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)
Nuclear energy is becoming a central pillar in global plans to address climate change and also gaining importance as countries seek low-carbon climate solutions. The Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was held in Belem, Brazil, in November 2025. The COP30 has been widely described as a “COP of Implementation” due to its emphasis on bringing existing initiatives into action than on new climate pledges. While the summit produced important agreement on adoption of mechanism for adaptation finance to track climate actions, one of its consequential developments was the reinforcement of role of nuclear energy in the global climate strategy.
In December 2023, during the COP28 held in Dubai, 25 countries including Armenia, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Jamaica, Japan, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050. The initiative gained further momentum at subsequent climate summits, with six additional countries including Kazakhstan, Kenya, El Salvador, Kosovo, Nigeria and Turkiye joining at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and two more countries including Rwanda and Senegal at COP30, bringing the total to 33 countries.
The COP28 Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy underscores the essential role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 2050, a prerequisite for keeping the 1.5 °C temperature-limit target within reach. It also highlights nuclear power’s contribution to energy security through supply of clean, reliable, and affordable source of electricity.
Beyond government commitments, strong support has also emerged from industry and finance for tripling nuclear energy. According to the World Nuclear Outlook Report presented at COP28, 130 nuclear-sector companies signed a pledge backing the tripling objectives. This was followed by New York Climate Week 2024, where 14 financial institutions publicly expressed support and explored ways in which the financial sector could facilitate nuclear expansion. Further endorsement came at Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) Week observed in Houston, Texas in March 2025, where 14 major energy-consuming companies voiced their backing for tripling global nuclear capacity by mid-century.
According to the World Nuclear Outlook Report 2025 presented at COP30, global energy demand is increasing in order to meet the needs of populations with insufficient access to energy and electricity. Approximately 750 million people currently lack access to electricity, and emerging economies require significantly more power to support development. This rising demand is driven by a growing global population, which stands at approximately 8 billion today and is projected to increase to 9.8 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. At the same time, global GHG emissions continue to rise due to increasing energy demand.
International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that 2025 reached a record of 38.1 billion tonnes of CO2. This rise is largely driven by continued growth in coal, oil, and gas consumption, particularly in emerging economies and high-demand regions. The upward trend poses a serious challenge to efforts to limit global warming to below 1.5 °C under the Paris Agreement.
According to the World Nuclear Association, the capacity target outlined in the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy is anchored to 2020 levels, when global operable nuclear capacity stood at 393 GWe produced by 441 nuclear reactors. Tripling this figure would require nearly 1,200 GWe of operational capacity by 2050.
According to the World Nuclear Outlook Report 2025, 177 reactors have an operating lifetime of 60 years, while 203 reactors are expected to receive lifetime extensions to 80 years. In addition, 75 reactors are currently under construction, 103 reactors are planned, 295 reactors have been proposed, and 24 reactors are considered potential projects. To meet the national targets, 538 additional nuclear capacity units would be required. If these targets are achieved, global nuclear capacity could reach 1,428 GWe by 2050.
According to the World Nuclear Association Reactor Data 2025, the global nuclear power sector is largely shaped by large-scale reactors. As of October 2025, a total of 438 nuclear reactors were in operation worldwide, providing combined capacity of 397 GWe. Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) dominate the operating fleet, representing over 70% of all reactors. Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) account for 14%, while Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) make up 11%. Light-Water Graphite-Moderated Reactors (LWGRs) and Gas-Cooled Reactors (GCRs) represent about 2% of the total, respectively. Only two Fast Neutron Reactors (FNRs) and one High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) are currently operational.
During COP30, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) hosted its Atoms4Climate and Atoms4Net Zero Pavilions and underscored the role of nuclear energy and technologies in addressing climate mitigation, adaptation, and decarbonization. IAEA’s key priorities include innovative financing mechanisms, the deployment of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), and the use of nuclear applications in agriculture, food security, and environmental monitoring.
During its participation in COP30, Pakistan underscored the extreme climate vulnerability of the country, despite its contribution of less than one percent to global GHG emissions. The devastating floods of 2022 and 2025 highlighted the country’s acute exposure to climate extremes, displacing millions and worsening poverty. In this context, at COP30, Pakistan called for survival, climate justice, and fair global support for developing countries.
Nuclear energy could play a key role in mitigating climate change in Pakistan, who’s energy deficit has been a longstanding problem. With a population of over 250 million, Pakistan struggles to meet growing energy demand. Nuclear power offers a reliable and independent energy source. In contrast to fossil fuels, nuclear power does not rely on imports and offers Pakistan a level of energy independence that is vital for national security. While speaking at the 69th IAEA General Conference in Vienna on 15 September 2025, Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Mr Ali Raza Anwar, reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear technology for sustainable development and international cooperation. He highlighted that Pakistan’s six nuclear power plants contribute 18.3% to the national energy mix and also help avoid nearly 15 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)emissions each year.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, during his official visit to Vienna on 17 February 2026, reaffirmed Pakistan’s support for the IAEA in the promotion of safe and responsible use of nuclear technology in areas such as agriculture, industrial applications, nuclear power generation, and cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Investing in nuclear power could bring multiple economic benefits. Construction of NPPs in line with Pakistan Vision 2050 to produce 42,000 MWe nuclear power would create jobs, vitalize technological development, and produce a skilled workforce. Additionally, nuclear power would also offer long-term price stability, which is especially important in the light of the unpredictable fluctuations in international oil and gas prices for geopolitical reasons.
Hafsa Azam
Hafsa Azam is a Research Officer at the Center for International Strategic Studies Sindh. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Sciences from Bahria University, Karachi. Her areas of interest include climate change, climate mitigation and adaptation, environmental impact assessment, environmental policies and laws, environmental hazards and management, occupational health and safety, Sustainable Development Goals, energy and artificial intelligence.
Saturday, March 14, 2026
Notions of ‘Christendom’ often miss the mark – medieval Europe’s ideas about faith and power were not so simple
(The Conversation) — There has never been a singular Christian perspective on how religion, power and politics ought to relate to each other – not even in medieval ‘Christendom.’
A painting in Rome's San Silvestro Chapel depicts Pope Sylvester I and Constantine the Great. (Wikimedia Commons)
(The Conversation) — During the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5, 2026, Paula White-Cain, senior adviser to the White House Office of Faith, introduced President Donald Trump as “the greatest champion of faith that we have ever had in the executive branch.” Taking the podium after her, Trump declared, “I’ve done more for religion than any other president.”
Should an earthly leader be promoting a heavenly cause? Some of the Americans who say “yes” – by no means all – are likely sympathetic to the ideas and values of Christian nationalism. A blanket term, Christian nationalism ranges in meaning. Some citizens might see themselves as Christian nationalists simply because they are Christian and patriotic. Others, however, assert that the United States is rightfully a Christian nation that ought to be governed by Christian leaders, ethics and laws.
As a historian, I’m aware that Christian nationalism relies upon a selective and often distorted view of American history. As a historian of the European Middle Ages, in particular, I’m interested in another myth of a shared Christian past that seems to lie beneath the surface of some Christian nationalist claims. That’s the idea of the medieval Christian West, also known as “Christendom”: a time before the modern separation of church and state.
1,000 years
What was Christendom? Similar to Christian nationalism, the term can mean different things to different people.
It generally recalls a long period of time – 1,000 years, give or take – between the “fall” of Rome around 500 C.E. and the beginning of the modern era around 1500. Christianity dominated European politics, society and culture. The Middle Ages really were an era when kings ruled in Christ’s name, when the popes of Rome commanded obedience from believers around Europe, and when monasteries played a crucial role in the shaping of values and education.
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor in 800. Wikimedia Commons
In recent years, though, I’ve observed puzzling and ahistorical ways that the concept of Christendom has started to appear in certain corners of conservative political thought. That era of Christian dominion is sometimes remembered as a lost age of Christian unity, a time when religion and politics were “properly” aligned.
Such views don’t map neatly onto any partisan position or religious affiliation. The Catholic-inspired website The Josias, for example, a guide “for those who wish to bring their faith into the public square and resist the tides of liberalism, modernism, and ignorance of tradition,” is filled with works by medieval thinkers.
Wilson is the founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – one of which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attends. Wilson says that his vision of “mere” Christendom does not entail a return to theocracy but “a network of nations bound together by a formal, public, civic acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and the fundamental truth of the Apostles’ Creed.”
In his 2023 book “The Boniface Option,” minister Andrew Isker calls for Christians to fight for the creation of “new Christendom.” He also co-authored 2022’s “Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Disciplining Nations.” From a historical perspective, there are numerous problems with such views of Christendom. For starters, they erase the reality that, while Christian authorities governed Christian-majority kingdoms during the Middle Ages, Europe was also home to Jewishand Muslims communities. They also paper over the fact that medieval Christians themselves never reached a consensus over the proper relationship between worldly and spiritual powers – or, as we might call them today, church and state. Faith and empire
When I teach on religion and politics, I compare two late ancient thinkers whose works left profound legacies on the medieval world: the first historian of the church, Eusebius of Caesarea; and the immensely influential theologian, Saint Augustine.
An illustration of Eusebius of Caesarea in a 17th-century manuscript, created by Armenian artist Mesrop of Khizan. J. Paul Getty Museum/Wikimedia Commons
Writing in the fourth century, Eusebius celebrated the reign of the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine, who ruled from 306-337. The story of Constantine’s conversion is famous. As Eusebius told it, the emperor was marching toward Rome during a civil war when he saw a radiant “cross-shaped” vision in the sky, accompanied by the words “by this conquer.” That night, the “Christ of God” appeared to the emperor in a dream and told him to march to war under that sign, which he did with victory.
From Eusebius’ perspective, there was a lot to celebrate about Constantine’s reign. Constantine ended the persecution of Christians unleashed by his predecessors. Under his direction, imperial money flooded into clerical hands, followed by a wave of church building around the empire. The emperor granted bishops legal privileges and tax exemptions, and he called church councils to resolve disputes over Christian doctrine and organization.
In Eusebius’ eyes, this was all part of the divine plan. As he wrote, God had intended since the beginning for the “two shoots” of the “empire” and the “gospel of Christ” to intertwine, grafted together in harmony. Pagan Rome, Eusebius claimed, had subdued the peoples of the world. Under Constantine, its rule was bringing the “good news” of Christianity to all those conquered nations.
This kind of boosterism for Christian monarchs, hailed as “champions of the faith,” would endure throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. The Byzantine Empire, the Carolingian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, Christian kingdoms from England to Armenia: Supporters saw their worldly power as representing the heavenly power of Christ, the “King of kings.” This was, in effect, a kind of Christian nationalism before the rise of modern nations.
‘Not of this world’
Yet medieval Christian thinkers also maintained skepticism about the ability of temporal princes to realize God’s kingdom here on Earth.
This is where Augustine, who wrote “The City of God” in the early fifth century, comes into the picture. Augustine was a prolific writer and immensely complicated thinker whose views changed across the course of his lifetime. Similar to Eusebius, he believed that God determined the fate of all empires and kingdoms, whether Christian or not.
Augustine supported the right of rulers to wage “just wars” and use force to maintain public order. Still, the bishop of Hippo hit the brakes on unbridled enthusiasm for the divinely appointed role of earthly empires and kingdoms, even if their rulers were Christian.
Living through the aftermath of Rome’s plundering in 410 by the Visigoths, Augustine keenly appreciated the fact that empires come and go. True happiness for Christian princes didn’t come from seeking their own personal ends: winning battles, gaining the most territory, leaving their thrones to their heirs, and conquering their enemies. It came from putting their “power at the service of God’s mercy” and the greater good. “Remove justice,” Augustine asked in “The City of God,” “and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?”
In Augustine’s view, which profoundly influenced medieval theologians and political thinkers, this world was the transitory “City of Man,” filled with love of self and lust for domination. What really mattered was the eternal “City of God.” There was nothing wrong with Christian kingdoms, empires and nations, he thought, but there was nothing especially blessed about them, either. After all, hadn’t Jesus said in the Gospels, “My kingdom is not of this world”?
There has never been a singular Christian perspective on the relationship between faith, power and political identities. There certainly wasn’t in the world of medieval Christendom. To suggest otherwise is a fantasy that misrepresents the sophistication of Christian political thought during the Middle Ages – and in the present.
(Brett Whalen, Professor of History, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)
The Conversation religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The Conversation is solely responsible for this content.
Iran’s oil exports have bounced back to surpass pre-war levels, data from analytics firm Kpler show, as regional producers have scaled back production due to difficulties exporting the commodity through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.
According to Kpler, since the outbreak of the US-Israeli war against Iran on February 28, nine tankers have loaded Iranian oil and departed the Persian Gulf, mostly heading towards China, which has been identified by tracking firms as the main buyer of Iranian barrels over the past few years.
Data indicate that tankers have been loading an average of 2.1mn barrels of Iranian crude oil per day, exceeding Iran’s daily exports of 2mn barrels in early February and before the conflict began.
At least 13.7mn barrels of Iranian oil have made their way from the narrow waterway to China since the start of the war, according to figures obtained from ship-tracking companies, Tasnim News Agency wrote on March 12.
While major shipping companies have halted operations in the region, tankers linked to Iran continue to sail through the strait.
The increase in Iranian oil loadings comes despite vessels being hesitant to brazenly navigate the Strait of Hormuz, an artery through which 20% of the world’s oil passes.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has targeted at least 15 vessels since the start of the conflict for ignoring warnings about the waterway’s closure.
The IRGC says passage through the strait is unsafe due to crossfire between parties involved in the conflict. Iran is exporting more oil than it did before the war, demonstrating that Tehran maintains control over this strategic waterway.
Meanwhile, Persian Gulf oil producers, ranging from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, have reduced their output and are trying to find alternative routes other than the Strait of Hormuz.
Disruptions to oil flow in the strait have led to a sudden surge in prices, with oil fluctuating between $80 and $120 per barrel during wartime, now hovering around $100 per barrel.
Market intelligence firm IIR Energy announced that nearly 1.9mn barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil refining capacity in the Persian Gulf had been shut down due to the conflict and disruptions to oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the industry monitor, the idle refining capacity includes production fluctuations in Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.
Furthermore, according to a report by JP Morgan, if the Strait of Hormuz were to be blocked for two weeks, the Persian Gulf’s oil supply could fall to around 3.8mn bpd.
India negotiates with Iran for safe passage of fuel carriers
Randhir Jaiswal - spokesperson if India's Ministry of External Affairs / Randhir Jaiswal - spokesperson MoEA - India - X
India is feeling the bite of the global energy crunch after the ongoing war in the Strait of Hormuz and the wider West Asia region has made it risky for cargo ships to transit through the region without getting hit by Iranian weapons.
According to a March 12 2026 press briefing by India's Ministry of External Affairs(MEA), their minister incharge Dr. S. Jaishankar has held three separate conversations with Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi.
During these conversations, Jaishankar has purportedly discussed India’s national interests and energy security needs being affected by the attacks on shipping originating or transiting through the West Asia region.
While official government sources don’t talk about an agreement being reached with Iran, it is likely that India has secured some sort of arrangement, with Tehran agreeing to not target vessels bound for India that pre-notify their presence to Iranian authorities.
Iran has reportedly made similar arrangements with Bangladesh, which has also requested higher supplies of diesel from India which is a major exporter of refined petroleum products. India's MEA has acknowledged the request but has said that it remains under review.
However, the enforceability of these arrangements is uncertain, as misidentifications during combat operations are a phenomena no country or forces are unacquainted with and since the beginning of military operations against Iran, the US Air Force has lost three F-15 fighter jets to friendly fire.
Iran which has suffered decapitation strikes against its leadership including its former Supreme Leader Ayattolah Ali Khamenei is even less likely to be able to effectively coordinate the various branches and commanders of its forces operating weapons platforms across the country and in the Strait of Hormuz which can sink vessels.
As a result, this gap in leadership and communication could easily lead to accidental targeting of vessels heading to countries Iran has made transit agreements with.
According to a press release by India’s Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, 70% of India’s crude imports are routed outside Strait of Hormuz, however over 60% of its liquified petroleum gas (LPG) which is the main cooking fuel for Indian households and the restaurant industry have been impacted.
New Delhi has increased domestic LPG production by 25% and has taken steps to increase inventory and availability to consumers by invoking the Essential Commodities Act.
India consumes around 189mn metric standard cubic metres per day(MMSCMD) and produces around 97.5MMSCMD, leaving 91MMSCMD which is slightly less than half of its requirement dependent on foreign supplies.
While Indian social media is already abuzz with people comparing the cost of cooking with electric induction stoves over the ubiquitous LPG stoves it remains to be seen if the transition is temporary or will remain a trend even after the conflict ends and energy supplies become normalised.
New Delhi has also clarified that “28 Indian-flagged vessels are operating in the Persian Gulf region. Of these, 24 vessels are located west of the Strait of Hormuz carrying 677 Indian seafarers, while 4 vessels are east of the Strait with 101 Indian seafarers onboard”.
Furthermore, while there has been no official acknowledgement of the fact, it is understood that China has a deep maritime transit relationship and energy dependency on Iran. Beijing is also believed to have supported Tehran through decades of US, Western and UN sanctions with both cash and military supplies including advanced hightech components for its military industrial complex.
As such, it is highly likely that Iran is paying back those favours or more accurately continuing the favourable deals it cuts with Beijing even under the ongoing kinetic-threat rich environment in the Persian Gulf region.
Iran agrees to provide safe passage to Bangladeshi oil and LNG vessels
Iran has officially agreed to grant safe passage to Bangladeshi oil and LNG ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, Middle East Monitor has reported.
As per the new deal, Bangladeshi ships need to inform Iranian authorities before entering the Strait of Hormuz to ensure secure passage. The move comes as the Bangladesh authorities boost efforts to stabilise the supply of fuel in the local market, Middle East Monitor said in a post on social media platform X.
A consignment of 27,000 tonnes of diesel recently docked at Chattogram port in Bangladesh, with four more vessels like to arrive soon. Bangladesh is also planning to source 300,000 tonnes of diesel from other sources to meet energy demand in April.
Local Bangladeshi media has not confirmed this news. New Age reported on March 13 that Dhaka has sought safe passage for its vessels. Energy, power and mineral resources minister Iqbal Hasan Mahmud on March 12 said that they were expecting a positive reply from Tehran soon in this regard. This has been not been greenlit by Tehran yet, the newspaper reported.
Bangladesh, which imports about 6.2mn tonnes of crude and refined petroleum products, relies heavily on the Strait directly and indirectly, New Age added.
It imports about 1mn tonnes of crude oils from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates while 5.2mn tonnes of refined petroleum oils from China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.
Meanwhile, Bangladesh has formally requested the United States grant a temporary waiver that would allow it to buy crude oil from Russia, saying this was needed to maintain stable energy supplies in the domestic market, The Daily Star reported.
Dhaka wants an arrangement similar to the one extended to India, which has been allowed to continue importing Russian crude under a temporary waiver despite Western sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine.
Bangladesh’s finance and planning minister Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury confirmed that the matter was raised during discussions with US officials.
Dhaka says that access to discounted Russian crude could help ease pressure on its foreign exchange reserves and stabilise domestic fuel supplies. The government has said the request reflects the need to protect economic stability at a time of volatile global energy markets.
During the meeting with the US ambassador to Bangladesh, Brent Christensen, Bangladeshi officials noted that India had already been granted a temporary exemption to continue purchasing Russian oil, and said Bangladesh should be considered for a similar arrangement.
According to the report, US officials indicated that the request would be conveyed to authorities in Washington for consideration. Dhaka is now awaiting a response from the US administration on whether such a waiver could be granted.
Around 70% of India’s crude oil imports now bypass Hormuz
India now sources approximately 70% of its crude oil imports via supply lines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, significantly cutting the country’s exposure to disruptions resulting from the prevailing tensions in the Middle East, the government of India said in a recent press release.
Senior officials from India’s oil and gas ministry, foreign ministry, ministry of ports, ministry of shipping and waterways and ministry of information and broadcasting provided details about the steps taken by the India government during a press meet held in New Delhi on March 11.
India’s daily crude oil consumption stands at 5.5mn barrels. Officials said diversified sourcing from around 40 countries has helped secure volumes in excess of what would normally have arrived through the Strait of Hormuz during this period. Two additional crude cargoes are already on their way to the country and will help in further boosting supplies in the days ahead. Indian refineries are operating at very high-capacity utilisation levels, in some cases exceeding 100%, they said.
The government is also focusing on the natural gas sector. India’s cumulative natural gas demand is about 189 mmscmd, out of which about 97.5 mmscmd is produced locally. Approximately 47.4 mmscmd of supply has been impacted by the force majeure conditions. This has resulted in sourcing from alternative suppliers and routes. Indian gas supplies have secured LNG cargoes from new sources and two shipments are currently on the way to India, the officials stated.
To take care of the distribution part, the government issued a Natural Gas Control Order on March 9, 2026 under the Essential Commodities Act to prioritise supplies for vital industries. Piped natural gas for domestic cooking usage and compressed natural gas for transport will continue to get full supply, while the industrial sector connected to the gas grid will get about 80% of their previous six-month average allocation. Fertiliser plants will get about 70%, and refineries and petrochemical plants will cut usage by approximately 35% so that priority sectors remain protected.
The government has also announced emergency measures to address the liquefied petroleum gas supplies. Approximately 60% of India’s LPG consumption is met through imports, and about 90% of the imports are routed through the Strait of Hormuz. To effectively handle the disruptions, refineries and petrochemical complexes have been asked to reroute streams such as propane, butane, propylene and butane to the LPG pool, boosting local LPG output by almost 25%. Almost the whole of the domestic LPG production is now being directed toward household demand.
In case of non-domestic LPG priority is being given to vital entities like hospitals and educational institutions. A committee has been set up to review allocations for commercial consumers such as hotels and restaurants.
Authorities said few instances of panic booking and hoarding were reported, but the average LPG delivery time remains 2.5 days. Steps such as expanding the Delivery Authentication Code system to about 90% of consumers and hiking the minimum gap between bookings from 21 days to 25 days have been announced to handle demand and stop diversion.
The officials also stated that 28 Indian-flagged ships are at present operating in the Persian Gulf. Out of these 28 vessels, 24 vessels are carrying 677 Indian seafarers and are located west of the Strait of Hormuz, while four ships with 101 Indian seafarers are located to the east of the strait.
Advisories have also been issued by the government requesting Indian-flagged ships to take into account enhanced security protocols. Ship managers, recruitment companies and Indian missions in the area have been asked to ensure help wherever needed. Port operations across India continue to be normal, while the government is monitoring vessel movements and cargo flows to maintain export-import trade.
In its update, the Ministry of External Affairs said that there are around 10mn Indians residing in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Advisories have also been issued by Indian missions from time to time. These missions have also helped stranded travellers, mostly tourists and transit passengers, to fly back to India via flights from cities such as Muscat, Riyadh and Jeddah.
Approximately 9,000 Indian nationals are residing in Iran at present. The Indian mission there is in close touch with the community, while students and pilgrims have been relocated from Tehran to safer areas in the country. Help is also being provided for land border crossings into Armenia and Azerbaijan for onward travel to India.
Officials confirmed that two Indians died and one remains missing following attacks on merchant vessels in the region.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said the Indian home secretary has held talks with various state governments and advised strict action against hoarding and black marketing of essential items while making sure that availability of supplies remain uninterrupted. States and union territories have also been directed to appoint official spokespersons and provide verified updates through government channels.
Officials said the government remains vigilant about the developments in the Middle East while coordinating across ministries to safeguard India’s energy security, maritime trade and the welfare of its citizens residing overseas.
World War III will not start with an exchange of nuclear weapons. It won’t ignite from the jostling of great empires. Nor will it result from a single madman (or two) bent on taking over the world.
It won’t be any of those things because World War III has already begun.
The current global conflagration began not with the joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. It began with the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. This blatant land grab was not only a massive war crime. Russian President Vladimir Putin also had another target in mind: the rules-based order.
This attack on international law was the Fort Sumter moment for World War III. By invading Ukraine—and then systematically breaking one article of the Geneva Convention after another—Putin effectively seceded from the international community.
There have been other major violations of international law since the end of the Cold War, including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. drone attacks in various countries, Israel’s multiple incursions into Lebanon, Rwanda’s invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and so on.
But none of these attacks, however abhorrent, challenged the fundamental structure of the rules-based order like Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Putin didn’t try to enlist the UN on his side, as Bush did in Iraq and Obama did in Libya. He didn’t seize land temporarily to create a buffer zone as Israel has attempted to do in Lebanon. Rather, he was determined to force regime change in Kyiv and undermine the entire European security system.
In Iran, Donald Trump is simply following Putin’s game plan. Like Putin, he expected a quick victory, so much so that he didn’t arrange military escorts for tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz or prepare for an emergency drawdown from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to offset the inevitable spike in gas prices. Like Putin, he didn’t bother to rally the UN to his side or even build a coalition of the willing. Like Putin, he expected (and continues to expect) to install a puppet government that can do his bidding.
Also like Putin, who took Russia out of the Council of Europe and the UN Human Rights Council, Trump has withdrawn from as many international institutions as he can, from the World Health Organization to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Russia and the United States have become partners in secession, despite the Kremlin’s protests to the contrary.
“We have all lost what we call international law,” a Russian spokesman said in the aftermath of the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran. “I don’t even understand how anyone can be called upon to follow the norms and principles of international law. It effectively no longer exists.”
The guy’s right. Sort of. He’s off by four years. And his country is the OG.
Trump generally follows the lead of others when it comes to major military operations. He only bombed Iran over the summer after Israel took the initiative. He has attacked Iran this time only because Israel is doing a lot of the heavy lifting. He probably would have seized Greenland if, say, Alberta secessionists had sent an initial amphibious unit.
And now Trump has stuck his knife into the body of international law—after Putin already severed its femoral artery.
What Comes Next?
To understand what happens next in Iran, the latest front in World War III, just look to Vladimir Putin.
Any sane world leader would have agreed to a ceasefire in Ukraine by this point. Putin doesn’t meet that particular definition of sanity.
The Russian leader has watched his country jettison its geopolitical position, with allies in Armenia, Syria, Venezuela, and now Iran left exposed and vulnerable. Putin has lost a great swath of Russia’s “best and brightest” to war and exile, sacrificing more soldiers in Ukraine at this point than he can recruit. The Russian economy has finally come down off its sugar high of military Keynesianism, with growth bottoming out and debt mounting rapidly. Not even the current spike in oil prices can help stabilize the Russian economy as long as Putin continues to bang his head against Ukrainian fortifications in the Donbas. Russia’s loss of Starlink data has even enabled Ukrainians to seize back more territory in the last couple weeks than Russia has managed to grab.
Donald Trump, having failed to achieve his initial objectives, would be well-advised to agree to a ceasefire in Iran. But he, too, doesn’t meet that particular definition of sanity.
Trump continues to insist that his action in Venezuela should be the template for Iran. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, he is still looking for the Iranian version of Delcy Rodriguez, the Venezuelan leader he has coopted. He continues to call for Iran to surrender even as Tehran vows to revenge the assassination of its leader, the death of more than 1,200 citizens, and the destruction of its infrastructure. He hasn’t ruled out the introduction of ground troops (or the use of proxies if he can somehow convince the Kurds that America won’t abandon them yet again).
Meanwhile, the conflict isn’t even two weeks old, and the toll on Trump and the United States has been huge. Russia’s military reputation suffered enormously because of its inability to defeat Ukraine. So, too, has the Iran war revealed weaknesses in U.S. power such as the deficit in weapons necessary to sustain an effort of this scale, the imprecise targeting that produced the horrific bombing of an elementary school, and the general inability to dictate facts on the ground despite overwhelming force.
At home, polling suggests that a majority of Americans oppose the war. Even some Trump supporters who naively believed that their leader would focus on domestic issues rather than be drawn into a Mideast quagmire are furious, while others, particularly in Congress, simply look foolish for contradicting their previously held “anti-war” positions. Before gas prices started to rise, Trump was already having difficulty wrapping his mind around “affordability.” With war, tariffs, and lavishly funded ICE operations, Republicans are practically dead in the water on pocketbook issues with mid-term elections rapidly approaching.
None of that will push Trump toward compromise. At least Putin has deep ideological reasons—connected to the expansion of the Russian lebensraum—for insisting on his war aims in Ukraine. No one is really sure why Trump launched the war in Iran. He has thrown out lots of rationales in the hopes that one will pass the plausibility test—Iran threatened U.S. national security (no), the United States had to preempt Iranian attacks after Israeli strikes (what?!), Iran tried to assassinate him (a stretch), Iran has a nuclear program (true, but didn’t Trump also say that he’d destroyed it over the summer?).
The decision to attack probably came down to Trump’s desire to outdo all his modern presidential predecessors. During his first term, he focused on North Korea because a solution to the nuclear crisis there had eluded Obama. Now he wants to be the president who has done what his elders and betters could not do: restores U.S. dignity after nearly 50 years of humiliation at the hands of the ayatollahs.
Good luck with that.
Should I Be Moving to a Bunker?
The war in Iran has already become a regional conflict, with Israel attacking Lebanon, Iran launching missiles at targets in the Gulf States and beyond, and Shia militias in Iraq entering the fray. It could escalate if Shia communities rise up en masse in the Middle East and/or majority Sunni governments crack down. Iran’s “axis of resistance,” although weakened by the fall of Bashar al-Assad and Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas, could still mobilize for a long-haul conflict, like the Iraq War insurgency on steroids.
It’s true that the Iran War has already generated major protests in South Asia. But with Russia and China pushing for a negotiated solution, the war is not likely to become a global conflict.
But World War III is not about a particular armed conflict. It’s about the assault on the international order by ruthless authoritarian leaders: Putin, Trump, Netanyahu. It’s the attempt to dismantle the structures that have maintained a very imperfect semblance of peace since 1945. The very mechanisms designed to prevent another world war—the United Nations, global trade mechanisms, the human rights architecture—are melting away.
A ceasefire in Iran is not out of reach. The pressure of Gulf states, the relative non-cooperation of European allies, the fracturing of the MAGA coalition, overall U.S. public opinion in the face of a worsening economy, and the continued resistance of the government in Tehran: all of these factors could lead to the end of the Iran War.
Ending World War III is a different matter. That will require defeating not just one autocrat but several. It will require remaking internationalism to the benefit of everyone who has been left behind by globalization. It will require a universal recognition of the huge costs of war, militarism, fossil fuel use, and immense concentrations of wealth.
World War II produced enormous suffering. But after 1945, the world was reborn.
World War III has produced comparable sacrifices so far in Ukraine and Russia, in Gaza and Iran, in Sudan and Myanmar. But it’s not too early to prepare now for the end of this latest global cataclysm.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus, where this article originally appeared.
Thursday, March 12, 2026
France says EU must obtain energy self-reliance through civilian nuclear power
French President Emmanuel Macron has urged European countries to expand the use of civilian nuclear power to secure the continent’s energy independence, warning that the war in the Middle East has exposed Europe’s vulnerability.
Issued on: 10/03/2026 - RFI
French President Emmanuel Macron delivers a speech during the opening plenary session at the IAEA Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris, France, 10 March 2026.
REUTERS - Abdul Saboor
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed his remarks at a nuclear energy summit in Paris.
The event – organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), comes amid heightened tensions over global energy supplies as the US-Israeli war with Iran enters its second week.
Macron said civilian nuclear power helped provide energy sovereignty. "Nuclear power is key to reconciling both independence – and thus energy sovereignty – with decarbonisation, and thus carbon neutrality."
"We can see it in our current geopolitical context: when we are too dependent on hydrocarbons, they can become a tool of pressure, or even of destabilisation," he added.
Von der Leyen said Europe's turn away from civilian nuclear power had exposed the continent's fossil fuel "vulnerability".
"It was a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emission power," she said at the opening of the second Nuclear Energy Summit held just outside Paris.
"For fossil fuels, we are completely dependent on expensive and volatile imports. They are putting us at a structural disadvantage to other regions. The current Middle East crisis gives a stark reminder of the vulnerability it creates."
"We have home-grown low-carbon energy sources: nuclear and renewables. And together, they can become the joint guarantors of independence, security of supply, and competitiveness, if we get it right." she added.
Von der Leyen explained that while in 1990, a third of Europe's electricity came from nuclear, today this figure is only around 15 percent.
"In the last years, we see a global revival of nuclear energy. And Europe wants to be part of it," she said.
She adde that the European Union would "create a €200 million guarantee to support investment in innovative nuclear technologies", unveiling a new strategy for small modular reactors.
"We want this new technology to be operational in Europe by the early 2030s."
Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 megawatts of electricity per unit, or about a third of the generating capacity of a traditional nuclear power reactor.
They are relatively simple to build, which makes them more affordable than large power reactors.
Nuclear energy fell into crisis after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, which reinforced fears highlighted by the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. Controversial topic
The use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels is highly controversial, however, with many environmental groups warning about safety risks and the disposal of nuclear waste.
The start of the summit was briefly interrupted by two Greenpeace activists who took to the stage as Macron greeted attendees and unfurled a banner reading: "Nuclear power fuels Russia's war."
One of the activists shouted: "Why are we buying uranium from Russia?" before both were taken away by security personnel.
Greenpeace has accused France of maintaining ties with Russia's state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, despite Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, now in its fifth year.
In 2018, France's EDF signed a multi-million deal with a Rosatom subsidiary, Tenex, for reprocessed uranium from French nuclear power plants to be sent to Russia to be converted and then re-enriched before being reused in power production.
Greenpeace said that around 15 activists disrupted the arrival of officials heading to the event.
"This global summit on nuclear energy is completely out of touch with the current global situation, both in terms of geopolitical tensions and armed conflicts, and in the context of the fight against climate change," Greenpeace said.
The Indonesian government has committed to building the country’s first-ever nuclear power plant by 2032. However, they must deal with funding limitations, uranium procurement issues, location selection issues, and diplomatic challenges (due to the sensitive nature of nuclear discussions). Although the absence of nuclear energy has not caused any electricity system inadequacy and instability so far, shortfalls are expected in the future when Indonesia aims to achieve the target of Net Zero Emission (NZE) by 2060.
This paper recommends that the government use a build-operate-transfer (BOT) scheme with foreign vendors (to mitigate the funding and uranium limitation issues) for plants built in remote coal ex-mining areas in Borneo (to mitigate location selection issues) with small modular reactor (SMR) technology. Furthermore, given the strong need to involve foreign parties in this nuclear planning, the government must maintain diplomatic credibility on the global stage by using the climate rationale, which is now increasingly accepted worldwide. Climate Change as a New Impetus for Nuclear Presence
Indonesia remains today the most populous country on earth without a nuclear power plant. All the countries with larger populations (India, China, and the United States) have nuclear power plants. Amidst the growing worldwide urgency to mitigate climate change and to have clean-sourced electricity, the question is more about when and how Indonesia could rather than should add nuclear energy into its power generation mix.
The discussion on how fast nuclear can be integrated into Indonesia’s power generation mix is relatively new. Until quite recently, most discussions were more about whether nuclear should be integrated in the first place. With an energy security rationale, several past Indonesian presidents favored or at least had no objections to nuclear power (Sjamsuddin, 1993; Widodo, 2015; Fadeli, 2021; Muhid, 2024). Yet, the opposition was strong enough to counterbalance that view. As a result, for years the government explicitly designated nuclear energy as “the last option” (Government of Indonesia, 2014).
The climate change mitigation narrative, however, has become increasingly popular in Indonesia, and this has elevated nuclear energy discussion in the country to a new height. The Indonesian parliament ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016, making it legally binding for Indonesia (Government of Indonesia, 2016). In accordance with the Paris Agreement, Indonesia submitted an enhanced nationally determined contribution (NDC) in 2022, in which Indonesia mentioned its desire to formulate and implement a long-term pathway to achieve NZE by 2060 or sooner, as implied by Article 4.19 of the Agreement (Indonesian Ministry of Environment and Forestry, 2022).
Now, adding climate change to the situation, both energy security and energy cleanliness have become the two rationales for having nuclear energy. Nuclear power emits little emissions (unlike oil, gas, coal, biofuel, and municipal waste), provides stable energy (unlike solar and wind), and is location-flexible (unlike hydropower and geothermal). Nuclear energy becomes a crucial instrument in supporting Indonesia’s NZE agenda while maintaining energy security.
NZE itself might be achieved through three scenarios. The first scenario is keeping some fossil-powered plants in the power system. But to deal with the emissions, carbon capture and storage (CCS) must be installed. This scenario entails costs, primarily because CCS technology is expensive.
The second scenario is entirely using variable renewable power plants (solar and wind) in the power system. But to deal with the intermittency, battery storage must be put in place. This scenario also entails hugh costs, primarily because energy storage must be equally abundant and of similar cost.
The third scenario is integrating nuclear energy into the power system. Although it never revealed the exact cost, the National Energy Council has concluded that the third scenario is the most economical way to achieve NZE. It reduces the need to include expensive CCS and energy storage. Moreover, the ability of nuclear power plants to run at high capacity for 60 to 80 years means the levelized cost of electricity (indicated by the lifetime cost, divided by the lifetime of electricity produced) can be competitive. Furthermore, nuclear plants (especially small modular reactors) also require less land than solar or wind farms, which is an important factor because land cost can be significant with an ever-growing population.
Hence, since 2018, the Indonesian parliament has opined that nuclear energy should not be the last option anymore (Indonesian Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency, 2018). Finally, the administration under current president Prabowo Subianto officially adopted the National Electricity General Plan (RUKN) in November 2024. Nuclear energy is now officially part of achieving Indonesia’s NZE status in 2060, when RUKN envisions that 14.2 percent of the country’s power should come from nuclear power plants (Indonesian Ministry of Energy, 2024).
Furthermore, RUKN even said that the first-ever nuclear power plant in Indonesia should commence its operation in 2032. But this begs more questions. Assuming a nuclear power plant requires around 7 years to construct (Cameron & Taylor, 2011), and this is already 2025, people are wondering what further preparation is necessary for Indonesia to begin construction now.
Domestic Funding and (Enriched) Uranium Limitation Issues
Funding a nuclear power plant is difficult. As a developing country with mostly low- to middle-income earners, the tax revenue is low in Indonesia, leading to an inadequate domestic public source of money. Additionally, the priority of most people within these income bands is still for consumption, and little money is leftover to be saved in the banks and to buy investment instruments such as like bonds. Consequently, the private sector cannot fund and finance nuclear power plants in Indonesia. Perhaps the solution is to borrow money from abroad, but it this would expose Indonesia to a debt risk (especially because nuclear power plants are expensive), exacerbated by an exchange rate risk.
Uranium procurement is another challenge. Indonesian uranium reserves (from domestic mining) are small (Dhanya, 2025). From 1997 to 2022, Indonesian law prohibited the commercial mining of uranium and thorium in Indonesia (Government of Indonesia, 1997). This stunted the development of the local uranium and thorium mining industry. Although the recent Omnibus Law (enacted in 2020) and its derivative regulation have lifted this restriction since 2022 (Government of Indonesia, 2022), the local mining industry needs time to mature.
Low domestic uranium stock means that most likely Indonesia will have to rely on the foreign market. This may cause a uranium import dependency, exposing Indonesia to global risks. For example, the uranium-exporting countries might ban the supply of uranium. The most recent Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) corroborated that, for Indonesia, “significant actions are needed” to make procurement viable (Suprawoto & Suparman, 2009).
Indonesia is not only dependent on uranium imports, but also does not have uranium enrichment technology within the country. It has not been needed up to now. There has been a surplus in the global uranium market because the global nuclear weapon disarmament from the Cold War era provided an unexpected supply of ex-military uranium into the global market (World Nuclear Association, 2024b). So long as this excess supply persists globally, there might be weak incentives for Indonesia to invest in uranium enrichment technology rather than simply buying the enriched uranium from abroad.
Another reason for not having domestic enrichment technology is that Indonesia wants to prevent the perception that it wants to build nuclear weapons (Herutomo, 2015). This approach seems even more justified after the recent US bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities because of the belief that Iran’s nuclear enrichment goes beyond what is necessary for nuclear power plants. Indonesia may want to continue this low-profile path. Geopolitical and Domestic Political Challenges
Nuclear is the most politically and geopolitically challenging clean energy source. Within Indonesia, lobbyists—especially those backed up by the Indonesian coal industry, which dominates the power industry—try to block Indonesia’s nuclear power plan. Some high-ranking government officials, military and police veterans, other politically influential persons, as well as business conglomerates, are known to have links to the coal industry (Wasef et al, 2020). Environmental civil society organizations, such as foreign-based Greenpeace and the locally-originated Indonesian Forum for Living Environment (WALHI), also express objections to nuclear power plants (Greenpeace, 2023; WALHI, 2024).
Domestic resistance also stems from the location selection issue. A site might meet public resistance if it is decided through a top-down decision. For instance, the government’s decision to build a nuclear power plant in Jepara in Central Java in 2007 was aborted because of public resistance. The local people feared nuclear accidents (Burhani, 2007). However, proposing the location for the nuclear power plant site through a bottom-up approach might be cumbersome. The latest government survey done in 2016 revealed that while 77.53 percent of the Indonesian people accepted a plant being built in Indonesia, they could not say where (Indonesian National Nuclear Energy Agency, 2016). Some might have answered affirmatively under the assumption the plant would not be built nearby (Purnama, 2021).
Location selection is complicated by Indonesia’s high earthquake potential, which might further drive down public approval. As a result of the 2011 Fukushima incident, Indonesians’ approval of having nuclear power plants dropped from 59.7 percent to 49.5 percent (Indonesian National Nuclear Energy Agency, 2011).
As for geopolitical consequences, Indonesia once suffered reputational after Indonesia’s first president, Soekarno, announced an intention to acquire an atomic bomb with China’s help after initially saying he wanted only a peaceful nuclear capability (Fadeli, 2021). Amidst the Cold War, such an announcement was easily misunderstood as Indonesia aligning with the Eastern Bloc.
Indonesia’s second president Soeharto then had to freeze Indonesia’s diplomatic ties with China for more than 20 years (until 1990) to regain the trust of the West. This gave Indonesia a hard lesson that a misunderstood nuclear agenda can cause a seismic repercussion. Since then, the government has deliberately maintained a non-hostile posture toward the West, sometimes at the expense of Indonesia’s diplomatic freedom.
BOT Scheme to Mitigate Funding and Uranium Issues
Given that the domestic capacity (both public and private) to fund and finance nuclear power plants is limited, Indonesia may have to look at foreign sources of money. The government may want to consider the BOT scheme, where a foreign entity would build and operate a nuclear power plant inside Indonesian territory.
There are several examples. In 2015, Rosatom (from Russia) planned to build two nuclear power reactors in Laos with the BOT scheme (Maierbrugger, 2015). The same year, Rosatom struck an intergovernmental agreement to build a nuclear power plant in Egypt with a “take-back” option at the end (Lorenzini, 2023). Also, Turkey once had the plan to build its second nuclear power plant with a BOT scheme with Japan and France, but the plan was canceled in 2018 (World Nuclear Association, 2024a). Currently, Turkey is trying to revive the plan with Rosatom (Turkiye Today, 2025).
With this scheme, the government leaves both funding and operation of the plant to other entities. One of these operational matters is the procurement of uranium. By having an experienced entity operating the plant initially, the government can train local people in preparation for future plant transfer. Transfer would occur after the foreign entity makes a profit, allowing the government to satisfy the national aspiration to own the plant. The plant’s remaining lifetime after transfer would be significant, as such plants can operate for up to 80 years (Fawaz-Huber, 2017).
The next serious question, then, is with whom Indonesia should cooperate in this BOT scheme. Russia’s state-owned Rosatom has helped build around 76 percent of overseas nuclear power plants around the world (Astrasheuskaya, 2021), so it seems natural for Indonesia to cooperate with the experienced Rosatom. Moreover, Russia controls around 44 percent of the global uranium enrichment capacity (Bryanski, 2024). As the leading nuclear supplier in the world, it is not in Russia’s interest to stop the trade. Otherwise, Russia would aggravate many of its client countries, causing them to turn to other, smaller suppliers, costing Russia market share.
Compared to Western countries, Russia also tends to be more open to technological transfer to Indonesia (Pramudyani, 2024). This fits with the nuclear politics logic of Indonesia, where acquiring the ability to make its own nuclear power plant in the future would greatly satisfy Indonesia’s technological nationalism.
Furthermore, like China, Russia tends to employ international partnerships through a government-to-government arrangement. State interventions can offer collaboration at lower costs. On the other hand, Western countries favor business-to-business arrangements, which tend to involve higher costs. However, despite being a big country, Indonesia is not necessarily an important country on the global stage. Hence, Indonesia needs geopolitical leverage. Building balanced ties with everyone, including the US, might serve that purpose best.
As of 2025, the US is still the second-largest trading partner of Indonesia. Also, according to the Indonesian Ministry of Investment data, the US is still a major FDI contributor to Indonesia. On the other hand, many Russian businesses are under economic sanctions imposed by the Western countries. Hence, although Russia’s Rosatom might be the primary nuclear vendor for the first batch of nuclear plants, Indonesia should diversify its vendors among both Western and non-Western countries for the latter batch. Diversification acts as Indonesia’s de-risking mechanism in coping with geopolitical dynamics.
Ex-Mining Areas Repurposing and Floating Stations to Mitigate Location Issues
The BOT scheme above assumes that such a plant can be built somewhere in the country. But as mentioned before, the location selection itself is an issue. In solving this problem, the government may need to come up with “outside of the box” ideas. For example, the government could select a location that is far away from highly populated areas to minimize the “not in my backyard” phenomenon.
Favorable prospective locations could include remote disused coal mining areas, which are numerous on Borneo Island compared to other main islands. Repurposing some of these sites into nuclear power plant sites can also be a smart way to appease nuclear opponents, many of whom happen to be coal businessmen who are also frequently criticized for their open-pit legacies.
It is true that putting the plants far from urban centers will raise the costs of power transmission. This problem, however, is not unique to nuclear energy. Other kinds of clean energy plants would also have to be situated far from urban centers. Hydropower and geothermal plants follow the location of the large river and geothermal reserves, which are often not near the cities. Solar plants need a vast surface area for the placement of solar panels, and cheap, available land is usually far from the city centers. Wind farms often receive resistance from urban dwellers who consider them an eyesore.
Borneo also happens to be the Indonesian island with the lowest earthquake potential. Another choice for dealing with earthquakes is using floating low-power nuclear power stations. The plant is not stationary on land, but rather is cushioned by surrounding sea water, while connecting to coastal communities that need electricity. Indonesia currently does not have this technology. But again, Russia’s Rosatom once talked with the Indonesian government about this transferring this technology, which is another reason why Indonesia naturally may bind more with the Russians in the nuclear space (World Nuclear Association, 2025).
Small Modular Reactor (SMR) as the Potential Technology Choice for the Plants
The planning for the BOT scheme above could be made more detailed once Indonesia chooses a technology to be used in the nuclear power plants. The SMR offers many benefits that fit Indonesia’s situation. Despite having a higher capital cost per capacity unit (or USD/MWe) than conventional nuclear power plants, the SMR’s small scale still makes the overall cost lower. A conventional plant can be more than 1,000 MWe, while an SMR can be as small as 300 MWe. This cost advantage is appealing for a country with limited funding or financing issues, such as Indonesia. The SMR is not only small, but its modularity makes it simpler (and thus quicker) to install. When these two features are combined, the plants can be deployed more flexibly, which suits the archipelagic character of Indonesia.
Lastly, on the operational side, SMR relies more on a passive safety system, where the reactor cooling uses general physical law (such as gravity and natural convection) so that human intervention (and the possibility of human error) can be minimized. If this benefit is communicated properly, society may be more likely to buy in. Climate Diplomacy to Secure Credibility
All the explanations thus far have shown how Indonesia may be dependent on foreign parties for many inputs (money, uranium, and technology), and thus vulnerable to international shocks. The most unwanted input shock is arguably the uranium trade ban. So, Indonesia needs a mitigation strategy in case the uranium trade is banned. As the first layer of mitigation, Indonesia might choose to reuse leftover uranium to fuel its nuclear power plant operation after a ban. Technically, not all uranium nuclei might be reacting when nuclear fission occurs in nuclear power plants. Hence, leftover fuel can be reused.
Plutonium is an unintended but normal by-product of routine nuclear fission in power plants. In theory, it can be used to make nuclear weapons. As the second layer of mitigation, Indonesia could use this plutonian as a bargaining chip in trade negotiations—i.e., Indonesia will relinquish this plutonium stock in exchange for reopening the uranium trade.
As the last layer of mitigation, Indonesia should seriously consider mastering the uranium enrichment technology by itself, but still within the boundaries of peaceful civilian purposes. Indonesia has considerable technical skill. The latest INIR by the IAEA in Indonesia concluded in 2009 that only “minor actions are needed” for Indonesia to meet international standards in important aspects of nuclear safety, including radiation protection, human resources, environmental protection, emergency planning, security, the nuclear fuel cycle, and radioactive waste management (Suprawoto & Suparman, 2009). This conclusion is rather unexpected for many Indonesians, who reject the nuclear power plan because they falsely believe Indonesia lacks competence in nuclear power management.
An interest in mastering uranium enrichment technology may raise suspicion about Indonesia’s motives. Therefore, to secure international approval, Indonesia should always discuss its nuclear plans within the context of climate change mitigation. The climate rationale might be the most acceptable justification from a global perspective, given that climate change mitigation is already a global aspiration and mostly non-controversial.
As things stand today, countries around the globe are becoming more pragmatic in embracing nuclear energy as an option to provide clean electricity and mitigate climate change. The recent COP28 saw more than 20 countries from four continents launching the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy (Day, 2024). Despite nuclear technology being geopolitically sensitive, the Declaration demonstrates that this sensitivity might have been overshadowed by the climate change emergency.
Another benefit of wrapping the nuclear power plan in the climate change mitigation banner is that any international collaboration that Indonesia engages in to advance its nuclear program, say with Russia and Brazil, as indicated by the president in 2024 (Priyasmoro, 2024; Yanwardhana, 2024), might be perceived by the West less through a geopolitical lens and more through an environmental lens.
Further, Indonesia should capitalize on the current pacifist profile that it has carefully nurtured on the global stage. Indonesia is a credible signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, expressing its zero intention to build nuclear weapons. Indonesia is also a founding member of ASEAN, which also has declared Southeast Asia a Nuclear WeaponFree Zone (Boutin & Acharya, 1998). This positive global perception is an asset for Indonesia.
A good diplomatic strategy is also needed in the event of an international emergency such as cross-border radioactive fallout or contamination of international waters. This is relevant because archipelagic Indonesia shares land and maritime borders with 10 other Asia-Pacific countries.
Policy Recommendations
In realizing Indonesia’s commitment to have the first-ever nuclear power plant in the country ready by 2032, this paper argues that the Indonesian government should consider a BOT scheme with foreign entities as a strategic move to navigate around domestic limitations in funding and financing the plant, as well as in procuring the (enriched) uranium. The plant transfer to the Indonesia at the end of the scheme can also satisfy the country’s technological nationalism. And for choosing the plant’s location, repurposing remote, disused coal mining areas on Borneo Island is recommended. This can avoid public resistance, as these areas are far from population centers. Additionally, floating (mobile) nuclear power stations can also be a smart choice. Technology-wise, the small modular reactor (SMR) technology can be a good fit for Indonesia.
It is important for Indonesia to prepare a diplomatic strategy to go along with the plan. First, the ndonesian government must always invoke climate change mitigation when discussing its nuclear power aspirations. Maintaining a positive international reputation is an asset. Suspicion is likely to arise when, say, Indonesia decides to enrich uranium by itself. A plan is also needed for dealing with the international consequences of a nuclear accident or emergency.
Second, diversifying its nuclear vendors for a BOT scheme could help Indonesia minimize the risk of geopolitical blowback.
Coordinating all these actions above may not be easy, but it is needed. These recommendations, and methods for implementing them, should be built into the country’s Nuclear Energy Program Implementing Organization (NEPIO). Apart from coordinating, this organization can help inform the world how these plans will remain consistent with Indonesia’s international legal commitments. If done right, providing for its own continued economic development need not damage Indonesia’s global reputation. About the authors:
Albertus Siagian is an economist who focuses on economic development, including the macroeconomic aspect of energy transition, in Indonesia. He obtained his MSc from the Department of Geography of the London School of Economics and holds an expert certification in renewable finance from the Frankfurt School of Finance. He can be reached at albertus.siagian@alumni.lse.ac.uk
Djarot Wisnubroto is the former Chairman of the Indonesian National Nuclear Energy Agency (2012–2018). He was also a member of the Standing Advisory Group for Nuclear Applications in the IAEA (2019–2022). He obtained his doctoral degree from the School of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Tokyo. He can be reached at djar002@brin.go.id.
The East-West Center promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue. Established by the U.S. Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.
Energy Secretary backs congressman's call to reopen Indian Point
Closing nuclear power plants like Indian Point was a "foolish" political decision, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said as New York Congressman Mike Lawler called for the two-unit plant to be "rebuilt and reopened" to help lower energy costs and strengthen grid reliability.
Lawler (left) and Wright at Indian Point on 6 March (Image: Congressman Mike Lawler)
Indian Point's two operational pressurised water reactors - unit 2 and unit 3 - were closed down in 2020 and 2021 respectively. The premature closure of the units, which both had several years of their operating licences left, followed on from a settlement agreement between the plant's then-owner Entergy and the State of New York. The plant - which is also home to unit 1, which shut down in 1974 as the newer units came on line - was then sold to subsidiaries of Holtec International for decommissioning.
The two reactors once supplied a quarter of the region’s electricity, but their closure has contributed to higher electricity costs and increased strain on New York’s electric grid, Lawler said during a visit to the former Indian Point Energy Center with Wright.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul last year announced plans to reinvest in new nuclear capacity in upstate New York, Lawler said, but there is "no reason" that Indian Point could not be brought back online in the same way that Holtec International is bringing the Palisades plant in Michigan back into service.
"I'm calling for the rebuilding and reopening of Indian Point Energy Center and for an all-of-the-above energy strategy," Lawler said. "That means supporting nuclear energy, approving critical infrastructure like natural gas pipelines, and ensuring communities like Buchanan are not left behind after decades of helping power our state."
"Across the Northeast, including in New York, Americans are paying some of the highest electricity prices in the country because political leaders blocked critical infrastructure and prematurely shut down power plants that deliver affordable, abundant power," Wright said, actions which had "driven up electricity costs for millions of Americans".
Chris Wright's visit to the Indian Point Energy Center (Image: Energy Secretary Chris Wright/X)
Both Lawler and Wright pointed to Holtec International's ongoing project to restart the Palisades nuclear power plant in Michigan. Palisades, a single-unit pressurised water reactor, ceased operations in May 2022 and was defuelled the following month. The unit's licence was transferred from previous operator Entergy Nuclear Operations to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC and Holtec Palisades, LLC, for decommissioning, but in late 2023, Holtec began the process of obtaining the licensing approvals needed to return the plant to operational status.
"In a few months in Michigan, the first-ever restart of a nuclear power plant is going to happen," Wright said. "And it's a similar story. It was just a foolish political decision, blowing with the winds of the day that we're going to shut down our nuclear power plant."
Rwanda 'making significant progress' on nuclear energy programme
Rwanda plans to have its first small modular reactor operational in the early-2030s, and an International Atomic Energy Agency mission has outlined steps taken so far.
President Paul Kagame, speaking at the Paris summit (Image: RAEB)
The 10-strong Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review mission took place during the first week of March in Rwanda, which currently has no nuclear power reactors, but plans for nuclear power to supply 60-70% of its energy mix in future decades.
President Paul Kagame told the Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris on Tuesday nuclear capacity will "diversify our energy mix while providing the stability required for industrial growth and long-term transformation".
Referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) mission, he added: "We are grateful to the International Atomic Energy Agency for supporting the Rwanda Atomic Energy Board as well as our national regulator in this endeavour."
"Nuclear energy is not too complex or risky for developing countries. The standards developed by the IAEA provide a universal framework that can be applied by countries at every income level."
Good practices observed during the IAEA mission which could be shared with other prospective nuclear energy countries included "proactive engagement with stakeholders, and early and comprehensive preparation for emergency preparedness and response … progress made in the areas of drafting a new comprehensive nuclear law, initiating work to enhance the regulatory framework for a nuclear power programme, conducting site surveys and identifying candidate sites for the planned SMR project".
Recommendations included "finalising the comprehensive report to support the national decision-making to introduce nuclear power, completing the review of national legislation, and further developing and adopting policies and strategies to support the nuclear power programme".
The leader of the mission, Mehmet Ceyhan, Technical Lead of the IAEA Nuclear Infrastructure Development Section, said: "Strong government support and the effective coordination of the preparatory work helped Rwanda make significant progress towards deciding on a nuclear power programme.
"The level of preparation and involvement from all participating organisations and teams during the mission reflected a deep commitment to the programme."
Such missions take place at the invitation of the host country. Jimmy Gasore, Rwanda's Minister of Infrastructure, said: "Rwanda remains firmly committed to the responsible, safe and transparent development of nuclear power infrastructure. The IAEA's review provides us with invaluable guidance to ensure that our national framework aligns with international safety standards and global best practices."
Following the mission, whose members included experts from Egypt, Estonia, Kenya and Pakistan as well as agency staff, the IAEA and Rwanda will develop an integrated plan for continuing support during the development of the nuclear energy programme.
Kagame added in his speech: "Our country is prepared to proceed through the agency's milestone approach to the next stage. Nuclear technology is evolving in ways that benefit countries with small grids, allowing Africa to be among the early adopters. Small modular reactors in particular are especially suited to Africa's requirements."
China and Brazil among new signatories to tripling nuclear goal
Four more countries - China, Brazil, Italy and Belgium - have signed up to the goal of at least tripling global nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
(Image: Emmanuel Macron/X)
The decision by the countries, announced at the Nuclear Energy Summit 2026 in Paris, means there are now 38 countries signed up to the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050.
Earlier this month South Africa also signed the declaration, with the country's Minister of Electricity and Energy, Kgosientsho Ramokgopa, emphasising the importance of reliable and scalable power to support economic development and industrial growth across Africa.
Chinese President Xi Jinping's Special Representative Zhang Guoqing attended the summit, which heard that, to address climate change and ensure energy security, China endorsed the tripling declaration, and "to deliver such ambitious goals we should uphold multilateralism, strengthen solidarity and cooperation and resist unilateralism and protectionism. We are ready to work with all related parties to implement the building of a community with a shared future for all".
Italy's Minister of the Environment and Energy Security Gilberto Pichetto announced the country had signed the declaration and said the country was "building a responsible, modern and transparent nuclear strategy - our goal is a secure, decarbonised and competitive energy mix capable of integrating all sustainable sources within a framework of technological neutrality”.
He said: "In the short to medium term we are looking closely at advanced third-generation small modular reactors, while also carefully considering fourth-generation technologies, particularly lead-cooled fast reactors."
Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of World Nuclear Association - speaking from the summit - said: "Today's announcement adds tremendous momentum to the global coalition of the ambitious, who are supporting the declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. The ambition of the countries joining the declaration is recognised in our World Nuclear Outlook Report which shows nuclear capacity can exceed the tripling goal, if government targets are met. Collectively, governments and industry must now turn this ambition into action and deliver."
It was during COP28 - held in Dubai, UAE, in December 2023 - that an initial 25 countries backed a Ministerial Declaration calling for an at least tripling of global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. The declaration says the countries recognise the need for a tripling of nuclear energy capacity to achieve "global net-zero greenhouse gas/carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach". It also recognises that "new nuclear technologies could occupy a small land footprint and can be sited where needed, partner well with renewable energy sources and have additional flexibilities that support decarbonisation beyond the power sector, including hard-to-abate industrial sectors".
The number of signatories has continued to grow, to reach the current total of 38 countries - Armenia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Poland, Romania, Republic of Rwanda, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, the UK, and the USA.
Deep Fission begins drilling first data acquisition well
California-based startup Deep Fission, which aims to place small modular reactors in boreholes a mile underground, has begun drilling the first of three planned data acquisition wells in Parsons, Kansas, where it is building its pilot project.
(Image: Deep Fission)
The well will be drilled to a depth of approximately 6,000 feet (1,830 metres) and will have a diameter of roughly eight inches (20 centimetres). The three planned wells represents the initial phase of site characterisation and engineering validation.
The data acquisition well will enable the company to gather critical geological, hydrological, and thermal data to inform final engineering design, safety analysis, and regulatory planning. The drilling campaign and subsequent testing programme will support a series of technical evaluations.
"The three-well drilling programme is expected to provide the subsurface data necessary to advance reactor demonstration and future commercialisation efforts," Deep Fission said.
The company has also completed construction of the drilling pad at the Parsons site, preparing the location for safe and efficient drilling operations. Pad completion marks another key infrastructure milestone as the company advances from planning and engineering into active field development.
"Drilling our first borehole is a major step forward for Deep Fission," said Liz Muller, CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission. "It represents the shift from concept to construction and begins the process of demonstrating a fundamentally new approach to nuclear energy deployment."
Deep Fission's Gravity reactor is a small modular reactor (SMR) designed to be placed underground in an optimised borehole one mile (1.6 km) deep. Using traditional pressurised water reactor technology and LEU fuel, each reactor will generate 15 MWe, the company says, while its small footprint and dense power output means it will need a fraction of the land needed for traditional surface nuclear: ten reactors on the same site would deliver 150 MWe, or 100 reactors would produce 1.5 GWe. The passive shielding and natural containment offered by the surrounding geology, and the combination of mature technologies from the nuclear, oil and gas, and geothermal industries, while using off-the-shelf parts and readily available LEU fuel, aims to improve safety and security and enable a faster, more cost-effective path to deployment.
Deep Fission broke ground in December at the Great Plains Industrial Park in Parsons, Kansas, for its pilot project and plans to build a full-scale commercial plant there following the test reactor demonstration.
In August last year, Deep Fission was one of 10 companies selected by the US Department of Energy to receive support under its Nuclear Reactor Pilot Program, which aims to see at least three designs achieve criticality by 4 July 2026.
Deep Fission was founded in 2023 by father-daughter team Elizabeth and Richard Muller, who also co-founded Deep Isolation in 2016 to develop the concept of placing canisters of radioactive waste hundreds of metres underground via a borehole.
Framatome and NuScale expand fuel partnership
France’s Framatome and the USA's NuScale Power have announced their fuel manufacturing agreement is to include European fuel fabrication facilities.
(Image: NuScale)
The NuScale Power Module is a 77 MWe Generation III+ pressurised water reactor that uses NuFUEL-HTP2 fuel, which is based on existing Framatome HTP pressurised water reactor fuel technology. A fuel manufacturing contract was signed in 2015.
The companies said: "Framatome has now been issued notice to qualify the Richland, Washington facility for manufacturing and delivery of the NuFUEL-HTP2 fuel design. In addition to supporting manufacturing readiness, the notice includes direction to produce at least 444 fuel assemblies for NuScale’s first US customer as early as 2030, reflecting growing momentum for the nuclear energy industry and rising demand for baseload electricity."
Their links are to be expanded to Framatome's European facilities for the future fabrication of fuel assemblies for NuScale's European SMR customers.
Lionel Gaiffe, Senior Executive Vice President, Fuel Business Unit at Framatome, said: "By leveraging our proven expertise and advanced American and European manufacturing facilities, we are ensuring reliable, high-quality fuel delivery for NuScale's customers worldwide - this milestone reflects our shared vision for a sustainable energy future and reinforces Framatome's role as a trusted partner in advancing next-generation nuclear solutions."
Carl Fisher, Chief Operating Officer at NuScale Power, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, said: "NuScale is proud to continue our decade-long relationship with our partners at Framatome to supply fuel for our global customers. This newest agreement will allow us to continue to meet our critical supply chain and manufacturing milestones to fulfill project timelines and prepare to deploy our groundbreaking technology."
Framatome, which is 80.5% owned by French state-owned EDF Group and 19.5% by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, says the fuel design "combines low pressure drop with robust mechanical strength and seismic resilience to assure reliable fuel performance in this new reactor type. Over 20,000 HTP fuel assemblies have been delivered to a wide range of PWRs in 11 countries".
EDF launches global nuclear investment and financing advisory board
The Financing and Investing in Nuclear - Advisory Board EDF brings together leading experts from across the energy and finance ecosystems to facilitate the financing of, and investment in, new nuclear projects globally.
Nuclear energy's competitive, sovereign, and low-carbon electricity makes it a key lever for addressing energy and climate challenges, EDF said, citing International Energy Agency scenarios that see global installed nuclear capacity potentially growing from 400 GWe today to 600-1,000 GWe over the next 20 to 30 years. But this momentum will require massive public and private sector investment.
From its "unique" experience in delivering large and complex industrial projects and involvement in nuclear power programmes in France, the UK and worldwide - including through its subsidiaries Framatome and Arabelle Solutions - EDF said it is "well placed to help clients structure the bankable models needed to secure robust financing solutions for new nuclear projects".
The Financing and Investing in Nuclear - Advisory Board EDF (FINABe) aims to identify market expectations, promote best-practice sharing and contribute to the gradual development of robust financial mechanisms supporting investments in new nuclear projects for both large-scale and small modular reactors, through a coordinated dialogue with leading financial experts.
"For many countries considering new nuclear programmes, securing credible financing solutions is now as critical as selecting the right technology," EDF Chief Financial Officer Claude Laruelle said. "Through FINABe, we seek to capitalise on our unique expertise and work hand-in-hand with leading financial institutions to craft robust financing frameworks and support the development of new nuclear capacities."
It will be chaired by Vakis Ramany, EDF's Senior Vice President, International Nuclear Development.
Arthur van Dijk, head of New Energies & Infrastructure at Netherlands-based ABN AMRO, said the bank will participate in FINABe in an advisory capacity, focused on financing and investment frameworks that support informed decision-making in the context of the European energy transition, bringing its financial expertise to the dialogue. "As a financial institution, we support the financing of reliable and low-carbon energy solutions, including renewable energy, grid flexibility and decarbonisation technologies," he said.
"We recognise the growing need for affordable and secure energy in a resilient Europe and the importance of diversified financing to support largescale energy and infrastructure projects. Nuclear energy can, when deployed responsibly and within national frameworks, play a role within a broader energy mix."
_88941.jpg)
_cb9f4152.jpg)
_27741.jpg)
_78201.jpg)
