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.

    

Trump's Department of Energy expected to issue a 202c order any day now, which would afford him the power to order Xcel and other electric utility companies to continue burning coal in our communities indefinitely, undoing years and years of work in which many of us were instrumental. This would unfortunately allow him to order Comanche units 2 and probably 3 to remain operational.

More Kroger shrimp recalled for possible radioactive contamination

Seafood distributor Aquastar recalled nearly 157,000 pounds of shrimp because of possible contamination with cesium 137.

BY: ASSOCIATED PRESS | 09/23/2025 12:39 PM EDT

A product label on the side of a box for Kroger Mercado cooked medium peeled tail-off shrimp. .jpeg
A product label for Kroger Mercado cooked medium peeled tail-off shrimp. FDA via AP

GREENWIRE | A Seattle seafood distributor has recalled more cooked and frozen shrimp sold at Kroger grocery stores across the U.S. because of ongoing concerns about potential radioactive contamination.

Aquastar on Saturday recalled nearly 157,000 additional pounds of shrimp because of possible contamination with cesium 137, a radioactive isotope. The new recall includes nearly 50,000 bags of Kroger Raw Colossal EZ Peel Shrimp, about 18,000 bags of Kroger Mercado cooked medium peeled tail-off shrimp and more than 17,000 bags of AquaStar peeled tail-on shrimp skewers.
 

The products were sold between June 12 and Sept. 17 at grocery stores in more than 30 states. They include Bakers, City Market, Dillons, Food 4 Less, Foodsco, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Gerbes, Jay C, King Soopers, Kroger, Mariano's, Metro Market, Pay Less Supermarkets, Pick 'n Save, Ralph's, Smith's and QFC.

The company previously recalled shrimp products in August.

Forrest Crellin and Alban Kacher
Wed, September 24, 2025 at 5:34 AM EDT 2 min read

By Forrest Crellin and Alban Kacher

PARIS (Reuters) -French utility EDF will need to invest some 460 billion euros ($542.39 billion) by 2040, mainly in its domestic nuclear fleet, but rising debt and cash flow issues pose major challenges, the French Court of Auditors said on Wednesday.

Nearly all of France's 57 nuclear reactors are over 30 years old and require extensive maintenance to continue operating, even as EDF plans to develop another six reactors over the next several decades.

"Everything related to ... preserving the competitiveness of the French economy, involves energy bills," Ines Mercereau, president of the Court of Auditors, said at a hearing in front of the National Assembly.
About a fifth of the needed investments will have to go into keeping the existing nuclear fleet operational until they are 60 years old, costing about 5 billion euros to 6 billion euros per year, the Court of Auditors said in a report.

EDF did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The utility is expected to finalise its plans for the new EPR2 reactors by the end of the year, allowing them to assess costs to make a final investment decision by the second half of 2026. The court estimates the total cost of the first six reactors at 75 billion euros.

EDF'S DEBT POSES A CHALLENGE TO FUND RAISING
Investing in its electricity network subsidiary Enedis is expected to cost anther 100 billion euros, as the grid will need to be modernised and reinforced, the report said.

EDF is expected to have difficulties raising capital alone for these investments due to its debt, which ballooned in 2022 during the European energy crisis, and its cash flow trajectory, the report said.

The utility has faced difficulties implementing its new long-term contract scheme to replace the old system that contracted out about a third of its annual production as plummeting market prices have hurt EDF's ability to draw clients, the report said.

EDF refused to regulate the sale of its nuclear power in the past, so its income is now more than ever linked to falling market prices, said Nicolas Goldberg, partner at Colombus Consulting.

French prices for next year delivery were still above 100 euros per megawatt-hour when these new long-term contracts were announced in late 2023, but prices have dropped sharply since then to now under 60 euros/MWh, LSEG data showed.

To address these issues, the court urged the utility to continue to monitor profitability of its renewable investments and for a clear distribution of costs and risks between the French state, EDF and its customers.

"This will not, on its own, resolve the EDF group's debt situation," said Mercereau.

($1 = 0.8481 euros)

(Reporting by Forrest Crellin and Alban Kacher,Editing by Bernadette Baum and Ed Osmond)

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York’s “Save the Hudson” Nuclear Discharge Ban

By Charles Kennedy - Sep 24, 2025, 9:49 PM CDT

A federal judge has sided with Holtec International in a dispute over a New York law that barred the discharge of radioactive materials into the Hudson River during the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear facility. The ruling underscores the primacy of federal oversight in nuclear safety decisions.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas held that a 2023 New York statute (commonly known as the “Save the Hudson” law) was preempted by federal law. The judge found that the state statute, which prohibits radioactive discharges in connection with decommissioning, “categorically precludes Holtec from utilizing a federally accepted method of disposal.”

Judge Karas reasoned that by requiring Holtec to alter how it disposes of tritiated (radioactive) water, the statute “directly and substantially affects decisions concerning radiological safety levels.” He also rejected New York’s argument that Holtec should have proposed alternative methods to comply with the discharge ban.

Holtec had filed suit to overturn the state law after Governor Kathy Hochul signed the bill in August 2023, making it illegal to discharge radiological substances into the Hudson River during decommissioning. In its filings, Holtec argued the law forced it to select an alternative disposal method even if discharge under NRC regulation would be safe, a requirement that would raise decommissioning costs and delay the project.

Holtec maintained that its plan to dispose of millions of gallons of treated, diluted tritiated water into the Hudson fully complied with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses and federal standards. The company also warned that the state law might push the decommissioning timeline back to 2041, eight years beyond earlier targets.

In its defense, the New York Attorney General’s office, which had defended the state law, did not immediately respond to inquiries following the ruling. Earlier, the state alleged Holtec had, “during the fourth quarter of 2023 … discharged radiological substances into the Hudson River in connection with decommissioning” in violation of the law. Holtec countered that such discharges involved groundwater and stormwater not associated with decommissioning activity, which the statute does not cover.

Indian Point, whose reactors shut down in 2020 and 2021, lies in Buchanan, New York, about 45 miles north of Manhattan. The plant’s closure had long been controversial because of its proximity to the city and concerns over safety.

Holtec said it was pleased by the ruling and affirmed its intent to continue decommissioning in an “environmentally responsible” way while cooperating with federal, state, and local stakeholders.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com

Small Nuclear Reactors Will Not Save The Day

Story by Leon Stille • 5 min read

In this article

Small Nuclear Reactors Will Not Save The Day

You can feel the buzz: nuclear is back. Or so we’re told.

From Brussels to Washington, a new wave of enthusiasm for so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) is sweeping through policy circles, think tanks, and energy startups. These compact, supposedly plug-and-play nuclear units are being hailed as the perfect solution to power data centers, feed artificial intelligence’s growing hunger, and backstop our energy transition with clean, stable electricity.

There’s just one problem. Actually, there are many. None of them small.

The hype cycle is in full spin

SMRs are currently being marketed like they're the iPhone of nuclear energy: smarter, smaller, cheaper, scalable. A miracle solution for everything from remote grids to decarbonizing heavy industry and AI’s server farms. Countries like the U.S., Canada, and the UK have announced ambitious deployment plans. Major developers, including NuScale, Rolls-Royce SMR, GE Hitachi, and TerraPower, have painted glossy timelines with glowing promises.

Except the fine print tells a different story.

There are currently no operational commercial SMRs anywhere in the world. Not one. NuScale, the U.S. frontrunner, recently cancelled its flagship Utah project after costs ballooned to over $9,000 per kilowatt and no investors could be found. Even their CEO admitted no deployment would happen before 2030. Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce’s much-hyped SMR factory hasn’t produced a single bolt of steel yet.

So, we’re betting on a technology that doesn’t yet exist at commercial scale, won’t arrive in meaningful numbers before the 2030s, and would require thousands of units to significantly contribute to global energy demand. That’s not a strategy. That’s science fiction.

Big nuclear hasn’t exactly inspired confidence either

Even the large-scale projects that SMRs claim to “improve upon” are struggling. Take the UK’s Hinkley Point C, once heralded as the future of nuclear energy in Europe. It’s now twice as expensive as originally planned (over £46 billion), at least five years late, and facing ongoing construction delays. The French-backed EPR reactor design it’s based on has already been plagued with similar issues in Flamanville (France) and Olkiluoto (Finland), where completion took over a decade longer than promised and costs ballooned dramatically.

Let’s be honest: if any other energy technology was this unreliable on delivery, we’d laugh it out of the room.

Price floors for nuclear, and price ceilings for reason

In France and Finland, authorities have now agreed to guaranteed minimum prices for new nuclear power, effectively writing blank checks to ensure profitability for operators. In Finland, the recent deal sets the floor above €90/MWh for 20 years. Meanwhile, solar and wind regularly clear wholesale power auctions across Europe at €30–50/MWh, with even lower marginal costs.

Why, exactly, are we locking in decades of higher prices for a supposedly “market-based” energy future? It’s hard to see how this helps consumers, industries, or climate targets. Especially when these same nuclear plants will also require major grid upgrades, just like renewables, because any large-scale generator needs robust transmission capacity. So no efficiency win there either.

The SMR promise: too small, too late

Back to SMRs. Let’s suppose the best-case scenario plays out. A couple of designs clear regulatory approval by 2027–2028, construction starts in the early 2030s, and the first commercial units are online before 2035. Even then, the world would need to build and connect thousands of these small reactors within 10–15 years to displace a meaningful share of fossil generation. That’s a logistics nightmare, and we haven’t even discussed public acceptance, licensing bottlenecks, uranium supply, or waste management.

For perspective: in the time it takes to build a single SMR, solar, wind, and battery storage could be deployed 10 to 20 times over, for less money, with shorter lead times, and with no radioactive legacy.

And unlike nuclear, these technologies are modular today. They’re scalable now. They’ve proven themselves everywhere from the Australian outback to German rooftops and Californian substations.

The elephant in the reactor room: waste and risk

Nuclear fans love to stress how “safe” modern designs are. And yes, statistically speaking, nuclear energy is relatively safe per kilowatt-hour. But it’s also the only energy source with a non-zero risk of catastrophic failure and waste that stays toxic for thousands of years.

Why, exactly, would we take that risk when we have multiple clean energy options with zero risk of explosion and waste streams that are either recyclable or inert?

You don’t need to be a nuclear physicist to ask this: how is betting on high-cost, slow-deploying, risk-bearing, politically toxic infrastructure a better idea than wind, solar, and storage?

A footnote in the transition, not the headline

Let’s be clear: nuclear power will likely continue to play a role in some countries’ energy mixes. France and Sweden have legacy fleets. New projects may go ahead in China or South Korea, where costs are contained and planning is centralized. But for the majority of the world, especially countries trying to decarbonize fast, new nuclear is not the answer.

SMRs, despite their branding, will not save the day. They will be at best a niche, possibly a small contributor in specific applications like remote mines, military bases, or industrial clusters where no other solution works. That’s fine. But let’s stop pretending they’re some kind of energy silver bullet.

Final thoughts

We are in the decisive decade for climate action. Every euro, dollar, and yuan we invest must yield maximum emissions reduction per unit of time and cost. By that standard, SMRs fall flat. Nuclear power, small or large, is simply too expensive, too slow, too risky, and too narrow in its use case to lead the energy transition.

So let’s cool the reactor hype. Let’s focus instead on the technologies that are already winning: wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, grid flexibility, green hydrogen. These are not dreams. They’re deploying by the gigawatt, today. SMRs are fascinating, yes. But when it comes to decarbonization, we need workhorses, not unicorns.

By Leon Stille for Oilprice.com

Citing the Need for ‘Significant Reform,’ Pennsylvania’s Governor Threatens to Pull the State Out of the Region’s Power Grid

As the largest energy producer in the 13-state system, its exit would ripple through the region.

By Kiley BenseAman AzharCharles PaullinDan GearinoRambo Talabong

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks in front of the Keystone Trade Center during a press conference on Aug. 7 in Falls Township, Pa.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks in front of the Keystone Trade Center during a press conference on Aug. 7 in Falls Township, Pa.

PHILADELPHIA—Ninety-eight years ago, the nation’s largest power grid operator was founded here by utilities serving Pennsylvania and New Jersey. On Monday, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro threatened to pull his state out of the coalition. 

“It is time to get serious about making significant reform,” Shapiro said, at a conference he convened with representatives from all 13 states now in the grid to “chart a new course” for operator PJM Interconnection.

“If PJM refuses to change, we will be forced to go in a different direction,” he said. 

Pennsylvania is the largest energy producer in the grid. Its absence would impact electricity consumers across the region, which stretches from Illinois to North Carolina.
 

Data centers built to fuel artificial intelligence technology are driving huge increases in electricity demand—and in prices for consumers. Shapiro and other elected leaders like Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin blame PJM for delays in approving new power projects, creating a bottleneck that is making the situation worse. Shapiro, a Democrat, and Youngkin, a Republican, want states to have a say in PJM’s decisions; right now, government officials do not have a voice on PJM’s board. 

Speaking at the conference later in the day, PJM CEO Manu Asthana, who is stepping down at the end of this year, said that “fingerpointing” wasn’t helpful. 

“There’s an element of responsibility on both sides,” he said, meaning the states and PJM. All parties need to work together and ask, “‘How do we solve this?’” he said. 

At the end of the conference, 11 of the states’ governors’ offices—all but Kentucky and West Virginia—announced they had formed a collaborative to continue to work together on the energy issues discussed at the meeting. 

Tom Rutigliano, senior advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the joint criticism of PJM by multiple state governors “very unusual” and “the highest level of state engagement with PJM I’ve ever seen.” He said in an email that he thinks there’s a strong chance for governance reforms.

Shapiro’s statements come two months after nine governors in the PJM region demanded in a letter that PJM reserve two board seats to be filled with nominees by the states. Last month, those nominees surfaced as former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Mark Christie and former FERC Commissioner Allison Clements. 

PJM, which has conducted a months-long effort with a consultant to propose candidates, initially responded that it would consider the recommendations. It is expected to make a decision this Thursday.

“PJM is mired in a crisis of confidence,” Christie said at the conference. “Consumers have lost confidence in the people who run their grid.” 

Christie said PJM needs a “new constitution,” one that reimagines the organization in a way that changes its governance structure to reflect the fact that PJM is a “policy-making body.”

Shapiro said PJM has “months, not years” to make changes, or Pennsylvania will take steps to leave the organization. “We need to move more quickly on these energy-producing projects, and we’ve got to hold down costs. If PJM cannot do that, then Pennsylvania will look to go it alone,” he said. Shapiro did not provide details about what this new arrangement would look like.

New Jersey lawmakers have already taken up the issue. In June, the state Assembly passed a bill directing its Board of Public Utilities to work with other states and study alternatives for addressing skyrocketing electricity prices—including the option of leaving PJM altogether. A companion measure has been introduced in the state Senate but has not yet been assigned to a committee.

In remarks delivered remotely to the conference, Youngkin confirmed that he and his allies are working on bills that seek to do the same.

“The bottom line is that when PJM succeeds, we all succeed together. But if reforms stall, we will act and do what is needed to protect the families and businesses who depend on us,” Youngkin said.

In his recorded message for the conference attendees, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said, “Thirteen governors have united with a single urgent message for our regional grid operator, and it underscores the seriousness of the crisis that we now face. The path forward requires real transparency and accountability from PJM and a truly collaborative role for states in the governance process.”

Maryland, as a net importer of electricity, is frustrated by PJM’s delays connecting new clean-energy sources to the grid and opaque governance rules that Moore repeatedly said are disrupting the state’s climate targets and hurting households and businesses. 

On Monday, ahead of his recorded message, Moore huddled with state Senate leadership in Annapolis to announce $200 million in direct energy bill rebates for low-income households to counter the rising prices.

Without commenting on how PJM should be governed, the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that PJM and states should require data center developers to “pull their own weight” by investing in new energy generation—a policy push during the meeting colloquially tagged as “bring your own generation” or B.Y.O.G.

“The big message today was that prices are unsustainably high and PJM needs to do a better job protecting customers,” Rutigliano said. “The truth is that this crisis was caused by data centers and nearly all the money is going to old power plants.” 

 

In a statement to Inside Climate News, PJM spokesperson Dan Lockwood said that “meeting the demands of a rapidly changing energy landscape will require solutions that extend beyond any one institution.” 

“It will require PJM, the industry and especially our states all working in concert,” he said.

Asthana, PJM’s CEO, emphasized the scale of change that will be necessary to meet the challenges of powering AI now and in the future, not just at PJM but across the country. “If we’re going to win this race, I think we need to think differently,” he said.

What’s not clear is whether, or how, states leaving PJM would lead to a more affordable or reliable system.

Most of the power plants in PJM compete on an open market as a result of decisions by lawmakers in various states in the 1990s and 2000s to introduce more competition into the electricity sector. This restructuring meant that regulated utilities were limited to providing the delivery of electricity, while independent power producers would build and operate power plants.

Representatives of independent power producers said on Monday that they can understand the frustration with PJM, but they don’t see how it solves anything for states to leave.

“While we continue to stand in favor of common-sense reforms that will improve power market functionality, grid reliability, and consumer affordability, the actions taken by some elected officials do nothing more than disrupt PJM’s ability to do its job,” said a statement from Todd Snitchler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group whose members include independent power producers.

Jon Gordon, director at Advanced Energy United, a trade group that represents advanced generation technologies, said despite PJM’s high prices, participation within the regional grid provides more efficiency and competition for electricity sales, which keeps costs lower for ratepayers. The regime used prior to PJM’s shared marketplace allowed utilities to overbuild with less incentive to keep prices in check. 

“I don’t think anybody wants to go back to that. … We just need to make improvements so we get all the benefits of competition but none of the inefficiencies,” Gordon said, adding that a PJM departure may mean state agencies could have to negotiate contracts with producers. “If these studies are fair and unbiased, I think they’re going to show it’s pretty risky to leave PJM and there’s probably not enough benefit to justify the potential risks.”

The challenge with PJM is the political diversity of the region that includes Republican West Virginia and Democratic New Jersey, compared to more ideologically homogeneous New England, Gordon added. The governors in the PJM region have now realized they don’t have much influence over decisions affecting how new generation sources get onto the grid. 

“I think the states are completely different on whether it’s fossil or renewables generation,” Gordon said. “But they all agree that they want a voice, and they want lower prices.”

‘Families are dying’: an Ohio town suffering from fallout years after nuclear plant’s closure

As Trump calls for more nuclear power, Piketon, the site of an enrichment facility, knows first hand its ill effects


Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant near Piketon, Ohio on 22 June 2000. Photograph: David Kohl/AP

Three years after starting work as an electrician at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Vina Colley started getting sick.

The huge facility in the foothills of Appalachian Ohio was opened in 1954 to enrich weapons-grade uranium for the military as America’s cold war with the Soviet Union ramped up, and later, for commercial purposes.

But in the decades since, Colley, her fellow former workers and the wider Pike county community find themselves paying a terrible price.

Colley, who advocates as president of Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security (Press), says she was exposed to uranium hexafluoride and a host of other dangerous chemicals while working at the facility in the early 1980s.

“We were working in confined spaces; we didn’t have any respiratory protection. Radiation was everywhere in these process buildings,” she says.

Today, her body is hanging on. She’s had a total hysterectomy, found three tumors and suffers from congestive heart failure, peripheral neuropathy and beryllium disease. Her legs sometimes shake uncontrollably.

In 2018, her husband, who did not work at the plant, died of melanoma. Around the same time, her brother-in-law, who did work there, died of lymphoid cancer, as did his wife, who Colley recounts washed his contaminated clothes every day. Colley has lost one brother to small cell lung cancer and several months ago another brother died from pancreatic cancer.

“So many people are suffering with illnesses, not just cancer,” she says.

For decades, the federal government attempted to compensate workers who had suffered health ailments associated with working at nuclear facilities.

But in January, the Trump administration’s overhaul of the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) resulted in the indefinite suspension of review boards that oversee medical aid distribution to more than 700,000 cold war-era government employees who worked at 380 civilian and military nuclear programs around the country. All the while, Trump has called for a renewed push to increase nuclear enrichment activity for energy and national security reasons.

“He has endangered our workers’ lives, and the health of our nation,” says Colley of the move.

She says she blames the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense for the calamity that’s befallen her community.

“They regulate themselves,” she says.

“The big thing here is that there is no overseer – the EPA can’t go in and take their own samples.”

One of just three gaseous diffusion plants of its kind in the US, back in the 1950s and 1960s the 4,000-acre site had its own village of workers and facilities that included a hospital, fire and police departments. During its construction and after it opened in 1954, it provided an economically disadvantaged region with tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.

But all the while, it was making people sick.

Reports have emerged that 10 tons of uranium were released from a now-closed uranium enrichment facility almost nightly into the air between 1955 to 1993, an activity known by people who worked there at the time as ‘midnight rockets’.

“This plant has a vast signature of contamination, mostly from an airborne pathway. It probably extends at least 10 miles in all directions,” says Michael Ketterer, professor emeritus of Northern Arizona University, who has been measuring isotope signatures and concentrations of uranium, neptunium and other radioactive elements in soil, water, leaf matter, ash and other sources around the facility since 2018. Despite this, the facility is not listed as a federal Superfund site, even though several other similarly radioactive contaminated sites around the US are.

“On the mass spectrometer, you see it right away. It’s very apparent and unambiguous.”

The consequences are devastating.

The cancer mortality rate in Pike county for the years 2018 to 2022 was 44% above the national rate and well exceeded the state level. At 70.6 years, Pike county’s life expectancy at birth is nearly eight years below the national rate.

“I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that hosting a former uranium enrichment plant has led to our high cancer rates. The independent assessment showed widespread off-site contamination,” said Matt Brewster, the Pike county health commissioner. “Those samples were taken before open-air demolition began of some of the most contaminated buildings in the world.”

In May 2019, Zahn’s Corner Middle school, located three miles north of the facility, was closed down after reports uranium and neptunium-237 were found inside and outside the building.

Last year, the site was put up for auction by the local school district, unable to pay for its upkeep.

Although the facility ceased enriching uranium in 2001, it continues to pose a danger.

A report by an independent group hired by the City of Piketon found that fractures were located in bedrock underneath an under-construction landfill meant to hold radioactive and other material from the facility.

The area lies 70 ft above the Teays Aquifer, an underground river that stretches for hundreds of miles and supplies water for residents of Piketon and beyond.

It’s also less than a mile from the Scioto River, the largest waterway in the region and a major tributary of the Ohio River which downstream supplies drinking water for millions of residents in Cincinnati, Louisville and elsewhere.

Hundreds of buildings at the facility are currently undergoing an open-air decontamination and decommissioning process that’s renewed fear of recontamination among local leaders.

“Alternatives [to open-air decontamination] are more expensive, but our community shouldn’t be put at an increased risk because it costs a little more to minimize that risk,” says Brewster.

“They have done it in other areas with a much larger buffer than ours – we have no buffer.”

Meanwhile, other parts of the site are being brought back to life.

In 2019, the Department of Energy commissioned Centrus Energy to build a cascade of 16 AC100 centrifuges that would enrich uranium-235 up to 20%, ranking it as the only facility of its kind in the US. Republican politicians in Ohio have this year called for renewed funding for the plant.

The Department of Energy and other federal entities claim, in their own studies, that the levels of contamination they have recorded are within regulatory levels.

Off-site environmental radiological sampling captured within six miles of the facility from 2016 to 2022 by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal entity, found that the exposure to radionuclides is “not expected to cause harmful health effects due to the low levels present”.

Emails sent to and messages left with a member of the Department of Energy’s Portsmouth Site Advisory Board and to the DoE’s Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center were not responded to.

At the same time, not all locals oppose the presence of the facility. As a county with the second-highest poverty level in the state, the economic pull factor of the plant is considerable, with hundreds of locals employed in the decontamination and environmental clean-up operations. The company contracted to provide remediation efforts, Fluor-BWXT, has raised and donated thousands of dollars to local causes.

Today, the former middle school has become a “Kingdom-led” church called Vanguard Ministries, which holds regular services and gatherings at the site. Local media reported in January that the church leaders have ties to the local nuclear industry.

With nuclear back in fashion at the White House for both energy and national security reasons, Colley says the wider public and US political leaders need to know what’s going on in southern Ohio and at a host of other sites across the country.

“Families are dying of cancer and it’s not genetic, and they’re not the same. We can’t get any of our representatives to address it,” she says.

“We need a congressional hearing. They need to hear the people, what we have to say.”

Trump’s nuclear ‘renaissance’ rests on risky plan for radioactive waste

The administration goes all-in on recycling spent fuel, despite a history of spectacular mishaps, including an unintentional atom bomb.
 
Today at 6:00 a.m. EDT
 
 
Top: Radiation protection physicist Mark Somerville looks at a spent fuel storage pool in PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in Avila Beach, California. 
Left: Dry spent fuel storage at the shuttered San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 
Right: President Donald Trump signs an executive order on nuclear power in the Oval Office. 
((Photos by Paul Chinn/The San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images, Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times/Getty Images, Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post))
 
 
 
The Trump administration’s plan to fast-track construction of new commercial nuclear reactors to address a power crunch around the country leans heavily on a small group of start-ups trumpeting a bold claim: that they can make almost all of these operations’ radioactive waste disappear.
 
That effort is already underway, with a company called Oklo announcing this month it will spend $1.7 billion to build an “Advanced Fuel Center” made up of shiny, futuristic buildings on a Tennessee plot where uranium was enriched for the Manhattan Project more than 80 years ago. The first phase of the development, to be completed in the next five to seven years, will use nascent recycling machinery to spin radioactive reactor waste into fresh, usable fuel for plants.
 
Industry and administration officials also plan to recycle into reactor fuel plutonium retrieved from dismantled nuclear weapons, one of the most dangerous materials on the planet. The projects follow a decades-long pursuit of nuclear energy recycling in the U.S. with a history of spectacular failures, including inadvertently helping a renegade nation build an atomic bomb.
 
Even as some prominent nuclear scientists warn Oklo and other start-ups are glossing over major shortcomings in their technology, the companies argue the effort is key to securing enough energy to beat China in artificial intelligence innovation.
 
Oklo presents nuclear recycling as a tidy process: waste gets reformulated into fuel, the nuisance of spent fuel stockpiles goes away, and a small amount of unusable radioactive material is safely buried, perhaps in compact canisters tubed thousands of feet into the Earth’s crust.
 
 
A rendering of Oklo’s fuel recycling facility. (Oklo)
 
 
Military police at Elza Gate in 1945 at the Oak Ridge site of the Manhattan Project. (Prisma Bildagentur/Universal Images Group/Getty Images)
 
“We’re moving forward to actually bring this to scale and realizing the benefits of it,” said Oklo CEO Jacob DeWitte.
 
Nonproliferation groups and prominent nuclear scholars oppose those plans. They say neither the companies nor the administration has shared the science backing the claim that recycling nuclear fuel at commercial scale using current industry techniques is safe or practical.
 
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has redacted Oklo’s entire project plan at the company’s request. The findings from testing at federal government labs by Oklo’s main rival, a firm called Curio, is kept confidential, citing security concerns.
 
But the details that are public so far, experts say, don’t seem to break new ground.
 
“These are the same technologies that were developed and rejected decades ago,” said Ross Matzkin-Bridger, a senior adviser at the Energy Department during the Biden administration who now heads the Nuclear Materials Security Program at the nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative. “They have been rebranded with new names and slight tweaks, but they still have the same problems. The only thing new is misleading narratives that they have solved the safety, security and waste management issues that make these technologies unworkable.”
 
If recycling spent fuel is possible, it would solve a real problem. Some 90,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel sits mostly in casks outside operating and retired plants. Were it all in one place, storing it could require a facility sprawling dozens of acres.
 
“All of that spent uranium fuel from our reactors today is just a growing liability for our country,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said at a congressional hearing in May. “We have a growing hole, a growing burden overhang on us from this waste,” he said, “A lot of this waste and burden could actually be fuel and be of value to next-generation reactors.”
 
Days later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the quadrupling of nuclear power in the U.S. and directing his Cabinet to “utilize all available legal authorities” to enable large-scale recycling of nuclear waste. Meeting that goal requires deployment of hundreds of new reactors in communities across the country.
 
DeWitte, Oklo’s CEO, was in the Oval Office for the signing. Before becoming energy secretary, Wright sat on Oklo’s board. He resigned in February and forfeited his unvested shares in the firm. He pledged in his government ethics disclosures to “not participate personally and substantially” in any government matters involving Oklo.
 
 
Trump, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Scott Nolan, CEO of General Matter, right, listen as Jacob DeWitte, CEO of Oklo Inc., speaks before Trump signed executive orders regarding nuclear energy, May 23. (Evan Vucci/AP)
 
Both Oklo and Curio’s methods involve putting spent fuel rods into molten salt and using an electric current to separate out usable fuel. The technique, called “pyroprocessing,” was first developed in the Argonne National Laboratory in the 1960s, but worries about the immense cost and risks the process would create weapons-grade materials kept it from being deployed commercially.
 
DeWitte argues it can now be completed more safely and affordablyin part because it could be used in a new generation of nuclear reactors that would not require as high a level of fuel purity as the existing fleet. Oklo and Curio also say new safeguards make the technology impractical for weapons production, a central claim critics say is not backed by the research they’ve seen.
 
“We didn’t try to go about doing this the way that others have looked at this and which hasn’t really worked out well in the past,” said DeWitte. Earlier commercial efforts separated out usable fuel from spent rods using acid instead of molten salt, a process the start-ups say is more costly and environmentally harmful.
 
The advanced reactors Oklo hopes to fuel don’t yet exist in the United States. Only Russia and China have such commercial “Generation IV” reactors, at deeply subsidized demonstration plants. Test reactors have been built in the U.S. and United Kingdom, but cost overruns and engineering setbacks have long scuttled plans to bring them to market and forced developers to push back target dates for their projects. Oklo is now attempting to build the first such commercially viable reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory by late 2027.
 
 
Panes of glass secure the fuel conditioning facility at the Idaho National Laboratory in Scoville, Idaho, Nov. 14, 2023. (Natalie Behring/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
 
More than 90 percent of the energy in nuclear fuel rods currently goes to waste because conventional reactors cannot extract it before it becomes mechanically useless, according to the Energy Department. Promoters of recycling argue that is like building a Porsche and junking it after one lap around the track. Skeptics have their own car metaphor: They argue the latest iteration of the technology is just a new paint job on the same old, un-roadworthy jalopy.
Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, an MIT physicist, warns that the administration’s push to recycle plutonium from dismantled warheads is particularly worrisome, threatening to create material that can be used in weapons in the U.S. and abroad, drive up the cost of nuclear power and raise the risk of a dangerous radioactive incident. “None of these concerns have been addressed convincingly by new technology, and reviving ideas that have not worked in the past is particularly ill-timed now,” he said in a statement.
 
Those concerns are echoed in a letter that 17 prominent nuclear scholars, NGO leaders and former nuclear regulators sent to congressional committee chairs in July, warning the U.S. could “unintentionally foster the spread of sensitive nuclear weapons-related technology.”
 
The United States largely abandoned efforts to recycle waste for civilian reactors during the Carter administration, after technology shared with India was used by that country to create its first nuclear weapon, according to Frank von Hippel, co-founder of the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. The recycling machinery the U.S. helped India build through the “Atoms for Peace” program enabled it to separate plutonium from spent reactor fuel, he said, a key step to making a bomb.
 
The companies promoting recycling have launched a public relations blitz to persuade lawmakers and the public that those risks are obsolete, despite experts like von Hippel arguing otherwise.
 
At Curio’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., an office decorated with mid-century nuclear posters and other artifacts from the atomic era’s heyday, CEO Edward McGinnis explained their solution.
 
“We want to make sure that we have a security barrier,” McGinnis, who was a top nuclear and nonproliferation adviser in previous administrations, said as he walked a reporter through a model of the technology. “It is self protecting. If you attempted to get to that plutonium to use it for bad purposes, you’d probably die trying.”
 
 
A rendering of Curio’s NyCycle Plant. (Curio)
 
The industry has won over the Trump administration.
 
“A couple years ago, we would have never thought about using plutonium in reactors,” Bradley Williams, the lead for energy policy at Idaho National Laboratory, where the administration is pursuing recycling research in partnership with companies, said at a recent industry event promoting recycling. “Now it might be a necessity.”
 
He said the challenge of producing enough fuel to power all the new reactors needed to meet America’s surging demand for energy may require it, as the nation seeks to win a global race to develop artificial intelligence and revive its manufacturing sector. “If the U.S. is going to quadruple nuclear production by 2050, fuel availability is quickly becoming the key issue,” Williams said.
 
“Fuel availability and energy security are the new national security interest, and our focus in light of [competition with] Russia and China,” he said. “Nonproliferation is something we continue to worry about. But I’d argue that most of the world is more worried about keeping the lights on right now, and they’ll use whatever fuel they can get, and we might need to use every fuel we can get.”
 
That enthusiasm has spread to the states. Curio, which is also prospecting for a site to build a football field-sized spent fuel recycling plant where nuclear waste would be shipped from around the nation, says officials in several states are courting the firm.
 
The enthusiasm is a marked turnabout from the first Trump administration, which pulled the plug in 2018 on a planned plutonium recycling facility in South Carolina, after nearly $6 billion of tax dollars was spent on building it. The project’s cost had more than tripled by then, and its estimated completion date, according to the Government Accountability Office, had been extended to as late as 2048 — “a potential delay of 32 years.”
The United Kingdom invested decades in a project planned to recycle uranium and plutonium for the type of next-generation nuclear reactors Curio and Oklo are now targeting.
 
But the new reactors did not work out as planned, beset by engineering challenges and cost overruns. And the recycling systems were constantly breaking down. By the early 2000s, it was significantly more expensive to try to recycle spent fuel in the U.K. than to dispose of it at storage facilities. As a result of the failed recycling efforts, the nation was left with one of the world’s largest stockpiles of plutonium, and no place to put it.
 
Japan has had similar problems. A facility it planned to open in the 1990s is still not producing fuel, after its cost exploded to $27 billion. France, which uses an acid process to recycle spent fuel on a large scale, has had more success. But, according to nuclear energy economists, it requires billions of dollars of subsidies and highly secure facilities to keep plutonium from getting into the wrong hands.
 
 
High-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is stored and monitored at a facility in Japan's first spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant under construction by Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. in Rokkasho, Aomori prefecture, Japan, April 16, 2014. (Kyodo News Stills/Getty Images)
 
The National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management's logo on a nuclear waste storage canister at the Cigeo project, a nuclear laboratory and underground storage facility site operated by Andra in Bure, France, March 25, 2019. (Alex Kraus/Bloomberg/Getty Images)
The administration projects confidence those issues are being solved, arguing perfecting the technology is a national imperative at a time when the U.S. is growing ever more desperate for a solution to its power crunch and its nuclear waste problem.
 
Recycling can’t turn all of the waste into fuel. The small amount left at the end of the process is highly radioactive and challenging to dispose of. That has companies exploring technologies to put such waste in canisters that can be sent into boreholes drilled as deep as 15,000 feet underground — a solution on paper, but one that may be no more appealing to the public than foregoing recycling altogether and building a national repository for all of its nuclear plant waste.
 
“The idea that it will be more politically acceptable to build reprocessing plants that are handling intensively radioactive materials, and that also require their own waste repository, doesn’t make any sense to me,” said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear and energy policy scholar at Harvard.
 
States courting the projects are largely ignoring such warnings. Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, a Republican from Tennessee who co-chairs the House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus, said Oklo is just one of several recycling outfits looking to locate in his district, and he welcomes the interest. He’s persuaded the technology is no longer risky.
 
Utah is also positioning to go all-in, after the state’s Office of Energy Development declared in a report that “the risks of recycling are primarily political in nature, all technical risks can and already are being navigated safely around the world.”
 
Curio’s McGinnis got little pushback from lawmakers there when he made his pitch at a legislative hearing last fall. Following his presentation, Utah state Sen. David P. Hinkins, a Republican from Orangeville, pronounced: “You’re welcome here.”
Good morning everyone,
 
Please help amplify today's NuclearCosts blog - Amory Lovin's excellent piece that first appeared in Utility Dive: https://nuclearcosts.org/nuclear-power-is-failing-and-ai-cant-rescue-it/
 
A few short sample posts to share on social media:
__________________________________
 
Sample Post #1:
"Each year, nuclear adds as much net global capacity as renewables add every two days. Soaring renewables generate three times more global electricity than stagnant nuclear ... China added 197 times more solar and wind than nuclear capacity, at half the cost." 
 
Why are we talking about a nuclear renaissance again?
image.png
 
__________________________________
Sample Post #2:
Amory Lovins is right, it's absolutely absurd to believe nuclear power will meet the needs of AI data centers. 
 
☀️ + Microgrids are the way. 
 
image.png

Pages