A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #359 - Stop Newcleo! (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

When Macron announced the revival of civilian nuclear power, making it 
clear that it was inseparable from that of military nuclear power, he 
outlined three key areas: the construction of six EPR2 reactors, the 
extension of the lifespan of existing power plants, and the construction 
of SMRs (Small Modular Reactors). It is these last ones that we will 
focus on in this article. ---- What is an SMR? ---- As its name 
suggests, it is a small nuclear reactor, with a capacity of less than 
300 MW. For comparison, the latest nuclear power plants built in France 
have a capacity of 1450 MW, and the Flamanville EPR, if it ever manages 
to produce electricity, has a capacity of 1650 MW. SMRs are defined only 
by their size, so we can imagine as many types as there are types of 
nuclear reactors. Currently, there are reportedly 127 different models 
worldwide (two of which have progressed beyond the prototype stage). 
Some claim to produce heat without using electricity.

Why have nuclear power plants grown so large? It's what we call 
economies of scale. Every nuclear power plant represents a huge 
investment; the more electricity it produces at once, the more 
profitable it should theoretically be. This is why, starting at 900 MW, 
PWRs (pressurized water reactors) now reach 1450 MW. So why build SMRs 
with a maximum capacity of 300 MW? The idea here is to mass-produce 
them. To make it profitable, the production of these small reactors must 
be standardized, and many must be manufactured. In essence, developing 
SMRs means spreading the nuclear risk. The idea is to place them near 
energy-intensive factories or data centers.

In fact, SMRs already exist and are being mass-produced: they power the 
engines of nuclear submarines and our famous aircraft carrier. But it's 
not exactly the same technology: notably, cooling a submarine engine, a 
priori, isn't very complicated. Moreover, one of only two operational 
SMRs generating electricity in the world is in Russia, on a barge in the 
Arctic Ocean.

In short, the SMR sector, if it ever comes to fruition, which seems 
doubtful, is emblematic of a nuclear industry that is inextricably 
linked to both civilian and military applications. The current nuclear 
reactors of French submarines have a capacity of 150 MW, but there are 
plans to increase this to 220-230 MW for our next aircraft carrier. Any 
change in power poses significant challenges. It's understandable that 
the CEA (French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission), 
which, it should be remembered, reports to the Ministry of Defense, is 
strongly advocating for the SMR sector. EDF, which would like to produce 
electricity at reasonable costs, seems less enthusiastic.

An economic absurdity
Indeed, all calculations show that a kWh from an SMR costs significantly 
more than a regular nuclear kWh, which itself now costs more than a 
renewable kWh. I'm talking about production costs here, not your bill. 
For SMRs to become profitable, large production runs would be necessary. 
This would require significant electricity consumption and maximum 
dispersal of nuclear reactors. Furthermore, while large-scale production 
sounds good on paper, in reality, it's not feasible. Each SMR would need 
to be adapted to the specific terrain where it's installed, which 
contradicts the very principle of large-scale production.

So why are there so many SMR projects in France when the US has 
practically abandoned them and the most advanced projects in France have 
also given up? The answer lies in the famous Belfort speech of February 
2022, the one where Macron announced the revival of nuclear power, 
specifying for once, we agree with him! that civil and military nuclear 
power were inseparable: "A call for projects will be supported to the 
tune of one billion euros by France 2030 and will be launched to develop 
small modular reactors (the famous SMRs we were also talking about 
earlier)..." And since then, millions have been pouring in by the tens 
and hundreds of millions. This hasn't prevented bankruptcies and rumors 
of insolvency, however. It's a bit like unicorns during the height of 
the dot-com bubble. They promise enormous returns, but they don't really 
know how, and for the moment, all they know is that it won't bring in a 
penny for quite a few years. That said, before the bubble burst, it did 
make a lot of people rich.

One could also argue that this is a way to finance military nuclear 
programs without using the defense budget. Indeed, research on civilian 
SMRs can likely be repurposed for military SMRs, thus maintaining 
expertise and research. This billion euros will probably be money lost 
in terms of electricity production (though not lost for everyone, some 
will benefit in the process), but not necessarily for defense.

Newcleo

Newcleo is an Italian-French multinational that presents itself as a 
start-up. Its CEO, Stefano Buono, worked for 10 years at the Italian 
equivalent of the CEA (French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy 
Commission). The Agnelli family holding company (the founding family of 
Fiat) is among its shareholders. This multinational has cultivated its 
network of contacts. Florence Parly, former French Minister of Defense, 
sits on its board of directors.

Its project is audacious. Newcleo proposes to manufacture 
"next-generation" SMRs, that is, fast neutron reactors. Fast neutron 
reactors are familiar to you: Phénix, Superphénix (Malville), Astrid... 
So far, nuclear power advocates have never succeeded in building a 
working fast neutron reactor, despite trying for over half a century. 
The coolant (which carries heat and cools the reactor) would be molten 
lead. For the moment, only the Russians have built molten lead reactors 
for their submarines, and they decided to abandon the project due to the 
technical problems it posed after two accidents.

It's worth noting that of the billion euros announced by Macron in the 
speech mentioned above, 500 million are earmarked for these "new 
generation" reactors. But why allocate so much money to a technology 
that no one has been able to perfect in over half a century of trying? 
You don't change a losing team, granted, but still. Fast neutron 
reactors fulfill the very old dream of nuclear proponents: unlimited 
energy. The idea is that the reaction produces enough plutonium to be 
reused in other fast neutron reactors. Unlimited raw material, then. And 
to top it all off, this technology legitimizes the immense waste at La 
Hague. Indeed, La Hague claims not to be a mere dumping ground, but a 
waste treatment center. In reality, it's a plant for extracting 
plutonium from nuclear power plant waste. In doing so, of course, it 
produces a considerable amount of additional radioactive waste and 
releases a significant amount of radioactivity into the environment (as 
much radioactive water as Fukushima, no less) for a plutonium of 
less-than-ideal quality. What the swindlers who will get their hands on 
the 500 million euros promise is to use this plutonium from La Hague and 
its depleted uranium, thus justifying the whole thing.

Newcleo's project is spread across three sites. A town right next to 
Chinon where the prototype would be built. A town bordering Nogent where 
the MOX fuel fabrication plant would be built. MOX is a mixture of 
uranium and plutonium. It is used in some French reactors and around the 
world. But standard MOX contains less than 10% plutonium. The MOX fuel 
produced in Nogent contains nearly 30% of it, which is enormous. 
Finally, there is a training center and a testing laboratory in Tricastin.

We don't yet know how to build reliable fast neutron reactors. We don't 
have control over molten lead: it must remain around 400°C to prevent it 
from solidifying. If the reactor shuts down, the electricity consumption 
will be enormous! If it's not completely homogeneous and there are voids 
somewhere (if it boils, for example), there's a risk of a criticality 
accident[1]. Newcleo explains that it's better than liquid sodium (the 
coolant used in Superphénix) because it doesn't spontaneously combust in 
water. True enough. But molten lead is an extremely corrosive metal that 
attacks the protective sheathing of the pipes. There are no studies 
demonstrating how well these sheaths can withstand it. The only known 
experience concerns abandoned Russian submarines.

All this doesn't stop Newcleo from thinking big. It plans a fleet of 60 
reactors by 2050, including about twenty in France. This is the minimum 
required to supply the three fuel fabrication lines planned near Nogent. 
Especially since this very specific fuel can only be sold for "new 
generation" SMRs, and even then, probably not all of them. Newcleo plans 
to quickly reach 120 tons per year, the optimal production level for 
Marcoule, which would contain just over 34 tons of plutonium (about 4 kg 
are needed to make a bomb).

What's equally astonishing are the projected lead times. They are 
generally shorter than those stipulated by regulations. But these 
regulations are being "simplified," thus shortening the lead times. This 
means that the ASNR[2]will grant authorizations (we have never seen the 
ASN refuse to grant authorization), possibly with reservations, before 
the safety studies are completed, and while no operational feedback yet 
exists. The ASN itself expressed concern about this in its 2024 report.

A Worrying Privatization of Plutonium
International regulations, followed in particular by the IAEA[3]and 
Euratom, are in place to manage nuclear facilities through which uranium 
and plutonium transit. These safeguards generally apply to states. 
Military-style monitoring and escort measures must be implemented for 
any transport of plutonium or MOX fuel, all packaging must be sealed, 
and a very precise national accounting of fissile materials must be 
auditable by the competent national and international bodies. It is 
currently considered possible to manufacture a nuclear bomb with only 4 
kg of plutonium, a quantity less than that present in a single assembly 
of the LFR30 reactor at Newcleo.

Yet, the transport of uranium and plutonium, and the production of the 
latter, are to be entrusted to a private company. And SMR projects are 
specifically targeting countries that do not currently have nuclear 
activities, and isolated sites (like oil fields or ships). Hello, 
all-out nuclear proliferation risk! Not to mention the increased 
transport of plutonium: from La Hague to Nogent, then from Nogent to 
Chinon, and later to the SMRs that would be built.

A "Stop Newcleo" Coordination
This project, discovered during its presentation at the ANCCLI[4]in June 
2025, is already generating resistance. Public meetings were held in 
Beaumont-en-Véron (the town where the prototype is located, near 
Chinon), and in Marnay-sur-Seine (the town where the MOX fuel plant is 
located, near Nogent), each drawing nearly a hundred people quite a 
crowd for towns of 2,700 inhabitants in the former and just over 200 in 
the latter. The connection was made with Stop Piscines, the groups 
opposed to the expansion of the La Hague nuclear power plant, and with Bure.

These towns are located within inter-municipal areas that include a 
nuclear power plant. This is therefore not, a priori, fertile ground for 
anti-nuclear activists. Also, Stop Newcleo does not position itself as 
anti-nuclear, but rather as opposed to the privatization of nuclear 
power and this SMR project. They hope to attract the CGT union, a hope 
that is not entirely in vain, at least as far as Nogent is concerned. 
Obviously, the EDF unions are vehemently opposed to this type of 
project, which competes with them and amounts to a privatization of 
nuclear power, which they are fighting against. At the public meeting 
organized in Paris, a CGT representative from "Ma zone contrôlée" (a 
collective of activist employees working as subcontractors for the 
French nuclear industry) was present. In Marnay, the opposition is 
basing its efforts on the history of the land promised to Newcleo, land 
belonging to local authorities, for which this is not the first 
contested industrial project, and which led to the creation of a local 
environmental protection association. A public debate organized by the 
National Commission for Public Debate is scheduled from April 7th to 
July 30th. Global Chance, very active in this matter, has already 
refused to participate. The community groups are hesitant, and everyone 
is free to participate or not, to disrupt or not. It's worth remembering 
that these debates are mandatory, but purely advisory.

It's reasonable to assume that this project will not go ahead, 
regardless of the opposition. It won't succeed because it's far from 
being technically ready, it won't succeed because it requires an 
unrealistic production volume to become profitable, and it won't succeed 
for financial reasons: it's very expensive and ties up hundreds of 
millions of dollars for a period that financial markets cannot tolerate. 
Several companies invested in SMRs have already filed for bankruptcy 
despite the financial support of France 2030.

But opposing it remains important. First, this isn't the first useless 
project. It doesn't matter whether the project stops after installing 
plutonium near Nogent or before. It doesn't matter whether the project 
stops after destroying everything in the area or before. Second, all 
these projects (and this certainly won't be the last) rely on the 
acceptance of nuclear power in places where there are already power 
plants. What this opposition shows, as HARO's success at La Hague also 
demonstrated, is that yes, it is possible to mobilize the population in 
areas completely dominated by nuclear power. And that's no small thing 
in a country like France. Third, billions invested in nuclear power 
prevent any shift towards other energy sources. And here, tens of 
millions are being invested in nuclear proliferation. Preventing this 
waste is crucial for our future. Finally, any delay in the project will 
exacerbate the financial difficulties of these companies. Even weak 
opposition, by causing them delays, can stop them before they further 
jeopardize our future.

Sylvie

Notes
[1]A criticality accident occurs when a nuclear power plant 
spontaneously transforms into a bomb.

[2]Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Authority, which is the 
result of the merger of the ASN (Nuclear Safety Authority) and the IRSN 
(Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety). This merger 
led to the elimination of a very pro-nuclear institute, though one that 
was somewhat more independent than the ASN.

[3]IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency

[4]ANCCLI: National Association of Local Information Committees and 
Commissions, commissions created by the government around nuclear power 
plants to feign transparency.

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4682
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en