A nuclear summer

This summer has seen nuclear power facing some big climate problems. Six of the seventeen reactors that have been out of service due to the heat wave in Europe are on the Danube – four in Hungary two in Romania. The river levels began to fall. In France, EDF temporarily shut down units on the banks of the Rhône, Meuse & Garonne rivers, to comply with regulations on the release of cooling water. Eight other reactors operated at reduced capacity. In all 6.4GW was lost in France, with jelly fish adding to the problem. 

To add to EDFs ongoing cash issues, the almost new Flamanville 3 EPR is now to shut for a year for a refit of the reactor containment vessel- a new lid has to be installed. None of this make nuclear look very robust- or economic. No wonder then that Greenpeace Spain says it would be cheaper to shut the Almaraz n-plant than to continue its operation, although it’s been allowed to run to 2030.

However, it’s not all bad news for nuclear. On the political front, there has been a successful  pro-nuclear push in Ireland, and in Italy and Denmark too. There are also some pro-nuclear lobby pressures still in Germany, while Japan has a partial nuclear restart - although there are big issues with it e.g. on wastes. Meanwhile Russia is still a major nuclear purveyor around the world, even if in reality there can be problems. China and India remain pro-nuclear too-although they are also pro-renewables, spectacularly in the case of China.  

On the technology project front, within the EU, EDF and Westinghouse have been awarded contracts by the Nuclear Energy Organisation of the Netherlands, the state-owned company established for the construction and operation of two new large nuclear power plants, to carry out design studies for the plants. And it is claimed that Sweden is to buy in Rolls Royce SMRs, when ready. The UK is also has also designed a novel micro nuclear air turbine unit, which some see as promising.  And a Polish billionaire has announced plans to fund 14 SMRs in the UK.  

Small Modular Reactors are the much-hyped new thing, but they are still mostly at the development stage. Few expect any to be commercially available before the mid 2030s, if then. Indeed, it’s all very speculative, with the Financial Times reporting that three pioneering US SMR development projects, NuScale Power, Nano Nuclear and Oklo, have together lost $30.3bn in market value since their 2025 peak, with short sellers, who bet against their success, reaping $2bn in profit as modular nuclear reactor stocks tumbled, with SMR enthusiasm running into costs, delays and a lack of revenue.  Economic reality may be catching up. It looks like it might be the same in the EU, with the Doicești SMR project, a flagship initiative intended to position Romania as the first country in the European Union to deploy SMR nuclear technology, being in trouble, with delays and rising costs. 

It’s perhaps also worth noting that, according to the OECD NEA, over half of the SMR designs currently being considered around the world need HALEU fuel - enriched to concentrations of 5-20% of uranium 235. Some of the others use plutonium and fast neutron reactions. So there are all sorts of proliferation and security issues, as well as safety concerns. For example, like all reactors, SMRs will still generate dangerous long-lived fission product wastes. Arguably, they are not good neighbours.

However, none of this seems to matter to Trump, who seems keen to push ahead with SMRs and nuclear generally. The US government has launched a $17.5 loans scheme to help kick- start expansion. Though not everyone thinks it will work.   The new nuclear programme has already had problems with the attempt to restart the old Palisade reactor in Michigan. The Trump administration has tried to help move things on by changing the regulatory framework, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s radiation safety/exposure rules. One outcome may be that SMR deployed might be speeded up. There has also been a recent  court case which ruled that the NRC no longer has to factor in climate issues in it licensing decisions.

Not all of this has gone un-opposed by activists  or by academics. It does seem to make little sense, given the urgency of the climate crisis, to back a costly, slow to deploy and risky technology, given also that there are arguably many better alternatives, including renewables, energy storage, smart grids and flexible power management systems.  But the nuclear band-waggon still rolls on regardless, with the latest push being to allow the Saudi’s to enrich uranium. Just as in the case of Iran, it’s arguably a very a dangerous idea, given the volatile Middle East context, and has been opposed.  Just as it evidently was once, unsuccessfully it seems, in the case of Israel. A big contentious issue still. But with ideas like this floating around, the world seems even more unsafe…and that’s quite apart from the situation in Ukraine, where there are continued worrying threats to nuclear plant integrity.  

The summer is nearly over (in the North). Will it get any better in the winter? I hope so,  but with ugly and bitter wars continuing and nuclear being pushed hard, I’m not very confident that sensible messages will be heard.  Are we too far gone to change? We used to dump nuclear waste in drums in the sea. That was stopped (by eco-activists and the seafarers union) and now seems unthinkable. Though the drums are still there, rusting away on the seabed- out of sight, out of mind.  While some of us see the whole nuclear enterprise as similarly misbegotten, it’s still rolling on.…

However, that is still not how many people see it. For a sample of opposing views, see Nature’s recent special nuclear power ‘portfolio’ feature and commentary, produced, it is noted, with financial support from US nuclear developer Oklo. ‘Nature portfolio’ is, it seems, an ‘editorially independent’ but commercial advertiser-orientated promotion operation. Make of that what you will.