nuclear-news

Russia’s nuclear plants are ageing. Who will pay to dismantle them?

by around 2037, Rosatom’s decommissioning and remediation obligations could exceed its net profit. Moreover, the longer decommissioning is delayed, the greater the associated financial, technical and safety risks are likely to become.

Moscow faces a huge decommissioning bill at home even as it expands its nuclear industry abroad.

By Arshak Makichyan, . 4 Oct 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/10/4/russias-nuclear-plants-are-ageing-who-will-pay-to-dismantle-them

The world often discusses the nuclear threat posed by Russia, but far less attention is paid to the nuclear risks within Russia itself, particularly those posed by ageing nuclear power plants, some of whose reactors are already more than 50 years old.

At the same time, Russia is building nuclear power plants around the world, from Turkiye to Bangladesh, while promoting nuclear energy as a “sustainable” alternative to fossil fuels. Russian President Vladimir Putin regularly meets with foreign leaders to discuss existing and potential nuclear projects. Yet one question remains largely overlooked: what happens to these nuclear facilities when they reach the end of their operational lives?

During the Soviet period, nuclear power plants were built across the USSR, including in Lithuania. As part of Lithuania’s accession to the European Union, the country was required to shut down the two Soviet-built reactors at the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant. The first reactor was closed in 2004 and the second in 2009. The decommissioning process has proved both extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming. By 2020, the estimated cost had reached 3.3 billion euros ($3.7bn), with only 49 percent of the planned work completed. The process, initially scheduled for completion in 2038, is now expected to continue until 2049.

Russia itself does not seem to be paying much attention to this question. Rosenergoatom plans to decommission 35 reactors. Yet the company’s own estimates point to a funding shortfall of approximately 18.7 billion euros, while the total estimated cost of decommissioning is about 21 billion euros. And these are Rosenergoatom’s own estimates. Actual decommissioning costs are usually significantly higher than initially projected. For example, the cost of decommissioning the former nuclear power plant in Lubmin, Germany, was initially estimated at 1 billion euros but is now estimated at 10 billion euros.

For the time being, however, Russia appears to be postponing the most costly stages of decommissioning. Rather than fully dismantling reactors soon after shutdown, it often places them in long-term “safe” storage, transferring much of the financial and technical burden into the future. Deferred dismantling does not solve the problem, but merely postpones the costly stages of decommissioning, which is particularly concerning given Russia’s existing funding gap.

Environmental NGO Bellona Foundation reports, based on Rosatom’s own projections, that by around 2037, Rosatom’s decommissioning and remediation obligations could exceed its net profit. Moreover, the longer decommissioning is delayed, the greater the associated financial, technical and safety risks are likely to become.

Another major issue is the legacy of radioactive waste. Russia has inherited approximately 774,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste from the Soviet Union. The upcoming decommissioning of 36 reactor units at eight nuclear power plants is expected to generate an additional 800,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste.

Russia already has experience of what happens when industries leave major environmental liabilities behind. In the Kemerovo region, where around half of Russia’s coal is produced, mountains of waste from coal mining scar the landscape. Some of this waste burns, polluting nearby communities. When coal companies go bankrupt, the cost of dealing with what they leave behind can fall to the state and local communities.

But nuclear waste and decommissioned reactors cannot simply be abandoned if the money runs out. The question therefore becomes even more important as Russia’s economic situation deteriorates: what will happen to all these megaprojects if the money needed to maintain, decommission and eventually dismantle them is no longer available?

The countries where Russia is building its numerous nuclear power plants should therefore think about what happens if these projects cannot be maintained or later decommissioned as planned. They need a Plan B in case something goes wrong in Russia. And, as history has repeatedly shown, Russia’s political situation can change unpredictably.

The political consequences of nuclear mismanagement can also be significant. The Chornobyl disaster demonstrated how the Soviet authorities’ attempts to suppress information and downplay the scale of the accident fuelled public distrust and disillusionment, contributing to growing social and political unrest in the late Soviet period. Today, Russia’s continued neglect of nuclear waste and repeated postponement of nuclear plant decommissioning could similarly create conditions for both another environmental catastrophe and growing social unrest, particularly if authorities once again respond to such a crisis with silence or attempts to conceal its scale.

These risks are compounded by Russia’s deteriorating economic situation. In an effort to sustain the war economy, the Russian government has also drastically weakened environmental regulations. National defence is now by far the largest single item in Russia’s federal budget, while environmental protection accounts for only a small fraction of government spending.

Environmental disasters have repeatedly demonstrated that the Russian regime is unwilling to prioritise long-term environmental safety. Russia continues to operate an ageing shadow fleet to transport oil, and the environmental risks associated with that fleet were highlighted by the 2024 Black Sea oil spill, when two ageing Russian tankers released thousands of tonnes of fuel oil into the sea. The spill was described as the Black Sea region’s worst environmental disaster in decades. This broader pattern of environmental negligence raises questions about how the country will manage its ageing nuclear infrastructure and the growing problem of nuclear waste.

These issues should therefore be raised at every international forum where Russia promotes its nuclear industry, such as COPs, where encountering Russian nuclear lobbyists is a common experience. Russia is seeking to secure its place in the future of energy while continuing to use energy as a tool for exerting political influence and power around the world.

All of these issues are particularly concerning because Russia continues to promote its nuclear industry internationally, while independent voices capable of scrutinising its environmental impacts and safety record are increasingly silenced in Russia. As documented in a recent report by the Environmental Crisis Group, repression and the departure of environmental experts and activists have severely weakened Russia’s environmental movement.

Bellona and Greenpeace have been declared “undesirable” organisations in Russia, while EcoDefence, which organised campaigns around environmental and nuclear issues, has been designated a “foreign agent”, and its members have faced criminal prosecution.

Environmental organisations outside Russia continue to draw attention to these risks. EcoDefence in exile, alongside other German activists, campaigns against continued European cooperation with the Russian nuclear industry, which has largely escaped the sanctions imposed on other parts of Russia’s energy sector. According to Vladimir Slivyak, co-chair of EcoDefence, this continued dependence on Russian nuclear technology and services could itself create vulnerabilities that Russia could potentially exploit for sabotage or political pressure.

The result is a shrinking capacity to independently monitor and expose environmental risks inside Russia. This creates a dangerous information gap: a nuclear accident could happen, its scale could be concealed or downplayed by the authorities, and the public could learn the full extent of the disaster only years or even decades later. This is what happened after the 1957 Mayak disaster, when the Soviet authorities concealed the accident and its consequences and did not publicly acknowledge the disaster until 1989, more than three decades later, while thousands of people were left to suffer the long-term consequences of radioactive contamination.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | decommission reactor, Russia | Leave a comment

On the Edge of the Abyss: Putin’s Nuclear Warning, Trump’s Iran Brinkmanship and Europe’s Revolt

Joe Lauria , Consortium News, October 4, 2026

This week:

1. Putin’s Warning;

2. New US Warship to Iran;

3. The Crisis of Europe: French Students Burn Their Schools

PLUS: America’s Barbaric Death Penalty.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned the world could face nuclear catastrophe if the West attacks the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. Putin told the Valdai Club outside Moscow Thursday humanity has entered a “completely new and unprecedented reality.”

The historical changes underway aren’t fully understood, he said. But over the long run, the erosion of corrosive Western hegemony should create a more stable, democratic, and multipolar world order — but the transition is fraught with danger.

Putin said exceptional, narrow Western interests fuels the peril. The West forced Russia into a defensive war against Ukraine, its tool against Moscow. The war has escalated into NATO-backed attacks on Russian soil.

Putin warned that a direct attack on Kaliningrad, which is separated from mainland Russia by a land corridor, would immediately put “all the weapons” at Russia’s disposal.

“If it comes to direct attack on the Russian Federation, in this case, we mean Kaliningrad, maybe some other territories as well, of course, naturally, immediately, what will be on the agenda is the use by the Russian Federation of all weapons that are at the disposal of our country. It is unavoidable.”

Putin pointed to a Russian foreign ministry statement on Kaliningrad does not mention nuclear weapons. “It mentions, as I have just said, the use of all means and all forces at the disposal of our country and we’ll decide what it is,” Putin said.

“This escalation is based on arrogance and self conceit, and this is what pushes us to the edge of the abyss,” he said.

Putin also knows that the West will twist this warning into a threat. “What’s a different way to stand up to an aggressor? We’re not threatening anyone, but we’re just saying that we don’t have many tools of self defense.”

Iranian Quicksand

Meanwhile, Trump keeps making maniacal threats to destroy Iran, this time, if Teheran had anything to do with the attempt to hijack the Dubai-Tel Aviv jet. He talks a big game on Iran because he’s losing the big war with Iran with mid-terms a month away.

He’s in danger of also losing both Houses and of being impeached, if not convicted. He’s in danger of being humiliated before the whole world as a Big ‘L’ Loser.

So he sticks his chest out, Duce style, and proclaims: “Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll kill you all or maybe I won’t. Maybe I’ll decide to spare you.” A rank and unstable amateur coming to terms with ultimate power.

So he sends another aircraft carrier to Iran to keep up the illusion the U.S. has the upper hand in the conflict. That Trump can dictate to Iran. The Nov. 3 election will tell how many Americans are gullible enough to believe that.

Aux Barricades!

They are not so gullible in France, which has more or less kept the revolutionary spirit alive since 1789,………………………………………………………….https://consortiumnews.com/2026/10/03/watch-twtw-edge-of-the-abyss/

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Day America Deleted a Word

A Pen, a Paper, and the End of “AI”

SinoDataCrit ( Kakajusaiyou ）, Oct 04, 2026

On September 29, 2026, President Trump signed an executive order requiring every federal department and agency to replace the term “Artificial Intelligence” (AI) with “Super Intelligence” (SI) in official correspondence, public communications, websites, reports, and all non-statutory documents.

The order didn’t just promote a new term. It buried the old one. The White House’s own fact sheet states that agencies should “no longer acknowledge the terms ‘Artificial Intelligence’ or ‘AI.’“ Read that again. Not “phase out.” Not “update.” No longer acknowledge.

The same day, the tech titans were summoned to the White House — Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, OpenAI president Greg Brockman, Palantir CEO Alex Karp. They signed the “White House Accord on Super Intelligence,” a voluntary safety pledge with no legal force, which Trump described as working “like a constitution.” Zuckerberg began using “Super Intelligence” in product announcements within 24 hours. The field that was born at Dartmouth College in 1956 had been renamed by executive fiat in 2026 — seventy years, almost to the season, after John McCarthy coined the term his own government now refuses to say.

The official rationale? A White House fact sheet titled “President Donald J. Trump Inaugurates The Era of Super Intelligence” argues that “artificial” implies merely “imitating or automating human intelligence,” while Super Intelligence “conveys the true capabilities” of the technology. Trump himself was blunter: the word “artificial” makes people think of fake.

There was, in fairness, a domestic political reason. A Quinnipiac poll in March 2026 found that 55% of American adults believe AI does more harm than good — up 11 percentage points in a single year. “Artificial intelligence” had become a toxic brand. Rebranding it “Super Intelligence” is, on one level, the world’s most expensive PR relaunch.

But if you think this is just marketing, you’re missing the oldest trick in the innovation empire. And it took a viral post on Chinese Q&A platform Zhihu — 4,700+ upvotes and climbing — to name the mechanism with perfect clarity. This article brings that analysis to an English audience, because it deserves one.

The Category Game: How “0-to-1” Is Manufactured

Start with a question that circulates endlessly in Western commentary: why do Chinese companies never seem to do “0-to-1” innovation?

Here’s the uncomfortable answer: “0-to-1” is not a fact. It’s a category decision — and categories can be gerrymandered.

The Zhihu analysis offers a thought experiment. Suppose a Chinese company invents the electric vehicle. A skeptic says: “That’s not 0-to-1. It’s a derivative of the car — a 1-to-100 improvement. Thank Karl Benz.” Fine — so what if the Chinese had invented the car itself? The skeptic zooms out: “That’s not 0-to-1 either. It’s a refinement of the wheel — a category humans have had for 4,000 years. Thank the ancients.”

See the mechanism? Expand the category far enough, and every invention becomes an increment. Whoever controls the category — whoever gets to decide whether “EV” is a new thing or a subset of “car” — controls whether your work counts as creation or derivation.

Now the flip side. How does anyone ever get credit for a 0-to-1? Not by building it. By naming it. A brand-new word — preferably one with a unique sound and no derivation from existing vocabulary — creates a brand-new category. And a new category has no ancestors. It pops into existence with its inventor standing at its head.

A new word doesn’t describe a new thing. It legislates a new thing into the ledger of human achievement.

Eponyms Are Property Deeds

Look at how English names its own inventions versus everyone else’s.

For its own breakthroughs, English mints eponyms — words with a founder’s name stamped on them like a trademark. Diesel, after Rudolf Diesel. Braille, after Louis Braille. The ballpoint pen that half the world calls a “biro,” after László Bíró. Every one of these is a property deed: the technology and the credit travel together, permanently, in a single syllable.

For everyone else’s breakthroughs, English does something different: it assimilates them into existing vocabulary as derivatives. Paper became “paper” — a word whose root is papyrus, the Egyptian writing reed. Gunpowder became “gunpowder” — a tidy English compound. China invented both; the English words quietly suggest both were variations on something the West already had.

The etymology does the theft silently. To an English speaker, papyrus is “an early, imperfect paper.” To a Chinese speaker, the relationship inverts: papyrus is just a reed that failed to become paper. Same history. Opposite property registry.

This is not a conspiracy. It’s a linguistic reflex — but it has the effect of a colonial land grab. The Zhihu author’s sharp observation: English borrows raw phonetics mainly from “prestige” languages it admires (French, Latin, Greek), or for “exotic, often derogatory” concepts (coolie, ramen). For ideas from civilizations it competes with, it prefers translation — because translation buries the original’s ownership inside a familiar word……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Modern Playbook: Metaverse, Sixth-Gen Fighters, DeepSeek

This machinery is not historical. It’s running right now, and you’ve watched it operate three times in recent years.

Metaverse. A word coined in a 1992 science fiction novel, adopted as a company name in 2021. Technologically, “the metaverse” contained nothing that virtual worlds hadn’t contained for two decades — no new architecture, no new interaction paradigm. But it had a minted word, a category nobody had to share with the past. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Decoding SI: The Hedge Fund of Categories

Now the executive order makes complete sense.

The United States coined “artificial intelligence” in 1956. Its White House proudly asserts — correctly — that America is “the birthplace” of the field and has led it for “over 70 years.” That name, and that founding, is one of America’s greatest narrative assets: the entire global industry carries American words in its name.

But here’s the problem the White House faces in 2026: Chinese models have reached genuine parity — benchmark-for-benchmark, dollar-for-dollar the efficiency argument even favors China. If the race stays called “AI,” then the most likely outcome is that the “birthplace” gets out-innovated in its own category, on its own vocabulary. The founding nation would become the incumbent that lost its own field.

So instead of defending the old category, America redrew the map. Rename the category “Super Intelligence,” decree that the old name shall not be acknowledged — and instantly, every Chinese achievement in “AI” becomes progress in a field that no longer officially exists. Chinese labs will keep doing brilliant work in the old category: that’s a 1-to-100 story now, and America has already stamped itself at the “0” of the new one. Your AI is impressive; our SI is a different thing. You can never beat us at SI, because we invented the word, and the word is the race.

It’s the category game at national scale: when you can’t win the category, delete the category.

Notice the asymmetry of costs. DeepSeek’s efficiency breakthrough took years of engineering under sanctions. Huawei’s chip roadmap took seven years of siege economics. The SI rename took one pen. In narrative warfare, renaming is the cheapest weapon with the longest reach — it costs nothing and repositions everything.

And notice what the order does domestically, too. The same fact sheet announces $5 billion for a “Genesis Mission” and a “National Super Intelligence Policy Framework.” The unpopular, frightening “AI” — the one 55% of Americans distrust — quietly becomes somebody else’s legacy technology. The fear is inherited with the old word. The promise is minted with the new one.

The Counter-Move: China Is Learning to Mint Words

Here’s what makes this moment genuinely interesting, and why I’ve spent days on this question: China’s best answer isn’t to complain about the renaming. It’s to start minting categories of its own……………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://sinodatacrit.substack.com/p/the-day-america-deleted-a-word?publication_id=7110991&post_id=218751184&isFreemail=true&r=3alev&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | China, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

‘NAZA’ Exposes Gaza’s Killing Machine—and the People Who Want It Hidden

October 5, 2026, Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/10/05/naza-exposes-gazas-killing-machine-and-the-people-who-want-it-hidden/

Israel’s leaders have threatened the filmmakers. The documentary’s deeper challenge is to a society that treats technical expertise as an escape from moral responsibility.

A government confident in its account of a war should be able to withstand a documentary. Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to NAZA has been to threaten the citizenship of people who expose what Israeli soldiers say happened in Gaza.

According to Reuters, Netanyahu pledged to pursue legislation allowing citizenship revocation for those who defame Israeli soldiers, alongside sharply increased financial penalties. Directed by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, NAZA draws on anonymous military and intelligence testimony alleging that civilian deaths were routinely incorporated into targeting decisions. Netanyahu and the military reject those allegations.

The threat raises an obvious question: If the testimony is false, why reach for the power to strip people of their citizenship?

The film’s significance extends beyond Netanyahu. In his October 2 essay for +972 Magazine, Israeli academic Sebastian Ben Daniel argues that NAZA challenges the comforting assumption that responsibility for Gaza’s destruction belongs exclusively to Israel’s openly extremist politicians and settlers.

His focus is on the prestigious institutions that make military violence possible: intelligence units, the Air Force and the professional culture connecting military service to Israel’s technology industry. The people operating that machinery can consider themselves educated, reasonable and politically opposed to the far right while participating in its devastating consequences.

That is a challenge Americans should recognize. We, too, have learned to discuss war through the reassuring vocabulary of expertise: intelligence assessments, precision weapons, operational requirements. The language sounds clean because it removes the people underneath the bombs.

NAZA confronts liberal Israel with an accusation it cannot comfortably assign to Netanyahu and the far right: The destruction of Gaza depends on prestigious institutions staffed by educated, secular professionals who consider themselves the extremists’ opposite. Political moderation does not erase responsibility, and expressions of anguish cannot redeem participation in mass killing. Ben Daniel also describes liberal media commentators attacking a film they have not watched and questioning anonymous testimony—the same kind of sourcing routinely accepted when it serves the military’s narrative. That selective skepticism protects the institutions under scrutiny while shifting attention away from the Palestinians whose lives those institutions have destroyed.

A targeting system does not bury a child. People authorize an attack, carry it out and defend its consequences. Dividing those actions among departments cannot make responsibility disappear.

For some viewers, the testimony has brought historical questions of obedience and accountability into immediate focus. Reporting for Vulture, Rachel Corbett quoted attendee Roland Lewis: “I couldn’t stop thinking about the Nuremberg trials.”

That comparison is an audience member’s reaction, not a judicial finding. Its force lies in the question it raises: How much moral shelter can anyone claim from a chain of command?

Palestinians should not have to wait for Israeli testimony to make their suffering credible. Their reporting, their photographs and their accounts of families destroyed deserve attention on their own terms.

What NAZA can do is confront another audience with testimony from inside the institutions whose assurances it has accepted. The obligation that follows belongs to viewers, journalists and governments—including Washington, whose support for Israel demands scrutiny alongside the conduct of the Israeli military.

Watching a documentary is a beginning. Accountability requires following the chain of responsibility beyond the screen.

This commentary draws on Sebastian Ben Daniel’s essay in +972 Magazine, Rachel Corbett’s reporting in Vulture and Reuters’ coverage of threats against the filmmakers. Readers can read them here Vulture, MS NOW and +972 Magazine.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, media, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Big Reactors in Saskatchewan: What could go wrong?

The implication of these experiences and proposals is that a new 1,000-MW reactor could carry a price tag of $15 to $26 billion. That would put the total cost for a two-reactor project, like Saskatchewan is proposing, in the $30-$50 billion range. Estimates of the costs of electricity needed to cover the capital costs of new nuclear plants, if they’re financed through electricity rates, range from the mid-20¢ to more than 40¢ per kilowatt-hour.

October 3, 2026, By Mark Winfield and Susan O’Donnell, https://energi.media/opinion/big-reactors-saskatchewan-what-could-go-wrong/

The Saskatchewan government’s recent announcement of its intention to build two large nuclear reactors has again raised questions of the role of large nuclear energy projects in relatively small provincial economies.

The last new full-scale nuclear reactor project in Canada, the Darlington nuclear power plant east of Toronto, was completed more than 30 years ago. The enormous cost overruns on that project contributed significantly to the effective bankruptcy of the province’s utility, Ontario Hydro, leading to its eventual break-up.

As the memories of these previous experiences with large nuclear construction projects have faded, new projects are now being proposed. These projects, and experiences with the handful of new-build nuclear projects initiated in Europe and the United States in the last two decades, give us some indication of the large reactor options, and their potential costs.

New Brunswick’s experience with its long- troubled Point Lepreau reactor, should give Saskatchewan further cause for reflection on the wisdom of such a pathway. The Lepreau plant is Canada’s lone experience with a large nuclear power plant in a relatively small provincial electricity system and economy, New Brunswick Power is still carrying a C$3.6 billion nuclear debt from the reactor’s original 1975-1983 construction, and the costs of a 2008-2012 refurbishment that was a billion dollars over budget. Since the refurbishment, the poor performance of the Lepreau reactor has been the primary reason New Brunswick Power loses money almost every year.

In Ontario and Alberta, two reactor designs, the CANDU MONARK and the Westinghouse Electric AP1000, have been considered for the expansion of the Bruce Nuclear power plant on Lake Huron, a proposed 10,000-MW Ontario Power Generation plant at Wesleyville on Lake Ontario, and the proposed 4,800-MW Peace River Nuclear Project in Alberta.

The 1,000-MW CANDU MONARK is intended as a successor to the existing CANDU reactors in Ontario and New Brunswick. Although it’s being aggressively promoted to potential international customers, the MONARK design remains incomplete. The situation has already led the Alberta project’s proponents to switch their proposal to favour the AP1000 design by Westinghouse Electric.

Cost information is available on the AP1000 reactor, as two units were completed in 2024 at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. The total estimated cost of those two 1,100-MW reactors was US$36 billion, or about $26 billion per reactor in 2026 Canadian dollars. The plant has been described as “the most expensive power plant ever built on Earth.” When it went into service, Vogtle resulted in a nearly 24% increase in Georgia Power’s electricity rates, the largest jump in the utility’s history.

AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is currently pitching the CANDU MONARK to Poland, with a reported estimated cost of $45 to $50 billion for a three-reactor plant, or about $15 billion per unit.

In the case of New Brunswick, another smaller province considering a large new reactor project, it has been estimated that the project would nearly double to even triple current consumer electricity costs. Such increases would undermine energy affordability, economic competitiveness, and any plans for decarbonization through electrification.

A province could also try to finance the costs through its general tax base. That is the approach that Ontario been taking, at an estimated cost to the provincial treasury of $7 to $8.5 billion per year. Electricity subsidies now account for more than half of Ontario’s deficit, exceeding annual capital expenditures on education and health care by wide margins.

In the case of New Brunswick, the annual costs of that approach, even spread over the decade or more of construction, could exceed the province’s current, record $1.39 billion deficit, and match or exceed its entire annual capital spending plans in all other areas. Although the Saskatchewan economy is almost double the size of New Brunswick, the scale fiscal impacts of trying to finance two reactors out of general provincial tax revenues would be comparable.

Saskatchewan, for its part, has had another idea – asking the federal government to pay three-quarters of the cost of the province’s first nuclear reactor, a contribution of between $11 to $20 billion from federal taxpayers.

In addition to the financial risks a single large reactor in a relatively small electricity system would repeat and magnify a key problem associated with the original Point Lepreau project in New Brunswick —putting very higher portion of a province’s electricity supply eggs in a single, very expensive and high-risk basket.

All of this should suggest a high degree of caution among provinces considering adding large nuclear components for their electricity systems, and a need to think about other ways of decarbonizing their electricity systems while ensuring their affordability and sustainability.

Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead researcher on the CEDAR project in Sustainability and Environmental Studies at St. Thomas University.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Israel to divide central West Bank with settler-only highway

The move is expected to further fragment and isolate the central metropolitan West Bank governorate, which has already been fragmented by Israeli settlements, military outposts, checkpoints and gates.

Aseel Saleh, October 2 2026, https://breakthroughnews.org/2026/10/02/israel-to-divide-central-west-bank-with-settler-only-highway/

In late September, Israeli media reported that Netanyahu’s government intends to adjust access to key routes in the central West Bank. It plans to reopen Route 463 to settler-only traffic in the governorate of Ramallah and Al-Bireh.

Yisrael Gantz, the leader of the Yesha Council (an umbrella organization representing Israeli municipal councils across Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley) confirmed that plans to reopen the road received preliminary approval and funding.

Preparations are also underway by the Israeli military to complete “the security, legal, and logistical” steps required to reopen the route (also known as Wallerstein Road).

History of the road

The road was paved in 1994 under the directions of Pinchas Wallerstein, a founder of the settlement movement, to connect the illegal settlements of Beit El (north-east of Ramallah and Al-Bireh) and Dolev (north-west of Jerusalem).

However, following the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000, the Israeli army barred Israeli people from using the road for security reasons. They also placed a locked iron gate on its end near Ein Qiniya village, northwest of Ramallah.

Why has the reopening of the route raised concerns among Palestinians in the West Bank?

Experts argue that Israel’s move will impact not only the governorate itself, but the entire occupied West Bank because of its central location, major metropolitan status, and role as a commercial hub.

To understand the repercussions of the route reopening, BreakThrough News spoke with Jamal Jumaa, a Palestinian activist, expert on Israeli settlement and apartheid-related issues, and coordinator of the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall).

Aside from dividing the governorate’s northern and southern halves, Jumaa noted that reopening the road is dangerous because it will block the center of Ramallah and Al-Bireh from two-thirds of its villages, which are situated to the west.

The prominent Palestinian activist added that when Israel builds such roads for settler traffic, it fences them off on both sides and prohibits the use of adjacent lands. The Israeli authorities consider those lands a buffer zone, citing the security of the settlers as their reason.

“This entails setting up military towers and checkpoints. The road will cut off continuously inhabited Palestinian villages north-west and south-west of Ramallah. Therefore, we are talking about the establishment of roughly four military checkpoints along the road,” he continued.

Jumaa pointed out that the road will complicate the life of Palestinians by restricting their access to vital healthcare and education facilities, including the Istishari Arab Hospital, Birzeit University, and the Arab American University.

He also noted that the intended reopening of the road “is part of dividing and dividing more Palestinians from each other.”

On the political level, Jumaa suggested that the road “hits the heart of the West Bank, which gives a clear signal to the Palestinian Authority that it has no sovereignty over anything.”

It is worth noting that since its establishment, the Palestinian Authority has designated Ramallah and Al-Bireh as a de facto administrative capital. Yet, this has not prevented the Israeli authorities from fragmenting and isolating the governorate by establishing illegal settlements, military outposts, checkpoints, and gates.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, politics | Leave a comment

Managed Deception and Imperial Politics: Trump’s Greenland Deal

much of the new agreement is surplusage. Arrangements are already in place permitting the establishment of defence areas by the US to “assist” Denmark in defending Greenland, station forces at them, and move personnel in the territory fairly unhindered.

Trump takes credit for an agreement signed in 1951

This merely clarified what was already an ongoing practice

6 October 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/managed-deception-and-imperial-politics-trumps-greenland-deal/

In his second term, US President Donald Trump has gone the way of past executive tribunes of the American imperium in seeking land and resources like a kleptomaniacal pincher. This has been bracing, not least for a foreign policy establishment inured to the hypocrisies of virtue concealed in the international order of rules and protocols. Spot the international rule and break it.

Neither ally nor adversary have been spared Trump’s scorching petulance. Thuggish language has been forthcoming for Canada just as it was for Venezuela whose leader, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted, along with his wife, on fantastic charges related to narcotics trafficking. An enduring security ally such as Denmark will be seen as amenable to giving up control of Greenland to Washington. On that score, Trump has succeeded in needlessly convincing Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen to enter into a trilateral agreement that evokes the pseudo-colonial obsessions of old. Not that Washington had ever really relinquished strategic control over the territory, having had, during the Cold War, stationed anywhere between 10,000 and 25,000 troops based at some 17 military facilities.

The agreement does what should have already been assumed: reaffirming Danish sovereignty and recognising that Greenlanders “constitute a people pursuant to international law with the right to self-determination.” The text pointedly notes the “indispensable historical” role of the US and its “ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area.” This included “significant sacrifices and billions of dollars spent over the better part of a century, dating back to before World War II and the establishment of NATO, and the irreplaceable role the United States military plays in the defense of the territory of Greenland now and in the future.”

In terms of military matters, the US is permitted to establish “an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig” while modernising and expanding activities in Pituffik Space Base. It remains open to Washington to establish additional defence areas in Greenland, along with strengthening “military operations or facilities.” Proposals to do so are to heed the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. Undersea access rights to the US in Greenlandic waters “without restriction except as mutually agreed upon by the Parties” is also assured.

For those familiar with the 1951 Agreement Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark Concerning the Defense of Greenland, much of the new agreement is surplusage. Arrangements are already in place permitting the establishment of defence areas by the US to “assist” Denmark in defending Greenland, station forces at them, and move personnel in the territory fairly unhindered. What makes these new arrangements somewhat different is the sine die element: unlike the 1951 agreement, which is intended to conclude in the event of NATO ceases, the current understanding is durably indefinite. “This Agreement does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent in accordance with Article XIII of the 1951 Defense Agreement.” Even if Greenland were to become independent, it would still be obligated to remain part of NATO, while Denmark would still have “rights and obligations” assumed under the agreement, making the issue of self-determination purely ceremonial.

Mindful of the alleged threats posed by “adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland,” a greater muscularity in American invigilation on who invests in the territory is offered. States or investors not members of NATO, a NATO partner, or a European Union member state will not be permitted to have control, significant influence or access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order, notably with regards “Particularly Sensitive Sector or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters)”. “The objective shall be ensured by Greenland in close cooperation with the authorities of the Kingdom of Denmark in its application of its current or future investment screening laws” with the Danes closely consulting “relevant United States authorities and other partners.” This merely clarified what was already an ongoing practice: that the Danish authorities will prevent unwanted foreign powers access to the territory, either individually or with US assistance, when they see fit.

October 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, USA | Leave a comment

The Ukraine war: Propaganda and the death of truth

By William Briggs | 5 October 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-ukraine-war-propaganda-and-the-death-of-truth,21642

As propaganda clouds the Ukraine war, inconvenient truths are being buried and voices opposing the conflict silenced, writes Dr William Briggs.

IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, Independent Australia published an article highlighting the case of a young Ukrainian anti-war activist and socialist who faces 15 years in prison for arguing against the war.

His call was to unite people on both sides of the border. The mainstream media in this country and in all countries have completely ignored the case of Bogdan Syrotiuk. Is this blanket censorship acceptable? No. Is it surprising? No.

Maintaining objectivity and political clarity in a time of war is an almost impossible task. The Ukraine war is one of horror and brutality. As the days, months and years have passed, objectivity and clarity of vision have become casualties.

Our mass media play an increasingly partisan role. There is no room for independent thought. It is made grotesquely simple. There are white hats and black hats. Good fights evil. Democracy confronts authoritarianism. The coverage of the war, like all wars before it, has been clouded in an increasingly impenetrable fog of propaganda.

It is a story that is replayed time and again when the world goes to war. This war, undeclared as it might be, is no less real. The forces behind Ukraine represent the bulk of the Western world and, so, the Ukrainians are presented as almost blameless. The Russians, on the other hand, must be demonised. It is a vulgar and artificial view of what is happening and inevitably ignores the real motivations of those involved.

NATO, the EU, the USA and countries like Australia are not playing any progressive role. For them, the motives for war are to shore up failing economies, gain access to resources and markets. The crisis of the capitalist economies is so deep that entire industrial processes are being turned into war industries.

This, tragically, is how capitalism, when confronted with an existential crisis, responds. To use the example of Germany, we can see the German state preparing to spend almost €152 billion (AU$245.3 billion) in military and war-related spending for 2027.

This is a 57 per cent increase in just one year. Job losses are at an all-time high. Social spending is being slashed. War-based industries are booming. In the USA, President Trump is demanding a $1.5 trillion military budget while food stamps are being cut for 5 million people.

The truth no longer matters. The media do not seek the truth and it seems that the public is to be “shielded” from any disturbing realities. The war drags on. Ukraine receives more and more materiel, more money, more training for its dwindling army and more assistance in targeting Russian infrastructure.

This is presented through our media as being defensive and a noble cause to save Europe. We see fewer images, read fewer reports of the catastrophe that is daily life in so many Russian towns and cities. But the Russians are, of course, the enemy.

In the fog of propaganda, there are tales of atrocities. Crimes are committed, but on both sides. When voices on either side of the border are raised against the war, then they are silenced.

The biggest crime, among a sea of crimes, is the fact that ordinary working-class men and women are fighting and dying to preserve criminal regimes. That has always been the way. The workers who are driven to the trenches have nothing in common with their masters. They have everything in common with their fellow workers that they now must kill. It was ever thus.

The propagandists do their work well. Every crime, real or imagined, that has been perpetrated by the Kremlin is illuminated. The Kyiv regime has a sorry record, but that is never broadcast. The truth is there, but never quite in sight.

A few examples are worth noting.

Only weeks ago, there was a shootout in Kyiv between officers of the domestic security service and the military intelligence directorate. Several officers were wounded.

The Ukrainian regime has resorted to seizing fighting-age men from the streets to be used as cannon fodder. The dragooning of thousands of men known locally as busification is increasingly being met with resistance as local citizens fight pitched battles with the Ukrainian security forces.

Corruption within the government and judiciary is rampant. Recently, the chief prosecutor fled the country after a money-laundering scheme based on scams from bogus call centres that was run from his office was discovered.

While billions of dollars are pouring into the country, the people’s lives are increasingly becoming more difficult. The once popular war is now hated. A recent opinion poll saw 66 per cent of the population calling for an immediate end to the war.

The desertion rate among Ukrainian troops is massive. Latest figures show a conservative figure of 150,000 troops who have left their posts.

These stories are on public record, but somehow do not make the cut when television news shows go to air or newspapers hit the streets.

What is important for a propaganda campaign to be truly successful is that a positive spin must always be in place. The record of near veneration of WWII fascist collaborators and Nazi war criminals is airbrushed, as much as possible, from the public gaze outside Ukraine.

We are told and expected to believe that the war in Ukraine is all about preserving freedom and democracy. The problem is that the war, now being actively engaged in by almost all of the “democratic” West, is making a mockery of the concept of democracy. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rules by martial law. There are no elections and none on the horizon. Perhaps elections might get in the way of preserving democracy. Perhaps elections might allow the people a voice against the war.

But to have an election, Zelenskyy would possibly have to lift the bans on the left-wing political parties that have been banned. That is highly unlikely. The famously pro-democratic governments of Europe, North America, Australia and throughout the Indo-Pacific don’t seem to notice, or simply don’t care. After all, it’s really all about saving a failing set of capitalist economies. Democracy is a useful word to be used as a propaganda weapon.

The case of Bogdan Syrotiuk starkly shows the power of propaganda in a time of war. For the mainstream media in all “democracies”, his name must not be mentioned. The campaign for his freedom, perhaps unsurprisingly, continues but receives no support from the global media. It is a subterranean campaign, but not without success.

Thousands of people in more than 90 countries have now signed a petition calling for Syrotiuk’s release. Dozens of letters have been sent to the Ukrainian courts. The Ukrainian authorities responded by declaring that only letters in the Ukrainian language will be read. The letters have come from academics, public intellectuals, writers, artists, peace organisations, trade union groups, students and workers.

Truth matters, but national interest, in the estimation of those who tell us what truth is, seems to matter more. In a time of war, objectivity and political clarity suffer. People need to strive for the truth and to question the doctored, propagandised version of truth.

In 1984 the slogan was ‘war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength’.

We need to remember another line from that same book:

‘Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four.’

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

‘Most pathetic false flag ever’: Questions raised over RAF base security scare

By Daily Telegraph NZ. September 29, 2026, https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/most-pathetic-false-flag-ever-questions-raised-over-raf-base-security-scare/

Activist and journalist Vanessa Beeley has questioned the official and media narrative surrounding a security incident near RAF Fairford, describing it in commentary by Council Estate Media as the “most pathetic false flag ever.”

Beeley’s remarks centred on reports that 85 homes were evacuated following the discovery of three white vans near the Gloucestershire airbase. A local farmer encountered the vehicles blocking a road in the early hours and subsequently reported seeing several masked individuals running towards nearby woodland.

Police reportedly attended the scene and arrests were made under the Explosives Act. Beeley highlighted inconsistencies in the emerging account, including claims about how long the vans had been near the base, the apparent absence of occupants when they were discovered, the response time of security personnel and police, and the delay before nearby residents were evacuated.

Critics questioned reports that the suspects remained in the vicinity long enough to be arrested despite allegedly having been involved in a potentially serious security operation. The circumstances did not resemble a sophisticated attempt to attack a strategically important military installation.

The Council Estate Media analysis was particularly sceptical of suggestions that Iran could have been behind the incident, arguing that anyone seriously intending to strike RAF Fairford would be unlikely to spend hours driving conspicuously around a highly alerted military installation before abandoning vehicles and remaining nearby.

Television coverage from above the base following the incident showing military assets appeared difficult to reconcile with claims that authorities believed an immediate and serious threat remained.

The report suggested the incident may have been a “performance” capable of being used to build public support for deeper British involvement in the conflict with Iran. The US, Israel and the British government could each potentially benefit politically or strategically from portraying Iran as a direct threat to Britain, justifying further UK military involvement.

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Uranium Prices Just Broke a 19-Year Record, but Nuclear Stocks Are Collapsing Anyway

Yaho/Finance, Rich DupreySat, October 3, 2026

Quick Read

Despite uranium hitting a 19-year record of $96/lb, CCJ is down 7% and UEC is down 20% in 2026 as utilities balk at signing new contracts.
OKLO and SMR have collapsed 50% and 45% year to date as hyperscalers prioritize near-term megawatts over long-term gigawatt nuclear capacity.
Cameco’s realized price of $65/lb lags spot near $88, and term contracting volumes fell 15%, so the record means little until utilities actually sign.

The long-term uranium price reached $96 per pound, an all-time record that passes the $95/lb high from mid-2007, according to ZeroHedge’s report on uranium term prices. The term price sets the multiyear contracts utilities sign to fuel their reactors, and it is up roughly 12% year to date. That should be good news for Cameco (NYSE:CCJ), a leading uranium producer. Instead, Cameco shares closed at $85.18 on October 2, down 6.9% for 2026.

Cameco and Nuclear Stocks Slid as Uranium Hit a Record

Cameco fell 11.62% over the past month, from $96.38 to $85.18. It also fell Friday and underperformed the market. Its 52-week high is $135.24.

The rest of the sector has done worse:

Uranium Energy (NYSEAMERICAN:UEC) is down 20.38% year to date, even after selling uranium at a weighted average of $93.13/lb. The stock reversed course after an earnings spike.
Denison Mines (NYSEAMERICAN:DNN) is down 20.19% over the past month.
Oklo (NYSE:OKLO) is down 50.01% year to date.
NuScale Power (NYSE:SMR) is down 45.31% year to date.
Leading uranium and nuclear ETF VanEck Uranium Nuclear Energy ETF (NYSEARCA:NLR) is down 16.4% year to date. Cameco was its second-largest holding as of Oct. 1.

………………………………………………………….. https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/cameco-stock-down-below-90-122800554.html

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Uranium | Leave a comment

Green party drops longstanding opposition to nuclear power

Prof Andrew Stirling, who has advised government on nuclear power and energy policy, said the motion was “completely irrational”. “Why would a party that pioneered concerns about nuclear power that have been so broadly vindicated by history, choose now to shift its position?” he said

Party in England and Wales ditches commitment to phase out nuclear in major shift in its energy policy

Matthew Pearce, Tue 6 Oct 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/oct/05/green-party-nuclear-power-policy

Green party members have voted to end the party’s opposition to nuclear power, dropping a commitment to phase out the technology in a major shift in its energy policy.

The motion, adopted at conference, removes a “blanket opposition to nuclear fission” and instead commits the Green party of England and Wales to assessing nuclear projects alongside other low-carbon technologies.

Its electricity generation policy still prioritises offshore wind, onshore wind and rooftop solar as the primary sources of electricity, but allows elected representatives to support new nuclear reactors on a case-by-case basis.

The Green MP Carla Denyer said the decision recognised there was a role for nuclear while the country moved towards an electricity system based primarily on renewables. “This evolution of our policy does not commit the party to backing new nuclear, but accepts this power source is here to stay for now, while we transition to electricity generation based primarily on renewable sources,” she said.

Denyer said keeping existing nuclear stations running could be a low-carbon option because a significant proportion of their carbon footprint came from construction. “So if I were energy secretary, my evidence-based approach would be to keep existing nuclear plants in operation, but to consider proposals for new nuclear power very carefully, bearing in mind the cost, speed and environmental impacts.”

Her comments strike a different tone from her assessment in 2023, when she described nuclear energy as “incredibly slow and incredibly expensive”. She said at the time: “Renewables is simply the way forward. Nuclear is not going to help us out in this climate emergency.”

Other senior Greens have previously criticised the technology. The party’s leader, Zack Polanski, has described it as outdated and compared investment in new nuclear reactors to “creating a fax machine”.

Last year, Adrian Ramsay, then a Green co-leader, criticised government support for Sizewell C. “The money being spent on this nuclear gamble would be far better spent on insulating and retrofitting millions of homes, bringing down energy bills and keeping people warmer and more comfortable,” he said.

The Green’s previous opposition to nuclear fission was rooted in its staunch opposition of nuclear weapons, one of the party’s founding principles.

Eugene McCarthy, a co-founder of Greens for Nuclear and a supporter of the motion, said the urgency of the climate crisis demanded a willingness to consider all available options. “We are at the throw-the-kitchen-sink-at-it phase of the climate crisis where you cannot be ruling anything out for things like Chernobyl happening in the 1980s,” he said.

The motion allows elected representatives to assess individual proposals on their merits, McCarthy said. “We will not say we support or don’t support any particular technology. This motion basically lets our elected members of parliament take it on a case-by-case basis and go: ‘This makes sense, we will extend the lifetime of Sizewell B,’ and on a different case say: ‘Actually the numbers don’t add up here.’”

Asked about Polanski’s previous criticism of nuclear, McCarthy said the leader remained entitled to his views. “He’s still fully entitled to say that, and a lot of the nuclear technology that we are using is quite outdated, to be frank. What this means is that he can now take a nuanced position.”

“All authoritative sources agree that climate action is much faster, affordable and impactful with combined renewables and storage,” he added. “Why spend scarce resources on less effective actions?”

McCarthy said: “Renewables are cheaper and have much more capacity, and you can roll them out much quicker. [But] there are issues with baseload, which nuclear can help with.”

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Details emerge on Valar’s Utah plans

with litigation slowly continuing and regulatory pathways still being formed, the future is unclear

Whether Valar aims to leverage its Ward 250 authorization into further DOE-approved deployments on Department of Interior land is unknown. However, the DOE has continually characterized its reactor authorizations as purpose-built to expedite the research and development of test reactors—a definition that would hardly fit a 456-unit data center campus.

Nuclear Newswire, Oct 6, 2026,

Last week, NPR reported that reactor start-up Valar Atomics is planning to construct a new facility in Utah that would feature 456 of its reactors. This campus, called Project Beehive, would sit on more than 9,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land and would feature co-located data centers and a fuel production facility.

More on the land: On September 24, the Salt Lake Tribune first reported that Valar had applied to lease 480 acres of land owned by the state of Utah. This land (near the towns of Price and Wellington) is entirely surrounded by BLM land, but first reports indicated that the Valar project would be sited only on state-owned land.

The much larger application for the use of more than 9,000 federal acres was not revealed until NPR’s report on September 30. The state and federal applications should almost certainly be considered parts of the same project, as the land involved in each is in roughly the same area, east of Price and north of Wellington.

The BLM’s Utah office confirmed to NPR that it is “currently reviewing the application for completeness” and that the public will have “meaningful opportunities to provide input” on the project. For its part, Valar told NPR that “no construction begins before permits and approvals, and the public process leads along our internal targets set the pace.”

The regulatory angle: Mention of permits calls to mind another currently unclear facet of Valar’s plan: its regulatory pathway. The company progressed through Department of Energy authorization for the permitting of Ward 250, its first demonstration reactor. The question of how DOE authorization will be leveraged into Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing for follow-on commercial deployments has yet to be fully settled by the DOE, NRC, and private industry. Whether Valar would pursue the new 10 CFR Part 53, the soon-to-come Part 57, or the established Part 50 or Part 52 is currently unknown.

Nor has the company formally engaged publicly in preapplication activities of any kind with the regulator. In fact, its closest association with the NRC at this writing is through a complex and ongoing lawsuit: State of Texas et al v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Not to be confused with the unrelated NRC v. Texas—another federal court challenge between the state and the regulator—the State of Texas v. NRC challenges the NRC’s authority to license small reactors, arguing that their inherent safety and minimal use of nuclear material exempt them from the NRC’s strict requirements. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit, first filed in December 2024, included the states of Texas, Utah, and Louisiana; the Arizona State Legislature; and reactor start-ups Last Energy, Deep Fission, and Valar.

Almost two years on, the states involved have submitted a notice of voluntary dismissal ahead of any ruling, essentially dropping out of the lawsuit. The reactor developers (Valar included) are now currently conferring on what their next steps will be, according to a September 2 status report filed with the court.

So, with litigation slowly continuing and regulatory pathways still being formed, the future is unclear. It is also unclear whether the project’s siting on federal land will confer on it any special regulatory benefits. The Department of Interior (the agency that encompasses the BLM) does not have Other Transactional Authority like the DOE or Department of Defense. The OTA framework has been used by both the DOE and DOD for the authorization of its recent reactor projects. Whether Valar aims to leverage its Ward 250 authorization into further DOE-approved deployments on Department of Interior land is unknown. However, the DOE has continually characterized its reactor authorizations as purpose-built to expedite the research and development of test reactors—a definition that would hardly fit a 456-unit data center campus.

At any rate, whatever path Valar intends to pursue, the clock is ticking. NPR reports that Valar aims to begin nonnuclear construction by the end of this year and to have first reactors on line in 2028.

The background: Utah is a natural fit for Valar’s next project. While the company is headquartered in El Segundo, Calif., it was already closely partnered with the Beehive State through the Reactor Pilot Program. Through the RPP, Valar achieved criticality with its Ward 250 test reactor at the Utah San Rafael Energy Lab—it was one of the four companies to reach this milestone by the July 4 deadline set by Executive Order 14301.

Ward 250 is a 100-kWt TRISO-fueled, high-temperature gas reactor. Valar has not definitively revealed the planned capacity for follow-on deployments of its reactor technology. However, CEO Isaiah Taylor previously has said that Ward 250 is “sized to 15 MW thermal.”

This tentative number is at odds with NPR’s story, which reports that the 456 reactors involved in Project Beehive will “produce around 9.6 gigawatts of power for the data centers and even more thermal heat for other industrial applications,” meaning each Valar reactor would be rated at a minimum of 21 MWe—a figure that is significantly higher than any capacity previously ascribed to the design. NPR identified Valar’s design as being rated at 25 MWe.

In one more notable wrinkle, this is also not Valar’s first plan to bring a nuclear-powered data center to Utah. Shortly after achieving criticality with Ward 250 in late June, the company announced a partnership with Nvidia to jointly develop a much smaller data center in the state. However, Nvidia has not been publicly named, at this time, as an involved party in Project Beehive. https://www.ans.org/news/article-8462/details-emerge-on-valars-utah-plans/

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Israeli occupation forces near completion of ‘massive trench’ to partition Gaza: Report

Israeli forces are occupying around 70 percent of Gaza while intensifying the siege and continuing the genocide that is entering its third year

News Desk, OCT 5, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-occupation-forces-near-completion-of-massive-trench-to-partition-gaza-report

The Israeli military is expanding its blockade, occupation, and partitioning of Gaza by nearly “completing” the formation of a massive “earthen embankment” or trench across the strip, the Ynet news site reported on 5 October.

“Israeli forces are completing an anti-vehicle barrier consisting of a wide trench and an earthen embankment, while drilling into the ground at regular intervals to ensure no cross-border tunnels into Israel have been missed,” the Israeli outlet wrote.

“The work is taking place east of the Yellow Line, which divides areas under [Israeli occupation] from those controlled by Hamas,” it added.

Ynet went on to say that Tel Aviv continues “targeted strikes” against “terrorists,” referring to the ongoing genocide which has killed over 1,000 Palestinians since the US-brokered October 2025 ceasefire agreement.

“We will act against operatives and kill them one by one. We wait patiently for the right moment to strike with very low collateral damage. There were opportunities when we did not strike immediately because of those considerations,” the report cites Israeli officials as saying.

The report also writes that Hamas remains intact and in control of parts of the strip despite three years of genocidal war aimed at defeating the resistance.

“Three years after 7 October, Hamas still rules Gaza,” the headline reads.

The construction of a massive barrier aimed at splitting the besieged strip in half was initially reported in July this year.

Satellite imagery at the time showed that occupation forces were building a ground barrier extending hundreds of meters beyond the so-called “Yellow Line.”

The barrier is mainly a trench that has allowed Israel to expand its control and occupation of Gaza.

In one part of southern Gaza, the barrier extends beyond the Yellow Line by more than a kilometer, according to Haaretz reporting from earlier this year.

In Khan Yunis, part of the new Israeli barrier extends about 400 meters beyond the line – stretching along the Salah al-Din Road that connects the northern and southern parts of the strip.

Haaretz said that in one area in Rafah, the barrier pushes beyond the line by approximately 1,300 meters. Tel Aviv has been steadily expanding the trench for several months.

The Yellow Line was meant to act as an initial perimeter to which troops would withdraw as part of the agreement last year.

Israeli occupation forces have been pushing beyond it and erecting permanent outposts along the line since the launch of the US October 2025 ‘peace plan’ and so-called ceasefire.

Further withdrawals are contingent on “progress” regarding the disarmament of Hamas, which the Palestinian resistance, as a whole, rejects until the formation of an independent Palestinian state.

Meanwhile, in violation of the US ceasefire plan, the siege of Gaza has intensified. The flow of aid into the strip remains critically low as Israeli forces continue to bar the entry of much-needed medical equipment and supplies – including wheelchairs and other items.

Haaretz said that in one area in Rafah, the barrier pushes beyond the line by approximately 1,300 meters. Tel Aviv has been steadily expanding the trench for several months.

The Yellow Line was meant to act as an initial perimeter to which troops would withdraw as part of the agreement last year.

Israeli occupation forces have been pushing beyond it and erecting permanent outposts along the line since the launch of the US October 2025 ‘peace plan’ and so-called ceasefire.

Further withdrawals are contingent on “progress” regarding the disarmament of Hamas, which the Palestinian resistance, as a whole, rejects until the formation of an independent Palestinian state.

On 4 October, Israel killed the Palestinian head of a Turkish aid group in a strike on the vehicle he was riding in while in central Gaza’s Deir al-Balah.

Over 1,450 Palestinians have been killed since the US ceasefire plan took effect, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Gaza, Israel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Our nuclear future? The ‘Manhattan Project’ for European energy

A Polish-led alliance backed by Washington is betting on smaller reactors to overcome the cost and delays that have dogged Europe’s nuclear revival

Overseen by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, the coalition of
American, Japanese and Korean companies aims to jump-start the mass
production of small modular reactors (SMRs), miniature power plants that
are theoretically much cheaper and quicker to build than conventional
atomic power stations. The UK has also expressed an interest: Lord Sarwar,
the trade minister, met representatives of the Polish SMR company at the
centre of the alliance this week.

Times 4th Oct 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/poland-britain-alliance-nuclear-future-manhattan-project-qts63dbcs

October 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Perilous Surrender: The Pentagon Falls for Artificial Intelligence

6 October 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/perilous-surrender-the-pentagon-falls-for-artificial-intelligence/

The trend was already tracing itself through the corridors of power, but the world’s most powerful defence department has fallen, most heavily, for the use of artificial intelligence at virtually every level of its operations. Even before the Pentagon’s intoxicating pursuit of artificial intelligence was announced, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was already running simulated aerial trials of combat engagements between AI agents and seasoned pilots.

In December 2025, the US Department of Defense (DOD) revealed plans for a rapid and extensive release of the generative AI GenAI.mil platform, one utilising advanced models intended for use for over 3 million military personnel, civilian employees and contractors. Google Cloud’s Gemini or Government products was the first off the rank in a described “one-stop shop,” a generous effort on the part of bureaucracy to hail the machine and herald the start of full-throated cognitive surrender.

In his December email to employees in a department the Trump administration prefers to call the War Department, Secretary of Defense (War) Pete Hegseth announced that the GenAI.mil platform signalled “a giant step toward mass AI adoption across the department. This tool marks the beginning of a new era, where every member of our workforce can be more efficient and impactful.”

In his January memorandum to the various leaders of the military community, Hegseth barked about the need for the US military to “build on its lead over our adversaries in integrating this technology, established during President Trump’s first term, to make our Warfighters more lethal and efficient.” To do so would involve the Pentagon’s acceleration of US “Military Ai dominance by becoming an ‘AI-first’ warfighting force across all components, from front to back.” (Why not sideways, above and below?)

Trouble, however, arose when Anthropic placed restrictions on the use of Claude and its products for conducting mass surveillance of US citizens or use in lethal autonomous systems. The Pentagon, in turn, demanded the use of any genAI products it purchased for any designated “lawful purposes.” For its stubbornness, Anthropic was designated a “supply-chain risk” by the department, its products removed from all national security assets and systems. (The company’s efforts to have the ban overturned has had mixed results.)

Notwithstanding this hiccup – a minor one in the scheme of things – the contracts between AI companies and the Pentagon make it clear that the former are meant to provide “risk forecasting, and threat ideation exercises”. “Frontier AI companies can help DoD gain a better understanding of the risks that might be associated with subsequent near-frontier AI models or features, to avoid strategic surprise and to mitigate associated risks.”

The Pentagon has since added other commercial generative AI products to the GenAI.mil portal, including Starshield AI’s Grok and OpenAI’s ChatGPT Mil. In August, a source self-described as a “War Department official” told DefenseScoop that such access to “the resilient American technology stack will give warfighters the tools they need to act with confidence and safeguard the nation against any threat.”

ChatGPT Mil also serves to organise salient files and conversations that take place over projects lasting months in one place, including an “Offline Search capability” that supplies detailed citations. The facility can be refreshed over time to reflect new information. Joe Larson, former senior Pentagon official turned OpenAI vice president, very much an exponent of the defence-civilian revolving door, explained this integration as “grounded in our national security principles, pairing access to powerful tools with clear safeguards, meaningful human judgment, and accountability for high-stakes decisions.”

Grok for Government will also, according to the department, furnish personnel through GenAI.mil with “advanced capabilities, including deep-thinking inference, adaptive reasoning modes (Auto, Fast, and Expert), customizable workspaces, persistent projects and reusable ‘playbooks’ that capture and scale institutional knowledge.”

These systems presage a broader surrender of the US military establishment to the machine, its alluring fetishes, and its acclaimed shamanistic potential. The guidance on “Accelerated Mission Software” signed by Pentagon CIO Kirsten Davies on August 31 is yet another indication of this numbing trend. It notes the recognition on the part of the department “that AI-assisted software development is a significant force multiplier, for the delivery of speed quality.” Something to be said about the guidance is its acknowledgment that human agency “remains fully accountable for the security, functionality, and integrity of any code generated or modified using AI.” Any code with an AI-provenance “will be considered unverified input, and its use does not absolve the developer or the government of responsibility for the resulting work product.”

Such a cautionary note may well be temporary. In his September 30 Quantico speech, Hegseth announced the creation of the Autonomous Warfare Command “designed to scale autonomous warfare across the Joint Force as a 4-star functional combatant command by October 1, 2027.” In his memorandum on the subject, the Secretary is filled with effusive babble on the new command, which “will define joint needs and integrate Service-provided forces in support of geographic combatant commanders. It will test equipment and force designs with realistic opposition in demanding exercises and rugged environments, modify rapidly, and field what works.” Just the sorts of things to make humans feel safe.

The consequences of such AI integration and excessive reliance are proving and will prove critical. The disclosures by OpenAI and Anthropic that semi-autonomous large language models conducted coordinated attacks on networks owned by other companies and, in the case of Australia, various government bodies and affiliates, including the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), should engender teeth-chattering doubt among sceptics. While US President Donald Trump insists with consistent daftness that AI firms self-regulate the field, an independent assessment of the risks rather than a self-reporting format, has, at the very least, the merits of greater accountability. Heidy Khlaaf, a former safety engineer at OpenAI and currently chief scientist at the AI Now Institute, is of the view that trusting companies to consider the risks produced by their own products is not just a conflict of interest but a “subversion of democratic processes when AI labs are allowed to take over the arbitration of risk determinations with life-or-death consequences.” Then again, companies were never much for democracy.

October 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries