
US solar installation forecast slashed due to Trump policies,
September 16, 2025
Saudi Arabia Targets 130 GW of Solar Power by 2030 in Push for Renewable Leadership
September 16, 2025The United States and Britain are set to finalize a series of major nuclear power agreements during President Donald Trump’s state visit this week, aiming to spark what leaders are calling a “golden age” of nuclear energy.
Among the multi-billion-pound deals are plans for U.S. and U.K. companies to construct up to 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool, northeast England, and to develop data centers powered by small modular reactors (SMRs) in Nottinghamshire.
Officials say the partnership will create thousands of jobs, accelerate nuclear power development, and unlock billions in private investment. Prime Minister Keir Starmer hailed the initiative as putting both nations “at the forefront of global innovation and investment.”
X-Energy and Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, expect the Hartlepool project to power 1.5 million homes and generate up to 2,500 jobs, with an estimated £40 billion ($54.25 billion) in total economic impact. Separately, U.S.-based Holtec, together with EDF and Tritax, plans to build SMR-powered data centers in Nottinghamshire valued at about £11 billion.
Advocates argue SMRs, being smaller and more flexible than conventional reactors, could be quicker and cheaper to build once commercialized. Tech giants including Amazon and Google have already struck U.S. deals for SMRs to meet surging data center demand.
The broader initiative, branded the Atlantic Partnership for Advanced Nuclear Energy, also includes plans for the world’s first micro modular nuclear power plant.
“With President Trump’s leadership, the United States is ushering in a true nuclear renaissance—harnessing commercial nuclear power to meet rising energy needs and fuel the AI revolution,” U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said.
Supporters point to nuclear’s low-carbon potential in cutting emissions and reducing reliance on fossil fuels, while critics argue it remains a costly and risky diversion from renewable alternatives.