Hormuz And Bab Al-Mandeb: The Geopolitics Of The Twin Maritime Chokepoints – Analy

File photo of Houthi rebels patrolling near a merchant ship in Red Sea. Photo Credit: Fars News Agency

April 14, 2026 
By Amb. Prof. Mohamed A. Qubaty

How two narrow waterways linking the Gulf and the Red Sea have become pivotal nodes of geoeconomic leverage in the global economy.

In the twenty-first century, global power is increasingly shaped not only by military capabilities but also by the ability to influence the flows of energy, trade, a

Hormuz And Bab Al-Mandeb: The Geopolitics Of The Twin Maritime Chokepoints – Analysisnd supply chains that sustain the world economy. Nowhere is this transformation more visible than in the strategic maritime corridors linking the Gulf and the Red Sea.

Much of that power is concentrated in a handful of narrow maritime passages where geography compresses global commerce into strategic bottlenecks. Among the most consequential of these are the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. Together they form a geostrategic system whose importance extends far beyond the Middle East.

“In an interconnected global economy, the power to disrupt a maritime chokepoint may rival the power to control a battlefield.”

In an era of intensifying geoeconomic competition, maritime chokepoints are increasingly becoming instruments of geoeconomic leverage, allowing regional actors to influence global trade routes and energy flows with effects that can reverberate across continents.

The Changing Language Of Power

For much of the twentieth century, regional conflicts in the Middle East were framed primarily in military terms. Strategic competition was expressed through conventional warfare, territorial disputes, and military alliances.

Today, however, the language of strategic pressure has evolved. In an interconnected global economy, disruption of trade routes and energy flows can generate economic shockwaves far beyond the immediate theater of conflict.

Insurance premiums rise, shipping routes shift, freight costs increase, and energy markets react instantly to signals of instability. The economic consequences often extend across continents. In this context, the strategic value of maritime geography has risen dramatically.

The Bab Al-Mandab Strait and Strait of Hormuz

Hormuz: The World’s Energy Pressure Valve

For decades the Strait of Hormuz has occupied a central place in the architecture of global energy security. A significant share of the world’s traded oil and liquefied natural gas passes through this narrow corridor linking the Persian Gulf to international markets.


Even the mere possibility of disruptions in Hormuz has historically been sufficient to trigger volatility in oil prices. In this sense, Hormuz functions not only as a transit route but also as a geoeconomic pressure valve within the global energy system.
Bab Al-Mandeb: The Southern Gate Of The Rede Sea Economy

At the southern entrance to the Red Sea lies another critical chokepoint: Bab al-Mandeb. This narrow passage links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and the wider Indian Ocean, forming an essential segment of the maritime route connecting Asian manufacturing hubs with European markets via the Suez Canal.

The economic implications of disruptions in Bab al-Mandeb are therefore profound. Disturbances in this corridor can affect global container shipping networks, European energy supplies, trade flows between Asia and Europe, and insurance and freight markets.
The East-West Pipeline Paradox

Saudi Arabia’s energy infrastructure illustrates the strategic interdependence of these maritime chokepoints. In order to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, Riyadh constructed the East–West pipeline (Petroline), transporting crude oil from the Kingdom’s eastern oil fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu.

This system was designed to ensure that Saudi exports could bypass Hormuz during periods of regional tension. Yet when oil shipped from Yanbu is destined for Asian markets, tankers must still transit through Bab al-Mandeb before reaching the Indian Ocean.

This structural reality links Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb into a single strategic system within the maritime geography of the Arabian Peninsula.

The Twin Maritime Bottleneck Equation

Viewed through a broader geostrategic lens, the two straits function as interconnected nodes within the global energy and trade architecture.

Pressure exerted in Hormuz primarily affects Gulf oil exports. Pressure exerted in Bab al-Mandeb influences shipping routes through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, affecting both energy shipments and global container traffic.

When tensions simultaneously affect both chokepoints, the cumulative economic impact can extend far beyond the region. Shipping costs rise, supply chains face disruption, and global markets react with volatility.

The strategic significance therefore lies less in absolute control of these waterways than in the ability to threaten disruption sufficiently to generate economic consequences.
Conclusion

In the emerging geoeconomic landscape, the significance of maritime chokepoints will only grow. Hormuz and Bab al-Mandeb are no longer merely regional waterways; they are pivotal nodes in a global system where energy security, trade flows, and geopolitical competition intersect.

Understanding the strategic interplay between these two straits — the twin maritime bottleneck equation — offers insight into how geography continues to shape power in the twenty-first century.

Amb. Prof. Mohamed A. Qubaty

Amb. Prof. Mohamed A. Qubaty is a Yemeni diplomat, academic, and former Minister of Information. He writes on Middle Eastern geopolitics, governance, and Red Sea security.

‘Clock Is Ticking’: Hormuz Disruption Raises Fears Of Global Food Crisis

April 14, 2026 
UN News
By Vibhu Mishra


The clock is ticking for global food systems as disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz threaten to choke off the flow of fuel and crucial fertilizers needed for the next planting season – also raising the risk of higher food prices and a new wave of inflation.

A fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran has done little to restore confidence in the vital maritime corridor, where renewed tensions – including a newly announced US blockade on ships using Iranian ports – are keeping vessels idle and supply chains strained.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but critical waterway, carries a significant share of the world’s energy and agricultural inputs. Disruptions since the outbreak of hostilities on 28 February are already constraining flows of oil, gas and fertilizer for newly planted staples, with ripple effects reaching far beyond the Middle East.

“We have 30-35 per cent of the crude oil, which is not moving, 20 per cent of natural gas…and between 20 to 30 per cent of other fertilizers that are not moving out,” said Máximo Torero, Chief Economist of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

“That’s the magnitude of the potential impact,” he warned.

Supply bottleneck despite ceasefire

While the ceasefire briefly raised expectations that shipping could resume, uncertainty remains high. Talks between the US and Iran, mediated by Pakistan this weekend, failed to yield any breakthrough.

Many vessels remain stranded in the Gulf, with new shipments yet to enter the corridor. Shipowners and insurers are reluctant to risk costly assets and crews amid ongoing insecurity. Even if tensions ease, it could take days or weeks for traffic to normalise.

That delay is critical, warns David Laborde, Director of Agrifood Economics Division at FAO.

Much of the cargo that left the Gulf before the crisis has already reached its destination — meaning the world is now entering a phase where supplies could begin to tighten.

“We are going to see the real stop in supply” in the days ahead, he said.

A delayed crisis – for now

Despite sharp increases in input costs, global food prices have not yet surged – a point FAO economists stress should not be mistaken for a sign of underlying stability.

The FAO’s Food Price Index for March showed only modest increases, reflecting strong global stocks and good harvests last year.

“We have enough supplies…and good stocks which allow the agri-food system…to be resilient to this shock,” Mr. Torero said.

But that buffer may be short-lived. As planting decisions are made in the coming weeks, farmers facing higher costs and limited access to fertilizers may reduce input use or shift crops – lowering yields in the next season.

“If we don’t have the inputs in the time that is needed…that implies that producers will have to produce with less inputs,” he said. “And therefore, they could have lower yields.”

That, in turn, could drive up food prices later in the year and into the next.

A chain of interdependence

The risks extend across the entire food value chain. Energy underpins everything from farm machinery to transport, while fertilizers – particularly nitrogen-based products linked to natural gas – are critical for crop yields.

The impact is global: from the US and Canada to Australia, farmers depend on stable access to energy and inputs to maintain production, while import-dependent countries – including many in Africa, such as Kenya – face heightened exposure to price shocks and supply disruptions.

Higher oil prices are also increasing incentives to divert crops such as maize, sugar and oilseeds toward biofuel production, tightening the balance between food and fuel.

“If we have rising demand because biofuels start to consume more…and lower supply because we have less input…food prices will go up,” Mr. Laborde warned.

Risks of a ‘perfect storm’

FAO economists warn the situation could deteriorate further if additional pressures emerge – including export restrictions or climate shocks such as the El Niño weather pattern.

In past crises, countries have restricted exports to protect domestic markets, exacerbating global shortages.

“We need to avoid export restrictions…especially now for fertilizers and energy,” Mr. Torero said, warning that without coordination, vulnerable countries could be priced out of essential supplies.

A global risk with local consequences

Although the crisis is centred in the Middle East, its effects are spreading rapidly. Countries in Asia and the Global South are particularly exposed due to their reliance on imported energy and fertilizers and their position in the crop calendar.

“This will start to move from east to west…but also from the south to the north,” Mr. Torero said.

The consequences are both economic and human. Higher food prices hit poorer households hardest, while rising inflation could force governments to tighten monetary policy, slowing growth and increasing debt burdens.

Farmers are also under mounting pressure. Rising input costs and uncertainty are squeezing margins and raising the risk of longer-term disruptions to production.

“When you push them too much, you may bring them into bankruptcy,” Mr. Laborde said. “And then it means there will be a supply problem…for a longer period.”

Alarm bells ringing

Across parts of Asia, early signs of disruption are already emerging.

In South Asia, rising fuel and fertilizer costs are beginning to filter into food prices and farm decisions, with import-dependent economies under mounting pressure.

In Nepal, where millions of households rely on remittances from Gulf countries, disruptions to mobility and rising transport costs are already being felt – raising concerns that what begins as an external shock could quickly translate into hardship at home.
A narrow window to act

FAO is urging governments and international financial institutions to act quickly.

Short-term priorities include avoiding trade restrictions, supporting vulnerable households through social protection, and ensuring liquidity for farmers, including through credit lines and import financing.

Longer term, the crisis underscores the need to diversify energy sources, strengthen infrastructure and reduce reliance on chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz.

For now, FAO stresses that a full-blown food crisis is not inevitable – but the window to prevent one is rapidly closing.

“The clock is the key…Let’s avoid a perfect storm – be aware of the risks, put the right policies in place and pursue the diplomatic solutions needed to avert a food crisis we do not need,” Mr. Torero urged.

 

Improved catalyst enhances the conversion of ethanol to hydrogen

Fine-tuning the processing of perovskite-type ceramic material increases system stability and reduces costs by eliminating the need for noble metals.

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

High-resolution microscopy showing ruthenium exsolution in LaCrO3 perovskite. The process is similar to nickel exsolution 

view more 

Credit: Fabio Coral Fonseca

Amid the climate crisis and the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, hydrogen has emerged as one of the most promising energy sources for the transition to a low-carbon economy. When produced from renewable sources, it can serve as a clean fuel, strategic industrial input, and means of energy storage.

In the Brazilian context, hydrogen production from ethanol, especially when derived from biomass, is a particularly promising pathway. Brazil has a well-established infrastructure for producing, distributing, and using this biofuel, opening the door to technological solutions that add value to ethanol and expand its role in the energy transition.

A study led by Fabio Coral Fonseca, a senior researcher at the Institute of Energy and Nuclear Research (IPEN), made significant progress in this direction. The study demonstrated that fine-tuning the processing of a perovskite-type ceramic catalyst is crucial for maximizing the conversion of ethanol into hydrogen. This increases the stability of the system and reduces costs. It also eliminates the need for noble metals that are traditionally used in this type of reaction. The study was published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.

The conversion is carried out through a process known as ethanol steam reforming (ESR). In simple terms, this involves reacting ethanol with steam at high temperatures to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. The ideal overall reaction, which maximizes hydrogen production, can be represented as follows: C₂H₅OH + 3 H₂O → 2 CO₂ + 6 H₂. However, in practice, the process involves several intermediate steps. This makes the role of the catalyst central to directing the reaction, maximizing hydrogen yield, and avoiding undesirable pathways. One such pathway is the formation of coke, or carbon deposits, which rapidly degrade the material.

“Catalysis is a surface property. What we want are very small particles that are very well distributed and stable over time,” says Fonseca. “The problem is that, at high temperatures, these particles tend to shift, agglomerate, and lose activity.”

To address this challenge, the study used a perovskite-type ceramic oxide. Unlike conventional catalysts, however, the active element in the reaction, nickel (Ni), is not impregnated onto the surface of the ceramic; rather, it is incorporated into the crystalline structure of the material during synthesis. “Rather than placing the metal on top of the support, as in classical catalytic methods, we introduce the nickel into the crystal structure. Then, under controlled conditions, that nickel emerges on the surface,” the researcher explains.

This phenomenon, known as “exsolution,” causes metallic nickel nanoparticles (Ni⁰) to emerge on the surface of the solid. They are strongly anchored to the substrate, which gives them much greater stability against sintering and carbon deposition. “The metal comes from the inside out. It doesn’t move around the surface as it does in impregnated catalysts. That gives the system much greater stability,” says Fonseca.

The central breakthrough of the study was demonstrating that a seemingly simple parameter – the calcination temperature of the precursor oxide prior to the reduction step – controls the entire performance of the catalyst. The researchers synthesized the material chemically and calcined it at three different temperatures: 650 °C, 800 °C, and 1,200 °C. This step, which precedes the actual catalytic reaction, determines the microstructure of the solid, particularly the size of the ceramic particles and the available surface area.

“If we heat the perovskite to very high temperatures, it grows too much. And that hinders the exsolution of nickel later on,” Fonseca notes. The results showed that calcination at 650 °C preserves a larger surface area, whereas higher temperatures promote grain coalescence, drastically reducing this area. Smaller ceramic particles favor nickel exsolution and the formation of smaller, more active nanoparticles. “The key point of the study was to show that substrate size controls exsolution. If the particles are large, the nickel doesn’t exsolve well. If they’re smaller, it exsolves more efficiently,” the researcher summarizes.

In ethanol steam reforming tests, the catalyst that was calcined at 650 °C produced significant results: 100% ethanol conversion, a yield of 4.04 moles of H₂ per mole of ethanol, and stable operation for up to 85 hours with low coke formation. In contrast, materials calcined at 800 °C and 1200 °C exhibited lower nickel exsolution, lower conversion, and a shift in reaction selectivity, favoring the simple dehydrogenation of ethanol over complete reforming for hydrogen production. “It isn’t enough to choose the right elements. How the material is manufactured is decisive. A relatively simple adjustment in processing completely changes the performance,” emphasizes Fonseca.

The researcher places the study within a broader technological agenda. According to Fonseca, converting ethanol into hydrogen is not always the best solution from an energy standpoint, especially when considering mobility. “Ethanol is a very valuable molecule. To obtain it, you have to go through agriculture, fermentation, and distillation. Simply breaking it down to produce hydrogen and then electricity may not be the best choice,” he notes. For this reason, the group is investigating direct ethanol fuel cells, which can convert the liquid fuel directly into electricity. “Ultimately, we study these perovskites because they fit very well with that technology,” Fonseca adds.

Perovskites are materials defined less by their specific chemical composition and more by their characteristic ABO₃ crystalline structure. This structure, first observed in the natural mineral calcium titanate (CaTiO₃) – the original perovskite – is now reproduced synthetically and in various ways in the laboratory. In this architecture, various elements can occupy the A and B sites of the crystal lattice, giving these materials extraordinary structural flexibility to tailor their electrical, ionic, magnetic, and catalytic properties.

The work on nickel is part of a broader strategy to explore metal exsolution in perovskites. In a previous study conducted with groups in the United States as part of a project supported by FAPESP and the National Science Foundation (NSF), the IPEN team obtained significant results with ruthenium exsolved from lanthanum chromite (LaCrO₃)-based perovskites. In this case, ruthenium – an even more active metal in reforming reactions – is initially incorporated into the crystal lattice. During the ethanol reforming reaction, it emerges as metal nanoparticles that are strongly anchored to the support. This study was also coordinated by Fonseca and published in the journal Catalysis Science & Technology.

Studies with polycrystalline powders, as described in the two articles, are just one part of the IPEN scientists’ research program. The team is transitioning to more controlled systems based on epitaxial thin films produced by pulsed laser deposition. “Epitaxial” refers to material that grows in an ordered manner on top of another material, copying its crystalline structure. “In this case, what we do is compact the powder, transform it into a ceramic wafer, and then sublimate that material with a high-energy laser. The vapor deposits onto a well-ordered substrate and forms a nearly perfect crystal,” Fonseca describes. This approach enables the study of exsolution at the atomic level using advanced characterization techniques at Sirius, the Brazilian synchrotron light source.

By demonstrating that high catalytic performance can be achieved with abundant, low-cost metals offering strong stability, the studies point to a concrete path toward reducing dependence on noble metals and making sustainable hydrogen production more viable. In the Brazilian context, where ethanol is abundant and demand for low-carbon energy solutions is growing, these results reinforce the potential of the ethanol-hydrogen route. More broadly, they reinforce the potential of exsolved perovskites as a strategic resource for the energy transition.

Support for the nickel study came from FAPESP through the Thematic Project “Advanced Electrochemical Devices for Molecular Conversion and Energy Production”, Research Grants 17/11937-4, 18/19251-7, and 24/00989-7, as well as a Doctoral Scholarship.

About São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) is a public institution with the mission of supporting scientific research in all fields of knowledge by awarding scholarships, fellowships and grants to investigators linked with higher education and research institutions in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. FAPESP is aware that the very best research can only be done by working with the best researchers internationally. Therefore, it has established partnerships with funding agencies, higher education, private companies, and research organizations in other countries known for the quality of their research and has been encouraging scientists funded by its grants to further develop their international collaboration. You can learn more about FAPESP at www.fapesp.br/en and visit FAPESP news agency at www.agencia.fapesp.br/en to keep updated with the latest scientific breakthroughs FAPESP helps achieve through its many programs, awards and research centers. You may also subscribe to FAPESP news agency at http://agencia.fapesp.br/subscribe.

---

Journal

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

DOI

10.1016/j.ijhydene.2025.153326 

Article Title

Calcination temperature of the perovskite parent compound controls active metal exsolution and catalytic performance for ethanol steam reforming

The Post-American Climate Order: Power, Policy, And The Vacuum Ahead – OpEd

March 30, 2026
By Anchal Mathur


Recently, US President Donald Trump threw yet another bombshell by revoking the ‘Endangerment Finding’ clause under the Clean Air Act 2002, that can further cripple America’s environmental protection. The ‘endangerment finding’ was drafted by America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2009. In 2007, in Massachusetts vs. EPA case, the federal court ordered EPA to confirm if greenhouse gases (GHG), that warm the Earth, are also pollutants that can potentially harm public health. It was in response to Federal court’s direction that the EPA issued this finding claiming that six GHGs- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This endangerment finding was included in America’s Clean Air Act, giving legal authority to the federal government to curb carbon emissions especially from vehicular sector and fossil-fuel based power plants.

However, unlike his recent measures that came as a shock to the world, this move is not out of the blue. President Trump has been one of the most vocal critics of climate change, denying its existence altogether. His climate scepticism stems from the fear of losing revenue and markets for the oil industry as well as the automobile sector. Trump justifies his move by arguing that this clause had put greater burden on the automobile companies to raise their anti-pollution standards, raising the cost of vehicles and burdening the consumers with higher prices. Clearly his climate scepticism is nothing but a mercantilist attitude prioritising profits over the planet.

This move has been hailed by his MAGA crowd in anticipation of lower vehicular prices. In the short term, such moves can help garner public support. But in the long run, denial of climate realities can cost a bomb. America, in recent times, has seen one of the worst disasters, unprecedented in scale. There is ample scientific evidence proving that climate change has the potential to derail developmental progress, development that the Trump regime is working hard for. Data from National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) shows that frequency and cost of disasters have increased in the USA over the last century. In 2024 alone, USA witnessed 27 climate disaster events with losses amounting to $1 billion.

Moreover, disasters in his own constituencies like Pennsylvania’s flash floods and North Carolina’s hurricane helene are a grim reminder of worsening of the crisis waiting for acknowledgement. In fact, as per The U.S. Climate Vulnerability Index, states such as Kentucky and South Carolina are some of the most vulnerable states which have shockingly been Trump loyalists in each of his three campaigns. However, the Trump regime has been audacious enough to leave his own support base in peril. He has called for repealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that looks after hazard and disaster management in the USA, even though 50% of FEMA funding from 2015 to 2024 went to states that voted for Trump in 2024 [3].

In face of dwindling support from America for the climate cause, the world should now prepare itself for a post-American climate order. Such a system shall be less dependent on America for climate action. Instead, it must be led by serious actors like India. India’s curation of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) can be seen as an effort to move away from America-led environmental institutions. Further, climate multilateralism needs to be more issue-specific rather than generic, making climate action precise, targeted and effective. The climate crisis is multifaceted and so are its solutions. With generic framework and overarching goals, little can be achieved. The world must identify the priority areas and create separate institutional structure for each. For instance, India launched the Global Biofuel Alliance (GBA) in 2023 to decarbonise the transportation sector by popularising use of alternate cleaner fuels and given that the transportation sector contributes a massive 14% of annual GHG emissions, this initiative can indeed be a way towards greener mobility.

One relatively reassuring aspect about America’s climate politics is that Trump will not remain in office indefinitely, leaving room for hope that new leadership can recalibrate the country’s climate foreign policy. However, the concern is that America’s foreign climate posture has often dwindled, failing to exhibit sincerity in dealing with climate challenges. Even during the Kyoto negotiations, the US remained reluctant to commit to binding targets and accept the responsibility of having caused climate change in the first place. It did not ratify the protocol and insisted on binding promises from India and China like countries that were neither responsible for the cause nor had the capacity to commit to emissions reduction, given the need for development and poverty alleviation. Such hypocritical behaviour has remained almost consistent in America’s foreign climate policy.

The subnational governments such as California, on the contrary, are working earnestly to follow a low-carbon economic model and minimize the country’s reputational damage due to federal inaction. However, subnational diplomacy has its limitations. Despite best efforts, they cannot represent their nations as federal governments can. And therefore, the world should prepare for a new climate order that is less dependent on America for climate resources, where partnering with America is a choice and not compulsion and where promises translate into action


Anchal Mathur

Anchal Mathur is a doctoral candidate at the Jindal School of International Affairs, with research interests centred on climate diplomacy and international climate governance. She holds a Master’s degree in International Relations, Security and Strategy from JSIA.

 

One pot process to convert sugarcane waste to jet fuel

Converting sugarcane waste to biofuel could become more environmentally friendly and cost effective, thanks to a joint project at The University of Queensland and the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

University of Queensland

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Sugarcane bagasse 

view more 

Credit: The University of Queensland

Converting sugarcane waste to biofuel could become more environmentally friendly and cost effective, thanks to a joint project at The University of Queensland and the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.

PhD candidate Ms Neethu Joshikumar has successfully tested a process to simplify the preparation of sugarcane waste, known as bagasse.

“As most countries begin the transition to sustainable fuel, the focus has turned to creating biofuels from agricultural waste but there are still challenges we need to overcome,” Ms Joshikumar said.

“A key problem in making biofuels from bagasse is the presence of lignin, a stubborn component that makes it harder to access the fermentable sugars in bagasse.

"Conventional ethanol production involves soaking the bagasse to remove the lignin and isolate the cellulose, which requires toxic and expensive acids plus a lot of water.

“My research focuses on an alternative pre-treatment to see if we can cut costs and reduce the environmental impact of the conversion process.  

“I used deep eutectic solvent (DES), an eco-friendly biodegradable liquid.

“Unlike the acids it doesn’t kill the enzymes and the yeast needed for fermentation allowing me to complete the entire step in one pot without separation or water washing.

“This reduced the required electricity and time.”

Ms Joshikumar also analysed different sugarcane varieties and found that higher cellulose and lower lignin content gave the best ethanol yield.

Modelling shows when integrated with a sugar mill, the DES-based one-pot bioethanol production is both economically competitive and environmentally sustainable.

Ms Joshikumar said taking a significant step forward to solve a major problem was extremely gratifying.

“Where I’m from in India, farmers burn the agricultural waste every year to get the land ready for the next crop and that causes extensive air pollution,” she said.

“It’s very rewarding to know that my research could result in a better use for that waste and help solve climate issues, as well as speed up the conversion of biofuel.”

Ms Joshikumar started the work and it will be continued by UQ’s ARC Research Hub for Engineering Plants to Replace Fossil Carbon, which is focusing on improving plant biomass to simplify the process of producing sustainable aviation fuel.

The research was published in Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining.

The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation is a research institute at The University of Queensland, established with and supported by the Department of Primary Industries.

---

Journal

Biofuels Bioproducts and Biorefining

DOI

10.1002/bbb.70139 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Economic assessment and life cycle analysis of sugarcane bagasse valorization to bioethanol via one-pot deep eutectic solvent pretreatment

OUTLAW PALM OIL

Indonesia firms in palm oil fraud probe supplied fuel majors

By AFP
March 15, 2026


Palm oil has often been linked to deforestation

 - Copyright AFP/File CHAIDEER MAHYUDDIN

Sara HUSSEIN

Indonesian companies targeted in a palm oil fraud probe supplied European firms including Italian energy giant Eni and Finnish sustainable aviation fuel leader Neste, an investigation by AFP and SourceMaterial has found.

The links raise fresh questions about supply chains in the biofuel sector, experts said, and follow persistent allegations of fraud involving palm oil products used as fuel feedstocks.

There is no suggestion that Eni, Neste or other companies supplied by Indonesian firms implicated in the probe had knowledge of or involvement in fraud.

The Indonesian probe alleges local companies and government officials conspired to pass off palm oil as a waste byproduct called palm oil mill effluent (POME), including by offering bribes.

For the Indonesian government, this is a financial issue — the higher tax on palm oil means labelling the product as POME allegedly defrauded authorities of millions of dollars in revenue.

For customers, the allegations threaten sustainability pledges. Palm oil has long been associated with deforestation, and both Eni and Neste have officially removed it from their supply chains.

The European Union will ban its use in biofuel from 2030.

Both Eni and Neste received multiple shipments described as POME from Indonesian companies accused of mislabelling palm oil as the waste byproduct.

Experts and campaigners said the alleged fraud illustrated the sector’s oversight problems.

“The EU rightly decided to phase out palm oil biofuels in 2019 because of its links to deforestation,” said Cian Delaney, biofuels campaigner at environmental NGO Transport and Environment (T&E).

“But disguising palm oil as waste products like POME… has been far too easy for suppliers and traders. Verification and certification of these imports is clearly failing,” Delaney said.



– Persistent fraud claims –



Eni said it had no direct contracts with accused companies and received shipments through an accredited supplier who “immediately suspended all operations with the companies involved in the investigation”.

The supplier, Enviq, did not respond to requests for comment.

Neste also said it had instructed its supplier to exclude implicated companies from its supply chain after the Indonesian investigation was announced.

It said analysis of periodic samples from shipments between 2023 and 2025 were “consistent with palm-derived waste”, not palm oil.

Indonesia has long suspected POME fraud and last year temporarily limited exports after trade data recorded volumes far exceeding estimated available supply.

Then last month, Indonesian authorities arrested 11 people, including customs officials, accused of defrauding the government between 2022 and 2024 by labelling palm oil as POME.

The attorney general’s office (AGO) gave only the initials of those arrested and their firms.

AFP and SourceMaterial used trade data, including some supplied by T&E, shareholder agreements, and customs documents obtained through freedom of information requests to ascertain the identities of three of those arrested.

A source in the AGO confirmed the findings.

Among them is “TNY”, a shareholder in Green Product International, and director of a company identified only as TEO.

This refers to Tony, who like many Indonesians uses a single name. Tony is director of Tanimas Edible Oils and a shareholder in Green Product International.

Green Product International was the source of multiple shipments of a product labelled as POME to Eni and Neste between 2023 and 2024.

There is no conclusive evidence as to what those shipments contained.

Green Product International did not respond to a request for comment.

AFP and SourceMaterial identified two other companies implicated in the probe, Surya Inti Primakarya, whose director, Van Ricardo, was arrested, and Bumi Mulia Makmur, whose director, Erwin, was arrested.

Both signed off on shipments to Eni between 2022 and 2024.

Calls and messages to both companies seeking comment were not answered.

All three men remain in custody, the AGO said.



– ‘Independent scrutiny’ –



Eni said the company that handled its shipments was certified by International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), an EU-certified verifier of the bloc’s palm oil product imports.

An ISCC spokesperson said Surya Inti Primakarya is “currently excluded from recertification” and Bumi Mulia Makmur was “previously excluded”.

But Green Product International still holds a valid certificate, the ISCC’s online registry shows. The spokesperson did not respond when asked whether that accreditation would be reexamined.

Other companies Green Product International supplied indirectly include Swiss trader Kolmar, which declined to provide an on-record statement, as well as Spanish oil major Repsol and American multinational Cargill, neither of which replied to requests for comment.

Allegations of fraud in the POME sector have circulated for years, given high demand for use as a sustainable fuel feedstock, and the higher taxes sometimes levied on palm oil.

Some analyses have suggested the amount of POME being used in the EU and Britain exceeds available global supply, suggesting widespread mislabelling, though some industry groups have disputed those calcuations.

Ireland has ended incentives for POME’s use in biofuels, and Germany will follow suit next year.

James Cogan, head of public policy at ClonBio, an Irish biofuel maker that only sources from the EU, said verification is so problematic that buyers and regulators should be suspicious of any shipment marked as POME.

“I would challenge any POME or POME-based biofuels processor to publish their volumes, sources and paperwork, to allow public and independent scrutiny,” he said.

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.





Macron announces 'defensive' mission to reopen Strait of Hormuz
Strategic 'mistake'

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.

Engineers work in the Everest installation of the Poseidon departement at CEA Cadarache in Saint-Paul-les-Durance, southern France, on 23 November 2023. The Poseidon unit conducts experimental studies on Small Modular Reactors (SMR). © NICOLAS TUCAT / AFP


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."

France's nuclear 'renaissance' faces uncertainty amid uranium crunch

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.

(with AFP)

Indonesian Nuclear Energy: Quo Vadis? – Analysis

March 12, 2026 
 East-West Center
By Albertus Siagian and Djarot Wisnubroto

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.

Source: This article was published by East-West Center (PDF), where the references for this article can be found

East-West Center

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.

World Nuclear News

Energy Secretary backs congressman's call to reopen Indian Point

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

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

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

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

Tuesday, 10 March 2026

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

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

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

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

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

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

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.

(Image: Arthur van Dijk/LinkedIn)

Launched at the Nuclear Energy Summit 2026 in Paris, the board's participants include ABN AMRO Bank, BNP Paribas, Bpifrance Assurance Export, Crédit Agricole CIB, HSBC, La Caisse (Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec), Royal Bank of Canada and SFIL.

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."