Nuclear power

The New Reactor Economy

In the twenty-first century, nuclear energy has re-emerged not only as a source of electricity but also as an instrument of geopolitical endurance. Among all global reactor exporters, Russia’s Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporationremains exceptionally resilient. Despite sanctions and fractured supply chains, Rosatom today is involved in the construction of thirty to forty reactor units worldwide, including in Egypt’s El-Dabaa, Bangladesh’s Rooppur, and Turkey’s Akkuyu.

Yet beneath the story of uranium and concrete lies a subtler revolution: the rise of digital-twin technology. A digital twin is a virtual, data-driven replica of a reactor that mirrors every process in real time using sensors, analytics, and artificial intelligence (AI). It enables engineers to simulate performance, anticipate faults, and fine-tune safety systems remotely.

In doing so, Rosatom is no longer merely exporting atomic hardware; it is exporting data architectures and predictive-analytics ecosystems that tether partner nations to Russian digital infrastructures for decades. The company has consolidated these capabilities under its Unified Digital Platform, linking design, construction, and operation through cloud-based modelling and AI-driven monitoring (Rosatom Newsletter, 2025).

This digitalization marks a turning point in nuclear diplomacy: power now flows through algorithms and data, not only through megawatts and materials.

From Hardware Exports to Data Dependencies

Since 2020, Rosatom’s subsidiaries, notably Atomenergomash and Rusatom Service, have begun integrating digital lifecycle systems across their international reactor portfolio. The company’s engineering arm, ASE, has developed what it calls Multi-D IMS, a digital configuration-management platform that creates detailed virtual models of nuclear facilities during design and construction. These models enable real-time collaboration, fault prediction, and workflow optimization across sites, forming the foundation of Rosatom’s emerging digital-twin ecosystem.

Rosatom’s own communications describe these tools as part of a broader Unified Digital Platform, which connects design, manufacturing, and operation through cloud-based modelling and AI-driven analytics. While official statements do not identify specific plants using these systems, Rosatom notes that its “digital infrastructure and twin technologies” are being offered to international partners within its reactor export programs.

This architecture creates a durable maintenance corridor between Moscow and client operators.  Even after physical construction ends, the flow of digital data and software updates ensures that Russian engineers remain integral to plant performance.  In practice, the information layer itself becomes a channel of long-term engagement and influence.

Comparable Western vendors, EDF, Westinghouse, and GE Hitachi, are also pursuing digital-twin technologies. Yet Rosatom’s approach is uniquely state-integrated, aligning with Russia’s national strategy of digital sovereignty and self-sufficient AI infrastructure. The result is a hybrid of engineering innovation and strategic design: a system that embeds Russian digital standards within the nuclear industries of its partners.

For many developing economies, the offer is pragmatic: a single vendor providing financing, turnkey construction, and continuous digital assistance.  But this convenience introduces a subtler dependence, one not of uranium supply or credit, but of algorithmic reliance and data governance.

Kudankulam: India’s Quiet Test Bed

Nowhere is this shift more visible than in southern India. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP), jointly operated by India’s Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) and Rosatom, is the first operational complex of VVER-1000 reactors in the Global South.

Originally a hardware partnership signed in 1988, Kudankulam is evolving into a digital interface. In 2020, Rosatom’s fuel subsidiary TVEL supplied India with next-generation TVS-2M fuel assemblies, extending reactor cycles from twelve to eighteen months, a shift managed through digital modelling and predictive maintenance.

Rosatom’s 2024 annual report outlines plans to connect Kudankulam’s operational analytics to its Unified Digital Nuclear Industry Platform, integrating India into the same digital ecosystem that supports Turkey’s and Egypt’s projects.

For India, this offers substantial advantages, higher capacity factors, enhanced safety diagnostics, and exposure to emerging global standards in nuclear AI. Yet it also entwines India’s civilian nuclear operations with Russian data protocols and remote diagnostic tools. Kudankulam thus becomes not only a reactor but also a node in Rosatom’s global digital web, where megawatts are managed by code as much as by turbines.

This duality defines the future of strategic cooperation: efficiency through integration, balanced against data-driven interdependence.

Algorithmic Sovereignty and Strategic Autonomy

Digital integration introduces a new vocabulary of power. Terms once reserved for information technology, data sovereignty, algorithmic control, and cybersecurity now shape energy diplomacy. For countries like India, which prize autonomy, these are practical concerns.

In 2019, a cyber incident at Kudankulam briefly demonstrated how vulnerable nuclear infrastructure can be when administrative networks intersect with global data flows. Although operational systems were unaffected, the episode exposed the need for stronger digital-governance frameworks in critical energy sectors.

Another question concerns ownership of reactor data. Predictive-maintenance algorithms rely on vast datasets, coolant temperatures, pressure levels, and sensor diagnostics gathered continuously during operation. If these datasets are processed on Rosatom’s proprietary cloud, who controls their reuse or replication? India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) mandates localization for sensitive data, yet nuclear information exists in a legal grey zone, governed more by bilateral contracts than explicit national legislation.

For Russia, digitalization ensures resilience under sanctions. Cloud-based engineering assistance allows specialists in Moscow to monitor reactors abroad even when travel or logistics are constrained. For partners, it delivers cost-efficient expertise, yet it also embeds an asymmetry; operational sovereignty becomes mediated by foreign algorithms.

Rosatom’s approach reflects Moscow’s broader strategy of technological statecraft, using digital ecosystems to sustain global reach despite economic isolation. The outcome is a new form of dependence: not energy insecurity but informational dependency.

Atoms → Algorithms: The Next Frontier of Energy Diplomacy

Rosatom’s digital transformation parallels wider trends in global technology politics. China’s Digital Silk Road, the U.S.-EU “trusted-tech” frameworks, and Russia’s own push for a “Digital Atom Belt” all reveal how infrastructure and information are converging.

India occupies a delicate middle ground. Collaboration with Rosatom at Kudankulam grants access to advanced analytics, but New Delhi also explores partnerships with Western firms on small modular reactors and new fuel cycles. Balancing these engagements will require clear rules on digital interoperability, data governance, and cyber assurance.

India already has the institutions to do so. The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) verifies reactor-control software domestically, while CERT-IN supervises cyber-critical infrastructure. Extending such oversight to digital-twin and predictive-maintenance platforms can preserve sovereignty while encouraging innovation.

For Russia, meanwhile, digital twins are both export products and diplomatic instruments. By embedding AI-based support systems in every reactor project, Rosatom ensures long-term relevance. Even if hardware exports slow, its role as a digital-lifecycle provider guarantees enduring engagement. In that sense, Rosatom’s most influential reactor export may no longer be physical; it is virtual.

Conclusion: The Politics of Invisible Power

The shift from atoms to algorithms defines the next frontier of nuclear diplomacy. During the Cold War, power was measured in reactors built or megawatts produced. Today, it is determined by who controls the data that sustains those reactors.

For partner nations, digital twins promise transparency, efficiency, and safety. For exporting powers, they offer a quiet form of leverage that persists beyond physical construction. As India pursues self-reliance through Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat, it must treat data infrastructure with the same strategic weight as fuel supply chains.

The aim should not be isolation from partners like Russia but reciprocal digital governance, shared access protocols, transparent algorithmic audits, and domestic data custody. Rosatom’s digital twin diplomacy exemplifies a future where technological cooperation and strategic caution must coexist.

The next great non-proliferation challenge may not concern uranium enrichment but data enrichment: who holds it, who protects it, and who decides how it is used?

Millom, nestled among Cumbrian mountains, might not be one of the country’s best-known towns, but it certainly left a lasting impression and very much shaped me as a person

Walking around the UK coastal town on the edge of the Lake District where he spent his childhood, a wave of nostalgia and sadness washed over Andrew Papworth.

The assistant editor of The Express was revisiting Millom, a small town nestled among Cumbrian mountains. It may not be well-known across the country, but it certainly left an indelible mark on Andrew.

He said: “As I retraced my steps from our family home in Seathwaite Close to the bottom of Lowther Road, I came across the infant school that gave me the very best start in life.

“Turning down St George’s Road, I passed Millom Park and the children’s play area, where I spent many hours as a boy. In the thriving town centre, I remembered my mum dragging me round the shops. Further along the road, close to the railway station, was The Bridge Cafe, where I used to pop in for sweets on my walk home from Black Combe Junior School.

“Millom was – and is – only a small town, but as a child it felt like my entire universe. In many ways it was, because like any quintessentially English town, it had everything you needed on your doorstep.”

Established around its ironworks in the 1800s before their closure in the 1960s, Millom boasted a strong sense of pride and community. Everyone seemed to know everyone, and there was a palpable sense of camaraderie, reports the Express.

Andrew said: “It looked exactly the same as when I left in 1995, aged nine, and when I last visited in 2005. And while that brought back many nostalgic memories, it also broke my heart.

“It appears that little investment has been made in Millom since then, whether in new homes, shops or community facilities.

“All I noticed was that the old Safeway is now a Tesco, and many of the shops that had such a strong presence seem to have long gone.”

Chatting to locals, one of their first comments is often about the lack of financial input into their area.

Andrew said: “It’s a great sadness. By contrast, Canary Wharf in east London, where I now work, didn’t even exist when I was born but has been steadily transformed from barren wasteland into the bustling heart of London’s financial district.

“Of course it’s not really an even comparison, but it feels desperately unfair that some areas of the country have had millions and billions of pounds of investment while a town with such a rich and vibrant history has barely been given a thought.”

There are other potential factors at play. The historic shipyard in nearby Barrow-in-Furness was a significant employer for Millom workers.

The loss of 10,000 jobs in the 1990s must have had a profound effect.

Cumbria didn’t have a university until 2007 and for years, many saw the shipyard and Sellafield nuclear power station, now being decommissioned, as the only major career paths. Many dreaming of different lives must have surely packed up and left.

Millom’s location on the north-west coast also makes the town more challenging to access.

But if we can channel investment into even the most disadvantaged corners of this nation, surely we can achieve it in a town blessed with such incredible natural beauty.

Where Millom has undeniably thrived is in its community spirit, which burns as brightly as ever.

During Andrew’s visit on a glorious Monday afternoon, he chatted to Nicola Armstrong, proprietor of The Bloom Room on St George’s Terrace since 2012. Hers is an extraordinary story of triumph – a completely self-taught florist who’s scooped national accolades and showcased at London exhibitions.

“From a tiny little town, I’ve gone to a lot of places,” she says – but she never overlooks one of the major factors behind her achievements.

“I wouldn’t have got where I am without this community,” she reveals. “They’re my biggest cheerleaders.”

Throughout his stay, Andrew also encountered Coordination Group Publishing (CGP), whose vibrant and amusing study guides he relied upon during his GCSEs and A levels. It remains one of Britain’s premier educational publishers.

Whilst shops have shuttered, one that has persevered is Ferguson’s, which has been a reliable fixture in Millom for 70 years. Proprietor Arthur Ferguson celebrated his 100th birthday this year and is thought to be Britain’s eldest shopkeeper.

Andrew said: “While I was in Cumbria, I also visited Barrow to see its dramatic transformation as it builds the next generation of nuclear submarines and becomes the beating heart of Britain’s defence.

“I only hope some of the £220million of government funding going into that regeneration for the national endeavour will benefit Millom, even if only indirectly, because this small town and its people deserve only the best.

“Whatever happens in the future, I know that if I come back in another 30 years, Millom’s soul will remain as strong as ever.”

Consumer rights magazine Which? has surveyed 3,800 members of the British public to find out what is the overall best seaside town, with Bamburgh in Northumberland hitting the topspot again

A ‘unique’ coastal spot that is variously loved and loathed has been named one of the best seaside towns in the country.

Dungeness in Kent has been named the seventh-best beach town in the UK in Which?’s annual survey of the British public. The consumer organisation surveyed more than 3,800 people about their experiences of UK seaside destinations and their opinions on beaches, scenery, food and drink offerings, accommodation, tourist attractions, and value for money.

The elevation of Dungeness into the top ten is a major scoop for the Kentish settlement, which languished in 35th place last year.

Not everyone is a major fan of Dungeness. It is a curious place long haunted by rumours that it is technically the UK’s only desert—something that the Met Office has previously confirmed is pure myth. You’d be forgiven for believing the lie, given the way random shacks, homes and cafs stretch out across the shingled headland.

READ MORE: Tourists on Spanish island directed to fake beaches in ‘dirty’ ploy by fed-up locals

It is a place that feels like it should be the setting for an American Western dystopian flick, rather than somewhere that sits on the south coast of England. Bikers whizz along the roads that wind through its flat, marshland extremities; a constant breeze ruffles the pampas grass; wildfowl bleat mournfully. To add to the end-of-days feel of the place, boats filled with asylum seekers regularly make land here.

Inarguably, the bleak jewel in the Dungeness crown is its twin nuclear power plants, which once whipped a patch of nearby sea into a whirlpool but have lain dormant and decommissioned for the past 19 years.

The unique feel of the place has been best captured by artist, filmmaker, gay rights activist, and gardener Derek Jarman, who turned his home into Prospect Cottage—a point of pilgrimage for his fans and those who love the way he carefully manicured the garden into a concentrated miniature form of Dungeness.

But not everyone is a fan. In fact, many are left cold by Dungeness’ charms.

“Bleak is an understatement,” one detractor of the place recently wrote on Reddit. Another added: “Bleak to Dungeness is like ‘a wee bit cold’ in Antarctica. The missus loved it though…” A third wrote: “I find it dismal down there. Old nuclear power station for a view.”

Others love Dungeness and how different it feels from other parts of the UK.

The science writer Ben Goldacre recalled his experience of riding through Dungeness on the small railway that takes day-trippers down the coastline.

READ MORE: Major European cities crack down on unruly Brits after rowdy stag do surgeREAD MORE: Brits travelling to Benidorm told to avoid making ‘huge mistake’ when using taxis

“The Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway has a strange, dreamlike existence, on the border between fantasy and reality. You leave toytown in a cute miniature train, surrounded by excited children. But Disney, this is not. Suddenly you’re riding through real life: past clothes lines, collapsing breezeblock walls, an abandoned washing machine in a back garden, chuffing along behind a miniature steam train. Finally, you’re ferried across a beautiful, windswept shingle peninsula, spotted with railway carriage houses and abandoned shipping containers. Then you are delivered to the foot of a nuclear power station,” Ben wrote.

“This meeting of toy train sets and grim industrial purpose is what makes the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway so perfect.”

What do you think about Dungeness? Let us know in the comments below.

Top 20

Bamburgh: 84%

Beer: 80%

Portmeirion: 79%

Saint David’s: 79%

Sidmouth: 79%

Tynemouth: 79%

Dungeness: 78%

Tenby: 78%

Aldeburgh: 77%

Wells-Next-The-Sea: 77%

Whitby: 77%

Lynmouth: 76%

Nairn: 76%

Saint Andrews: 76%

St Mawes: 76%

Swanage: 76%

Broadstairs: 75%

Bude: 75%

Lyme Regis: 75%

Robin Hood’s Bay: 75%

Bottom 20

Ilfracombe: 55%

Littlehampton: 54%

Mablethorpe: 54%

Ramsgate: 54%

Skegness: 54%

Fishguard: 53%

Barton on sea: 52%

Cleethorpes: 52%

Lowestoft: 52%

New Brighton: 52%

Ayr: 51%

Great Yarmouth: 50%

Weston-super-Mare: 49%

Blackpool: 48%

Burnham-on-Sea: 46%

Fleetwood: 46%

Southend-on-Sea: 43%

Clacton-on-Sea: 42%

Bangor: 38%

Bognor Regis: 36%

WASHINGTON — President Trump has fired a Democratic commissioner for the federal agency that oversees nuclear safety as he continues to assert more control over independent regulatory agencies.

Christopher Hanson, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a statement Monday that Trump terminated his position as NRC commissioner without cause, “contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.”

The firing of Hanson comes as Trump seeks to take authority away from the independent safety agency, which has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades. Trump signed executive orders in May intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach. To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction” and that the Republican president reserves the right to “remove employees within his own executive branch.”

Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. In a similar move, two National Labor Relations Board members were fired. Willie Phillips, a Democratic member and former chairman of the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stepped down in April, telling reporters that the White House asked him to do so.

Trump also signed an executive order to give the White House direct control of independent federal regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, called Hanson’s firing illegal and another attempt by Trump to undermine independent agencies and consolidate power in the White House.

“Congress explicitly created the NRC as an independent agency, insulated from the whims of any president, knowing that was the only way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the American people,” Pallone said in a statement.

Senate Democrats also said Trump overstepped his authority. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that “Trump’s lawlessness” threatens the commission’s ability to ensure that nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are safe and free from political interference.

Hanson was nominated to the commission by Trump in 2020. He was appointed chair by former President Biden in January 2021 and served in that role until Trump’s inauguration to a second term as president. Trump selected David Wright, a Republican member of the commission, to serve as chair. Hanson continued to serve on the NRC as a commissioner. His term was due to end in 2029.

Wright’s term expires on June 30. The White House has not said if he will be reappointed.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Hanson a dedicated public servant and a strong supporter of the NRC’s public health and safety mission. Firing Hanson is Trump’s “latest outrageous move to undermine the independence and integrity” of the agency that protects the U.S. homeland from nuclear power plant disasters, Lyman said in a statement.

The NRC confirmed Hanson’s service ended on Friday, bringing the panel to two Democrats and two Republicans. The commission has functioned in the past with fewer than the required five commissioners and will continue to do so, the statement said.

McDermott and Daly write for the Associated Press. McDermott reported from Providence, R.I.

WASHINGTON — President Trump signed executive orders Friday intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach.

To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve advanced reactor designs and projects, taking authority away from the independent safety agency that has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades.

The order comes as demand for electricity surges amid a boom in energy-hungry data centers and artificial intelligence. Tech companies, venture capitalists, states and others are competing for electricity and straining the nation’s electric grid.

“We’ve got enough electricity to win the AI arms race with China,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said. “What we do in the next five years related to electricity is going to determine the next 50” years in the industry.

Still, it’s unlikely the U.S. could quadruple its nuclear production in the time frame the White House specified. The United States lacks any next-generation reactors operating commercially and only two large reactors have been built from scratch in nearly 50 years. Those two reactors, at a nuclear plant in Georgia, were completed years late and at least $17 billion over budget.

Trump is enthusiastic

At the Oval Office signing, Trump, surrounded by industry executives, called nuclear a “hot industry,” adding, “It’s time for nuclear, and we’re going to do it very big.”

Burgum and other speakers said the industry has stagnated and has been choked by overregulation.

“Mark this day on your calendar. This is going to turn the clock back on over 50 years of overregulation of an industry,’’ said Burgum, who chairs Trump’s newly formed Energy Dominance Council.

The orders would reorganize the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure quicker reviews of nuclear projects, including an 18-month deadline for the NRC to act on industry applications. The measures also create a pilot program intended to place three new experimental reactors online by July 4, 2026 — 13 months from now — and invoke the Defense Production Act to allow emergency measures to ensure the U.S. has the reactor fuel needed for a modernized nuclear energy sector.

The NRC is assessing the executive orders and will comply with White House directives, spokesperson Scott Burnell said Friday.

Jacob DeWitte, chief executive of the nuclear energy company Oklo, brought a golf ball to the Oval Office. He told Trump that’s the amount of uranium that can power someone’s needs for their entire life.

“It doesn’t get any better than that,” he said, holding up the ball.

“Very exciting indeed,” Trump said.

Trump has signed a spate of executive orders promoting oil, gas and coal that warm the planet when burned to produce electricity. Nuclear reactors generate electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. Trump said reactors are safe and clean but did not mention climate benefits. Safety advocates warn that nuclear technology still comes with significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don’t, including the danger of accidents or targeted attacks, and the unresolved question of how to store tens of thousands of tons of hazardous nuclear waste.

The order to reorganize the NRC will include significant staff reductions but is not intended to fire NRC commissioners who lead the agency. David Wright, a former South Carolina elected official and utility commissioner, chairs the five-member panel. His term ends June 30, and it is unclear whether he will be reappointed.

Critics have trepidations

Critics say the White House moves could compromise safety and violate legal frameworks such as the Atomic Energy Act. Compromising the independence of the NRC or encouraging it to be circumvented entirely could weaken the agency and make regulation less effective, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Simply put, the U.S. nuclear industry will fail if safety is not made a priority,” he said.

Gregory Jaczko, who led the NRC under President Obama, said Trump’s executive orders look like someone asked an AI chatbot, “How do we make the nuclear industry worse in this country?”

He called the orders a “guillotine to the nation’s nuclear safety system” that will make the country less safe, the industry less reliable and the climate crisis more severe.

A number of countries are speeding up efforts to license and build a new generation of smaller nuclear reactors to meet a surging demand for electricity and supply it carbon-free. Last year, Congress passed legislation that President Biden signed to modernize the licensing of new reactor technologies so they can be built faster.

This month, the power company in Ontario, Canada, began building the first of four small nuclear reactors.

Valar Atomics is a nuclear reactor developer in California. Founder and CEO Isaiah Taylor said nuclear development and innovation in the United States has been slowed by too much red tape, while Russia and China are speeding ahead. He said he’s most excited about the mandate for the Energy Department to speed up the pace of innovation.

The NRC is currently reviewing applications from companies and a utility that want to build small nuclear reactors to begin providing power in the early 2030s. Currently, the NRC expects its reviews to take three years or less.

Tori Shivanandan, chief operating officer of Radiant Nuclear, a California-based startup, said the executive orders mark a “watershed moment” for nuclear power in the U.S., adding that Trump’s support for the advanced nuclear industry will help ensure its success.

Daly and McDermott write for the Associated Press.