It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Thursday, December 25, 2025
SOMETIMES WE'RE THE BAD GUYS
Taiwan launches WTO complaint over Canadian steel tariffs
Rolled coils of steel sit in the yard at Algoma Steel Inc., the second largest steel producer in Canada, in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., Friday, July 25, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nick Iwanyshyn (Nick Iwanyshyn/The Canadian Press)
Geneva, Switzerland -- Taiwan has launched a complaint with the World Trade Organization over Canadian tariffs slapped on imports of steel goods, the global trade body said Thursday.
WTO said that Taiwan, which is known as Chinese Taipei within the organisation, had requested that it initiate “dispute consultations with Canada”, charging it was breaching international trade rules.
The complaint, it said, regarded “Canadian measures imposing tariff rate quotas (TRQs) and surtax on imports of certain steel goods and a global duty on imports of certain steel derivative goods”.
The request was filed on Monday, but was only circulated to WTO members on Thursday.
In the request, Taiwan charged that a string of measures announced since June, including a 50-percent surtax on imports of certain steel goods and a global 25-percent tariff on certain steel-derivative products, appeared “to be inconsistent with Canada’s obligations under several WTO provisions”.
WTO consultations give the parties an opportunity to discuss the matter and to find a satisfactory solution without proceeding further with litigation.
After 60 days, if consultations have failed to resolve the dispute, the complainant may request adjudication by a panel.
U.S. lumber dependence gives Canada trade advantage
Canada is in a unique position to leverage America’s need for lumber as officials review the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in the New Year, according to a trade expert.
“The good news is they need our wood. We think that there’s an ability to make a deal at some point,” Daryl Swetlishoff, head of research at Raymond James Ltd. told BNN Bloomberg in an interview.
Softwood lumber tariffs now reached a combined 45 per cent after the U.S. added a 10 per cent tax to existing anti-dumping and countervailing duties. CUSMA ensures a large portion of goods remain tariff-free, however softwood lumber is specifically excluded from these protections.
While the U.S. relies on Canadian supply, Swetlishoff said Canada relies on the U.S. as its primary customer. He said the sheer volume of Canadian production makes diversification to markets in Europe or Asia difficult.
“We have a very efficient large industry and the reality is the U.S. will be the home for the lion’s share of our market for the foreseeable future,” said Swetlishoff.
The U.S. could open state-owned forests in Washington, Oregon and Idaho but it does not have enough capacity to mill, process and ship new timber, according to the Government of British Columbia.
“You’re seeing cash losses throughout the U.S. south, and we’re going to see curtailments manifest itself in that region as well,” said Swetlishoff.
He said valuations for lumber companies are near all-time lows, which makes some stocks attractive. He recommends companies like Canfor, Doman, and Stella Jones because of their strong balance sheets, good margins, and potential growth through acquisitions.
“The bad macro makes their targets quite attractive, and we see them all growing their top and bottom line through mergers and acquisitions over the next 12 to 18 months,” said Swetlishoff.
Help is on the way
Canada announced the Green Construction through Wood (GCWood) program to invest over $9 million in projects to accelerate the adoption of innovative Canadian wood products such as mass timber.
The federal government previously announced a $1.2 billion to assist struggling softwood lumber companies. This includes a $500-million increase from the Softwood Lumber Guarantee Program, which provides businesses with essential access to government-backed loans.
With files from The Canadian Press Joshua Santos Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca
CUSMA/USMCA/NAFTA 2.0
A tariff exemption was Canada’s salvation in 2025. It’s ‘absolutely’ at risk in 2026
A sign for Duty Free at the Canada/U.S. border crossing in Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, Que., Thursday, April 10, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes (Graham Hughes)
OTTAWA — U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff campaign appeared to move at a breakneck pace towards Canada’s economy this year.
But beyond threats of double-digit tariff rates and sharp pain in manufacturing-heavy industries, a key exemption has allowed the majority Canadian goods to continue to cross the southern border duty-free.
Experts who spoke to The Canadian Press warned this saving grace for the economy is at risk in 2026 as North American trade officials prepare for a review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, or CUSMA.
“It would be a worst-case scenario of the (CUSMA) deal basically being eliminated or not renewed,” said Tony Stillo, director of Canada economics at Oxford Economics.
“And that would put the full weight of the current tariffs — without compliance or exemptions or carve-outs — on the economy.”
Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration levied waves of tariffs on different goods using various mechanisms and justifications.
In addition to steep sectoral specific tariffs on key industries like steel, aluminum and softwood lumber, the current blanket tariff on Canadian goods heading to the United States stands at 35 per cent.
But the vast majority of Canadian businesses exporting to the United States are not paying that tariff rate. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed 90 per cent of Canadian goods entered the States tariff-free as of July.
That’s because goods that are compliant with CUSMA are exempt from those blanket tariffs from the United States.
William Pellerin, international trade lawyer at McMillian LLP, said CUSMA compliance can be a straightforward or a “very, very complicated process.”
In essence, businesses can demonstrate their compliance with the trade pact by proving their product — a screwdriver, a sweater, a cabinet — was substantially made in Canada.
Pellerin said the idea of tariffs between North American trading partners runs counter to the agreement itself, but allowing for the CUSMA exemption is a workaround of sorts for the Trump administration.
Currently, only the 35 per cent blanket tariffs — not sectoral-specific tariffs on the steel or aluminum industries, for example — are eligible for the CUSMA exemption.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has held up the CUSMA exemption as one of the factors giving Canada, as he has called it, “the best trade deal of any country with the U.S.”
Factoring in the CUSMA exemption and ongoing tariffs on hard-hit industries, the Bank of Canada said in its updated October forecasts that it pegs the effective or average U.S. tariff rate on Canada at 5.9 per cent, up from near-zero at the start of the year.
“U.S. trade policy remains unpredictable, and tariffs could increase or broaden in the near term. The upcoming review of CUSMA is also an ongoing uncertainty,” the central bank’s third-quarter monetary policy report read.
Oxford Economics pegs the average tariff rate a little higher at 6.3 per cent, Stillo said.
Earlier in 2025, the firm was forecasting a sharp recession would hit Canada in the wake of tariff disruption. But Stillo said the CUSMA exemption and Ottawa ending the bulk of its counter-tariffs in September pulled the economy out of quicksand.
If the CUSMA exemption were to end, Stillo said Canada’s economy would face “longer-term scarring.”
“The size of the economy would be lower for several years, probably permanently,” he said.
Pellerin said the 2026 CUSMA review is meant to be just that — a review, not a renegotiation. It’s intended to be a chance for the parties to rectify a few issues with the agreement, but the Trump administration has signalled a willingness to walk away from the agreement if the U.S. doesn’t secure certain concessions from Canada and Mexico.
Pellerin said with ongoing tariffs already running against the spirit of the agreement, the CUSMA exemption itself “absolutely could be at risk” in talks next year.
“I view that very much as a nuclear option,” he said.
Pellerin said he expects some form of permanent tariffs are “possible if not likely” at the end of the 2026 review, possibly in the form of side letters between Canada and the U.S.
Carney said last week he doesn’t expect to secure any separate deals on sectoral tariffs in the near future, believing those talks will run up against the CUSMA review process.
Stillo, too, said Oxford Economics’ baseline forecast for 2026 calls for a renegotiation that leaves lower but ongoing U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and agricultural industries in Canada.
Both Stillo and Pellerin said the Trump administration appears to be wising up to the pain tariffs are inflicting on U.S. industry and consumers. In November, the United States rolled back tariffs on coffee, beef and other consumer staples facing sharp inflation in recent months.
“These negative implications of the higher tariffs are starting to hit home and maybe they’re starting to soften their view on tariffs as a blunt instrument for their industrial strategy,” Stillo said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 22, 2025.
Craig Lord, The Canadian Press
Carney says sectoral tariff talks likely folding into CUSMA review as U.S. makes new trade demands
Prime Minister Mark Carney says if U.S. President Donald Trump wanted to sit down as soon as this weekend to “hammer out” sectoral deals to ease tariffs hitting certain industries, Canada is “ready,” while conceding the chances of short-term relief for steel, aluminum and lumber sectors is unlikely.
Carney said that, given trade talks remain terminated, the federal government anticipates those negotiations will roll in to the broader Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) review process kicking off in 2026.
A statement Thursday from the Prime Minister’s Office said Dominic LeBlanc, the minister responsible for Canada-U.S. trade, will meet with U.S. counterparts in mid-January to launch formal discussions.
Trump called off negotiations after the Ontario government ran an anti-tariff ad in the U.S. in the fall.
“We’re less likely, we’re unlikely, given the time horizons coming together, to have a sectoral agreement,” Carney told reporters on Thursday, speaking alongside Ontario Premier Doug Ford on Parliament Hill where the two leaders signed a new federal-provincial co-operation accord.
“Although, if the United States wants to come back on that in those areas, we’re always ready,” Carney said
.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford, left, and Prime Minister Mark Carney take part in a signing ceremony on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2025. They are joined by Ontario Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Todd McCarthy, back left, and Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons Steven MacKinnon, back right. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Pressed on whether this means sectoral deals are off the table, the prime minister said, while he remains “busy” building up the domestic economy in the meantime, agreements are still possible from Canada’s perspective.
“If the U.S. wanted to sit down this weekend, we could sit down this weekend and hammer out sectoral deals. I’m confident of that from our side,” Carney said. “But there is now a process the U.S. is doing consultations for what they call USMCA, we call CUSMA. They’ll finish those, and then that will roll into this review process.”
Worried about CUSMA concessions?
That CUMSA review is shaping up to be another round of tough talks, with U.S. officials signalling Canada will need to make concessions.
On Wednesday, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Jamieson Greer – speaking to Congress about the administration’s strategy for approaching the six-year joint review – said that while CUSMA has delivered benefits, Washington is not prepared to automatically extend it without addressing “specific” issues.
“(CUSMA) has been successful to a certain degree,” he said, citing the certainty for North American trade it has provided, according to a document shared after Greer’s closed-door meeting. Though he also said the deal’s gains do not outweigh what he described as “structural shortcomings.”
“USTR will keep the President’s options open, negotiating firmly to resolve the issues identified, but only recommending renewal if resolution can be achieved,” Greer’s prepared remarks state.
Asked about the Americans’ wish list of sorts on Thursday, the prime minister wouldn’t say whether he feels more or less discouraged about the upcoming talks based on what the U.S. intends to put on the table.
“We will always pursue an agreement that is in the interest of Canadian workers, Canadian families, and we’ll only sign an agreement that’s consistent with that,” Carney said. He also committed to working with any province or territory that may be affected by potential adjustments to the trilateral deal.
Stating that there are “many” examples of where working together makes all three countries’ economies stronger, “we need a structure that aligns the incentives across both sides of the border, particularly on the American side, that will provide consistency of that market access.”
USTR cites dairy, streaming, booze bans
Indicating there will be both bilateral and trilateral negotiations to try and iron out respective issues with Mexico and Canada, Greer said the U.S. will specifically be pushing this country to expand access to its supply managed dairy market.
While Canada allows a limited amount of U.S. dairy to enter tariff-free under CUSMA, Greer told U.S. lawmakers that Canadian policies “unfairly restrict market access” for American products.
Greer also cited Canada’s Online Streaming Act – which he said “discriminates against U.S. tech and media firms,” and the Online News Act, as irritants. Both Trudeau-era laws bring streaming and digital news platforms under Canadian cultural and broadcasting rules.
Another area irking the Americans, according to Greer, is Canadian provinces’ bans on U.S. alcohol products.
A half-empty shelf of American whiskey is pictured at the 100 Queens Quay East LCBO in Toronto on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Laura Proctor (Laura Proctor)
Weighing in on that aspect on Thursday, premier Ford said Ontario wineries and distillers are having “a record year” and should the two countries reach a deal that works for both countries, he’d be “more than happy” to resume stocking Kentucky bourbon.
“But until then, we’re going to hold off,” Ford said. “Full confidence in the prime minister and his negotiating with President Trump.”
Trump’s trade chief also flagged “discriminatory” procurement rules in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, “complicated customs registration” for Canadian recipients of U.S. exports, and Alberta’s “unfair treatment of electrical power distribution providers in Montana.”
The prime minister called these issues “a subset… of a much bigger discussion,” and re-affirmed his government’s vow to protect Canada’s supply management system.
Later Thursday, Carney held a First Ministers meeting. With international trade, including with the U.S. but also other countries on the agenda, it was expected that Greer’s cross-Canada list of irritants would also be raised. A senior government source told CTV News after the conversation concluded that the focus was almost entirely on CUSMA and Canada’s broader trade agenda. With files from CTV News’ Tammy Ibrahimpoor and Abigail Bimma Rachel Aiello National Correspondent, CTV News
U.S. lists demands Canada must meet to extend CUSMA
U.S. trade officials are suggesting that Canada will have to address specific and structural issues if Washington is to extend the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement.
U.S. trade officials are signalling that Canada will need to make policy changes if it wants long-term certainty under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), as the trade deal comes up for mandatory review next year.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told members of U.S. Congress Wednesday that, while the trade deal has delivered benefits for American exporters, Washington is not prepared to automatically extend it for another 16 years without addressing “specific and structural issues.”Will Trump keep CUSMA trade deal? What LeBlanc thinks
“(CUSMA) has been successful to a certain degree,” he said, according to a document shared after Greer’s closed-door meeting, adding the gains do not outweigh what he described as “structural shortcomings.”
The United States is calling on Canada to expand access to its dairy market and address concerns about exports of certain industry products.
A settlement panel has rejected complaints from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office over how Canada is allocating its dairy import quotas. (Ryan Remiorz/THE CANADIAN PRESS FILES)
While Canada allows a limited amount of U.S. dairy to enter tariff-free under CUSMA, Greer told U.S. lawmakers that Canadian policies “unfairly restrict market access” for American products.
Greer also addressed Canada’s Online Streaming Act and Online News Act, which bring both streaming and news platforms under Canadian cultural and broadcasting rules.
“Canada insists on maintaining its Online Streaming Act, a law that discriminates against U.S. tech and media firms, as well as a number of other measures that restrict digital services trade,” Greer said.
Other Canadian measures flagged by Greer include provincial bans on U.S. alcohol products, procurement rules in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, and what he describes as “complicated customs registration for Canadian recipients of U.S. exports.”
Bottles of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey, line the shelves of a liquor outlet in Montpelier, Vt., in this Dec. 5, 2011 file photo. (AP Photo/Toby Talbot)
Greer also pointed to a dispute involving what he called, “Alberta’s unfair treatment of electrical power distribution providers in Montana,” saying it must be addressed as part of the CUSMA review.
In March, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative listed Alberta’s non-profit electrical grid operator (AESO) as a trade barrier, claiming Montana-based electricity producers aren’t being afforded fair access to the Alberta market.
“For example, during times of surplus or transmission congestion, AESO favours electricity generated within Alberta over equally priced U.S. power flowing across the border,” the report said. “The AESO has also proposed additional fees and other restrictions on imported energy.”
Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf is sworn into cabinet, in Edmonton, Friday, June 9, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jason Franson.
Neudorf added that the report might have had something to do with Alberta having imported less energy from Montana over the past two years, while increasing electrical exports to the state.
The AESO’s 2024 Annual Market Statistics report still listed Montana as a net exporter of electricity to Alberta despite the reduced imports. It also says Alberta imported more power in 2024 from Montana than it did from British Columbia or Saskatchewan.
With files from The Canadian Press
Ford Motor’s latest EV losses explain why projects like Oakville stalled
Ford Motor Co.’s latest losses in its electric vehicle (EV) business shed light on why massive projects tied to Canada never moved forward, especially at the company’s flagship plant in Oakville, Ont.
The pullback shows how difficult it has been for automakers to justify large EV investments without strong demand and policy support, Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association explained to BNN Bloomberg.
“These companies are not charities, and they’re not state-owned enterprises like the Chinese,” said Volpe.
“They’ve got to make a profit to invest into new product, and they’ve got to make a product to be able to continue to produce vehicles.”
Oakville’s plan scrapped and delayed plans in Ingersoll and Windsor
The Ford plant in Oakville, Ont., was touted as Canada’s flagship EV hub.
Ford announced a $1.8 billion plan to turn its Oakville assembly plant into an electric vehicle manufacturing hub for its three-row electric SUVs in 2020.
But the project was scrapped last year and the facility pivoted toward a $3 billion conventional truck production.
The Oakville decision is not an isolated case.
General Motors ended production of its electric delivery vans in Ingersoll, Ont., two months ago, citing weak consumer demand.
Honda Canada postponed its plan to build a $15-billion EV supply chain in Alliston, Ont., while Stellantis delayed production of the electric Dodge Charger in Windsor. Both companies cited U.S. tariffs as a primary reason.
Speaking on Ford’s recent decision to scrap its electric pickup truck, Volpe said Ford’s EV strategy was built on expectations that the U.S. government would support EV adoption through subsidies for vehicle production, consumer purchases and charging infrastructure.
“When the Trump administration turned a full 180 on all three of those, they killed whatever short- to mid-term market potential there was for these vehicles,” said Volpe.
The slowdown has also weighed on Canada’s battery supply chain.
Unicore delayed construction of its EV battery plant in Kingston, Ont., citing a declining EV market.
But not all investments have stalled.
Volpe said Volkswagen’s battery plant in St. Thomas, Ont., remains central to supplying batteries for the automaker’s North American production. How weak U.S. demand affects Canada
Because Canadian auto plants largely produce vehicles for the U.S. market, weaker demand south of the border has a direct impact on investment decisions in Canada.
The auto manufacturing sector contributes more than $16 billion to Canadian GDP, and over 90 per cent of Canadian-made cars are exported to the U.S., according to the Canadian Vehicle’s Manufacturing Association. Canada has done a lot to push EVs: Volpe
Canada could not have done more than it already has to encourage EV sales, said Volpe.
It structured its EV subsidies by tying funding to actual production rather than upfront payments, which protected taxpayers.
“Those billions were dependent on production. Make the batteries, show us the production evidence, and then we’ll flow funds against that,” said Volpe.
“So when you see bad news, it’s terrible news for workers and suppliers, but it isn’t the same pain and punishment for taxpayers, because those billions have not flown.”
Canada paused its federal rebates for EVs in Canada after funding ran out earlier this year; however, U.S. President Donald Trump eliminated the up to US$7,500 tax credit in the U.S. this fall through his “Big Beautiful Bill.”The EV slowdown: Are Canadians losing interest? Hybrids are the right focus for Ford
Ford announced that it will be focusing on its hybrid cars as part of its broader business strategy. The company said it expects 50 per cent of its global volume to be hybrids, extended-range EVs, and fully electric vehicles by 2030.
Hybrids should be a strategic tool used by car companies as they learn more about the EV market, Garrett Nelson, Senior VP and equity analyst at CFRA, explained to BNN Bloomberg.
“Our take is it was always a little bit too early,” said Nelson.
“The good news for Ford is it has had a lot of success with its hybrid models,” he said, pointing to the Ford Maverick truck and the Ford F-150 Hybrid truck. Anam Khan Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca
STILL FRIENDS💓
Canadians poured $61 billion into U.S. securities in five months: StatCan
Canadian investors have looked over the border to grow their money amid a trade war with the United States.
New data from Statistics Canada says investors funneled a massive $61 billion in U.S. securities in the first half of 2025.
Securities include treasury bills, notes and bonds and are considered low risk as they are backed by the U.S. government’s financial health.
The report states investors poured $38.1 billion in U.S. equities and investment fund shares alongside $22.3 in U.S. corporate and government bonds from February to June.
Only $1.3 billion was invested in all other non-U.S. foreign securities combined with bond purchases offsetting divestments in money market instruments and equities.
The agency says over three-quarters of acquisitions occurred in February and March when Canadian households, businesses and government grappled with high levels of uncertainty over Canada’s economic relationship with the U.S.
Over three-quarters of these acquisitions occurred in February and March when Canadian households, businesses and governments were grappling with high levels of uncertainty over Canada’s economic relationship with the United States. (Statistics Canada)
Canadian investors continued to increase their holdings of U.S. assets, adding $31.9 billion in equities and investment fund shares, government and corporate bonds and money market instruments during July and August. Foreigners initially reduce exposure to Canadian securities, but demand returns
While Canadians were investing in U.S. portfolio assets, foreign investors were reducing their exposure to Canadian securities.
The agency says foreign acquisitions of Canadian securities declined steadily resulting in a net decrease of $22.4 billion from February to May.
Foreign investors however rekindled their demand for Canadian securities adding $31.9 billion in equities and investment fund shares, government and corporate bonds and money market instruments in the months of July and August.
Net purchases totalled $49.0 billion, more than offsetting the cumulative divestment of $22.4 billion in the first half of the year.
The acquisition of foreign securities by Canadian investors and the divestment in Canadian securities by foreign investors combined generated a net outflow of funds from the Canadian economy totalling $84.7 billion during the first half of 2025. Joshua Santos Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca
Plastic straws are pictured in North Vancouver, B.C.
THE CANADIAN PRESS Jonathan Hayward (JONATHAN HAYWARD)
OTTAWA — The federal government is suspending the planned export ban on single-use plastics due to tariffs and supply chain issues “creating significant pressure on the domestic economy.”
The government launched a 70-day consultation about not moving forward with the single-use plastic export ban on Saturday through the Canada Gazette.
The government says the progress on environmental benefit expected with the export ban is not proportional to the economic impact.
The plastic sector generated $35 billion in revenue shipping single use plastics in 2023, according the notice in the Gazette.
The posting notes that while many producers of single-use plastics have shifted toward making paper, fibre and compostable alternatives, a “significant number” of producers have not made the conversions.
The government says a majority of these operations are small businesses and stopping the export ban would minimize losses associated with shuttered production lines and stranded manufacturing assets.
Businesses that continue to produce single-use plastics will have to keep records for five years showing that products have or will be exported.
The domestic ban on single-use plastics such as grocery bags, straws, cutlery and ring carriers for cans remains in place.
The government notice in the Gazette says the effect on domestic plastic pollution is expected to be “negligible.”
On the international side, the Gazette posting says that single-use plastics are a global market and removing Canadian products means customers will find another supplier, so the government does not expect international plastic pollution to change as a result of a Canadian export ban.
The export ban had been scheduled to take effect Dec. 20.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 24, 2025.
Canadian Press Staff, The Canadian Press
Memo to Trump: Wind Power Is Freedom Power
The decision to halt new wind projects should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who this administration actually cares about. Hint: It’s not you and me. In an aerial view, wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 7, 2022 near Block Island, Rhode Island. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
The truth is, wind power equals freedom power. Wind power means freedom from fossil fuels; freedom from extraction; freedom from pollution; freedom from billions of healthcare costs; freedom from dangerous jobs in coal, oil, and gas. Shutting down wind power projects equals shutting down all these freedoms. It equals shutting down your freedom and mine for the benefit of the freedom of a few fossil fuel billionaires and their wealth. The decision to halt these wind projects should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who this administration actually cares about. Hint: it’s not you and me.
To be sure, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. As this administration is eagerly checking off the to-do lists of its “Project 2025,” it has done everything in its power since January to destroy any shred of American climate leadership. None of us who have been working tirelessly for climate action over the past years are surprised by the wrath behind this destruction. It fits perfectly with the fact that the administration is in bed with a desperate industry fighting for survival. They are desperate, because for years now, renewable energies have become cheaper and cheaper. In fact, they are already far cheaper than fossil fuel projects. The only thing that should still surprise us is how many people they are still able to lull into their myths of climate denial, given the mountains of evidence that are literally growing by the minute. Nobody has to look very far from their home to see an extreme weather disaster that was made worse by global warming.
Our 250th birthday is just the right moment for the people to wake up and stare down the fossil fuel industry and their political lackeys in power.
By halting these wind projects, the administration is therefore not only engaging in what Bill McKibben calls “solutions denial” (in Here Comes the Sun. The Last Chance for the Climate and a Fresh Chance for Civilization, 2025), it is also adding to our costs, thereby further threatening yet another freedom that is already greatly in peril: the affordability of our basic needs. In fact, with costs totaling $101.4 billion associated with extreme weather events, the first half of 2025 was the costliest ever. And the job losses are piling up as well.
The fact that a growing number of Americans is concerned about climate change is likely another reason for the speed at which this administration is proceeding with its dismantling of climate protection. They know the sleeping giant, i.e., the American people, once fully awakened, will not view these actions kindly.
You can gaslight people and spread lies for a few more years, but there will come the time when people start paying attention to the increasingly urgent warnings by those who understand the science best. People will wake up and understand that they are indeed being harmed by the greedy fossil fuel companies that brought us air pollution and black lung disease, and made us pay for the consequences, and not by renewable energy powered by the sun that is shining for free and will never send a bill.
The United States is a country built on the fight for freedom. Renewable energies are freedom energies. What stands between us and our freedoms therefore poses the true security risk. Our 250th birthday is just the right moment for the people to wake up and stare down the fossil fuel industry and their political lackeys in power. Because if they are not giving us liberty, they are giving us death.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sabine von Mering is a 2023 public voices fellow on the climate crisis with The OpEd Project, in partnership with the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, a climate activist with 350MAss, and the director of the Center for German and European Studies at Brandeis University. Full Bio >
U.S. Offshore Wind Developers Stop Work and Explore Next Steps
Five U.S. offshore wind projects complying with offshore stop work orders while questioning the delays (Dominion Energy file photo)
From New England to the Mid-Atlantic regions, offshore wind developers reported they were complying with the government order to suspend offshore installation work while also expressing frustration. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management followed up the public announcement with a written notification to the developers of the five projects ordering them to stop their offshore work on the Outer Continental Shelf while the government conducts a review.
Several of the projects highlighted that they were just weeks away from beginning to deliver power under their respective power agreements. Ørsted said that its Revolution Wind project was expected to begin generating power in January, while Dominion Energy said its project was “within months” of generating power. Vineyard Wind 1 has already started delivering power as it was proceeding with its commissioning process.
Canary Media obtained a copy of the BOEM letter and reports that it says the Department of War and the Department of the Interior would be reviewing whether the risks posed by the projects can be mitigated. The companies confirmed the notice says it is a 90-day suspension, but that BOEM can extend it for additional 90-day intervals. In the past, the federal courts have been critical of the open-ended nature of the review ordered by Donald Trump in January 2025 and, in one case, set a timeline for BOEM to report back to the court on progress.
“Based on BOEM’s initial review of this classified information, the particularized harm posed by this project can only be feasibly averted by suspension of on-lease activities,” the letter asserts, according to Canary Media. “BOEM will consider all feasible mitigation measures before making a decision as to whether the project must be canceled.”
Each of the projects highlighted that they had gone through years of review. Ørsted specifically noted that Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind consulted closely and directly with the U.S. Department of Defense Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse to “evaluate and address potential impacts to national security and defense capabilities,” from the construction and operation of the two wind farms.
Equinor, which is developing Empire Wind, highlighted that it is complying with relevant national security-related requirements. It said it plans to continue to work with BOEM and other federal agencies to continue to implement all necessary mitigation for the project. Equinor also highlighted that it has extensive experience in the U.S. and around the world operating offshore energy infrastructure and working with military and civilian authorities to ensure compliance with national security requirements.
Dominion Energy responded by saying Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is “essential for American national security,” noting that Virginia is the home to major military installations as well as the largest warship manufacturer. It noted that Virginia’s demand for electricity is doubling, and the project is one key element in the plan to meet energy needs, which include AI operations and the largest concentration of data centers.
The Virginia project highlights that it is located 27 to 44 miles offshore and its review and approval involved close coordination with the military.
The impact of the Trump administration order, analysts noted, goes far beyond the projects themselves. They involve multiple subcontractors and have placed orders for shipbuilding, have contracts for support services, and have committed to investments in ports and manufacturing capabilities. Equinor highlights that Empire Wind has dozens of vessels and around 1,000 people who have been working in conjunction with the project.
Commentators noted that one commercial-scale offshore wind farm, South Fork Wind off New York, delivered its first power in 2023 and completed commissioning in July 2024. It, along with two smaller pilot projects, two wind turbines for Dominion operating for the past five years, and the Block Island Wind Farm, which has been operating since 2016, were not included in the order and continue normal operations.
The companies each said they would be engaging with BOEM and the other agencies to resolve the concerns. Ørsted said that in addition to engaging with the BOEM and the permitting agencies, it would evaluate potential legal proceedings.
U.S. Suspends Licenses for Five Under Construction Offshore Wind Farms
Several of the projected impacted by today's action are nearing completion (DEME file photo)
In its latest moves to stop the development of offshore wind energy projects, the Trump administration on Monday, December 22, announced it is suspending all the licenses for under-construction offshore wind farms. It impacts five projects, many of which are nearing completion, with a generating capacity for 5.8 GW of energy, and sent shock waves through the industry.
In a statement from the Department of the Interior, the administration says the pause is due to “national security risks identified by the Department of War in recently completed classified reports.” It said that the pause would give the Department of the Interior, Department of War, and other relevant agencies “time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.”
The non-profit Oceantic Network, which lobbies in support of the industry, quickly issued a statement calling the move “another veiled attempt to hide the fact that the President doesn’t like offshore wind.”
Trump, immediately after returning to the office, issued an Executive Order pausing the leasing and approvals and ordering a review of the industry. Since then, it has been reported that he directed all government agencies to work together to stop the development of wind farms, and the administration has gone to court to challenge the approvals of several projects. It also attempted to stop construction work on both the Empire Wind project in New York and Revolution Wind off the coast of Rhode Island.
The five projects impacted by today’s actions are Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind 1. Many of the projects are nearing completion, and in the case of Vineyard, are already generating power, or are due to begin delivering power in 2026.
“Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers,” said Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum.
According to the Department of the Interior, unclassified reports from the government have “long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference called ‘clutter.’ The clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.”
They continue by saying the Department of Energy in 2024 stated that a radar’s threshold for false alarm detection can be increased to reduce some clutter. They assert that those steps could cause radar to miss actual targets.
“The U.S. offshore wind industry has continuously worked with the Department of Defense to address national security concerns, and its own Clearinghouse has signed off on every offshore wind lease ahead of construction,” noted Liz Burdock, CEO of Oceantic Network. “This newest claim contradicts years of rigorous, interagency reviews, as these projects have already passed explicit clearances from the Department of Defense and the Pentagon before construction began.”
This action comes just two weeks after a U.S. District Court found that the presidential executive order suspending the industry was unlawful because it violates the Administrative Procedures Act that governs how agencies administer programs. In the opinion, the court wrote that the order was “arbitrary and capricious.” It was the result of a lawsuit filed by 17 states and the District of Columbia challenging the executive order. The order has been used as the basis for many of the actions to challenge projects in 2025.
Federal courts have permitted the administration to proceed with its review of the approval process for projects off the New England coast and Maryland. However, another district court issued an injunction when the administration issued a stop work order for the Revolution Wind project. The dispute, just as offshore work was due to start for the Empire Wind project, was settled with an agreement between the federal government and New York State.
Experts are predicting that today’s action will be quickly challenged in the courts.
The Trump family is now directly investing in atomic energy. Its money-losing Truth Social company has become a part owner of a major fusion nuclear power project.
Among much more, the investments mean the Trump family stands to profit directly from White House attacks on wind, solar and other cheap, clean renewable energies which for decades have been driving fusion, fission and fossil fuels toward economic oblivion.
“A Trump-sponsored business is once again betting on an industry that the president has championed, further entwining his personal fortunes in sectors that his administration is both supporting and overseeing,” reported an article on the front page of the business section of the New York Times last week. “This one is in the nuclear power sector. TAE Technologies, which is developing fusion energy, said on Thursday that it planned to merge with Trump Media & Technology Group. President Trump is the largest shareholder of the money-losing social media and crypto investment firm that bears his name, and he will remain a major investor in the combined company.”
The headline of the piece: “Trump’s Push Into Nuclear Is Raising Questions.”
The primary asks have to do with economic conflicts of interest, and public safety.
“The deal, should it be completed,” the article continued, “would put Mr. Trump in competition with other energy companies over which his administration holds financial and regulatory sway. Already, the president has sought to gut safety oversight of nuclear power plants and lower thresholds for human radiation exposure.”
CNN reported: “Nuclear fusion companies are regulated by the federal government and will likely need Uncle Sam’s deep research and even deeper pockets to become commercially viable. The merger needs to be approved by federal regulators—some of whom were nominated by Trump.”
CNN quoted Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, as saying: “There is a clear conflict of interest here. Every other president since the Civil War has divested from business interests that would conflict with official duties. President Trump has done the opposite.” Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“Having the president and his family have a large stake in a particular energy source is very problematic,” said Peter A. Bradford, who previously served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency meant to oversee the nuclear industry in the United States, in the Times article.
“The Trump administration has sought to accelerate nuclear power technology—including fusion, which remains unproven,” Bradford said. “That support has come in the form of federal loans and grants, as well as executive orders directing the NRC to review and approve applications more quickly.”
Still, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said in a statement that “neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest.” And the Times piece continued, “a spokeswoman for Trump Media” said the company was “scrupulously following all applicable rules and regulations, and any hypothetical speculation about ethics violations is wholly unsupported by the facts.”
It went on that “Trump’s stake in Trump Media, recently valued at $1.6 billion, is held in a trust managed by Donald Trump Jr., his eldest son. Trump Media is the parent company of Truth Social, the struggling social-media platform. The merger would set Trump Media in a new strategic direction, while giving TAE a stock market listing as it continues to develop its nuclear fusion technology.”
The Guardian quoted the CEO of Trump Media, Devin Nunes, the arch-conservative former member of the House of Representatives from California and close to Trump, who is currently chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, saying Trump Media has “built un-cancellable infrastructure to secure free expression online for Americans. And now we’re taking a big step forward toward a revolutionary technology that will cement America’s global energy dominance for generations.” Nunes is the would be co-CEO of the merged company.
A current member of the US House, Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement quoted in Politico that the deal raises “significant concerns” about conflicts of interest and avenues for potential corruption. “The President has consistently used both government powers and taxpayer money to benefit his own financial interests and those of his family and political allies. This merger will necessitate congressional oversight to ensure that the U.S. government and public funds are properly directed towards fusion research and development in ways that benefit the American people, as opposed to the Trump family and their corporate holdings.”
By federal law (the Price-Anderson Act of 1957) the US commercial atomic power industry has been shielded from liability in major accidents it might cause. The “Nuclear Clause” in every US homeowner’s insurance policy explicitly denies coverage for losses or damages caused, directly or indirectly, caused by a nuclear reactor accident.
As his company fuses with the atomic industry, Trump acquires a direct financial interest in gutting atomic oversight—which he has already been busy doing. In June Trump fired NRC Chairman Christopher T. Hanson. No other president has ever fired an NRC Commissioner.
. Earlier, more than 100 NRC staff were purged by Elon Musk’s DOGE operation. There has been a stream of Trump executive orders calling for a sharp reduction in radiation standards, expedited approval by the NRC of nuclear plant license applications, and a demand to quadruple nuke power in the United States—from the current 100 gigawatts to 400 gigawatts in 2050. Such a move would require huge federal subsidies and the virtual obliteration of safety regulations. Trump has essentially ordered the NRC to “rubber stamp” all requests from a nuclear industry in which he is now directly invested.
Trump’s Truth Social’s fusion ownership stake removes all doubt about any regulatory neutrality. No presently operating or proposed US atomic reactor can be considered certifiably safe.
Trump’s fusion investments are also bound to escalate Trump’s war against renewable energy and battery storage, the primary competitors facing the billionaire fossil/nuke army in which the Trump family is now formally enlisting. That membership blows to zero the credibility of any claim nuclear reactor backers might make that atomic energy can officially be considered safe.
The NRC has long served as a lapdog to the atomic power industry. The acronym NRC has often been said to stand for “No Real Chance” or “Nobody Really Cares.” The commission has been forever infamous for granting the industry whatever it might want, no matter the risk to public safety. It has employed some highly competent technical staff, lending some gravitas to the industry’s marginal claims to even a modicum of competence.
But the NRC is well known for trashing even its established staff. Most notable may be the case of Dr. Michael Peck, a long-standing site inspector at California’s Diablo Canyon twin-reactor nuclear power plant. In an extensive report, Peck warned that Diablo might be unable to withstand a likely earthquake. The NRC trashed his findings. Now he’s gone from the agency altogether. His warnings have been ignored at a reactor site surrounded by more than a dozen confirmed seismic faults.
The splitting of the atom, fission, is the way the atomic bomb and nuclear power plants up to now work. Fusion involves fusing light atoms. It’s how the hydrogen bomb works, and it comes with many extremely complex health, safety, economic and ecological demands.
In an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dr. Daniel Jassby, for 25 years principal research physicist at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab working on fusion energy research and development, concluded that fusion power “is something to be shunned.”
His piece was titled “Fusion reactor: Not what they’re cracked up to be.”
“Fusion reactors have long been touted as the ‘perfect’ energy source,” he wrote. And “humanity is moving much closer” to “achieving that breakthrough moment when the amount of energy coming out of a fusion reactor will sustainably exceed the amount going in, producing net energy.”
“As we move closer to our goal, however,” continued Jassby, “it is time to ask: Is fusion really a ‘perfect’ energy source? After having worked on nuclear fusion experiments for 25 years at the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, I began to look at the fusion enterprise more dispassionately in my retirement. I concluded that a fusion reactor would be far from perfect, and in some ways close to the opposite.”
“Unlike what happens” when fusion occurs on the sun, “which uses ordinary hydrogen at enormous density and temperature,” on Earth “fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless,” he said.
A key radioactive substance involved in the fusion process on Earth would be tritium, a radioactive variant of hydrogen. Thus, there would be “four regrettable problems”—“radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it,” wrote Jassby.
About nuclear weapons proliferation, “The open or clandestine production of plutonium 239 is possible in a fusion reactor simply by placing natural or depleted uranium oxide at any location where neutrons of any energy are flying about. The ocean of slowing-down neutrons that results from scattering of the streaming fusion neutrons on the reaction vessel permeates every nook and cranny of the reactor interior, including appendages to the reaction vessel.”
“In addition, there are the problems of coolant demands and poor water efficiency,” Jassby continues. “A fusion reactor is a thermal power plant that would place immense demands on water resources for the secondary cooling loop that generates steam, as well as for removing heat from other reactor subsystems such as cryogenic refrigerators and pumps….In fact, a fusion reactor would have the lowest water efficiency of any type of thermal power plant, whether fossil or nuclear. With drought conditions intensifying in sundry regions of the world, many countries could not physically sustain large fusion reactors.”
“And all of the above means that any fusion reactor will face outsized operating costs,” he wrote. “To sum up, fusion reactors face some unique problems: a lack of a natural fuel supply (tritium), and large and irreducible electrical energy drains….These impediments—together with the colossal capital outlay and several additional disadvantages shared with fission reactors—will make fusion reactors more demanding to construct and operate, or reach economic practicality, than any other type of electrical energy generator.”
“The harsh realities of fusion belie the claims of proponents like Trump of ‘unlimited, clean, safe and cheap energy.’ Terrestrial fusion energy is not the ideal energy source extolled by its boosters,” declared the scientist.
Of course, for Trump, whether it has to do with tariffs, health care, affordability, the democratic process…and on and on, reality is not a concern, especially when they involve public safety or legitimate profit.
Amidst his escalating attacks on renewable energy and atomic safety, the Trump family’s investments in nuclear fusion live under an ominous cloud that threatens us all.
Harvey Wasserman wrote the books Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and The Peoples Spiral of US History. He helped coin the phrase “No Nukes.” He co-convenes the Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition at www.electionprotection2024.org Karl Grossman is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and Power Crazy. He the host of the nationally-aired TV program Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman (www.envirovideo.com)
An agreement between Ontario Power Generation and the New York Power Authority establishes a framework for collaboration on the development of advanced nuclear energy technologies, while the leaders of New York and Ontario have signed a declaration of intent on cooperation to work together to advance the development nuclear power.
Hochul (seated, left) and Ford (seated, right) announce their 'landmark' agreement (Image: Darren McGee/ Office of Governor Kathy Hochul))
Under their memorandum of understanding, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the New York Power Authority (NYPA) will leverage Ontario's "global nuclear leadership" to advance the development and deployment of nuclear technologies, including large-scale reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs), to meet growing electricity demand and protect long-term energy security. NYPA and OPG will share information and use their respective expertise and resources to "advance technological innovation, enhance understanding of nuclear financing and economics, and support workforce development initiatives needed to enable the development of advanced nuclear facilities in New York and Ontario. They will also explore opportunities to enhance electricity trade between Ontario and New York to improve reliability and reduce emissions," the New York Power Authority said.
The declaration of intent signed by New York Governor Kathy Hochul and Ontario Premier Doug Ford recognises "the shared history, and values" of the US state and the Canadian province, which share an international border.
"New York and Ontario have a proud tradition of trade, cooperation and a bond that cannot be broken," Hochul said. "This first-of-its-kind agreement represents a bold step forward in our relationship and New York's pursuit of a clean energy future. By partnering with Ontario Power Generation and its extensive nuclear experience, New York is positioning itself at the forefront of advanced nuclear technology deployment, ensuring we have safe, reliable, affordable, and carbon-free energy that will help power the jobs of tomorrow."
"From building the first small modular reactors in the G7 to building the first large-scale nuclear facilities in decades, Ontario is proud to lead the world in nuclear innovation," said Ford. "By working together with New York, we're creating good-paying jobs, growing our economies and delivering clean, affordable power for families and businesses on both sides of the border for generations to come."
In June, Hochul directed the NYPA - the state's public electric utility - to develop at least 1 GWe of advanced nuclear capacity in Upstate New York, and in early December announced USD40 million of funding over the next four years to develop the workforce needed to support the planned deployment. Meanwhile, in Ontario, OPG is working towards the construction of four SMRs at the Darlington New Nuclear Project as well as the potential construction of new large-scale nuclear capacity.
"As we construct the G7's first grid-scale SMR and continue engagement on the potential for new large-scale generation at our Wesleyville site in Port Hope, we look forward to building on our long-standing relationship with NYPA. We and NYPA will share expertise and collaborate in ways that benefit both of our jurisdictions as we advance the development of nuclear technologies," OPG President and CEO Nicolle Butcher said.
Sweden's Vattenfall Seeks State Funding for New Nuclear Reactors
Sweden’s power giant Vattenfall announced on Tuesday it is applying for state aid for an investment in small modular reactors (SMRs) as part of a plan by industrial giants to bet on new nuclear power in the country.
Last month Sweden’s biggest industrial firms signed an agreement with Vattenfall to become shareholders in the power giant’s new company, Videberg Kraft AB, which plans to build SMRs in the country.
One of Europe’s top electric utilities, Vattenfall, created Videberg Kraft AB in April this year as a separate entity to be able to apply for government support.
Now the company and the industry organization, Industrikraft, plan joint investment and collaboration enabling the development of new nuclear power in Sweden.
Industrikraft, whose members include Volvo Group, Saab, Alfa Laval, and Hitachi Energy, will become a shareholder in Videberg Kraft with a 20-percent stake.
The government has previously announced that the state also intends to become a shareholder in the new company.
The Swedish government moved to phase out nuclear power completely in 1980, but that decision was reversed by Parliament in 2010. Five years later, four aging reactors were shut down. Six of 12 reactors remain in operation in Sweden today.
The country is now betting on SMRs to expand its nuclear fleet as Stockholm seeks to further reduce emissions with low-carbon 24/7 energy.
Sweden has tweaked its renewable energy policy, which had called for 100% renewable electricity by 2040, changing the terminology to “100% fossil-free” electricity, paving the way for the construction of more nuclear power plants.
When an agreement between the state and Videberg Kraft has been reached, the government may initiate a formal state aid process with the European Commission, Vattenfall said.
Videberg Kraft is planning a project with either five BWRX-300 reactors from GE Vernova Hitachi or three reactors from Rolls-Royce SMR, which will provide a total nuclear power output of about 1,500 MW. There is currently an intensive evaluation process of the two remaining suppliers, and a decision on the final supplier is planned for 2026.
The Swedish government has received an application for state aid to support proposals for either five GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 reactors or three Rolls-Royce SMRs to provide about 1500 MW capacity at Ringhals on the Värö Peninsula.
Anna Borg, President and CEO of Vattenfall, and Tom Erixon, Chairman of Industrikraft, pictured last month (Image: Vattenfall)
The application has come from Videberg Kraft AB, a project company owned by Vattenfall AB and backed by a series of industrial firms via the Industrikraft i Sverige AB consortium.
Industrikraft was formed in June 2024 to support the expansion of the Swedish electricity supply. Last month it was announced that Industrikraft was to become a 20% shareholder in Videberg Kraft AB which was created for the new nuclear project. A separate project company is a prerequisite for applying for government support.
Industrikraft, which is aiming to be cleared to take up the 20% stake next month, includes ABB, Alfa Laval, Boliden, Hitachi Energy, Höganäs AB, SSAB, Saab, Stora Enso, and the Volvo Group.
It is the first application under the country's new legislation on state aid for investments in new nuclear power, which came into force in August.
According to the government briefing: "State aid will be provided in the form of government loans and two-way contracts for difference. The latter means that a contract is drawn up between a nuclear power plant operator and central government ensuring a minimum level of compensation protection by central government and setting an overcompensation cap for the company.
"Central government can provide loans for the construction and testing of new nuclear reactors, and for planning and other preparatory measures. Two-way contracts for difference may be entered into for routine operation of new nuclear reactors.
"The state aid is limited and is planned to include investments of up to a total installed capacity of approximately 5000 MW, which is equivalent to four large-scale reactors."
This application will now be processed by the Ministry of Finance with negotiations to take place between the government and the project proposers about the conditions and scope of support required.
There will also be "a continuous dialogue" with the European Commission ahead of the EC assessing whether any proposed funding is compatible with European Union state aid rules.
Vattenfall says that "there is currently an intensive evaluation process" taking place of the BWRX-300 and Rolls-Royce SMR options "and a decision on the final supplier is planned for 2026".
Minister for Financial Markets Niklas Wykman said: "The fact that we have received this first application confirms that Swedish industrial companies want to get involved in building nuclear power. This is a decisive step towards getting new reactors in place, and we are ready to receive more applications in the future."
Sweden's government says that, based on preliminary discussions with other parties, further applications for state aid for new nuclear projects are likely to follow.
In May this year, Sweden's parliament - the Riksdag - approved the government's proposals for providing state aid to companies that want to invest in new nuclear reactors in the country. The loans - aimed at lowering the cost of financing new nuclear - will be limited to the equivalent of four large-scale reactors (about 5000 MWe of capacity). The government noted that support may only be granted if the new reactors are located at the same location and have a total installed output of at least 300 MWe. Two-way Contracts for Difference may be entered into once a new reactor has become operational and has been licensed to produce electricity at full capacity. The new act on state aid entered into force on 1 August, since when interested companies have been able to apply for the aid.
U.S. Ready for Partnership in India’s Nuclear Energy Industry
The United States has expressed willingness to cooperate with India in the nuclear energy sector as Asia’s second-largest economy opens its civil nuclear industry to private investment and foreign participation.
“We welcome India’s new #SHANTIBill, a step towards a stronger energy security partnership and peaceful civil nuclear cooperation,” according to a post on X of the official account of the U.S. Embassy in India.
“The United States stands ready to undertake joint innovation and R&D in the energy sector,” the embassy said.
India’s Parliament last week passed the so-called Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, which opens the Indian nuclear energy sector to private investment and ends more than six decades of state monopoly.
Indian President Droupadi Murmu endorsed on Monday the bill, which repeals the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010, which had hindered growth in India’s civil nuclear industry.
India expects the landmark legislation to drive investments from private companies in its nuclear energy sector.
India’s Nuclear Energy Mission targets 100 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power capacity by 2047 “through deployment of existing and emerging advanced nuclear technologies, both indigenous & with foreign cooperation.”
Currently, India has just 8.8 GW of operating nuclear capacity, operated by state-owned Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).
Hiking nuclear power capacity tenfold by 2047 would need a lot of investment, including from private firms, the government and various experts say.
Earlier this year, a panel set up by India’s power ministry said in a report that India’s goal to have 100 GW nuclear power capacity by 2047 would require as much as 19.28 trillion Indian rupees, or $214 billion at current exchange rates, of cumulative capital.
“Substantial technical and financial resources will be required for accelerated deployment of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047,” the panel said.
“The private sector has abundant capital, and inherent efficiency in timely construction and innovation adaption.”
One week after first being tabled, new unified legislation on nuclear energy has received presidential assent having been passed by both houses of the Indian parliament.
President Droupadi Murmu (Image: President of India)
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill 2025 was tabled in the lower house, the Lok Sabha, on 15 December, and was approved on 17 December. The bill was then presented to the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, where it was approved on 18 December.
President Droupadi Murmu granted assent to the bill - the final stage in the legislative process - on 20 December.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi described the passage of the bill by both houses as transformational. Ahead of the presidential assent, the Prime Minister wrote on X: "The passing of the SHANTI Bill by both Houses of Parliament marks a transformational moment for our technology landscape. My gratitude to MPs who have supported its passage. From safely powering AI to enabling green manufacturing, it delivers a decisive boost to a clean-energy future for the country and the world. It also opens numerous opportunities for the private sector and our youth. This is the ideal time to invest, innovate and build in India!"
India's nuclear energy programme has up to now been covered by the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. The 1962 act set the stage for India’s nuclear programme, empowering the government to regulate atomic energy for peaceful purposes, ensuring strict control over research, development, and use of nuclear materials, but some of the restrictions it has imposed - particularly limitations on private sector participation in the nuclear industry - have stood in the way of Indian plans to reach its decarbonisation goals with a target of achieving 100 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2047. Likewise, the 2010 Civil Liability act, while introducing a no-fault liability regime, has also been seen as problematic, giving nuclear operators extensive legal recourse to equipment suppliers in the event of a nuclear incident.
The new bill repeals the two earlier laws and consolidates and modernises India's nuclear legal framework, enabling limited private participation in the nuclear sector under regulatory oversight. It also, amongst other things, grants statutory recognition to India's nuclear regulator, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board.
It permits private companies to participate in India’s nuclear sector, including in plant operations, power generation, equipment manufacturing, and selected activities such as nuclear fuel fabrication, including "conversion, refining and enrichment of uranium-235" - up to a threshold value to be set by the government, although "certain activities of sensitive nature" will remain exclusively under government control. The SHANTI Bill - unlike the existing law that imposes a single statutory cap on operator liability - establishes a graded liability framework.
According to World Nuclear Association information, India currently has 24 operable nuclear reactors totalling 7,943 MW of capacity, with six reactors - 4,768 MW - under construction. (The Indian government often classes two units at Gorakhpur where site works have begun as being under construction, although the first concrete for the reactor buildings has not yet been poured.) A further 10 units - some 7 GW of capacity - are in pre-project stages.
Earlier this year, the Indian government set out the key features of its two-pronged Nuclear Energy Mission to achieve 100 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2047, featuring plans for new large capacity reactors as well as small modular reactors.
A request for proposals from 'visionary Indian industries' to finance and build a proposed fleet of 220 MW Bharat Small Reactors issued at the start of this year by government-owned enterprises Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) has been extended to 31 March 2026.
EU launches inquiry into Czech funding plan for new nuclear
The European Commission "has doubts" that the proposed Czech funding plan for its proposed new nuclear units "is fully in line with EU State aid rules".
(Image: CEZ)
In April last year the European Commission (EC), which is the executive arm of the European Union (EU), approved the funding plan for a single new nuclear reactor at the Dukovany nuclear power plant site in the Czech Republic.
In July last year Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power (KHNP) was selected for the project, and in October this year the Czech Republic officially notified the EC it had expanded its plans to two new nuclear units, each with a capacity of 976 MWe.
What is the funding plan?
The EC says: "Czechia plans to support the construction of the new nuclear units through three measures: a low-interest repayable State loan of an initial amount currently estimated between EUR23 billion (USD27.1 billion) and EUR30 billion, which will cover the full construction costs; a two-way contract for difference with a proposed duration of 40 years to ensure stable revenues for the nuclear power plant; and a mechanism to protect EDU II in case of policy changes and adverse impacts, to address the risk arising from the longevity of exposure to policy changes."
EDU II is Elektrárna Dukovany II, a company set up to develop and operate the new nuclear units, which is owned by the Czech state (80%) and the Czech Republic's nuclear power plant operator ČEZ (20%).
The contract for difference effectively means that if electricity prices are below the agreed level, the nuclear project will receive a subsidy to make it up to the agreed price, and if electricity prices are above the agreed price, the nuclear project would pay money back to the government.
Is that different to the previously approved financing plan for one unit?
It sounds similar to the previously approved funding and the Czech government said it had "requested an extension of the already approved support (to the fifth unit) to the two-unit construction". When the two-year inquiry into the funding proposed for the one unit plan was completed in 2024 the EC said: "The Czech Republic plans to grant direct price support in the form of a power purchasing contract with a state-owned special purpose vehicle, ensuring stable revenues for the planned new nuclear unit at Dukovany for 40 years, with a subsidised state loan to cover a majority of construction costs as well as a protection mechanism against unforeseen events or policy changes."
One thing which has changed since the original approval is that the EC has updated its approved two-way contracts for difference (CfD) guidelines - set out in Article 19D on this page.
What issues has the EC now raised?
It says that, based on its preliminary assessment, "the project is necessary and considers that the aid facilitates the development of an economic activity" which will help decarbonise the energy sector and diversify the Czech energy mix.
But it has doubts about whether it is fully in line with EU State aid rules and wants to ensure that "no more aid than necessary is ultimately granted. In particular, the Commission has doubts on whether the proposed package achieves an appropriate balance between reducing risks to enable the investment and maintaining incentives for efficient behaviour, while avoiding excessive risk transfer to the State".
It also wants to look at the impact of the State aid measures on competition in the market "in particular, the Commission has concerns that several essential design elements of the CfD remain insufficiently specified, preventing the Commission from fully assessing whether the mechanism maintains efficient operational and maintenance incentives".
What happens now?
The EC says that it "will investigate further to determine whether its initial concerns are confirmed". It says that the opening of an in-depth inquiry "does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation" and it provides "Czechia and interested third parties the opportunity to submit comments". The previous inquiry took two years and included modifications to the Czech funding plan in its approved form.
What are the State aid rules?
European Union member states are free to determine their energy mix and the decision to use nuclear energy is one for each member state to take for themselves. State aid rules allow member states "to facilitate the development of certain economic activities under specific conditions. The support must be necessary and proportionate and must not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest".
What has the Czech government said?
The Czech Republic's Ministry of Industry and Trade says that the launch of the formal investigation is a "standard step and an important milestone" and it expects "approval to be obtained in approximately the first quarter of 2027". It says that the inquiry means "public consultation and negotiations between the Czech Republic and the Commission" can take place "regarding the doubts raised". It adds "this is how all previous notifications of public support for new nuclear sources in the EU were carried out as standard". The ministry adds that "in the meantime, the project is financed on commercial terms, so there is no risk of any delay".
What is the Czech Republic planning?
The Czech Republic currently gets about one-third of its electricity from the four VVER-440 units at Dukovany, which began operating between 1985 and 1987, and the two VVER-1000 units in operation at TemelÃn, which came into operation in 2000 and 2002. In July 2024 it selected KHNP for the planned project to build the two new units at Dukovany, with scheduled start dates of 2036 and 2037.
Further challenges to the decision?
The KHNP bid was said to be for around CZK200 billion (USD9.7 billion, EUR8.21 billion) per unit, if two were contracted. The Czech competition authority dismissed an EDF challenge to the decision in April this year and a subsequent court process concluded with a Czech Supreme Administrative Court decision which led to the contract being signed in June.
EDF's objections to the tender process included the belief that the KHNP offer price and the inclusion of a guarantee that the construction would not be delayed or become more expensive, would be "unfeasible without illegal state aid given the prices in the nuclear industry". EDF said that if their rival bidder had state support - from South Korea - it would breach European Union rules.
KHNP rejected EDF's case and in a statement to World Nuclear News in May it added that it "affirms that it has participated in the Czech new nuclear power plant project in strict compliance with all international regulations, including those of the European Union. We emphasise that we have not received any subsidies that could damage or distort fair competition in relation to the project".
Asked about the status of any investigation into foreign state aid, a European Commission spokesperson told World Nuclear News on Tuesday: "The Commission's assessment of a complaint by EDF under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation regarding the award of a tender to KNHP is ongoing. We do not comment on ongoing investigations."
Kazakh-Japanese nuclear cooperation highlighted during presidential visit
An agreement between Kazatomprom and Japanese utility Kansai to supply Kazakh uranium products for Japanese nuclear power plants and a raft of nuclear-related bilaterals were signed during the visit to Japan by Kazakhstan's President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.
(Image: Kazatomprom)
The agreement between the National Atomic Company Kazatomprom JSC group of companies and the Kansai Electric Power Co marks a significant milestone in establishing a sustainable supply chain for the Japanese nuclear industry, as the country continues the gradual restart of its nuclear fleet and its integration into the national energy balance, Kazatomprom said.
"Our cooperation with Kansai contributes to the sustainability of the Japanese power grid as the country gradually returns to nuclear energy, and underscores Kazatomprom's recognition as a reliable uranium supplier in the global market," Kazatomprom CEO Meirzhan Yussupov said. "Through joint efforts with our customers worldwide, we continue to make a significant contribution to achieving global decarbonisation goals."
Kansai operates seven nuclear reactors at the Mihama, Takahama, and Ohi power stations. It is considering the possibility of building a new reactor at the Mihama site in Fukui Prefecture as a replacement for unit 1, which was declared permanently shut down in 2015. The Japanese company has been in partnership with Kazatomprom since 2006 through the Kazakh-Japanese uranium production joint venture APPAK LLP in which it holds 10% (with Sumitomo holding 25% and Kazatomprom 65%).
Favourable opportunities
The combination of Kazakhstan's resource potential and Japan's advanced nuclear technologies "opens up favourable opportunities for successful cooperation", Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said in an address to the First Central Asia-Japan Dialogue Summit during his visit to Tokyo. Of particular interest are projects in the areas of nuclear waste management, nuclear safety, and the training of highly qualified personnel, including in the field of civil protection, he said.
The president's official visit to Japan saw nuclear energy feature in several bilateral agreements worth a total of some USD3.72 billion signed by Japanese and Kazakh entities, according to the Kazakh presidency.
These include:
A Memorandum of Cooperation on research and development of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, between Kazakhstan's Atomic Energy Agency and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA);
A Memorandum on strengthening cooperation in the field of applied research, also between the Atomic Energy Agency and JAEA;
A Memorandum of Cooperation on expanding scientific ties, between Kazakhstan's National Nuclear Center (NNC) and Marubeni Utility Services Ltd;
A Memorandum of Understanding on spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste management, between the NNC and Muroosystems Corporation;
A Memorandum of Understanding on research and development in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, between the NNC and the Nuclear Engineering Research Institute of the University of Fukui);
A commercial contract for conducting a feasibility study of irradiation testing of fuel for a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, between Kazakhstan's Institute of Nuclear Physics, the JAEA and Marubeni Utility Services Ltd.
Restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactors approved by regional assembly
The Niigata Prefectural Assembly has backed Niigata Governor Hideyo Hanazumi's decision to approve the restart of units 6 and 7 at Tokyo Electric Power Company's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant.
Units 5-7 at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (Image: Tepco)
The approval came via a vote of confidence in the governor during the session on Monday, and means that the process of obtaining local consent is completed and Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) can advance plans to restart the units.
The seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant was unaffected by the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami which damaged Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi plant, although the plant's reactors were previously all offline for up to three years following the 2007 Niigata-Chuetsu earthquake, which caused damage to the site but did not damage the reactors themselves. While the units were offline, work was carried out to improve the plant's earthquake resistance. All units have remained offline since the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
Although it has worked on the other units at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa site, Tepco is concentrating its resources on units 6 and 7 while it deals with the clean-up at Fukushima Daiichi. These 1356 MWe Advanced Boiling Water Reactors began commercial operation in 1996 and 1997, respectively, and were the first Japanese boiling water reactors to be put forward for restart. Tepco received permission from the Nuclear Regulation Authority to restart units 6 and 7 in December 2017. Restarting those two Kashiwazaki-Kariwa units - which have been offline for periodic inspections since March 2012 and August 2011, respectively - would increase the company's earnings by an estimated JPY100 billion (USD638 million) per year.
Tepco is prioritising restarting Kashiwazaki-Kariwa unit 6, where fuel loading was completed in June. The company has until September 2029 to implement anti-terrorism safety measures at unit 6, and it could operate until that time now it has local approval. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa 6 would become the first reactor owned by Tepco to restart following the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
According to Japan’s public broadcaster NHK, sources have told it that Tepco has been discussing plans to put unit 6 back online around 20 January with the aim, subject to checks and tests, of putting it back in service by the end of March.
In his published statement to the meeting of the prefectural assembly, Governor Hanazumi said: "How to deal with the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant has long been a major issue for the people of Niigata Prefecture. While opinions regarding the restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant are currently divided among the public, we believe that by continuing to provide accurate information about nuclear power generation and to raise awareness of safety and disaster prevention measures, we can increase public understanding of the plant's resumption."
He said that a public opinion survey conducted this year suggested that the more people were aware of the disaster prevention and safety measures at the plant "the more likely people are to support restarting the plant. Furthermore, the survey also revealed that people in their 20s and 30s tend to be more favourable toward restarting the plant than older generations".
He added: "I take seriously the concerns of the people of the prefecture who are worried about the restart of the reactors, and if I receive the confidence of the prefectural assembly to continue in my duties as governor, I will make every effort to revitalise the economy and society of the host region and the entire prefecture, as well as to improve the safety and security of the people of the prefecture."
In October Tomoaki Kobayakawa, president of Tepco, informed the Niigata Prefectural Assembly that the utility was considering decommissioning units 1 and 2 at the plant.
Prior to the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Japan's 54 reactors had provided around 30% of the country's electricity. All were shut down following the accident, pending regulatory change. So far, of 33 operable reactors, 14 have restarted and 11 are currently in the process of restart approval.
Podcast: What happened with nuclear energy at COP30?
Also in this episode - you can listen using the link above - Thomas Lamb from Myriad Uranium talks about the Copper Mountain project, the general outlook for future uranium demand and supply, and the potential benefits of artificial intelligence.
Here's an edited transcript of Jonathan Cobb's COP30 interview:
What was agreed at COP30 - and what wasn't?
The new text calls for efforts to triple adaptation finance. This has been a focus of COPs in recent years, where countries are focusing on receiving finance to adapt to the impacts of climate change, rather than actually taking action to mitigate climate change. But even on this, there's been some stepping back. In the new agreement, deadlines have been pushed back from 2030 to 2035. One of the major absences in the presidency agreement was any statement on fossil fuels. A large group of countries had pushed very forcefully for there to be some text on pushing forward the agenda on fossil fuels, on phasing down, reducing, the amount of fossil fuels used. This has been a sticking point for COPs for some time. This was a COP held in the Amazon and while a fund for future forests was announced early on in the COP process, this was a voluntary measure and it didn't attract all the funding that it might have. There was also controversy over the final process of gavelling through the many sub-agreements that had been negotiated over the two weeks. All that said, there was an overall positive attitude, defending and celebrating the Paris Agreement. This is an agreement that's now 10 years old which aims to keep the global increase in temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius. At the same time, many countries were late in their submissions of nationally determined contribution documents, NDCs, which set out national policies aimed at tackling climate change. Overall, I think there is a question of how much more COPs can agree in the current format, and seeing how that's going to work going forward will be one of the main questions for the COP process.
What did the COP talks have to say about nuclear energy?
With the focus on adaptation and greater efforts on protecting forests, and the failure to get any substantive texts on roadmaps away from fossil fuels, there was little in the decision documents themselves emerging from COP30 that had much impact on energy, let alone nuclear energy in particular. But to an extent, nuclear energy is now embedded into the COP process, following its inclusion in the Global Stocktake Outcome document that was agreed at COP28. That document did recognise the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and critically, it acknowledged nuclear energy as one of the technologies that countries could accelerate to achieve that goal. That decision was recognised in a number of the nationally determined contribution submissions.
How significant are nationally determined contributions - NDCs?
These are submissions made by governments setting out how they plan to take action, in this case through to 2035, to tackle climate change so that their national policies and ambitions are in line with the goals set in the Paris Agreement. While the proposals within the NDCs submitted for COP30 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they wouldn't be sufficient to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, so further action is necessary. It's estimated that the actions that have been proposed would help limit temperatures to a rise of around 2.6 degrees Celsius instead of that 2 degree or 1.5 degree target set out in the Paris Agreements. Overall, despite the fact that a third of countries have yet to submit their latest NDCs, the number of submissions including nuclear as part of their plans has increased in this NDC cycle, with 12 individual nations and the collective NDC of the European Union - representing 27 nations - making positive reference to nuclear energy. And we can expect that number to grow when countries that have previously supported nuclear but have yet to make their submissions, for example India, do make their final submissions.
What else was achieved at COP 30 for nuclear?
One very welcome development was that both Rwanda and Senegal announced that they were joining the declaration to triple nuclear capacity, bringing the number of nations endorsing the goal of at least a global tripling of nuclear energy by 2050 to 33. The joining of the two countries was announced at a joint World Nuclear Association-UK government event at the UK's own National Pavilion. Rwanda and Senegal joining is important, not just to build the tripling declaration coalition itself, but also to strengthen the coalition of countries at COP when energy issues are being discussed, to ensure that nuclear-supporting countries are present in all the different regional groups debating climate action. We also saw two new financial institutions, Stifel and CIBC, sign up to the financial statement of support. And Equinix, Fermi America and Circularity joined the large energy users pledge. On top of that, Kazatomprom, which is the world's largest uranium producer, and Nuclearis Energy signed up to the nuclear industry tripling pledge. World Nuclear Association had its own pavilion at COP, representing the global nuclear industry. We held events there, as well as engaging with the many delegates that visited the pavilion. But we also participated in a number of events at the International Atomic Energy Agency's pavilion, as well as events at the Nuclear for Climate and the International Youth Nuclear Congress stands. And as we mentioned, we had a special event at the UK pavilion, as well as holding our own side events.
How did COP30 feel compared with COP29 and COP28?
A lot depends on where we are in the COP process. So governments are at the stage of proposing their NDCs and there's now a process over a couple of years of assessing them, and then there will be a similar global stocktake to that which took place at COP28 in Dubai. And that will be of particular interest to us because that global stocktake was where nuclear was first mentioned in an official UNFCCC document in a positive way. But more generally, it will be making an assessment, a more detailed assessment of the strength of the NDCs that have been proposed and what more needs to be done. I think also that something which changed the tone of the event was the fact that the high-level segment at the very beginning, where prime ministers and other senior members of government attend the COP, was shifted to the week before. So there was much coverage of visits by prime ministers, but also the Prince of Wales was presenting events at Sao Paulo and there were events taking place in Rio de Janeiro. To an extent, that took some of the focus off the COP itself, because previously what's happened at COPs is that that high-level segment forms part of the first three days of the COP. And with that additional high-level representation, it brings more media focus to what's taking place at the COP itself. It'll be interesting to see whether, going ahead towards COP31, they decide to keep that model or whether that high-level segment is brought back into the main body of the COP negotiations itself.
What can we look forward to at next year's COP?
COP31 is going to be held in Turkey, a really interesting location for nuclear energy, with Turkey's first nuclear reactor nearing completion and plans in place to expand nuclear generation capacity further. So when we arrive in Turkey, I think there's going to be a lot to focus on in terms of the role of nuclear energy in new nuclear countries, like Turkey, and how it can also play a role elsewhere. As for the negotiations overall, I think there's a lot of pressure building for the COP meetings to demonstrate that they can make tangible process, not just on adapting to the impacts of climate change, but also returning to the fundamentals of accelerating progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions themselves.
Is there a particular deadline for NDCs or is it a moveable feast?
It certainly has been a moveable feast in terms of submitting the NDC documents. They were actually meant to be submitted much earlier this year, so the UNFCCC Secretariat would have time to assess them and come out with a fuller and comprehensive assessment of what kind of impact on climate change the proposed NDCs would have. They've had to make a partial assessment based on only around two-thirds of the NDCs being submitted. So all those countries yet to submit NDCs have got to do so. And then that will then lead into the process, culminating at COP33 to be held in 2028, where those NDCs will be assessed and the global stocktake document will be agreed, the second global stocktake, setting out agreed actions that should be taken to address climate change.
Do we know where COP33 is going to be held?
We know it's going to be held somewhere in the Southeast Asia region - the COPs move around from region to region. I think it's a good thing they do as it gives them different perspectives, different focuses of different regions. India has indicated that they would like to host the COP. That's not confirmed yet, but that is an initial offer. Another interesting location will be the one that has been agreed already for COP32, which is to be held in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. And that's the first time that a least developed country, as termed by the COP process, will have been the host of a COP.
Episode credit: Presenter Alex Hunt. Co-produced and mixed by Pixelkisser Production Cover Picture Credit: COP30
Podcast: Nuclear energy’s key moments in 2025
What were the most-read World Nuclear News stories, and what has World Nuclear Association Director General Sama Bilbao y León picked out as her key moments of 2025? Read a month-by-month summary, and listen to the full podcast episode.
But the most-read article was our report from an event at the IAEA General Conference which set out in detail the damage to Chernobyl's giant shelter, and experts' views that it might not ever be possible to restore it to its full original design purposes.
_53514_33880.jpg)
_91467.jpg)
_22394.jpg)
