
“Humanizing the victims is an indispensable entry point; they must be given recognizable faces, familiar names, and stories to be told. This begins by invoking individuals like the child Hind Rajab, the academic and poet Refaat Alareer, or the abducted physician Hussam Abu Safiye, among countl“
We must unearth the latent human symbolism embedded within this landscape of tragedy and profound moral fortitude. We also need the symbolism of the place itself. The crowded sites of destruction and resilience throughout Gaza must move the human conscience through uncovering of stories currently buried beneath the rubble.”
Presenting these faces, names, and details with the dignity they deserve is capable of stirring a global sense of shared humanity and moral alignment with those targeted by this genocide—an atrocity the world has watched live on mobile screens for at least two full years. We must collectively internalize that the displaced, starving child is everyone’s child. The grandmother whose frail body was crushed beneath collapsing walls, left trapped until her final breath, is everyone’s grandmother. The same holds true for the mothers, the sick, and the disabled. It is no exaggeration to recognize that the victims are us. An assault on them is an assault on the very fabric of human life and dignity. The dismantling of international law and universal values means that every one of us is directly affected by these horrific violations, regardless of how they are spun by sophisticated propaganda or sustained through international complicity. Transforming an overwhelming statistical body of victims into deeply personal stories and recognizable symbols is an urgent necessity if we are to escape the trap of statistical reductionism, which reduces human beings to mere numbers devoid of feeling.
Awakening this human consciousness is the ultimate key to compelling individuals worldwide to honour their ethical commitments, translating empty slogans into concrete action. It is the catalyst needed to pressure the enablers of genocide and challenge those political discourses that insult public intelligence and moral decency. When these deeper human impulses are awakened, people will naturally discover their roles in confronting this pervasive injustice and aggression. This emotional awakening will pave the way for sustained mobilization, converting raw sentiment into tangible pressure, accountability, and justice—ensuring that the horrific genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza remains at the centre of global consciousness for generations to come.
The emerging AI battlespace: Counter-AI threats to AI-powered satellite remote sensing analysis
Meanwhile, it is crucial to foster a culture of skepticism toward AI. The success of generative AI models such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek has led to the misguided belief that AI understands the world similarly to humans and can make superior and quicker decisions based on logical reasoning. This notion is unfounded:
Bulletin, By Jingjie He | May 13, 2026
mote sensing is a data collection technique that enables the detection and monitoring of physical characteristics of target objects or areas. It is achieved by measuring reflected and emitted radiation from the targets, using optical, radar, light detection and ranging (LiDAR), thermal, multispectral, or hyperspectral sensors deployed on various platforms, including satellites, aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles, among others. The acquired data is generally visualized as imagery from an overhead perspective (Campbell, Wynne, and Thomas 2022, 3-23).
Advances in satellite remote sensing and the deployment of satellite constellations have enabled near-persistent Earth observation, which has allowed for significant applications in international security, particularly in arms control and nonproliferation. But challenges remain in processing and analyzing the vast volumes of remote sensing data, primarily due to the reliance on manual analysis by highly trained experts.
Manual analysis faces three key limitations. First, organizations often lack the manpower required to provide comprehensive analytical coverage of remote sensing data. Analyzing satellite imagery requires technical expertise and practical experience, making real-time analysis of large datasets impractical. Second, human analysts may struggle to identify subtle patterns or anomalies, especially in low-resolution images. Even in high-resolution imagery, cognitive biases and target insensitivity may cause analysts to overlook critical information. Third, remote sensing analysis can be serendipitous, with analysts reviewing imagery without a clear sense of what to look for, potentially missing important details.
To address these limitations, researchers have turned to artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to analyze satellite imagery at scale. These technologies enable finer granularity, greater accuracy, higher efficiency, and better coverage. But the integration of AI and geospatial science also introduces new challenges, as AI systems can be vulnerable to manipulation through counter-AI techniques.
This article identifies emerging counter-AI threats to satellite imagery analysis and proposes a comprehensive defense framework. It also argues that arms control and nonproliferation missions are not solitary pursuits for seekers but rather dynamic hider-seeker games, where AI functions as both a force and threat multiplier. Adversarial AI attacks—leveraging both digital and physical-world tactics—can be strategically employed to achieve counter-AI objectives, undermining the reliability of AI-driven satellite imagery analyses.
To mitigate these risks, a robust defense framework should encompass five core components: stringent access and quality control for data and models, the integration of robustness into AI frameworks, enhancements to system monitoring capabilities, strengthening cross-sectoral knowledge sharing and threat awareness, and incorporating adaptability and resilience into risk management strategies.
The AI-driven satellite remote sensing revolution
Satellite remote sensing is a powerful tool that can identify objects, detect changes (e.g., facility construction or destruction), and track moving objects (e.g., wartime maneuvers and delivery systems) (Patton et al. 2016). The integration of computer vision, which employs AI to acquire, process, and analyze digital visual data, is revolutionizing the way remote sensing data is interpreted and used.
In particular, AI-driven satellite remote sensing is transforming arms control, nonproliferation, and peacekeeping missions. For example, Amnesty International, in collaboration with Element AI and 28,600 volunteers, developed tools to automatically analyze satellite imagery for monitoring conflicts in Darfur (Cornebise et al. 2018). Palantir Technologies has created MetaConstellation, an AI-powered software for satellite imagery analysis, which has enabled the United States and its allies to automate port monitoring and global submarine deployment tracking (Palantir n.d.). In a joint project with the defense intelligence provider Jane’s, Stanford University, and BlackSky, a satellite imagery provider, the space data analysis company Orbital Insight applied machine learning to assist in the identification of a potential centrifuge assembly facility under construction in Iran (Janes 2021). The US Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2023) also employs AI for applications such as image de-hazing, object counting, and facility function classification. With the precipitous growth of geospatial data, the AI-driven revolution in satellite remote sensing is poised for further acceleration.
Typology of counter-AI attacks
The increasing use of AI-powered satellite remote sensing presents significant security risks. Four primary categories of counter-AI attacks to satellite imagery analysis require attention: data poisoning, model evasion, data inference, and model extraction (see Table 1 below on original).
Data poisoning. Data poisoning attacks aim to contaminate AI models during their training phases by modifying training data. Adversarial artifacts are injected into the data used to train machine learning models, leading to the creation of contaminated models that yield false classifications………………………………………………….
Model Evasion. Model evasion threats are designed to confuse or evade well-trained models by inserting adversarial perturbations—that is, small changes that humans may not be able to perceive—in data that is to be evaluated via machine learning……………………………………………………………………………………..
The potential military applications of adversarial camouflages have attracted considerable interest from researchers. However, the security implications of this technology in satellite remote sensing still require thorough investigation. In addition to evading models designed for satellite imagery analysis, adversarial camouflage could theoretically create decoys, resulting in false alarms that may overwhelm remote sensing systems, particularly when tracking moving objects.
Data Inference. Data inference threats involve attempts to unveil and steal the training data used by an ML model, which can lead to leakage of sensitive information and intelligence……………………………………………………………….
Model Extraction. Model extraction attacks aim at duplicating the functionality of a victim model. In this type of attack, a malicious actor seeks to infer the architecture and parameters of the victim model and subsequently trains a surrogate model using a dataset comprised of inputs and outputs obtained from repeated queries to the victim model. Unlike other types of counter-AI attacks, model extraction specifically targets black-box ML models, whose internal workings are not interpretable by humans…………………………………………………………………….
Prospects for a defense framework
The development of effective countermeasures against counter-AI attacks in satellite imagery analysis is of critical importance. A five-dimensional defense framework could effectively manage and mitigate counter-AI threats…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Meanwhile, it is crucial to foster a culture of skepticism toward AI. The success of generative AI models such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek has led to the misguided belief that AI understands the world similarly to humans and can make superior and quicker decisions based on logical reasoning. This notion is unfounded: The apparent reasoning of machines is at this point not genuine or reliable; instead, it is based on probabilistic pattern matching derived from extensive training data (Jiang et al., 2024; Mirzadeh et al., 2024; Shi et al., 2023). Consequently, humanizing AI can be detrimental, as it limits our ability to think critically and challenge the models when human judgment diverges from machine conclusions. It is essential to promote knowledge about machine learning’s limitations and to foster a culture of skepticism towards AI………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2026-05/the-emerging-ai-battlespace-counter-ai-threats-to-ai-powered-satellite-remote-sensing-analysis/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=The%20emerging%20AI%20battlespace&utm_campaign=20260702%20Thursday%20Newsletter
SGE unveils plans for 4.2GW UK Small Modular Reactor fleet
News provided by SGE 01 Jul, 2026, https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/sge-unveils-plans-for-4-2gw-uk-small-modular-reactor-fleet-302816135.html
Programme of 14 Small Modular Nuclear Reactors could accelerate UK new nuclear and power almost eight million UK homes
LONDON, July 2, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — SGE, a European Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development and investment platform, yesterday announced its plans to build fourteen GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactors on three sites in the UK. The deployment team includes SGE, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group Inc., Google Cloud, Fermi Development, Etara and an experienced nuclear operator.
The company has submitted an application under the UK’s Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) to develop a combined 4.2GW fleet which could deliver enough clean power for 11% of UK power demand or equivalent to an estimated almost eight million homes for at least sixty years. To support this ambition, SGE has established SGE SMR UK Limited as its dedicated UK-based project vehicle.
SGE’s proposal reflects a fleet-based development model, centred on repeatable deployment at scale. The project is targeting three multi-unit sites, the first to host six BWRX-300 units, with two further sites to follow in quick succession. In total, the programme represents a significant addition to the UK’s future nuclear capacity and supports the country’s long-term energy security, clean power and industrial growth ambitions.
The UK project builds on significant regulatory groundwork already in place for the BWRX-300, a tenth generation, proven technology that draws on the experience of 67 successful reactor deployments. The technology is under licensed construction in Canada and is on schedule to be the first SMR to operate in the OECD. In December 2025, the BWRX-300 successfully completed Step 2 of the UK’s Generic Design Assessment.
The partnership brings together proven reactor technology, significant project development experience, industrial capability and supply chain expertise and financing structure experience to support the deployment of the BWRX-300 in the UK. SGE is presenting a privately financed, commercially-led investment, supported by strong delivery partners. SGE plans to deploy under a Contract for Difference framework with National Wealth Fund engagement, meaning there will be no charges to consumers prior to operations.
Michał Sołowow, Founder of SGE, said: “We are focused on delivering efficient, safe, affordable, and clean nuclear energy power at fleet scale. The UK is home to one of the world’s most experienced nuclear workforce and the British Government has provided a clear path to market with the Advanced Nuclear Framework. Because of this, I am confident we will set a new standard for nuclear development by combining our disruptive business model with the BWRX-300’s tenth generation proven technology. We will rely strongly on the UK supply chain; it is a critical element for our project. Our project will create a distinct competitive advantage for UK economy.”
Rafał Kasprów, CEO of SGE, said: “The submission of our application under the Advanced Nuclear Framework marks a major milestone in our ambition to develop a fleet of BWRX-300 small modular reactors across the UK and the European Union. The United Kingdom is one of Europe’s most important and capable nuclear markets, with a highly skilled workforce, a strong industrial base, and a strategic need to lead the next generation of nuclear deployment. With a clear requirement for substantial new nuclear capacity over the coming decades, we believe our approach can make a meaningful contribution at scale. Standardisation, repetition, modularisation, and a fleet deployment strategy are the most effective ways to deliver new nuclear projects successfully, reducing costs, construction risk, and delivery times. We are committed to working with UK partners to provide secure, affordable, and clean electricity to millions of British households for generations to come.”
Jason Cooper, CEO of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, said: “SGE’s vision reflects the growing momentum behind new nuclear across Europe and the critical role SMRs can play in strengthening energy security while delivering reliable, lower-carbon electricity. With construction already underway at the Darlington New Nuclear Project in Ontario, Canada, the first commercial-scale SMR under construction in the Western world, the BWRX-300 offers the confidence that comes from real project execution. We are proud to support SGE as they pursue this important opportunity in the UK.”
John O’Connor, Group Commercial Director of Laing O’Rourke, said: “Laing O’Rourke brings the power of its nuclear experience and pioneering industrialised construction methods to the development of Small Modular Reactors, like this programme, of which we are pleased to play a part. We are applying lessons learned from the use of advanced manufacturing in the construction of large-scale and other complex infrastructure to boost safety and certainty for our partners and clients.”
Aaron Johnson, Senior Vice President, Nuclear, Aecon Group Inc., said: “Aecon is proud to serve as a leading partner on Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, supporting the first-of-a-kind BWRX-300 deployment in Canada. Drawing on deep expertise in construction management, advanced automation, fabrication, and modularization, Aecon is helping to drive meaningful improvements in safety, quality, schedule certainty, and cost efficiency. Early involvement in this landmark project positions Aecon to leverage first-of-a-kind experience and tailor proven approaches for SGE in the UK and in other international markets. We are building capabilities and insights that will enable us to support efficient and scalable deployment across North America and in global markets, including the UK.”
SGE anticipates this project will enter the Advanced Nuclear Pipeline in November 2026, with site selection and government support scheme negotiations completed in the first half of 2027; after which major investment, site preparation and licensing work would begin within approximately a year, with first commercial operation of the first unit targeted for 2034.
Media contact
Paulina Chorazewska
SGE
Communications Director
+48 539 992 967
paulina.chorazewska@sge.eu
As UK’s Prime Minister fades away, will his beloved Small Nuclear Reactor dream fade too?
5 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/as-uks-prime-minister-fades-away-will-his-beloved-small-nuclear-reactor-dream-fade-too/
As soon as mid-July, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to finally quit his job as British Prime Minister. He’s not very popular, either within his own party, or with the general public. Labour’s previous popular leader, Jeremy Corbyn, opposed nuclear power. Soon after coming to power, Starmer called for tech companies to work alongside the government’s Great British Energy – Nuclear, to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI data centres across Britain. Starmer might be hoping to be, later on, renowned for his legacy in revolutionising British energy systems, and producing a glorious renaissance for the global nuclear industry.
But possibly not.
“I say: build, baby, build,” – Starmer’s theme on Small Nuclear Reactors looks now, on the face of it, to be a resounding winner for Britain on the global nuclear scene. Why? Because… haven’t you heard? It is all over the British press that the UK is to get a fleet of SMRs with a multi-billion dollar “privately financed” scheme (helped just a bit by the government), to start generating in 2034.
SGE is a European Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development and investment platform. Founded by Polish billionaire Michał Sołowow, SGE has plans for SMR developments across Europe. On July 1st SGE announced in glowing terms, its UK plans for “delivering efficient, safe, affordable, and clean nuclear energy power at fleet scale.” It has established a consortium, SGE SMR UK Limited, as its dedicated UK-based project vehicle.
SGE hopes to use the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, to build under the government’s advanced nuclear framework (which was initiated by Starmer in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”). SGE boasts that this SMR design is a “proven technology,” but it’s really a smaller, and as yet untested, version of the large boiling water nuclear reactor.
Where’s the money coming from?
The plan is to put in £35bn of private capital to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK. The consortium SGE SMR UK consists of SGE (formerly Synthos Green Energy), GE Vernova, Hitachi Nuclear, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group, Google Cloud, Fermi Development, and Etara. The biggest investor presumably is the Polish company.
Under the National Wealth Fund, Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) set up its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract) as a way for the government to help fund SMR development. It initially forecast that it may need £20bn to cover the cost of the (TP) Contract. “GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”
SGE plans to deploy under a Contract for Difference framework with National Wealth Fund engagement. I know that the contract for difference scheme means a fixed price for electricity bills once the project begins generating electricity. If the market price is below the fixed price, the government tops up the payment to the company. I don’t know what the National Wealth Fund engagement means, and I suspect that I’m not the only one puzzled about this.
In May 2026 Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) announced that Rolls-Royce SMR has been awarded Stage 1 of its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Technical Partner contract (TP Contract). Stage 1 has a “forecast” price of £359M. A furtherr £8.17bn is estimated for the second delivery phase. Rolls Royce expects the SMRs to start operating in the mid 2030s.
So how much of the tax-payers’ £20bn is Rolls Royce going to get? And is SGE SMR UK going to get some too, and if so, how much? Or is the Polish entrepreneur’s SGE SMR UK truly really going to go it alone – with private financing?
Mysterious unanswered questions
Through the Freedom of Information Act, The New Civil Engineer requested some detail on the breakdown of the TP Contract award ‘s available £20bn. Great British Energy – Nuclear ‘s reply was – “GBE-N does not hold the information you have requested.”
Given the nuclear industry’s notorious history of delays and cost overruns, it’s pretty important to know how much each of these competing SMR projects is likely to cost, how long each would really take to come into operation, and how much the tax-payer will have to cough up.
What a complicated mess!
In 2023 the UK joined enthusiastically with world leaders in The Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. The Starmer Labour government took this up with zeal, and the message has been reinforced by academia and the media. Several UK universities have jumped on the nuclear bandwagon. Just this week, the Manchester University announced:
The University of Manchester and United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising a wide-ranging partnership to advance nuclear science, grow the UK’s nuclear workforce, and strengthen the country’s position as a global leader in nuclear technology.
The UK media, except for The Guardian and New Civil Engineer, is ecstatically regurgitating nuclear lobby handouts. On July 2nd we have excited and positive articles on the SGE SMR UK project – from The Times, Telegraph, PR Newswire, Energy Live, Business Green, as well as from leading international news media. This privately-funded SMR project is a global first.
The New Civil Engineer is peskily pursuing its search for information on the UK government’s planned funding of small nuclear reactors, while the rest of them continue applauding this small nuclear fantasy.
I’m not here to push the points that SMRs are not cheap, not proven, not safe, not clean, not environmentally beneficial, not free of toxic wastes, and not actually in existence. Plenty of economists and scientists have made those assessments. Is the SGE UK thing going to really happen? Or is the Rolls Royce SMR thing going to beat it? When and where are these reactors going to operate? I’m just wondering about – for how long the UK pro SMR charade is going to play. Now that the leading actor Keir Starmer is about to bow out, will the whole performance have a very short season indeed?
Billionaire to invest £35bn in small modular nuclear reactors rollout across UK
Consortium led by Michał Sołowow planning enough SMRs to power equivalent of 8m homes for more than 60 years.
Jillian Ambrose, 2 July 26
A consortium led by the billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow has announced plans to build 14 small modular nuclear reactors on three sites across the UK, including the location of a former nuclear plant in Gloucestershire..
The Polish entrepreneur and rally driver plans to use £35bn of private capital to roll out enough small modular reactors (SMRs) to power the equivalent of 8m UK homes for more than 60 years, or even power datacentre investments alongside Google.
Sołowow’s nuclear development company, SGE, plans to make the “significant investment” of between £2.2bn to £2.5bn in each 300 megawatt reactor alongside a string of industrial partners including the US manufacturer GE Vernova and Japanese industrial conglomerate Hitachi, which are responsible for the design.
The consortium, known as SGE SMR, hopes to secure three sites for the boiling water reactors (BWRs) by this time next year as well as a government support contract which would guarantee a “competitive” price for its electricity once it starts generating in 2034.
It has not disclosed which sites it hopes to use for the GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 design, or which energy company would be the operator. However, the Guardian understands the consortium has submitted an application to use the Oldbury site in south Gloucestershire which was earmarked earlier this year for the development of SMRs under the government’s advanced nuclear framework.
Sołowow said the government’s framework, which aims to fasttrack the rollout of nuclear technologies, had created “a clear path to market” in the “home to one of the world’s most experienced nuclear workforces”.
Because of this, I am confident we will set a new standard for nuclear development by combining our disruptive business model with the BWRX-300’s 10th-generation proven technology. We will rely strongly on the UK supply chain; it is a critical element for our project. Our project will create a distinct competitive advantage for the UK economy,” he said.
The Labour government unveiled plans for a historic expansion in nuclear power across England and Wales within months of coming to power, with Keir Starmer calling for tech companies to work alongside the government to build SMRs to power energy-intensive AI datacentres across Britain.
SGE’s plans will put it in competition with Rolls-Royce to be the first to roll out SMEs in the UK, after the British engineering company won a government competition earlier this year to allow it to start generating power by 2032 at the earliest.
SGE’s joint venture agreement, signed this week in London, includes Google Cloud, which Sołowow hopes will also partner on investing up to £4.5bn in datacentres to make use of the nuclear output. The Guardian understands this is viewed as an accompanying proposal which is not part of its current application.
Instead, the consortium hopes to secure a similar deal to the contract offered to the Hinkley Point C nuclear project. It has opted for the contracts for difference scheme, which pays a fixed rate from energy bills once the project begins generating electricity, rather than the controversial model used to fund the Sizewell C project. Under that scheme the developer is paid during the construction phase, meaning billpayers risk bigger costs if there are delays.
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the nuclear industry association, said SGE’s SMR plans showed the government’s nuclear framework “has really revived and spurred interest in privately led nuclear projects”.
Polish tycoon backs Britain’s £35bn mini nuclear reactors plan.
Michal Solowow’s Synthos Green Energy is seeking approval for 14 small modular
reactors at three sites including Oldbury in Gloucestershire.
SGE would not
disclose the location of the sites, two of which are privately owned, but
one of those that it has submitted an application to use is understood to
be the state-owned Oldbury nuclear site in Gloucestershire. Oldbury is one
of eight sites that has been designated for new nuclear power stations in
the UK.
The SMRs will deploy designs developed by GE Vernova Hitachi, a
joint venture between GE Vernova, the American energy equipment
manufacturer, and Hitachi, the Japanese conglomerate. It was one of four
technology providers that had been in the running to build the UK’s first
SMRs under a selection process led by Great British Nuclear, an
arm’s-length, state-backed body set up by the previous government, now
renamed Great British Energy — Nuclear.
It is hoped that the first unit
will start generating power by 2034, about the same time as the first
Rolls-Royce SMR, and will be funded by SGE through a mixture of debt and
equity. It is understood to be in discussions with the taxpayer-backed
National Wealth Fund over an investment and is aiming to apply for support
under the contracts-for-difference framework, which guarantees developers a
minimum that they will be paid for the power they generate. If future
wholesale prices are lower than this guaranteed price, developers will
receive a top-up payment, but if they are higher, they will repay the
excess as a saving to consumers.
Times 2nd July 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/polish-tycoon-britains-35bn-mini-nuclear-reactor-dsj5kc7s9
We’re up against forces that have all the money in the world’: Erin Brockovich on her battle against AI datacentres
What is certain, though, is that the land cannot withstand these centres’ immense demand for water. According to analysis by the Guardian, two-thirds of planned datacentres in the US are in drought-stricken areas. The larger centres need up to 5m gallons of water a day for cooling, equivalent to the average usage of 50,000 people. It is unclear what the plan is and whose needs will take priority between AI, agriculture and everyone else.
In 1993, she squeezed a $333m settlement from a Californian energy company in a scandal over contaminated water. Three decades later, she has a new target in her sights – and it’s global
Guardian, Mon 29 Jun 2026
When Erin Brockovich woke to find 30 emails from people from the same town, she realised something was going on. People email Brockovich all the time because of what happened in 1993, when she was instrumental in suing Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) on behalf of residents of the town of Hinkley, California, whose groundwater had been contaminated. The case resulted in a settlement of $333m – then the largest ever payout for a direct-action lawsuit. When she was immortalised by Julia Roberts in the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, she became the hero we didn’t know we needed, a modern day Joan of Arc. She had won against PG&E with no formal legal training.
The emails she received a few weeks ago were about datacentres. In April, she put a callout on her website asking for anyone with concerns about one near them to get in touch. Within a month, 3,862 people had replied. Tech companies have needed datacentres to power their technology “for ever”, she says, but the new ones being built to power AI? “This feels like Hinkley on steroids.”
This isn’t a story about AI, she says. “That genie is out of the bottle: it’s here, it’s an effective tool, you can use it or not,” Brockovich says matter-of-factly. This is about the massive structures being built to house the vast computing facilities AI requires. These datacentres, she says, stretch over “hundreds and hundreds of acres”. In May, Utah gave approval to a centre twice the size of Manhattan.
Some of the emails Brockovich gets from people near datacentres express genuine bafflement: “Why did I not know about this? How did this construction just start? Why am I now getting a notice from the city council that this has already passed when I didn’t even have a voice in it?” Others reflect concerns about the impact of the centres: “What about our resources? What’s happening to the water? Who’s paying for all this energy and am I going to foot that bill? What will the future impact on health be from these monstrosities? What’s going to happen to the wildlife?”
From the emails, Brockovich built a map of significant AI datacentres in the US that are either operational or under construction, overlaid with locations where community members have emailed in concerns. This open-source document is chilling: as of 24 June, 33 AI datacenters have been completed and are operational, 68 are under construction and 41 are proposed. And there had been 7,005 reports submitted through the online form, which is to say, all that is known about them is what people have seen. As a post on her Substack blog is headlined: “If data centers are so great, why are they being built in secret?”
“It’s happening in every US state, multiple counties, rural areas, ranches, farms and neighbourhoods. People watch nature because they respect it, they need it. And they’re watching it being destroyed,” says Brockovich. She has heard from people saying: “I’m concerned this is where the bald eagles nest,” “I’m watching wildlife disappear,” “I’m seeing dead animals.” Some communities learn about a centre months after it has been approved; others don’t hear anything about them and watch as a vast building emerges.
What is certain, though, is that the land cannot withstand these centres’ immense demand for water. According to analysis by the Guardian, two-thirds of planned datacentres in the US are in drought-stricken areas. The larger centres need up to 5m gallons of water a day for cooling, equivalent to the average usage of 50,000 people. It is unclear what the plan is and whose needs will take priority between AI, agriculture and everyone else.
“People are reporting bill spikes,” Brockovich says, reading an email from someone who says their monthly water bill went from $22 (£17) to more than $350 (£265). The threat of these centres is about more than money – it feels existential. “How will the water use disrupt the balance of nature? People are asking: “What will happen to us?”
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..After Hinkley, she worked on other environmental pollution cases against PG&E related to hexavalent chromium, the chemical that contaminated Hinkley’s water. More recently, she has focused on Pfas (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), “forever chemicals” that are a component in firefighting foam used heavily on US military bases. Pfas have been linked to health problems, including fertility issues and some cancers. In 2017, communities living near military bases reported worrying levels of these chemicals in their drinking water.
Brockovich’s renown is plainly the reason people email her when they have concerns. This is what led her to north-west Georgia last year, where staggeringly high levels of Pfas were found in the water and the wider environment. It was believed that they came from carpet factories that used stain-resistant chemicals. The major carpet factories say they complied with all regulations and no longer use Pfas. She is still supporting people there with their campaigns.
Unlike toxic chemicals leaking into water, nothing about datacentres is discreet. Signs that might be subtle one day – an absence of birdsong – the next day will be a centre up and running at full volume. “It really becomes about the noise, the decibels,” Brockovich says. People will write to her and say: “We’re going insane 24/7,” “It’s got to stop,” “It’s humming, it’s hissing, it’s buzzing.” She says: “It’s generators. It’s increased electric bills. It’s power surges.”
These structures are appearing without the consultation you would need to erect a new sports hall, as if people won’t notice. But people certainly will notice, because the buildings are vast. It feels like a step into post-democracy, which is a tech bro fantasy, a world in which laws and regulations have been obviated. The big tech companies seem to have blueprinted their fantasy and started building it.
Alternatives are now being mooted. “People are talking about putting them at the bottom of the ocean,” says Brockovich. “They’re talking about having barges and putting the datacentres there, using waves as the energy in cooler climates. Elon Musk wants to put them in space.” But with innumerable Earth-based datacentres already built or in the works, this feels like puff – the future you could have had, had you not sleepwalked into the one that has arrived.
For Brockovich, this is all a distraction. The first thing she wants is a case-by-case moratorium on approving datacentres. ( (She is collating these cases through her open-source mapping site and says councils vary in the action they are prepared to take, according to how surprised by, or receptive to, local complaints their officials are. Many states are only now stopping to consider whether there should be state-level regulation and oversight of datacentres – and, if so, what implications that would have for local decision-making and autonomy.
This takes time. Seventy-nine municipalities in the US have so far have issued moratoriums, many immediately being hit with lawsuits for breaking their original deal. Pauses have been introduced in Georgia, Maryland, Michigan and South Carolina – one introduced in Maine was then vetoed – but these are early interventions against tech behemoths.
When I ask Brockovich about the political climate – a president committed to AI and blatantly dismissive of environmental concerns – she is careful to stress that opposition to datacentres is bipartisan. She knows from her work fighting Pfas, though, that a change in administration can make an enormous difference to the success of these campaigns. In the final days of Joe Biden’s presidency, a clean-up operation was announced by the Pentagon. However, this plan has quietly been delayed by Donald Trump’s Department of Defense: in some areas, it won’t start until 2039.
Yet the nature of Brockovich’s campaigning is not to go straight to the top and demand policy change, but rather to build lawsuits from the ground up. Victory, to her, is won by way of a pragmatic to-do list. To start, she would go to local government and say: “I’d like to see an environmental-impact report. I’d like to see how you propose to power all this. Are you going to build your own power? Are you relying on our already strained resources?” She says: “Let’s get that information first and then have a town hall meeting where the people can be a voice in it.” She has a degree of confidence that the law still has teeth. “Lawsuits aren’t settling for $333m any more; they’re settling for billions,” she says.
Brockovich’s datacentre work goes beyond the US; she has been contacted by people in Australia, India, Scotland and Ireland. There is already a moratorium on any more datacentres in Dublin; even by 2023, such centres were accounting for a fifth of Ireland’s electricity usage. “This is a planetary thing,” she says. “It’s overwhelming. We have to have some courage to show up, and it’s difficult to do that when you’re up against forces that have all the money and all the intelligence and all the bandwidth in the world.” She, meanwhile, is “getting too old for this, by the way. I’m in my legacy phase. I have six grandchildren.”
She is smiling. All that may be true, but even if this is her final campaign, she won’t walk away until it’s over. She can beat this – she just can’t beat it on her own. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/29/were-up-against-forces-that-have-all-the-money-in-the-world-erin-brockovich-on-her-battle-against-ai-datacentres
Why X-Energy Stock Collapsed 19.2% This Week
COMMENT. Another dud Small Modular Nuclear Reactor fantasy?
Delays and downgrades are hurting X-Energy’s stock price this week.
By Brett Schafer – Jun 26, 2026 , https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/06/26/why-x-energy-stock-collapsed-192-this-week/
Key Points
- X-Energy does not have a reactor design approved today.
- Its construction projects keep getting delayed, causing an analyst downgrade.
- The company does not generate much in revenue today.
Shares of X-Energy (XE+2.17%) fell 19% this week, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence. The nuclear energy start-up saw a delay in its construction timeline and an analyst downgrade, which has dragged down the stock since its April IPO.
Delayed projects
X-Energy is designing advanced nuclear reactors, partnering with Amazon for future reactor builds. Amazon is also a shareholder in X-Energy, providing upfront capital to build projects to power Amazon data centers.
The roadblock to development stems from the United States government’s lack of official approval for any X-Energy reactor, which has delayed the breaking ground of X-Energy’s first project with Amazon until 2027. On top of this, Jeffries downgraded the stock this week, from $30 to $22, sending shares sharply lower.
Should you buy the dip?
Modern nuclear reactors can be a valuable source of electricity for powering the AI revolution. However, today, X-Energy does not have much of an actual business and will need to spend massive amounts of money upfront in order to get its reactor designs approved and its manufacturing facilities built.
Even after this drawdown, X-Energy stock trades at a market cap of $7.7 billion with barely any revenue. That should keep all investors away from the stock today.
Bechtel opens Polish office to oversee country’s first nuclear plant, to cost $37 Billion
Global Construction Review, Joe Quirke, 25.06.26
US engineering giant Bechtel has opened an office in Gdańsk, northern Poland to support the delivery of the country’s first nuclear power plant and develop a local workforce to grow Poland’s nuclear industry.
The office will serve as an engineering and operations hub for the nuclear facility in Choczewo, Pomerania, on the Baltic coast, which is Poland’s first nuclear project and will be built by Westinghouse and Bechtel alongside Polish utility company Polskie Elektrownie Jądrowe..
The price tag for the nuclear plant could reach $37bn and will contain three of Westinghouse’s AP1000 units generating 3GW of energy. The Generation III+ reactor has fully passive safety systems, a modular design and one of the smallest footprints per MWe.
According to Poland’s state nuclear agency, the first phase of the plant is due to open in 2036. Two additional units are expected to follow within the next three years……
If finance can be secured, a second plant will be built by Kepco of South Korea and will consist of two APR 1400 reactors installed in Poland’s central Patnów-Konin region. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/bechtel-opens-polish-office-to-oversee-countrys-first-nuclear-plant/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (184)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 