View from a car window of steam rising from a cooling tower of the Electricite de France (EDF) nuclear power plant in Golfech, France, February 16, 2025. REUTERS/Manon Cruz Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
June 24 (Reuters) - A heatwave sweeping western Europe reduced France's nuclear output on Wednesday as high temperatures across the country reduced access to water needed to cool reactors.
Output was reduced by 4.1 gigawatts, or 7%, of total power demand at midday, data from French utility EDF showed.
The Reuters Power Up newsletter provides everything you need to know about the global energy industry. Sign up here.
Temperatures have topped 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some places in France, which, combined with reduced wind speeds, has boosted wholesale electricity prices.
Wholesale spot power prices in France and Germany on Tuesday reached their highest level since mid-January 2025 as electricity systems grappled with the heat and relied on gas generation.
France is also usually a large net exporter of cheap electricity to neighbouring countries, but as the temperatures have risen exports have dropped, data from grid operator RTE showed.
Exports from France dropped to around 3 GW during the afternoon on Wednesday compared to 10 GW to 12 GW recorded last week at the same time, reducing the cheap supply for neighbours and cutting into profits from transmission.
"Climate change is demonstrating how extreme heat can be as disruptive as the (price spikes from cold weather and low renewables) witnessed during winter," Kpler analyst Alessandro Armenia said.
"We are surprised now, but we should expect next summer to exhibit similar dynamics, as climate change is undeniable," he said.
The heat has reduced output at the Saint-Alban 2 and Bugey 3 reactors on the Rhone river in eastern France, and the Nogent 2 reactor on the Seine southeast of Paris.
The Golfech 2 reactor on the Garonne river in southwest France went offline late Monday due to the heat.
French environmental regulations force nuclear operator EDF to reduce output when river temperatures reach a certain threshold to protect local ecosystems.
It was not certain how long the current heatwave, driven by a weather pattern known as an Omega block due to its shape, which allows temperatures to build day after day, would last.
Europe is warming at more than twice the global average, the World Meteorological Organisation has said, which makes prolonged heat episodes increasingly likely.
The European power system is increasingly reliant on renewable power generation, where the evening drop in solar power is replaced by wind and baseload power from nuclear, coal and gas, driving up prices when the sun goes down.
Nearly all countries have seen an increase in thermal generation, which includes gas and coal, in the evenings, including France where gas-fired generation is usually minimal, Kpler data showed.
This week, the pattern is exacerbated by overall higher cooling demand and below-normal wind generation, requiring the use of more gas-fired power, with the most expensive plants setting the wholesale price, LSEG analyst Nathalie Gerl said.
This week is an outlier, however, as the summer has seen regular oversupply on the electricity market, she added.
Reporting by Tristan Veyet and Hugo Lhomedet in Gdansk and Forrest Crellin in Paris; editing by Tomasz Janowski and Jason Neely
Here is an update on Global Laser Enrichment’s proposed Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF), the first-of-its-kind laser uranium enrichment facility in the country. The NRC released the draft EIS and opened a public comment period that closed May 11, 2026. The draft EIS: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2606/ML26061A085.pdf
As I wrote in my CounterPunch article back in April, there are two main issues:
First, the NRC is using NUREG-2249 — a Generic Environmental Impact Statement written for nuclear reactors — as a substitute for site-specific analysis of a laser enrichment facility, a completely different technology that has never operated at commercial scale anywhere. Second, the whole project depends on DOE selling GLE more than 200,000 metric tons of depleted uranium tails stored at the old Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant — and the GAO has twice concluded DOE probably lacks the legal authority to sell it.
Since then, two parties have submitted requests for hearings, and I’m sharing the status of this. I’m lucky to be in communication with the applicants who are keeping me up-to-date and I thought I’d share it with y’all.
A second petitioner, Michael McVicker, also filed a request for hearing, raising issues including seismic risk and the cumulative impacts of the adjacent General Matter enrichment facility now under development on the same site: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2612/ML26122A001.pdf
On June 1, both GLE and the NRC Staff filed answers opposing the petitions. They argue the petitioners lack standing and have no admissible contentions. On the NUREG-2249 issue, they defend an internal staff “crosswalk” — a document with no rulemaking and no public process — as sufficient basis to apply reactor findings to a laser enrichment facility. On the DOE issue, they argue that whether DOE can legally sell the uranium is “outside the scope” of the licensing proceeding — even though the license itself authorizes GLE to receive and possess that exact material.
Today, June 8, KRC filed its reply pushing back on all of it, including the NRC’s decision to skip a cumulative impacts analysis entirely by granting itself an exemption from its own regulations.
KRC’s reply should be available on NRC’s Adam’s system soon. I can’t send attachments to the list so if you’re interested in seeing it, let me know and I’ll send it to you.
This is an important and developing story because it shows how the NRC is operating in ways that seem completely illegal. If the Board denies the petition — which it most likely will — KRC can appeal to the full Commission, and if that fails, take the case to federal court.
I plan to write about this after the Board’s decision and will keep you posted. If you have any comments or feedback, please share. Feel free to forward this.
• Previously the mandatory hearing came after staff completed its safety and environmental review — as an independent sufficiency check confirming the work was adequate
• It now happens 30 days after docketing — before the safety and environmental review exists
• The Commission delegated its authority to a staff facilitator. No commissioners required
• The sufficiency review is gone. The hearing produces no findings and no binding outcomes
• You can request a contested hearing after the review is complete — which can be dismissed on procedural grounds before it ever reaches the merits
The NRC justifies eliminating the sufficiency review by arguing that the original 1957 hearing requirement was a response to the AEC’s dual role promoting and regulating nuclear power — a conflict they claim was resolved when Congress abolished the AEC in 1974 and created the NRC. That argument is fiction because clearly the NRC is promoting nuclear power every day.
You are subscribed to Crane Clean Energy Center Potential Restart - Environmental Review for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This information has recently been updated, and is now available.
Greetings:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) staff have completed the subject draft report, “Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact for the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center Reauthorization of Power Operations Project.” This draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in response to the licensing and regulatory requests submitted by Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, that, if approved, would collectively support reauthorizing power operations at the Christopher M. Crane Clean Energy Center.
As stated in Chapter 5 of the draft EA, the staff’s draft conclusion is that the environmental impacts of the proposed Federal actions would be not significant for any potentially affected resource area and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The draft EA is being distributed to interested Federal, State, local, or regional agencies, Indian Tribes, industry organizations, interest groups, and members of the public via this notice and other appropriate methods.
A notice of availability of the draft EA is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2026, announcing the start of the public comment period. The comment period will run until July 8, 2026. When the 30-day comment period opens, comments on this draft EA may be submitted by:
Mailing comments to the Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWFN-5-A85, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Program Management, Announcements and Editing Staff.
For further information, contact Kevin Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–6944; email: Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov.
Returning the Crane Clean Energy Center to an Operating License Basis Presentation
2026-05-28 08:32 AM EST
2026-05-19
05000289
N2 MJK
Dear Restart Muckeruppers,
This is the Power Point from RIC 2026 Conference (March 10-12). Lessons learned at Palisades to apply to TMI and others. May be some table scraps on 50.82 N2 MJK
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday declined to hear an appeal from General Atomics subsidiary Cotter Corporation and Commonwealth Edison, an Exelon company, in a case over alleged radioactive contamination in the St. Louis, Mo., area, leaving in place an 8th Circuit Court ruling that allows the plaintiffs’ state-law tort claims to proceed under the federal Price-Anderson Act.
The denial came in Cotter Corporation, et al. v. Nikki Steiner Mazzocchio, et al., docket no. 24-1001, according to the court’s May 18 orders list and docket. The justices did not explain their decision, as is typical in certiorari denials.
The case: The dispute stems from claims by Nikki Steiner Mazzocchio and Angela Steiner Kraus, who allege that exposure to radioactive waste tied to sites near Coldwater Creek caused them to develop cancer. In an October 2024 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit affirmed a lower court order declining to dismiss their claims against entities that allegedly handled the waste over the years, including Cotter Corp. and Commonwealth Edison, along with DJR Holdings and the St. Louis Airport Authority.
The companies had asked the Supreme Court to review whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions. The 8th Circuit said they do not, concluding that state tort law can still supply the applicable standard in this context. By denying review, the Supreme Court left that ruling intact, allowing the litigation to continue in the lower courts.
Background: Beginning in 1946, residues and wastes from Mallinckrodt’s St. Louis uranium processing facility in downtown St. Louis were improperly stored on property near the St. Louis airport and another site near Coldwater Creek. The bulk of the waste, which consisted of low-level radioactive contamination commingled with metals from uranium processing activities, was removed in the past, but residual contamination lingers.
A 2025 study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association claimed to have found an increased rate of cancer for people who grew up living close to Coldwater Creek. The study based its analysis on a cohort of more than 4,200 people who participated in the St. Louis Baby Tooth–Later Life Health Study. From 1958 to 1970, individuals in that study donated their baby teeth to assess exposure to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
Since the 1990s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been cleaning up the creek and surrounding areas under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
