Modern life may be outpacing the human mind

Singapore University of Technology and Design

WeChatBluesky
Email

The human brain evolved for a world of familiar faces, immediate threats and small social groups. But the world around us is changing far faster than human biology can keep pace. That mismatch may help explain some of the stress, loneliness and constant comparison people experience today.

The review, co-authored by Dr Jose Yong, Senior Lecturer at James Cook University, Singapore, and Dr Sarah Chan, Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities at SUTD, is published in Behavioral Sciences. Titled Evolutionary mismatch, stress, and competition: Making sense of psychosocial problems in the polycrisis era, it examines how stress, competition and loneliness can be understood through an evolutionary lens.

Evolutionary mismatch describes what happens when human instincts shaped in one kind of environment are forced to operate in a very different one. Humans evolved in smaller, close-knit groups, where danger, belonging, status and trust were read through familiar people and everyday face-to-face signals. Now, those same instincts are being triggered in dense cities, digital platforms, unequal societies and a world shaped by overlapping pressures. The result is an internal confusion: responses that once made sense in a small familiar group can feel out of place, or simply overwhelming, in modern life.

Social media makes this mismatch especially visible. The urge to understand our place within a group may once have helped people maintain trust and cooperation among familiar faces. Today, that same instinct can be triggered by an endless stream of curated lives, achievements and status signals.

At the centre of the paper is competition. Modern environments can intensify the feeling that others are judging, outperforming or leaving us behind. The authors propose that this heightened sense of competition may be one pathway through which evolutionary mismatch contributes to stress and poorer wellbeing.

“Competition is not new, but modern life can make it feel constant,” said Dr Yong. “An evolutionary perspective may help explain why people respond so strongly to comparison and the fear of falling behind, even when those signals come from strangers or screens rather than a small social group.”

The paper draws on existing research and theory rather than new data. It presents evolutionary mismatch as one way of understanding modern social and psychological problems, alongside psychological, social and economic explanations. These ideas will need to be tested through real-world research.

That matters because the response to modern stress cannot rest only on telling individuals to be more resilient. If environments are activating old instincts in new and unhelpful ways, then cities, workplaces, digital platforms and communities also need to be part of the solution.

For SUTD, the work connects closely with human-centred design and urban wellbeing. Density alone does not determine how people feel in a city. What matters is whether a place feels crowded, threatening or difficult to navigate. Greener surroundings, stronger community ties and more thoughtful social design may help ease those pressures without requiring cities to become less dense.

“Stress, loneliness and anxiety are often treated as personal or lifestyle problems,” said Dr Chan. “But they may also reflect a mismatch between the environments people live in and the conditions our minds and bodies evolved to navigate. That means we should think not only about individual resilience, but also about how cities and communities are designed.”

Future studies could examine how perceived competition and wellbeing vary across greener neighbourhoods, places that feel more or less crowded, communities with different levels of social connection, and digital spaces that encourage or reduce comparison.

None of this is an argument for returning to a simpler past, or a suggestion that modern life is inherently broken. It is a case for designing the present more thoughtfully. Understanding where modern life conflicts with the conditions human beings evolved to navigate could help researchers, designers and policymakers create cities and communities that feel less alienating and more supportive of everyday wellbeing.

“We need to design interventions that work with rather than against our evolved human nature,” said Dr Yong.

 

---

Journal

Behavioral Sciences

DOI

10.3390/bs16050650 

Subject of Research

People

Cuba’s postponed transition

By Juan Triana Cordoví, Omar Everleny Pérez-Villanueva, Julio Carranza & Rafael Hernández

Published 28 June, 2026

First published in Spanish at Temas. Translation by LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal.

Any Cuban who has been paying attention since 1993-94 knows that Cuban socialism has not been the same since then.

After socialism’s collapse in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union’s dismantlement, things in Cuba changed dramatically. The market and private sector were introduced, the US dollar was legalised, most state-owned land was redistributed and Cuba opened up to foreign investment. This not only created a new economy and new relationship with the world, but new perspectives on socialism as a system, including its reversibility.

These policies were initially justified as a response to the crisis known as the “Special Period in the Time of Peace”, or at least they were presented that way at the time. As the crisis eased — or so it seemed (for a time) — these changes slowed. Yet their ideological consequences (what sort of socialism are we building?), and especially their impact on social inequalities and poverty, continued to spread.

Policies that had levelled the playing field between different social classes and groups in Cuba, such as a very limited wage structure, a basic food basket subsidised through the ration card system (the “ration booklet”), price controls, free services and subsidies of all kinds, gradually faded away, formally or de facto. Wages and income diverged, access to foreign currency altered the established relationship between wages and training, and production levels failed to recover.

Despite the supposed temporary nature of the crisis, Cuba never returned to the level of well-being and the vision for the future that had existed, above all in the decade prior to the Special Period.

More than a decade after those measures — approved and implemented under Fidel Castro’s leadership — a document entitled “ Economic and Social Guidelines” was publicly discussed in a mass consultation and officially adopted at the Sixth Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) in 2011. Five years later, barely 23% of agreed-upon policies had been implemented.

In 2018, a public consultation on very broad constitutional reforms yielded unexpected results. These included the fact that the most controversial parts of the new text were not the radical changes to diversify means of production ownership, market expansion, or allowing private capital access to sectors such as agriculture and services (including those nationalised in 1960).

These transformations did not provoke opposition, despite their fundamental scope. The new Constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority in 2019, prioritised equity — instead of equality — and addressed income inequality without outlawing it.

From the early 1990s to now, more and more experts, within and outside Cuba’s institutions, have proposed a reform program that goes beyond the scope of an anti-crisis package.

Although none have proposed policies like those that marked socialism’s dismantlement in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, quite a few were branded emissaries of capitalism.

Despite the differences in documents issued over the past 30 years regarding the nature of Cuban socialism, misgivings towards any proposed reform persists to this day.

Following the United States' intervention in Venezuela on January 3, I [Rafael Hernández] asked a group of economists and political analysts the question: what should our key strategic priorities be to overcome the crisis while addressing the complexity of the moment?

Some readers told me clearly that my respondents’ answers were “excessive” (ie: neoliberal).

Now, the National Assembly of Popular Power (ANPP) has approved a reform program that far exceeds, in its radicalism and scope, anything these experts ever proposed. Nevertheless, views that identify reforms with the virus of capitalism persist.

If one reads, for example, foreign media outlets that are supposedly well-informed about what is happening now, one sees them equating recent transformations with concessions to capitalism and socialism’s definitive collapse. They are just like the local fundamentalists. It is as if nothing has changed in Cuba since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In an attempt to shed light on the complex questions arising from the 176 measures debated in the ANPP, I spoke to three pioneering economists who anticipated them in their writings and talks, and whose way of thinking, persistence and commitment I know well: Juan Triana Cordoví (JTC), Omar Everleny Pérez-Villanueva (OEP) and Julio Carranza (JCV).

I thank them for answering my multifaceted questions and for replying in record time.

According to some economists, the focus of the reforms is, or should be, expanding the private sector into all those activities where it could operate more efficiently than the state or public sector. Will this, or should this, be the focus of the proposed economic policy? Would this not imply, in the medium term, the private sector swallowing up the public sector?

JTC: There is not just one central focus in the reforms, but at least two or three. One is expanding the private sector and its role in the economy. Another is reforming state-owned enterprises, which has been postponed so many times.

I do not think the private sector can swallow up the public sector. The public sector is still very large and powerful; it would take a lot of work for the private sector to displace it, especially since it is still a nascent sector.

OEP: The private sector must play an essential role in the proposed economic policy. Not because it is private, but because Cuba’s problem is, more than financial, a problem of supply of goods and services. The state currently lacks the financial resources to produce what the private sector can.

I do not think it is going to swallow up the public sector. Everyone has their own space.

The first thing to define is the size of the public sector. Energy, steel, all those types of production requiring large amounts of capital, can only be guaranteed by the state.

But in retail, food, personal services, the private sector could fill a large hole.

In the past, the public sector has been inefficient for various reasons. The state has diverted resources generated by socialist state-owned enterprises. Those rules have to change.

JCV: A fundamental part of the current approach is granting businesses the recognition and powers they need to operate, whether state-owned, cooperative, private or mixed, whether national or foreign owned. They should all be integrated into state-regulated markets. State-owned enterprises should be subject to strategic and financial planning, not the still existing bureaucratic and administrative approach.

Prejudices against the private sector must be overcome. The sector must be given the role it deserves. The private and cooperative sectors have an important and essential role to play; their interests must be recognised and represented, but under no circumstances should these individual or business interests — however legitimate they are — be imposed above the general and overriding interests of the people and nation.

Of course, the fundamental, strategic means of production must remain under social ownership with legal protection. All efficient public enterprises must also be maintained and developed.

The state sector that emerges from this must be efficient and competitive. This does not preclude certain activities that, by definition, operate at a loss and, given their function, must be state subsidised. But these should be few and fully justified.

Key sectors such as education and health must also remain under state control and be allocated the needed resources, even if some specific activities within these sectors are transferred to the private sector. This is already happening with some pharmacies and optical and dental services, where ownership is mixed.

These measures will exacerbate social inequalities, but these must be regulated and accompanied by a progressive and rigorous tax policy. Income disparities must result from efficiency and hard work, not corruption and illicit activities. Social policies must be strengthened to support a weary and now impoverished population. The principle that no one should be left behind must be upheld.

We must prevent perverse privatisations carried out without a competitive tendering, which benefits special interest groups, many from the old bureaucracy. We saw what happened in Eastern Europe.

These dangers are present, and the means to anticipate and control them must be put in place. At the heart of this lies the participation and political power of the population, through the effective functioning of popular power institutions and the republic’s oversight bodies — its political and social institutions, first and foremost the PCC.

To adequately play this role, however, these institutions must be reformed, including the PCC. For the state, the Comptroller General's Office must play a crucial role, its function encompassing all sectors of the economy without unjustified exclusions.

The country's democratic institutions, first and foremost parliament, must have an active and diverse voice, reflecting Cuban society today and in the future.

An efficient public sector, with genuine autonomy to plan, decide on production, redistribute profits among its workers and involve them in decision-making, operate in the foreign exchange market, and establish agreements with other companies, whether public or private, national or foreign, seems like a very different beast from the current one. Is such a metamorphosis possible? What needs to happen to allow this transformation? And within what timeframe?

JTC: The transformation of state-owned enterprises must be deep and far-reaching. We can not expect it to happen quickly. But this metamorphosis, as you call it, can happen because, although this is sometimes overlooked, we have very capable entrepreneurs who have not been allowed to develop into true business leaders.

This transformation will not only take place through direct measures on state-owned enterprise management, but also through indirect actions. Some of the policies being discussed and approved today will compel this metamorphosis: participating in the foreign exchange market, establishing much more fluid relationships with foreign companies, and free exports and imports; all of this requires change in that sector.

What else should happen? Let entrepreneurs get their act together, or at the very least do not take away their initiative once they have started, which has happened.

It is very difficult to set a timeframe. It involves a learning process, which requires shedding old habits, unlearning them, adopting new ones and learning all over again. I would not dare set a timeframe for that process, but it will not be short — it will not happen in six months. Some Cuban companies started working with foreign firms and transformed themselves quickly, but it is always a complicated process, as unlearning and relearning is relatively complex.

OEP: There will be different stages to the reform. One stage, in the first two years, will be what some economists identify as a stabilisation stage. Next will come a stage of structural changes, of between two and five years, which is where the deepest changes will occur.

In the first two years, we must focus on three vital issues: energy, food and infrastructure. Cuba’s population faces critical problems, such as water, solid waste collection and other public services that need restoring.

Then we have to determine which sectors and areas are going to be prioritised.

I still see tourism as important, and the possibility of private tour operators and tourism agents emerging offers some assurance that this sector can recover. For example, if a small hotel — say with 30 or 40 rooms — or hostels and motels can be managed by a private entity, why not do it, especially if foreigners already own them?

The government has a very concrete plan and has been very skillful, very pragmatic in recent days in raising proposals that it would not have thought of at another time.

We need to switch to private foreign exchange bureaus (CADECAs), because currency is being exchanged on the street anyway and that is money is not reaching the state. Why not establish CADECAs and charge a tax on transactions?

Another important step is eliminating the monopoly on foreign trade, so that all forms of ownership can import and export directly. If someone wants to do so through an experienced state-owned enterprise, they should be able to. But it should not be mandatory.

Likewise, we must eliminate the employment agencies, which have been an obstacle for foreign investors. And, above all, we must tackle the external debt. If the debt is not resolved, a lack of financing will continue.

An efficient public sector concentrates its resources in specific entities. For these to be efficient, they require a law governing businesses that places them all on an equal footing. This will allow the state sector to participate in the foreign exchange market and retain a portion of its profits to restore production and offset capital depletion.

With the rules applied to date, certain goods and services cannot be guaranteed. Of course not! If a state-owned company is profitable, but the state collects those profits for a “common good” — such as producing certain goods for the entire population — that may be justified. However, it undermines the company’s capacity.

In the medium term, they should be given the same opportunities that the most dynamic sector of the economy has enjoyed to date, which is currently Cuba’s largest food importer (the figures back this). The public or state sector does not have the ability to use remittances to decide where to buy and at what prices.

Autonomy has to be real. I believe the path ahead will include improved competitive conditions.

JCV: The current situation presents urgent needs that must be addressed as a priority. A comprehensive and deep transformation of the economic model is also needed. These are interdependent aspects, but should not be confused.

The immediate response to these urgent needs is determined by the fundamental problems affecting the population: energy, food, water, health, public hygiene, mobility, etc. This response requires access to more external resources. That is why the issue of debt and access to credit, investment, etc, is also a priority. The proposed measures include ways to address these urgent needs.

The other aspect is the comprehensive transformation of the economic model. This is necessarily a slower process, although it must be sped up as much as possible, and must begin with restoring macroeconomic equilibriums: fiscal deficits, inflation, external deficits, etc. This process takes longer because there is so much that needs to be transformed.

It is essential to define stages, spheres of action, general and specific objectives, indicators, and so on. Above all, to have a clear strategic vision and the political capacity to correct inevitable deviations. Otherwise, we could end up with a grim and undesirable outcome, from which there may be no coming back. I have written about at length and proposed all of this since my 1995 book, and in many subsequent texts with corresponding updates.

Today, politics is more important than ever, despite what some may think. Not to obstruct or halt the reform process, but to guide it along the needed path while always responding to the nation’s interests and not those of spurious sectors or groups, much less imperialist pressures. Therein lies a fundamental challenge. In a recent article, I said ideas, not uncontrolled events, should be the driving forces behind this process.

One feature of this new socialism, as set out in the new constitution, is decentralisation, particularly transferring powers to local levels. Seven years after that constitutional provision was adopted, we still do not have a law granting these powers. However, decentralisation and the strategic role of municipalities are now being emphasised. Are local governments prepared for this autonomy? Are they capable of administering their resources, handling domestic and foreign investment, designing fiscal and employment policies, overseeing basic services and adapting social policies to their needs? What needs to happen for local governments to fully assume this role? What are the risks involved in decentralisation?

JTC: I do not think local governments are prepared for the autonomy granted to them. That is the simple answer.

As for what needs to happen for them to be ready, one thing already happening is being granted areas of responsibilities, certain rights and obligations. The other thing that needs to happen is training suitable personnel for the task.

If you look at local governments today, they are not only “poor” because they are in poor areas, but because their staff are probably not the most suitable, although, mind you, they may well be the most dedicated.

Undoubtedly, there are many risks involved in decentralisation, ranging from misinterpretation of national policies to corruption. I do not dare list them all as new ones keep popping up.

Having the ability to interpret national policies, adapt them to local needs and generate one’s own policies involves risks and, undoubtedly, possible mistakes. I would rather take that risk than do nothing at all.

OEP: One shortcoming affecting both local and central levels is the lack of staff preparedness. Sometimes, someone appointed is unprepared or lacks expertise. Given the challenges ahead, local governments should be better prepared and granted the prerogatives they lack — powers that have been announced but, in practice, not granted. Local autonomy must be accompanied by training and incentives to enable leaders to effectively manage resources at that level.

If salaries are low and unmotivating, people will not be willing to take on municipal leadership roles. Before assuming positions, say in municipal education, people will be more interested in working in the private sector, where they can earn 10 times more. All these imbalances must be corrected. But I do believe in local government; we must work hard to prepare for what lies ahead.

There are indeed risks with decentralisation, but we must accept them. Previously, central government measures were implemented in a context where the state could manage resources. Today it does not have them, nor will it in the coming years, because today we are on our own. This means we will not have the access to the credit or allies we need, as we lost them due to mismanagement.

If a friend gives you, say, a fleet of buses for your public transport system, and you do not pay for them, they will not give you spare parts for those buses. That is how we have treated friends such as China, who help by selling to us on short payment periods but at very low interest rates. They allowed us to pay with products such as nickel, but we stopped sending nickel because we no longer produce it.

All that needs to be corrected. That is the only way forward; there is no other option. We have to overcome all adversities, but this comes at a cost. Not so much a greater social cost, because social reform has already been implemented — I will tell you more about that later.

JCV: Decentralising to the municipalities must be done with extreme care. It is positive and needed, and could make governance more democratic and efficient, but not if it is done in just any manner. Municipal decentralisation must not mean that the central government shirks its own, non-delegable, responsibilities.

A country is not simply the sum of its municipalities, not even in countries with strong federal structures. Municipalities are very different from each other, and their coordination and complementarity as parts of a whole is an inalienable responsibility of the central government.

Economic policy and implementing the national development strategy are central government responsibilities. Successful municipal decentralisation should not mean eliminating the central government’s essential role, because we are one nation.

Also, for decentralisation to function properly, municipalities must have the resources needed. First and foremost, they need capable staff and officials. Meritocracy (ability, training, ethics, integrity, empathy and commitment) should determine appointments and selections at this level, as it should at all levels.

In general, the calibre of municipal officials and civil servants is below what is required for this complex function. Of course, this work should pay what it deserves.

Against a backdrop of undercapitalisation, lack of financing, high external debt, deteriorating infrastructure, and energy and food crises, where can the investment needed to revive the economy and restructure the model come from? Do Cuban emigrants have the capital and will to become that main source? To what extent do the political circumstances within the Cuban diaspora facilitate or jeopardise this? Would it be possible without the US and Cuba returning to the path of normalisation?

JTC: The investment needed to revive the economy and restructure the model can come from different sources.

One is foreign investment, which may feel encouraged by decisions to facilitate and expand opportunities in the country.

Another source could be the opportunities offered by the BRICS. This requires a thorough understanding of how to negotiate and participate within that framework.

A third source could be domestic capital — not just private capital, but also capital from successful state-owned enterprises that want to invest to grow and diversify. They should be allowed to.

There are also loans that multinational organisations and individual countries can provide. They are much harder to access these days, but I would not dismiss them entirely.

Finally, there is capital from Cubans living abroad. To what extent do political circumstances in the Cuban diaspora facilitate or jeopardise this? So far, the history of this relationship has been very complex — you know this far better than me. It means that a segment of that diaspora is very wary of investing in Cuba.

On the other hand, Cuba’s legal framework is still not well understood. It needs significant refinement and improvement to provide to investors in general, and particularly Cuban investors who have lived in Cuba. This uncertainty must be eliminated by creating a set of very clear rules that incentivise and guarantee this participation.

Most of the Cuban diaspora lives under the constant risk and threat of the restrictions the US government imposes on Cuba. They must constantly monitor whether they are breaching any US laws that could make them subject to reprisals. This is undoubtedly a reality and could complicate large-scale investment by Cubans living abroad.

If the US and Cuba do not return to the path of normalisation, it will be difficult, but not impossible. I would have to elaborate at length to explain, but as things stand, there is already investment of capital by Cubans living abroad in the national economy. Taking these facts into account and as a measure of the truth, I would say that it is possible, even if there is no normalisation of relations between Cuba and the US.

OEP: We must recognise that Cuba’s natural economic environment is the US, given proximity and the fact that it has received most Cuban emigrants. But the US government has been very aggressive toward Cuba, and sanctions have been particularly severe in recent months.

However, Cuba needs to do what it can to promote normalisation. I have learned that Cuban emigrants have capital and could become an important source of funding. But for that to happen, legislative changes are needed. Negotiations must take place to analyse the issue of nationalisations and other pending matters, which must be resolved.

Where possible to exchange investment for assets, via a swap arrangement, this should be done. If we have a hotel with only 10% occupancy, an emigrant could manage the hotel and receive a portion of the profits. There are many options.

It will be very difficult for Cuba to access the needed capital if relations are not repaired and normalisation not achieved. Because capital today is transnational and although many companies would be willing to invest in Cuba, they won’t if they are going to be sanctioned by the US. That is what happens right now.

But we cannot give up; we must seek any positive alternative, without surrendering sovereignty but without being too rigid, because there is no other way to resolve the problems you have raised. External financing is a priority.

The state must undertake a two-year stabilisation process to resolve two key short-term problems: energy and food. It will no longer guarantee the ration card system as in the past; it simply does not have the means. This will help people understand that the socialist Cuba that existed prior to 2026 is no longer viable, and that to maintain it under new conditions requires restructuring the model.

We need to build a social market model. One mistake in recent years has been failing to implement the reforms that many suggested, especially Russia and China, where all forms of production — especially private ones — would have carried greater weight. Cuba was far too slow to implement them.

Today we are doing so when we have no other options. Negotiating under these circumstances is very difficult, because we have to accept many things that would not be accepted at another point in history, above all to save the country.

JCV: As mentioned before, resource allocation is a fundamental problem, a major bottleneck affecting the national economy; so accessing new resources is a matter of urgency. And resolving the debt issue is essential.

I proposed swapping debt for assets and investment; this is entirely possible and probably the most viable option. There are many resources and capabilities that are currently underused, and many are falling into disrepair.

Of course, this must always be done rigorously yet swiftly; we must ensure that the pressures of the moment do not lead to ill-advised decisions affecting the nation’s sovereignty and control over strategic resources.

The Cuban diaspora is part of the nation. Part of it possesses capital and entrepreneurial capacity, although this is not the majority, which consists of wage earners. Everyone, however, should be able to participate in some way; the former, through investments, technology, trade, markets, and so on.

This must be part of a shared commitment. All guarantees should be provided transparently and without hesitation, establishing laws and regulations on what can and cannot be done. In other words, broad and clearly defined scopes and safeguards, in line with a national project embraced by all, including, hopefully, those who have been hostile. This is a highly topical political issue.

The short answer is: yes, they should play an important role, without sacrificing their individual interests. There will always be risks, but we must face them with intelligence and resolve. The most important thing is people’s interests and wellbeing. Is it difficult to reconcile all this? Yes. Is it impossible? No. It is perhaps the most important political challenge today.

The most desirable scenario involves negotiations with the US, as it could significantly change the situation, help overcome the economic crisis, and so on. I believe the government has worked and continues working intensively on this, now with the benefit of years of experience, historical lessons, past mistakes, and so on. But the question must always be: what to negotiate, and to what end?

Here the answer must be crystal clear. We need a broad position that includes many sensitive decisions, but containing very clear points on what is non-negotiable under any circumstances. It has been said that sovereignty and internal order are non-negotiable; I agree. Cuba’s internal affairs are a matter for Cubans — for all Cubans — and them alone.

The US government must be aware and confident that Cuba is willing to progress and put a lot on the table, except what is non-negotiable. This could lead to a relationship based on respect and mutual benefit. However, will the US government — and this administration in particular — be willing to establish a suitable framework for negotiation?

Cuba must work toward this, but must prepare for the worst-case scenario, including unwanted military aggression. Sovereignty, properly understood, is non-negotiable; this requires no academic justification. It is the historic will of a people demonstrated for almost two centuries. Now is no different. Negotiation, yes — as much as possible, realistic, and comprehensive. But under no circumstances can we accept impositions and concessions on sovereignty.

Since 2011, successive reform programs have been adopted, agreements reached at PCC congresses, and a new constitution and new laws approved. However, the reform process has stalled and, to some extent, seems to have lost its way. What reasons are there to think things will be different going forward?

JTC: I would say there are many reasons and none at all.

The first reason for thinking differently is the international context Cuba finds itself in, which has changed dramatically and creates significant stress for the country. This situation could speed up the reform process and prevent repeating past mistakes.

Second, there is the constant threat from the US and its intentions to change the country, according to their own vision of what needs to change. Obviously, it is a driving force behind this reform process, and ensures we do not take a step backwards.

Third is the economic and social situation, the polycrisis we are immersed in and constantly suffering. Without reform, it will be very difficult to emerge from this polycrisis.

We must also understand that this government has been through a learning process. Today, it is in a situation with very few alternatives other than following a reform path that was already broadly mapped out but never followed; instead, it was halted and reversed. Now we must implement these reforms, and that is undoubtedly another reason. There is a learning process here, and that matters a great deal.

OEP: The model that is being proposed is different. While we have approved dozens of programs, reached thousands of agreements, and taken stock of PCC congresses, the constitution, the laws, etc, the country has still not made progress. Obstacles preventing progress include fear of the private sector, which is an ideological problem.

Today must be different because, I reiterate, Cuba is alone in the world. Never before have we faced such a moment of multiple crises. We have a financial crisis, a food crisis, prolonged blackouts, problems with medicine, and transportation problems, all at once.

A Cuban family today sleeps poorly, eats poorly, walks to work, has low wages, and faces high inflation. No other time in Cuba’s recent history — since the 1990s — has seen such a turbulent and complicated situation.

If we want to save not just the model, but the country, we have to do things differently. If we keep doing the same thing, we will continue redistributing misery. If new policies require constitutional changes, we must make them. If we have to remove the constitutional clause prohibiting the concentration of income and property, then so be it.

As long as the private sector is legitimate, as long as it is legal, and as long as it provides certain goods and services, why be afraid of it? The state’s strength lies in its ability to tax these activities and redistribute revenue throughout society.

For me, the only difference is that we must build a country with a market.

JCV: We have reached a make-or-break situation: external aggression on one side (which is not just the blockade) and internal shortcomings on the other, including the tremendous delay in implementing comprehensive and far-reaching economic reforms. That is one of the main errors; we have been arguing this for at least three decades, when it became evident that the bureaucratic planning economic model had run its course.

If one reads documents approved at party congresses since 2011, and the 2019 constitution, it becomes clear that this reality was understood from the outset, and that documents were approved that provided the needed political and legal scope for reform. However, inertia, misunderstandings, dogmatism and vested interests have been a constant obstacle.

What is new is that this has been acknowledged and there is the political will to move forward despite that resistance. It will be difficult, but the journey has already begun. We must be wary of that Cuban maxim since colonial times: “Acknowledged, but not obeyed.”

We must overcome entrenched obstacles, as strong as they are diffuse, making them so difficult to eliminate. They will always be present, but with consensus, essential popular participation, accountability and effective leadership, we can do it..

It is difficult to declare oneself a pessimist or optimist in the face of such a complex process. We must be realistic and, as Antonio Gramsci said, perhaps move forward with pessimism of the mind but always optimism of the heart.

NUKE NEWZ

US Uranium Production Continues To Grow, Highest In Past 9 Years

 June 29, 2026  

By World Nuclear News

Production of uranium from mines in the USA last year was more than double 2024’s figure, and the highest in nine years, according to the latest report of annual data from the Energy Information Administration.

US mines produced 1,388,000 pounds U3O8 (534 tU) in 2025, up from 677,000 pounds U3O8 in 2024. The 2025 figure was the highest since 2016’s production of 2,545,000 pounds, according to the government agency’s Domestic Uranium Production Report, released on 23 June. Production was from one underground mine and seven in-situ recovery operations – the same as in 2024 – with some production from “other sources” of uranium, which the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says could include mine water, mill site cleanup and mill tailings, and well field restoration. 

Uranium exploration and development drilling activities in 2025 were at their highest levels since 2013 for number of holes drilled and for total footage drilled, the EIA reported. Although at the end of 2025 only one conventional uranium mill – Energy Fuels’ White Mesa Mill in Utah – was in operation, two remained on standby (the Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill in Utah and the Sweetwater Uranium Project in Wyoming), while the Sheep Mountain heap leach facility in Wyoming had reached a partial permitting and licensed stage.

In-situ recovery (ISR) facilities at the Alta Mesa, Lost Creek, Smith Ranch-Highland Operation, Ross Central Processing, and Willow Creek projects were operating at the end of the year, with a combined annual capacity of 13.3 million pounds U3O8 per year – slightly down from the industry-wide ISR capacity of 14.1 million pounds in 2024. Five in-situ recovery plants, with a combined annual production capacity of 8.8 million pounds U3O8, were on standby. Seven ISR plants – in South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming – were planned, with a combined annual production capacity of 10.5 million pounds U3O8. (ISR – also known as in-situ leach – involves dissolving uranium directly from the orebody and recovering it via wells: see WNN’s guide to Uranium and the nuclear fuel cycle for more information).

Expenditures for land, exploration, drilling, production, and reclamation totalling USD234.7 million in 2025 were the highest since 2014, while total employment in the U.S. uranium production industry, at 711 full-time person-years (a person year is equal to full-time employment for one person), was 41% up from the 506 full-time person-years in 2024 and the highest employment total since 2014. 

Following the Fukushima accident of 2011 – which led to all of Japan’s nuclear reactors being taken off line for an extended period – a time of weak uranium prices and an excess supply of uranium globally saw many US producers decide to curtail their operations. The last time US domestic production topped the million pounds mark was in 2017: production fell so low that numbers were withheld in 2020 to avoid disclosure of individual company data (World Nuclear Association figures put US production at just 6 tU in 2020). This left US reactor operators dependent on imports of uranium to fuel their power plants.

Since 2022, successive US Administrations have pursued strategies to revitalise and secure the domestic US nuclear fuel supply chain.

The Energy Information Administration is a statistical and analytical agency within the US Department of Energy.

The World Is Racing to Develop New Nuclear Fuels

By Felicity Bradstock - Jun 28, 2026

• Advanced reactors and SMRs increasingly require fuels such as HALEU, but commercial supplies remain limited outside Russia and China.
• 
  
• The U.S. and U.K. are investing heavily in domestic uranium enrichment to strengthen nuclear fuel security.
• 
  
• Several reactor developers are adopting LEU+ as a more readily available alternative while domestic HALEU production expands.

In the age of the nuclear renaissance, several countries are strategising to significantly increase their nuclear energy capacity over the coming decades, as part of efforts to diversify their energy mix and boost long-term energy security. However, securing fuel to power operations has been complicated, particularly following the introduction of sanctions on Russian energy products. Now, alternative uranium fuels offer promise for the nuclear energy industry.

Nuclear fission, used in all existing nuclear power plants, is the process in which an atom's nucleus splits into two or more smaller nuclei and other particles. Fission can release large amounts of heat and radiation. Today’s nuclear power plants use this heat to boil water and drive steam turbines to make electricity. Operators typically use uranium fuel, enriched to up to 5 percent uranium-235 (U-235), to power nuclear reactors. Scientists worldwide are also striving to achieve and commercialise nuclear fusion, which could produce more abundant clean power.

Operators will increasingly need to use high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is enriched to more than 5 percent and less than 20 percent, to power the advanced nuclear reactors and small modular reactors (SMRs) being developed today. However, HALEU is not widely commercially available at present, with only Russia and China currently producing the fuel at scale.

Following the United States ban on Russian uranium imports in 2024, the U.S. government has focused efforts on developing its domestic HALEU production capacity. As such, Centrus Energy produced over 920 kg of HALEU from a demonstration cascade at Piketon, Ohio, between October 2023 and mid-2025.

In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) earmarked $2.7 billion to expand domestic uranium enrichment capacity over the next decade. Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, the government announced in January 2024 that it would allocate £300 million to support HALEU production.

More operators are using TRISO (TRi-structural ISOtropic particle) fuel in SMRs, which is derived from HALEU. It is safer and more efficient than conventional enriched uranium, and the same amount of fuel can be concentrated in a smaller package, while more U-235 can be consumed before the smaller fuel pellets are depleted.

Each TRISO particle is covered with three layers of specialised ceramics and other materials to trap gases and provide the particle with high heat tolerance, thereby preventing the TRISO fuel from melting. In addition, TRISO fuel reactors use either helium or molten salt as a thermal transfer fluid rather than water, which is less reactive or has a higher boiling point. Each TRISO pellet functions as its own tiny containment vessel, meaning there is no need to construct massive facilities to contain meltdowns. While TRISO is more expensive than conventional nuclear fuels, it can power lighter, less expensive reactors.

However, accessing HALEU and TRISO at scale remains a challenge, as the China National Nuclear Corporation is the only commercial-scale producer of TRISO fuels, and Russia’s TENEX is the only commercial-scale supplier of HALEU. This has driven several companies in the United States and across Europe to explore alternative fuels to power SMRs, to shift reliance away from Russia and China. 

Companies such as GE Hitachi, Westinghouse, and Aalo Atomics have opted for Low Enriched Uranium Plus (LEU+) rather than HALEU to power operations, as it can be purchased from existing U.S. facilities. Holtec’s SMR-300 has been developed to be powered by either conventional LEU or LEU+, which has a U-235 concentration of between 5 and 10 percent.

The Chief Technology Officer at Aalo Atomics, Yasir Arafat, explained why Aalo had chosen LEU+ as its primary fuel. Arafat stated, “We know we want to get to market fast, and we know we need to scale up to build hundreds of reactors, and we can't do that with HALEU for many years, because the U.S. is still pumping money into that HALEU machine, trying to figure out how to crack the code.” He believes that SMRs powered by LEU+ will advance faster than those powered by HALEU, as “We actually have a company that’s starting to make LEU+ here in the U.S.”

Urenco USA was given authorisation by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to produce LEU+ at its Eunice, New Mexico, facility last September, and has since been producing small quantities of the fuel. The firm expects to achieve commercial production by mid-2026.

Aalo signed a supply chain agreement with Urenco for the fuel it requires to power its Aalo-X experimental reactor, which is currently being developed as part of the DoE’s Reactor Pilot Programme. It expects to launch a commercial reactor, the Aalo Pod, powered by LEU+ by 2029.

While several companies continue to rely on Russia for their uranium supplies, some countries are looking to develop a domestic HALEU production capacity, while many companies are exploring the potential of using alternative, more easily accessible uranium fuels to power operations.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

AI Demand, War, and Climate Pressure Push World Back To Nuclear

By Haley Zaremba - Jun 26, 2026

• The US and Canada each announced plans this week to build ten new nuclear reactors, the biggest coordinated nuclear push in North America in decades.
• 
  
• The moves come as the AI boom, the war in Iran, and broader geopolitical instability push energy security to the top of the policy agenda worldwide.
• 
  
• China added 34 gigawatts of nuclear capacity over the past decade to the US's one plant, and is on track to overtake both the US and France as the world's top nuclear producer.
• 
  

Global energy markets are in turmoil as energy crises keep piling up. The energy-hungry AI boom, war in Iran, geopolitical instability, and climate pressures are creating a polycrisis for the global energy sector, and it’s just getting started. To solve multiple overlapping crises, we will need multiple overlapping solutions. An all-of-the-above solution to increasing energy security is therefore gaining favor on a global scale as the precariousness of over-reliance on limited energy supply chains becomes dangerously clear. While fossil fuels continue to provide the lion’s share of the global energy mix, alternative energy sources, especially those that are harder to blockade or embargo, are quickly gaining favor.

One of the biggest benefactors of this all-of-the-above approach to energy growth is the nuclear energy sector, which is currently undergoing a worldwide renaissance. While nuclear energy had fallen out of favor in much of the world in the wake of high-profile nuclear disasters like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, it has come roaring back due to the undeniable advantages it offers as a zero-carbon, round-the-clock energy source with well-established supply chains and high efficiency.

“With energy security now ranking alongside climate commitments as a top policy priority, nuclear power appears positioned to play a central role in the global electricity landscape through mid-century,” the Foreign Policy Journal reported earlier this month.

Just this week, the United States and Canada unveiled separate plans to build ten new nuclear reactors each, marking a massive acceleration of nuclear energy development across North America. On Monday, Energy Minister Tim Hodgson introduced a plan for a “new civilian nuclear renaissance” that serves as a central component of a larger plan to double the capacity of the national electrical grid by 2050 to keep up with projected demand growth.

“If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides,” Hodgson said at a news conference in Ontario. “There is no credible plan for Canada to become an energy superpower if we choose not to build upon one of the strongest energy advantages we have,” he went on to say.

Just a day later, the Trump administration announced that it plans to funnel billions of dollars in federal loans toward kickstarting a buildout of nuclear power plants across the United States as part of Trump’s desire to to “produce lasting American dominance in the global nuclear energy market.” The new Department of Energy plan, which a New York Times report describes as “complex and unusual”, would rely on utilities to put forward hundreds of millions of dollars of their own money in order to access the federal loans, with the ultimate goal of easing the sticker shock of the components for large new reactor types.

These two plans are designed to reverse a yearslong inertia in Western nuclear energy markets. In the last ten years, the United States only built one new nuclear plant, and it was years overdue and billions over budget by the time it was finally finished. Over the same time period, China added a staggering 34 gigawatts of capacity over the same time period. As a result, China is on track to overtake the United States (and France) to become the world’s biggest producer of nuclear energy within the next ten years.

The United States and Canada’s new plans pale in comparison to China’s lofty nuclear goals as outlined in the country’s newest five-year plan, but they mark a major shift in energy strategy for the two powers, and potential progress toward rebalancing the global nuclear sector.

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com 

NASA Eyes Moon Base Powered by Solar Panels and Nuclear Reactors

By Felicity Bradstock - Jun 27, 2026

• NASA plans robotic missions followed by human landings and a semi-permanent, solar- and nuclear-powered lunar base near the Moon's south pole.
• 
  
• China is targeting a crewed lunar landing by 2030 and aims to build a permanent Moon base with Russia by 2035.
• 
  
• Both nations view sustained lunar operations as a stepping stone toward scientific research, resource utilization, and future missions to Mars.
• 
  

With major plans for space travel, several governments are proposing lunar energy production, including solar and nuclear projects. In May, NASA announced plans to send robotic landers, hopping drones, and vehicles to the moon as part of the United States government’s plans to develop a lunar base.

NASA is expected to develop the machines alongside Intuitive Machines, Astrobotic, Blue Origin, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX. The United States aims to land its astronauts back on the moon before President Donald Trump leaves office in 2029, 60 years after it first achieved the feat.

In March, NASA announced a $20 billion programme to develop a permanent base powered by nuclear and solar energy at the Moon’s south pole by 2032. The creation of a base would allow the United States to conduct scientific experiments, potentially mine valuable resources, and assess the feasibility of a journey to Mars. NASA recently experienced success when it sent Artemis II around the Moon in April.

Before sending humans to the Moon, NASA aims to send robotic landers and hopping drones to the surface to assess its terrain. It also plans to transport delivery vehicles capable of driving astronauts across the lunar surface and carrying communications and scientific instruments.

NASA hopes to use Blue Origin's lunar lander Endurance to conduct precise landings, as well as Astrobotic’s Gryphon-1 lander. The agency expects to carry out 25 launches and transport around 4 metric tonnes of cargo to the Moon by 2029. It then aims to develop nuclear and solar power facilities on the Moon, including fission reactors.

More ambitiously, NASA wants to establish conditions for humans to live on the moon in “semi-permanent” housing by as early as 2032. It believes that the Moon’s South Pole could offer suitable conditions, as frozen water could be used for drinking water or to produce oxygen.

However, many have criticised NASA, suggesting that its timeline is likely unrealistic. Simeon Barber, a Lunar Scientist at the United Kingdom’s Open University, said, “It would not surprise me at all if China gets there first.” Barber cited NASA’s delays in acquiring a spacecraft capable of landing humans on the Moon. “The limiting step is getting the astronauts down onto the surface… It sounds to me like [NASA] feels they’re in a position where they have to start saying they’ve got plans. So, I think there’s a lot of political drive behind this,” added Barber.

The U.S. space agency is competing with China to become the first country to return humans to Earth’s surface, with China having set a 2030 deadline. China has already sent astronauts to its space station nearly a dozen times, and it is getting more ambitious in its plans to achieve a human lunar landing.

In May, China launched its Shenzhou-23 spacecraft to transport a crew of three astronauts to its Tiangong space station. One of the astronauts is set to stay in the space station for a year, a record length for the country. This will help researchers to assess long-duration human physiology in space, including the physiological effects of radiation exposure, bone density loss, and psychological stress.

Many speculate that the Chinese government aims to colonise and mine lunar territory and resources, although Beijing has rejected these claims. To achieve its 2030 goals, China must develop suitable new hardware and software for a lunar mission, as its current technology was developed for low-Earth orbit. China has so far sent only robots to the moon. However, its regular space missions are helping to improve the country’s space capabilities.

In June 2024, China became the first country to recover lunar samples from the far side of the moon, using robots. If China achieves a human landing by 2030, it aims to develop a permanent base on the moon with Russia by 2035. Compared with the NASA timeline, China’s deadline is considered more conservative. Beijing is focusing closely on safety tests of all aspects of its lunar technology.

China is also conducting the world’s first human artificial embryo experiment in space, having transported human stem cell samples to the Shenzhou-22 crew to assess the long-term residence, survival, and reproduction of humans in space. “The human artificial embryo is made of human stem cells as raw materials,” explained Yu Leqian, the project leader for the artificial embryo space science experiment. “This is not a real human embryo and does not have the ability to develop into an individual. However, it can serve as a model for studying early human development,” added Yu.

The space race is back on, with the United States and China competing to achieve the first 21st-century human moon landing. If successful, each country plans to establish a base, generate power, and eventually create conditions for humans to live semi-permanently on the Moon.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

The IAEA Faces a New Nuclear Puzzle Inside Iran

By RFE/RL staff - Jun 26, 2026

• Experts say effective IAEA inspections require broad access to verify Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, enrichment activities, and nuclear infrastructure
• 
  
• A key challenge will be locating Iran's roughly 450 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and ensuring it is properly downblended and cannot be re-enriched.
• 
  
• Former officials argue that restoring the IAEA's "continuity of knowledge" after recent military strikes and restricted access will be one of the agency's toughest tasks.
• 
  

Amid an ongoing row between Washington and Tehran over whether international monitors can verify Iranian compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation commitments, former officials have told RFE/RL that the scale, scope, and degree of access are crucial to the success of inspections.

Details on those have yet to be determined, though Raffael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the UN body "will be working on the modalities -- dates, procedures, places -- very soon."

That doesn't mean, according to experts, that the organization hasn't already drawn up a wish list for any eventual inspections.

"They almost certainly have a plan for when they go back in, what the priorities are, where they would want to go first, second, third," Laura Rockwood, a former IAEA negotiator on Iran, told RFE/RL.

"The key thing is to find out where in particular the enriched uranium is.... I'd be willing to bet you that they have in place a plan for the day they need to go back in," added Rockwood, who took part in high-level negotiations on Iran during a 28-year career at the IAEA before retiring in 2013.

Downblending Uranium

While US President Donald Trump has said that Iran has agreed to the highest level of nuclear inspections and Iran says it has no plans to allow the inspections, point No. 8 of the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding (MOU) states the two sides have agreed on a "minimum methodology" that Iran's stocks of highly enriched uranium (HEU) will be "downblended on site under the supervision of the IAEA."

But the details of this could also prove contentious.

"If IAEA inspectors were able to measure and characterize both the high and low enriched material before the downblending, then simple arithmetic gives a good sense of what the product is. They'd then want to measure to confirm and seal that product for future accountability," Matthew Sharp, who served as director for Iran nuclear issues on the US National Security Council (NSC) from 2021-2022, told RFE/RL.

"If, on the other hand, Iran does the downblending itself and then provides the product to inspectors, it would be much more difficult to know how much HEU Iran started with, which could create uncertainties as to whether all of the 60 percent or other enriched material had been downblended or if some remained out of our awareness," said Sharp, now a senior nuclear fellow at the MIT Center for International Studies.

Right now, the location of Iran's roughly 450 kilograms of HEU is unclear. After the US and Israeli air strikes, it could be buried under rubble in a bunker beneath a mountain, or the Iranian authorities may have moved some or all of it elsewhere to hide it.

But if it can be successfully located and downblended, the next step is stopping Iran from re-enriching it again at a later date.

Monitoring Enrichment

The MOU says the two parties agreed "to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal."

Experts told RFE/RL that verifying this must include a role for the IAEA.

"Any suspension on uranium enrichment is relatively meaningless if it cannot be verified and if the IAEA does not have the access to ensure that there are no covert nuclear activities related to enrichment going on elsewhere in the country," said Kelsey Davenport, director of nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association.

"The level of access, the provision of information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, how quickly Iran has to comply with IAEA requests for access -- all of that is going to be crucial," she told RFE/RL.

"Once the enrichment level is low, below 5 percent, it's much safer to ship out that material. It could be stored under an international fuel bank in Kazakhstan," Davenport added.

The idea of shipping the downblended uranium out of Iran is something US officials appear keen on. At a recent background call with reporters, one official said dilution within Iran was "the floor" but that "we will push for more than that."

A senior US official said Washington would rely heavily on the UN nuclear watchdog and US technical teams for verification. "We're not in the trusting business," the official said.

The IAEA has previously verified Iran's compliance with its commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970, and the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Lessons From The Past

Experts say many lessons have been learned from these experiences. They point to the importance of the IAEA's Model Additional Protocol, which provides additional tools for verification.

Rockwood, now a senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, was the principal author of the protocol.

"Under the additional protocol, instead of just routinely being limited to nuclear material and nuclear facilities, we have access to information and locations concerning the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of centrifuges," she said. "So, if you know roughly how many centrifuges they are capable of making, you want to know where they are, and we can ask for that kind of access with an additional protocol."

Iran signed the Additional Protocol in 2003 but has not sent an official letter to the IAEA that would bring it into force.

Iran provisionally implemented its provisions between 2003 and 2006 and for a period under the JCPOA. However, noted Rockwood, "there were lots of indications of noncompliance by Iran" during this time.

This, she said, could be expected to continue -- with added complications.

Iran stopped granting the IAEA access to sites hit by US and Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities in June last year. This has disrupted what Rockwood calls the "continuity of knowledge." In other words, the IAEA has lost track of what Iran has and where it is. Also, the extent of damage is unclear, potentially complicating access, and there may also be unexploded ordnance on site.

"There will be uncertainties, and there may be more uncertainties than there were before. In fact. I would expect that to be the case. Yeah, really, a heavy slog," Rockwood said.

By RFE/RL

US gives Cameco-backed Westinghouse $17.5B nuclear boost

Staff Writer | June 23, 2026 

AP1000 Pressurized Water Reactor. Credit: Westinghouse

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is planning to provide $17.5 billion in loans to support the nationwide buildout of 10 large-scale commercial nuclear reactors, with the goal of fast-tracking their deployment by up to three years.

The funding — issued by the Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) — is designated to help five eligible projects in their procurement of long-lead-time items needed to build these large nuclear power plants, the DOE said in a statement on Tuesday.

Termed as the American Nuclear Supply Chain Loans, the initiative marks another key step in President Trump’s executive order last year to reinvigorate the US nuclear industrial base.

“Just over one year ago, President Trump directed the Energy Department and its agency partners to unleash the next American nuclear renaissance,” US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said. “To accomplish that mission, these conditional loans will play an important role in reviving the supply chain needed for America to once again build large-scale commercial reactors.”

Procurement for 10 reactors

According to the DOE, the $17.5 billion funding would be allocated towards five energy projects, each supporting two nuclear reactors at its site, for a total of 10 reactors.

Westinghouse, which operates the country’s only licensed large-scale advanced commercial reactors (AP1000), will partner with the selected companies to procure long-lead items at a fixed price and will have joint ownership in each project.

For each project, both Westinghouse and its partner are required to fully commit their project equity of $500 million each (or $1 billion total per project) upfront prior to accessing DOE loan funds. Purchasing for each project will be staggered based on the timing of equity commitments and other relevant factors.

Westinghouse has signed letters of intent with seven potential partners, each with identified project sites, the Department said.

1.1GW power

According to the Department, each of the AP1000 reactors will generate 1.1 gigawatts of power, with the combined power output from all 10 reactors providing enough electricity to power nearly 10 million American households.

The loan facilities’ bulk equipment purchase order structure creates a strong commitment to restarting the nation’s nuclear industry by providing the necessary financing for rebuilding the American nuclear supply chain, the DOE said.

In doing so, the loan facilities drive down costs for individual nuclear components, create significant supply chain efficiencies, and shorten timelines for nuclear deployment by up to three years, it added.

Commitment to AP1000

The loan commitment comes eight months after Westinghouse — co-owned by Brookfield Renewable Partners and Canadian uranium producer Cameco — signed an $80 billion deal with the Department of Commerce to build eight AP1000 power plants.

Currently, there are six AP1000 reactors setting operational performance and availability records worldwide with 14 additional reactors under construction and five more under contract, according to the company.

“We are pleased to see the US government make this additional commitment to expanding nuclear power capacity using the proven AP1000 reactor technology,” Cameco CEO Tim Gitzel said in a press release. “When combined with the May 23, 2025, executive orders and other US government initiatives, we believe the right incentives are being created to advance the rapid deployment of AP1000 reactors in the US.”

“The expansion of nuclear power in the United States is expected to create significant opportunities for Westinghouse and Cameco, accelerating growth in Westinghouse’s energy systems segment during the procurement and subsequent construction phase,” he added.

Shares of Cameco traded 2% higher on the news amid broader weakness in equities. Year to date, the stock is up by more than 10%. The Saskatchewan-based company has a market capitalization of $47.7 billion.

World Nuclear News

Former managers call for restart of German nuclear power plants

Monday, 29 June 2026

"Reactivating German nuclear power is a technically feasible and sensible option," a group of former managers of nuclear power plants in Germany and nuclear technology experts have said in a letter to the German government.
 

Unit 2 of the Isar plant was one of the last units to shut down (Image: PreussenElektra)

"Reactivated nuclear power plants offer an opportunity to return to competitive industrial electricity prices, including grid fees, in Germany in the medium term and to secure Germany's energy supply through diversification, without conflicting with European climate targets," says the letter, which is addressed to Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Federal Minister of Economics Katherina Reiche and the chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group Jens Spahn.

"Furthermore, the repair and reactivation of existing plants is essential for maintaining expertise in this field in Germany and thus ensuring its compatibility with future technologies such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and nuclear fusion. Regarding the readiness of industry and personnel, it should be noted that German-designed and similar nuclear power plants are in operation or under construction abroad (Spain, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Brazil, Argentina). Despite the decommissioning of the German plants, experience with the German plant type therefore still exists in industry, fuel management, and training. Expertise, sites, infrastructure, power plant buildings, plant components, and personnel are still available in Germany and can be expanded."

The group say "further issues need to be addressed or clarified" to enable the restart of the country's reactors. These include an "ideology-free evaluation" of the electricity production possibilities, taking into account all socio-economic factors and considering the goal of achieving greenhouse gas neutrality by 2045; accompanied and supported by a public communication campaign. They say there must be a suspension of the dismantling of potential nuclear power plant sites and the associated cost regulations, as well as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act and subordinate regulations. They call for bureaucracy to be reduced in the process of seeking new nuclear permits and environmental impact assessments, as well as preservation of existing know-how in educational institutions and among plant manufacturers. In addition, they say incentives for investment in the nuclear sector must be created. "Under the current framework, power plant operators themselves have no interest in resuming reactor operation due to the 'unbundling' of grids and generation, and the associated cost burden on electricity customers," the latter says. "The interest of other investors is currently thwarted only by nuclear legislation."

"You can influence the framework conditions politically. We can contribute our technical expertise," says the letter - the full-text of which has been published by German tabloid newspaper Bild. "From a purely technical point of view, the existing power plants in Germany that were recently shut down can be reactivated."

The signatories include: Horst Kemmeter, former head of the Emsland and Biblis plants; Thomas Franke, former head of the Philippsburg and Leibstadt plants; Jürgen Haag, former head of Emsland; and Hans-Joachim Mueller from the Brokdorf nuclear power plant.

As a technical basis, the signatories refer to the new report prepared by the Radiant Energy Group in collaboration with German pro-nuclear group Nuklearia, which examines the feasibility, timeline, and economic viability of restarting the most recently decommissioned plants.

"Since the reactivation can utilise existing plant components and the existing workforce at the site, it is highly attractive both economically and in terms of timing – both compared to new construction projects abroad and other energy sources," says the report, titled Recommissioning German Nuclear Power Plants - Economic Viability and Outlook. "Reactivation modernises the plants, equipping them for decades of further operation. The resulting levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) is so low that reactivation would be attractive to investors even without government support, provided policymakers pave the way. This also represents Germany's best opportunity to once again offer industry internationally competitive electricity prices without the need for subsidies."

The report concludes that up to 14 reactors can be modernised and, in some cases, even have their output increased.

"The decision to reactivate the plants should be made as soon as possible to avoid further damage to the facilities caused by dismantling," it says. "However, since even more extensively dismantled plants are still eligible for recommissioning, this option remains open for several years should the decision to reactivate be delayed. The report assumes that dismantling will cease and preparations for reactivation will begin in January 2027."

Background

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan in March 2011, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel decided it would phase out its use of nuclear power by the end of 2022 at the latest. Prior to the accident, Germany was obtaining around one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear power.

In August 2011, the 13th amendment of the Nuclear Power Act came into effect, which underlined the political will to phase out nuclear power in Germany. As a result, eight units were closed down immediately: Biblis A and B, Brunsbüttel, Isar 1, Krümmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Phillipsburg 1 and Unterweser. 

The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C plants were permanently shut down at the end of December 2021. The country's final three units - Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim 2 - shut down in April 2023. All the units are now at various stages of decommissioning. 

(Click here for a full timeline of Germany's nuclear phaseout).

India inaugurates nuclear-powered hydrogen production facility

Monday, 29 June 2026

The facility uses process heat from the Fast Breeder Test Reactor to produce hydrogen through the copper-chlorine thermochemical process developed by Indian researchers.
 

The facility was inaugurated by DAE Chairman Ajit Kumar Mohanty, in the presence of IGCAR Director Sreekumar Pillai (Image: DAE)

The new facility at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, was inaugurated by Ajit Kumar Mohanty, Secretary and Chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commission. It integrates the hydrogen production technology developed by the Department of Atomic Energy's (DAE) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre with IGCAR's advanced fast reactor expertise.

"The successful integration of nuclear process heat with hydrogen generation marks a pioneering technological breakthrough and opens a promising pathway for large-scale, carbon-free hydrogen production using advanced nuclear reactors," the Department of Atomic Energy said.

Hydrogen is widely regarded as a key energy carrier for future energy systems and is expected to play a pivotal role in the global transition towards clean and sustainable energy systems - provided it can be made without carbon emissions. Industrial production of hydrogen is currently dominated by steam-reforming methane from fossil fuels, and electrolysis (splitting water with electricity): according to information from the International Energy Agency, less than 1% of the global production of 97 million tonnes in 2023 was low-emissions hydrogen, although in its 2024 review of hydrogen production, the agency said low-emission hydrogen could reach 49 million tonnes per year by 2030.

(Image: Department of Atomic Energy​)

Thermochemical production of hydrogen involves separating water into hydrogen and oxygen through a series of chemical reactions at high temperatures. The copper-chlorine - or Cu–Cl - thermochemical cycle is considered one of the most promising ways of producing hydrogen due to its relatively lower operating temperatures and higher thermodynamic efficiency, according to DAE. "By harnessing nuclear heat from fast reactors, the process significantly reduces dependence on fossil fuels and eliminates greenhouse gas emissions associated with conventional hydrogen production methods," the Department said.

The Fast Breeder Test Reactor - also known as the FBTR - is a sodium-cooled test reactor which first started up at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research in 1985, gradually increasing its power to 32 MW (thermal) in 2018 before finally reaching its nameplate capacity of 40 MWt in 2022. The reactor has an underpinning role in India's preparation for a thorium-based closed fuel cycle.

The commissioning of the facility represents the culmination of extensive research, process development, engineering design, equipment fabrication, installation, testing and commissioning efforts undertaken jointly by the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research , DAE said. It will provide operational experience, facilitate further optimisation of the Cu–Cl process, and support future research aimed at scaling up nuclear-assisted hydrogen production technologies for commercial deployment. Nuclear-coupled hydrogen production features in India's nuclear energy strategy: a 5 MWt high temperature gas cooled reactor that could be coupled with thermochemical hydrogen production is currently being developed, with a lead unit proposed for construction at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre's Vizag R&D campus in Andhra Pradesh.

IGCAR (Image: DAE)

"The integration of nuclear energy with emerging clean energy technologies such as hydrogen production represents a strategic pathway towards a sustainable energy future," Mohanty said at the inauguration of the new facility. "Nuclear power, with its unique ability to provide reliable carbon-free electricity as well as high-temperature process heat, is ideally suited to support large-scale hydrogen production while contributing to India's energy security, decarbonisation goals and long-term sustainable development objectives. I congratulate the scientists, engineers and technical teams of BARC and IGCAR whose sustained dedication, innovation and technical excellence have transformed an advanced scientific concept into an operational reality. This achievement is a testament to India's growing capabilities in advanced nuclear technologies and clean energy systems."

"Nuclear power is not only a source of reliable, round-the-clock, carbon free electricity. It is also a powerful enabler of strategic technology that can support India's clean energy transition," Mohanty said in DAE's announcement of the achievement on YouTube.

World's oldest operating nuclear units back on India's grid

Friday, 19 June 2026

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited says that following extensive modernisation and refurbishment the first two units at India's oldest nuclear power plant, Tarapur Atomic Power Station, are now back delivering power.
 

(Image: Screenshot from NPCIL video)

Tarapur 1 and 2 are BWR units commissioned at the site in Maharashtra in 1969 as India's first commercial nuclear power plant. Built by GE on a turnkey contract, the units were originally rated at 200 MWe but were subsequently downrated to 160 MWe (gross). They underwent six months' refurbishment in 2005-06, and have both been offline since 2020 for major refurbishment work.

The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board announced last month that it had approved the restart and continued operation of unit 2 at the Tarapur power plant in Maharashtra on 7 May following the completion of the refurbishment undertaken by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL).

The refurbishment included the complete replacement of reactor coolant recirculation piping with forged piping and fittings made of advanced corrosion-resistant stainless steel, the regulator said, as well as safety upgrades including the commissioning of the reactor containment filtered venting system and the alternate cooling water system. During the extended outage, inspections of critical reactor components such as reactor pressure vessel welds were carried out as part of the assessment of the unit's ageing status and residual operating life. "The evaluations have shown that the reactor can continue safe operation with the normal maintenance and surveillance programme," the AERB said.

The regulator has given permission for the unit - known as TAPS (for Tarapur Atomic Power Station) unit 2 - to operate for a further 10 years. It issued a permit for TAPS unit 1 to restart after its refurbishment last December: that unit is now operating at its rated power of 160 MWe.

NPCIL said, in a post on social media site X, that the reconnection of both units was "a major milestone in India's nuclear power programme … this achievement reaffirms the enduring legacy of India's first nuclear power station and reflects the dedication, technical expertise and unwavering commitment of Team NPCIL. For over five decades, TAPS-1 & 2 have contributed to the nation's energy security and development while providing clean, reliable and low-carbon electricity. The successful operation of both units marks another significant milestone in India's nuclear energy journey and demonstrates the strength of indigenous capabilities, engineering excellence and a robust safety culture. As India advances towards a cleaner and more secure energy future, Tarapur continues to stand as a symbol of innovation, resilience and technological excellence".

As well as the BWR units, the Tarapur Atomic Power Station site is home to two operating Indian-designed pressurised heavy water reactors, Tarapur 3 and 4, connected to the grid in 2005 and 2006, respectively. It has also been proposed as the site for the construction of the lead units of two Indian-designed small modular reactors: the BSMR-200, a 200 MWe reactor based on pressurised water reactor technology, and the 55 MWe SMR-55.

Blykalla teams up with Hitachi for SMR deployment

Monday, 29 June 2026

Sweden's Blykalla and Hitachi Energy - the energy arm of Japan's Hitachi Group - have signed a memorandum of understanding to explore a long-term collaboration on enabling the deployment of next-generation lead-cooled advanced modular reactors.
 

How a SEALER power plant could look (Image: Blykalla)

The collaboration brings together Blykalla's advanced reactor technology with Switzerland-based Hitachi Energy's expertise in electrification, grid integration, and energy industry software to support the integration of reliable, fossil-free power into future energy systems. Through the MoU, the companies will jointly optimise the electrical and grid integration design for Blykalla's reactor type, covering transmission-level connection, on-site electrical systems, and digital monitoring. It also enables Hitachi Energy to integrate its offering into a standard solution for small modular reactors (SMRs).

Focus areas include, but are not limited to, conceptual designs for grid connection and network integration, on-site electrical architecture, digital tools for construction and operation, and a combined offering for customers with the highest, most constant power demands, beginning with data centres and energy-intensive industry.

"By integrating Blykalla's power generation with Hitachi Energy's solutions for electrical infrastructure, the collaboration aims to accelerate the commercialisation and deployment of advanced nuclear solutions across Europe and the United States," Hitachi Energy said.

"As we move toward commercialisation, this collaboration strengthens our ability to deliver complete energy solutions," said Blykalla CEO Jacob Stedman. "Hitachi Energy's expertise in electrification makes them a strong partner to help bring our technology to market, and positions us to meet the growing global demand for clean, reliable power."

Tobias Hansson, Country Managing Director of Hitachi Energy Sweden, added: "We need reliable and low-carbon power solutions that can be integrated efficiently into the energy system as electricity demand continues to grow across industry and digital infrastructure. By combining Blykalla's innovative reactor technology with our expertise in electrical infrastructure, we can help enable solutions that support industrial growth and the broader energy transition."

Blykalla - formerly called LeadCold - is a spin-off from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, where lead-cooled reactor systems have been under development since 1996. The company - founded in 2013 as a joint stock company - is developing the SEALER (Swedish Advanced Lead Reactor). The company's goal is for its first 140 MWt/55 MWe SEALER-55 commercial reactor to be ready for operation in the early 2030s.

In May, Blykalla submitted an application to the government to construct a power plant in Norrsundet, Gävle, in east central Sweden, comprising six SEALER reactors. The proposed plant will have a total generating capacity of 330 MWe. Earlier this month, the company applied for government financing for the plant.

Rolls-Royce SMR plans manufacturing development centre in Derby

Monday, 29 June 2026

Rolls-Royce SMR has announced plans to open its Pioneer Works facility in Derby, in the East Midlands region of England. It will be its first manufacturing development centre where it will establish the build processes, precision assembly and advanced testing needed to de-risk the delivery of its small modular reactor fleet in the UK, Czech Republic and Sweden.
 

(Image: Rolls-Royce SMR)

The company said Pioneer Works will be a non-nuclear site, housing specialist engineering and manufacturing projects that are critical to the successful deployment of its first power plants. It will create and sustain around 40 highly skilled, long-term roles as the facility ramps up, spanning advanced engineering, welding, testing, precision assembly and manufacturing development, while helping train the next generation in these skills.

The GBP12 million (USD16 million) facility - set to open later this year - will develop and validate the techniques, technologies and processes required to assemble the primary circuit and highest integrity components that sit at the heart of the nuclear power plant.

The Pioneer Works site will operate alongside Rolls-Royce SMR's existing EXPERI facility at the University of Sheffield's Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre. EXPERI will continue to play a role in developing Rolls-Royce SMR's unique modular approach to delivering proven nuclear technologies. Together, these two facilities will underpin Rolls-Royce SMR's delivery plan - helping move from design and prototype manufacture through to full modular assembly and power plant delivery.

"Pioneer Works will be at the centre of our ambition to transform the way nuclear projects are delivered, creating highly skilled jobs, supporting the wider supply chain and harnessing British engineering know-how to drive forward the next generation of nuclear power," said Ruth Todd, Rolls-Royce SMR's Operations and Supply Chain Director. "I'm also incredibly proud that this facility will act as our first training centre to create a future workforce which will help build Rolls-Royce SMR's 'factory-built' nuclear power plants around the world."

A cross-section of a Rolls-Royce SMR power plant (Image: Rolls-Royce SMR)

The Rolls-Royce SMR is a 470 MWe design based on a small pressurised water reactor. It will provide consistent baseload generation for at least 60 years. Ninety percent of the SMR - measuring about 16 metres by 4 metres - will be built in factory conditions, limiting activity on-site primarily to assembly of pre-fabricated, pre-tested, modules which significantly reduces project risk and has the potential to shorten build schedules.

In October 2024, Rolls-Royce SMR was selected by ČEZ to deploy up to 3 GW of electricity in the Czech Republic, and ČEZ took a 20% stake in Rolls-Royce SMR. The plan is for the first SMR to be deployed in the area of the Temelín site (which already has two gigawatt-scale VVER-100 units), with further projects being developed for coal-fired power plant sites, including Tušimice. Rolls-Royce SMR has signed an early works agreement with ČEZ to progress licensing, permitting and site-specific design for deployment.

In June 2025, Rolls-Royce SMR was selected as the UK government's preferred technology for the country's first SMR project. A final investment decision is expected to be taken in 2029. In November, the UK government announced that Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, North Wales, would be the site to host the three Rolls-Royce SMR units. It said the site - where a Magnox plant is being decommissioned - could potentially host up to eight SMRs. In April, Rolls-Royce SMR signed a contract with Great British Energy - Nuclear (GBE-N) to begin site-specific design and delivery activities for the UK's first SMRs at Wylfa.

In May, GBE-N launched a contest to find a name for the SMR plant to be built at the Wylfa site. The company has now announced that, after hundreds of suggestions were submitted by locals, a panel of young people from Anglesey has decided the plant will be called Gwyndod Power Station. "The name was chosen because it honours the specific identity, resilience, and unique character of the island's people, placing the local community directly at the heart of the project's identity," GBE-N said. "The name is derived from the old name for the region's dialect, Gwyndodeg."

Earlier this month, Swedish nuclear project company Videberg Kraft - owned by Vattenfall and Industrikraft, with the Swedish state due to become majority owner - selected Rolls-Royce SMR as supplier for its project on the Värö Peninsula near Ringhals, where it plans to site three of the UK-based firm's SMRs.

Oil and mining giants among firms exploring nuclear's industrial use potential

Monday, 29 June 2026

The Industrial Advanced Nuclear Consortium, whose members include ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and Rio Tinto, has published a report outlining the potential for nuclear energy as "a practical, low‐carbon alternative that can be co-located with industrial facilities to provide dependable baseload heat and power, with the grid and renewables serving complementary roles".
 

(Image: Adobe stock)

The consortium was launched last year by The Open Group, a global vendor-neutral technology and standards organisation, with founder members also including ConocoPhillips, Freeport-McMoRan and steel producer Nucor. The report focuses on the hard-to-decarbonise sectors of offshore energy, refining and petrochemicals, mining and energy-intensive manufacturing.

Industrial end users make up the consortium, with the Application Scenarios White Paper aiming to "demonstrate how modular nuclear solutions can be deployed at varying scales and environments, from remote, off‑grid operations to large industrial hubs, delivering high‑reliability baseload energy - at the same time as reducing exposure to volatile fuel costs and grid instability".

Mohan Kalyanaraman, Technology Acquisition Advisor, ExxonMobil said: "The Industrial Advanced Nuclear Consortium was formed to unlock the potential of advanced nuclear for industrial applications - bringing together end users to clearly define what industry needs from nuclear. Our goal is to aggregate and communicate those requirements to enable solutions that can deliver both heat and power reliably and at scale, with the aim of making nuclear a viable option for industrial projects by 2030."

Steve Nunn, President and CEO, The Open Group, said: "This first set of application scenarios provides a clear end‑user perspective on where and how advanced nuclear can be deployed - detailing real energy needs, operational requirements, and integration challenges. By sharing this aggregated view, we aim to help the nuclear industry better understand and respond to industrial demand."

The report focuses in particular on the potential for small and micro modular reactors (SMRs/MMRs) which "can fill the requirement of a low-carbon baseload heat and power source by acting as nuclear boilers and behind‐the‐meter generators that integrate directly with industrial energy systems. In petrochemical complexes, refineries, and LNG facilities, nuclear heat can displace gas‐fired cogeneration and boilers supplying high‐reliability steam and electricity while reducing consumption of natural gas. Offshore, nuclear modules on floating production, storage, and offloading, or dedicated platforms can replace turbines powered by produced‐gas and provide stable power and low‐grade process heat for decades without the emissions and maintenance profile of conventional generation. In remote mining and upstream fields, modular nuclear offers a way to address the constraints of limited grid capacity, intermittent wind/solar resources, and high logistics costs associated with diesel, LNG, or Compressed Natural Gas fuels."

It also notes the variation in scale of potential applications: "At one end of the spectrum, MMRs can provide a few megawatts of electricity and modest low‐temperature heat to remote well pads, central oil‐water processing facilities, or small industrial sites, with the ability to relocate units as fields mature or developments shift. At the other end, multi‐module SMR configurations can support large, integrated refineries, petrochemical hubs, and major mining operations requiring combined electrical and thermal loads in the hundreds of megawatts. Maritime concepts extend this modularity offshore, where nuclear platforms or barge‐based units can serve multiple facilities over multi‐decade field life."

The report says: "In summary, heavy industrial sectors - including refining, petrochemicals, LNG, mining, upstream O&G, and maritime operations - depend on continuous, high‐reliability heat and power that is currently supplied by fossil fuel-based systems, resulting in carbon emissions, fuel price volatility, and grid risks. To credibly achieve a low‐carbon future for industry, modular nuclear represents a compelling option in the portfolio of available solutions. Advances in SMRs and MMRs open the potential for modular nuclear to be a practical, low‐carbon alternative that can be co-located with industrial facilities to provide dependable baseload heat and power, with the grid and renewables serving complementary roles."

The four application scenarios said to be most relevant to the consortium members are: Maritime heat and power; Nuclear cogeneration of heat and power for refining, petrochemicals, LNG; Remote power and heat for O&G exploration and production, mining; Electricity-intensive industrial loads - aluminum smelter and steelmaking.

The consortium says its next steps will be "to define the technical architectures for these scenarios" as well as look at the regulatory considerations, technical integration challenges and business and commercial models to enable deployment. It says the consortium will engage "across the full nuclear and industrial ecosystem: end users, EPCs, utilities, technology developers, suppliers, regulators, academia, national labs, policymakers, finance, and many more".

Second Taipingling unit starts up

Friday, 26 June 2026

Unit 2 at the Taipingling nuclear power plant has attained a sustained chain reaction for the first time, China General Nuclear announced. The unit is the second of six Hualong One (HPR1000) reactors planned for the site in Guangdong province.
 

Taipingling units 1 and 2 (Image: CGN)

On 30 April, China's National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) issued a 40-year operating licence for Taipingling 2. The first nuclear fuel loading operation - which involved inserting a total of 177 fuel assemblies into the core of the reactor - was completed on 3 May.

At 09:45 (local time) on 24 June, the first criticality control point of Taipingling unit 2 was officially signed and released, marking the start of the reactor's criticality operation phase. 

The 1,116 MWe (net) pressurised water reactor reached criticality for the first time at 00:22 on 25 June.

Workers mark the achievement of first criticality (Image: CGN)

China General Nuclear (CGN) said the attainment of first criticality "lays a solid foundation for subsequent grid connection and commissioning" of Taipingling 2.

The Taipingling plant will eventually have six Hualong One reactors, with a total investment exceeding CNY120 billion (USD17 billion). The construction of the first and second units began in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Hot testing of unit 1 was completed in September 2024, with that of unit 2 completed in July 2025. Unit 1 attained first criticality on 3 February this year and was connected to the grid on 13 February. It entered commercial operation on 19 April.

Construction of the second phase of the Taipingling plant - units 3 and 4 - was approved by China's State Council in December 2023, with construction of unit 3 getting under way in June last year. The first nuclear safety-related concrete for the reactor building of unit 4 was poured last month.

Once all six units are completed and put into operation, the annual power generation will exceed 55 billion kilowatt-hours, CGN said. It will also reduce standard coal consumption by about 16.65 million tonnes and carbon dioxide emissions by about 50.82 million tonnes annually.