Mondo News

Impending End of Russia-US Nuclear Deal: No Successor in Sight

Posted on January 8, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

Russia Displays Military Might at Moscow Parade

Image Credit: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

Russia military parade showcasing weaponry — Russia Displays Military Might at Moscow Parade

Image Credit: Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

As of February 2026, the world faces a historic moment: for the first time in decades, there will be no active treaty regulating the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia. While experts are divided over the effectiveness of the New START Treaty in enhancing global security, there’s a consensus that establishing a successor treaty is improbable.

The United States and Russia initiated their nuclear arms reduction efforts with the START I treaty in 1991, which evolved into the New START in 2011. In 2021, Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin agreed to extend the treaty by five years, but this agreement expired on February 5, 2026, and negotiations for a new treaty have stalled.

Tensions escalated significantly between the U.S. and Russia following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Shortly after, Russia was excluded from crucial weapons inspections, leading to U.S. retaliation. Currently, discussions are emerging about potential nuclear tests from both countries, though many see these as mere posturing devoid of real substance. The likelihood of a New START replacement treaty appears dimmer than ever.

Mark Bell, a professor at the University of Minnesota, argues that a new treaty limiting the U.S. arsenal to match that of Russia’s would be unattractive to the U.S. This is largely due to concerns over needing a robust deterrent against both Russia and the increasingly nuclear-capable China, which currently has 600 nuclear weapons. While this is significantly fewer than the 5,000 plus weapons possessed by the U.S. and Russia, China’s nuclear capabilities are rapidly growing. Russia is unlikely to accept any proposal that would limit its arsenal to numbers inferior to the U.S.’s, and China would resist agreements that restrict its future growth to parity with these powers. Negotiating a new treaty is fraught with complications from the outset, Bell asserts.

Historically, START I and New START are viewed as successful frameworks. Though not flawless, they have contributed to stability. However, Bell expresses skepticism regarding their true impact on global safety. He notes, “Could they have saved both superpowers some money? Perhaps. Did they provide a platform for cooperation? Certainly. But did they fundamentally alter the risk of war? I don’t think so.”

Regardless of treaty status, the threat of nuclear war persists, according to Bell. He suggests that the concept of mutually assured destruction serves as our current safeguard against nuclear conflict. “The fear of catastrophic consequences, rather than treaties, is what may deter warfare. This stabilizing factor stems from danger itself, which is an intrinsic aspect of nuclear deterrence,” he elaborates.

Conversely, some experts are more concerned about the implications of losing the treaty. Steven Herzog, a scholar at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, California, and former U.S. Department of Energy arms control specialist, remarked to New Scientist that the absence of New START heightens the risk of nuclear warfare.

“A lack of transparency makes global security fragile by spurring unchecked competition among leaders who might resort to nuclear capabilities,” Herzog warns. “In an environment where Russia’s unpredictability is escalating and the U.S. administration is equally volatile, it’s alarming that we lack essential measures for confidence-building and transparency that could temper an arms race.”

Although various treaties addressing nuclear weapons exist, the ambitious Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons seeks to eliminate nuclear arms completely yet lacks participation from many nuclear-armed nations. Furthermore, while several states have ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it does little to curb the existing arsenal. New START remains the only treaty that held nuclear powers accountable.

Herzog believes that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could potentially reach a similar agreement if they desired. Indeed, President Putin’s proposal for an unofficial one-year extension was positively received by President Trump. However, concrete negotiations are absent, and any such accord would likely serve as a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution.

Philip Bleek, a researcher at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, expresses that while extending the treaty could be beneficial if it allowed time for negotiating a new agreement, the long-term prospects for arms control remain bleak. “A one-year extension may lead Russia to feel their financial stake is wasted, making them less likely to engage in future talks,” he explains.

Treaty negotiations are intricate battles involving political leaders, military strategists, and intelligence officials striving for even marginal strategic advantages. Herzog notes that Russia could be at an advantage since significant personnel, such as weapons inspectors and negotiators, have been dismissed or forced out by the Trump administration.

“If we are serious about negotiating a new treaty, we likely won’t have the staffing or resources available to do so,” Herzog concludes.

Relevant Topics:

US-Russia Nuclear Deal Set to Expire in 2026: What’s Next Without a New Agreement?

Posted on January 2, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

Russia Demonstrates Military Might at Parade

Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images

By February 2026, the absence of any active treaty limiting the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia marks a significant turning point. While opinions on the effectiveness of the New START Treaty vary, there is a consensus that a successor treaty appears improbable.

The inception of nuclear weapons limitations began with the 1991 START I treaty, which laid the groundwork for inspections and reductions, leading to the New START agreement in 2011. In 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin extended this treaty for an additional five years. However, discussions for alternatives have stalled since the February 5 deadline.

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia escalated dramatically following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Shortly thereafter, Russia excluded itself from weapons inspections, prompting U.S. retaliation. While both nations contemplate resuming nuclear testing, such discussions appear more performative than productive. The odds of a New START successor seem dimmer than ever.

Mark Bell, a professor at the University of Minnesota, indicates that the prospect of a new treaty that limits U.S. arsenals to match those of Russia is unappealing, given concerns about deterring both Russia and an increasingly assertive China. Although China has approximately 600 nuclear weapons, it is rapidly expanding its capabilities. Conversely, Russia may resist accepting any cap that allows it fewer nuclear arms than the U.S. Additionally, China is likely to oppose any deal that limits its growth toward parity with the U.S. and Russia. Bell describes these negotiations as complicated, making it a challenging starting point.

START I and New START are acknowledged as largely beneficial, providing a stabilizing effect on international relations. However, Bell expresses skepticism regarding their overall impact on global safety. “They may have saved some costs for both superpowers and fostered a collaborative forum, but I doubt they fundamentally altered the risk of war,” he notes.

Irrespective of the treaty status, the risk of nuclear conflict remains high, according to Bell. He argues that the concept of mutually assured destruction serves as a deterrent, emphasizing that it is the dire repercussions of nuclear warfare—rather than treaties—that may prevent hostilities. “This stabilizing effect derives from the inherent dangers and is a characteristic of nuclear deterrence,” he explains.

Yet, some experts voice deep concern over the end of the treaty. Steven Herzog, a scholar from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies and former arms control advisor, told New Scientist that the expiration of New START will heighten the risk of nuclear conflict.

“Lack of transparency in nuclear weapons development makes the international landscape less secure, fostering unchecked competition among leaders potentially reliant on nuclear arms,” Herzog cautions. “In an era where both Russia and the U.S. appear increasingly unpredictable, the absence of critical confidence-building measures raises alarming concerns about an arms race.”

Several treaties related to nuclear weapons remain in effect, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which seeks to eliminate these armaments but lacks participation from nuclear-armed states. While some nuclear powers have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it does little to restrict the actual number of weapons available. New START represented the only effective framework addressing nuclear power responsibilities.

Herzog asserts that if both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin desired a similar agreement, a rapid consensus could be achievable. Previously, President Putin made a proposal that President Trump positively received regarding an unofficial extension. However, no formal negotiations are happening at present, and any potential agreement would likely only serve as a temporary fix.

Philip Bleek, a researcher at the Middlebury Institute, notes that persisting in negotiations could be valuable if additional time enables a new treaty’s creation. However, the long-term outlook for arms control appears grim. “A short-term extension could result in Russia feeling its participation isn’t necessary, reducing its willingness for future involvement,” advises Brig.

Negotiating treaties involves complex interactions among political figures, military branches, and intelligence communities, with potential for nabbing minor but critical strategic advantages. Herzog points out that the Trump administration has already diminished the number of essential personnel involved in inspections and negotiations.

“If we aim to pursue a new treaty seriously, our current staffing and resources may not be sufficient,” Herzog concludes.

Topics:

US to Launch Small Nuclear Reactors by 2026: A New Era in the Nuclear Renaissance

Posted on January 1, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 Reactor Under Construction

Daria Nagovitz/Valar Atomics

Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 reactor under construction — Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 Reactor Under Construction

Daria Nagovitz/Valar Atomics

Despite contributing nearly one-fifth of the U.S. power generation, nuclear energy in the country has seen stagnation for decades. Factors such as regulatory challenges, public apprehension, and affordable energy sources have hindered growth, coupled with factory closure moratoriums and insufficient funding for new nuclear technologies. However, an increasing demand for power, especially from data centers, is reviving interest in nuclear energy. The Department of Energy is moving rapidly to rectify this delay with its reactor pilot program, aiming for a major milestone by mid-2026.

This initiative is part of the Department of Energy Strategy, which seeks to quadruple nuclear production by 2050. Eleven companies focused on advanced nuclear reactor technology have been chosen to participate, with expectations for at least three to reach criticality – a stable and self-sustaining nuclear fission state – by July 4, 2026.

“We intentionally set very ambitious deadlines,” stated Leslie Dewan, a nuclear engineer specializing in advanced reactor technology. “One of our pilot’s goals is to evaluate which concepts thrive under real-world conditions.”

The reactor designs under development range from molten salt and hot gas reactors to fast reactors, sodium-cooled systems, and pressurized water reactors. Notably, California-based Valar Atomics is regarded as a frontrunner, especially with its Ward 250 high-temperature gas reactor.

High-temperature gas reactors utilize small particles of uranium surrounded by carbon and ceramic coatings, transforming them into self-contained fuel units. This coating ensures that the particles remain intact even at extreme temperatures, creating a protective safety barrier to contain any radioactive materials.

Fuel particles are embedded within graphite blocks, which serve as the reactor core, featuring channels for helium gas circulation. The nuclear fission reaction generates heat that boils water, producing steam to power generators and generate electricity. The helium gas then returns to the reactor for reheating.

Valar broke ground on Ward 250 in September, marking it as the second company to initiate construction, following Texas-based Arlo Atomics which began in August. Valar has achieved the first low-temperature criticality, demonstrating a self-sustaining fission reaction under controlled conditions, offering valuable data to confirm core physics. “It’s not equivalent to constructing and operating your integrated test reactor at full power,” Dewan explained.

Texas-based Natura Resources is also developing molten salt reactors known for their inherent safety features, although they function differently. In these designs, uranium is dissolved in molten salt, heated by fission. A pump circulates this liquid salt to a heat exchanger, generating steam or driving a turbine. If overheating occurs, the molten salt expands and melts an emergency “freeze plug,” allowing the fuel to safely drain and preventing chain reactions.

“Molten salt reactors operate at atmospheric pressure, containing any accidents to the plant site,” emphasizes Dewan. “Even in a total power failure, the reactor can come to a safe stop without on-site operator intervention.”

Natura has not yet commenced construction but secured a permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a 1-megawatt research reactor. Additionally, it has recently acquired Shepherd Power, which will enhance its supply chain and regulatory expertise to expedite its technology’s implementation. Dewan noted, “We have fostered a highly collaborative relationship with the NRC,” though she cautioned, “the challenges posed by molten salts, which are corrosive and radioactive at high temperatures, should not be underestimated.”

With the critical deadline approaching in about six months, Valar, Natura, and nine other companies in the pilot program must work at an exceptional pace to meet this goal. However, this is just one of many challenges that must be navigated.

“The true evaluations will center around whether we can safely power the reactor on and off, operate it for extended periods at design temperatures, and ensure that materials and fuel perform as anticipated. All of this must be reliably demonstrated to gain trust from the NRC and future clients,” Dewan concludes. “I see the 2026 date as the beginning of an intriguing data collection phase, far from the conclusion.”

Topics:

Nuclear Energy/
2026 News Preview

Despite President Trump’s Claims, a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Test Remains Unlikely

Posted on October 30, 2025 by

President Donald Trump made this announcement prior to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to recommence nuclear weapons testing after a ban lasting decades. However, researchers from New Scientist contend that these tests bear no scientific relevance, are largely symbolic, pose a threat to global tranquility, and are likely to provoke public backlash in America. Ultimately, while the chances of these tests occurring seem slim, the announcement itself carries potential risks.

In a recent statement, President Trump revealed a new policy, stating in a post on Truth Social, “It’s in response to actions by other nations.” [sic] He further directed the War Department to initiate nuclear weapon tests on an equivalent basis, set to commence immediately.

The announcement lacked clarity, leaving experts puzzled as no other nation has conducted nuclear bomb tests recently. While Russia has experimented with nuclear underwater drones and nuclear-capable missiles, none of these actions involved actual nuclear detonations.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, indications have surfaced that several nations are preparing their historic nuclear testing sites, whether genuinely intending to test again or merely using it as a political display. Significant upgrades are underway at a Chinese testing site in Xinjiang, a Russian site in the Arctic, and a US site in Nevada.

However, restarting nuclear tests would contravene decades of effective yet uneasy bans. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, prohibits testing these weapons in the atmosphere, on water, or in space, yet allows for underground tests. Subsequently, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was drafted in 1996, effectively halting underground nuclear tests, albeit without formal ratification.

[Since the first Trinity explosion in 1945 in the United States, over 2000 tests have been conducted until the CTBT’s drafting. India and Pakistan conducted several nuclear tests in 1998, while North Korea remains the sole nation to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century, with its last test occurring in 2017. The United States has refrained from nuclear testing since 1992.]

Considering this context, many experts express skepticism towards President Trump’s remarks. There is speculation regarding a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as the United States would be the first global superpower to restart nuclear testing.

John Preston, a researcher at the University of Essex, suggests the president’s declaration may merely be “Trump rhetoric,” lacking any genuine intention of conducting a nuclear test, though warns that even such statements can have perilous implications. Historically, the Soviet Union and Russia have aimed to exert pressure that compels their adversaries to de-escalate activities.

Preston notes that during the Cold War, nuclear powers invested considerable time and resources in bringing in diverse experts to thoroughly comprehend how nuclear testing and proliferation could heighten conflict. Recently, however, this issue has drawn less attention and has become increasingly secretive.

“I’m concerned that the escalation ladder may not be fully understood within the policy and nuclear strategy communities,” Preston commented. “Science has already grasped the effects of nuclear weapons; there’s nothing new to discover. Thus, these tests are strictly symbolic and could lead us into an escalation we no longer effectively understand.”

Indeed, the likelihood of generating significant scientific findings from such tests seems remote. Current nuclear testing relies on highly accurate physical simulations conducted via massive supercomputers. The two most powerful public supercomputers globally are operated by the US government and are utilized to affirm the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrent without actual testing.

Christoph Laucht, a professor at Swansea University in the UK, asserts that restarting tests would signify a regressive step at a precarious juncture in history. The New START Treaty is set to lapse on February 4, 2026. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty puts the US and Russia in a situation where a formal nuclear treaty remains months away, with minimal prospects for a new agreement amidst the current tense global climate.

“There are genuine concerns that this could trigger a new form of nuclear arms race,” Laucht remarked. “We already possess a vast inventory of nuclear warheads, but we are reverting to a treaty environment reminiscent of the early Cold War, a time without arms limitation treaties.”

Laucht further warned that if one nation resumes testing, others may feel pressured to follow suit. Such testing could prompt protests from environmental activists, peace advocates, and communities near the Nevada test site, further straining an already divided United States.

Sarah Pozzi, a professor at the University of Michigan, argues that restarting nuclear testing would be illogical for the US. “Such actions would destabilize global affairs, incentivize other nations to resume their nuclear testing programs, and jeopardize decades of progress in nuclear arms control,” she stated. “Instead, the US should aspire to lead by example and bolster international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Of course, there are various perspectives on the matter. In his typical style, President Trump has become fixated on cryptic, ambiguous social media posts that fail to convey the entire narrative.

Nick Ritchie, a researcher at the University of York in the UK, suggests that President Trump might merely be referring to testing nuclear delivery systems, such as missiles, rather than nuclear warheads themselves. Resuming warhead testing would likely necessitate years of planning, engineering, and political maneuvering beyond a single presidential term. However, if that is the case, it raises confusion because these delivery technologies are routinely tested alongside NATO allies.

“This is a quintessentially Trumpian method of discussing a variety of political matters, including potentially destabilizing and perilous issues like US nuclear weapons policy,” Ritchie observes. “While there remains a small chance of resuming actual testing preparations, I certainly have not seen any indications that this is on the horizon.”

Topic:

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency Among 400 Organizations Targeted by Chinese Hackers, Reports Microsoft

Posted on July 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Microsoft has revealed that investigations are underway indicating that Chinese “threat actors,” including state-sponsored hackers, are taking advantage of security flaws in SharePoint’s document sharing servers, impacting numerous government agencies and organizations.

Eye Security, a Dutch cybersecurity firm, reported that hackers have compromised around 400 institutions, businesses, and other entities, stating, “We anticipate an increase as the investigation continues.”

The majority of the affected parties are located in the United States. Bloomberg noted that one of the victims was a US agency responsible for overseeing the National Nuclear Security Agency, which manages nuclear weapons. This agency was among those affected.

According to Microsoft, three groups have been identified utilizing Chinese state-backed techniques, with a focus on exploiting newly disclosed vulnerabilities in internet-facing servers hosting the platform.

This announcement coincides with reports from the financial sector that Amazon has halted artificial intelligence labs in Shanghai. Additionally, consultancy firm McKinsey reported that Chinese companies are withdrawing from AI-related projects as geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing escalate.

Recently, Microsoft and IBM have scaled back their research and development initiatives in China, with US officials intensifying scrutiny on American companies involved in AI within the country.

In a blog post, Microsoft stated that the vulnerability is associated with an on-premises SharePoint server commonly utilized by businesses, not a cloud-based service.

Numerous large organizations employ SharePoint as a platform for document storage and collaboration, integrating seamlessly with other Microsoft products like Office and Outlook.

Microsoft indicated that the attacks commenced as early as July 7th, with hackers attempting to leverage the vulnerability for “early access to the target organization.”

This vulnerability permits an attacker to spoof authentication credentials and remotely execute malicious code on the server. Microsoft observed an attack that sent requests to a SharePoint server, potentially “enabling the theft of key material.”

In response, Microsoft has released a security update and recommended that all users of on-premises SharePoint systems apply it. They cautioned that hacking groups are continuing to target these systems, which they rated as having “high confidence” in terms of vulnerability.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Eye Security reported in a press release that “anomalous activity” was detected on a client’s on-premises SharePoint Server on the evening of July 18th. They subsequently scanned over 8,000 publicly accessible SharePoint servers across the globe, discovering numerous compromised systems and confirming that attackers were executing a coordinated mass exploitation campaign.

Microsoft stated that the linen typhoon has been focused on “intellectual property theft” since 2012, with primary targets including government, defense, strategic planning, and human rights-related organizations.

Since 2015, the Violet Typhoon has predominantly targeted former government and military personnel, NGOs, think tanks, academia, digital and print media, and sectors related to finance and health in the US, Europe, and East Asia.

Microsoft mentioned a third group, Storm-2603, which is situated in China, though no direct connection has been established between this group and other Chinese threat actors. They warned that “additional actors” could exploit the vulnerability to target on-premises SharePoint systems unless security updates are installed.

Nuclear Fusion Disasters: Why They’re Not a Major Concern

Posted on June 24, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Modern atomic energy technologies primarily utilize nuclear fission. In this process, the nuclei of heavy atoms, such as uranium, are bombarded with neutrons, causing them to split apart and release lighter nuclei along with significant energy.

However, a major drawback of fission energy is that the resultant waste is often far more radioactive than the original fuel, with its hazardous nature persisting for extended periods. Moreover, managing the rate of fission reactions is crucial for ensuring safety.

A failure in this context can lead to catastrophic consequences.

An alternative to nuclear fission is fusion energy. In this process, lighter elements, specifically isotopes of hydrogen, merge to form heavier nuclei, releasing substantial energy in the process.

This is the fundamental reaction that powers stars, including our sun.

The byproducts of the fusion reaction are generally safe, primarily producing inert helium, though some mildly radioactive substances are also generated, but they are short-lived. The challenge with fusion energy lies in achieving the conditions required to initiate the reaction.

It necessitates temperatures in the millions of degrees, along with the incorporation of ultra-high-pressure fuel (usually within a magnetic field), which presents significant technical hurdles.

Like any industrial process, there are inherent risks, but the nature of a fusion reactor means that any failure would quickly halt energy production.

As a result, fusion energy “disasters” are considerably less probable than conventional industrial accidents; indeed, they lack the potential for the environmental and ecological crises associated with fission energy meltdowns.

This article responds to the inquiry (made via email by Brandon Harris) regarding “What does a Fusion Energy Disaster look like?”

Feel free to email us with your questions at Question @sciencefocus.com or reach out via Facebook, Twitter or Instagram (please remember to include your name and location).

Explore our ultimate Fun fact page for more fascinating science content.

Read more:

Could Israeli Airstrikes Trigger a Nuclear Incident in Iran?

Posted on June 20, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Iran’s Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Facility was damaged by Israeli bombing

ShutterStockEdit

Israel’s assault regarding Iran’s nuclear activities has raised concerns about potential radioactive incidents, according to experts, including the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). New Scientist While there have been reports of radiological and chemical contamination at one nuclear enrichment facility, the overall risk remains low.

Peter Bryant from the University of Liverpool notes that the terms “nuclear” and “radiation” understandably provoke fear, but despite extensive bombings, there have been no reported external leaks as of now.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions trace back to the 1950s, including attempts to develop nuclear weapons. The country pledged to allow IAEA inspections to verify that its energy facilities are not being utilized for weapon production; however, the agency recently issued a report criticizing Iran for failing to comply with non-proliferation obligations. Evidence of uranium traces at certain plants suggests that a covert nuclear weapons program might still be in progress.

Following reports regarding Iranian facilities responsible for uranium enrichment, Israel launched its strikes. Naturally occurring uranium exists in a mixture of three isotopes, but the enriched variant has a greater proportion of uranium-235, which can be used for both electrical generation in reactors and for nuclear arms. Given this dual-purpose potential, Iran has committed to restricting enrichment under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Philip Bleak from the Middlebury International Institute in California points out that the IAEA reports indicate Iran has already accumulated over 400 kilograms of uranium concentrated to 60%. This quantity is adequate for multiple rudimentary nuclear weapons, and Israeli intelligence suggests that the actual figures may be underreported to the IAEA. Even uranium at 60% purity significantly exceeds the requirements for fueling a power plant, implying that Iran harbors intentions to develop nuclear capabilities.

Iran maintains two primary enrichment sites: the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) and the Natanz Nuclear Facility. Israel’s strikes on Natanz resulted in internal radiation leaks; however, according to the IAEA, there have been no signs of external contamination.

In contrast, the Fordow facility remains operational due to its underground location, making it susceptible to destruction only by powerful US munitions. Only a powerful US bomb could destroy it. Former President Donald Trump has indicated he might assess support for Israel in this matter.

The Arak Heavy Water Reactor has also been targeted in bombings; however, it was never commissioned and housed no radioactive substances. If operational, it could have enabled the conversion of uranium into plutonium, a material viable for nuclear weaponry. Additionally, the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center and certain missile sites designed for nuclear weapons launch were also bombed.

Bleak asserts that fresh uranium poses “very modest” health risks irrespective of enrichment levels. “A significant amount must enter your body to have a meaningful impact, similar to what uranium miners experienced,” he explains.

This is why the enrichment facilities targeted in strikes represent minimal risk outside their immediate vicinity, according to Bryant. Moreover, since these plants are built deep underground for resistance against attacks, any radioactive emissions would be further contained. “Uranium fuel can be handled without issue,” states Bryant. “You would need to physically ingest it to face health problems.”

Nonetheless, should a working reactor be targeted and operational for months prior to an attack, it may accumulate “dangerous fission byproducts,” which represent a more significant radiological threat. Bleak warns that if such materials escape, scenarios akin to Chernobyl or Fukushima could arise.

Bryant expresses confidence that such leaks are exceedingly unlikely, attributing this to advancements in reactor design that can withstand heavy bombardments. Furthermore, civilian power plants are not core to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and are unlikely to be prioritized targets for Israel, he says. Bushehr, Iran’s only functioning nuclear power facility, has not been targeted thus far.

Despite assurances from scientific experts, New Scientist reports that IAEA Director Rafael Grossi cautioned earlier this week about the real risks of harm.

“I have consistently stated that we should never attack nuclear facilities, irrespective of the circumstances, as they can pose hazards to both humanity and the environment,” he asserted.

topic:

Trump Signs Executive Order to Loosen and Expand Nuclear Energy Regulations

Posted on May 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

On Friday, President Donald Trump enacted four executive orders designed to ease and broaden regulations surrounding nuclear production.

The orders focus on overhauling the Department of Energy’s nuclear energy research, facilitating the construction of reactors on federally owned land, reforming the Nuclear Regulation Authority, and accelerating U.S. uranium mining and enrichment efforts.

Alongside Trump, CEOs from various nuclear energy firms—such as Joseph Dominguez of Constellation Energy, Jacob DeWitt of Oklo, and Scott Nolan of General Substances—joined President Pete Hegses and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgham during the signing of the orders.

President Donald Trump displays an executive order he signed on May 23, 2025, in the Oval Office at the White House.
Get McNamee/Getty Images

Before the signing, Burgham remarked that this initiative “reverses over 50 years of excessive regulation on the industry,” and he added that “each of these will address another challenge that has hindered progress.”

Trump referred to the nuclear energy sector as “dynamic,” asserting to reporters, “It’s a dynamic industry. It’s a tremendous industry. It needs to be handled correctly.”

A senior administrator briefing reporters prior to the signing indicated that one executive order aimed at permitting nuclear reactors on federal land is designed to meet rising electricity demands linked to AI technology. They emphasized that “safe and reliable nuclear energy will provide power to vital defense installations and AI data centers.”

The executive order also seeks to expedite the review and regulatory processes for nuclear reactor construction and operation. The fourth order stipulates that the Nuclear Regulation Authority must make licensing decisions for new reactors within an 18-month timeframe, according to officials.

This new timeline aims to “reduce regulatory obstacles and shorten licensing periods” for nuclear reactors.

Dominguez commended the president’s initiative to streamline the nuclear regulation framework, noting, “Historically, regulatory delays have plagued our industry.”

“We often spend too long seeking approval and addressing irrelevant questions instead of the crucial ones,” he added.

Nuclear energy is viewed as a means to transition away from fossil fuels and lower greenhouse gas emissions since it generates electricity without the combustion of coal, oil, or natural gas.

Despite the tripling of solar and wind energy production in the U.S. over the last decade, there remain concerns that current energy sources will struggle to meet soaring energy demands.

Just before the president signed the executive order in his elliptical office, Heggs informed reporters, “We are integrating artificial intelligence across the board. If not, we cannot keep pace. We cannot afford to fall behind. Nuclear energy is essential to powering this.”

Recent reports have projected a 25% increase in U.S. electricity demand by 2030 (compared to 2023), with a staggering 78% rise by 2050, largely due to the surge in AI technology.

Even with the regulatory framework advancing, it may take years to complete the construction and enhancement of nuclear infrastructure. Furthermore, nuclear energy involves significant risks when compared to other green energy alternatives, requiring long-term plans for managing and disposing of hazardous waste, and risks related to potential core meltdowns or terrorist attacks that could release radioactive materials into the environment.

Additionally, Trump signed a fifth executive order on Friday aimed at “restoring trusted scientific rigor as the cornerstone of federal research,” according to officials.

Michael Krazios, head of the White House Office of Science and Technology, informed reporters that this executive order “ensures continued American strength and global leadership in the fields of science and technology.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Innovative Methods for Extracting Uranium from Water Could Boost Nuclear Power in China

Posted on May 12, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Tianwan Nuclear Power Station on the Yellow Sea coast of China

Xinhua Newsletter/Alamie

SEI 250610463 — Tianwan Nuclear Power Station on the Yellow Sea coast of China

Xinhua Newsletter/Alamie

Researchers in China have created a cost-effective and energy-efficient method for extracting uranium from seawater. As the global leader in nuclear power plant construction, China’s advances will bolster its uranium supply.

The oceans are estimated to contain around 4.5 billion tonnes of uranium, significantly more than is available through traditional mining methods. However, these resources are challenging to extract. Previous methods have involved immersing materials in artificial sponges or polymers inspired by natural structures, or utilizing a more costly electrochemical approach to capture uranium atoms via an electric field.

A team led by Shuangyin Wang from Hunan University has developed an enhanced electrochemical technology that is not only cheaper but also requires less energy than existing methods. Unlike conventional systems that draw only uranium atoms towards a positive electrode, this new device utilizes two copper electrodes.

This innovative method managed to extract 100% of uranium from a brine solution within 40 minutes, whereas physical adsorption techniques typically yield less than 10% of the available uranium.

When tested with small amounts of natural seawater, the system processed about 1 liter at a time, achieving 100% extraction from East China Sea water and 85% from South China Sea water. In the latter scenario, larger electrodes allowed for complete extraction.

The energy cost of this method is over 1000 times lower than that of traditional electrochemical procedures, with extraction costing approximately $83 per kilogram of uranium—four times cheaper than earlier methods and significantly less than the $360 per kilogram average.

By scaling up production and device size, researchers believe this technique could lead to the “industrialization of uranium extraction from seawater” in the future. During a 58-hour test in 100 liters of seawater, the largest experimental setup managed to extract over 90% of the available uranium.

A notable earlier success in uranium extraction from seawater occurred during the 1990s, when the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency used physical adsorption methods to recover kilograms of uranium, setting a significant benchmark for subsequent research in China.

In 2019, China’s state-run nuclear power company partnered with research institutes to form the Innovation Alliance for Seawater Uranium Extraction Technology. The goal is to establish a demonstration plant by 2035 and achieve continuous industrial production by 2050. South China Morning Post.

Half of the reactor projects currently in development are located in China. The country is positioned to significantly increase its nuclear capacity by 2030, potentially surpassing both the US and the EU. International Energy Agency.

Nonetheless, China still imports the majority of the uranium it requires, making any economical extraction from seawater highly valuable.

Topic:

Trump’s nominee states at Senate hearing that nuclear tests are not recommended.

Posted on April 9, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Brandon Williams, who was chosen by President Trump to oversee the country’s nuclear weapons, stated on Tuesday that he does not recommend resuming explosive testing of deadly weapons.

This statement was made during his Confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, taking many by surprise. While other advisers suggested that the president resume test explosions for national security reasons, the last test in the U.S. occurred in 1992.

Appointed by Trump in January, Williams, a former naval officer from upstate New York, is set to oversee the National Nuclear Security Agency, a semi-autonomous agency within the energy sector responsible for managing the nation’s nuclear weapons complex.

Despite calls from Trump’s allies for a return to testing, one notable figure, former national security advisor Robert C. O’Brien, urged in a magazine article last summer that a new term for Trump would see the resumption of testing to maintain the U.S.’ advantages over China and Russia in nuclear capabilities.

At his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Williams faced opposition against the resumption of explosive testing, particularly from Senator Jackie Rosen, a Democrat from Nevada, who highlighted the state’s history of nuclear tests during the Cold War.

Describing Nevada as “ground zero” for such testing, Rosen emphasized the harmful impact on the population and environment and vehemently opposed a return to these practices.

Williams responded to questions about advising Trump on explosive nuclear tests, stating his reliance on scientific information and expertise from the NNSA lab’s data and modeling rather than testing.

Concerns about the potential environmental and health impacts of testing in Nevada were also raised, to which Williams acknowledged the importance of considering such factors in decision-making.

With a background in naval service, Williams has been nominated to head the National Nuclear Security Agency and represents New York’s 22nd Congressional District.

In a letter to Williams, Senator Elizabeth Warren expressed concerns about his qualifications in the nuclear field and lack of relevant experience.

During the hearing, Williams stressed the importance of retaining skilled labor at the NNSA, following previous administration changes and workforce challenges.

Praising the agency’s staff, Williams assured senators that he speaks on their behalf and values their expertise.

The Senate Committee is currently evaluating Williams’ nomination, with expectations for approval and confirmation by the full Senate.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Exploring Unprecedented Universes: Using Ultra-Fast Measurements with Nuclear Clocks

Posted on March 1, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Humans have been striving to measure the world we live in for a long time. Our measurement systems and units help us comprehend ourselves and our environment, whether we are dealing with basic physics theories or not.

When we measure something, we compare it to a standard benchmark to ensure accuracy and stability. The current benchmark for time is the atomic clock, which relies on the precise energy levels of electrons in an atom.

Atomic clocks, however, have limitations due to environmental factors affecting the energy levels within the atom. This has led to the exploration of nuclear clocks, especially using the rare thorium-229 isotope.

Thorium-229 has unique characteristics that make it an ideal candidate for creating nuclear clocks. Its nucleus has closely spaced energy levels that can provide more stable measurements of frequency and time compared to atomic clocks.

The recent advancements in using thorium-229 for nuclear clocks have opened up new possibilities for accurate time measurements and potential breakthroughs in fundamental physics theories.

Why go to the nuclear?

Nuclear clocks offer greater stability and accuracy compared to atomic clocks due to the small size of the nucleus and reduced influence from external factors. By utilizing thorium-229 and its unique energy levels, nuclear clocks can revolutionize time measurements.

These advancements in time measurement are not only essential for navigation and communication systems but also play a crucial role in testing fundamental physics theories such as relativity.

Accurate clocks can also help in exploring dark matter and understanding its interactions with normal matter. Nuclear clocks provide a more precise benchmark for detecting the effects of dark matter on time measurements.

What’s next?

The next step after harnessing thorium-229 for nuclear clocks is to develop a functional and reliable clock system. This involves stabilizing a laser to the frequency corresponding to nuclear energy levels and constructing a robust clock design.

While there are challenges in developing nuclear clocks, the potential for unprecedented accuracy in time measurement is promising. These advancements require in-depth calculations and understanding of fundamental forces like quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

Overall, the progress in nuclear clocks signifies a new era in precise timekeeping and could lead to significant advancements in our understanding of the universe and fundamental physics theories.

A clever young scout attempts to construct a nuclear reactor in his family’s cabin. What ensued?

Posted on December 12, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

Nuclear reactions can be categorized as either fission (when an atomic nucleus splits into two lighter nuclei) or fusion (when two atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus). You can explore both of these reactions with a simple setup.

Small amounts of radioactive materials can be found in everyday objects, making nuclear fission a practical demonstration. For example, smoke detectors contain about 0.2 milligrams of americium-241, camping gas lanterns are coated with approximately 250 mg of thorium-232, and glow-in-the-dark gun sights contain around 1.2 micrograms of thorium-232. These materials are all radioactive and could potentially be combined to create a breeder reactor that uses neutrons emitted from one source to convert thorium-232 into the more radioactive uranium-233.

For a fusion reaction to occur, the temperature inside a fusion reactor must be hotter than the core of the sun – about 150 million °C (270 million °F) – Photo courtesy of Getty

David Hahn, a boy scout from Michigan, attempted this in 1994, but did not progress beyond the neutron generator stage before drawing attention from authorities. It is unlikely that his setup ever reached a stage where it could generate useful power.

Creating a functioning nuclear reactor from nuclear fission requires the ability to slow and control neutrons to maintain a self-sustaining fission reaction. Achieving this balance is challenging, especially in small reactors, and proper shielding and cooling are essential for safety.

While modern “microreactors” are available in the 5 megawatt range, they are still the size of a shipping container, making them unsuitable for small-scale setups.

Building a fusion reactor that uses an electric field to accelerate deuterium ions and fuse them into helium 3 is possible at home, resulting in a cold purple plasma. However, the energy required for the electric field exceeds the useful energy obtained from nuclear fusion, making it impractical as a reactor.

This article, by Tim Hurst from Sheffield, provides an answer to the question “Can I build a nuclear reactor in my shed?”

If you have any questions, please email us at: questions@sciencefocus.comor contact us on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram (remember to include your name and location).

Explore more exciting science pages and fun facts on our website.

Read more:

New Supercomputer Built to Simulate Nuclear Bombs is the Fastest in the World

Posted on November 19, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

El Capitan supercomputer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Garry McLeod/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The top spot in the league table of the world's most powerful computers has changed hands, with one supercomputer built for US national security research overtaking another.

top 500The final list of the most powerful computers is based on one metric: how fast a machine can solve large numbers of equations, measured in floating point operations per second (FLOPS). Masu. A machine called Frontier, built in 2022, was the first to be publicly acknowledged to have reached exascale (1 billion FLOPS).

Frontier was founded by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee to not only perform nuclear weapons simulations, but also address a variety of complex scientific problems such as climate modeling, fusion simulations, and drug discovery. Ta.

Now, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California has developed El Capitan, which has a power of 1.742 exaFLOPS, more than any other supercomputer.

The machine was built under tight security in cooperation with the National Nuclear Security Administration, a division of the Department of Energy dedicated to developing nuclear weapons science. The agency was established in 2000 in response to revelations that nuclear secrets had been leaked from the Department of Energy to China.

Essentially, El Capitan would provide the vast computational power needed to ensure the effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear deterrent without conducting any physical nuclear tests. LLNL claims that complex, high-resolution 3D simulations of nuclear explosions that previously took months on Sierra, its most powerful system, can be completed in just hours or days on El Capitan.

topic:

Physicists conduct measurements on fermium’s nuclear properties

Posted on November 14, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

Physicists are GSI/FAIR accelerator facility gained insight into the structure of the atomic nucleus. Fermium is a synthetic chemical element of the actinide series with atomic number 100. Using laser spectroscopy techniques, they tracked changes in the nucleus’s charge radius and found that it steadily increased as neutrons were added to the nucleus.

Fermium isotopes studied by Warbinek others. It is highlighted in this graph. Image credit: S. Raeder.

“The heaviest atomic nucleus known to date owes its existence to quantum mechanical nuclear shell effects,'' say researchers from the Helmholtz Institute Mainz and Geographical Survey Institute Helmholtzzentrum Schwerionenforschung. said Dr. Sebastian Roeder and colleagues.

“These increase the stability of the nucleus against spontaneous fission, allowing the formation of superheavy nuclei.”

“For a certain number of protons (Z) or neutrons (N), the so-called magic numbers, the nuclear shell exhibits a large energy gap, resulting in increased stability of the nucleus.”

“This is similar to the closed electron shell of noble gases, which provides chemical inertness.”

“The heaviest known atomic nucleus with a magic number for both protons (Z = 82) and neutrons (N = 126) is lead-208, a spherical nucleus.”

“The location of the next spherical gap beyond lead-208 is still unknown. Nuclear models predict it most frequently at Z = 114, Z = 120 or Z = 126, and N = 172 or N = 184. Masu.”

“This variation in predictions is primarily due to the large single-particle density in the heaviest nuclei, among other factors.”

The authors used a laser-based method to investigate a fermium nucleus with 100 protons (Z = 100) and 145 to 157 neutrons (N = 145 to 157).

Specifically, we studied the influence of quantum mechanical shell effects on the size of atomic nuclei.

“This allows us to elucidate the structure of these nuclei in the range around the known shell effect of neutron number 152 from a new perspective,” said Dr. Rader.

“At this neutron number, signs of neutron shell closure were previously observed in trends in nuclear binding energies.”

“The strength of the shell effect was measured by high-precision mass measurements at GSI/FAIR in 2012.”

“According to Einstein, mass equals energy, so these mass measurements gave us a hint about the additional binding energy that shell effects provide.”

“The nucleus around neutron number 152 is shaped more like a rugby ball than a sphere, making it an ideal guinea pig for deeper research.”

“This deformation allows many protons within the nucleus to be separated further apart than in a spherical nucleus.”

In the measurements, the researchers investigated fermium isotopes with lifetimes ranging from a few seconds to 100 days, using different methods for producing fermium isotopes and methodological developments in applied laser spectroscopy techniques. Ta.

Short-lived isotopes are produced at the GSI/FAIR accelerator facility, where in some cases only a few atoms per minute are available for experiments.

The generated nuclei were stopped in argon gas, and electrons were picked up to form neutral atoms, which were then examined using laser light.

The neutron-rich, long-lived fermium isotopes (fermium-255, fermium-257) were produced in picogram quantities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, USA, and the Laue Langevina Institute in France.

Their results provided insight into the variation of the nuclear charge radius of the fermium isotope over neutron number 152 and showed a stable and uniform increase.

“Our experimental results and interpretation by modern theoretical methods show that in fermium nuclei, nuclear shell effects have a small influence on the charge radius of the nuclei, in contrast to their strong influence on the binding energy of these nuclei. “This shows that,” Dr. Jessica said. Mr. Warbinek is a researcher at CERN.

“This result supports the theoretical prediction that local shell effects due to a small number of neutrons and protons lose influence as the nuclear mass increases.”

“Instead, the effects attributed to the complete assembly of all nucleons dominate, with the nuclei being seen rather as charged liquid droplets.”

of result Published in a magazine nature.

_____

J. Warbinek others. 2024. Smooth trend of charge radius in fermium and influence of shell effect. nature 634, 1075-1079;doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08062-z

Source: www.sci.news

Amazon.com partners with nuclear energy industry to address data center needs

Posted on October 16, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

Amazon.com has recently signed three agreements to collaborate on the development of small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear power technology. This cutting-edge technology aims to address the increasing demand for power, particularly from data centers. Amazon has solidified its position as a major player in the high-tech industry.

One of the agreements involves Amazon funding a feasibility study for an SMR project near its Northwest Energy site in Washington state. X-Energy will be responsible for developing the SMR, with financial specifics remaining undisclosed.

As per the agreement, Amazon will have the option to procure power from four modules. Energy Northwest, a group of state utilities, may also include up to 80 MW modules, resulting in a total capacity of up to 960 MW. This power will be able to supply over 770,000 US homes, with excess energy being allocated to Amazon and utility companies for residential and commercial usage.

Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services, expressed, “Our agreement will expedite the advancement of new nuclear technologies that will provide energy for years to come.”

SMR leverages factory assembly of components to reduce construction expenses, a departure from the conventional on-site assembly of large nuclear reactors. While some critics argue that achieving economies of scale with SMR technology may be costly, it remains a promising development.

Nuclear power, known for its near-zero greenhouse gas emissions and creation of high-wage union jobs, garners bipartisan support in the US. Despite this, the country is yet to have a working SMR. NuScale was the lone US entity to secure an SMR design license from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently.

Furthermore, SMRs produce lasting radioactive waste, and the US lacks a definitive disposal site for such byproducts. Scott Burnell, a representative from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, stated that regulators still await detailed information about planned SMR implementations.

A Delightful Nuclear Disaster in the Lake District: Atomfall brings a very British Fallout to life | Games

Posted on August 21, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

circleWhen Atomfall was first revealed at the Xbox Games Showcase in June, many people asked, “Is this the British Fallout?” “In some ways it is, and in some ways it’s not,” says Ben Fisher, vice head of design at Rebellion, the Oxford-based studio that developed Atomfall as well as games like Sniper Elite 5 and Zombie Army 4. He explains that Rebellion head Jason Kingsley’s original idea was to look at Fallout’s free-form, self-guided experience and think about how it could be applied to something more familiar.

The difference with Atomfall is in its structure. “It’s a much denser experience,” Fisher says. “One of our benchmarks is Fallout: New Vegas, which is a denser experience than Fallout 3 or 4 in that it’s primarily one interconnected storyline, with layers driven by the player’s choices.” Rather than one giant open-world map, Atomfall features a series of interconnected maps, similar to the levels in the Sniper Elite games. “That’s what we’re good at,” Fisher says, adding that many of the game’s most interesting secrets are buried in bunkers deep underground.

Buried secret…Atom Fall. Photo: Rebellion

Atomfall tells an alternate history of the Windscale fire, Britain’s worst nuclear disaster, which occurred in 1957, which led to a large swath of the Lake District being placed under long-term quarantine in the game’s world. Atomfall’s Windscale factory is in a slightly different location to the real factory (now renamed Sellafield), which is part of a science park and where sinister secret experiments take place. Players wake up in a quarantined area five years after the disaster, but with no idea who they are. “Your role in the game then is to uncover what happened and, to some extent, decide what to do about it,” says Fisher.

The feel of the gameplay is reminiscent of the film Children of Men. “It’s a desperate battle for survival,” Fisher says. “You’re not a master assassin; it’s more like a pub brawl.” Players must craft weapons like hatchets, Molotov cocktails and bows and arrows, but because Atomfall is set in Britain there are very few guns or ammo, although there are cricket bats. “The fights are intense,” Fisher says. “It’s kill or be killed, and you or your enemy go down quickly.”

But far from gritty realism, Atom Fall boasts influences from pulp novels, with Fisher citing The Quatermass Experiment, The Prisoner, classic Doctor Who and The Wicker Man as major inspirations. “The Day of the Triffids was also a big inspiration,” he adds. “The idea of a feel-good catastrophe, of waking up in the middle of something and not knowing what’s happened.” It’s no coincidence that there’s a village called Wyndham, where you can also encounter a strange, deadly plant.

Folk horror runs deep in Atomfall. Some villagers trapped in the quarantine zone have rekindled an old pagan cult that dates back to the dissolution of the monasteries. “There was an old monastery, and the monks may have been worshipping things they shouldn’t have been worshipping,” Fisher hints, adding that the cult is based on ancient British symbolism, such as the Green Man. This is just one of the factions you can ally with in the game. The other is the Protocols, a remnant of the military sent to control the population after the disaster. But after five years of isolation from the outside world, the soldiers have become more authoritarian. “They’re kind of a warlord at this point.”

Other beings players might face include a fire-breathing ’50s robot from a British Atomic Research Department facility, disaster-related wildlife and flocks of bats, rats and crows that have “gone a bit crazy”, says Fisher. There’s also a local vicar and a jolly woodland witch, while the game’s bandits are a cross between Morris dancers and football hooligans. “There’s a distinctive Britishness that comes through in the features,” he says, adding that it could be the first game to include a Last of the Summer Wine Easter egg.

Freedom is at the core throughout. “We don’t offer a main quest in the traditional sense,” Fisher says. “We’ve made the game structure around discovering clues and piecing them together to figure out what you can do next.” After that, what you do with that information is entirely up to you. “We even allow you to kill every single character in the game,” Fisher says. “Nobody has plot armor.”

Is the future of nuclear fusion at risk? Examining the challenges facing the International Experimental Reactor | Energy

Posted on August 3, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

IIt was a project that promised the Sun: researchers would use some of the most cutting-edge technology in the world to design machines capable of generating atomic fusion, the process that powers stars, to create a cheap, non-polluting source of electricity.

This was originally the purpose of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (Iter). Thirty-five countries, including European countries, China, Russia and the United States, agreed to build the reactor in Saint-Paul-lès-Durance in the south of France at an initial cost of $6 billion. Work began in 2010, with the promise of producing an energy-producing reaction by 2020.

Then reality set in: Cost overruns, the coronavirus, corrosion of key components, last-minute redesigns, and disputes with nuclear safety regulators have caused delays, and it was just announced that ITER won’t be ready for another decade. To make matters worse, the energy-producing fusion reaction won’t occur until 2039, adding another $5 billion to ITER’s already ballooning $20 billion budget.

Other estimates put the final cost much higher, the magazine said, potentially making ITER “the most delayed and costly scientific project in history.” Scientific American On the other hand, the journal Science It said only that ITER was currently facing “major problems”. Nature It noted that the project “has been plagued by a series of delays, cost overruns and management problems.”

Scientists warn that dozens of private companies are now threatening to develop fusion reactors on a shorter timeline, including Oxford-based Tokamak Energy and the US company Commonwealth Fusion Systems.

“The problem is that ITER has been going for so long and suffered so many delays that the rest of the world has moved on,” said Robbie Scott, a nuclear fusion expert at the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. “A lot of new technology has come along since ITER was planned, and that has left the project with serious problems.”

The Iter plant, under construction in Saint-Paul-lès-Durance in the south of France, opened in June. Photo: EJF Riche/Iter Organization

Question marks now hang over the world’s most ambitious technological project, which seeks to understand the process that powers stars, in which two light atomic nuclei combine to form one heavy one, releasing a huge amount of energy – nuclear fusion, which only occurs at very high temperatures.

To generate this heat, doughnut-shaped reactors called tokamaks use magnetic fields to confine a plasma of hydrogen nuclei, then bombard it with particle beams and microwaves. When temperatures reach millions of degrees Celsius, a mixture of two hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium) fuses to form helium, neutrons, and a huge amount of excess energy.

Containing plasma at such high temperatures is extremely difficult. “The original plan was to line the tokamak reactor with beryllium as a protective covering, but this proved extremely difficult and because beryllium is toxic, they ultimately decided to replace it with tungsten,” says David Armstrong, professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Oxford. “This was a major late design change.”

Then, after it was discovered that huge parts of the South Korean-made tokamak had not been fitted together properly, threatening to leak radioactive material, French nuclear regulators ordered construction of the plant halted. Further delays were announced as problems mounted.

Then came COVID-19. “The pandemic caused factories supplying components to close, resulting in related workforce cuts, backlogs in shipments and difficulties in carrying out quality-control inspections,” ITER Secretary General Pietro Barabaschi acknowledged.

So ITER has once again delayed completion until another decade. At the same time, researchers using other approaches to nuclear fusion are making breakthroughs. In 2022, the US National Ignition Facility in California announced that it had used a laser to superheat deuterium and tritium and fuse them to produce helium and surplus energy, which is ITER’s goal.

Skip Newsletter Promotions

Other fusion projects also claim they too could soon achieve breakthroughs. “The past decade has seen a proliferation of private fusion companies promising to do things differently from ITER – faster, cheaper – and, to be fair, some of them have likely overpromised,” said Brian Aperbe, a research physicist at Imperial College London.

It remains to be seen whether ITER will weather these crises and whether backers will continue to fund it. Observer He argued that there was still promising work left to be done.

One example is research into how to produce tritium, a rare hydrogen isotope essential for fusion reactors. It can be made by bombarding lithium samples with neutrons produced in a fusion reactor, producing helium and tritium in the process. “That’s a worthwhile experiment in itself,” Aperbe said.

But it rejected claims ITER was “hugely problematic” and dismissed the notion it was a record-breaking science project in terms of cost overruns and delays – just look at the International Space Station or Britain’s HS2 rail link, a spokesman said.

Some have pointed out that fusion power’s limited carbon emissions could help the fight against climate change. “But fusion will be too slow to reduce carbon emissions in the short term,” says Aneeka Khan, a fusion researcher at the University of Manchester. “Only once fusion power plants are producing significant amounts of electricity later in the century will they help curb carbon emissions, which will be crucial in the fight against climate change.”