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

Feb 1, 2025: AI on the Susquehanna River

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.

    

 
290 pixel image width

France: National Assembly rejects »nonsensical« plan to halt expansion of solar and wind energy

On Tuesday, the French National Assembly rejected a proposal to stop expanding renewable energy sources. The corresponding bill was rejected by a vote of 377 to 142, with 47 members abstaining. Surprisingly, on Thursday, the National Assembly passed a moratorium on the construction of new solar and wind farms as part of an amendment to the energy bill with the support of Les Républicains (LR) and the right-wing populists of Rassemblement National (RN). The moratorium was to remain in force »until an objective, independent study ...
... more

source: 
video recording
press release Enerplan

 

- Sponsored Content -

290 pixel image width

GridParity launches new AgriPV initiative – economically viable even without solar package bonus

 

With a completely revamped product line and a clear strategic realignment, GridParity is launching a new AgriPV initiative that is economically viable even without the controversial bonus scheme included in the solar package. In view of the political uncertainties surrounding Solar Package II, GridParity is focusing on independence, transparency, and cost-efficient system solutions – with success: AgriPV systems close to farms are economically viable starting at just €350,000 per megawatt peak (MWp).

Solar package or not – GridParity lowers barriers to entry

“We wanted to create a system that doesn't depend on political favors,” explains project manager Eva Muhle. “Our customers need planning security and functioning business models – now, not sometime in the future.”

The revised pricing structure allows electricity production costs of just 3 to 4 cents per kWh, even with full feed-in to the grid. This means that investments can be solidly financed even below the regular EEG remuneration of 6.89 cents/kWh – without any additional bonuses.

Eight system variants – optimized for agriculture: 

More...

290 pixel image width

Denmark: Logistics company commissions 35 MW rooftop system

 

The new logistics center of the Danish logistics company DSV is home to what is currently probably the world's largest PV rooftop system. This was announced by Ernst Schweizer AG, which supplied the mounting system for it. The ballasted mounting system, »MSP-FR east-west,« was used. It is an aerodynamically optimized solution that does not require roof penetration.

The Danish contractor SolarFuture ApS installed a total of 78,000 solar modules on an area of over 300,000 square meters. The plant in ...
... more

source: 
Ernst Schweizer AG

 

 
290 pixel image width

German battery market to decline significantly in 2024

 

The German battery market reached a volume of €20.5 billion in 2024, according to the German Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association (ZVEI). However, with a decline of €3.8 billion (minus 16 percent) compared to 2023, it was unable to continue the strong growth of the previous five years. The decline is almost entirely attributable to lithium batteries, which recorded losses of just under €3 billion. According to ZVEI, this is due to the recent weak development of electromobility in Germany, which is attributable, among other things, to ...
... more

source: 
fact sheet
press release

290 pixel image width

Germany: Trianel plans large-scale battery storage facility with 900 MW capacity

 

Trianel GmbH, based in Aachen, is planning a large-scale battery storage facility on the outskirts of the Ruhr region in Waltrop, North Rhine-Westphalia. The first phase of expansion will achieve an output of 900 megawatts (MW) and a storage capacity of 1,800 megawatt hours (MWh). This has been announced by the company. The project will be built on a plot of unused land originally intended as a construction site for the neighboring Trianel coal-fired power plant in Lünen.

Trianel is implementing the project in cooperation with BKW AG, an ...
... more

source: 
Trianel
press release

 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 25-037 June 24, 2025
CONTACT: Christine Saah Nazer, 301-415-8200

NRC Reduces Hourly Rate for Advanced Nuclear Reactor Applicants and Pre-Applicants

 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations for the licensing, inspection, special projects, and annual fees it will charge applicants and licensees for fiscal year 2025. The fiscal year 2025 final fee rule was published today in the Federal Register.
 
In this rule, the NRC is making amendments to implement a reduced hourly rate for advanced nuclear reactor applicants and pre-applicants for certain activities as required by the ADVANCE Act of 2024. The reduced hourly rate is $148 per hour and represents an over 50% reduction from the full-cost professional hourly rate of $318 per hour. The reduced hourly rate will take effect on Oct. 1, 2025, consistent with the statutory effective date.
 
The FY 2025 final fee rule reflects a total budget authority of $944.1 million, the same as FY 2024. Under the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, the NRC is required to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100% of the NRC’s total budget authority for FY 2025, less the budget authority for excluded activities. A proposed fee rule was published for public comment on Feb. 19, 2025.
 
After accounting for the exclusions from the fee-recovery requirement and net billing adjustments, the NRC must recover approximately $808.8 million in fees in FY 2025. The NRC assesses two types of fees: service fees, established in 10 CFR part 170, recovering the NRC’s costs of providing specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects); and annual fees, established in 10 CFR part 171, recovering generic and other regulatory costs not otherwise recovered. For FY 2025, approximately $205.4 million will be recovered through service fees under 10 CFR Part 170 and $603.4 million will be recovered through annual fees under 10 CFR Part 171.
 
Compared to FY 2024, annual fees are decreasing for the operating power reactors fee class, fuel facilities fee class, non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, the uranium recovery facilities fee class, and five materials users fee categories. Annual fees are increasing for most materials users’ fee categories and annual fees remain stable for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class.
 
 
DIVE BRIEF

Trump’s NRC firing raises alarms at pro-nuclear and watchdog groups alike

Commissioner Christopher Hanson’s sudden dismissal could make NRC less efficient — and less trusted — just as its workload explodes, advocates say.

Published June 23, 2025

By Brian Martucci

The front doors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

President Trump fired Christopher Hanson, a commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on June 13, 2025. The image by Tony Webster is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0


Dive Brief:

  • Nuclear industry watchdogs and advocates alike worry that President Trump’s abrupt firing of Commissioner Christopher Hanson from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hinder ongoing NRC reforms and threaten Trump’s promise of an American nuclear renaissance.
  • Hanson’s dismissal opens a vacancy on the five-member Commission, which requires three members to meet quorum. A second vacancy looms if the U.S. Senate fails to act on Trump’s renomination of Chairman David Wright by July 1. 
  • The move comes less than a month after Trump issued four executive orders aimed at speeding up reactor approvals, expanding the U.S. nuclear supply chain, restructuring the NRC itself and adding 300 GWof new nuclear capacity by 2050.

Dive Insight:

In a public statement, Hanson described his termination late on June 13 as “without cause, contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.”

Hanson has not yet taken legal action to challenge his dismissal or indicated whether he plans to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court in a May ruling gave the President broad latitude to dismiss most independent agency appointees without cause.

A White House spokesperson told National Public Radio that Trump “reserves the right to remove employees within his own executive branch who exert his executive authority” and that “[a]ll organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction.” The spokesperson did not indicate what prompted Hanson’s dismissal.

NRC is currently reviewing construction permit applications for grid-connected advanced nuclear reactors in TennesseeTexas and Wyoming; and respective operating license applications from Holtec International and Constellation Energy to restart the 800-MW Palisades nuclear plantin Michigan and 835-MW Crane Clean Energy Center in Pennsylvania. With more than 30 advanced reactor designs in pre-application engagement, its docket is all but certain to grow.

Industry groups and pro-nuclear nongovernmental organizations voiced concern that the firing would set NRC back just as its workload balloons. 

A Breakthrough Institute analysis of NRC voting records shows that a fully staffed Commission is nearly twice as efficient as a three-member Commission, said Adam Stein, director for nuclear innovation at the pro-nuclear think tank.

“While a three-member commission would “[satisfy] the quorum requirement, past experience has shown that a full five-member Commission is essential for effective and timely decision making,” Stein said in a June 16 statement

Other pro-nuclear groups echoed Stein’s efficiency concerns and hinted that Hanson’s firing could erode NRC’s legal authority.

“The arbitrary removal of commissioners without due cause creates regulatory uncertainty that threatens to delay America’s nuclear energy expansion,” the American Nuclear Society said on Monday.

Public trust could also suffer, as could the U.S.’s aspirations to be a major Western exporter of advanced nuclear technology, Nuclear Innovation Alliance President and CEO Judi Greenwald said.

“As advocates for new nuclear energy, we are focused on the NRC’s role in reestablishing U.S. nuclear energy leadership,” Greenwald said in a Monday statement. “Undermining NRC’s independence is damaging to both long-term U.S. interests and to the ongoing work that is required to ensure that nuclear power can provide reliable and clean energy to power the American economy.”

Representatives for pro-nuclear groups Clean Air Task ForceThird Wayand Good Energy Collective also issued statements of concern following Hanson’s firing.

Greenwald’s June 16 comments echo an NIA statement last month which offered qualified praise for Trump’s executive orders while warning against staff and funding cuts at the agencies responsible for implementing them, including NRC.

“Our assessment is that NRC is already making significant progress on reform in compliance with congressional direction including the 2024 ADVANCE Act,” she said on May 23. “It is in everyone’s interest that this progress continue and not be undermined by staffing cuts or upended by conflicting directives.”

Longtime industry watchdog Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Trump’s move would undercut NRC’s core safety mission.

“The main issue is that [NRC] was created specifically to avoid conflicts of interest associated with being directed by the executive branch,” Lyman said in an interview. “That independence is critical because it shows that they are making judgments based on safety criteria and not … favoring one technology or applicant over another for political reasons.”

Efforts to streamline NRC operations began in earnest with the enactment last year of the ADVANCE Act, which directed the agency to set deadlines for reactor licensing reviews, expedite certain applications and develop guidelines for lower-output microreactors. 

That push has accelerated under Trump, propelled by what Lyman said are unvetted industry claims that advanced nuclear plants are inherently safer than conventional power reactors. That means it’s exactly the wrong time to weaken NRC independence, he said.

“The industry has had a chip on its shoulder for so long that it’s afraid to be honest about what it doesn’t know, and it’s putting forth a positive message that’s not backed by science,” Lyman said. “It’s the regulator’s role to see through that.

RECOMMENDED READING

Will NC Politicians Help Duke Energy Gamble our Power Bills and Safety on Experimental Nuclear Plants?

Duke Energy and its subsidiaries attempted to build six nuclear units at Shearon Harris over the course of four decades, but construction was completed on only one.

NC SB 266 would shield Duke from risk – after the corporation failed 19 times building reactors

NC WARN’s attorney and activists worked with Southeastern allies to help block over two dozen experimental Westinghouse reactors in the 2010s. Corner-cutting, deception and corporate arrogance were keys to the billions of dollars in failures.

Urge Governor Stein to veto SB266 and protect North Carolinians from soaring rates due to corporate debacles! Leave a short message at (919) 814-2000.

  • Duke Energy alone failed six times to build new nukes between 2005 and 2017, costing customers over $2 billion. 
  • Duke Energy failed 19 times while trying to build nuclear reactors from 1978 to 2017. 
  • Now, NC WARN is working with allies to challenge Duke Energy’s deceptive hype and dreams of building dozens of “small” modular reactors.
  • NC Senate Bill 266 would let Duke raise power bills annually until at least 2035 as it tries to license and complete its first SMR – even if the plant is never completed.* 
  • Duke is trying to force the risks onto customers because its leaders are scared to gamble stockholders’ money (which includes their own) on new nukes.
  • New nuclear power would be many times more costly than quickly deployable renewables, energy storage and energy-saving technologies. 

Even if experimental nuclear designs are ever approved and successfully built, they would be far too slow, far too expensive and far too dangerous to help with the climate crisis.

Shame on politicians, regulators and news outlets if they keep pretending we haven’t all seen Duke Energy’s failure-driven horror movie 19 times in the past. 

###

*The bill also would help Duke Energy keep expanding gas-fired plants and suppressing renewables.

Help support NC WARN's climate and energy justice work!

Donate here!

CONNECT WITH US

NC WARN
PO Box 61051  Durham, NC 27715
(919) 416-5077 | ncwarn@ncwarn.org

 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: 25-036 June 18, 2025
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Advances Factory-Built Microreactor Policy

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has decided on three policy matters to enable new ways of deploying microreactors. These very small reactors could be built, loaded with fuel, and tested at factories before being shipped to operating sites, and would generate about one percent or less of the power of a current large reactor.

The Commission’s first decision is that a factory-fabricated microreactor loaded with fuel may be excluded from being “in operation” if it has features to prevent a nuclear chain reaction. The second decision is that a microreactor with features to prevent a chain reaction may be loaded with fuel at a factory if it is done under an NRC license that allows possession of the fuel. The third decision is that the NRC staff may apply regulations for nonpower reactors to authorize testing of a microreactor at a factory before it is shipped to an operating site.

The Commission also directed the staff to continue other microreactor-related activities, such as engaging with Department of Energy/Defense efforts to build and operate microreactors on DOE/DOD sites or as part of critical national security infrastructure. This engagement aims to identify and implement licensing process efficiencies, consistent with the ADVANCE Act and relevant executive orders, to streamline the transition of microreactor technology to the commercial sector.

The NRC staff’s integrated microreactor activities plan has additional details on the agency’s regulatory activities.

 NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR

  For immediate release 

  Contact: Diane Curran, co-counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Harmon Curran, (202) 328-6918, dcurran@harmoncurran.com 

  Mindy Goldstein, co-counsel for Beyond Nuclear, Turner Environmental Law Clinic, (404) 727-3432, magolds@emory.edu 

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist, Beyond Nuclear, (240) 462-3216, kevin@beyondnuclear.org 

U.S. SUPREME COURT MAJORITY ALLOWS NRC LICENSE APPROVAL FOR ISP's HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMP TO STAND IN WEST TX

 
BEYOND NUCLEAR WILL PURSUE PENDING APPEAL AGAINST HOLTEC DUMP IN NEW MEXICO AT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT 

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 18, 2025--In a 6 to 3 decision regarding NRC v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled in favor of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) approval of the construction and operating license for the Interim Storage Partners (ISP) consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in Andrews Country, Texas, 0.3 miles from the New Mexico state line. ISP’s CISF targets Andrews County in west Texas for up to 40,000 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel, and highly radioactive Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) “low-level” radioactive waste, from commercial atomic reactors across the country. There is around 95,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste stored at 94 operating, and 42 closed, atomic reactors located in dozens of states.

SCOTUS Justices Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson ruled in the majority; Justices Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas dissented. Importantly, the majority did not reach the underlying issue before the Court – whether the NRC had authority to issue private storage licenses like ISP’s. Instead, it held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals were not parties eligible for judicial review. Because of this ineligibility, the Court held that the ISP license could not be challenged.

The battle over ISP will continue outside the court. Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a prohibition against ISP's CISF in September 2021, just days before NRC approved the construction and operating license. The bill had passed both houses of the Texas state legislature nearly unanimously, with only three dissenting votes in one chamber. The law would not allow needed state permits to be issued for the ISP CISF.

But, for now, attention will shift to the impact of SCOTUS’s ruling on an even larger CISF, targeted by Holtec International at southeastern New Mexico, just 40-some miles to the west from ISP's site. Holtec’s dump would store up to 173,600 metric tons of irradiated nuclear fuel and GTCC waste. 

“In NRC v. Texas, the Supreme Court failed to resolve a critical issue – whether a private company can store waste owned by the federal government,” said Mindy Goldstein, co-counsel for Beyond Nuclear. “But, it repeatedly noted that this issue can, and should, be raised first in an NRC licensing proceeding and then resolved in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.” Beyond Nuclear has followed the correct procedural path mapped by the Court in its pending litigation challenging the Holtec Facility.

"We have raised the right issues in the right court,” said Diane Curran, co-counsel for Beyond Nuclear. “We look forward to resuming our litigation in the D.C. Circuit, where we will demonstrate that the law unequivocally prohibits Holtec’s private storage of federally owned spent fuel.”

New Mexico governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has also opposed Holtec’s CISF since taking office in 2019. This included signing into law a prohibition of the CISF lacking the state’s consent on March 17, 2023, just weeks before NRC approved Holtec’s license. NM's state law would also prevent the issuance of state permits needed for the dump's opening.

Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear's radioactive waste specialist, said: "Even though SCOTUS has upheld the NRC license for ISP's dump, we still hope to stop it, and Holtec's dump as well, from going forward. After all, we were previously able to stop a very similar dump of Holtec's and the nuclear power industry's from going forward in Utah, on the Skull Valley Goshutes Indian Reservation, despite NRC having licensed it, and the federal courts having upheld that NRC license as well."

 

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

This SCOTUS ruling in NRC v. Texas overturns earlier rulings, in 2023 and 2024, by a unanimous three-judge panel, and en banc (a majority of the full circuit’s 15 judges), made by the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Deciding in favor of the State of Texas, as well as Fasken Land and Minerals, LLC, and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, the 5th Circuit ruled that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lacked the legal authority to license construction and operation of ISP’s CISF. The 5th Circuit rulings invalidated NRC’s license, approved in September 2021, which came just days after the State of Texas enacted a law prohibiting state permits required for ISP’s dump to proceed.

ISP itself is located just 0.3 miles from the NM state line, near or even directly above the Ogallala Aquifer, North America’s largest. It provides vital drinking and irrigation water to millions across eight High Plains states, from Texas to South Dakota. ISP is located immediately adjacent to Waste Control Specialists, LLC, a national “low-level” radioactive waste dump also threatening to contaminate the Ogallala.

If constructed and operated, the ISP and Holtec CISFs would launch an unprecedented number — more than 10,000 — of shipments of highly radioactive waste on rails, roads, and/or waterways. As 75% of reactors and on-site stored radioactive wastes are east of the Mississippi River, and 90% are in the eastern half of the U.S., shipping distances and consequent risks of transport incidents or disasters would be exacerbated by opening CISFs in the Southwest’s Permian Basin.

In fact, the CISFs would automatically double such “Mobile Chornobyl,” “Floating Fukushima,” “Dirty Bomb on Wheels,” and “Mobile X-ray Machine That Can’t Be Turned Off” risks, as the wastes would have to be moved yet again, this time to a permanent geologic repository. The only such site under consideration for a repository since the “Screw Nevada Bill” of 1987, Yucca Mountain, on Western Shoshone land around 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was effectively cancelled by the Obama administration in 2010, after decades of resistance by the Western ShoshoneState of Nevada, and a thousand environmental groups nationwide.

Ironically enough, NRC, which is supposed to be the neutral, unbiased, objective judge of the Yucca Mountain repository licensing proceeding, approved both CISF licenses, with the assumption by ISP and Holtec that Yucca will one day be the permanent repository. But the NRC licensing proceeding for Yucca has not yet even been held.

A map prepared by the Western Interstate Energy Board, as part of its comments submitted to NRC regarding the ISP Draft Environmental Impact Statement, show the most likely rail routes from U.S. atomic reactors to the west Texas CISF. Maps provided by ISP in its 2016 License Application Environmental Report showed that nearly every mainline railway in the U.S. was under consideration for shipping highly radioactive wastes to the CISF; another, assuming Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the eventual permanent repository, revealed that many Texas and Oklahoma communities would be impacted “coming and going,” by wastes imported from the east, and then again as wastes were exported from the CISF to Yucca Mountain. The City of Fort Worth, Texas, on those routes, in Friend of the Court briefs, objected to such risk-taking, at both the Court of Appeals, as well as at SCOTUS.

Beyond Nuclear’s legal arguments against the ISP and Holtec CISFs focused on violations of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. Beyond Nuclear has actively opposed these CISFs from the get-go, including a warning to NRC regarding the dumps’ illegality sent in October, 2016, as well as deep engagement in NRC’s environmental reviews and licensing proceedings beginning in 2017. After exhausting all administrative remedies, on behalf of its members and supporters living and working in close proximity to both proposed CISFs, Beyond Nuclear appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, several years ago. Beyond Nuclear’s legal counsel submitted a Friend of the Court brief to SCOTUS earlier this year. Beyond Nuclear’s appeal of the D.C. Circuit Court’s adverse ruling in the Holtec case had been held in abeyance until this SCOTUS ruling; Beyond Nuclear's appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals can now proceed.

Beyond Nuclear has worked closely with a national environmental coalition, opposing these CISFs for the past decade. Sierra Club chapters in Texas and New Mexico, were represented by attorney Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A grassroots environmental coalition, represented by attorney Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, included: Don’t Waste Michigan; Citizens’ Environmental Coalition (of New York); Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination (of Michigan); Demand Nuclear Abolition (of New Mexico, previously called Nuclear Issues Study Group); Nuclear Energy Information Service (of Illinois); San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (of California), and Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition (of Texas). Sierra Club and Don’t Waste Michigan, et al., focused on the CISFs’ many violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. They appealed adverse decisions by NRC to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Don’t Waste Michigan, et al., also submitted a Friend of the Court brief to SCOTUS.

For more information about Beyond Nuclear’s opposition to CISFs, 
see our series of eight, two-sided fact sheets published in September, 2021, as well as a short educational video, featuring the Obama EPA's director of Environmental Justice (EJ), Mustafa Ali, and grassroots EJ voices opposed to the CISFs. Also see Beyond Nuclear’s related website posts (March 2022 to the present), as well as posts from 2016 to 2022 at our previous, archived website.

###
Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.orgwww.beyondnuclear.org.
 

--

Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Specialist
Beyond Nuclear
7304 Carroll Avenue, #182
Takoma Park, Maryland 20912

kevin@beyondnuclear.org
www.beyondnuclear.org

Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic.

Pages