Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire - Major Energy and Environmental News and Commentary affecting the Nuclear Industry. Nuclear Activities
Sunday, March 16, 2025
Saturday, March 15, 2025
Friday, March 14, 2025
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Tuesday, March 11, 2025
Monday, March 10, 2025
Sunday, March 9, 2025
US makes fresh push for World Bank to back nuclear power - Guest Post by Joseph Cotterill, Lee Haris
Subscribe to read
US makes fresh push for World Bank to back nuclear power
ft.com
/content/e5e497a3-0c61-46a2-9a50-91757e7f1a61
Joseph Cotterill, Lee Harris
March 9, 2025
New administration wants Washington-based multilateral lender to help the west compete with China and Russia
Lee Harris and Joseph Cotterill in London
The World Bank is facing renewed calls from its biggest shareholder to drop a decades-old ban on funding nuclear power to help the west compete with China and Russia in atomic diplomacy.
French Hill, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has signalled that the new US administration will continue to support the push to fund nuclear projects just months ahead of a crucial decision on the contentious ban.
Hill told the Financial Times last month that World Bank chief Ajay Banga had US backing to end the taboo, as the world’s biggest development fund moves closer to embracing nuclear energy in lending to emerging markets.
“We support both the export of this technology and a much more broad-based approach to financing it,” Hill said.
The World Bank has not financed nuclear power since the 1950s. But it could bring the technology back into the fold within months after a review of energy policies under Banga, people familiar with the matter said.
Banga, a former Mastercard chief executive, has led efforts in the bank to consider how it might factor in technologies that could make nuclear power cheaper, such as smaller modular reactors, people familiar with his thinking said.
Banga earlier this month again signalled his willingness to reconsider nuclear technology in an address to the European Commission. Germany and a handful of smaller European countries have traditionally led opposition to nuclear power as World Bank shareholders.
The US is especially keen for the topic to be revisited, underscoring alarm in Washington that Beijing and Moscow are winning a race to build a new generation of nuclear plants in Africa and Asia.
“I’m in constant discussions with other governments who are extremely interested in expanding nuclear, but they can’t get the attention of anyone in western countries,” Hill, a Republican representing Arkansas, said.
The World Bank is currently finalising a new energy strategy that “is tasked with exploring nuclear as part of a practical, reliable energy mix”, alongside investments in renewables and natural gas, a senior official said. The bank still needs to determine how projects would be affordable for countries, they added. The review is expected to conclude in the next few months.
US scrutiny of the World Bank’s nuclear policy comes as the Trump administration is in the midst of reviewing ties to international financial institutions, a process that is due to report back by August.
Project 2025, a right-wing manifesto that has shaped the administration’s thinking, labelled multilateral organisations, including the World Bank, “inimical to American free market and limited government principles”.
However, Donald Trump also created the Development Finance Corporation during his first term, displaying an openness to institutions geared towards advancing US national security goals.
Hill tabled a bill last month for the US to lobby the bank to drop the ban.
The bill is “a signal that lifting the nuclear ban is a top priority, something the US would like to see happen,” said Todd Moss, director of Energy for Growth Hub, a think-tank which has called for the bank to build up technical capacity on nuclear power.
“They want to make sure American nuclear firms are not slowed down by an outdated policy at the most important international financial institution,” Moss said.
The World Bank approved its first — and last — loan for nuclear power in 1959, helping to fund Italy’s first atomic plant. It explicitly excludes nuclear technology from current lending policy, having previously argued that nuclear safety and proliferation risks are not its area of expertise.
An exclusion of nuclear power by the bank’s International Finance Corporation private sector lending arm, in particular, has been followed by many other development lenders in their own policies.
China’s state development banks have, meanwhile, overshadowed the World Bank in financing energy projects across multiple power sources over the past decade.
Most of the sixty or so new nuclear reactors currently being built are in China and other countries in Asia, compared to an existing worldwide fleet of more than 400 reactors.
Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear monopoly, has also pursued agreements with Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and other countries to finance nuclear plants.
Some US firms have won business in the global revival of nuclear power, such as a deal by Westinghouse to help build Poland’s first plant. But official US financing for projects has been scarce.
While historically controversial, support for nuclear power has recently gained momentum in Washington.
Last summer, then president Joe Biden signed legislation directing the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to streamline permitting for new nuclear reactors and speed the process for converting retiring coal plants to nuclear power facilities.
The 2025 legislation introduced by Hill and Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, would go further still — mandating US support for a trust fund to pool resources for nuclear projects across the World Bank and other international financial bodies.
Western democracies should offer competitive bids and cheap financing for nuclear energy projects in countries — ideally with American components and help from the US export credit agency ExIm Bank, Hill told the FT.
All rights reserved.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025.
Saturday, March 8, 2025
Friday, March 7, 2025
[SocialMedia] SCI AMER - Killing a Nuclear Watchdog’s Independence Threatens Disaster -
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - (live links are in the original at the cited URL below. No firewall.)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/killing-a-nuclear-watchdogs-independence-threatens-disaster/
March 6, 2025
A Trump administration plan would end the independence of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where similar oversight muzzling has led to nuclear disasters overseas
By Katy Huff, Paul Wilson & Michael Corradini edited by Dan Vergano
A Trump administration executive order is setting the U.S. on the fastest path to a nuclear accident.
Announced on February 18, the “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies” executive order aims to bring independent regulatory agencies under the “supervision and control” of the president. Among them, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the watchdog that Americans rely on to hold nuclear energy companies accountable for avoiding reactor accidents and releases of radioactive material into the environment.
By demanding that the NRC cease to issue regulations and guidance without written permission from the president or the attorney general, the order effectively demands that nuclear safety take a back seat to politics.
As nuclear engineers, as well as former government and industry officials, we foresee that this proposed regulatory capture by the Executive Office of the President—where decisions are made for political reasons and not for the benefit of people served—will severely increase the risk of expensive, unexpected nuclear accidents in the U.S.
This is neither hypothetical nor hyperbole.
History provides too much frightening evidence to ignore. When Soviet leadership and its captured regulator prioritized national pride over safety, a known flaw in nuclear reactor control rods (which slow the rate of atomic fission in a reactor) went unchecked, safety protocols at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant went unheeded, and in 1986 the worst nuclear power accident in history resulted.
So too when “regulation was entrusted to the same government bureaucracy responsible for its promotion,” the operators of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant failed to deploy countermeasures demanded by known seismic risks; they failed to plan appropriately for evacuation; and in 2011, they failed to avoid the second worst nuclear power accident in human history.
In 1974 Congress recognized the importance of independent nuclear oversight, reorganizing the Atomic Energy Commission into two distinct agencies: the Department of Energy, responsible for research, development and promotion of nuclear energy; and the NRC, to regulate and oversee the then-booming nuclear energy industry. Five NRC commissioners, each appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, work together to “formulate policies and regulations governing nuclear reactor and materials safety, issue orders to licensees, and adjudicate legal matters brought before [them].” The president has the authority to designate one of these commissioners as the chair, acting as the chief executive officer of the agency.
International consensus is clear about what works and what doesn’t in nuclear safety regulation. Most fundamentally, the regulator’s ability to ensure safe nuclear power operation requires independence, especially from entities with a conflict of interest. The International Atomic Energy Agency, humanity’s foremost authority on nuclear energy safety and security, is clear that governments must ensure that the regulatory body is not influenced by “entities having responsibilities or interests that could unduly influence its decision making.” Failure to maintain regulatory independence from commercial, political and ideological influence is not accountability. It is instead regulatory capture.
Both President Trump and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, by virtue of their offices, have responsibilities and interests that demand efforts to expand nuclear power. The country’s continued prosperity relies heavily on secure access to reliable energy, and nuclear energy has a unique role in meeting our energy demands. Nuclear energy is one of the nine pillars of Wright’s secretarial order calling for action to “unleash American Energy.” In a recent CNBC interview, when describing his optimism for growth in nuclear energy, Wright recently declared, “Do we need some government out of the way to make it work economically? Absolutely, but that’s what America is about.”
That’s true only if industrial accidents are also what America is about. In reality an independent regulator plays a fundamental role in generating public confidence in the safe and secure deployment of nuclear technology. While discussions about the effectiveness of the agency are appropriate, such discussions never question the importance of its continued independence. Even for officials in the Office of Nuclear Energy at DOE, the independence of the NRC is a red line no one would ever consider crossing, precisely because DOE’s role involves the enthusiastic promotion of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy relies on precision technology and an unwavering dedication to safety, so regulating it is a serious technical undertaking meant to shield us from unwanted radiological consequences. The U.S. has historically been a global leader in nuclear regulatory practices and principles that uphold the highest standards of safety globally. A critical component of their operation is independence from conflicting motives. Nuclear safety is too important to undermine through uninformed political actions. Regulatory capture by industry, politics or the whims of an individual is not merely dangerous—it is the primary cause of the two worst nuclear reactor accidents the world has known. We cannot allow this to occur in the U.S.
The NRC must remain independent to provide the public confidence in the safe implementation of this important technology.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Thursday, March 6, 2025
Wednesday, March 5, 2025
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
Monday, March 3, 2025
Sunday, March 2, 2025
Saturday, March 1, 2025
Friday, February 28, 2025
Thursday, February 27, 2025
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
Monday, February 24, 2025
Sunday, February 23, 2025
Saturday, February 22, 2025
Friday, February 21, 2025
Thursday, February 20, 2025
Wednesday, February 19, 2025
What would happen if a Russian nuke detonated over your city | Responsible Statecraft
What would happen if a Russian nuke detonated over your city | Responsible Statecraft
Not for the faint hearted, Ted Postol describes the effects of a single 800-kiloton nuclear detonation at a height of about one mile above an American city:
At ranges yet nearer to the detonation, heating effects will be so intense, that human flesh would burn explosively into carbon, and asphalt on the streets would melt and, in some cases, vaporize.
At that point, the resulting fires over an area of between 100 and 150 square miles on Earth would efficiently heat large volumes of air near and above the ground. The energy released by this mass fire would be 15 to 50 times greater than the energy produced by the nuclear detonation. The rising hot air would reach wind speeds of 300 miles per hour and be so intense they would knock airplanes above the fire zone from the sky.
This “chimney effect” would pull cool air from outside the fire zone towards the center of the fire at speeds of hundreds of miles per hour. These superheated ground-winds of more than hurricane force would further intensify the fire....
[SocialMedia] FInancial Times - UK - Round up of fund raising by SMR firms - Guest Post
FINANCIAL TIMES, London, UK
Https://www.ft.com/content/2d84198e-7eeb-4154-bbf2-9a469b0cc700
[firewall]
Big Tech’s AI ambitions deliver funding boost to nuclear reactor race
Developers of advanced microreactors have raised at least $1.5bn over the past year as demand soars
Oklo is one of three SMR developers listed in New York which have raised more than $700mn in the past year
Jamie Smyth in New York
Developers of small modular nuclear reactors have raised at least $1.5bn in funding over the past year, tapping into a surge of investor interest linked to power supply deals agreed with Big Tech.
They have also secured pledges of billions of dollars of support from governments, amid a global race to launch new technologies considered critical to powering the artificial intelligence revolution.
The largest fundraising of $700mn was closed this month by X-energy, a US developer that added Jane Street and other institutional investors to a register that included technology giant Amazon, Ken Griffin, founder and chief executive of Citadel and chemical company Dow.
Paris-based developer Newcleo raised $151mn in September and US-based developers Blue Energy and Last Energy raised $45mn and $40mn respectively last year. Nano Nuclear Energy, a developer of microreactors which listed in May, raised $134mn capital in 2024.
Three SMR developers listed in New York, Oklo, NuScale and Nano Nuclear, raised more than $700mn through share sales and other financing mechanisms over the past 12 months, according to a Financial Times analysis of public records and data from PitchBook and BloombergNEF.
Westinghouse, Rolls-Royce, Holtec International, GE Hitachi and Bill Gates’ TerraPower are also among a host of companies investing in about 60 SMR projects globally, according to World Nuclear Association data.
Amazon’s purchase of a stake in X-energy and Google’s signature of a power supply deal with SMR developer Kairos Power, which both occurred in October, have shaken up a funding market that soured in 2023 due to high interest rates and inflation.
Improving investor sentiment has fuelled a surge in the share prices of Oklo and NuScale, which have seen their combined market capitalisation jump by almost $8bn following the deals. It has encouraged some early stage venture capital, providing more options for SMR developers.
Core Power, a UK-based company which designs reactors for the shipping industry, told the Financial Times it is close to finalising a $500mn fundraising round from strategic investors. Holtec International, one of four shortlisted bidders in a UK government competition for SMR developers, said it is exploring funding options.
“There has been a dramatic change in the capital markets for companies like ours,” said Clay Sell, chief executive of X-energy, adding the recent deals demonstrated how the technology industry now fully appreciates the role nuclear will play in providing reliable, clean power.
Surging power demand in the US caused, in part, by the rollout of AI data centres is causing the technology sector to underwrite part of the capital costs of deploying nuclear energy.
Last year Microsoft signed a 20-year power deal with Constellation Energy to reopen the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, citing its value as a source of emissions-free energy that would not dent climate targets.
But there are only a handful of nuclear plants that can be restarted in the US and building standard-sized reactors is considered risky due to a recent history of lengthy delays and cost overruns.
Instead, the technology industry is focusing on SMRs, which are new types of advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of 300MW of less, or about a third of the size of standard facilities.
Oklo, which is chaired by Open AI’s Sam Altman, signed a non-binding agreement with Switch Inc, a large privately held data centre operator, to build reactors with a total capacity of up to 12 gigawatts — enough in total to power all 7.6mn households in New York state.
Meta is evaluating proposals from SMR developers for a tender to supply up to 4 gigawatts of capacity to support its data centre roll out in the early 2030s.
But analysts warn developers still face technical, regulatory and even funding risks despite the improved sentiment.
NuScale is the only SMR developer with a design approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
TerraPower filed its construction permit application to the NRC last year and has begun preparatory construction work on a site in Wyoming but most companies have not started the process.
Developers want technology companies to finalise the dozens of non-binding memorandums of understanding they have signed to provide them with financial certainty.
“To see more SMR projects announced and move forward we need to see binding agreements, rather than MOUs,” said Marc Bianchi, analyst at TD Cowen, an investment bank.
Government funding is critically important for developers due to the risks associated with a first-of-a kind technology and a history of delays and budget overruns that have blighted nuclear projects, say investors.
“We have to have federal dollars. I just can’t underscore that enough,” Google’s head of energy market development, Caroline Golin, told a Nuclear Energy Institute conference in New York last week.
In the US, the Biden administration kick-started the industry by pledging billions of dollars in grants to X-energy, TerraPower and other developers. It also offered production tax credits of up to 50 per cent to support the deployment of SMRs in the inflation reduction act.
President Trump wants to repeal the IRA and has frozen billions of dollars of loans to the clean energy sector, prompting industry concerns over funding.
But the new secretary at the Department of Energy, Chris Wright, sat on the board of Oklo until his confirmation and the Republican party are strong supporters of nuclear energy, providing executives with hope that Washington’s support remains firm.
“We remain confident,” said Sell from X-energy. “The president has talked extensively about the role nuclear should play in this energy dominance strategy, which we strongly support.”
Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Monday, February 17, 2025
Sunday, February 16, 2025
Saturday, February 15, 2025
Friday, February 14, 2025
Thursday, February 13, 2025
Wednesday, February 12, 2025
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Monday, February 10, 2025
Sunday, February 9, 2025
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)