In 2025, major advancements and collaborations are redefining the nuclear industry’s trajectory. From the United States accelerating small modular reactor (SMR) deployment to Saudi Arabia’s push to monetize uranium resources, the nuclear sector is buzzing with activity. In China, differential performances from its top operators highlight both progress and challenges in its expanding nuclear fleet.
Meanwhile, the UK explores the integration of nuclear power with artificial intelligence (AI) growth zones, and Canada and the UK deepen their partnership to drive innovation in nuclear technologies. This roundup explores the most impactful stories shaping the nuclear energy landscape in 2025.
Installed nuclear power capacity by country and age in advanced economies, end-2023
TVA Bids $800 Million to Speed Up Small Modular Reactors
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is leading an $800 million bid from the U.S. Department of Energy. This funding comes from the Generation III+ Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Program. TVA has teamed up with Bechtel, BWX Technologies (BWXT), Duke Energy, and others. Congress approved this funding in 2024. The goal? To deploy SMRs across the U.S. This move will boost the nuclear industry and meet the demand for clean, affordable energy.
TVA’s President and CEO, Jeff Lyash, believes advanced nuclear tech is key to energy security. If they win the bid, construction of an SMR at TVA’s Clinch River site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, will speed up. The project could start commercial operations by 2033, two years earlier than planned. TVA aims to build a domestic supply chain and prepare for future SMR deployments in the U.S. and beyond.
Tennessee Governor Bill Lee backs the initiative. He says it will create jobs and strengthen the state’s nuclear ecosystem. SMRs are smaller and safer than traditional reactors. They can be built more quickly and integrated into communities easily. These reactors will provide reliable and flexible energy, essential for the country’s energy future.
A diverse group of industry leaders supports the project. Their partnership will accelerate SMR rollout and reduce costs and risks for customers.
TVA’s mission is to provide clean, reliable energy. As the nation’s largest public power supplier, TVA leads in sustainable energy tech development. With its diverse energy mix and focus on environmental stewardship, TVA is at the forefront of the U.S. push for a cleaner energy future.
- SEE MORE: Constellation Secures Groundbreaking $1 Billion Clean Nuclear Energy Deal with Federal Government
China Reports Mixed Results in Nuclear Power Output for 2024
Media agency World Nuclear News recently shared updates about China’s two major nuclear power operators, China General Nuclear (CGN) and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). They reported contrasting performance in nuclear electricity generation in 2024.
CGN Output
- CGN announced a 6% rise in nuclear power output compared to 2023.
- The company operated 28 reactors with a combined capacity of 31,798 MWe as of December 31, 2024.
- Total power generation reached 242.2 TWh, while 227.3 TWh was supplied to the grid—a year-on-year increase of over 6%.
- The company completed 13 scheduled refueling outages and six major maintenance operations.
- CGN also managed 16 reactors under construction, with two entering the commissioning phase and nine preparing for initial concrete pours.
- Huizhou/Taipingling Unit 1 in Guangdong is set for commercial operation in 2025.
CNNC Output
- CNNC announced a 1.8% decline in nuclear power generation in 2024 due to reactor maintenance outages.
- Its reactors generated 183.1 TWh, with 171.26 TWh supplied to the grid.
- The company controlled 25 operational reactors with a total capacity of 23.75 GWe and 18 units under construction or approved for construction, adding 20.64 GWe of future capacity.
- For 2025, CNNC plans to generate 195.4 TWh and conduct 16 scheduled maintenance outages.
China’s nuclear energy sector continues to expand, with State Power Investment Corporation and Huaneng Group emerging as additional key players. Smaller companies, including Huadian, Datang, and Guodian, also maintain stakes in various projects.
As of 2024, China operates 58 nuclear reactors, which supply approximately 5% of the country’s electricity. With multiple projects in the pipeline, the nation aims to bolster its clean energy capacity and meet growing power demands.
Saudi Arabia Eyes Minerals Market and Nuclear Expansion
Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman plans to tap into the country’s mineral resources, including uranium. Reuters revealed that at a conference in Dhahran, he announced plans to enrich uranium and produce “yellowcake,” a concentrated form used for nuclear fuel. While yellowcake requires careful handling, it poses minimal radiation risks.
Saudi Arabia aims to diversify its energy mix with nuclear power. The program is still in its early stages, with plans for uranium enrichment. However, there are concerns about the potential future implications. In 2018, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hinted that Saudi Arabia might pursue nuclear weapons if Iran does.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) offers a regional comparison. It has the first multi-unit nuclear energy plant in the Arab world and has committed not to enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel, demonstrating a commitment to non-proliferation. Furthermore, they have not yet activated its first nuclear reactor, keeping its activities under the Small Quantities Protocol’s (SQP) limited monitoring.
Westinghouse and Korean Partners Resolve Intellectual Property Dispute
Westinghouse Electric Company has reached a global settlement with Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company (KHNP) to resolve their ongoing intellectual property dispute.
The agreement brings clarity and allows both parties to focus on developing and deploying new nuclear reactors worldwide. It also paves the way for future collaboration on global nuclear energy projects.
As part of the settlement, all legal actions related to the dispute will be dismissed. Westinghouse, KEPCO, and KHNP have agreed to work together to support the growth of nuclear energy, enhancing their ability to deliver innovative reactor technologies.
This resolution marks a significant step forward for both companies. By resolving these issues, Westinghouse and its Korean partners can focus on strengthening partnerships and advancing nuclear energy solutions for the global market.
Westinghouse President & CEO Patrick Fragman said,
“Westinghouse is pleased to reach an agreement with KEPCO and KHNP on this important issue. As the world demands more firm baseload power, we look forward to opportunities for cooperation to deploy nuclear power at even greater scale.”
UK Plans AI Growth Zones Powered by Nuclear Energy
Bloomberg reported recently that the UK is setting up special “AI Growth Zones” districts to boost technology growth and artificial intelligence ecosystems. According to a government announcement, these zones will offer streamlined planning approvals and improved electricity access for data centers. The first zone will be established in Culham, the location of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
The government plans to create an energy council comprising public and private stakeholders to address the energy demands of advanced AI systems. The council will explore small modular reactors (SMRs) using nuclear fission technology to power these data centers. This initiative aligns with the UK’s plans to expand supercomputing capabilities, enhance AI applications in public services, and attract global tech talent.
Private investments are already flowing into the initiative. Notably, Vantage Data Centers has pledged over £12 billion for data center projects in the UK, while Nscale plans to invest $2.5 billion over the next three years.
Canada Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and AECL Explore Nuclear Technologies
Additionally, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) and CNL have issued a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEOI) to explore licensing their SLOWPOKE and Nuclear Battery reactor technologies. The RFEOI invites stakeholders to share insights on these designs, which can be used for power generation, heating, isotope production, and research.
AECL’s SLOWPOKE and Nuclear Battery Technologies
AECL’s SLOWPOKE reactors, including the SLOWPOKE-2, are simple, safe, and cost-effective. These low-pressure reactors have operated for decades in Canada, offering reliable energy for various applications like neutron activation analysis and education. Their ‘safe by physics’ design allows for up to 24 hours of unattended operation.
Now coming to the Nuclear Battery, it’s a solid-state micro-reactor, that produces 600 kWe of electricity and 2400 kWth of heat for 15 years without refueling. With passive safety features, it’s ideal for off-grid use. CNL is exploring market interest in these technologies, seeking opportunities for electricity generation, district heating, and isotope production.
The post 2025 Nuclear Energy Roundup: Top Stories You Need to Know appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits