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)
Monday, May 04, 2026
Fusion industry leaders call for EU long-term plan
The heads of a dozen fusion and industrial companies have called on the European Commission to develop an EU Fusion Strategy to ensure Europe remains a leader in the commercialisation of fusion power.
The world's first commercial stellarator fusion power plant is planned to be built at the former Gundremmingen nuclear power plant in Germany (Image: Proxima Fusion)
"For too long, Europe has relied on external dependencies for energy, critical technologies, and strategic raw materials," they say in an open letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, and EU Commissioner for Startups, Research and Innovation Ekaterina Zaharieva.
"We have grown complacent with the status quo, adopting emergency measures when in need, and focusing on incremental improvements at best. This must change. Political leaders in the EU and its Member States must shift from short-term solutions to a long-term plan that delivers energy security, reduces structural dependencies, strengthens technological sovereignty and prevents future disruptions from dictating our economic fate."
Fusion power, they say, must be a part of that plan.
"Fusion is no longer a distant dream," the letter says. "Sites for fusion power plants have already been identified in Germany, the UK and Sweden. The US, China, Japan, and Canada are scaling up public support and private investment. Europe now faces a strategic choice: stay among the leaders of this transition or continue to depend on technologies and value chains developed elsewhere."
The CEOs say the European Commission should present an EU Fusion Strategy "that gets the level of ambition right from the start" in order for commercial fusion power plants to be constructed in the 2030s. "Europe has one chance to set the trajectory - and it must seize it. Europe's industrial base is ready to support commercial fusion, and there is broad alignment across the ecosystem on the need for a clear and ambitious strategy."
They say the strategy must recognise fusion as a strategic priority for Europe's competitiveness, energy security, and net-zero objectives. It must be "ambitious, technology‑neutral and outcome-oriented". The strategy must prioritise milestone‑based funding that incentivises private investment and rewards progress and performance. It must set out concrete steps to integrate fusion into existing EU regulatory frameworks, ensuring that it is treated differently from fission, "reflecting its fundamentally lower risk profile". It must strengthen, adapt and expand European supply chains and workforce capabilities, ensuring that value creation remains in Europe.
The industry leaders add that the strategy must be accompanied by an action plan that commits budget, mobilises capital and sets "a favourable and predictable regulatory pathway" to make commercial fusion happen.
"The benefits will be transformative: clean and abundant energy, industrial renewal, technological leadership, high-skill jobs for a generation of European talent working on one of humanity’s most ambitious endeavours," the letter concludes. "It is a future we can approach with confidence rather than apprehension."
The letter was signed by senior figures from: Renaissance Fusion, Focused Energy, Marvel Fusion, Proxima Fusion, Novatron Fusion, Gauss Fusion GmbH, NINEFusion, DWE GmbH, RI Research Instruments GmbH, Fusion Europe, Fusion Industry Association, and ProFusion German Fusion Industry Association.
Big Oil Begins Return to Canada amid Energy Crunch
Major energy firms are shifting back to Canadian oil and gas, highlighted by Shell’s $16.4B acquisition of ARC Resources to boost reserves and LNG-linked production.
Middle East disruptions and global supply risks are making Canada’s stable, resource-rich energy sector increasingly attractive to investors and buyers.
Expanded pipeline capacity, potential LNG growth, and a more industry-friendly policy stance are helping revive confidence in Canada’s oil and gas sector.
For about ten years, Big Oil moved away from Canada’s oil sands and into cheaper, more easily developed—and less regulated—locations. Now, the supermajors are returning, looking for a piece of an energy industry that just got a lot more attractive.
Last week, Shell said it would buy Canada’s ARC Resources in a $16.4-billion deal that will add roughly 370,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day to its production and strengthen the supermajor’s position in one of the continent’s most strategic gas corridors.
The acquisition gives Shell access to roughly 2 billion barrels of reserves while bolstering supply feeding LNG Canada, the export project Shell operates with a 40% stake and increasingly views as a cornerstone of its Asia growth strategy. With ARC’s assets adjoining Shell’s Canadian operations that feed LNG Canada, the deal boosts Shell’s LNG supply position while also replenishing reserves.
Days after that news broke, reports emerged that Shell was considering a partial sale of its stake in LNG Canada, with three of the biggest asset managers globally vying for the interest. KKR, Apollo Management, and Blackstone are in the race, Reuters reported, citing unnamed sources, earlier this week, with a potential deal estimated at between $10 billion and $15 billion.
The price tag for the stake highlights Canada’s position as a secure energy supply alternative to the Middle East, where flows of oil and gas remain paralyzed. But Shell and the asset managers are not the only ones eyeing a greater presence in Canada’s oil and gas patch.
TotalEnergies, Norway’s Equinor, ConocoPhillips, and BP are also looking at acquisition opportunities in Canada, Reuters reported this week. The publication cited unnamed sources as saying the four majors had asked investment banks to compile lists of suitable acquisition targets for them. There is no guarantee deals will be made but the fact there is interest from supermajors suggests a changing sentiment to the countries with one of the most abundant oil and gas reserves in the world.
“The fact they (Shell) are buying in Canada is an indication that we have tremendous, world quality resources,” an energy consultant from McDaniel & Associates told Reuters, noting that interest was “validating”.
Earlier reports this month about interest in Canadian liquefied gas from European buyers also sounded a note of validation. European energy buyers are already big clients of U.S. LNG producers, but long-term diversification would require spreading reliance over more suppliers, hence the interest in Canadian LNG.
Japan’s biggest gas buyer, JERA, is also looking to North America for supply diversification amid the massive disruption in the Middle East. For JERA, the matter is as urgent as it is for European buyers such as Uniper, not least because the Japanese company had recently sealed a 3-million-tpa supply deal with QatarEnergy. The Qatari company declared force majeure on exports in March following Iranian strikes on its LNG infrastructure.
The renewed interest of Big Oil in Canada’s oil and gas, however, reflects a change in sentiment among their investors, as well as the indispensable nature of hydrocarbons, as evidenced by the race to secure alternative supplies amid the Middle Eastern outages. That change suggests climate change and carbon emissions are no longer the number-one priority for energy investors—because it was climate and emission concerns that drove Big Oil out of Canada in the first place. That, and a pipeline shortage.
Back in 2019, the Canadian energy industry was facing an investor exodus. Production, especially from the oil sands, was rising, but there were no new pipelines getting built, so producers were stuck with rail exports to the United States. They were also being pressured by increasingly harsh emission-related regulations—and yet production grew.
Since then, the Trans Mountain pipeline has been doubled in capacity—and is already used at that capacity—and there is talk about more pipelines, and about a second LNG project on the west coast of the country. The Ksi Lisims project, if built, would be smaller than LNG Canada, which would eventually have a capacity of 14 million tons annually but is currently producing at less than the nameplate capacity of its first train, which is 6.5 million tons. Ksi Lisims is planned at 12 million tons annually, making for a total Canadian export capacity of 26 million tons, which looks like they would be very much in demand in Asia.
Canada’s oil and gas are attractive again, not least because of an apparent change in government attitude. The Carney government has signaled it would like to do business with the energy industry instead of stifling it. Although this change is more words than action, it seems to have contributed to the change in Big Oil sentiment. “When you want energy and you look at the world and what could go wrong, Canada has a lot of things going for it,” law firm Mayer Brown partner Jose Valera told Reuters.
By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com
USGS Finds 328 Years of Lithium Imports Buried in Appalachia
USGS discovers 2.3 million metric tons of economically recoverable lithium spread across Appalachian states from Maine to the Carolinas
Deposits represent 328 years' worth of last year's lithium imports and enough material to power 130 million electric vehicles
Discovery positions U.S. to reclaim mineral independence as global lithium production capacity is set to double within three years
America's worrisome dependency on foreign sources of lithium could become a thing of the past: About 328 years' worth of last year's lithium imports is buried in Appalachia, according to a new analysis published by the US Geological Survey (USGS). That's about 2.3 million metric tons of undiscovered but economically recoverable lithium -- aka "white gold."
"This research shows that the Appalachians contain enough lithium to help meet the nation's growing needs – a major contribution to U.S. mineral security, at a time when global lithium demand is rising rapidly," said USGS Director Ned Mamula. "The United States was the dominant world producer of lithium three decades ago, and this research highlights the abundant potential to reclaim our mineral independence." Today, Australia is the top producer, and China in second place -- however, China boasts about 60% of the world's lithium refining capacity for batteries.
The deposits are spread over a large swath of territory. The southern Appalachians -- primarily the Carolinas -- have about 1.43 million metric tons, while the northern Appalachians hold 900,000 metric tons, most of it in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, USGS says. Added up, it's enough to put the requisite lithium in 130 million electric vehicles, or a thousand years worth of laptop production.
USGS project global lithium production capacity will double over the next three years. In April, Finland became the first European country to host the full continuum of lithium production, from an open-pit mine that produces battery-grade lithium hydroxide, to a refinery. "The €783 million project is operated by Keliber Oy, a Finnish mining and battery-materials company," EuroNews reported.
Today, there's only one operating lithium mine in America: the Albemarle Silver Peak Mine in Nevada. Earlier this week, environmentalists sued to stop exploratory drilling in Oregon near the Nevada border. The US Bureau of Land Management had given the green light for HiTech Minerals to set up 168 drill sites over five years, on a 7,200-acre expanse of public land. The plaintiffs include "Great Old Broads for Wilderness." In a 2024 analysis, USGS concluded that brines in southwest Arkansas' Smackover Formation hold 5 to 19 million metric tons of lithium, but didn't determine what proportion is economically recoverable.
To say the more-promising Appalachian deposits were created a long time ago is an understatement. "Lithium-rich pegmatites in the northern Appalachians formed from the same geologic forces that built the mountains more than 250 million years ago," explained the USGS, a Department of the Interior organization and the country's largest water, earth and biological science mapping organization. "The high heat and pressure during the mountain-building caused some of the deeper crustal rocks to melt, and some of these magmas were rich in lithium."
By Zerohedge
Trump’s Renewable Energy Crackdown Hits Legal Wall
A federal judge ruled that requiring personal approval for all wind and solar projects was unlawful and harmful to public interests.
The policy had already delayed or threatened over 57 GW of renewable capacity and billions in investment.
The decision marks the latest in a string of court rulings pushing back against federal attempts to curb clean energy growth.
Over the last year, U.S. President Donald Trump has taken aim at the renewable energy industry, in an attempt to scale back efforts to undergo a green transition. Trump has instead favoured the expansion of the oil, gas, and coal industries, as well as the development of nuclear power. However, the move has been met with significant public and legal pushback, as it becomes clear that halting the rollout of renewable energy will not be so simple.
In April, federal judge Denise J Casper in Massachusetts rejected the Trump administration's efforts to halt renewable energy deployment. The judge ruled that the requirement for the Interior Secretary, Doug Burgum, to personally approve all solar and wind energy projects on federal lands and waters was unlawful. Casper agreed that the Trump administration’s actions likely violate federal statute and would cause irreparable harm if the court did not intervene.
The Trump administration previously said that greater oversight was required for new projects to counteract the preferential treatment of renewable energy that was seen under the Biden administration. It gave Burgum permission to review and veto issues such as proposed leases to rights of way, construction and operational plans, grants, and biological opinions. As part of the ruling, Casper issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from implementing this policy.
The lawsuit was launched in December by a coalition of regional wind and solar developers, including the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, MAREC Action, Southern Renewable Energy Association, Clean Grid Alliance, Interwest Energy Alliance, Renewable Northwest, Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association, Renew Northeast and Green Energy Consumers Alliance.
The coalition feared the policy could threaten the development of solar and wind projects. The members argued that Burgum favoured fossil fuels and aimed to delay renewable energy development to enhance the position of oil and gas. The lawsuit challenged six final agency actions that relegated wind and solar technologies to “second-class status”.
The challenged actions include:
The DOI “review procedures” memo, which made 68 specific permitting actions subject to review by Burgum;
The DOI “land order,” which significantly restricted the development of wind and solar projects on federal land.
An Army Corps’ memo that instructs the agency to prioritise its permit reviews for high-capacity density projects; and
The Zerzan M-opinion, which essentially bans new offshore wind projects.
The Trump administration’s attack on renewable energy over the last year has resulted in the delay or cancellation of approximately 57.2 GW of wind, solar, hybrid, and offshore wind capacity across projects with around $905 million in capital invested. The government’s renewable energy restrictions put between $8.4 billion and $25.6 billion of federal tax credits for renewable energy development at risk over the next three years, according to Judge Casper.
Casper stated, “Plaintiffs have shown that the public interest favours preliminary relief from the Agency Actions because the Agency Actions ‘harm the public by delaying and preventing the development of wind and solar energy projects in the United States, which in turn threatens the public’s vital interest in maintaining a reliable, affordable, and resilient power grid, which is currently struggling to meet record energy demand.’”
The plaintiffs said that the ruling marked a positive step towards developing more affordable energy options for U.S. consumers. “Clean energy is fast, affordable and here to stay… We look forward to getting back to work and restarting the impacted wind and solar projects nationwide,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, the managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defence Council, Kit Kennedy, stated, “The administration should take the hint and stop these illegal attacks on projects that will help meet surging electricity demand and bring down costs for consumers.”
The ruling comes just three months after a court ruled in favour of the ongoing development of offshore wind projects. In January, a U.S. federal court granted a preliminary injunction permitting the construction of the Revolution Wind offshore wind project to restart. This move temporarily blocked suspension orders issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in late 2025.
Then, in February, a federal judge threw out the Interior Department’s halt work order on a multibillion-dollar wind farm off the coast of New York State, marking the fifth time that U.S. courts ruled against Trump administration efforts to stop offshore wind development.
However, Trump has previously been known to throw money at the problem to make it go away. Following the court rulings in favour of offshore wind development, the Trump administration offered France’s TotalEnergies almost $1 billion to permanently halt its wind projects. This makes one wonder how Trump will respond to the latest ruling on his administration’s policies attacking renewable energy development. While the ruling could help provide temporary relief for green energy developers, the Trump administration is unlikely to back down on its efforts to quash green energy development.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
Repsol Set to Sell 49% in Spanish Renewables Portfolio to UAE's Masdar
Spanish energy giant Repsol is in the final stage of selling a 49% stake in its largest renewables portfolio in Spain to Masdar, the clean energy giant of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Spanish daily Cinco Dias reported on Monday, citing sources close to the deal.
Repsol is finalizing a deal to sell to Masdar 49% in the Minerva project, which is valued at $994 million (850 million euros) and comprises 706 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity across 13 wind farms and six photovoltaic plants.
The deal, expected to be finalized within weeks, is aimed at raising capital at Repsol by welcoming a minority partner in the renewable asset portfolio, Cinco Dias reported.
As part of its 2026-2028 strategic plan, Repsol will be looking to boost its renewable generation capacity and maximize the value of these assets through the entry of partners.
By 2028, Repsol expects to have up to 9,000 MW of operating renewable energy projects of greater value and return — especially in wind, solar, and storage initiatives. This strategy prioritizes the most profitable opportunities in Spain and the United States, with the aim of maximizing value generation and ensuring returns surpassing 10%, the company says.
Masdar, for its part, aims to become one of the world's biggest renewable energy companies with global assets with a combined capacity of 100 GW by 2030.
Masdar's shareholders are Abu Dhabi's oil giant ADNOC, Abu Dhabi's sovereign investment company Mubadala, and state utility giant TAQA.
The UAE firm already has strong foothold on the Iberian markets in Spain and Portugal, thanks to deals in recent years to acquire stakes in solar and wind assets.
In 2024, Masdar bought Saeta Yield from Brookfield for $1.4 billion, boosting its portfolio with 745 MW of predominantly wind assets, and a 1.6 GW development pipeline in Spain and Portugal.
Last year, Masdar acquired a 49.99% stake in a portfolio comprising four operational solar PV plants from Enel Green Power Espana S.L., a subsidiary of Endesa.
40 years on we are still asking the wrong questions and getting a lot of wrong answers, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
Probably the most heinous crime, other than the avoidable accident itself and its immediate coverup, is the way that the Chornobyl (Ukrainian equivalent spelling) nuclear power disaster in Ukraine, 40 years old this week, has been used to downplay and normalize the long-lasting health impacts caused by that April 26, 1986 explosion.
Still today, the myth is repeated that “no one died” — meaning no one in the public. Instead, we are told over and over that it was only a handful of liquidators, sent in to deal with the immediate crisis, who were killed by the massive release of radiation resulting from the reactor explosion.
And still today, in part because of that myth, now so firmly cemented in the public and media narratives around the Chornobyl disaster, the true health effects of even just routine reactor operation, or the exposures suffered by communities living around active or abandoned uranium mines, or by those working in uranium enrichment or fuel fabrication facilities, are discounted and dismissed.
The Chornobyl Dome, now damaged by a Russian drone attack, and a memorial at the site. (Photo: Hnabel/Wikimedia Commons)
Worse still, we are now facing a concerted effort by the Trump administration to emasculate already weak radiation protection standards, once again ignoring females who are most vulnerable to harm, and especially pregnant women, babies and children.
Through yet another executive order accelerating nuclear power expansion while sparing the industry the costs it should incur to guarantee safety (an impossibility anyway), the White House wants to abandon the long-held Linear No Threshold (LNT) model.
LNT holds that radiation damage increases with higher exposures, and that harm is posed by all radiation exposure no matter how small. But LNT itself is already unsatisfactory, since health studies continue to indicate that more — not less — protection is needed for non-cancer impacts, and for radionuclides taken internally, than is already provided by applying LNT.
This is what makes the perpetual focus on “who died” when it comes to major nuclear accidents, fundamentally the wrong question. We will likely never know who or how many died as a result of the Chornobyl disaster. Registries and statistics weren’t kept, people moved around, and, as is so often the case, illnesses were ascribed to other causes. Certainty is hard to achieve.
Nevertheless, perhaps one of the most important pieces of research on the health realities of the Chornobyl aftermath was done by historian Kate Brown in her book Manual For Survival. A Chernobyl Guide to the Future. It looks like a “hefty tome”, but it is anything but. Despite being nonfiction, it reads like a page-turning thriller and some of what she uncovers is eye-stretching. And, of course, by saying “uncovers,” we immediately understand that this was indeed a cover-up, first by the then Soviet Union, and then compliantly perpetuated by the United States and other western allies eager to avoid any shocking realization by the general public that nuclear power technology is phenomenally dangerous and human beings are liable to lose control of it, with disastrous results.
This returns us to the question about the protracted harm that can be caused if something goes very badly wrong at a nuclear power plant. And it returns us to dispensing with the wrong question, which is “how many people died?”
That wrong question, a favorite of headline writers and spin doctors, sets us on a perpetual path to dispute. The health figures, especially fatalities, have become the most misrepresented statistic related to the Chornobyl disaster. But focusing only on fatalities also serves to diminish the disaster’s impact. Nuclear power plant accidents often do not kill people instantly and sometimes not at all. It can take years before fatal illnesses triggered by a nuclear accident take hold. This creates a challenge in calculating just who eventually died due to the accident and who suffered non-fatal consequences.
Exposure to ionizing radiation released by a nuclear power plant (and not just from accidents but every day) can cause serious non-fatal illnesses as well. These should not be discounted. Arguably, neither should post-accident psychological trauma. Nuclear power plant accidents can and should be prevented. The only sure way to do so is to close them all down. Otherwise we risk another Chornobyl, or Three Mile Island, or Fukushima.
In our Thunderbird newsletter of 2018, we examined some of the key myths around the impacts of the Chornobyl disaster now 40 years ago. Below, is a synopsis of some of the key points, as they bear repeating and remain perpetually true. The full document can be read here.
What happened?
On April 26, 1986, Unit 4 at the Chornobyl nuclear power plant exploded. That explosion and the resulting fire, lofted huge amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere. Unit 4 was relatively new, having only been in service for just over two years. The accident occurred during what should have been a routine test to see how the plant would operate if it lost power. The test involved shutting down safety systems but a series of human errors, compounded by design flaws, instead set in motion a catastrophic chain of events.
After shutting down the turbine system that provided the cooling water to the reactor, the water began boiling and workers desperately tried to re-insert control rods to slow down the nuclear reaction. But the rods jammed and control of Unit 4 was irrevocably lost. The explosion and fire — which took five months to put out — dispersed at least 200 times more radioactivity than that produced by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. The fallout contaminated several million square kilometers of land in the former Soviet Union and in Europe and was also detected in the US.
Soviet authorities were slow to react. The accident was first detected by monitors in Sweden. The nearby city of Pripyat was not evacuated immediately. By the time they did so, radioactivity levels were 60,000 times higher than “normal”.
The financial cost of the accident, while difficult to calculate given the many unknowns, is estimated to be in the region of $700 billion and is expected to keep rising.
The Liquidators
The Chornobyl liquidators were dispatched to the stricken nuclear plant in the immediate aftermath, as well as for at least the subsequent two years, to manage and endeavor to “clean up” the disaster. They included military as well as civilian personnel such as firefighters, nuclear plant workers and other skilled professionals.
While estimates of the number of liquidators varies, the generally accepted figure is around 800,000. However, evaluating their fate has been difficult. Only a small portion of them were subject to medical examinations.
A memorial to the Chornobyl liquidators.
Yet, by 1992 it was estimated that 70,000 liquidators were invalids and 13,000 had died. These estimates rose to 50,000 then to 100,000 deaths among liquidators in 2006. By 2010, Yablokov et al. estimated a death toll of 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators.
Even the Russian authorities admit findings of liquidators aging prematurely, with a higher than average number having developed various forms of cancer, leukemia, somatic and neurological problems, psychiatric illnesses and cataracts.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs found a statistically significant increase of leukemia among Russian liquidators who were in service at Chernobyl in 1986 and 1987.
General populations inside and outside the former Soviet Union
As with the liquidators, tracking the health of general populations exposed to the plume pathway of Chornobyl has been problematic. Within the Soviet Union, people moved away and neither they nor many living in other affected countries were tracked or monitored. While countless numbers may have died from their Chornobyl-related illnesses, equal or even greater numbers may have survived with debilitating or chronic physical as well as mental illnesses caused by the accident.
Establishing exact numbers may never be possible. Media reports often rely on the 2003-2005 Chernobyl Forum report produced by the nuclear promoting International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency ignored its own data that indicated there would be 9,000 future fatal future cancers in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, claiming there would be no more than 4,000. Both numbers are gross underestimations. The report focused only on the most heavily exposed areas in making its predictions. It ignored the much larger populations in the affected countries as a whole, and in the rest of the world, who have been exposed to lower but chronic levels of radiation from Chornobyl.
In contrast, a comprehensive analysis by the late Soviet scientist, Alexey Yablokov and colleagues, examined more than 5,000 Russian studies. They concluded that almost a million premature deaths would result from Chornobyl. Meanwhile, the TORCH report (The Other Report on Chernobyl), by Dr. Ian Fairlie, predicts between 30,000 and 60,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide due to the accident.
Chornobyl’s Children artwork by Thierry Ehrmann/Creative Commons. Children are especially susceptible to harm from radiation exposure but a new White House executive order will weaken already inadequate protection standards for the most vulnerable.
More than half the Chornobyl fallout landed outside of the Ukraine, Belarus and Russia — in Europe, Asia and North America. Fallout from Chornobyl contaminated about 40% of Europe’s surface. Immediately after the accident, thyroid cancer was particularly rampant in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, where no prophylactic remedy in the form of potassium iodide pills was offered. Consequently, as Baverstock and Williams found in 2006, “by far, the most prominent health consequence of the accident is the increase in thyroid cancer among those exposed as children . . . particularly in children living close to the reactor.”
In contrast, Poland, where potassium iodide was distributed, experienced relatively low rates of thyroid cancers. While thyroid cancer is considered one of the more treatable kinds of cancers, this does not mean it should be viewed as an acceptable consequence of a nuclear power plant accident. Such diseases — especially among children — impact emotional, social, and physical wellbeing. In the former Soviet Union, those operated on bear a scare referred to grimly as the “Chornobyl necklace.”
Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki, a physician and geneticist, has conducted research, particularly focused on Polissia, Ukraine. There he found clear indications of altered child development patterns, or teratogenesis. Wertelecki noted birth defects and other health disturbances among not only those who were adults at the time of the Chornobyl disaster, but their children who were in utero at the time and, most disturbingly, their later offspring.
Important research has also been conducted on psychological effects. Pierre Flor-Henry and others examined some of the psychological disorders resulting from Chornobyl and found a clinical pathology related to radiation exposure. Flor-Henry found that schizophrenia and chronic fatigue syndrome among a high percentage of liquidators were accompanied by organic changes in the brain. This suggested that various neurological and psychological illnesses could be caused by exposure to radiation levels between 0.15 and 0.5 sieverts.
There are of course many other non-cancerous diseases caused by nuclear accidents that release radioactivity. A peak in Down Syndrome cases was observed in newborns born in 1987 in Belarus, one year after the Chornobyl nuclear accident. This phenomenon has been found around other nuclear sites. Abnormally high rates of Down Syndrome were found in the Dundalk, Ireland population possibly tied to the operation of the Sellafield nuclear waste reprocessing plant across the Irish Sea in Cumbria, England.
Iran war could spark new wave of nuclear reactor construction, says Cameco
Agustín de Vicente / Mayo 2, 2026 |
The uranium giant sees rising demand driven by energy security, AI power needs and global decarbonization efforts.
The ongoing conflict in Iran could trigger a new wave of nuclear reactor construction similar to the buildout seen after the 1970s energy crisis, according to Cameco.
Grant Isaac, president and chief operating officer of the company, said the current geopolitical environment is creating strong momentum for nuclear energy, driven by concerns over energy security, climate goals and national security.
Echoes of the 1970s energy crisis
More than 40% of today’s nuclear reactors were built in response to the 1973 oil embargo led by OPEC, according to the International Energy Agency.
Countries such as France, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom accelerated nuclear construction programs at the time to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Isaac said a similar dynamic is emerging today, as governments seek reliable, 24/7 carbon-free power sources.
Uranium demand set to surge
Cameco, operator of the high-grade McArthur River mine in Canada, produces about 15% of global uranium supply and ranks as the world’s second-largest producer after Kazatomprom.
Industry forecasts suggest global uranium demand could triple by 2040, while current consumption already exceeds annual production by 50 to 60 million pounds.
AI and data centers drive electricity demand
Demand for nuclear energy has been rising even before the Iran conflict, fueled by the expansion of data centers and artificial intelligence infrastructure, which require large and stable power supplies.
In the United States, government support has helped accelerate nuclear development, including fast-tracking uranium projects and extending the life of existing reactors such as Diablo Canyon in California.
India emerges as a key growth market
Cameco is also expanding its footprint in India, where nuclear capacity is expected to grow significantly.
The company signed a deal in March to supply nearly 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate over nine years in a contract valued at about $1.9 billion.
Through its 49%-owned joint venture with Westinghouse Electric, Cameco is also positioned to participate in new reactor construction projects in India and other markets.
Tight supply and rising prices
Uranium market fundamentals remain tight, with supply constraints and growing demand pushing prices higher.
Spot uranium prices are currently around $86 per pound, roughly one-third higher than a year ago, while long-term contract prices are nearing $90.
Strategic role of nuclear energy
The renewed focus on nuclear power reflects a broader shift in global energy strategy, where reliability, decarbonization and energy independence are becoming increasingly important.
For the mining sector, this trend reinforces uranium’s role as a critical mineral in supporting the energy transition and meeting the growing electricity demands of a digital and electrified economy.
The war on Iran will speed the transition away from fossil fuels and toward nuclear energy, creating strategic challenges for the United States
View looking north showing the Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Gulf of Oman with the Persian Gulf, with the Zagros Mountains and Qeshm Island of Iran in the background, and areas of Oman, Muscat and the United Arab Emirates in the foreground, as seen from the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1992. (Photo by Space Frontiers/Archive Photos/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
One of the biggest surprises following the US-Israel attacks on Iran was how quickly Iran targeted Persian Gulf energy infrastructure. In the early hours of the fighting, energy analysts were relatively optimistic that global markets could weather a short-lived conflict. This optimism was based on past fighting between Israel and Iran that avoided energy infrastructure and a “loose” (that is, well-supplied) oil market. The expectations proved wrong.
Within hours of the start of what American planners dubbed “Operation Epic Fury,” Iran began targeting the critical energy infrastructure of its Arab neighbors. Iran attacked Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia’s largest domestic oil refinery, and Ras Laffan and Masaieed, Qatar’s major liquified natural gas production and export facilities. A senior Iranian advisor claimed that any vessel attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz, where 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas passes each day, would be set on fire. Skittish about traveling through the Gulf, ships began stacking up at its entrance, resulting in what Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, described as a “parking lot.” Subsequently, Israel attacked oil depots in Tehran, shrouding the Iranian capital in smoke.
The energy bottlenecks caused by the fighting will likely accelerate a global energy transition that is already underway, as countries seek to diversify their energy imports and broaden out supply chains. Perhaps surprisingly, given that the attacks were undertaken to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, the conflict will likely hasten the adoption of nuclear power programs globally—even in conflict-prone areas. A nuclear resurgence will bring hard questions, especially for the United States, which risks ceding ground to Russia and China if it fails to act.
The nuclear renaissance. Even prior to the current conflict, nuclear power had been experiencing a global renaissance. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that the world’s nuclear power capacity could more than double by 2050. Last month, Japan restarted the world’s largest nuclear power plant (by installed capacity), a plant that had been shut since the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi. France, Europe’s nuclear superpower, has reversed plans to reduce its reliance on nuclear power from 70 to 50 percent. Elsewhere in Europe, Italy has ended its 40-year moratorium on nuclear power, Belgium reversed its phase-out policy, and Denmark, Switzerland, and even Germany are considering overturning their bans on civilian nuclear power. Poland is developing its first nuclear power plant, aiming to become operational in 2036.
Such developments are hardly limited to Europe. Over the past 10 years, China has connected more than 20 nuclear reactors to its energy grid, with an additional 23 under construction, adding the nuclear power capacity that it took the US four decades to build. In the United States, the president has allocated billions of dollars to new nuclear funding, and at least five states have eased regulations to facilitate nuclear plant extensions and new builds.
Nuclear power has considerable appeal. It can help overcome the storage challenge posed by renewables such as wind and solar and stabilize energy grids on windless or cloudy days, and it is considerably more efficient than renewables in terms of land use, capacity, and conversion. It is also a cleaner alternative to coal and natural gas.
In the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates’ Barakah plant is responsible for 25 percent of the UAE’s electricity. Turkey is finalizing construction of its Akkuyu plant, which will provide 10 percent of Turkey’s energy by the end of 2028, with Russia as its key partner. Egypt is also partnering with Russia on a nuclear plant that is expected to provide for 10 percent of its energy beginning in 2028.
Saudi Arabia and the United States are in active conversations about launching a nuclear power program. Unlike the UAE, Turkey, and Egypt, Riyadh is pushing for uranium enrichment capabilities. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are also investing in nuclear power projects in Pakistan and India, respectively.
There are at least three key drivers of the nuclear renaissance: political volatility; the need for energy-intensive data centers to power AI’s future; and increasing energy demands in emerging, often energy-poor economies. Notably, political volatility is driving a more intense rather than cautious approach to nuclear power. Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine focused leaders on the vulnerabilities of energy interdependence with potential adversaries. Today’s conflict in the Gulf will only deepen that lesson: In the first hours of the fighting, Qatar shut down its natural gas facilities and Israel shut down its Tamar and Leviathan fields, which export gas to Egypt and Jordan. A second driver is the surge in AI-linked energy demand: data centers require vast, reliable baseload power that intermittent renewables alone cannot provide. Third, fast-growing economies across Asia, Africa and the Middle East are seeking energy-intensive solutions that can scale without dependence on imported fossil fuels.
This nuclear renaissance is part of a broader worldwide energy transition. Oil and gas are expected to fulfil only about 50 percent of the globe’s increasing demand, with wind and solar growing faster than all other renewables to make up most of the difference. Nuclear power, a reliable source of baseload power, will fill the rest—but it brings with it greater risks, including accidents, military targeting and weaponization. One only needs to consider the difficulties Japan is facing in recovering from the 2011 accident to be reminded of the extent of the stakes involved.
Nuclear power programs create long-term geopolitical relationships because of their considerable expense and fuel and waste management requirements. Civilian nuclear programs create decades-long political relationships that benefit the global partners that build and service the plants. Currently, Russia and China are significantly more active in advancing nuclear power partnerships. The United States, once the leader in reactor design and export, has let its own industry atrophy. This will become a political liability unless America can quickly catch up to its global rivals.
When the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant was attacked in 2022, European capitals faced a stark decision about how to balance the potential vulnerability of nuclear power plants with the dependence on an aggressor’s fossil fuels. They opted to diversifying away from overdependence on Russian gas and toward nuclear power. Moving forward, others are likely to follow suit.
Some Europeans had hoped that substituting US for Russian gas imports could help them avoid the choice. But tensions over Greenland, NATO, and Ukraine have led European capitals to question the wisdom of relying on the US for energy as well. It is with this in mind that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz concluded that his country’s recent nuclear phase-out was a “strategic mistake.” The open question is whether the United States will help shape this new nuclear future—or be left out of it.
Questions for US leadership. There is good reason for the US to reinvest in its nuclear industry. Increasing energy demands at home are changing domestic incentives and fueling new interest in nuclear power and next-generation reactors. Global markets will be strong given the drivers discussed above.
But perhaps more important are the geopolitical relationships the United States will forego if it opts out of the nuclear renaissance. Energy corridors beget trade corridors, energy conduits accompany data conduits, and energy systems now include an ecosystem of supply chains, sophisticated financing, critical minerals, chokepoints, and investments. Such interconnections offer new areas of political influence. This is why Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, said at the World Economic Forum in 2026 that “energy security … should be elevated to the level of national security.”
Nuclear plants run for 40 and in some cases 80 years and bring with them ongoing incentives. Washington should be concerned that Russia is deeply investing in the critical energy infrastructure of traditional US allies such as Egypt and Turkey. The United States cannot afford to concede such ties to Russia and China.
But questions confronting Washington’s future leadership are many:
Can it compete on safety? For example, can the United States catch up to global rivals in terms of building and exporting nuclear plant designs without sacrificing its global reputation for safety? President Trump has signed multiple executive orders to cut regulations, speed approvals, and reduce the bureaucratic hurdles that have stifled the industry. Some of these changes are welcomed. But the orders have resulted in slashing staffing and expertise in and the independence of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Such orders have the potential to undermine the United States’ hard-won reputation for world-class safety standards—a key incentive to partnering with the United States in the first place.
What concessions will it have to make? The United States and Saudi Arabia, for example, have tussled for years over the Kingdom’s desire for domestic uranium enrichment. It would be ironic, to put it mildly, if the US attack against Iran to eliminate its nuclear program was followed by an agreement with Saudi Arabia that permitted enrichment. But Saudi Arabia will have significant leverage over the United States as it is offering to heavily invest in America’s domestic nuclear program. The Saudis will also likely demand something from the United States for initiating Operation Epic Fury without serious consideration of its effect on Iran’s Gulf neighbors.
Can it secure the supply chain? The United States cannot directly help reduce supply chain bottlenecks associated with nuclear power, particularly when it comes to fuel sources such as uranium. But it can make things worse. Russia is the dominant global provider of processed uranium, and the nuclear renaissance will heighten its role globally. Canada and Australia are major providers as well. Washington’s recent diplomatic scuffles with those countries hardly seem wise in this context. Prioritizing relations with uranium-rich countries beyond Russia would be a smarter approach.
Can it protect what it builds? Russia surprised everyone in 2022 when it targeted and seized the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine, Europe’s largest. That attack highlights new security vulnerabilities as nuclear power plants—including, one day, small modular reactors—expand. It will not be lost on planners that during the opening days of the US-Israel attack, an Iranian military official threatened that Iran would target the Israeli nuclear site of Dimona if Israel and the US seek regime change in Iran, a goal that President Trump has advocated.
Finally, the collapse of the 50-year nuclear arms control architecture has important consequences for trust in the future of nuclear power. Multilateral organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency help provide expertise and transparency and resulting confidence that civilian nuclear programs do not become gateways for weaponization. As nuclear agreements wither and multilateral organizations are undermined, significant uncertainty and risk are added to the unfolding nuclear renaissance.
Operation Epic Fury will accelerate the global energy transition, including to nuclear power. The US-Israel attacks and Iran’s response will reshape energy decisions globally. The war has highlighted the vulnerability of relying on gas and oil exports from a conflict-prone part of the world. It will further compel leaders to invest in new sources of energy including renewables and nuclear power. The trend was already underway after Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Operation Epic Fury will reinforce it.
But the drive towards civilian nuclear power brings unique challenges—not least the deep public fear of accidents and leaks, and the ever-present risk of weaponization. As energy historian Daniel Yergin has warned, this conflict could represent the biggest disruption in oil production in history. The desire for energy diversification will only intensify in its wake. The United States should want to lead that future. But to do so, it must answer some hard questions—about safety, partnerships, supply chains, and security—before rivals like Russia and China answer them first.
_83147_55380.jpg)
