July 16, 2025: The Water Cost of Electricity on the Susquehanna River

May 15, 2025: Data Centers and Nuclear Power on the Susquehanna River: More Questions than Answers

Sep 29, 2024: The case against restarting Three Mile Island’s Unit-1


Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island

Did you catch "The Meltdown: Three Mile Island" on Netflix?
TMI remains a danger and TMIA is working hard to ensure the safety of our communities and the surrounding areas.
Learn more on this site and support our efforts. Join TMIA. To contact the TMIA office, call 717-233-7897.

    

Another miserable year for nuclear power as renewables surge
Jim Green, RenewEconomy, 27 Jan 2026
The latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR-2026) has crunched the numbers to show that 2025 was another underwhelming year for nuclear power.
Here are the key 2025 global figures:
* power reactor startups (grid connections): 4 reactors, 4.4 gigawatts (GW) capacity
* permanent shutdowns: 7 reactors, 2.8 GW
* net growth of nuclear capacity: 1.6 GW
* power reactor construction starts: 11 reactors, 12.0 GW
The four reactor startups were in China (2), Russia and India. That is the lowest number of startups since 2017.
The seven permanent reactor shutdowns were in Belgium (3), Russia (3) and Taiwan.
The net decline of three operating reactors makes 2025 the worst year on that criterion since 2012, when many reactors were permanently closed due to the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.
The 11 construction starts in 2025 — the highest number since 2010 — were in China (9), South Korea and Russia.
As of 1 January 2026, according to the WNISR-2026:
* 404 nuclear power reactors were operating in the world — five less than a year earlier and 34 less than the historic peak of 438 in 2002.
* Nuclear accounted for 9.0 percent of global electricity generation, barely half its historic peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
* 31 countries were operating nuclear power plants worldwide, one fewer than a year earlier as Taiwan closed its last reactor in May 2025.
Taiwan is the fifth country to abandon its nuclear power program following Italy (1990), Kazakhstan (1999), Lithuania (2009) and Germany (2023).
Overall, the 25-year pattern of global stagnation continues, with no end in sight. Installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than the estimated 793 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity (up from 717 GW in 2024).
In China, new nuclear capacity in 2025 amounted to 2.5 GW whereas solar capacity installed in the first 11 months of 2025 amounted to an estimated 275 GW. The nuclear share of electricity generation in China has fallen for four years in a row after peaking at 5.0 percent in 2021.
That’s despite China’s status as the only significant growth market in the world, with a net growth of around 50 reactors over the past 20 years and a net decline of around 50 reactors in the rest of the world.
Conspicuously absent from the lists of reactor startups and construction starts are any small modular reactors or any ‘Generation IV’ reactors such as fast neutron reactors, fusion reactors, molten salt reactors, etc.
Dramatic drop in number of countries building reactors
The number of countries building power reactors has fallen off a cliff. WNISR-2026 notes:
“The number of building countries declined by almost one third, from 16 to 11, in just two years, with several countries having completed their last construction project (France, United Arab Emirates, United States), or suspended if not terminated construction (Argentina, Brazil, Japan), while only one country was added to the list (Pakistan).
“Only eight of the 31 countries currently operating commercial nuclear plants are building new ones, while three are newcomer countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, Türkiye) in the course of building their first reactors, all implemented by the Russian nuclear industry.”
The number of countries operating power reactors reached 32 in the mid-1990s. Since then it has fallen to 31.
Globally, the number of power reactors under construction increased by seven in 2025 — entirely due to China. China has 36 reactors under construction, more than half of the global total of 66.
Not a single power reactor is under construction across the 35 countries of the American continent.
Only one reactor is under construction in the European Union (in Slovakia). Solar and wind (30 percent combined) overtook fossil fuels (29 percent) for EU electricity generation last year. All renewables (including hydro) accounted for 47.7 percent while nuclear (which fell by nearly two percent last year) now accounts for less than half that amount (23.4 percent).
Over the six-years from 2020-26, Chinese and Russian companies have been the only builders worldwide responsible for reactor construction starts, with the exception of one project in South Korea. Only Russia, China and France are building reactors abroad.
The ‘peaceful atom’
WNISR-2026 notes that of the total of 66 reactors under construction in 11 countries, 63 (95 percent) are either in nuclear-weapon states (50) or are implemented by companies controlled by nuclear-weapon states in other countries (13). Only the three construction projects in South Korea fall outside this category.
Iran’s uranium enrichment program drew attention to the potential to weaponise the ‘peaceful atom’ and the military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year by Israel and the US added to the long history of nation-states attacking nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation (or for that reason among others).
Other examples of conventional military attacks on nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation include Israel’s destruction of reactor components awaiting shipment to Iraq, in France in 1979; Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1981; military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980-88 war; the United States’ destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1991; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor site in Syria in 2007.
Russia’s attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine probably aren’t motivated by weapons proliferation concerns. Nonetheless, the risk of a nuclear catastrophe on top of the ongoing mass murder of conventional warfare highlights the role of nuclear plants as stationary terrorist targets or weapons of mass destruction.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi recently said that fighting around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has left Europe’s largest nuclear plant in an “extremely fragile, volatile condition”.
Apart from the fragile, volatile situation at Zaporizhzhia, low-lights in 2025 included a drone attack which seriously damaged the protective dome over the stricken Chernobyl #4 reactor and, more importantly, more than 10 attacks on nuclear power plant substations in Ukraine which are, according to the IAEA, “essential for nuclear safety and security” and “absolutely indispensable for providing the electricity all nuclear power plants need for reactor cooling and other safety systems.”
Industry hype
Despite the 25-year pattern of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association claims that global nuclear power capacity could more than triple to reach 1,446 GW by 2050. But there’s plenty of fine-print undermining this absurd projection:
* A big chunk of the projected growth (542 GW) “is not yet supported by identified projects”.
* Another big chunk (425 GW) comprises reactors that are planned, proposed or potential … all essentially meaningless categories.
* A “substantial” share of the required capacity growth depends “on large-scale programmes for proposed, potential, and government-targeted capacity that are not yet supported by firm investment decisions”.
* The required 65 GW per year from 2046-2050 is “roughly double the historic peak build rate seen in the 1980s”.
* Achieving the projection will require “unprecedented construction rates, strategic lifetime extension of existing reactors, and significant policy and market reforms”.
* Several national targets (such as the 293 GW of new capacity required to meet the United States’ 400 GW target) “rely heavily on an expansion of nuclear capacity where there is currently little or no ongoing construction, or identified reactors planned or proposed for deployment”.
Here’s the World Nuclear Association’s decidedly ‘iffy’ conclusion:
“If governments uphold their stated ambitions, if regulatory and market frameworks are adapted to support both existing and new reactors, and if the nuclear industry expands its capacity to deliver at scale, the world’s nuclear fleet can more than triple by 2050.”
It’s all comical nonsense. But put yourself in the position of a spin-doctor employed by the World Nuclear Association … could you do any better than to play make-believe?
A much more likely scenario is that the past 25 years of nuclear stagnation will be followed by another 25 years of stagnation. If there is any growth — and there may not be due to the ageing of the global reactor fleet and the industry’s other challenges — it will be marginal growth.
Nuclear power is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic
At the top of the list of the industry’s challenges is that it is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic. Here are the costs of some recent and proposed projects:
 
USA — Vogtle (Georgia)
US$34 billion / 2.4 GW
A$23.5 billion / GW (completed)
£46 billion / 3.2 GW
$A29.4 billion / GW (under construction)
 
UK — Sizewell C
£47.7 billion / 3.2 GW
A$30.6 billion / GW (construction yet to begin)
France — Flamanville
€19.1 billion / 1.6 GW
A$21.3 billion / GW (completed)
SMR — NuScale (USA)
US$9.3 billion / 462 MW
A$30.1 billion / GW (cancelled before construction began)
SMR — Darlington
 (Canada)C$20.9 billion / 1.2 GW
A$19.1 billion / GW (construction yet to begin)
SMR — CAREM (Argentina)
US$750 million / 32 MW
A$34.0 billion / GW (construction began in 2014, abandoned 2025)
Nuclear stagnation vs. renewables growth
As noted above, installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than new solar and wind capacity.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the installation of 4,600 GW of new renewable capacity in the five years from 2025-2030, twice as much as in the previous five years. (Current global nuclear capacity is 369 GW.)
The IEA stated in October 2025 that:
* Renewables will surpass coal at the end of 2025 (or by mid-2026 at the latest) to become the largest source of electricity generation globally. (The World Economic Forum states that renewables overtook coal in the first half of 2025.)
* The share of renewables in global electricity generation is projected to rise from 32 percent in 2024 to 43 percent by 2030.
* From 2025-2030, renewables are expected to meet over 90 percent of global electricity demand growth.
Over the past decade we’ve seen renewable electricity generation double then triple nuclear power generation. By the end of this decade renewables will out-generate nuclear by a factor of 5-7.
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group
Another miserable year for nuclear power as renewables surge
Jim Green, RenewEconomy, 27 Jan 2026
The latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR-2026) has crunched the numbers to show that 2025 was another underwhelming year for nuclear power.
Here are the key 2025 global figures:
* power reactor startups (grid connections): 4 reactors, 4.4 gigawatts (GW) capacity
* permanent shutdowns: 7 reactors, 2.8 GW
* net growth of nuclear capacity: 1.6 GW
* power reactor construction starts: 11 reactors, 12.0 GW
The four reactor startups were in China (2), Russia and India. That is the lowest number of startups since 2017.
The seven permanent reactor shutdowns were in Belgium (3), Russia (3) and Taiwan.
The net decline of three operating reactors makes 2025 the worst year on that criterion since 2012, when many reactors were permanently closed due to the Fukushima disaster in March 2011.
The 11 construction starts in 2025 — the highest number since 2010 — were in China (9), South Korea and Russia.
As of 1 January 2026, according to the WNISR-2026:
* 404 nuclear power reactors were operating in the world — five less than a year earlier and 34 less than the historic peak of 438 in 2002.
* Nuclear accounted for 9.0 percent of global electricity generation, barely half its historic peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
* 31 countries were operating nuclear power plants worldwide, one fewer than a year earlier as Taiwan closed its last reactor in May 2025.
Taiwan is the fifth country to abandon its nuclear power program following Italy (1990), Kazakhstan (1999), Lithuania (2009) and Germany (2023).
Overall, the 25-year pattern of global stagnation continues, with no end in sight. Installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than the estimated 793 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity (up from 717 GW in 2024).
In China, new nuclear capacity in 2025 amounted to 2.5 GW whereas solar capacity installed in the first 11 months of 2025 amounted to an estimated 275 GW. The nuclear share of electricity generation in China has fallen for four years in a row after peaking at 5.0 percent in 2021.
That’s despite China’s status as the only significant growth market in the world, with a net growth of around 50 reactors over the past 20 years and a net decline of around 50 reactors in the rest of the world.
Conspicuously absent from the lists of reactor startups and construction starts are any small modular reactors or any ‘Generation IV’ reactors such as fast neutron reactors, fusion reactors, molten salt reactors, etc.
Dramatic drop in number of countries building reactors
The number of countries building power reactors has fallen off a cliff. WNISR-2026 notes:
“The number of building countries declined by almost one third, from 16 to 11, in just two years, with several countries having completed their last construction project (France, United Arab Emirates, United States), or suspended if not terminated construction (Argentina, Brazil, Japan), while only one country was added to the list (Pakistan).
“Only eight of the 31 countries currently operating commercial nuclear plants are building new ones, while three are newcomer countries (Bangladesh, Egypt, Türkiye) in the course of building their first reactors, all implemented by the Russian nuclear industry.”
The number of countries operating power reactors reached 32 in the mid-1990s. Since then it has fallen to 31.
Globally, the number of power reactors under construction increased by seven in 2025 — entirely due to China. China has 36 reactors under construction, more than half of the global total of 66.
Not a single power reactor is under construction across the 35 countries of the American continent.
Only one reactor is under construction in the European Union (in Slovakia). Solar and wind (30 percent combined) overtook fossil fuels (29 percent) for EU electricity generation last year. All renewables (including hydro) accounted for 47.7 percent while nuclear (which fell by nearly two percent last year) now accounts for less than half that amount (23.4 percent).
Over the six-years from 2020-26, Chinese and Russian companies have been the only builders worldwide responsible for reactor construction starts, with the exception of one project in South Korea. Only Russia, China and France are building reactors abroad.
The ‘peaceful atom’
WNISR-2026 notes that of the total of 66 reactors under construction in 11 countries, 63 (95 percent) are either in nuclear-weapon states (50) or are implemented by companies controlled by nuclear-weapon states in other countries (13). Only the three construction projects in South Korea fall outside this category.
Iran’s uranium enrichment program drew attention to the potential to weaponise the ‘peaceful atom’ and the military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities last year by Israel and the US added to the long history of nation-states attacking nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation (or for that reason among others).
Other examples of conventional military attacks on nuclear plants to prevent weapons proliferation include Israel’s destruction of reactor components awaiting shipment to Iraq, in France in 1979; Israel’s destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1981; military strikes by Iraq and Iran on each other’s nuclear facilities during the 1980-88 war; the United States’ destruction of a research reactor in Iraq in 1991; Iraq’s attempted missile strikes on Israel’s nuclear facilities in 1991; and Israel’s bombing of a suspected nuclear reactor site in Syria in 2007.
Russia’s attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine probably aren’t motivated by weapons proliferation concerns. Nonetheless, the risk of a nuclear catastrophe on top of the ongoing mass murder of conventional warfare highlights the role of nuclear plants as stationary terrorist targets or weapons of mass destruction.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi recently said that fighting around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant has left Europe’s largest nuclear plant in an “extremely fragile, volatile condition”.
Apart from the fragile, volatile situation at Zaporizhzhia, low-lights in 2025 included a drone attack which seriously damaged the protective dome over the stricken Chernobyl #4 reactor and, more importantly, more than 10 attacks on nuclear power plant substations in Ukraine which are, according to the IAEA, “essential for nuclear safety and security” and “absolutely indispensable for providing the electricity all nuclear power plants need for reactor cooling and other safety systems.”
Industry hype
Despite the 25-year pattern of stagnation, the World Nuclear Association claims that global nuclear power capacity could more than triple to reach 1,446 GW by 2050. But there’s plenty of fine-print undermining this absurd projection:
* A big chunk of the projected growth (542 GW) “is not yet supported by identified projects”.
* Another big chunk (425 GW) comprises reactors that are planned, proposed or potential … all essentially meaningless categories.
* A “substantial” share of the required capacity growth depends “on large-scale programmes for proposed, potential, and government-targeted capacity that are not yet supported by firm investment decisions”.
* The required 65 GW per year from 2046-2050 is “roughly double the historic peak build rate seen in the 1980s”.
* Achieving the projection will require “unprecedented construction rates, strategic lifetime extension of existing reactors, and significant policy and market reforms”.
* Several national targets (such as the 293 GW of new capacity required to meet the United States’ 400 GW target) “rely heavily on an expansion of nuclear capacity where there is currently little or no ongoing construction, or identified reactors planned or proposed for deployment”.
Here’s the World Nuclear Association’s decidedly ‘iffy’ conclusion:
“If governments uphold their stated ambitions, if regulatory and market frameworks are adapted to support both existing and new reactors, and if the nuclear industry expands its capacity to deliver at scale, the world’s nuclear fleet can more than triple by 2050.”
It’s all comical nonsense. But put yourself in the position of a spin-doctor employed by the World Nuclear Association … could you do any better than to play make-believe?
A much more likely scenario is that the past 25 years of nuclear stagnation will be followed by another 25 years of stagnation. If there is any growth — and there may not be due to the ageing of the global reactor fleet and the industry’s other challenges — it will be marginal growth.
Nuclear power is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic
At the top of the list of the industry’s challenges is that it is staggeringly, stunningly and possibly irretrievably uneconomic. Here are the costs of some recent and proposed projects:
 
USA — Vogtle (Georgia)
US$34 billion / 2.4 GW
A$23.5 billion / GW (completed)
£46 billion / 3.2 GW
$A29.4 billion / GW (under construction)
 
UK — Sizewell C
£47.7 billion / 3.2 GW
A$30.6 billion / GW (construction yet to begin)
France — Flamanville
€19.1 billion / 1.6 GW
A$21.3 billion / GW (completed)
SMR — NuScale (USA)
US$9.3 billion / 462 MW
A$30.1 billion / GW (cancelled before construction began)
SMR — Darlington
 (Canada)C$20.9 billion / 1.2 GW
A$19.1 billion / GW (construction yet to begin)
SMR — CAREM (Argentina)
US$750 million / 32 MW
A$34.0 billion / GW (construction began in 2014, abandoned 2025)
Nuclear stagnation vs. renewables growth
As noted above, installed nuclear capacity of 4.4 GW in 2025 was 180 times lower than new solar and wind capacity.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts the installation of 4,600 GW of new renewable capacity in the five years from 2025-2030, twice as much as in the previous five years. (Current global nuclear capacity is 369 GW.)
The IEA stated in October 2025 that:
* Renewables will surpass coal at the end of 2025 (or by mid-2026 at the latest) to become the largest source of electricity generation globally. (The World Economic Forum states that renewables overtook coal in the first half of 2025.)
* The share of renewables in global electricity generation is projected to rise from 32 percent in 2024 to 43 percent by 2030.
* From 2025-2030, renewables are expected to meet over 90 percent of global electricity demand growth.
Over the past decade we’ve seen renewable electricity generation double then triple nuclear power generation. By the end of this decade renewables will out-generate nuclear by a factor of 5-7.
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group
January 2026
 

New York’s $100 billion nuclear plan would worsen its affordability crisis

By Joseph Romm
 
The last nuclear plant New York State built was completed in 1988. As the New York Times reported in 1984, “The Nine Mile Point 2 nuclear reactor under construction here is a decade behind schedule, is almost three years from operation, and has a price tag 12 times the original estimate.”
 
Yet, at her Tuesday State of the State speech, Governor Hochul announced her plan to build five new large reactors.
 
The only U.S. commercial reactors built this century—the only ones the state modeled in its deeply flawed new Energy Plan—are the twin 1100-Megawatt AP1000 reactors at Georgia’s Vogtle plant. 
 
Vogtle was “the most expensive power plant ever built on earth,” one analysis noted, with an “astoundingly high” electricity cost. The final Vogtle cost was upwards of $40 billion.
 
As a result, Georgia ratepayer bills are rising over $220 a year. South Carolina consumers still pay for two never-completed AP1000s.
 
Hochul has asserted nuclear power will help “make energy more affordable.” But the reverse is true. The Energy Plan says the recent “surge in large load interconnection requests” is “driven primarily by data center development.” While Hochul has been in office, data center energy demand has helped triple Buffalo’s wholesale electricity prices, raising the state’s residential rates 40%.
 
Nuclear can’t be built fast enough to matter for new data centers or semiconductor plants. Five new reactors could cost the state $100 billion and still not deliver much, if any, power before 2035. 
 
New York’s Plan is built around the notion that the next reactor built will inevitably be much cheaper per Megawatt than the Georgia plants because of “learning.” But the electricity price from new reactors just keeps increasing, soaring 60% in the previous decade alone.
 
In contrast, there have been decades of price drops in batteries, solar and wind power. Battery prices fell 40% in 2024, a December study noted. “The economics for batteries are unrecognizable,” the lead author explained. “Solar is no longer just cheap daytime electricity, solar is now anytime dispatchable electricity.”
 
These technologies should be the focus of a genuine energy affordability plan.
 
 
Joseph Romm is a former acting assistant secretary of energy and author of the Penn Cemter for Science, Sustainability and the Media report, “New York’s Nuclear Anti-Affordability Fiasco.”
 
 
 
Michel 

SUN DAY CAMPAIGN  

8606 Greenwood Avenue, Suite #2; Takoma Park, MD 20912-6656  
   
   
Brief News Update & Analysis  
   
UTILITY-SCALE SOLAR GENERATING CAPACITY
SURPASSES WIND FOR THE FIRST TIME
 
FOR 26 MONTHS STRAIGHT, SOLAR HAS PROVIDED
MORE NEW GENERATING CAPACITY
THAN ANY OTHER ENERGY SOURCE
 
OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS,
SOLAR PROJECTED TO ADD ANOTHER 90-GW
 
 
For Release:  Wednesday, January 21, 2026
 
Contact:         Ken Bossong, 301-588-4741
 
Washington DC – A review by the SUN DAY Campaign of data belatedly released by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reveals that solar accounted for 72% of U.S. electrical generating capacity added during the first ten months of 2025. Solar continues to dominate new capacity additions and has held the lead among all energy sources for 26 consecutive months. As a consequence, for the first time, installed utility-scale solar capacity now exceeds that of wind. Further, FERC foresees solar adding another 90 gigawatts (GW) over the next three years by which time solar capacity will be greater than that of either nuclear power or coal.
 
 
Solar was 60% of new generating capacity in October and 72% year-to-date:
 
In its latest monthly “Energy Infrastructure Update” report (with data through October 31, 2025), FERC says 66 “units” of solar totaling 1,082 megawatts (MW) were placed into service in October, accounting for 59.8% of all new generating capacity added during the month. Natural gas provided the balance (727-MW) plus 1-MW of new oil capacity.
 
The newest facilities include the 153.0-MW Felina Project in El Paso, TX; the 150.0-MW Ratts 1 Solar Project in Pike County, IN; and the 145-MW Axial Basin Solar Project in Moffat County, CO.
 
The 649 units of utility-scale (i.e., >1-MW) solar added during the first ten months of 2025 total 22,457-MW - slightly less than the 22,618-MW added during the same period in 2024 - and were 72.0% of the total new capacity placed into service by all sources.
 
Solar has now been the largest source of new generating capacity added each month for 26 months straight: September 2023 - October 2025. During that period, total utility-scale solar capacity grew from 91.82-GW to 160.56-GW. No other energy source added anything close to that amount of new capacity. Wind, for example, expanded by 12.39-GW while natural gas’ net increase was just 6.55-GW. [1]
 
As a consequence, for the first time ever, the installed generating capacity of utility-scale solar has now surpassed that of wind (160.09-GW).
 
 
Wind capacity additions through October exceed those of natural gas:
 
Between January and October, new wind provided 4,746-MW of capacity additions – an increase of 55% compared to a year earlier and more than the new capacity provided by natural gas (3,896-MW). Wind thus accounted for 15.2% of all new capacity added during the first ten months of 2025.
 
 
Renewables were more than 87% of new capacity added year-to-date:
 
Year-to-date (YTD), wind and solar (joined by 4-MW of hydropower and 6-MW of biomass) accounted for 87.2% of all new generating capacity while natural gas added just 12.4%. The balance of net capacity additions came from oil (66-MW) and waste heat (17-MW).
 
 
Solar + wind are a quarter of U.S. generating capacity; all renewables combined are over a third:
 
Taken together, wind and solar constitute nearly one-fourth (23.79%) of the U.S.’s total available installed utility-scale generating capacity.
 
Moreover, more than 25% of U.S. solar capacity is in the form of small-scale (e.g., rooftop) systems that are not reflected in FERC’s data. [2] Including that additional solar capacity would bring the share provided by solar + wind to more than a quarter of the nation’s total.
 
With the inclusion of hydropower (7.57%), biomass (1.05%) and geothermal (0.31%), renewables currently claim a 32.72% share of total U.S. utility-scale generating capacity. If small-scale solar capacity is included, renewables are now more than one-third of total U.S. generating capacity.
 
 
Solar is on track to become the second largest source of U.S. generating capacity:
 
FERC reports that net “high probability” net additions of solar between November 2025 and October 2028 total 89,720-MW – an amount more than four times the forecast net “high probability” additions for wind (19,660-MW), the second fastest growing resource.
 
FERC also foresees net growth for hydropower (555-MW) and geothermal (92-MW) but a decrease of 124-MW in biomass capacity.
 
Meanwhile, natural gas capacity would expand by 8,983-MW and nuclear power would add just 335-MW, while coal and oil are projected to contract by 19,741-MW and 1,363-MW respectively.
 
Taken together, the net new “high probability” net utility-scale capacity additions by all renewable energy sources over the next three years - i.e., the Trump Administration’s remaining time in office - would total 109,903-MW. On the other hand, the installed capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined would shrink by 11,786-MW.
 
Should FERC’s three-year forecast materialize, by mid-fall 2028, utility-scale solar would account for 17.3% of installed U.S. generating capacity - more than any other source besides natural gas (40.1%). Further, the capacity of the mix of all utility-scale renewable energy sources would exceed 38%. Inclusion of small-scale solar - assuming it retains its 25% share of all solar - could push solar’s share to over 20% and that of all renewables to over 41% while that of natural gas would drop to about 38%.
 
In fact, the numbers for renewables could be significantly higher.
 
FERC notes that “all additions” (net) for utility-scale solar over the next three years could be as high as 232,487-MW while those for wind could total 65,658-MW. Hydro’s net additions could reach 9,932-MW while geothermal and biomass could increase by 202-MW and 34-MW respectively. Such growth by renewable sources would significantly exceed that of natural gas (30,508-MW).
 
 
"It has now been a full year since Trump launched his assault on renewable energy with a string of anti-solar and anti-wind executive orders," noted the SUN DAY Campaign's executive director Ken Bossong. "And while they may have slowed progress, the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy sources continue to drive their dramatic growth." 
  
# # # # # # # # #  
   
Source:  
FERC's 8-page "Energy Infrastructure Update for October 2025" was posted on January 20, 2026. The link to the full report can be found at: https://cms.ferc.gov/media/energy-infrastructure-update-october-2025.
 
For the information cited in this update, see the tables entitled "New Generation In-Service (New Build and Expansion)," "Total Available Installed Generating Capacity," and "Generation Capacity Additions and Retirements."
 
FERC notes: “Data derived from Velocity Suite, Hidachi Energy, and Yes Energy. The data may be subject to update.”
 
Notes:   
[1] Generating capacity is not the same as actual generation. Fossil fuels and nuclear power usually have higher "capacity factors" than do wind and solar. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports capacity factors in calendar year 2024 for nuclear power, combined-cycle natural gas plants and coal were 92.3%, 59.7%, and 42.6% respectively while those for wind and utility-scale solar PV were 34.3% and 23.4%. See Tables 6.07.A and 6.07.B in EIA's most recent "Electric Power Monthly" report. 

[2] While FERC does not provide capacity data for small-scale solar, the EIA does. In its latest “Electric Power Monthly” report issued on December 23, 2025, EIA reported that as of October 31, 2025, installed solar capacity totaled 200,995.5-MW of which 58,065.8-MW (i.e., 28.9%) was provided by small-scale solar (estimated). See table 6.1 at https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_01
 
# # # # # # # # # 
   
The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research and educational organization founded in 1992 to support a rapid transition to 100% reliance on sustainable energy technologies as a cost-effective alternative to nuclear power and fossil fuels and as a solution to climate change.
Watch for this one. 
This was attempted (2011) in Canada with Bruce Power steam generators to travel from Lake Huron through the Great Lakes out the St. Lawrence Seaway to Sweden.
We stopped them from sending 64 steam generators each larger than a bus.
 
"German steam generators arrive in Sweden for recycling"
 
"Decommissioning Is Creating a New Pipeline of Opportunity in Europe"
 
N2
Michael J. Keegan
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes

https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-kills-decades-old-radiation-safety-standard/

DOE kills decades-old radiation safety standard

The standard is based on the principle that there is no safe dose of radiation.

Avatar of Francisco "A.J." Camacho

By: 

 | 01/12/2026 04:32 PM EST

The Department of Energy in Washington.
The Department of Energy in Washington on May 1, 2015. Jacquelyn Martin/AP

E&E NEWS PM | Energy Secretary Chris Wright killed the Department of Energy’s decades-old radiation safety standard Friday.

Wright ended the department's use of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable — or "ALARA" — principle, which has long been a staple of nuclear regulation. ALARA is rooted in the idea that any radiation exposure carries risks, but low doses can be justified by practical considerations. Critics in the nuclear power and health fields argue that the standard is overly burdensome with no real safety benefits.

The move could lower operational costs and accelerate projects using nuclear material, but it will alter an established safety-first culture. The change in safety standards may impact DOE’s ongoing advanced nuclear reactor pilot program and high-stakes radiation cleanups, like the Hanford site in Washington state that has been dubbed the most contaminated place in the Western Hemisphere.

A person familiar with the Trump administration’s nuclear policy, granted anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, confirmed that Wright decided to remove ALARA from DOE regulations and that there would be a subsequent process to decide replacement standards. DOE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"ALARA is effectively, as far as I understand it, as of Friday, totally nullified and gone," said Emily Caffrey, a radiation health physicist and assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. "So anywhere you see ALARA in DOE regulations, you'll scratch it out with no replacement."

DOE is engaged in an advanced reactor pilot program with nine companies. The participating companies have their sights on selling their technology commercially to power military bases, data centers and homes across the country.

The secretary’s memo does not directly affect the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the operation of America’s 94 nuclear reactors powering one-fifth of the country. That means the pilot program participants won’t need to adhere to ALARA immediately, but they will still need to satisfy it if they want the requisite NRC license to build reactors to feed the larger electricity grid.

The severe health impacts of ionizing radiation became apparent to the public after the 1945 atomic bombings in Japan, where thousands of initial survivors died of cancers linked to the bombings.

In response, the U.S. sought to establish increasingly strict safety standards for nuclear workers and civilians. This evolution culminated in the As Low As Reasonably Achievable protocol. Since its introduction by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 1970s, ALARA has been the "gold standard for nuclear safety" despite its significant implementation costs.

DOE began to adopt ALARA for certain activities in 1988. Today, its regulations apply the ALARA standard across various aspects of radiation safety, including occupational exposure, environmental releases and site decommissioning.

“It is the underlying philosophy that NRC and the Department of Energy use when thinking about radiation exposures,” Caffrey said. “Anytime you have a worker or someone who is going to encounter ionizing radiation, you think about ALARA.”

The decision might put additional pressure on the NRC to ditch ALARA, too. A May 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump asked the NRC to reconsider its use of the standard. Wright’s move may also have implications for DOE’s ongoing radiation cleanups of abandoned uranium mines and Manhattan Project sites, like the one in Hanford.

Hanford produced the bulk of America’s weapons-grade plutonium, and nuclear waste is still stored on the site. But Hanford has been plagued with problems from explosions to toxic vapor releases to nuclear waste leaking from its tanks, and the federal government has paid out nearly $2.7 billion to thousands of workers for illnesses linked to exposure to radiation and toxic chemicals.

DOE estimates it will cost $364 billion to $590 billion to finish the Hanford cleanup. Lowering the radiation dose standard might allow the cleanup to proceed faster.

ALARA has long been hotly debated in the nuclear industry and among health experts.

“ALARA means different things depending on the context,” Caffrey said. “You can get a state like California, where if you need to decommission a facility, you have to go to zero radiation dose.”

Caffrey said she thinks that California takes ALARA too far since people are naturally exposed to some radiation from the sun and space constantly.

“This is really the fundamental reason why so many people get so upset about ALARA,” she said.

The nuclear power industry has also often complained about the principle. A December report from the pro-nuclear Breakthrough Institute points out that the ALARA principle often means minimizing doses to 25 times lower than what other regulations consider already safe.

“This increases licensing costs and timelines without improving protection,” the report says of ALARA.

Edwin Lyman, a physicist and the director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists, defended the NRC’s radiation standard in a 2025 interview.

“Documented scientific evidence has only indicated that [low-level radiation exposure] is more dangerous than was known decades ago, when these standards were set,” Lyman said. “Evidence has emerged about the impact of the level of radiation exposure on cardiovascular disease.”

“ALARA has been misapplied across the board in a lot of different areas, and it has cost taxpayers a lot of money, and it has caused a lot of unnecessary fear in the public by saying, ‘Well, any little bit of radiation dose is going to give you a cancer,’ which is just fundamentally not true,” Caffrey concluded. “But as a radiation protection principle and paradigm, it was well-intended.”

Ho Nieh is now chair. David Wright is still on the commission, but apparently he was not compliant enough with the “rubber stamp” agenda to satisfy the White House to remain in charge. So implies the article:
 
Wright’s tenure as chair was marked by growing tension between the historically independent NRC and the White House and Department of Energy. Wright told lawmakers in September that he had pushed back when a DOE attorney suggested in 
 "Twenty years into fracking, Pa. has yet to reckon with its radioactive waste"
 
"Residents demand action at one of the largest nuclear waste dumps in US: 'We want to make sure it's being done right'"

SUN DAY CAMPAIGN     

(a campaign for a sustainable energy future)          
8606 Greenwood Avenue, #2; Takoma Park, MD 20912--6656      
301-588-4741
sun-day-campaign@hotmail.com 
         

       
      
January 3, 2026       
       
To:  Members, SUN DAY Campaign       
       
From: Ken Bossong       
       
Attached as a word document please find a compilation of news story "excerpts" issued by the SUN DAY Campaign between October 1 and December 31, 2025.       
       
These "excerpts" were sent earlier to you in the mailings that were usually distributed at the end of each week. They provide short reviews of new reports and studies on sustainable energy and climate change issues.       
     
Approximately 300 news story "excerpts" are provided in the 69-page compilation.       
       
They are listed in chronological order within each of 10 different categories (e.g., solar, wind, climate change).       
       
You may find this information of use if you are preparing any reports, news releases, testimony, letters-to-the-editor, etc.       
       
 
NOTE: A similar set of news story “excerpts” for the first quarter of 2026 may be sent to you sometime in early April 2026. 
 

Pages