India is planning to build a fleet of 40-50 "Bharat Small Reactors" to provide heat and power to hard-to-decarbonize industries such as steel and cement production. Article link in reply. A fleet of 40-50 identical reactors will be enough to achieve Nth-of-a-kind costs. It will be interesting to see what that cost will be. I've heard that India's nuclear plants are relatively low cost already.

India's third indigenously designed 700 MW PHWR has been built, and has achieved initial criticality. Article link in reply.

A British firm has developed a new welding technique which they claim will reduce the "process time" from 150 days to only to just 2 hours. The welds will also be higher-quality. (Article link in reply.) They say that the new welding technique was developed specifically for SMRs. (I'm not sure why it couldn't be applied more generally.) Developments like this are very welcome, given that cost is nuclear's main problem right now.

Wow, this is amazing. One of Germany's main political parties, the CDU, has gone all in on supporting nuclear!! (Article linked in reply.) Their demands: 1) Join the (over) 22 countries that have pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. 2) Restart six of Germany's closed plants. 3) Build new, "next generation" reactors.

French nuclear production in September was ~50% higher than September last year. 2023 production (so far) is 11% higher than Jan-Sept production in 2022. France is putting the recent difficult times behind it. That will reduce EU air pollution and CO2 emissions, and will reduce power costs. Hopefully, it will also mean that cherry-picked arguments by nuclear opponents will fade.

If I understand correctly.. French nuclear is cheaper than Germany's (fossil + RE) power mix, and is far cheaper than the gas generation that is setting EU market prices. France would like to pass the savings on to its industries/consumers, but others (e.g., Germany) say that would give French industry an unfair advantage (and that it would amount to state aid?). This seems to counter the notion that nuclear is expensive. It's certainly a sign that running existing plants is low cost. Yes, new nuclear construction is expensive, but France is now enjoying the long-term benefits. The longevity (perhaps 80 years?) of nuclear's economic benfits should be considered when making new build decisions. 1/2

Sweden is furious with Germany because the German nuclear phaseout is causing extreme power costs in Sweden (as well as Germany). Article link in reply. Germany's nuclear phaseout, and its high reliance on intermittent sources, is resulting in power shortages during periods of low solar and wind output (calm, cloudy days, etc..). Such weather is common in Northern Europe. Germany's "plan" for such periods was to import power, largely from Sweden. (Storage sufficient to cover such extended periods would be astronomically expensive.) The problems with that arrangement are coming to a head. Germany is experiencing an extended period of low wind and sun. Insufficient power generation is causing unprecedented power costs. Germany is importing so much power from Sweden that power prices in parts of Sweden have reached extreme levels. Power costs in Southern Sweden were 265 times as high as those in central Sweden a few days ago. Sweden's Energy Minister did not mince her words, saying that the German nuclear phaseout is the reason for the current problems (which are harming Sweden). “I realise that nobody is happy when I say that ‘if we hadn't shut down half of nuclear power, we wouldn't have these problems’. But it's true and it needs to be said..... I'm furious with the Germans.” And the article said: "One main reason Busch cited for the surge in electricity prices is Germany's decision to dismantle its nuclear power plants, saying it also has detrimental effects for Europe." The situation is so bad that some were discussing cutting Germany off, i.e., refusing to export power to them. The shortage being a problem of Germany's making.

In a huge reversal, Italy is considering restarting their nuclear program, and building new plants. nature.com/articles/d43978-0…

The title says it all. Germany is willing to PAY $16 billion in order to use new (imported, polluting, CO2-emitting) gas generation, in place of clean domestic nuclear generation (i.e., simply restarting existing nuclear plants). Article link in reply. The article goes onto say that, whereas Germany was starting to consider restarting nuclear plants as an alternative to *coal*, it reaffirmed its plan to keep nuclear closed because they were able to secure gas supplies. Germany and other nations will now shift from coal to gas. That's arguably good news, although the indefensible closing of existing nuclear remains very bad news. The article also goes on to describe how this all shows that solar and wind generation require significant amounts of fossil (gas) capacity as backup. The rest of the article seems to be a little bit to pro-gas. It seems to suggest that German public/political support for keeping nuclear plants running was only because they would be replaced with coal, instead of gas, and that if gas supplies can be assured, politicans and the public would support keeping the nuclear plants closed. Or that's what the German government thought, at least. The article then appears to suggest that gas is not viewed as a "dirty, carbon heavy fuel". Only coal is. Basically that it's clean and not even a "fossil fuel." That view is mostly at odds with the facts, and is probably an inaccurate characterization of public views.

China will build six new nuclear plants for $17 billion, i.e., a cost of only ~$2,500/kW. That's ~1/4 the cost of Vogtle. Nuclear is NOT inherently expensive. Once we start building a significant number of them, costs should fall significantly. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Poland is moving forward with its first nuclear plant, starting with $1.2 billion in initial funding. The plant is expected to start operation in ~10 years. Article link in reply.

Wow, this recent German poll data is impressive! Even German Green party members are only 56% against! Nuclear now has majority support in all other German parties. foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/20…

Japan's latest forecast predicts that (even new) nuclear will be the cheapest baseload (i.e., firm, non-intermittent) power source in 2040. Article link in reply. Previous analysis showed that gas would be cheaper...... if you don't account for (or try to reduce) CO2 emissions. They also showed that solar and wind would be cheaper... if you don't include the cost of the large-scale storage that would be required. The new analysis factored in those things. Nuclear was found to be the lowest-cost option despite conservative assumpions, i.e., a reactor operating life of only 40 years, and a capacity factor of only 70 % (vs. the 90+% capacity factors seen in the US). And the estimate is for new reactors, including the associated construction costs. Restarting all their existing reactors, and extending their life (to 60 or 80 years) would be far cheaper, the cheapest power source by far (and is also reliable and carbon-free). Long-term operation of existing reactors is a complete no-brainer.

Nuclear is now South Korea's largest source of electricity! It provided ~32% of Korea's power. Coal, gas, and renewables provide 28%, 28%, and 12%, respectively. Article link in reply.

Bill Gates states it clearly. Nuclear will be needed for full decarbonization. Intermittent sources will not be able to provide all our power. The vast amount of storage for that would be too expensive (more expensive than including new nuclear). Article link in reply. This apprently still needs to be said. We are regularly treated to arguments that nuclear is a waste of money, because renewables are simply cheaper, period, based on simple LCOE comparisons that only apply at low penetration levels (i.e., to not include the cost of significant storage and or grid upgrades). The reason for the rapidly growing worldwide interest in nuclear is that everyone is figuring out what Gates has. Renewables alone will not be enough, and we need to expand nuclear. Just ask the IPCC and other formal scientific organizations.

A report by a Dutch consultancy company concludes that a nuclear powered cargo ship would cost less than one powered by very low sulphur fuel oil, or by green ammonia. Article link in reply. The nuclear option would have other benefits, such as faster speed, longer range, and no carbon (or pollution!) emissions. The capital cost of a nuclear ship would be higher, but that is more than offset by lower operation costs (mainly not having to buy fuel oil or green ammonia fuel). This is especially true given the long life of the nuclear ship and the reactor.

In a massive shift, Germany's front-running parties are all supporting nuclear. So, Germany is likely to have a pro-nuclear government! Article link in reply. They're talking about building new, "next-generation" reactors, including small modular reactors (SMRs). Only the far-right Alternative for Germany party is pushing for the restart of shut down reactors. One sentence of the article was somewhat disturbing: "Germany’s nuclear safety agency warns that SMRs remain largely untested, with unclear costs and feasibility." That struck me as a political, and inappropriate statement for a (supposedly objective) regulatory body to make. Perhaps it's a sign that decades of anti-nuclear dogma has colored the attitudes of entrenched government institutions. This could be a problem in the future, if they try to build more reactors, etc..

Ten US states have created a coalition that will work together to deploy new nuclear. The states are New York, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wyoming, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia. Article link in reply. A coalition of states, that will make decisions about reactor designs, etc.. will help deployment of affordable nuclear. For example, if those ten states settle on only one or two reactor designs, cost reduction will be achieved by constructing a large number of reactors of a given design.

France is considering zero interest loans for the construction of six new nuclear reactors, that have a total capacity of ~10 GW. That would significantly reduce overall construction cost b/c financing costs are a dominant component. Article link in reply. The EU will have to approve such "state aid". Approval is expected because the EU approved a similar arrangement for new reactors in the Czech Republic. (Of note is the fact that renewable sources are simply exempt from the EU state aid rules. Member states can subsidize them as much as they want. Renewable generation is also literally mandated in the EU.) The article says that, under the Czech arrangement, the utility would have to pay interest of at least 2% after the plant starts operation. I'm confused by this. I thought such loans were only needed for the construction phase. Once operation starts, they just collect the needed money from ratepayers. The plans also include a "contract for difference" arrangement that fixes the long-term price that the nuclear plants will receive, thus shielding them from market price downside risk. One statement/notion I disagree with is that the new reactors will, in part, be used to replace existing reactors that will be retired. France needs to get past the notion of retiring existing plants (after 60 years or even less). There will be plenty of room on the grid for significantly increased overall nuclear capacity in the future, given the large projected increase in power demand (data centers, electrification, etc..). France needs to follow the example of the US, which will be operating all or most of its plants for 80-100 years (or perhaps even more). We must not use new carbon-free sources to replace other carbon-free sources. All new clean energy must be used to replace fossil fuels.

Can't believe they're doing this. Given the changing conditions, i.e., greatly increased support (and need) for nuclear, and the return to sanity by the German people and some German political parties, they should be mothballing, not dismantling, their plants! Article link in reply.

The first phase of contruction of the first BWRX-300 SMR at Ontario's Darlington site has been completed on time and on budget. The plan is to have four reactors on the site.

Switzerland's current government wants to repeal the country's current moratorium on new nuclear plant construction. A referendum is likely.

Italy's government is expressing strong support for nuclear (a huge shift for a historically anti-nuclear country). Nuclear also now has majority public support, particularly among the young. Article link shown below. 1/2

The Mochovce-3 reactor in Slovakia has begun commercial operation. That one 440 MW reactor will provide 13% of Slovakia's electricity. Their nuclear fleet now consists of five VVER-440 reactors. A sixth 440 MW reactor will start operation in 2025. Simple math suggests that Slovakia now gets ~65% of its power from nuclear, and that share will increase in 2050.

President Trump called for the U.S. to have 10 large nuclear reactors under construction by 2030. At a conference yesterday, Westinghouse pledged to meet that goal by itself, i.e., to build ten of its AP1000 reactors. Article link in reply. At the conference, Westinghouse also announced that they will be working with Google to develop AI tools that will facilitate AP1000 reactor construction.

Sweden has started construction of its final, deep geological repository for the nation's spent nuclear fuel. Finland's repository is already built and is undergoing testing. Article link in reply. The notion that there is no technological solution for permanent disposal of nuclear waste has been put to bed. It's a political and false public perception problem. It would be more accurate to say that nuclear waste is the MOST solved waste problem. Nuclear is the only energy source, or industry, that not only contains all its toxic wastes, but is also required to prove that it's wastes will never cause harm for as long as they remain hazardous. A rigorous standard of no harm ever. In terms of responsibility to future generations, nuclear is the Gold Standard. Sure beats other energy source waste steams, which show up in our air, our water, or in landfills.....

Sweden is urging the UK to join other Northern European nations to collectively make a bulk order of at least 10-15 SMRs. That would spread risk and reduce future costs by developing a supply chain, etc.. Article link in reply. Commitments to purchase significant volumes of a product result in lower future costs because it allows producers to develop a large-scale supply chain w/o too much risk. As an example, outright govt. mandates to deploy significant amounts of wind and solar played a huge role in the dramatic cost reductions of those sources. If demand is ensured, producers can build large-scale fabrication facilities. Similar policies or actions would do the same for nuclear. One issue is that they will have to agree on one SMR design. Approaching "Nth of a kind" costs by buying 10-15 units will only work if the reactors are all the same. Which SMR design they would buy is notably absent from the article. This may result in a political battle, with each country insisting that their SMR design (e.g, Rolls Royce's SMR for the UK) be chosen or at least included.

France will provide a government loan to EDF, to build six new reactors that will provide ~10 GW of power. Construction is expected to start in 2027. Operation is expected by 2038. Article link in reply. The plants will have a contract for difference (CFD) arrangement where their revenues (effective power sale price) will be assured. The set price is to be 100 euros per MW-hr, at most. That is actually expected to be a competitive price for future clean, firm (non-intermittent) power. I'm guessing that this favorable government loan will be considered "state aid" and will thus have to be approved by the EU. (Renewable energy projects are exempt from EU state aid requirements. 😡 Still not tech-neutral!)

Most of Georgia's electricity now comes from clean sources, thanks to Vogtle. Article link in reply.

Breaking News: The North Carolina legislature just overrode the governor's veto of a bill that would replace the state's renewable portfolio standard with a clean energy standard that includes nuclear.

All nine candidates to be Japan's next prime minister have expressed support for nuclear power. This is a huge turnaround in political support. Article link in reply. They need to use that support for (finally) get serious about restarting their remaining nuclear plants. Most of their plants are still shutdown, for no good reason, and vastly more harmful fossil generation is being used in their place.

Sorry, NRDC, but taking pride in forcing the closure of a huge, 24/7 carbon free generation source and replacing it entirely with new gas generation, belies any genuine concern about climate change or pollution. This article tells it like it really is. forbes.com/sites/robertbryce…

Sanity returns to Sweden. They're replacing their 100% renewable standard to a 100% clean standard. Renewable energy standards, that arbitrarily exclude clean sources, are unjustified and can only impede decarbonization. reuters.com/article/sweden-b…

Amazing! Spain's parliament approved a proposal to reverse its nuclear phaseout policy! Times really are a-changing, significantly and rapidly. Article link in reply.

Japanese public support for restarting their reactors has risen to 70%. Article link in reply. Reasons given are: Growing awareness of nuclear's ability to help reduce CO2 emissions. (They didn't know that aleady? 😡) Energy security (energy prices spiked due to the Ukraine war). Reduced energy cost. Consumers have noticed that power costs are lower in areas that have restarted nuclear plants. Nuclear is the cheapest power source in Japan (in addition to being clean).

Nuclear YIMBY ("yes, in my back yard") at Texas A&M! The university is inviting nuclear companies to site new reactors on their land, at the Rellis Campus in Bryan, TX. Article link in reply. They're interested in having ~5 nuclear reactors, with capacities ranging from 10 to 200 MW, by the early- to mid-2030s

France is now planning to build 14, vs. 6, new reactors.

Possible advances in seawater uranium extraction that may make it more scalable and competitive with land-based mining. Seawater extraction would result in essentially limitless uranium supply. (Article link in reply.) Seawater extraction of uranium may provide additional environmental, geopolitical, and public support advantages. None of the environmental impacts of traditional mining (tailing piles, etc..). Instead of being concentrated in a few countries, seawater extraction would be available to most nations. Also, seawater extraction facilities can be far offshore, i.e., not in people's backyards.

The incoming Dutch government will support construction of four nuclear reactors, and extending operation of the Netherlands' existing plant. They're also putting their money where their mouth is, earmarking $15.2 billion for a nuclear construction program. Article link in reply.

Pressure on Australia to lift its nuclear moratorium is increasing, after the pledge by 24 or more countries (at COP28) to triple world nuclear capacity by 2050. (Article linked in reply.) French President Macron personally urged Australia to lift its ban. In response to Macron's statement, the head of the Australian Workers Union called on the government to "put the nuclear option on the table to protect heavy industry jobs." Predictably, opponents responded with the "argument" that nuclear will be uncompetitive in Australia and its prospects are dim, as a reason to keep the ban. I put "argument" in quotes because it's not a real, valid argument. Lack of competitiveness is not a valid reason to bar something from competition. If nuclear is as uncompetitive as they say, it simply won't be built, anyway. On the contrary, banning something from competition is something that's done by people who fear competition! (Many believe that Australia's ban was put in place at the behest of its powerful coal industry, which didn't want to be exposed to competition. That being the only plausible explanation.) Case in point, there are several renewable energy options that are far more expensive than solar PV and wind (solar thermal, wave power, tidal power, etc..). While their prospects are dim, they of course are not banned, in Australia or anywhere else! This lays bare the fact that the real motivation for nuclear bans is NOT lack of competitiveness or prospects. Hell, even coal isn't literally banned, anywhere. I've always found it fascinating that the only energy source that has ever been outright banned (with the exception of a few recent bans on gas fracking) is nuclear, i.e., a clean energy source! This quote by an Australian business group that is skeptical of nuclear's prospects gets it.: "We have no in-principle objection to the option of nuclear energy for Australia. That said, the best evidence we have is that nuclear electricity generation does not look particularly economically attractive in Australia." I'm not sure I agree with their economic assessement (especially over the longer term, if they want to fully decarbonize). But their logic is sound. There is simply no justification for outright banning an energy source, whether it will be competitive or not.

A strongly pro-nuclear article in Time magazine, a major news magazine that has histroically been generally negative about nuclear, IMO. (Article link in reply.) I don't agree with all of it (e.g., the title, which says nuclear is the "only solution", as opposed to being something that will need to play a significant role). But it does express sentiments that I strongly agree with, i.e., the roles that public fears and the regulatory framework have played in holding nuclear back. "The Western world ended up so far behind because of fear... and regulatory regimes that institutionalized fear of nuclear into licensing and permitting processes." Also (in reference to NuScale, etc..): "Setbacks are normal for new technologies and emerging markets, but for nuclear power such bumps in the road have outsized potential to disrupt because many people are still hesitant or downright hostile to nuclear power." They also discuss how NRC responded to legal directives to streamline the licensing process (NEIMA) with new, draft rules that are even more burdensome. They also agree with me and others that imposing the NRC "gold standard" on the rest of the world would be a disaster for nuclear (i.e., for clean energy). That would greatly increase world health risks, as it would result in more fossil generation.

Holtec plans to spend $1.5 billion to build a factory in the UK to build its SMR-300 reactors. Article link in reply.

The Italian government says that they will develop a plan to allow construction of nuclear plants by 2027. Article link in reply.

A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis has shown that the construction of six AP1000 reactors in Poland would add $30 billion to Poland's GDP, and would provide over 120,000 person-years of direct employment. Article link in reply. Once built, they would provide ~$10 billion in GDP and support over 16,000 jobs annually.

I thought we were past this. While the economics of building new plants is a valid topic of debate, the environmental case against nuclear is dead, as it doesn't stand up to objective scrutiny. Even anti-nuclear groups have shifted mainly to economic arguments (which only apply to new plants). The world's formal scientific bodies have concluded that nuclear is as good as solar and wind in terms of environmental risks/impacts. As shown below, in terms of both public health risks and climate, nuclear's negative impacts are negligible compared to fossil fuels, and are similar to solar and wind. Keeping existing nuclear plants like Diablo operating is a no brainer in every respect (cost, climate, public health, jobs, grid reliability, etc..). Can't believe that we're even still debating this.

A 2nd nuclear plant has been approved in Poland. This time, a pair of Korean APR1400s. (Article link in reply.) I personally trust the Koreans the most, given their success in building plants (at lower cost w/ fewer delays), both at home and abroad.

Nuclear.

Wow! Hydro Quebec is considering restarting a nuclear plant that has been closed (mothballed) for 10 years! A sign of how much attitudes and prospects have changed for nuclear. Apparently, even hydro-rich Quebec needs more clean power. 1/2 cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/…

The Swedes are studying the option of extending operation of their existing reactors to 80 years, as is being done in the US. Article link in reply. Frankly, this is a no brainer. Extending operation of existing nuclear plants is the cheapest decarbonization option there is. It's like building a new reactor without the huge construction cost. Also, nuclear's non-intermittent generation is of more value (grid reliability benefits, etc..). Extension also preserves large numbers of high-paying jobs and local tax bases. The US has shown that it can be done, at a modest cost. Several US plants have gotten permission to operate for 80 years. Most US plants will probably do so as well.

Contrary to what so many have been told, nuclear is the ONLY energy source that is responsibly managing its waste stream. Complete containment. Technically viable plans to ensure that it remains contained for as long as it remains hazardous, and never causes harm. All that's needed is an end to the purely political stonewalling.

China just approved 11 new reactors at five sites. The total cost is estimated to be $31 billion. Article link in reply. China's deployment of nuclear is accelerating. They're also showing that nuclear is not inherently expensive, and can be economically competitive. They're building 11 reactors at a cost similar to what the two Vogtle reactors cost!

DARPA is looking into nuclear power that bypasses the thermal energy conversion cycle entirely, and generates electricity directly from the high-energy particles and gamma rays generated by nuclear fission! Article link in reply. This could theoretically improve economics, but will probably take a long time to develop. 😀 Fusion may come before this.

Greta's half right. Gas is clearly not green, but nuclear is, by any rational definition. Both in terms of climate and public health risk, nuclear's impacts are negligible compared to fossil fuels, and are similar to renewables. ourworldindata.org/safest-so…

Korea's nuclear regulator has approved the design of a Korean SMR (the 100 MW Smart100). The SMR is designed to produce useful heat, as well as electric power. Article link in reply. The applicants were the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI), Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KA-CARE). That suggests Saudi interest in having the Koreans build their reactors. For SMRs, anyway.

China just started up their first (200 MW) commercial HTGR! HTGRs have much smaller accident risks. Also, while this plant is for power generation, HTGRs can also provide high-temperature heat that is necessary for various industrial applications, which now currently depend on fossil fuels. (Article link in reply.)

A report saying that Chinese researchers have developed a better, "cost effective" material to extract uranium from seawater. Article link in reply. Economically viable extraction of uranium in seawater (that would not significantly affect nuclear's overall cost) would be a gamechanger. It would put long-term uranium supply issues to bed. Seawater contains an essentially infinite amount of uranium, and uranium is steadily deposited into the oceans at a higher rate than we could ever comsume it.

There is increasing talk in Germany about restarting some of their shut down nuclear plants. IAEA leader Rafael Grossi expressed support for the idea, calling it "logical". Article link in reply.

Nuclear's prospects just imporoved significantly. A large number of the world's largest banks have expressed willingness to finance nuclear, and support for the goal of tripling world nuclear capacity by 2050. Article link in reply. This is a dramatic turnaround. Until now, most large financial institutions have refused to finance nuclear projects (while still being willing to finance fossil projects 😡). To a large extent, their reasons were ideological (viewing nuclear as a dirty source) as opposed to financial (high project risk, etc..). While world climate and energy policies had been getting more and more tech-neutral (nuclear inclusive), discrimination against nuclear by financial institutions remained a barrier that put nuclear at a significant disadvantage. Now things are finally changing in that regard. We may reach genuine tech-neutrality yet!

Nuclear power containes (does not release into the environment) it's toxic waste streams. It is also required to rigorously show that the wastes will stay contained for as long as it remains hazardous. In other words, no harm, ever. No other energy source is held to that standard. It would be more accurate to say that nuclear is the ONLY energy source that has solved its "waste problem". It is the gold standard of responsible waste management.

India's Tata Steel is considering using 200 BSRs ("Bharat Small Reactors"), that are 220 MW each, for clean steel production. That amounts to 45 GW of nuclear power, overall, for a single industrial company (vs. country or power utility). Article link in reply. If this happens, it would be huge. Not just the 45 GW of additional nuclear capacity, but the new use of nuclear by industry. That volume (200 reactors) would take BSRs beyond Nth of a kind, into mass production. That should greatly reduce costs. The article talks about using nuclear-generated electricity to make hydrogen, that would be used in the steel making process. They failed to mention the fact that reactors also produce heat, which can be used to increase the efficiency of the electrolysis process. Steady, reliable non-intermittent electricity also greatly improves the economics of such industrial processes. Those factors make nuclear an attractive (perhaps the most attractive) option for H2 production. Tata Steel apparently thinks so. Many industrial processes will need reliable, clean heat in the future. I'm wondering if nuclear heat can be used directly for some parts of the steel making process. Perhaps the required temperatures are too high for the BSRs (which are pressurized heavy water reactors). In any event, if the BSRs are deployed on this scale, their low cost will make them a very competitive option for the carbon-free, (lower temp) industrial process heat market in general, and simply as a firm electricity source.

Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker has had a change of heart and now supports lifting the state's moratorium on building large nuclear plants. Article link in reply. He vetoed a bill to lift the state's nuclear construction moratorium in 2023. After negotiations, he signed a bill that would allow nuclear construction, but only for reactors that are 300 MW or less. He's now saying that he will support allowing construction of large reactors: "When asked about high energy costs at the Illinois State Fair Wednesday, the governor said Illinois could do something important by lifting the decades-old moratorium." Interesting statement, given that he used economic arguments to justify his veto on allowing large reactor construction two years ago. This change of position is perhaps in respose to the great increase in support of, and interest in, nuclear power that has occurred over the last couple years. Market conditions (AI boom, etc.) and federal policies are also more favorable.

Rolls Royce now has full government permission to move forward with its plan to deploy its 470 MW SMRs in Poland. Article link in reply.

Italy's current administration has decided that its nuclear industry should be restarted, and will try to get the associated legislation passed! Climate and energy security were cited as reasons. Article link in reply. After a referendum in 1987, after the Chernobyl accident, Italy closed its reactors and shut down its nuclear program.

Pakistan has started construction of a 1200 MW, Chinese-designed Hualong reactor. The reactor has just received final regulatory approval. Article link in reply. The projected cost is $3.7 billion. That is much lower than the cost of nuclear plants being built in the West. For example, each of the new Vogtle reactors in the US cost over $15 billion. Nuclear is not inherently expensive. It was much cheaper in the past, and in many other places (e.g., Korea).

Construction of the first unit of Turkey's first nuclear plant is nearing completion, and the country's regulator has issued a "commissioning" license which will allow them to proceed with start up processes (operational testing, etc..). Article link in reply. All four (1200 MW) units of the plant are expected to be operational in 2028, at which point it will provide ~10% of Turkey's electricity Construction started in 2018. A six year construction period for a country's first nuclear plant ain't bad.

Nuclear fuel is essentially limitless. Unlike other energy sources' waste streams, nuclear power waste has never harmed anyone, and almost certainly never will. Nuclear is the only source w/ rigorous, viable plans to contain its wastes for as long as they remain hazardous.

60 nuclear reactors are under construction, and over 400 reactors are planned. As a result, nuclear capacity may more than double, to 839 GW, by 2040. Given that pace, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050, which many say is necessary, is well within reach. world-nuclear-news.org/Artic…,

This bullish article (linked in reply) gives a good summary of why we can expect significant nuclear growth in the future. The need for nuclear (non-intermittent clean power). Government/policy support. INcreasing demand for clean electricity (to "electrify everything"). Increasing accest to low cost financing. Plans for significant new nuclear capacity. Nuclear companies report booming interest in, and actual orders for, new plants. The result will be a growing supply chain, which in turn will reduce costs. Due to future climate constrains, industry is also considering using nuclear directly to power their operations.

Great analysis of why nuclear has gotten so expensive. Places much of the blame on over-regulation, and singles out uniquely onerous "nuclear grade" QA requirements as a key source of high costs and delays. 1/4 progress.institute/nuclear-p…

India plans to increase its nuclear capacity, from ~8 GW to ~100 GW, by 2047. (Article link in reply.)

Wonderful news! Westinghouse and Korea have resolved their intellectual property dispute. Korea will be allowed to build reactors in the Czech Republic. Article link in reply. This is great news for worldwide (non-Russian/Chinese) nuclear. The world will be able to benefit from Korea's nuclear construction expertise (the best among "Western" nations).

The UAE plans to build another 4-unit nuclear plant, that would be operational by 2032! Article link in reply. UAE's first nuclear project, which consisted of four Korean-built 1400 MW reactors, was a success (reasonable cost, etc..). Following with construction of a 2nd plant will make full use of the skills and experience gained, and will likely result in lower costs. They will submit a tender that will invite "any potential bidders", including the US, Russia and China, as well as South Korea. They say that Korea will not be treated as a preferred bidder. I suppose putting such large jobs out to bid is the standard practice. It will foster competition and avoid protest. But going with Korea seems like a no-brainer to me, given their proven performance with the first nuclear project. Using the same team, to build four more APR-1400 reactors, would make use of the recent experience to the greatest extent.

Florida is considering new nuclear plants. A recent state energy bill directed the Florida Public Service Commission to perform a new nuclear feasability study. That effort started today. Article link in reply. This article also discusses federal activities with respect to new nuclear, including deployment of reactors at army bases.

Many of us have long suspected that many so-called "environmental" groups oppose/hate nuclear more than any other energy source, even fossil fuels. Guido Nunez-Mujica (@OSGuido), a BTI (@TheBTI) employee, has done some interesting work (on his own time) which demonstrates this. He searched the websites of several "environmental" organizations (and the LA Times) for mentions of CA's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, and mentions of the (large) Intermountain coal plant (in UT), which is owned by LA's utility (LADWP) and provides ~20% of LA's power. The results are shown in the table presented below. The results are astonishing, and show how much more focused these groups were on closing Diablo Canyon (a clean power source!) than they were on closing a huge, polluting, CO2-emitting coal plant. The coal plant in question being pertinent to CA (like Diablo) because LADWP had the power to shut it down. The (dogmatic) Sierra Club and NRDC stand out. Closing Diablo was a core mission for them, as the number of Diablo mentions shows. Also of note is that some of the groups on the list are solely or almost entirely focused on opposing nuclear power. A couple (MfP and WBA) are solely about closing Diablo! Fortunately (for climate), things ended up going the right way. The coal plant is closing in 2025, while Diablo will stay open, in part due to the tireless efforts of nuclear advocates. The closing of the coal plant is due to general, federal climate policies, as opposed to a concerted effort by environmental groups to close that specific plant, as the lack of mentions on these groups' websites shows. Nothing like the concerted attack on Diablo Canyon, specifically. I understand that the major environmental groups supported the general policies that are causing coal plants (in general) to close. But it appears that they never made a significant effort to close specific coal plants, like they tried to do with Diablo. Intermountain is a pertinent example because a CA utility had the power to close it. CA being a very progressive state that considers itself to be a climate leader. Why didn't these groups make a significant effort to pressure (climate leader) CA to close a large coal plant that was providing a large amount of its power? Something that would greatly help CA reach its climate goals. Makes a lot more sense than a huge effort to close the state's largest source of clean, carbon-free power!

Good overall article about the (new) world situation with nuclear. (Article linked in reply.) My two favortite parts are the article's first paragraph, "For a long time, the use of nuclear power has been hobbled by irrational fear, and by politicians’ fear of fear. But the times are changing." and the quote from British environmentalist George Monbiot: “Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power. . . . A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.” I think Monbiot's statements about "inadequate safety, poor design and corner-cutting" are overly harsh and a bit unfair, but the main point is sound, and important. If people were rational, Fukushima would *allay* public fears and *increase* public support! Opponents say that we should learn the lessons of Fukushima. Indeed we should. The main lesson is that even worst case nuclear accidents (meltdowns) cause few if any deaths, and have no measurable public health impacts. Meltdowns are a very far cry from the end-of-world events the public has been told they would be. Fossil power generation causes more harm every ~hour than Fukushima did.

Slovenia is considering building a 2400 MW nuclear plant. They currently have a single ~700 MW reactor.

Spain's business community, as well as its conservative parties, are calling for reversing the country's nuclear phase out policy, which would begin in 2027. "Ideological positions should not prevent us from recognising the need to extend the useful life of power plants already installed, which guarantee the stability of the system." The current government's claim that keeping the plants open would increase overall cost is false. Continuing the operation of existing nuclear plants is less expensive than building and operating renewable sources, especially if one includes the cost of storage (which would be extremely high for an all renewable grid).

IAEA leader Grossi has gotten on board with the effort to develop nuclear-powered cargo ships. Article link in reply.

China now has 26 reactors under construction, the highest of any nation by far. Article link in reply. The new construction start is a 1250 MW CAP 1000 reactor (China's version of the AP1000) at the Xudabu plant site. Another CAP 1000 reactor is already under construction at the Xudabu site. Two Russian VVER 1200 reactors are also under construction at the site. The plan is for Xudabu to be a 6-reactor plant. At some point, two more CAP 1000 reactors will be built. The final plant consisting of two VVERs and four CAP 1000s.

More nuclear generation means less use of coal and gas. Always did. Article link in reply. Korea's nuclear share has increased, due to higher capacity factors and the start up of a new reactor. In January, 2025, nuclear's share was ~35%, a 20% increase vs. January, 2024. This has reduced Korea's use of expensive imported coal and gas (LNG). Use of those fuels has negative economic, environmental, and geopolitical impacts. Nuclear's benefits are large and multi-faceted.

Yesterday's German election was a victory for pro-nuclear parties, which will result in a pro-nuclear German chancellor. Article link in reply. Nuclear advocates are not sure whether the German elections will result in restarts of any German reactors, but pro-nuclear European countries believe that the election will greatly reduce Germany's anti-nuclear influence. In the past, Germany has used all the influence it had to steer Europe away from nuclear. It bullied many countries to not build plants or phase nuclear out (an example being Belgium). It also managed to put in place EU policies that discriminated against nuclear. Pronuclear EU nations (e.g., France) are now hopefull that Germany will no longer push hard for anti-nuclear policies, even if it will doesn't use nuclear itself. That will have a major impact on nuclear's trajectory in the EU. Germany's past anti-nuclear influence cannot be understated.

Finland has successfully completed a trial run of it's deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel. Sweden is building theirs. Article link in reply. The nuclear waste "problem" has been technologically solved. Has been for some time, actually. It has always been a political / false public perception problem. The toxic waste problem is actually far less "solved" for *other* energy sources. Releasing it directly into the environment, heaping it into piles, or throwing it into landfills is not really a solution. Many of those waste streams last *longer* than nuclear waste (i.e., have toxic elements that never decay away and remain toxic forever). And yet there is little concern..... Nuclear is held to (and is meeting) a higher standard. It must (and does) fully contain all of its hazardous wastes, and is required to prove that they will remain contained for as long as they remain hazardous.

A third Finnish city is considering nuclear for local district heating. Construction of the reactors could start by 2029 and begin operation in 2032. Article link in reply.

Poland's president has signed a bill that would provide $15.5 billion in funding, from 2025 to 2030, for the country's first nuclear power plant. The plant would feature three AP1000 reactors. Article link in reply. Note that the ~$5 billion per reactor amount is less than the what the Vogtle project's pre-construction cost estimate was (~$7 billion per reactor). Then again, this 2025 to 2030 funding is probably not the entire cost. They hope to have the first reactor start up in 2033.

Those are not major environmental groups. They're not even environmental groups at all. They are rabid *anti-nuclear* (not environmental) groups, period. We're witnessing a sea change in public political attitudes towards nuclear. People aren't listening to such groups anymore. Nothing will come of this.

11 states (Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and Wisconsin) are looking into transitioning their old coal sites to nuclear. (Article link in reply.) According to the US Dept. of Energy, US nuclear will need to triple, in order to achieve full grid decarbonization, and coal-to-nuclear transitions could be a large fraction of the total build. DoE also says that locating new reactors at retiring coal sites could reduce contruction cost by 35% by using: "...the existing land, the coal plant’s electrical equipment (transmission connection, switchyard, etc.) and civil infrastructure, such as roads and buildings."

Major breakthrough in nuclear battery technology! Infinity Power has developed a nuclear battery that is over six times as efficient. Article link in reply. That means that it could provide the same amount of power with less than one sixth as much radioactive material. It also allows a larger variety of isotopes that can be used. "... its "tiny coin-cell-style device can provide tens of milliwatts of power for over 100 years". Applications include: "... implantable medical devices, deep-sea power systems, space power systems, remote area power systems, microgrid power systems, etc"

Another amazing story which shows how much support for nuclear has increased. A government poll showed that 90% (!!) of Poles supported building nuclear power plants. 77% would agree to have a plant built in their backyard. (Article link in reply.)

Japan has (finally!!) restarted its 820 MW Shimane Unit 2 reactor, which has been closed since 2012. Article link in reply.

French nuclear companies are profitable again, due to significantly increased nuclear power output, and plans to build new reactors. (Article link in reply.)

Indonesia, which now gets most of its power from coal plants, is planning to build nuclear plants with a total generating capacity of 4.3 GW. Article link in reply.

AT COP28, the US pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. In a sign that it was not an empty pledge, the Biden admin just published a detailed, 37-page plan on how to make it happen. Article link in reply. Key recommendations involved speeding up new reactor licensing, and providing clear, long-term support (which is necessary given nuclear's long-term financial committments). Can't resist criticizing this Bloomberg article for presenting a US power mix pie chart which shows generation capacity (in GW) as apposed to annual generation (GW-hr). Presenting capacity is highly misleading. For example, it suggests that nuclear is the smallest source of all when it's actually almost as large as all renewable sources combined (hydro, geothermal, wind and solar).

I never really understood why physically locating a data center near a nuclear plant would make a difference. Isn't it really just grid electricity? This article, about how increased power demand and prices are benefitting nuclear, gives a concise exaplanation. Article link in reply. "...data centers “will save transmission and distribution grid charges” The nuclear plant will get: "...a long-term power purchase agreement with pricing above wholesale market rates." I suppose it could be argued that locating major demand centers near large power generation facilities would reduce grid costs.

There's been a significant change in public support, and governmental intent, in Switzerland. A majority of Swiss now support new nuclear construction, and the current govt. intends to remove the moratorium on new nuclear. Article link in reply. Switzerland currently has a slow nuclear phaseout policy. Govt. policy was a gradual withdrawal from nuclear, and a moratorium on new nuclear construction was put in place in 2018.

BREAKING NEWS: A bill that would repeal Illinois' moratorium on new nuclear plant construction just passed through the (House) Public Utility committee, by a 20-to-1 vote! It's identical to the bill passed by the full Senate. 🥳 1/2

Famous, long-time energy guru Dan Yergen is impressed by the recent nuclear turnaround, describing it as "nothing short of extraordinary." Article link in reply. Also: “Big Tech is saying, ‘We need reliable 24 hour electricity. We can’t get it just from wind and solar.”

In a compromise, France's EDF will receive 70 euros/MW-hr for its nuclear electricity. This is well under wholesale market prices, which have been over 100 euros/MW-hr, and had reached 1200 euros/MW-hr last year. On the other hand, 70 euros/MW-hr is well over what is takes (or should take) to operate an existing nuclear plant. US total operation costs are under $30/MW-hr, for example. France does load follow with its nukes, which does add to cost, but 70 stilll seems high. I've heard that EDF is asking for money to fund its plans for new reactors. Basically, with a 70 euro price, EDF's overall revenues will be anough to build the (six?) new reactors, as well as operating, and extending the life of, its existing fleet. That makes more sense. 70 euros/MW-hr is a competitive price for clean, firm (non-intermittent) generation, which will be needed if we are to fully decarbonize.

An in-depth article about how China manages to build reactors more quickly at a lower cost. China's recent nuclear builds, at home in and in Pakistan, has an average construction time of ~6 years. (Article link in reply.) The success in countries like China and Korea demonstrate that nuclear is not inherently expensive or slow to build. As the article states: "Success elsewhere also illustrates that hurdles faced by recent nuclear projects in the United States, France, or Finland do not originate from some inherent quality of nuclear power, but rather logically reflect a combination of regulatory, market, political, and societal factors."

A graphic, and article, about the top nations that are building new nuclear plants. Plants under construction or planned would almost double world nuclear capacity! Article link in reply. "According to the Global Energy Monitor, the world’s total nuclear power capacity is currently at 396 gigawatts (GW), with a further 299 GW of capacity underway, whether that’s through nuclear plants that have been announced, or are in the pre-construction or construction phases." Perhaps the goal to triple world nuclear capacity by 2050 (pledged by a large number of countries) is not unrealistic after all!

Looks like the Vogtle cost overruns may not end up killing off the prospects for new large reactors in the US. The Biden admin, as well as some utilities, are looking into the option. Article link in reply. The administration is forming an expert group that will study how to prevent delays and cost overruns. One factor driving the renewed interest, IMO, is that power demand is now increasing significantly (due to AI and data centers, etc.). Power demand growth creates economic conditions more favorable for nuclear, perhaps for large reactors in particular (need for that amount of new generation is obviously helpful). One thing people may not be aware of is that the new Vogtle units ended up meeting new electricity demand in the region, as opposed to replacing coal generation. A bittersweet outcome for environmetally-conscious nuclear supporters, but it definintely increases the likelihood of additional AP1000s being built in the future.