Sweden building world’s second nuclear waste storage site amid safety concerns
Sweden has started building the world’s second-ever long-term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. The site is located in Forsmark, Sweden, approximately 90 miles north of Stockholm, Sweden.
The site is designed to securely contain highly radioactive waste for 100,000 years. Finland remains the only other country nearing completion of a permanent storage solution for nuclear waste.
Permanent storage for nuclear waste has been a longstanding challenge for the industry since the advent of commercial nuclear reactors in the 1950s.
Globally, around 300,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are awaiting disposal, according to the World Nuclear Association. Nuclear scientists currently store most of this waste in cooling ponds near the reactors that produce it.
The Forsmark repository will feature nearly 40 miles of tunnels buried over 1,600 feet deep in bedrock estimated to be 1.9 billion years old.
Engineers designed the site to hold 12,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. The fuel will be encased in corrosion-resistant copper capsules, packed in clay and buried.
Officials expect the site to begin receiving waste in the late 2030s, and final closure is projected for around 2080, when the site reaches capacity.
However, the project faces potential delays due to safety concerns. MKG, the Swedish nongovernmental organization Office for Nuclear Waste Review, filed an appeal with a Swedish court calling for additional reviews of the facility.
MKG highlighted research suggesting the copper capsules could corrode over time, potentially releasing radioactive elements into groundwater.
The estimated cost of developing the repository exceeds $1 billion, and will be funded by Sweden’s nuclear industry. It is intended to store waste from the country’s existing nuclear power plants, but will not accommodate waste from future reactors. Sweden already announced plans to construct 10 additional nuclear reactors by 2045.
Utah and Texas sue federal government to ease regulations on SMRs
Utah and Texas, alongside nuclear developer Last Energy, have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), seeking to ease regulations they claim hinder the development of small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors. The plaintiffs argue that the NRC licenses required for the construction and operation of these facilities are “incredibly costly,” rendering such projects economically unfeasible.
According to the filing, these smaller nuclear reactors are more cost-effective, require less nuclear fuel, and do not pose a threat to public health or safety. However, Last Energy said it was forced to abandon a $2 million SMR project in Texas due to “prohibitive federal regulations.” The plaintiffs contend that the NRC’s rules for small nuclear reactors “hinder the development of safe and reliable nuclear power.”
“The NRC imposes complicated, costly and time-intensive requirements that even the smallest and safest SMRs and microreactors — down to those not strong enough to power an LED lightbulb — must satisfy to acquire and maintain a construction and operating license,” the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit follows recent moves in both states to bolster nuclear energy. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox recently announced “Operation Gigawatt,” a $20.4 million initiative to develop carbon-free nuclear power infrastructure in the state. Meanwhile, in Texas, the state’s Public Utility Commission has recommended expanding nuclear energy to improve grid reliability and energy security.
Critics, including the group Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy, have voiced concerns about the potential risks of loosening federal regulations. The group argues the lawsuit’s claims about how safe SMRs are may be misleading and that regulations are necessary to ensure public safety.
“It’s totally disingenuous for them to say that this is safe and that there’s basically no danger,” Stanley Holmes, outreach coordinator for Utah Citizens Advocating Renewable Energy, said. “They’re trying to have the NRC dumb down, or weaken, its standards.”
A spokesperson for the NRC stated that the agency will address the lawsuit in court filings.
The largest nuclear power plant operator in US to buy major natural gas producer
Constellation Energy, the largest nuclear power plant operator in the U.S., has announced its $16.4 billion acquisition of Calpine Corp., a private power company. The deal, one of the biggest in the nation’s energy sector, highlights the growing demand for electricity driven by data center operations.
Goldman Sachs projected that power demands from data centers will grow 15% annually through the end of the decade. Constellation said this latest agreement will help the company meet these increasing energy needs by adding Calpine’s extensive natural gas energy production to its portfolio.
Natural gas is considered a relatively clean-burning fuel. However, it emits greenhouse gases, including methane, that raise environmental concerns.
Experts caution that reliance on natural gas to meet surging energy demands could undermine efforts to combat climate change unless effective measures are implemented to manage emissions.
Energy strategists note that utilities face significant challenges in providing enough power for the expanding number of data centers without incorporating natural gas into their energy mix.
Calpine’s CEO Andrew Novotny said the merger would accelerate investments in clean energy, including nuclear power and battery storage technologies.
The companies expect the transaction to close within a year, pending regulatory approval. Constellation has also pledged to address any antitrust concerns by divesting assets if necessary.
Constellation secures historic $1 billion deal to supply US gov’t with power
America’s largest operator of nuclear power plants, Constellation, secured a historic agreement on Thursday, Jan. 2, with the U.S. government. The deal is worth more than $1 billion and will supply more than a dozen federal agencies and lead conservation projects over the next decade.
It’s reportedly the biggest energy purchase in the U.S. General Services history and means Constellation, which is based out of Baltimore, will power some 80 government facilities starting in late April. The deal includes powering buildings that are home to the U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The deal also includes one contract worth $840 million for the electricity supplied by Constellation. The second contract awards Constellation $172 million to complete conservation projects like weatherizing federal buildings and expanding the installation of LED lights at government facilities.
Constellation’s CEO said the contract is a sign of how things have changed toward more investment in nuclear energy. He notes nuclear energy has largely been left out of corporate and government purchases in the past.
GSA officials said this purchase gives the U.S. government budget stability amid uncertain electricity costs in the future and growing demand from artificial intelligence facilities by keeping energy prices fixed over the next 10 years.
World’s first nuclear fusion power plant set to be built in Virginia
Virginia is planning to build the world’s first grid-scale nuclear fusion power plant. This week, Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced the project, which aims to produce 400 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 150,000 homes, by the early 2030s.
“In the early 2030s, all eyes will be on the Richmond region, and more specifically Chesterfield County, as the birthplace of commercial fusion energy,”Commonwealth Fusion Systems Co-founder and CEO Bob Mumgaard said. “Virginia emerged as a strong partner as they look to implement innovative solutions for both reliable electricity and clean forms of power.”
To support the initiative, the state has provided $2 million in funding and multiple tax incentives, while the Department of Energy has also contributed additional funding.
“This is an historic moment for Virginia and the world at large,” Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said in a statement. “Commonwealth Fusion Systems is not just building a facility, they are pioneering groundbreaking innovation to generate clean, reliable, safe power, and it’s happening right here in Virginia. We are proud to be home to this pursuit to change the future of energy and power.”
Fusion technology mimics the energy-producing process of the sun, combining hydrogen isotopes under extreme heat and pressure. Powerful magnets confine these elements, generating heat that produces steam to spin turbines and create electricity. Generating nuclear fusion energy produces no greenhouse gases, and unlike fission, avoids long-living radioactive waste, while eliminating the risk of a meltdown.
However, achieving the intense heat necessary for fusion remains a significant challenge. Partly because of this, fusion is currently four times more expensive than nuclear fission, and experts warn the project could encounter delays due to fusion technology still being in its infancy.
The energy demands in Virginia make the project particularly relevant. The state hosts the largest global market for data centers, with facilities that consume energy on par with small cities. Over 35% of all data centers worldwide — and nearly half in the U.S. — are located in Virginia.
With energy requirements from these facilities in the state expected to triple from 10,000 megawatts today to 30,000 megawatts by 2040, Virginia faces an urgent need to expand its power capacity.
Iran plans to expand uranium-enriching centrifuges: IAEA
Iran plans to expand its uranium-enriching centrifuges at its enrichment plants, according to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Reuters reported that Iran informed the IAEA it intends to install more than 6,000 additional uranium-enriching centrifuges, as outlined in a new confidential report.
The move comes in response to a resolution passed last week by the IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors, which condemned Tehran for failing to cooperate with the agency earlier this month.
The IAEA said that the increased enrichment capacity would allow Iran to enrich uranium more quickly, raising concerns that Tehran could be pursuing the development of a nuclear bomb.
Western powers on the board have expressed concerns, arguing that there is no reason for Iran to enrich uranium to 60% purity, close to the 90% threshold required to produce weapons-grade material.
In a statement to the Associated Press, the U.S. State Department expressed its “deep concern” over Iran’s decision.
“Iran’s continued production and accumulation of uranium enriched up to 60% has no credible civilian justification,” the statement said.
The department went on to accuse the country of “choosing the path of continued escalation as opposed to cooperation with the IAEA.”
In recent months, Iran’s leadership signaled a readiness to negotiate with the West. Earlier this week, President Joe Biden helped broker a ceasefire deal between Israel and Iranian-backed Hezbollah in the ongoing conflict.
However, it remains unclear how President-elect Donald Trump will approach diplomatic relations with Iran once he returns to the White House.
This is why it would be ‘ludicrous’ for Russia to use nuclear weapons
Stop me if you’ve heard this before. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is threatening to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine gets or uses certain other weapons in certain ways.
In the latest example of nuclear saber-rattling, Moscow changed its protocols for using nuclear weapons. If a non-nuclear country like Ukraine, is allied with a nuclear-armed country like the United States, and puts Russian sovereignty at risk, the Kremlin said it will use nukes.
Over the course of the war in Ukraine, Russia has issued dozens of threats concerning the use of its nuclear weapons, and each time the threat rang hollow. Straight Arrow News Reporter Ryan Robertson spoke with Matt Shoemaker, a former U.S. intelligence officer who spent time on the Russia desk, about whether to take Russia’s threats seriously.
The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity. You can watch the full interview in the video above.
Ryan Robertson: The last couple of days, the announcement came out that Russia was amending its protocols for nuclear responses to say that if Ukraine, or a nation, attacks Russia with long-range weapons that puts Russian sovereignty at risk, and that nation is being backed by a nuclear power, then Russia can use nuclear weapons.
The announcement was made in September, and went live at the same time Ukraine was using long-range ATACMS outside of Kursk. Is this all just more bluster from Putin?
Matthew Shoemaker: Short answer, yes. There’s been a lot of sensationalism, especially here in the United States, with regards to this usage of ATACMS. If you go on the Drudge Report, for example, the past three days, their main headlines have been essentially, “Nuclear war is about to start. All of these countries are updating their nuclear weapons programs and their nuclear responses.”
This was foreseen, Russia, let’s put it that way, had a good idea that this was going to happen, which is why they announced it back in September. They waited [to implement it] until President Biden announced [his plans]. And let’s be honest, President Putin knows President Biden. They’ve met multiple times. Biden’s got two months left on the clock. Putin knows that. Putin knows that, you know, Trump’s about to come in. Putin is going to have a much better time, from his perspective, negotiating with Trump.
You know, this is all just bluster at this point. No one anticipates, no one expects that President Putin is going to start nuclear war over this with President Biden and two months left. There’s nothing whatsoever in it for President Putin to do this. So this is all just bluster, unfortunately. And, you know, people with their own political axes to grind are using it for their advantage, whether it be bludgeoning the other side over the head with their political comments or just to try and stir up support for themselves. So, you know, there’s a lot of sensationalism going on.
Ryan Robertson: Sure, sure. I mean, it’s 2024, right? You can’t get by without some sensationalism, right? You mentioned something about the ATACMS. You know, President Biden has approved ATACMS. Ukraine probably doesn’t have that many long-range ATACMS at this point, but President Biden has a few billion dollars left of congressionally approved money to spend. If Ukraine suddenly got an influx of ATACMS, you know, long-range missiles, would that be enough to change the course of the war over the next couple of months before President Trump takes office?
Matthew Shoemaker: A short answer, in my professional assessment as a former intelligence officer, is no. None of that is in President Biden’s wheelhouse. Over the past three years of this conflict, effectively, he has slow-walked, at every single opportunity, any chance that the Ukrainians had to get an upper hand with regards to the Russians. President Biden has denied them that. The only thing President Biden has actually done is given the Ukrainians enough to stay in the fight.
And that’s essentially what this is more than anything, because—and not to get too far into the weeds and become too much of a tactician with regards to this—as you mentioned, the Ukrainians don’t have enough of these ATACMS. The ATACMS themselves come in multiple variants. No one really knows which variants the Ukrainians have or how many of those variants they have. The two main variants are–one is a main large warhead itself. And that’s used against, usually, clusters of personnel, for example. That tends to have a shorter range because it’s heavier. You need a bigger warhead for it.
The other variant has a lot of smaller munitions in it and kind of just sprays them out over a wide area. That one, from my understanding, has a little bit of a longer range. We don’t know how many the Ukrainians have. We don’t know how many of the variants they have either. That sort of thing.
On top of it, the Americans have been helping the Ukrainians pay for the development of a Ukrainian-made, essentially ATACMS-style weapon that the Ukrainians have been fielding, and they can produce those themselves. So, you know, the Ukrainians have been lobbing these into Russia, and this doesn’t really change any of the tactics on the field. It is all just bluster. It creates a headline. Because in reality, yes, for the Americans to say you can use these weapons against Russian soil is a new development, if you will.
I would say that, unlike most of the reporting, from my understanding, there actually are quite a lot of restrictions still on the use of ATACMS.
Ryan Robertson: Right. The Ukrainians can only use them around Kursk.
Matthew Shoemaker: Exactly. It’s meant to give the Ukrainians some bargaining chip when Trump does come into office, that the Ukrainians own, essentially, Russian territory that they can negotiate to give back to the Russians under a Trump administration. There’s a lot of gamesmanship, a lot of different tactics going on, a lot of chess being played. But for people to just fly off the handle and assume that nuclear war is coming is irresponsible at best and just ludicrous at worst.
Ryan Robertson: Matt Shoemaker, always a pleasure talking to you.
Israeli airstrike destroys Iran’s active nuclear facility
New details have emerged about an Israeli airstrike last month on Iran’s Parchin Military Complex, reportedly targeting the Taleghan 2 facility, which U.S. and Israeli intelligence say was used for nuclear weapons research. High-resolution satellite images reveal significant damage to the site. Officials claim the strike disrupted Iran’s efforts to resume nuclear weapons development.
Taleghan 2, once part of Iran’s Amad nuclear program, was officially shut down in 2003. However, recent activities at the facility reportedly included explosives testing and computer modeling related to nuclear devices.
The Institute has acquired high-resolution satellite imagery of the Israeli missile strikes on the Parchin Military Complex in Iran. Four buildings were destroyed, including Taleghan 2, a facility formerly involved in nuclear weapons development during Iran's Amad Plan in the… pic.twitter.com/OLwnyKSyEU
The U.S. warned Iran in June to cease such activities, but continued surveillance indicated the research persisted. Officials said the facility was testing plastic explosives critical for detonating nuclear weapons.
The strike has placed Iran in a diplomatic bind. Since Taleghan 2 was not part of Iran’s declared nuclear program, Tehran cannot publicly acknowledge the attack without implicating itself in violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is increasing pressure on Iran. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi met with Iranian officials this week to address compliance issues ahead of a critical Board of Governors vote expected next week.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but Western officials argue the strike and additional intelligence suggest otherwise. Tehran has warned that further pressure could lead to reduced cooperation with the IAEA.
US plan to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050 faces financial concerns
The Biden administration announced a new energy initiative to expand U.S. nuclear capacity to 200 gigawatts by 2050. That’s a 200% increase over 2020 levels, with enough power to meet the electricity needs of up to 170 million homes. The plan includes building new reactors, renewing licenses for older plants, and restarting some retired facilities, though questions remain about the potential costs and timelines of these projects.
“Expanding domestic nuclear energy production has a key role to play in helping to avoid the worst impacts of climate change by enabling the nation to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emission economy no later than 2050,” the White House said in a statement. “Nuclear power delivers safe, clean, reliable, and affordable electricity to communities across the nation.”
Building new reactors can be a lengthy and expensive process. In 2023, the first newly constructed U.S. nuclear plant in decades came online. However, it was completed seven years behind schedule and $17 billion over budget.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) have been proposed as a more cost-effective option for nuclear power expansion. However, even larger SMRs can cost around $3 billion. Additionally, the first government-approved SMR project in the U.S. was ultimately canceled due to high costs.
“For nuclear reactor-grade suppliers, there are rigorous and costly training and quality assurance requirements,” the federal government said while unveiling its recently set nuclear objectives. “Consequently, it should be noted that nuclear reactor-quality materials and components tend to be significantly more expensive than their non-nuclear-grade equivalents.”
Restarting older reactors can also require a significant investment of time and finances. While the government is already pursuing plans to bring back reactors at sites like Three Mile Island, as well as facilities in Michigan and Iowa, all of these initiatives are projected to take years and billions of dollars to complete.
Additionally, some uncertainty remains around whether the incoming Trump administration will continue to support this expansion of U.S. nuclear energy. However, President-elect Donald Trump has stated he “will support nuclear energy production” by “working to keep existing power plants open, and investing in innovative small modular reactors.”
Amazon wants more nuclear power, but regulators fear spike in consumer costs
Federal regulators recently denied Amazon’s request for additional nuclear power to support its expanding data center operations. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled 2-1 against the proposal, citing concerns that granting tech companies greater access to nuclear energy could drive up consumer costs and strain grid reliability.
In addition to Amazon, other tech giants, such as Meta and Microsoft, have increasingly explored running their energy-intensive data centers with nuclear power. Unlike other renewable sources, nuclear energy offers a continuous flow of electricity, making it attractive to companies that are pledging to reduce their carbon footprints while maintaining consistent power supplies for the ever-growing demands of data centers.
However, the FERC decision represents a new hurdle for the industry’s broader ambitions in nuclear energy adoption.
Amazon’s nuclear power proposal followed its March $650 million acquisition of a Pennsylvania data center campus from Talen Energy, a major U.S. energy provider.
The facility is powered by Talen Energy’s adjacent nuclear plant, and Amazon had sought regulatory approval to increase its electrical draw from the facility, but the FERC concluded that allowing the tech giant’s plan to move forward could lead to energy price hikes and threaten overall grid stability.
“Arrangements of the type presented here present an array of complicated, nuanced and multifaceted issues, which collectively could have huge ramifications for both grid reliability and consumer costs,” Mark Christie, a Republican FERC commissioner, wrote in a concurring statement.
In a dissenting opinion, the lone commissioner that voted to support Amazon’s proposal, Democratic chair Willie Phillips, argued that partnerships between nuclear plants and data centers are essential for the energy transition, asserting that blocking these arrangements could negatively impact both energy reliability and national security.
“I respectfully dissent from today’s order because it is a step backward for both electric reliability and national security,” Phillips wrote. “In failing to accept the agreement, we are rejecting protections that the interconnected transmission owner says will enhance reliability while also creating unnecessary roadblocks to an industry that is necessary for our national security.”
Analysts suggest that the decision may deter similar deals between nuclear providers and data center operators, potentially affecting future investments in nuclear energy. The ruling appears to have impacted investor confidence in this energy source, as this week saw a dip in stocks among nuclear power providers, signaling a market response to the potential regulatory challenges ahead.
Despite the setback, Amazon and Talen Energy will proceed with the initial phases of the data center campus, using the nuclear power already available. Both companies have expressed their intent to continue seeking regulatory approval for expanded power use.