nuclear

They have published the plans for the future Russian nuclear bomber. And the worst thing for Moscow is that the West now knows how to deactivate it

by

The last time Russia’s bombers made the news was to verify a unprecedented assault in the Ukrainian war. It happened with the Spiderweb operation that kyiv carried out in the heart of the Moscow air bases, when a swarm of more than 100 drones hidden in trucks managed to destroy an important part of the Russian fleet of strategic bombers. The truth is that Russia was developing an unprecedented bomber to renew its fleet, although there are now doubts that it could materialize. The fragility of an industry. The international intelligence network InformNapalmin cooperation with the Fenix ​​cyber center, has revealed one of the largest information blows against the Russian military-industrial complex since the start of the war in Ukraine. The data, obtained after infiltrating the internal systems of the Russian company OKBM (key supplier of components for strategic aviation and the space sector), show Russia’s deep dependence on foreign machinery and reveal classified technical information of two programs considered pillars of its new generation aviation: the stealth bomber PAK DA “Poslannik” and the Su-57 fifth-generation fighter. And more. According to InformNapalmthe stolen files were used for months for the benefit of the Ukrainian Defense Forces and allied countries, which amplifies the impact of the leak both at the operational and political levels. Between ambition and sanctions. The PAK DA, designed by Tupolev to replace veterans Tu-95 and Tu-160represents the Russian attempt to create a subsound strategic bomber flying wing with stealth capability, intercontinental autonomy and dual nuclear and conventional capability. Conceived since the early 2000s, the project has suffered chronic delaysbudget problems and a persistent inability to consolidate a national production chain. The leaked documents include coded hydraulic system specifications like 80RSh115responsible for opening the bomb bay hatches of Poslannik-1, and confirm the existence of a classified contract between Tupolev and OKBM which requires absolute confidentiality and allows it to be terminated if state secrecy is violated. Technical documentation with engineering drawings and specifications for the RSh type box used in the PAK DA bomb bay system Extra page. Not only that. Apparently, a additional annex (called Supplementary Agreement No. 7) details the scheduling of the production phases between 2024 and 2027, a calendar that is now more than compromised by the scandal and the deterrent effect of European sanctions. Technological dependence. The filtrationFurthermore, it reveals a structural contradiction: the Kremlin’s discourse on industrial sovereignty contrasts with the reality of a system that cannot sustain its own projects. no western technology. OKBM, an essential part of the gear that produces actuators and transmission systems for the Su-57 and the PAK DA, depends on CNC machinery imported from Taiwan (Hartford HCMC-1100AG and Johnford SL-50 models) and Serbia (Grindex BSD-700U grinding machine). The equipment was purchased through subsidies from the Ministry Russian Ministry of Industry and Commerce, which shows that the State itself finances the evasion of international sanctions. This framework (a mix of obsolete engineering, technological dependence and state bureaucracy) has become a strategic vulnerability that compromises Russia’s ability to sustain complex long-term programs. Supplementary agreement confirming the continuation of the contract of the PAK DA component under the revised technical code 80RSh A failed industrial pattern. The leaked internal emails They also include documentation on RSh-65 systems of hinge and transmission used in the weapons compartments of the Su-57, the fifth generation fighter that Moscow presents as a symbol of its technological autonomy. However, the materials confirm that production remains subject to the same bottlenecks than the PAK DA: lack of critical parts, dependence on foreign suppliers and delays caused by a shortage of precision tools. Despite public investment and the expansion of plants in Kazaninternal audits attribute the delays to the departure of international manufacturers from the Russian market after the invasion of Ukraine. The political coup. After the analysis of the documentsthe European Union officially included OKBM in its 19th sanctions package on October 23, 2025, recognizing its central role in Russian strategic weapons production and restriction evasion operations. This decision, directly motivated by the findings, confirms how cyber intelligence has become a battlefield expanse: a space where the exposure of industrial vulnerability can be as decisive as a physical attack. The operation, named OKBMLeaksis announced as the first chapter in a series of publications aimed at documenting the structural dependence of the Russian military sector on foreign technology and showing the erosion of its productive capacity. The Russian mirage. He OKBM case illustrates the distance between the Kremlin’s rhetoric about self-sufficiency and the material reality of an industrial complex sustained by imported parts, inherited engineering, and a network of opaque middlemen. If the PAK DA was to symbolize Russia’s entry into a new era of strategic aviation, the leak shows that the project is today a promise threatened by sanctionsproduction necks and lack of technological substitution. The vulnerability revealed transcends the technical: it reflects the accumulated cost of two decades industry dependency global and exposes the difficulty of sustaining a prolonged war without the support of a fully autonomous industrial base. In short, the scandal not only reveals aeronautical secretsbut rather it exposes the structural fragility of contemporary military Russia, whose defense apparatus seems increasingly sophisticated in its designs, but more than precarious in its actual capacity to manufacture them. Image | Russian Defense Minister, InformNapalm In Xataka | A 20-year-old technology led Ukraine to Russian bombers. Moscow’s answer comes from China: a laser cannon In Xataka | In 2024, Ukrainian trucks disguised as “home” entered Russia. Now they have dynamited their main air bases

We have returned to an era that we thought forgotten. That of the nuclear threat of the US and Russia launching their reply: Poseidon

by

In recent days all roads trace a common landscape: from Moscow exhibit and test “superweapons” that defy traditional categories (autonomous nuclear torpedoes, nuclear cruise engines, and indefinite-range missiles) while in Washington the political and media reaction accentuates a dynamic action-reaction that could return the world to an (il)logic of open competition between nuclear powers. Someone should stop it. Poseidon. He Russian Poseidon has returned to the forefront as the epitome of the hybrid between a fantasy factory and a real military program: an unmanned, reactor-powered underwater vehicle, conceived to transport a nuclear warhead to coastal targets or naval groupings, operate at great depth and high speed and (according to the official Russian narrative) bypass conventional defenses. The impact figures published in Moscow (speeds between 60–100 knots, operational depth ~1,000 m, “megaton” capacity that some sources stretch up to 100 Mt) feed the symbolic dread. However, analysts remember physical limits and Soviet precedents that qualify both the real effectiveness and the plausibility of “tsunami” type effects capable of sweeping away cities. In practice. Thus, the majority agrees that Poseidon It is best described as a capability designed for political and strategic cost: suitable to reinforce a “second strike” or to be used as a system of intimidation, not necessarily as an everyday weapon in an escalated conflict. Burevestnik and a persistence. We told it last week. Along with the torpedo, Russia has shown the Burevestnik (a nuclear-powered cruise missile that promises essentially unlimited range) and other platforms that the Kremlin lumps together under the label of “invincible weapons.” These initiatives obey a logic of modernization that combines technological ambition, industrial vulnerabilities (sanctions, reliability problems) and media staging: the public demonstration of tests does not detonate charges, but announces theoretical capabilities and forces adversaries to regroup resources and doctrine. Continuity with the Soviet tradition of studying large-scale underwater effects and the historical experience with essays they show that ideas can persist even when physics and engineering limit their real usefulness. Washington’s response. The political reaction in the United States, personified by presidential statements about “restarting testing” and public instruction to military departments, has been immediate (and disorderly). The announcements arrive in a critical moment (with the New START treaty close to expiration and with China throwing uncertainties about its own nuclear growth) and can be read as strategic messages, instruments of pressure and, sometimes, as gestures directed at the internal public. One thing remains clear: Trump’s formulation was more than ambiguous and it is not clear whether it refers to nuclear detonations (critical/non-critical), increased testing of delivery systems, or increased sub-critical experiments and simulations. There is no doubt, this ambiguity is dangerous because conditions perceptions and responses international without the technical and legal scaffolding that a decision of shock would demand. Burevestnik How “nuclear” is prescribed. On TWZ Several experts consulted describe the practical path to resume nuclear detonations: The president can order actions, but execution requires the involvement of specific agencies (Department of Energy, NNSA and national laboratories), budget authorization from Congress and logistics focused on the Nevada National Security Site as the only realistic site for contained underground testing. In any case, the deadlines they are long: A “simple burst” could be organized in months, a useful instrumented test would require 18–36 months, and a new design development program would take years. Furthermore, the cost would be high and would most likely provoke retorts from Russia, China and others, reigniting a cycle of arms races that post-Cold War agreements had managed to tacitly contain. Technical dimension. The technical usefulness of returning to explosive tests to maintain the national arsenal is, obviously, discussed: US laboratories maintain that, thanks to advanced simulations, subcritical experimentation and vast historical data, the reliability of nuclear warheads can sustain without detonations. The tests would serve, in theory, to validate new designs and increase confidence in specific features. In practice, they would reopen the door to developments that amplify offensive capabilities and complicate the balance of terror, in addition to generating environmental and proliferation risks. The media theater. Plus: not everything is technology. There is a strong performative component. Putin and the Russian media apparatus have known convert essaysimages and statements in one power narrative which includes synchronies with popular culture (television series) to magnify its psychological impact. In Washington, the improvised communication from social networks it has a similar but less institutionalized effect: statements without clarifying technique or procedure can be interpreted as a political will to rupture and push allies and adversaries to take asymmetric measures. Geopolitical consequences. The costs of a back to testing are not limited to budgets: there is talk of reactivation of the nuclear race, of degradation of international trustor the erosion of regulatory regimes (the CTBT and the verification architecture), in addition to a probable expansion of arsenals by China and other actors who do not participate in treaties today. Added to this is the risk that the US internal debate (political polarization, legislative pressures and the dynamic of “showing” without a technical roadmap) will generate hasty decisions. Worse still, the media normalization of “anti-coastal weapons” or “Frankenstein” torpedoes may facilitate usage doctrines that lower the threshold for tactical uses of nuclear weapons, an especially dangerous prospect. Uncertainty. In summary, the news of the last days They are, more than anything else, a warning: we are witnessing the sum of three processes (modernization and Russian technological experimentationpoliticization and theatrics of deterrenceand American answers marked by tactical uncertainty and political haste) that, together, fuel a dangerous inertia. The question is no longer just whether Poseidon either Burevestnik are fully operational, it is whether the international community, and especially the capitals with decision-making power, will recover the technical prudence and diplomatic rigor necessary to contain the escalation. Image | US Space Force, Russian Defense Ministry, Los Alamos National Laboratory In Xataka | Last week, Russia launched its fearsome Satan II nuclear missile, Putin’s “invincible weapon.” It came out regular In Xataka | There is something more disturbing than “a Chernobyl”: it … Read more

that building nuclear power plants becomes increasingly cheaper

by

While Western countries debated for or against nuclear energy, with the construction of new plants weighed down by decades of delays and cost overruns, China has not only continued building: He has done it against the trend of the sector. For the first time in more than 50 years, a country has made building nuclear reactors increasingly cheaper, faster and scalable. The difference is overwhelming. The only two reactors built in the United States this century (at the Vogtle plant in Georgia) took 11 years to complete and cost a whopping $35 billion, equivalent to about $15 per watt of capacity. According to a analysis published in NatureChina is building its new nuclear power plants for just $2 a watt. It is not an anomaly, but a trend. Construction costs in the United States have increased tenfold since the 1960s, and in France they have almost doubled. In China they halved during the 2000s and have remained stable since then. The big question is how they have achieved it, and whether the rest of the world can imitate them. The Chinese nuclear recipe. Building a nuclear power plant remains one of the most complex engineering projects on the planet. If China has managed to do this in an increasingly efficient way, it is thanks to a mix of standardization and unwavering state support. The three state nuclear giants receive low-interest loans, which greatly reduces the cost of financing. Unlike the West, where each project has been a new experiment with unique designs, China has often focused on building a handful of models, scaling its nuclear capability rapidly. But these are just the last steps of the recipe. To get here, Beijing had to invest in mastering each link in the supply chain. Made in China. As detailed in a extensive New York Times reportthe country has developed a robust national industry capable of forging everything from reactor vessels to the most critical components of each nuclear power plant. Components made in China, such as cargo pumps or ring cranes, cost half as much as their imported equivalents. A perfect example is the American-designed AP1000 reactor. Both the United States and China faced enormous challenges building this model. But as problems led to delays and skyrocketing costs that nearly buried the American industry, China paused, studied every flaw, and ended up developing an improved, nationalized version of the reactor: the CAP1000. It is now building nine reactors of this model within just five years, and at a drastically lower cost. The winning strategy. “China demonstrates that the construction and operation costs of nuclear power do not have to increase unabated,” explains Dan Kammenprofessor at Johns Hopkins University. Breaking the curse of cost overruns requires “more than technology: it requires an intelligent and strategic approach,” says Kammen. The result of this approach is that China is on track to overtake the United States as the largest nuclear power in the world in 2030. Today it has almost as many reactors under construction as the rest of the world combined. It is not a simple bet, but a State policy that does not end at its borders. China has already put two Hualong One reactors into operation in Pakistan, and has plans to continue expanding throughout Asia, Africa and South America. Waiting for the SMR. While China perfects the construction of large already proven reactors, Western countries follow a radically different path: betting on innovation through the private sector. Dozens of startups are working on a new generation of small modular reactors (SMR), theoretically cheaper and faster to build. Tech giants like Google, Amazon and Microsoft They have invested billions in them to power their energy-hungry data centers. The problem is not only that This technological advance will take years to maturebut China does not live apart from it. The country is already taking giant steps in future technologies, such as fourth-generation gas-cooled reactors or research into thorium reactors. And he could repeat the same strategies that have worked with traditional reactors. Image | CNNC In Xataka | China has turned the energy sector upside down: the first fusion-proof nuclear power plant is already a success

Spain wants to show that it can live without nuclear weapons. The problem is that he is still testing how

by

Spain is experiencing a decisive moment in its energy policy. While the Government defends an orderly closure of nuclear power plants and relies on an experimental digital system to stabilize the grid, large electricity companies warn that the transition It is being faster than safe. At the epicenter of this tension is Almaraz, the Extremaduran power plant that refuses to turn off its reactors and that has once again divided technicians, politicians and neighbors. The nuclear dilemma. The closure of the Almaraz nuclear power plant in Cáceres is officially set for 2027 and 2028, but the debate over its future has returned with force. Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy agreed to present to the Ministry for the Ecological Transition a formal request to extend their activity until 2030. They will do so, they say, out of “responsibility with the supply” after the voltage failures recorded in recent weeks that “they reactivated the risk of blackout”. Companies have, for the moment, given up asking for tax reductions. Their message is different: Spain, they argue, is not prepared to disconnect from the atom. “Nuclear is the system’s anti-blackout shield,” says the CEO of Iberdrola Spain. However, the Government does not move. The Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has reiterated the commitment to the closure calendar agreed in 2019, which foresees the nuclear blackout between 2027 and 2035. Only if three conditions are not met: security, guarantee of supply and zero cost for the taxpayer, will the Executive would reconsider his position. A model in testing. The core of the controversy is not only political, but technical. The Executive’s plan involves replacing the stability offered by nuclear and thermal plants with a digital voltage and frequency control system based on renewables. In theory, wind and solar farms will be able to simulate electrical inertia —the ability to resist sudden changes in frequency— through advanced electronics. In practice, the model is still in the testing phase. According to Energy NewsRed Eléctrica (REE) is developing new control tools to integrate non-synchronous generation, but still without complete validation. Additionally, new digital control algorithms have not been tested on a national scaleand its reliability at high power has not yet been demonstrated. Sources from the Ministry of Ecological Transition cited by El Periódico They admit that full stability of the system “will only be possible when all renewable plants are digitally synchronized with the operator”, a process that – they acknowledge – “will still take time.” The network under surveillance. Aware of these risks, the CNMC approved an emergency modification of the operating procedures (OP 3.1, 3.2, 7.2 and 7.4) to reinforce the stability of the system. In practice, they are standards that determine how Red Eléctrica must react to variations in voltage and frequency, and allow it to act with more flexibility in times of risk. However, not everything went as planned. As energy expert Joaquín Coronado explains on his networksthe CNMC stopped the complete approval of OP 7.4 when it detected that the new model required responses that were impossible for many conventional plants to comply with. Several generators alleged that too rapid a reaction could damage the machines or generate additional oscillations, something the CNMC acknowledged in its resolution. The regulator asked Red Eléctrica to “intensify coordination and temporarily make the requirements more flexible”, making it clear that the problem was not one of inertia, but rather speed of response. A pulse of time. The electricity companies’ proposal to extend the first Almaraz reactor until 2030 and the second until 2029, would give three additional years to the current calendar. However, the Nuclear Safety Council requires that documentation be submitted before November 1 to begin the decommissioning process. In parallel, the Government of Extremadura has announced that it will reduce the regional “ecotax” by half if the plant remains operational, a gesture that the central Executive views with suspicion. “Taxpayers cannot pay more to maintain a plant that had to close,” recalled the Government delegate in Extremadura, José Luis Quintana, in statements to Canal Extremadura. Mobilization in the streets. While the technical and political debate becomes entangled, the residents of Almaraz took to the streets. Last Marchhundreds of people marched under the slogan “Yes to Almaraz, yes to the future,” in a protest supported by mayors of nearby municipalities and nuclear sector associations. In their arguments they defend their position in favor of nuclear power for fear of job loss, a population exodus and the fall of the local economy. But not everyone shares that enthusiasm. Ecologists in Action criticized the presence of local authorities at the protest and asked to accelerate a “just transition” that generates employment alternatives. “You cannot continue tying the future of a region to an industry that promotes environmental and health risks,” the organization said in a statement. Europe looks at Spain. While France and Belgium extend the life of their reactors until 2060, Spain remains firm in its nuclear closure. The Enresa fund to dismantle the plants drags a deficit of 11.6 billion euros. The electricity companies cite this as proof that closing early makes the system more expensive; The Government replies that extending it would jeopardize the ecological transition. The peninsula remains an “energy island” with only 3% interconnection with France, which amplifies any failure. And more and more experts repeat the same thing: the problem is not the speed of the transition, but that the network and the rules They are not getting stronger at the same rate.. A still uncertain future. Almaraz has become much more than a power plant: it is a symbol of the tension between climate urgency and energy security. The Executive insists that Spain will be able to sustain its network with renewable technology and digital control; Technicians and electrical companies ask for caution. Meanwhile, Red Eléctrica engineers fine-tune algorithms, the CNMC approves regulatory patches and the residents of Almaraz prepare for a future that, for now, continues to depend on its two reactors. Spain wants to turn on … Read more

Amazon’s nuclear dream for AI continues to advance. This will be one of its first plants with modular reactors

by

artificial intelligence electricity demand is multiplying of data centers, and with it, the interest of large technology companies in energy sources capable of keeping them running 24 hours a day. Amazon has gone one step further with Cascade, a new generation nuclear plant that aims to change the way the company powers its digital infrastructure. It is not a simple energy installation: it is the symbol of an ambition that combines autonomy and energy security in the midst of the AI ​​revolution. This industry is not only transforming the labor marketis also testing the global energy infrastructure. Large data centers that process millions of operations per second need a constant supply, and renewable sources, although clean, do not always guarantee that stability. Hence, nuclear energy is once again gaining prominence as a strong and carbon-free option. For companies like Amazon, the challenge is no longer just to innovate in algorithms, but to guarantee the energy that keeps them running without interruptions. What we know about the plant. Named Cascade Advanced Energy Facility, Amazon’s new nuclear plant will be built near Richland, Washington state. Over there, the company will work with Energy Northwest and X-energyresponsible for the design of the reactors. Cascade will be located near the current Columbia Generating Station. Amazon defines it as a key step to reduce emissions and provide constant electricity to the network that supports its global digital infrastructure. Cascade will rely on X-energy’s Xe-100 design, a next-generation modular reactor designed to be more efficient and safer than conventional models. The first phase adds 320 MW with four SMRs, and the plant can be expanded by up to 12 units to reach 960 MW. The scheme includes three 320 MW sections that will occupy only a few blocks. This modularity is one of the keys to the project: it allows production to be scaled according to demand and takes up much less space than a classic nuclear power plant, which can extend over more than 2.5 km². A different ‘campus’. Unlike traditional power plants, the Cascade plant will be organized as a small energy campus. Its modules will include reactor buildings, service areas, turbines, condensers and a space for temporary fuel storage. The complex, according to X-energy projections, will occupy a compact area that is more similar to an industrial estate than a classic nuclear facility. This modular approach allows you to build in phases and maintain operation without major interruptions in future expansions. Amazon’s schedule for Cascade moves forward in stages. The company plans to begin construction before the end of this decade and reach the operational phase in the 2030s. These are tentative goals, which depend on both the licensing process and the industrial development of the Xe-100 reactors. A project that needs labor. According to Amazon, Cascade will create more than 1,000 construction jobs and at least 100 permanent positions in areas such as engineering and operations. In parallel, Columbia Basin College will open the Energy Learning Center, funded by the Department of Energy, with a simulator that reproduces the control of the Xe-100 reactor. This program will allow young people in the region to access qualified jobs and reinforce Washington’s role in the transition to clean energy. More initiatives. Amazon is not the only technology company that sees nuclear energy as an ally for artificial intelligence. Microsoft has signed an agreement to reopen a plant and, in parallel, is studying long-term contracts with nuclear fusion projects, still in the experimental phase. Google, for its part, collaborates with companies in the sector to integrate small modular reactors (SMR) into its supply network. Although the paths differ, they all share the same challenge: powering a digital infrastructure that consumes more electricity every year. Although Amazon has shared many of the details of Cascade, the project is still in an early phase. There are no definitive dates for the start of construction or for the commissioning of the reactors. It has also not been specified what volume of energy will be allocated to its data centers and what part will be integrated into the local network. Everything indicates that the coming years will be decisive in testing whether modular nuclear energy can respond to the pace demanded by artificial intelligence. In Xataka | An open secret: far from being in decline, oil companies are doing business thanks to AI

A man had access to the Government’s nuclear secrets. Until he uploaded thousands of porn photos to his work computer

by

Using your work computer for personal things is a delicate area that can be reason for dismissal. This worker from the US Department of Energy has discovered it by force after uploading hundreds of thousands of pornographic images on his company computer. What has happened? They tell it in 404Medium. In March 2023, the employee wanted to back up his photo collection. He thought he was uploading the images to his personal hard drive, but it was connected to his work computer and he ended up making the copy where it wasn’t. The problem is that it was not a normal collection of photos, but more than 187,000 pornographic images that he had been collecting over several decades. Although he did not lose his job, his mistake has had consequences and the main one is that he has lost his security clearance. To train AI. The employee defended himself by arguing that this happened during a depressive episode in which he felt “extremely isolated and alone.” One of his distractions at this stage was creating images with AI, specifically “robotic porn.” At first he used his cell phone, but tired of using such a small screen, he thought it was a good idea to upload all his pornographic images to the computer to train the AI. The problem is that he did not upload them to his hard drive, but rather they ended up on the network of a government company. Goodbye accreditation. The employee did not realize his mistake until six months later. It was the time it took his bosses to investigate the origin of that enormous amount of porn photos flooding their servers. The result was that his security clearance was withdrawn. The Department of Energy is the in charge of supervising the US nuclear arsenalso we are talking about access to very sensitive information. The worker appealed to get it back, but after an exhaustive investigation, they decided not to return it. If he had not appealed, the story would not have been made public. My boss spies on me. It is one of the reasons that the man presented in his appeal, which compared the investigation to “the Spanish Inquisition.” What does the law say about this? According to expertsAlthough they let us use it for personal things, we should not expect to have privacy on a company-owned computer. Some companies even pre-install software to measure the time employees work. Control programs. Can they force you to install one of these programs? A few years ago we talked about installing software to control the work of remote employees and Joaquín Muñoz, an expert lawyer in digital law, resolved our doubt: the company cannot force us to install a program of this type if the computer we use to work is ours, but if it belongs to the company they can do so. Of course, they are obliged to report in detail about all the functions of said software. Image | Gemini In Xataka | “These are things that a university student would get in trouble for”: Deloitte scammed Australia with a report made with AI

plasma in a nuclear fusion reactor, in color and at 16,000 fps

by

Seeing the inside of a nuclear fusion reactor is, for obvious reasons, complicated. We are talking about temperatures of millions of degrees Celsius, hotter than the core of the Sun. However, the British company Tokamak Energy has just given us unprecedented images of what is happening inside its ST40 spherical reactor: a video in full color and at the incredible speed of 16,000 frames per second. An unprecedented ballet of colors. What we are seeing in the video is, in essence, the choreography of the elements within the tokamak. The ST40, like most of these reactors, uses hydrogen isotopes (deuterium in this case) as fuel. When this gas turns into plasma, it emits a characteristic pink light, which dominates the scene. But the interesting part begins when researchers introduce lithium, which glows red. And no, this is not just a visual spectacle. Every color, every bright filament we see in these images, is a gold mine of information that is helping scientists solve one of the biggest challenges on the long road to commercial fusion energy: how to tame plasma so that it does not degrade reactor materials. What exactly are we seeing? In the images, we see how small granules of lithium are injected into the reactor chamber. Upon entering the outer, colder areas of the plasma, the neutral lithium is excited and emits an intense crimson red light. As they penetrate the hottest and densest regions, lithium atoms lose an electron, become ionized (becoming lithium ions), and begin to glow greenish. Once ionized, lithium no longer moves freely. It is forced to follow the invisible, but very powerful magnetic field lines that confine the plasma. Those green filaments that we see dancing in the video are, literally, the lithium drawing the magnetic cage of the reactor. What is all this for? The lithium acts as a protective shield for the reactor. Recording what happens in color is not easy, but it helps identify whether the impurities that Totakak Energy is introducing into the reactor radiate in the expected place. And if the lithium powders penetrate to the core of the plasma. This experiment is part of research into a mode of operation called the “X-point radiator” (XPR) that uses elements such as lithium so that the edge of the plasma radiates and loses a large amount of heat before touching the reactor walls. It is a protective “atmosphere” that cools the plasma just at the last moment, reducing component wear without sacrificing core performance. The advancement of Tokamak Energy. This approach is the centerpiece of the Dell ST40 upgrade program, which has received funding from the US and UK energy departments. The goal is to coat all the components that face the plasma with lithium, a technique that has already been demonstrated in other laboratories, such as Princeton, to improve plasma performance. This type of visual diagnostics complement the incredibly complex systems that are being installed in reactors such as the JT-60SA in Japan, the most advanced tokamak in the world currentlywhich uses lasers to measure plasma temperature and density indirectly. A global career. While colossal and institutional projects such as ITER They mark a long-term pathwhich plans its first deuterium-tritium experiments by 2039, more agile companies like Tokamak Energy are exploring new designs and technologies, such as spherical tokamaks and high-temperature superconducting magnets, to accelerate the arrival of commercial fusion. The closure of the historic JET reactor in the United Kingdom, who said goodbye breaking an energy recordmarked the end of an era, but its legacy is the foundation on which all these new advances are built. This new window into the heart of plasma is not only visually impressive. It is a small step that brings us a little closer to the goal of replicating the energy of stars on Earth. Nuclear fusion just got a lot more colorful, and that’s great news. Image | Tokamak Energy In Xataka | While the West still waits for fusion energy, China has found a shortcut

After imposing a peace agreement in Gaza, the US is heading to Ukraine to do the same. And that has two nuclear problems

by

United States, in omnipresent figure of its president Donald Trump, seems willing to finish once and for all the invasion of Ukraine. It happens that trying to reproduce the same diplomatic “success” that is exhibited after the agreement in Gaza runs into two problems nuclear: on the one hand, the attempt to impose an agreement on Russia calls into question the sovereignty and legitimacy of the process and pushes Moscow to react. On the other hand, perhaps more dangerous, the pressure campaign that is articulated around the threat with long range missiles drastically increases the risk of an escalation that is difficult to control. From ambiguity to challenge. For a long time, Trump’s foreign policy toward Russia and Ukraine moved between deference and confusiona mix of praise for Putin, vague warnings and broken promises to kyiv. But in recent weeks, something has changed. trump has radically changed his speech, going from suggesting that Ukraine should accept territorial losses to presenting himself as the man capable of ending the war. What started as a rhetorical gesture before the UN has become a political process that seeks to consolidate the role of the United States as arbiter of the conflict, with a mix of military pressure, transactional diplomacy and calculated threat. Change and breakup. Trump, who had historically shown a almost personal indulgence towards Putin, surprised his allies and his critics with a speech in which rated Russia “paper tiger” and stated that Ukraine can recover all your territory with the support of Europe and NATO. This change, announced after his meeting with Zelensky and Macron, marks an abandonment of his traditional strategy of avoiding direct confrontations with Moscow. However, behind the turn there does not seem to be an articulated policy yet, but rather a combination of gestures: hints of sanctions, threats of retaliation and an explicit desire to reintroduce the idea of force as an instrument of negotiation. What was once indifference toward kyiv has become an instrumental interest, mixing rivalry with Putin and a desire to demonstrate international leadership. Tomahawks and ultimatums. The most visible symbol of this transformation is the word that has become recurrent in the communications from Washington: Tomahawk. Trump has openly threatened to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles if Putin does not agree to reopen peace negotiations, an ultimatum which has put the Kremlin on alert. Moscow has responded calling the measure a “qualitatively new escalation” and warning that it could not distinguish whether the missiles carry nuclear warheads or not. For Trump, however, the announcement meets a double function: reinforces your image as a negotiator who commands respect and pressures Putin to prevent him from prolonging a war he can no longer win. Zelensky, for his part, sees the possibility of obtaining Tomahawks as not only a military instrument. but psychological: the threat of its use would be enough to push Russia to the negotiation table. The mere fact of discussing its delivery represents a break with the caution of the Biden erain which Washington rejected outright any action that could be considered direct aggression. From Gaza to Ukraine: export a model. The partial success of ceasefire in Gaza has offered Trump a narrative of diplomatic victory that he is now trying to convey on the European front. After freeing the Israeli hostages and achieving a temporary cessation of hostilities, the American president declared that his next objective was to “focus on Russia” and end the war in Ukraine. What is apparently a humanitarian movement also responds to a repositioning strategy global: demonstrate that Washington can impose order in both the Middle East and Europe without needing to deploy large military contingents. Trump has presented this new stage under a classic concept that has republished with pragmatism: “peace through strength.” It is the same logic that he seeks to apply with Putin (that is, not from conciliation, but from a credible threat). Ukraine, which for months feigned faith in some sterile negotiations to ingratiate himself with the White House, now perceives a window of opportunity: to replace the dialogue tables with the delivery of advanced weapons that change the balance of the battlefield. A military agreement. The visit of a Ukrainian delegation to Washington, led by Prime Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko, has sealed the new phase. The negotiators arrived with a list of valued acquisitions in 90,000 million of dollars, including Patriot anti-aircraft systemslong-range missiles and drone co-production agreements. Zelensky has learned to speak Trump’s language: that of transactions. It is no longer about asking for help out of solidarity, but rather offer “mega deals” that benefit both parties, presenting Ukraine as a profitable partner for the US military industry. The White House, in turn, has implicitly accepted that the talks with Moscow they are sold outand that only a substantial increase in military pressure will be able to force Putin to negotiate from weakness. The new strategic calculation. If you like, the Kremlin also crosses a point operational fatigue. Its territorial advances have become more marginal, and Zelensky himself has taken it upon himself to remember this in Washington with maps and figures: in a thousand days of war, Russia has barely conquered less than one percent of additional Ukrainian territory from 2022. The narrative of inevitable victory fades, and Trump seems to have understood. His speech on networks, in which stated that Ukraine is “in a position to recover his entire country in its original form,” was interpreted as confirmation of that change in perception. In other words: it is no longer about keeping a conflict frozen, but about precipitating its outcome through technological superiority and Russian economic collapse. The paradox. Paradoxically, the trump turn does not imply a return to the liberal idealism that defined US foreign policy for decades, but rather a pragmatism that mixes interests, spectacle and coercion. Washington does not seek to rebuild Ukraine, but rather to close a war that has stopped serving its image of power. From that perspective, the American president does not seem … Read more

The amount of nuclear energy generated by each country, detailed in this interactive map

by

The World Nuclear Association esteem that there are about 430 operational nuclear reactors worldwide. In full Era of renewables and the decarbonizationnuclear energy remains a important energy source for many countriesso much that China, India or France depend largely on it and even private companies resort to their “own” reactors to feed the glottone artificial intelligence. And in This interactive map We can see not only what are the countries that produce more nuclear energybut how many reactors have or the participation of nuclear in its energy mix. The US giant. The color leaves no doubt: the United States is the country that most GWH from gender nuclear energy in 2024. The estimate is 823 TWH and, although the separate data may not tell us anything, put into context represents about 30% of global nuclear energy. It is the country with more active nuclear reactors -94- and it is estimated that the nuclear participated in just over 18% of its energy mix. It is a remarkable figure if we take into account the impulse of renewables in recent yearsas well as the Importance of gas and oil in its energy matrix. And it contrasts a lot with the 85 TWH of Canada or only 12.3 TWH of Mexico, countries with 19 and two reactors respectively. China. The next darker color is China. Your case is curious because, if there is a Example of impulse to renewableswith immense importance of both wind as of the Photovoltaicbut also with the largest hydroelectric dam in the world (and another under construction), that is China. The 57 reactors in the country are estimated to generate about 450 TWH of electricity, placing themselves as the second power in this area. However, unlike the United States and other countries that we will see below, although they are investigating to have more reactors (with some latest generation on the horizon), the participation of nuclear is still very low in the Asian giant. The calculation is that less than 5% of China’s energy in 2024 arrived from a nuclear reactor. France, Top 1. The French neighbors are those who complete the podium of nuclear energy production and, if in the case of the US we talk about an important participation, in the Frenchman we have to refer to this source as fundamental. It is estimated that the nuclear generated 380.5 TWH for 2024, but the most relevant data is that 67.3% of the energy consumed by France was nuclear. With its 57 reactors, it is the country most dependent on nuclear energy worldwide. France has made huge investments both in nuclear energy and in Nuclear weaponsbeing one of the European shields in this aspectbut perhaps more attention figures from other European countries that, with less reactors, are almost as dependent as France. Slovakia (five reactors) with 60.6%, Belgium (five reactors) with 54.5%, Hungary (four reactors) with 47%, Bulgaria (two reactors) with 41%or Czech Republic (six reactors) with 40%also depend on nuclear energy. Another curious case is that of Slovenia, which has only one reactor and 35% of the country’s electricity depends on not failing. Countries ordered by its dependence on nuclear energy Blank countries. As curious as seeing what countries use and depend on the electricity generated from nuclear energy is to pass the mouse on those that are completely blank. One is Germany. If you have traveled by plane from Spain to Colonia or Berlin, you will have seen the occasional central, so it is rare to see that it does not produce electricity through nuclear. The country had its maximum in 2006, when it generated about 170 twh that would put it together with the giants of today, but after a series of political decisions and step on the accelerator after the Fukushima’s tragic accidentGermany closed all its centrals in 2023. Another absent is Australia, where it is prohibited by law. Also Italy, which prohibited it in referendums made in 1987 and 2011. Dynamic. However, all this can change. The use of nuclear energy remains a hot topic both for those who argue that it is a cleaner source of energy than coal or gas (which They seem to resurface strongly due to Consumption of data centers) as for the detractors who They allude to accidents and problems with Waste management. There are political voices in ItalyAustralia, Poland or Germany that ask for a return to nuclear energy, and the truth is that there are countries that continue to investigate to expand their “arsenal” of reactors. India, South Korea, Japan or China itself have a positive trend in the use of nuclear and it is estimated that there are about 70 reactors under construction. The interesting thing will be to take a look at this map within a few years, since among the plans for Reactivate nuclear centrals that meet the needs of the technological industry, the increase in Investment in giants such as India or China and research in SMR reactors and of nuclear fusionthe panorama can change a lot in the coming years. In Xataka | China was the great pollut the planet: now it is emerging as the first “electrostate” in history

Build the first closed cycle nuclear reactor

by

Vladimir Putin has announced what he calls the “first nuclear energy system in the world with a closed fuel cycle”, a technology that promises to reuse up to 95% of nuclear fuel. If it materializes by 2030, as stated by the Russian president, Russia would dodge two of the greatest challenges of current nuclear centrals: the Radioactive waste management and the possible exhaustion of uranium reserves. Uranium? What do you want that. In the Moscow Global Atomic Forum, and before the presence of figures such as Rafael Grossi, director of the OIEA, Putin described the Russian reactor of closed cycle as a “truly revolutionary development” that, in his words, “will eliminate the problem of uranium supply.” The centerpiece of the ambitious Poryv project (“advance” in Russian) is a rapid reactor refrigerated by lead called Brest -od-300, which is being Building in Severska city in the Siberian region of Tomsk. In the same complex, called Odek, Russia will also build the modules for the spongery and reprocessing of the irradiated fuel. 95% recoverable. In addition to using molten lead instead of water as refrigerant, the Brest-O-300 reactor is designed to operate with uranium-reputony nitruro as fuel. It is its in situ integration with the sponge and reprocessing modules that will allow closing the nuclear fuel cycle. According to official statements, this system It will allow 95% of the spent fuel to reusea technically consistent figure with the external reprocess processes, where most of the fuel used (uranium and plutonium) ends up being recovered. The remaining 3-5% corresponds to fission products and minor actinids, which remain high radioactivity residues. It is not a new technology. Countries like France and Russia itself Nuclear fuel already reproces at an industrial scale. And Japan intends to join the club with the Rokkash Plant. However, the Russian project is a pioneer in its attempt to create a fully integrated complex where a fast reactor operates in symbiosis with its own fuel manufacturing and recycling facilities in the same place. If Russia meets its deadlines, you could have The first complex of this type in operation. And to support him, he has established an International Research Center in the Uliánovsk region (the MBIR International Research Center in Dimitrovgragra), inviting scientists around the world to collaborate in what Putin has called a “new era in nuclear energy.” But is uranium running out? Putin’s justification for this strong investment is a future with uranium shortage. During his speech, he cited OECD estimates that suggested a possible exhaustion of uranium resources by 2090, or even before: as soon as in the 2060s. However, the “Red Book” of the OEA does not speak of an exhaustion of uranium, but of An increase in demandwhich could produce tensions in the supply between 2080 and 2110 if significant investments are not made before for the opening of new mines. Russia’s plan It is a strategic bet. If you achieve the closed cycle reactor for the 2030s, we could witness a new way of understanding nuclear energy, and a world with limited resources in which Russia has managed to outdo the rest. Image | ROSATOM In Xataka | France was not prepared for such an extreme climate or to run out of uranium: its energy model cross, and Europe feels it

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.