Nuclear energy could double by 2050, but AI-driven power demand does not change the economic case
New global assessment finds nuclear is not cost-competitive with solar and wind in most countries, despite renewed interest arising from AI datacentres and energy security concerns
Key findings:
- Global nuclear capacity could grow 2–3x to ~550–1,000 GW by 2050, holding a ~10% share as electricity demand also grows 2–3x. Reaching ETC’s central estimate of ~750 GW requires new build to rise 3–5x, from 5 GW/year over the past 20 years to 15–25 GW/year, and investment to rise from ~$50bn to ~$200bn a year.
- Small modular reactors remain 1-2 decades away from wide deployment, despite attracting large investment and political attention amid surging AI-driven power demand. Early US cost estimates range from ~$140–270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $40–190 per MWh.
- Similar reactor designs can cost 4–9 times more to build in the US and Europe than in China and South Korea – financing costs are key factor.
- Russia controlled 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, and key nuclear equipment manufacturing is concentrated in just five countries. Nuclear supply chain concentration poses the greatest risk, rather than safety and waste management.
London, 6 October 2026 — Surging power demand from AI data centres and energy security fears sharpened by the Russia-Ukraine war and the Strait of Hormuz crisis have revived interest in nuclear power. A new report from the Energy Transitions Commission, The Role of Nuclear in the Energy Transition: Complementary but Limited, offers a measured assessment: nuclear could provide up to 10% of global electricity supply by 2050 — roughly doubling today’s 380 GW capacity to 750 GW — but expansion only makes economic sense in a limited number of countries. Delivering this share requires average new nuclear capacity to grow to 15–25 GW annually until 2050, from an average of 5 GW per year over the past 20 years, backed by $200bn annually compared to $50bn today. This high deployment rate was previously achieved in the 1970-80s across the US and EU, in part driven by an oil crisis.
The vast majority of the remaining 90% of decarbonised electricity will come from solar and wind, which are cheaper and faster to build in almost every country. In most developed countries, new solar and onshore wind are typically 20–50% cheaper than new nuclear, while offshore wind costs are comparable or lower. Cost reductions in battery storage are increasingly enabling solar and wind to provide cost-competitive ‘round the clock’ power.
“The nuclear debate has been too binary for too long: reject it outright over safety and waste concerns or insist it must carry the whole transition. This report settles it with evidence: extend existing plants where safe, and build new ones where costs can be managed to competitive levels. On average this might mean 10–20% of a country’s future power generation coming from nuclear plants. In most places, however, solar and wind win decisively on cost, speed and security. So for countries without existing nuclear delivery capabilities, diverting resources to nuclear will increase costs and delay the transition.” said Adair Turner, Co-Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.
“SMR investor hype was built on cost assumptions that have not materialized. US SMR CAPEX estimates have inflated from $3,000–10,000 per kilowatt to $12,000–15,000 per kilowatt in just a few years, hit by the same cost overruns as large reactors. Costs will only fall with manufacturing scale and standardisation, but with over 70 competing designs, achieving either will take time. SMRs may have a role in the 2040s, but deployment at scale in the 2020s is unlikely. For businesses needing reliable clean power, grid-scale renewables plus storage and power purchase agreements with existing nuclear are proven, cheaper alternatives.” said Jules Kortenhorst, Co-Chair of the Energy Transitions Commission.
SMR hype is outpacing the technology’s readiness
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are attracting heavy investment amid AI’s power surge, and pilot projects are underway in China and Canada, but the ETC estimates widespread deployment will not occur until the late 2030s and 2040s and only if costs decline. Early US cost estimates range from ~$140–270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $40–190 per MWh. While modular reactor designs could reduce costs by 20–30%, this depends on design consolidation from over 70 competing SMR designs globally and standardisation across regulations in different countries to enable sufficient project pipelines and cross-border learning effects.
Why nuclear is economic in some countries, but not most
A country’s optimal nuclear share depends on two factors: the nation’s ability to deliver projects quickly at competitive costs, and the benefit to the electricity system. Similar nuclear designs cost 4-9 times more in US and Europe than in China and South Korea, and result in over 3 times higher final electricity prices. The gap reflects: higher standardisation and replication in recent Chinese and South Korean projects, leading to shorter construction timelines compared to “first-of-a-kind” Western projects; more effective regulatory architecture in fleet-build programmes; and lower financing costs. Chinese state-backed projects raise capital at around 1–3%, compared with 8–10% for privately financed projects.
Benefits to the grid vary greatly by country. The UK, with expensive offshore wind and high balancing costs, could economically support up to 20% nuclear generation instead of increasing reliance on ultra-long duration storage and overbuilding renewable capacity. In India, the optimal share of nuclear is only roughly 10%-20%, as abundant solar resources paired with batteries provide the cheapest source of electricity. Countries with lots of renewable resource and no established nuclear industry—for example, most of Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Australia—have no economic case for nuclear; the same institutional and financial resources devoted to renewables deliver faster, cheaper decarbonisation.
Lifetime extensions are safe and the most cost-effective new capacity
The cheapest path to maintaining nuclear capacity is safely extending existing reactor lifetimes from 60 to 80 years. Life extensions cost $500–$1,100 per kilowatt versus $2,000–$18,000 per kilowatt for new builds, yielding electricity costs below $40 per megawatt-hour. 12 US plants have been approved for 80-year operation since 2019. Extending existing global capacity to 80 years could retain 230 GW that would otherwise retire by 2050, reducing new-build requirements by a third.
Russia’s stronghold on supply chains is nuclear’s vulnerability
Approximately 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025 ran through Russia. It supplied around 20% of EU enriched uranium in 2024, even after the EU took measures to reduce Russian imports after the invasion of Ukraine. Reactor pressure vessels, turbines and control systems are manufactured in just six countries: France, South Korea, Japan, the US, China and Russia. While in aggregate, supply chain capabilities can meet the ramp up in nuclear build rates needed to reach up to 1,000 GW by 2050, it could take a decade or more to diversify these capabilities to reduce nuclear supply chain concentration.
Download the report: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/nuclear-in-the-energy-transition/
New nuclear ‘would make Scotland a target for Putin’, says Scots Labour MP.
Brian Leishman said hosting small reactors north of the border “would
make communities a target”. Building new nuclear would “make Scotland a
target for Putin”, a Scottish Labour MP has said. Mr Leishman will say in
a Westminster Hall debate once the House of Commons returns from recess:
“Politicians from nearly every party say that the UK will likely be at
war with Russia by 2030.
“If the war hawks are correct, then why would it
make sense for various areas to become targets for Putin? “Nuclear power
plants or the other policy pushed by the nuclear energy lobby – hundreds
of small reactor sites in locations up and down the UK – would make
communities a target.” The UK government has said that Torness in East
Lothian, Hunterston in Ayrshire, and Dounreay in Caithness could host small
nuclear reactors. But the SNP has effectively banned it, saying it would
rather focus on renewables which is much cheaper to build.
Scotsman 10th Oct 2026, https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/new-nuclear-would-make-scotland-a-target-for-putin-says-scots-labour-mp-9274732
Little Support for New Nuclear at Port Hope.
Angela Bischoff, Director, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Oct 8, 2026,
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing to build what would be the world’s largest nuclear station at its Wesleyville site in Port Hope.
The massive project would cost approximately $230 billion and drive up electricity bills across Ontario.
That is why Protect Northumberland, a coalition of BlueDot Northumberland, Seniors for Climate Action NOW, and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, asked municipal election candidates across Northumberland County:
Do you think that building a massive nuclear station that will drive up electricity rates is a good use of the Wesleyville site?
Most Candidates Are Opposed or Undecided
We have received responses from 39 candidates:
- Only 5 candidates support OPG’s proposal
- 9 candidates oppose the proposal
- 25 candidates remain undecided
If you live in Northumberland County, see how your municipal election candidates responded here.
Local voters deserve to know where every candidate stands on a project that will affect electricity bills, public safety and the future of their community for generations.
And be sure to bring up the issue with candidates at the door, at all-candidates forums, and in letters to the editor.
Plans advance for floating nuclear plant in New Brunswick, a first among G7 countries
Prodigy has not disclosed a price for the Belledune facility. Mycle Schneider Consulting has concluded that a market for reactors in remote mines and communities is “unlikely to materialize” because the electricity they would generate would be far too expensive.
Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding
Matthew McClearn, Toronto october 9, 2026, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-brunswick-floating-nuclear-plant-prodigy-clean-energy/#vf-comments
Plans for a floating nuclear power plant advanced this week with its backers’ selection of a small reactor to power it.
The demonstration facility, dubbed a Transportable Nuclear Power Plant, would mark many firsts. Set for near a small port in Belledune, N.B., it would be the first floating nuclear plant in a G7 country, as well as the developer’s first commercial deployment.
It would also be the first nuclear project majority-owned by First Nations. Belledune is situated in the traditional territories of Pabineau First Nation and Eel River Bar First Nation, which support the project.
And it would be a prototype for the barge’s developer, Prodigy Clean Energy Ltd., which hopes Belledune will serve as a “commercial blueprint” for remote communities and coastal industrial operations in Canada and globally.
The facility would feature two 22-megawatt microreactors known as the BWXT Advanced Nuclear Reactor (BANR). It’s currently being designed by BWX Technologies Inc.
BWXT-N +0.26%increase, a U.S.-based manufacturer of nuclear components with operations in Ontario.
Unlike many upstart reactor developers, BWXT has actual experience: Its core focus is building naval components and reactors, often in more challenging settings than a moored barge.
“They’re the quickest and most ready,” said Terry Richardson, Chief of Pabineau First Nation, who helped select the BANR. “They have the proven technology with what they’ve been doing in the States, with aircraft carriers and submarines.”
Floating nuclear plants are rare. One, the Akademik Lomonosov, operates in the Russian Arctic. This year, nuclear giant Rosatom said it had manufactured two reactors (variants of the RITM-200 reactors used in Russian icebreakers) to be incorporated in floating plants that will power a remote copper mine.
“Information regarding this project has been erratic, and construction has apparently started on one barge only,” reported Mycle Schneider Consulting in an assessment of the global nuclear industry’s progress, published last month.
Prodigy has not disclosed a price for the Belledune facility. Mycle Schneider Consulting has concluded that a market for reactors in remote mines and communities is “unlikely to materialize” because the electricity they would generate would be far too expensive.
The partners’ challenge is to find investors who disagree – a task that has defeated most reactor developers. Prodigy says they seek a mix of private and federal funding; Prodigy’s chief executive officer, Mathias Trojer, said Ottawa spends more than $2-billion annually subsidizing electricity costs in the North, so it is motivated to fund alternatives to the region’s aging diesel plants.
The Belledune proposal ticks some of the boxes in a federal nuclear strategy unveiled earlier this year, which sought to “demonstrate a Canadian-controlled Generation IV microreactor by 2035 to support defence facilities and operations and, in the longer term, remote and northern communities.”
The BANR is not Canadian-controlled, however. It’s been under development for several years already as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. John MacQuarrie, BWXT’s president of commercial operations, said Belledune’s BANR would be a variant of that reactor, containing a mixture of American and Canadian intellectual property.
BWXT has not pursued commercial certification for the BANR in either country, but Mr. MacQuarrie said it plans to engage with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission shortly.
Mr. Trojer, said the design should be completed in the next two years or so, and a final investment decision would be made around that time; the facility could be built in roughly 18 months and be operational in the early 2030s.
Politicians regard the Prodigy/BWXT barge as a potential boon for industry. René Legacy, New Brunswick’s Deputy Premier and Energy Minister, said his province wants to build the barge, an undertaking “directly in line with our strengths, which is lots of machinists, lots of welding, lots of industrial might.” But New Brunswick can’t build reactors: his Ontario counterpart, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce, said his province’s supply chain stands ready to assist.
New Brunswick has signed an agreement signaling its intent to buy power produced by the barge, and announced plans to bring it before the federal Major Projects Office for designation as a project of national importance.
The BANR would be powered by what’s known as tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel. BWXT, which makes nuclear fuel for clients including the U.S. government, says it can already produce TRISO in non-commercial quantities. But its crucial ingredient is high-assay low-enriched uranium, which is enriched to contain nearly 20 per cent of the fissile isotope of uranium – much higher than fuel for existing commercial reactors.
Only Russia and China produce HALEU in appreciable quantities, according to the World Nuclear Association. The U.S. is investing heavily to grow its own minuscule domestic capacity, but other reactor vendors have reworked HALEU-fueled designs due to their inability to obtain the fuel.
Mr. MacQuarrie said the BANR’s TRISO would likely be produced in the U.S. Mr. Trojer added that the Belledune project would require only modest amounts.
“It’s a long lead item, but if anyone can deliver it, then it’s BWXT or some combination of their business relationships.”
How safe are Britain’s military bases from hostile states?
The UK’s most sensitive sites are increasingly vulnerable to rapidly evolving weapons and surveillance systems and in some cases only have police protection
Armed only with explosives and machineguns, it was the SAS who pioneered
hit-and-run raids on Axis airbases across the North African desert during
the Second World War. Striking planes while they were parked on poorly
guarded airstrips was a stroke of genius that forced the Nazis to overhaul
their defences as daring squads of British operatives destroyed hundreds of
German and Italian aircraft before they could take to the skies. Drones,
advanced missiles, “grey zone” operations and militant activism are now
prompting a similarly urgent transformation of how British bases are
protected. From the Cotswolds to the Middle East, our most sensitive sites
are increasingly vulnerable to the rapidly evolving weapons and
surveillance systems used by hostile states.
Times 9th Oct 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/how-safe-britain-military-bases-hostile-states-ccj980mjk
Will there ever be a new nuclear power station at Bradwell?
4. Speculation
With large ‘mega-reactors’ seemingly out of the picture, a prevailing misconception is that so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) might be built at Bradwell. SMRs are anything but small! Typical proposals would take up more space than the closed Bradwell does and introduce yet more toxic waste. And no design that the UK Government has considered has ever been built and tested. No company or developer has indicated it is considering the Bradwell site, although other closed sites in England have been mooted.
6 October 2026 https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/new-nuclear-at-bradwell-ever/
Peter Banks, BANNG Co-ordinator, answers this question for the October 2026 edition of Regional Life magazine
Several factors come into play when attempting to answer that big question.
1. Current State of Play
The withdrawal of the Chinese General Nuclear Company (CGN) indicated that the Bradwell site is highly unlikely to be further considered for large ‘mega-reactors’ like the Hualong One Reactor design.
2. Political Implications
In existing (albeit awaiting updates) UK Government documentation, the Bradwell site is still listed as “potentially suitable” for nuclear development. With frequent changes in ministers and proposed regulatory changes, it is unclear whether this will change, especially as the onus has shifted to potential developers to choose a “suitable site” themselves. BANNG continues to maintain that the site is wholly unsuitable for any type of nuclear power station and its long-term legacy of dangerous radioactive wastes.
3.Legacy
There are areas of the former power station that give cause for concern. The two highly visible buildings covered in shiny cladding house the reactor containment vessels with the graphite moderator blocks still inside. These will remain too dangerous to decommission for another 100 years from now. Also Bradwell Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), along with inbound ILW from Dungeness and Sizewell A, is housed in a relatively new (built 2013-14) Intermediate Storage Facility (ISF). Further, when demolition of the storage pond building started, it was found it was too radioactive and another shell was built around it. Any new nuclear power station next door would vastly add to the dangerous legacy.
4. Speculation
With large ‘mega-reactors’ seemingly out of the picture, a prevailing misconception is that so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) might be built at Bradwell. SMRs are anything but small! Typical proposals would take up more space than the closed Bradwell does and introduce yet more toxic waste. And no design that the UK Government has considered has ever been built and tested. No company or developer has indicated it is considering the Bradwell site, although other closed sites in England have been mooted.
5. Probability
At the time of writing, no developers have proposed building any sort of nuclear power plant at Bradwell. In addition to BANNG’s resolute stance that the site is not suitable, regulators may also be reluctant to recognise it as meeting the criteria to be “potentially suitable”.
To conclude, the chances of building a new nuclear power station at Bradwell are minimal. The answer to the question must be NO.
Ministry of Defence under pressure on Trident balloon accident
Local people filmed a large balloon meant to provide last-ditch communications in a nuclear war deflating and crashing. But the Ministry of Defence won’t say anything about it
Rob Edwards, October 06 2026,
https://www.theferret.scot/trident-balloon-accident/
The Ministry of Defence is being urged to “come clean” about an accident that reportedly destroyed the UK’s emergency nuclear war communications balloon, after The Ferret discovered that key information has been taken offline.
Byline Times reported that the helium balloon, codenamed Sunflower and kept in Scotland, crashed to the ground after deflating during a test over Yorkshire on 4 September.
The balloon is designed to lift a 1,500-metre radio antenna enabling the UK government to order Trident submarines to launch a nuclear strike after Britain has been attacked.
Both the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the army have refused to make any comment at all, encouraging speculation that the balloon could have been downed by a Russian drone.
At the same time, one of the main pieces of evidence about the balloon’s history and purpose appears to have been removed from a military website after it was highlighted in Byline Times.
Byline Times reported that the helium balloon, codenamed Sunflower and kept in Scotland, crashed to the ground after deflating during a test over Yorkshire on 4 September.
The balloon is designed to lift a 1,500-metre radio antenna enabling the UK government to order Trident submarines to launch a nuclear strike after Britain has been attacked.
Both the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the army have refused to make any comment at all, encouraging speculation that the balloon could have been downed by a Russian drone.
At the same time, one of the main pieces of evidence about the balloon’s history and purpose appears to have been removed from a military website after it was highlighted in Byline Times.
Known as the low frequency fall back (LFFB), the balloon has been kept in an army warehouse on a Dundee industrial estate, next to the city’s Eastern Cemetery. Vehicles to transport it are believed to be housed in a hardened aircraft shelter at the army and airforce base at Leuchars in Fife.
Every autumn, it has travelled with a police convoy to and from a former airfield at Topcliffe, near Thirsk in Yorkshire, to be tested. It was videoed by a Facebook group called Fife Jammer Locations going through Cupar in Fife on 29 August and 12 September.
Unfortunately, as Byline Times reported, during its latest test on 4 September the balloon was filmed by another Facebook group, North Yorkshire Weather Updates, partially deflated and spinning on its tether. Footage shows it rapidly ascended, was blown 12 miles east and finally fell into a farmer’s field near Ampleforth…………………………………………………………………………….
The Bylines Times story on 8 September was written by the veteran investigative journalist, Duncan Campbell. Along with researcher, Mike Kenner, he is writing a book on UK nuclear war planning with the provisional title ‘The Decoy Game’, updating his revelatory 1983 book, War Plan UK.
Dave Cullen, a UK nuclear weapons expert from the BASIC nuclear think tank in London, stressed the “vital importance” of communication with Trident submarines in a crisis.
He said: “If this backup communications system relies on a single balloon, the public deserves to know what happened in this incident. Given the details that have already been published, the ongoing silence from the MoD seems to serve little purpose, other than saving them further embarrassment.”
Rob Forsyth, a Royal Navy nuclear submarine commander in the 1970s who now campaigns against Trident, described the balloon as an absurd “Heath Robinson” contraption. It was “so Dad’s Army as to be unbelievable”, he said, referring to the comedy which made fun of the home guard in the Second World War.
“The MoD is understandably reluctant to reveal why this happened but, by saying absolutely nothing, it leaves conspiracy theorists a clear field,” he told The Ferret. “Some explanation as to what happened and reassurance that the vulnerability of a strategically vital communication link is being addressed is needed.”
“It is completely unacceptable that they are refusing to answer questions” – Gillian Mackay MSP, Scottish Greens co-leader
The Scottish Greens called on the MoD to “come clean” and explain what happened. “These are very concerning allegations that have been uncovered, and the MoD should be more transparent,” said the party’s co-leader, Gillian Mackay MSP.
“It is completely unacceptable that they are refusing to answer questions and refusing to give any details on what was behind this when there is video footage that will rightly be concerning people across the country.”
The SNP defence spokesperson, Dave Doogan MP, described the UK nuclear weapons programme as a “costly charade” which was fooling nobody. “Even advocates for nuclear weapon systems should be dismayed to see such vanity and extravagance undone by a balloon on the end of a string,” he said.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told The Ferret: “We’re not commenting on this.” A spokesperson for the army added: “We will not be commenting.”
Bangladesh nuclear plant draws hope — and worry
Daily Mail, By AFP, 7 October 2026
Bangladesh is preparing to switch on its first nuclear power plant, a long-delayed project promising relief from chronic electricity shortages — even as some fear living beside it.
The 2.4-gigawatt Rooppur nuclear plant, a $13-billion project more than a decade in the making, has transformed the once sleepy nearby village of the same name, bringing Russian workers, new businesses and jobs.
Once fully operational, its two reactors are expected to supply more than 10 percent of electricity demand in the South Asian nation of 170 million people, which has been hit hard by the fuel crisis sparked by the conflict in the Middle East.
For Md Zahedul Hasan, managing director of state-owned Nuclear Power Plant Company Bangladesh, the giant complex represents the culmination of a decades-old ambition to bring nuclear power to the country.
The plant’s first reactor is scheduled to be turned on by the end of this year, and the second unit “will be operational within a year”, Hasan said at the site on the banks of the Padma River, 150 kilometres (93 miles) west of Dhaka.
Bangladesh’s power sector is dominated by fossil fuels, particularly natural gas, with coal, oil and renewables making up the rest.
The project, built with Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom, has also brought an unlikely Russian enclave to rural Bangladesh.
Thousands of Russian workers have spent years building and installing equipment, with a residential complex, shops and restaurants springing up around them.
Shop signs appear in Bangla, English and Russian, while some restaurants serve borscht soup alongside local dishes.
Alexander Vladimirovich Skvortsov, a Russian installation technician, said he had a choice between working in Turkey or Bangladesh. He chose Rooppur, moving there with his family in 2024.
“When I first saw the construction site at Rooppur, I realized how much work lay ahead on this project… honestly, Rooppur changed me and my life,” he told AFP………………………………………….
Md Yunus Ali, 80, whose home is a 15-minute walk from the plant, said opposition to building a nuclear facility in the densely populated area dates back decades.
“A few days ago, they ran a compressor test with a big bang… even the children who were asleep woke up in fear,” said Ali, a retired paper mill worker.
“I am old now, and I am not afraid for my life… but I have children and grandchildren, and I want safety for them.”
The ambition to build a nuclear power plant at Rooppur dates back to the 1960s.
Several attempts came after independence, including approaches to Saudi Arabia and France, and talks with China and South Korea. No deals materialised.
Bangladesh finally signed an agreement with Moscow in 2015, with the Russian state offering a loan covering about 90 percent of the project’s original cost.
Construction began in 2017.
The project has since faced delays, including disruption from the Covid-19 pandemic and sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, which complicated equipment deliveries and payments.
There have also been corruption allegations surrounding the project, including against ousted former prime minister Sheikh Hasina and members of her family. They have rejected the accusations……………… https://www.dailymail.com/wires/afp/article-16188867/Bangladesh-nuclear-plant-draws-hope–worry.html
How much longer can the world absorb the Iran shock?
The war that was intended to deliver a swift overthrow of the Iranian
regime is now in its eighth month, with no end in sight. So, what might
happen next?
My preliminary conclusion is that one should never
underestimate human stupidity or human ingenuity. So far it is a rough draw
between the two. How long will this last?
That is the question. In a
devastating analysis, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago
describes the war on Iran as “The Mother of All Strategic Blunders”.
Among other things, he notes, the US went into the war on the false claim
that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon; it thought air
power alone would produce regime change, which has never worked; it had no
contingency plan for dealing with Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
It has also failed to achieve any of its four principal objectives —
regime change, ending Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability, ending its
long-range missile capability and ending its support for Hamas, Hizbollah
and the Houthis.
The closure of the strait has done significant damage to
the international economy and may do much more; and the US alliance
structure (in the Gulf and elsewhere) has been damaged. All this, moreover,
is only about half of the full charge sheet.
But the economic damage has
been surprisingly modest. As Johannes Urpelainen of the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies noted in August, “Many experts
initially thought that this supply disruption would send oil prices to USD
200 per barrel, causing massive inflation and a global recession. Instead,
oil prices peaked at USD 126 per barrel in April 2026.”
First, the energy
transition has reduced the global economy’s dependence on oil. Second,
supply chains have proven resilient and adaptive. Third, producers outside
the Middle East have acted fast to produce more oil and natural gas.
Finally, drawdowns of global oil inventories have filled the remaining gap.
FT 7th Oct 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/37e12a42-d473-4b1b-8fc5-4ea5f06d3bfb
Training campus expansion to support Sizewell C project
The expansion of a construction and engineering training campus in Suffolk
has been backed to train up to 3,000 people over five years. Phase two of
the Lound Civil Campus at East Coast College will provide training linked
to the Sizewell C nuclear power station and other Nationally Significant
Infrastructure Projects, according to East Suffolk Council.
The project
received £2.1m from the Asset Skills Enhancement and Capability Fund,
which is managed by Suffolk County Council, East Suffolk Council and the
client Sizewell C Ltd. The expanded campus is designed to provide training
for “up to 3,000” new entrants, career changers and existing workers
seeking additional construction and engineering skills, East Suffolk
Council said. Courses will focus on civil engineering and construction
trades, with the college working alongside regional employers to identify
workforce requirements.
Construction News 6th Oct 2026,
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/skills/training-campus-expansion-to-support-sizewell-c-project-06-10-2026/
Plans to reduce armed Civil Nuclear Constabulary escorts
“I think it’s a bad idea, it really is. The reason you’ve got to guard this stuff in the first place is because of how dangerous it is.
“Anyone who gets hold of this material can use it for anything they want, they can use it for a dirty bomb, they can use it for a poisoning device.
“That’s why you need to have a strong deterrence force around the material in transit.”
7th October, By Gareth Cavanagh
NUCLEAR industry plans to reduce armed police escorts for some movements of radioactive material have raised concerns about security.
Removing “mandatory Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) armed escorts where they do not provide a proportionate security benefit,” is the proposal from Nuclear Transport Solutions, in response to a Government review.
Proposals for reducing unnecessary armed escorts were included in a collective NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) Group response to the review.
The Government’s Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review called for an end to the regulatory red tape that it believes is frustrating progress in the nuclear industry.
Sellafield Limited and Nuclear Waste Services had its own ideas in response to the review but NTS wants risk-based security requirements for certain nuclear material movements.
Rail movements of hazardous waste occur regularly to and from Sellafield site near Seascale.
Reprocessed waste is also returned to overseas customers by sea from Barrow Docks, after being taken there from Sellafield by train.
NTS says the change could reduce the cost and complexity of transport while maintaining safety and security.
It’s response estimates cost
savings of 10 to 20 per cent, if security controls were optimised rather than removed.
It also predicts time savings of four to eight weeks from the planning process.
However, concerns have been expressed about the possible effect of reducing armed protection during transport.
CNC carries out armed escorts for NTS movements of hazardous material.
It also guards the gates of Sellafield and has a police headquarters on the site.
Matt Okuhara, who served with the force from 2006 to 2012 has criticised the proposal in The i Paper.
He said: “I think it’s a bad idea, it really is. The reason you’ve got to guard this stuff in the first place is because of how dangerous it is.
“Anyone who gets hold of this material can use it for anything they want, they can use it for a dirty bomb, they can use it for a poisoning device.
“That’s why you need to have a strong deterrence force around the material in transit.”
A spokesperson for the NDA Group said the proposed changes would not remove the need for security arrangements.
Instead, NTS would be able to choose measures according to the circumstances of each shipment, while meeting regulatory requirements……………………………………………..
NDA bosses say some transport arrangements remain prescribed by the regulator, meaning some shipments must use armed police escorts even where routes and materials are considered lower risk. https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/26611260.plans-reduce-armed-civil-nuclear-constabulary-escorts/
Israel is rewriting the Palestinian curriculum in East Jerusalem to erase Palestinian identity
Now, these tens of thousands of Palestinian children, for the first time since Israel illegally annexed and occupied the city in 1967, are using the Israeli curriculum as part of an effort to “Israelize” the schools.
Nearly 38 percent of Palestinian students in East Jerusalem now study the Israeli curriculum, while the rest of the students’ textbooks are being censored line by line, stripping mention of Jerusalem, prisoners, the Nakba, and freedom fighters.
By Aseel Mafarjeh Mondoweiss, October 5, 2026
Sally Assi, 34, recalled watching her 11-year-old daughter, Aline, a third-grader at Nour al-Huda School in the town of Beit Hanina in occupied East Jerusalem, arrange her drawing supplies before asking her, “Do you know why we draw Jerusalem?”
“Because it’s beautiful… right?” Aline answered.
Assi smiled, but her question to her daughter wasn’t really about drawing. “Jerusalem isn’t just walls and the Dome of the Rock,” Assi told Mondoweiss. “Jerusalem, to our generation and the generations before us, is a living history. It has cities, people, prisoners, stories, dreams.”
What Assi is describing from her kitchen in the town of Betunia, adjacent to Ramallah, is not an isolated worry among Palestinian parents whose children attend schools in East Jerusalem, under the control of the Israeli Ministry of Education. It is the front line of a rapid, Israeli-driven transformation of Palestinian education in the occupied city, where the Israeli curriculum has become mandatory for every first- and seventh-grade class as of this school year, affecting well over a third of Palestinian students in East Jerusalem.
Now, these tens of thousands of Palestinian children, for the first time since Israel illegally annexed and occupied the city in 1967, are using the Israeli curriculum as part of an effort to “Israelize” the schools. In addition, the remaining two-thirds of the Palestinian student body have been subjected to invasive Israeli alterations to the existing Palestinian curriculum, which has included the wholesale deletion of phrases, images, and symbols that denote Palestinian national identity, most significantly references to the Nakba of 1948 and altered phrasings around themes such as Jerusalem, prisoners, and Palestinian heritage.
It’s this quiet encroachment on Palestinian textbooks, as much as the wholesale replacement, that worries Assi most. “We don’t want our children to learn hatred, and we don’t want them to carry pain without meaning,” she said in an indirect reference to Israeli claims that Palestinian textbooks teach children to “hate.”
“But we want them to know the truth,” she added.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… A trajectory decades in the making
Israeli affairs analyst Esmat Mansour says this shift didn’t begin this year, nor was it imposed by sudden decree. It’s a trajectory that has accumulated for decades, starting with early attempts to impose the Israeli curriculum after the 1967 occupation of East Jerusalem, which was blocked by parent and teacher resistance, keeping the Jordanian curriculum in place for years.
“When the Palestinian Authority was established, the Palestinian curriculum became the city’s reference text,” Mansour told Mondoweiss. “But it never entered classrooms without passing through Israeli review. Books were revised before approval, so the cover stayed Palestinian while the content was reshaped from within. Today, that has escalated into something bolder: direct expansion of the Israeli curriculum itself, not as a marginal alternative but as a primary track competing for the city’s children”.
That pattern of internal revision is exactly what Hebrew University researcher Samira Alian documented in a recent academic study
What Assi is describing, in her kitchen in the town of Betunia, is not an isolated worry among Palestinian parents whose children attend schools under the control of the Israeli Ministry of Education. It is the front line of a rapid, Israeli-driven transformation of Palestinian education in occupied East Jerusalem, where the Israeli curriculum has become mandatory for every first- and seventh-grade class as of this school year.
Now, thousands of Palestinian children in East Jerusalem, for the first time since Israel illegally annexed and occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, are using the Israeli curriculum, as part of an effort to “Israelize” the schools.
It’s this quiet encroachment, as much as the wholesale replacement, that worries Assi most. “We don’t want our children to learn hatred, and we don’t want them to carry pain without meaning — but we want them to know the truth.”
A conflict that moved inside the classroom
In East Jerusalem, the fight over education is now no longer about the number of schools or classroom seats alone. It has moved into the classroom itself, into the book students open each morning, the terms their eyes land on, the images they study, the history they’re taught, and the narrative that will shape how they understand themselves in their city for years to come.
With the start of the 2026-2027 school year, that shift entered a more decisive phase: the Israeli curriculum has been imposed ………………………………………….. https://mondoweiss.net/2026/10/israel-is-rewriting-the-palestinian-curriculum-in-east-jerusalem-to-erase-palestinian-identity/
The normalising of nuclear
6 October 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/the-normalising-of-nuclear/
The facts on the nuclear industry’s effects on health and environment are now seen through a blur of discussion on climate change, and costs, and connection with military power, and it all seems too hard to grasp. When the UK’s Green Party decides to go sorta kinder pro-nuclear, well, nuclear power and nuclear weapons are beginning to look sort of OK and normal.
We are in a strange period of time, in which things previously agreed on, are now up for doubts and denial. Just as an example, in Australia, free infant vaccinations supplied by the government have pretty much been for many decades considered mandatory (although not legally mandatory). Now infant vaccination rates are falling. This fall reflects a loss of trust in health authorities. Most Australian children still do receive the full schedule of vaccines, but there’s a lessening of understanding of the reasons behind the programme. That’s combined with misinformation about vaccination as the cause of autism, among other false claims.
That’s just one very important example of the atmosphere of doubt and distrust that is becoming more prevalent in society at large, and Australia is not immune from this “fog of disbelief” about public health.
The vaccination issue is particularly misunderstood and dangerous, because that programme depends on “herd immunity.” A century ago, Australian families were all too likely to lose several of their many children to infectious diseases. In any old country cemetery in Victoria, you will find a whole lot of graves of infants, who died 100 years ago, many from the same families. Over the 20th Century a universal programme of infant vaccination revolutionised that, and survival rates for children rocketed up.
Well, I certainly have strayed away from my main theme – which is the growing acceptance of the nuclear industry as probably OK. I do think that social media, with its briefness and lack of fact-checking has contributed to the blurring of information, and the growing distrust of genuine experts.
What is happening in the UK, under a Labour government, is a definite case of the blurring of information about the nuclear industry. This started in 2006, with Tony Blair reversing Labour’s opposition to new nuclear, and it steadily moved on to Keir Starmer’s enthusiasm for it in 2025. Now the UK Labour government has a seemingly more moderate and “leftish” Prime Minister, with a more nuanced approach to things nuclear. Their latest effort is acting on the report of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Review, which recommends a “radical reset” of the UK’s nuclear regulatory framework to streamline approvals, reduce costs, and support safe, rapid delivery of civil and defence nuclear projects. So, the The UK’s Environment Agency is moving towards treating nuclear energy more like other industries by implementing a Nuclear Transformation Programme. It is an almost imperceptible change.
But it is such a telling change. No other industry has this extraordinary feature – that it involves the highly toxic fuels of uranium and plutonium, that its very essence is in splitting the atom to release ionising radiation As there has not been a nuclear disaster since 2011, it seems to be accepted by the powers that be that there will never be another one. At the same time, today’s warfare of drones and missiles raises a scary idea that a weapon might strike a nuclear facility. No other industry has this unique vulnerability that a great spread of toxic radiation would result from such a hit.
The dangerous effects of ionising radiation have been recognised since 1896, and confirmed more recently in several scientific studies, such as cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. And we all think it’s fine, we don’t think twice, as the radiographer darts out of the room when we have an X-ray.
So the nuclear industry is not like other industries. It has always had exceptional regulations to deal with this unique danger. Now the USA under Trump is denying the danger, and trashing the safety regulations. You might expect a British Labour government to have a more principled approach to health and safety. But, under the pressures of propaganda, of industry lobbying, of determination to stay in power, this process of normalisation of nuclear is underway in the UK.
Who can we turn to, to speak truth to power? Not the UK Greens. They have just 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. Matthew Pearce, The Guardian, has explained this – “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.” The article quotes Professor Andrew Stirling, who commented that “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?”
One does wonder how long it will be, before something happens. We have been extraordinarily lucky in that the big accidents have been relatively few, and not in recent years. Unfortunately, while people are shocked and concerned about big dramatic accidents, the slow insidious spread of “low level” ionising radiation just goes on, unnoticed. It’s “normal”.
I for one am quite saddened at the UK Greens’ decision. You wonder who is left – anyone in politics, in power, in the media, who is not so hell-bent to hang on to their job, that they might stick their head above the parapet and say NO to nuclear.
Flying Scared: The Evacuation of US Bombers from RAF Fairford
From the aggressively pro-American terrain of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Malcom Davis claimed to have identified the crucial lesson: “that in an age of drone warfare, it is no longer sufficient to assume that aircraft parked in the open are invulnerable to attack.”
7 October 2026Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/flying-scared-the-evacuation-of-us-bombers-from-raf-fairford/
The evacuation of a dozen B-1B bombers of the US Air Force from the RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire is another instalment in the latest rippling of the Iran war that began as a pre-emptive, illegal assault by the US and Israel on the Islamic Republic in late February. This, arguably, came in two parts, the first scripted with the detention and arrest of five men on September 27 in the vicinity of the base on suspicion of committing offences under the Explosives Act and suspicion of preparation of a terrorist act. (Another was arrested on October 1.) All were British nationals based in London and speedily released on police bail. At the time, Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor, head of Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP), floated the suggestion that “this may be activity committed by proxies, or individuals either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state.” The dust had barely settled before the finger pointing at Iran began. The men in question, according to the police, remained under investigation, with their release “subject to stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others.”
On October 4, the Pentagon announced that “all bombers that were deployed to RAF Fairford have been re-deployed to their home stations in the United States.” The department, wishing to blunt the significance of this hasty decision, added that the US military bomber force of B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s remained “ready to deliver precious global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States.”
Two days later, Counter Terrorism Policing announced that a further arrest had been made of a dual UK-Iranian man regarding “activity that took place close to RAF Fairford.” The arrest was made “on suspicion of terrorist acts under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006.” The Senior National Coordinator for CTP, Vicki Evans, reiterated the line that this remained “a live investigation and our specialist teams continue to pursue multiple lines of enquiry into the circumstances surrounding events near RAF Fairford.”
When asked about whether the movement of the bombers was linked to the September 27 incident, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio proved platitudinous and undetailed. “It’s not unusual to see movement of assets to different parts of the world based on exercises, redeployments, people changing out and new people coming in, new planes coming in and old planes going out.” This front of airy meaninglessness did not take long to vanish. The US Vice President JD Vance added salt to the otherwise dull mix in stating that the bombers had exited the base out of an “abundance of caution.” It was felt that Iran was doing what it had “done for 49 years… which is to engage in acts of terrorism against the US and against a lot of other people.”
President Donald Trump, tongue ever loosened, also told reporters when asked if the bomber redeployment had arisen from any “specific threat” did not hesitate: “Yeah, I think we can say that. They didn’t fly out by accident.” What followed was the usual combination of adulterated facts and twisted tales. There had been “some threats. And rather than tempting the enemy, we’ll capture the enemy and beat the enemy. But why should we leave them there? So we moved them around a little bit. Not very far.” Never one to accept the premise that the US security establishment might err on occasion, the president reiterated the familiar, if long fossilized line: Washington “actually knows the people that made the threat.”
This dramatic decision to move the bombers from a base that hosts the US Air Force’s 501st Combat Support Wing, an important component in the illegal war against Iran, is very much the opposite of what was initially done when a farmer noted the presence of three white vans and a “large group of hooded and masked men” who then attempted to alert the Ministry of Defence police at the airbase. When no response was forthcoming, she made a 999 call to police at 01:36 BST. Within 10 minutes “the village was full of armed police.” She ruminated on the effect of the call: “I believe that my 999 call foiled whatever plans they had.” She was also “absolutely staggered that it was left to me, as a member of the public, to see and report this.” The UK Defence Secretary, Wes Streeting, despite thanking the farmer for her call, suggested she only had “a partial picture” of what was unfolding, while Trump, claimed that the men were placed under surveillance “for a long time, and we got them.”
The swift relocation of such costly, vulnerable military hardware in the face of a threat that would, if inflicted, have cost a fraction of any budget, is also a startling reminder of the turns in modern warfare. The Ukrainians demonstrated with formidable efficacy in Operation Spider’s Web how its drones could strike Russian nuclear-capable bombers, allegedly crippling a third of its capacity. Taking place in June last year, it involved the use of 117 modestly priced drones that had been smuggled into Russia via lorries by unwitting drivers. The strikes, taking place across five different time zones with the assistance of the commercial autopilot software ArduPilot and the use of artificial intelligence for targeting purposes, led to an estimated bill amounting to US$7 billion. Some 41 planes were damaged or destroyed.
Operation Spider’s Web drew swooning praise from the cognoscenti. Katja Bego of Chatham House thought it “offered a glimpse into the future of warfare, transformed by access to cheap, widely available technology such as small drones, in which anything, anywhere can become a target.” This, she went on to say, raised “urgent questions” about NATO’s own preparations in the face of such an attack.
Before mighty odds and expensive machinery, new methods of war are proving resourceful, daring and devastating. One palpable absurdity of the Iran War has been the eye-popping costs accruing from the use of heavy weaponry in offence and anti-ballistic missiles such as the THAAD system in defence. This has drained the US inventory, sending Washington’s allies into fits of concern. On a relatively meagre budget, labouring in the face of superior odds and numbers, Tehran has caused mayhem with its drone and missile strikes across the Gulf region. In the case of RAF Fairford, the Iranians, whatever the speculation, did not even need to launch a single drone for an expensive fleet of bombers to be relocated to the continental US.
Despite no official confirmation that Tehran was actually involved, the commentary circuit has been clogged by assessments of a victory for the Islamic Republic. “I think it is hard to conclude anything other than that this will be seen as a success by Iran,” suggests former UK first national security advisor, Lord Peter Ricketts. “Whether it was the intention or whether it’s the inadvertent outcome, it is certainly the outcome that they have now forced the US into a public bring-back of their forces from one of their allies.”
From the aggressively pro-American terrain of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Malcom Davis claimed to have identified the crucial lesson: “that in an age of drone warfare, it is no longer sufficient to assume that aircraft parked in the open are invulnerable to attack.” The US needed “to invest in hardening bases, including developing new hardened aircraft shelters for forward deployed aircraft.” Another, surely cheaper solution would be to refrain from launching criminally foolish wars in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.
The war against Iran was meant to conclude in a popular insurrection against the theocrats in Tehran and the blooming of various flowers in the Orangerie of democracy. There was no insurrection and certainly no flowering. Instead, the successor regime to those slayed continues to resist with steeliness and wage its battle in the fields of briefings, psychology and economics. So far, it is winning.
Windscale nuclear disaster at Sellafield 69 years ago today
10th October, By Ewan Wishart, https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/26623785.windscale-nuclear-disaster-sellafield-69-years-ago-today/
TODAY, 69 years ago, a fire broke out on the Cumbrian coast which would become the worst nuclear accident in British history.
On October 10, 1957, workers at Windscale, the site now known as Sellafield, discovered that Pile No. 1, one of two reactors built as part of Britain’s post-war nuclear weapons programme, was on fire.
The reactors had been producing plutonium for Britain’s atomic weapons programme, with the Number One Pile having become operational in 1950.
On October 10, 1957, workers at Windscale, the site now known as Sellafield, discovered that Pile No. 1, one of two reactors built as part of Britain’s post-war nuclear weapons programme, was on fire.
The reactors had been producing plutonium for Britain’s atomic weapons programme, with the Number One Pile having become operational in 1950 10 operators realised something was seriously wrong.
Increasing the airflow in an attempt to cool the reactor instead helped fan the flames, while radioactive material began escaping through its chimney.
Workers eventually saw fuel channels glowing red inside the reactor and battled to bring the unprecedented fire under control.
Former Windscale worker David Staton, who later recalled his role in the emergency to the News & Star, was just 27 when he was summoned to the scene with the message: “Come at once. Pile One is on fire.”
Attempts using carbon dioxide and water were unsuccessful before the shutdown fans were switched off, starving the blaze of oxygen and allowing the water to extinguish it, Mr Staton recalled.
The consequences extended far beyond the site.
Radioactive fallout spread across Britain and Europe, while the distribution of milk from around 200 square miles of surrounding countryside was stopped because of contamination by radioactive iodine. No evacuation of the surrounding population took place.
The accident was subsequently rated Level 5 on the seven-point International Nuclear Event Scale and remains the UK’s most serious nuclear accident.
The disaster also became entwined with the secrecy of Britain’s Cold War nuclear programme.
The government under Harold Macmillan heavily censored information surrounding the accident, with concerns that disclosure could damage Britain’s nuclear relationship with the United States. The inquiry into the accident was not released in full until 1988.
The contemporary reaction in West Cumbria can still be traced through the Whitehaven News archives.
A week after the disaster, on October 17, 1957, the paper reported that local people would take a long time to regard the atomic plants with the same “complacency” they had before the fire.
The archive also records monitoring vans travelling through the area testing vegetation and air, while farmers were woken during the night and instructed not to sell, drink or feed contaminated milk to their animals.
Later scientific
research has complicated estimates of the disaster’s health impact. Historical estimates based on the radiation released suggested there could have been around 190 additional cancers, about 100 fatal, but subsequent epidemiological studies have not found the predicted increase.
Almost seven decades later, the Windscale Fire remains one of the defining events in the history of Britain’s nuclear industry.
-
Archives
- October 2026 (104)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
