Is nuclear clean, renewable energy?
Nuclear energy has produced electricity in America since 1958. But is nuclear energy clean, renewable energy?
In 1951, in Idaho, researchers powered a lightbulb using nuclear energy for the first time, and the American Atomic Energy Age was born. The Atomic Age came to symbolize progress, modernity and the power of science. By 1958, the first commercial nuclear power plant was up and running in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. In just seven years, research took us from powering a lightbulb with nuclear energy, to powering over a hundred thousand homes.
In 2023, there were 93 operating nuclear reactors in the United States. As concerns over climate change have grown in recent decades, some proponents of nuclear energy characterize it as “clean energy”. The debate over whether nuclear energy is clean, renewable energy often lacks some critical context on how we define what constitutes clean and renewable energy.
What is clean, renewable energy?
While all forms of energy impact our environment, the impacts of some forms of energy are far greater than others.
Truly clean, renewable energy is:
- Virtually pollution-free: It produces little to no planet-warming pollution or health-threatening pollution.
- Inexhaustible: It comes from natural sources that are regenerative or practically unlimited. No matter how much we use, there will always be more.
- Safe: It has minimal impacts on the environment, community safety and public health, and those impacts that do occur are temporary, not permanent.
- Efficient: It is a wise use of resources
There are a lot of ways in which nuclear power does not fit these criteria.
Is nuclear energy renewable?
Take a closer look at the criteria and how nuclear fits into each one:
Nuclear Energy:
When we think of pollution, we often think of oil in our oceans or smog in our skies. But there are lots of different kinds of pollution; when it comes to nuclear energy, there are two main ways pollution is created: mining for nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. While nuclear energy does not directly produce greenhouse gas pollution like carbon dioxide or methane, it does produce other pollution that harms humans and our environment.
Mining nuclear fuel pollutes our environment.
The most common nuclear fuel is uranium. Uranium is a radioactive element that occurs naturally in the earth’s crust. To use it in a nuclear power plant, uranium has to be mined and, like all mining operations, has the potential to pollute the environment. Unlike many mining operations, uranium mines carry the risk of radioactive contamination.
The process of mining uranium unearths other pollutants such as arsenic, mercury, and radioactive uranium itself. From the mining operation, these pollutants can make their way into groundwater and surface water. There are documented cases of pollution in communities as a result of uranium mining.
Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste.
Nuclear waste is an unavoidable byproduct of the technology used in today’s nuclear reactors. Just like coal turns to ash, or oil gets burned up, nuclear fuel is depleted over time. Eventually the fuel is used or “spent” to the point it is taken out of the reactor, but it still emits radiation. In fact, spent fuel from nuclear power plants remains radioactive for thousands of years. To date, no safe, long-term storage solution has been found for this waste. While the U.S. has regulations for handling nuclear waste, there are already 90,000 metric tons of it to reckon with in the U.S. alone. That’s about 440 times the weight of the Statue of Liberty. Storage of nuclear waste carries the risk of exposure to radiation for people, plants, wildlife, water supplies, and soils.
Nuclear accidents can spread pollution far and wide.
Major nuclear power incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl produced a great deal of radioactive pollution contaminating air, soil, and water while taking a toll on human health.
Is not inexhaustible…..…………………………………………………………….
Is not safe enough to be considered “safe”………………………………………………….
Is inefficient…………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………. https://environmentamerica.org/articles/is-nuclear-energy-renewable/
The long half-life of France’s nuclear tests in Polynesia
Only in the years since the programme ended has the true impact come to light. While the French military measured radiation levels after each explosion, the data was kept secret until victims’ associations won a legal battle to have it partially declassified in 2013.
“Every family in French Polynesia has a lot of cancer. It’s just not one. Some have, as we say, cocktails of cancer,”
Thirty years ago this week, on an island in the South Pacific, France conducted its final nuclear test – ending a programme that exposed thousands of people to radiation over decades. The islands of French Polynesia are still living with the fallout.
31/01/2026 By:Jessica Phelan, https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20260131-the-long-half-life-of-france-s-nuclear-tests-in-polynesia
“It started with my grandmother. She had thyroid cancer during the Nineties. Then her first child, my auntie, had thyroid cancer too.”
Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross was a child in Tahiti when France last exploded a nuclear bomb. She has few memories of the years when her home was a testing ground, but they have changed the course of her life.
“My mum had thyroid problems… And also, my sister had thyroid problems. She has to take medication for the rest of her life. My auntie also got breast cancer a few years ago.
“And I have had chronic myeloid leukaemia since I was 24 years old.”
France tested nuclear weapons in Polynesia for 30 years. The explosions started in 1966, after France had already tested several bombs in the Algerian Sahara.
After Algeria claimed independence, France moved the tests to its colony in the South Pacific. They continued until 27 January 1996 – more than three years after the United States’ final test, four since the United Kingdom’s and five since the Soviet Union’s.
France chose two uninhabited atolls as its test sites, Moruroa and Fangataufa, which between them took the impact of 193 explosions – the biggest around 200 times more powerful than the bomb the US dropped on Hiroshima.
At least 41 took place in the open air, before tests were moved underground in 1975. Mushroom clouds drifted over the ocean, carrying radiation to populated islands – including Tahiti, more than 1,200 kilometres away.
Only in the years since the programme ended has the true impact come to light. While the French military measured radiation levels after each explosion, the data was kept secret until victims’ associations won a legal battle to have it partially declassified in 2013.
“Around 20 boxes” of documents out of thousands were released in that first batch, according to Patrice Bouveret of the Observatoire des Armements, a Lyon-based campaign group that helped make them public. But the information was enough for journalists and researchers to map a far broader pattern of exposure than France had ever publicly acknowledged.
One 1974 test alone exposed an estimated 110,000 people to more than the annual “safe” dose of radiation, according to a 2021 investigation led by public-interest newsroom Disclose.
The revelations pushed French President Emmanuel Macron to order the opening of all archives – with the exception of details that might suggest how to build a nuclear device. Tens of thousands of documents have since been released and continue to lay bare the gap between what French authorities knew about the risks, and what they told those most affected.
‘Cocktails of cancer’
“Every family in French Polynesia has a lot of cancer. It’s just not one. Some have, as we say, cocktails of cancer,” says Morgant-Cross, today a member of the French Polynesian parliament and an anti-nuclear campaigner.
“But it’s hard for them to think that it can be related to the nuclear tests because of the decades of French propaganda saying that French nuclear tests are clean.”
Visiting Tahiti in September 1966, president Charles de Gaulle declared that all precautions had been taken to ensure the tests would “not cause any inconvenience whatsoever to the dear people of Polynesia”.
Nearly three decades later, president Jacques Chirac – who ordered France’s final nuclear tests in 1995-96, reversing a moratorium that had halted the programme since 1992 – was still insisting that they had “strictly no ecological consequences”.
For years, Polynesians were told their lifestyle and eating habits were to blame for health problems, according to Morgant-Cross. She only made the connection between her family’s history of cancer and the nuclear tests, she says, when she met survivors in other countries.
Seeing the list of diseases that research has linked to radiation exposure, she realised the thyroid cancer that afflicted her relatives, as well as her own rare form of leukaemia, were among them.
“These aren’t illnesses that show up immediately after an explosion,” says Bouveret. “It’s not like a week later you get sick. They develop a long time afterwards.”
In 2023, France’s National Institute of Health and Medical Research, Inserm, used declassified military data to estimate how much radiation thyroid cancer patients had been exposed to and calculate what role it played. Researchers said nuclear tests “are most likely responsible for a small increase in the incidence of thyroid cancers in French Polynesia” – though they warned the estimated doses were probably inaccurate.
The difficulty of proving harm to health has been a barrier to compensation. France introduced a law in 2010 allowing victims to claim reparations from the state, but the criteria to qualify – which include demonstrating exposure to a certain level of radiation – have proved hard to meet.
Only 1,026 people had successfully claimed by the end of 2024, Bouveret says – 607 in mainland France, 417 from Polynesia and two from Algeria. “It’s ridiculous when you consider the number of people who have been impacted by these diseases.”
A bill to reform the law is before the French parliament. It would also bind the state to cover the costs of treating illnesses caused by radiation – estimated at some €855 million, and currently borne by French Polynesian social security.
A society upended
The broader consequences of France’s nuclear tests are even harder to quantify.
The programme kicked off massive construction, drawing islanders to help build military bases and research stations. Many stayed to work at the new sites, concentrating the population and shifting labour away from traditional fishing and farming.
Corals were flattened to make way for ships, which may have contributed to a dramatic rise in ciguatera – a type of food poisoning caused by eating fish sickened by toxins from plankton found on damaged reefs.
“They really poisoned our main food,” says Morgant-Cross. “We eat fish from breakfast to dinner.” Today the archipelago is largely dependent on food shipped in from elsewhere, and like other parts of overseas France, suffers from high cost of living.
As de Gaulle promised, the nuclear programme brought economic opportunities – but they depended on jobs and money provided by the French state, binding Polynesia ever more tightly to France.
Bouveret believes that helped stymie the archipelago’s aspirations to independence. Now, given the costs of caring for nuclear victims and containing the lingering radiation on Moruroa and Fangataufa, he says separating from France looks “extremely difficult”.
For Morgant-Cross, the first step is to “decolonise minds” and help Polynesians fathom the damage done. While she was at school in the 1990s, she recalls, children were still taught “we should be grateful” for the nuclear tests.
Things have changed since then, but confronting the past remains difficult – and not only for the generation who remember when speaking out could cost people their jobs or lead to arrest.
“As a mother of two boys, I really hope that they don’t have the burden of this issue like myself,” she says.
“I felt some trauma, but without understanding where it came from. And I understood with my grandmother, when I saw the fear in her eyes… I saw how guilty she felt because of the leukaemia that I have. She felt that if she had protested more, maybe I would not be sick today.
“It’s really traumatic for our people.”
Listen to a version of this story on the Spotlight on France podcast, episode 139.
Small Modular Reactors: Game changer or more of the same?
There has been a large amount of publicity on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) based on exaggerated, unproven or untrue claims for their advantages over large reactors. Only one order for a commercially offered design has been placed (Canada) and that had yet to start construction in January 2026. The UK should not invest in SMRs until there is strong evidence to support the claims made for them.
Policy Brief, Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, Greenwich University, 31 Jan 26 https://policybrief.org/briefs/small-modular-reactors-game-changer-or-more-of-the-same/
Introduction
With current large reactor designs tarnished by their poor record of construction, attention for the future of new nuclear power plants has switched to Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The image of these portrayed in the media and by some of their proponents is that they will roll off production lines, be delivered to the site on the back of a truck and, with minimal site assembly, be ready to generate in next to no time; they will be easy to site, a much cheaper source of power, be safer and produce less waste than large reactors; as a result, they are being built in large numbers all around the world. But what is the reality?
What are SMRs and AMRs?
In terms of size, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines SMRs as reactors producing 30-300MW of power and defines reactors producing up to 30MW as micro-reactors. In practice, the size of SMRs is increasing and of the seven designs that have received UK government funding, four are at or beyond the 300MW upper limit for SMRs.1 The vendors of the two micro-reactor designs funded by the UK have both collapsed,2 leaving the X-Energy Xe-100 the only reactor design, at 80MW, that is technically an SMR.
The term Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) is largely a UK invention and denotes reactors using designs other than the dominant large reactor technologies — Pressurised and Boiling Water Reactors (PWRs and BWRs). In other countries, the term SMR covers all reactors in the IAEA’s size range. None of the proposed AMR designs are new, all having been discussed for 50-70 years but not built as commercial reactors. They can be divided into those built as prototypes or demonstration reactors — the Sodium-cooled Fast Reactor (SFR) and the High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) — and those that have not been built — Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and Lead-cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs).
Some designs include a heat storage device so that when demand is high, this heat can be used to generate additional electricity as well as that generated by the reactors. When electricity demand is low, the heat produced by the reactor can be stored for when demand is higher, giving it a generating flexibility. For example, the Terrapower SFR design includes molten salt heat storage to boost the station’s output from 345MW to 500MW at peak times. This is intended to address the issue that operating reactors in ‘load-following mode’ is problematic technologically and economically. It is not clear whether this generating flexibility justifies the substantial additional expense of the heat storage system.
What is the case for SMRs and AMRs?
SMRs and AMRs are presented, not only by the nuclear industry, but also by the media and government, as established, proven, commercial products. The main claims for SMRs and AMRs compared to large reactors are:
- They will be cheaper to build per kW of capacity and less prone to cost overruns;
- They will be quicker and easier to build and less prone to delay;
- They will produce less waste per kW of capacity;
- Building components on factory production lines will reduce costs;
- Modular construction, reducing the amount of site-work, will reduce costs and delays;
- They will be safer;
- They will generate more jobs.
There have been numerous critiques that demonstrate these claims are at best unproven or at worst simply false.3 The summary of the critiques on each point is as follows.
Construction Cost
The first commercial reactors worldwide were mostly in the SMR size range, but they proved uneconomic and the vendors continually increased their size to gain scale economies, culminating in the 1600MW Framatome European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). Intuitively, a 1600MW reactor vessel will cost less than ten 160MW reactor vessels. While increasing their size was never enough to make the reactors economic, it is implausible that scaling them down will make them cheaper per unit of capacity because of the lost scale economies. It appears that SMRs are struggling to be economically viable. Holtec doubled the electrical output of its design at some point in 2023.4 The realistic competitors to SMRs are not large reactors but other low-carbon options such as renewables and demand-side management.
“While increasing their size was never enough to make the reactors economic, it is implausible that scaling them down will make them cheaper per unit of capacity because of the lost scale economies.”
Construction time
There is no clear analysis explaining why reactors are now expected to take longer to build and why they seem more prone to delay.5 However, it seems likely that the issue is that the designs have got more complex and difficult to build as they are required to take account of vulnerabilities exposed by events such as the Fukushima disaster. The problems thrown up by the occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhia site by Russia have yet to be taken up in new reactor designs. As a result of the 9/11 terrorist attack on New York, new reactor vessels are required to be able to withstand an aircraft impact. The conflict in Ukraine spilled on to the Zaporizhia site causing concerns that a serious accident would result. Analysis suggests that the exterior of other parts of the plant should be toughened. If the issue is complexity rather than size per se, reducing the size of the reactors may do no more than make construction a little easier.
Waste
For SMRs, there is a clear consensus that they will produce more waste per unit of capacity than a large reactor. For example, Nuclear Waste Services, the UK body responsible for waste disposal said: “It is anticipated that SMRs will produce more waste per GW(e) than the large (GW(e) scale) reactors on which the 2022 IGD data are based.”6 Alison MacFarlane, former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) wrote: “The low-, intermediate-, and high-level waste stream characterization presented here reveals that SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste.”7 The AMRs will produce an entirely different cocktail of waste varying according to the type of reactor.
“SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than Large Light Water Reactors”
Factory production lines
In principle and in general, production lines, which have high set-up costs, can reduce costs with high-volume items with a fixed design and a full order book. But, if demand is not sufficient to fully load the production line or the design changes requiring a re-tooling, the fixed costs might not be fully recoverable. The production lines proposed for SMRs will produce less than a handful of items per year — a long way from a car or even an aircraft production line — and the market for SMRs is uncertain, so guaranteeing a full order book is impossible. There is also a ‘chicken and egg’ issue that the economics of SMRs will only be demonstrated when the components are produced on production lines, but production lines will only be viable when the designs are demonstrated sufficiently to provide a flow of orders.
Modularity
Modularity is a rather vague term, and all reactors will be made up of components delivered to the site and assembled there, any difference between designs being down to the extent of site work. The Westinghouse AP1000 design is said to be modular but this did not prevent all eight orders suffering serious delays and cost overruns. Framatome now describes the successor design to the EPR, the 1600MW EPR2, as modular.8
Safety
Some of the SMRs and AMRs rely on ‘passive’ safety, in other words, they do not require the operation of an engineered system to bring the reactor back under control in the event of an accident. A common assumption is that because it is passive, it is fail-safe, and will therefore not require back-up safety systems and so will be cheaper. None of these assumptions is true and, for example, the UK Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has said for the 20MW PWR design from Last Energy: “ONR advised that it is philosophically possible to rely entirely on two passive safety systems, providing there is adequate defence in depth (multiple independent barriers to fault progression)”.9 Some designs rely on being built underground but the Nuward and NuScale designs that use this have struggled to win orders with Nuward being abandoned and NuScale losing its only major order prospect because of rising costs.10
Job creation
A key selling point for SMRs is that they will require much less site work and that implies fewer jobs. More of the work will be done in factories but the business model for SMRs requires that, globally, as few factories be built as possible to maximise scale economies, so if, for example, the factory is not in the UK, neither will the jobs be.
What is the experience with SMRs?
Many reactors that fall into the size range of SMRs were built in the 1960s including 24 reactors in the UK. By the mid-60s, almost all new orders were for reactors larger than 300MW. This century, only two SMR projects have been completed11, one in China and one in Russia, but neither design appears to have any firm follow-up projects. Two projects are under construction, one in Russia and one in China, but neither design appears to have any further firm order prospects. There is one micro-reactor under construction in Argentina (see Table below).
The most advanced project using a commercially available design is for a GE Vernova BWRX-300 reactor to be built at the Darlington site in Canada. There appears to be a firm order for this reactor although by January 2026, construction had not started. The Canadian safety regulator will assess the design during the construction period, not before construction starts as would be required in most jurisdictions; this gives rise to a risk of delays and cost escalation if a design issue requiring additional cost emerges during construction.
There are several other projects with a named site and design, often presented in the media as being under construction, but these have yet to receive regulatory approval for the design, they do not have construction permits and a firm reactor order has not been placed. Those listed in Table 1 are the ones that appear most advanced in terms of regulatory approvals. Numerous other projects have been publicised, invariably with ambitious completion date targets, but they are some distance from a firm order being placed. Up to this point, historically, a high proportion of nuclear projects of all sizes announced do not proceed and there is no reason to believe this will not be the case with these projects. Once a firm reactor order has been placed, the project is more likely to go ahead because the cost of abandonment is high.
The two operating SMRs (in China and Russia) have a very poor record in terms of construction time and operating performance, but authoritative construction costs are not known. Completion of the three under construction is also behind schedule. While these projects are not for commercial designs, this provides no evidence that the ambitious claims for SMRs will be met.
Conclusions
The perception that SMRs are being built in large numbers is untrue and the claims made for them in terms of, for example, cost, safety, and waste are at best unproven and at worst false.
The image of them being much smaller than existing reactors is incorrect. The IAEA’s size range is arbitrary but the clear trend for SMRs to increase in size does put a question mark against the claims made for them such as reduced cost per kW due to small size, ease of siting and mass production. Most of the designs that have realistic order prospects are at or beyond the 300MW upper limit of the IAEA range for SMRs. This is illustrated by the Holtec design which, for more than a decade was being developed as a reactor, SMR160, designed to produce 160MW of electricity. In 2023 and with no publicity, the output of the reactor was doubled to become the SMR300 and projects using this technology are foreseeing 340MW of power. The idea that siting and building them will be easy is not credible; a reactor of more than 300MW will need to be carefully sited so it is not vulnerable to sea-level rise or to seismic issues and will require substantial on-site work including foundations, suggesting that the claim that these projects would be largely factory built is implausible. It would also mean that either the modules would be very large making them difficult to transport or would require a larger number of modules increasing the amount of site-work.
“The perception that SMRs are being built in large numbers is untrue and the claims made for them in terms of, for example, cost, safety, and waste are at best unproven and at worst false.”
This increased size also means that the image of a rolling production line producing large numbers of reactors is inaccurate. Rolls Royce, whose design has increased to 470MW, is anticipating its production lines would produce components for only two reactors per year.
The UK, along with Canada and the USA is in the vanguard of development of SMR designs. The history of nuclear power shows that developing new reactor designs is an expensive venture with a high probability of failure. The UK’s chosen design is the largest SMR design on offer and is being developed by a company with no experience designing or building civil nuclear power plants. Submarine reactors have very different design priorities and the reactors built by Rolls Royce use US designs. There is huge scope for the UK to build much cheaper offshore wind and to carry out energy efficiency measures which would have the double dividend of reducing emissions and tackling fuel poverty. It would make much more sense for the UK to let other countries make the investments and take the risk and only if SMRs are shown to fulfil the claims made for them to then adopt them as part of the UK’s generating mix.
| Country | Site | Vendor | Technology | Output MW | Status | Construction start | Commercial operation | Load factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russia | Lomonsov | Rosatom | PWR | 2 x 32 | Operating | April 2007 | May 2020 | 32.1% |
| Russia | Brest | Rosatom | SFR | 300 | Under construction | June 2021 | 2028/29 | |
| China | Shidoa Bay | Tsinghua | HTGR HTR-PM | 200 | Operating | December 2012 | December 2023 | 26.9% |
| China | Linglong 1 | CNNC | PWR ACP100 | 100 | Under construction | July 2021 | 2026? | |
| Argentina | Carem25 | CNEA | PWR Carem | 25 | Under construction | August 2015 | 2028? | |
| Canada | Darlington | GE Vernova | BWRX-300 | 300 | Firm order | – | 2030? | |
| USA | Kemmerer | Terrapower | SFR Natrium | 345 | Construction permit applied for | – | 2031? | |
| USA | Palisades | Holtec | PWR SMR300 | 2 x 340 | Pre-licensing | – | 2030? | |
| USA | Clinch River | GE Vernova | BWRX-300 | 300 | Construction permit applied for | – | 2033? | |
| UK | Wylfa | Rolls Royce | PWR | 470 | Design review | 2030? | 2035? | |
| UK | Llynfi | Last Energy | PWR | 4 x 20 | Site licence applied for | 2028? | 2030? |
Note: Load factor is the most widely used measure of reactor reliability and is measured as the electrical output of the plant as a percentage of the output produced if the reactor had operated uninterrupted at full power.
Endnotes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Controversial plans for 139 homes on old Marchon site approved.
“We have been given no guarantees that this land is safe or that contamination will not be disturbed. It is unclear how old some of the contamination reports are, raising doubts over their accuracy and reliability.“
even the developer admits in the reports they do not fully know what they will uncover until excavation begins.
By Lucy Jenkinson, 10th December 2025, https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/25684633.decision-due-controversial-plans-139-homes-old-marchon-site/
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 139 homes on the site of a former chemical factory have been approved by planners today.
The application put forward by Persimmon Homes to build houses on the old Marchon site at Kells in Whitehaven, was considered by Cumberland Council’s planning committee this afternoon (December 9).
Members visited the site, which was formerly used to produce ingredients for detergents and toiletries from the 1940s until 2005, before making their decision.
The application is for phase one of the scheme, with an area of land designated to provide a commercial related development within phase two.
Persimmon Homes say the location creates an opportunity for ‘a vibrant residential development of good quality design’ and a range of housing types would be provided to meet local needs.
Access points would be created off High Road and there would be an opportunity to link with an existing national pedestrian and cycle network.
Concerns had been raised by some residents living nearby over the risk of contaminated land and the capacity of local services including school places and GP surgeries.
One resident who lives at Saltom Bay Heights said: “We have been given no guarantees that this land is safe or that contamination will not be disturbed. It is unclear how old some of the contamination reports are, raising doubts over their accuracy and reliability.”
“Proper up-to-date testing of the land has not been carried out, and even the developer admits in the reports they do not fully know what they will uncover until excavation begins. There are known areas where digging is restricted, yet no reassurance has been provided on what happens if contamination is released.
“There are not enough school places and GP surgeries and dental services are already overstretched in Whitehaven, yet these pressures have not been properly addressed. Approving this development without fully resolving these risks would be reckless and irresponsible. They can’t control the winds and airborne chemical contamination.”
Paula and Gary Marsh, who also live at Saltom Bay Heights, said they were ‘deeply concerned’ about the risk of airborne chemicals during excavation.
They said: “This development is being pushed forward without certainty, without transparency, and without adequate protection for public health. These risks are real, current, and long-term, and they cannot be dismissed.”
A remediation statement submitted with the application, which dates back to 2007, says the site was designated as contaminated land by the former Copeland Council, on the basis of sixteen pollutant linkages. These included petroleum hydrocarbons, phosphates and metals such as arsenic, copper, lead and mercury.
The Environment Agency said in its initial response to the plans that it considered the scheme to be ‘acceptable’ in principle but further detail should be agreed with the planning authority.
It also said if contamination not previously identified was found to be present at the site then no further development should be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how the contamination would be dealt with had been approved by the local planning authority.
Persimmon Homes was approached for comment by The Whitehaven News.
Sir Keir Starmer backs a USA strike on Iran
Sir Keir Starmer has signalled British support for a US strike on Iran,
saying he backs President Trump’s goal of preventing Tehran from obtaining
nuclear weapons. Trump warned Iran this week that time was “running
out” to come to the negotiating table over its nuclear weapons programme
as the US continued to build up forces in the region. The prime minister
said from China that he supported Trump’s move to “deal” with the
Iranian regime over its nuclear programme and the recent crackdown on
pro-democracy protesters.
Times 31st Jan 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/iran-nuclear-weapons-us-strikes-d7lmbcc37
With Trump silent, last US-Russia nuclear pact set to end
Washington (United States) (AFP) – Come Thursday, barring a last-minute change, the final treaty in the world that restricted nuclear weapon deployment will be over.
France24 1st Feb 2026
New START, the last nuclear treaty between Washington and Moscow after decades of agreements dating to the Cold War, is set to expire, and with it restrictions on the two top nuclear powers.
The expiration comes as President Donald Trump, vowing “America First,” smashes through international agreements that limit the United States, although in the case of New START, the issue may more be inertia than ideology.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in September suggested a one-year extension of New START.
Trump, asked afterward by a reporter for a reaction while he was boarding his helicopter, said an extension “sounds like a good idea to me” — but little has been heard since.
Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev, who as Russia’s president signed New START with counterpart Barack Obama in 2010, said in a recent interview with the Kommersant newspaper that Russia has received no “substantive reaction” on New START but was still giving time to Trump.
Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev, who as Russia’s president signed New START with counterpart Barack Obama in 2010, said in a recent interview with the Kommersant newspaper that Russia has received no “substantive reaction” on New START but was still giving time to Trump.
Trump “seems to have the right instinct on this issue but has thus far failed to follow through with a coherent strategy,” Kimball said.
Jon Wolfsthal, director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, said Trump and Putin could pick up the phone and agree immediately at a political level to extend New START.
“This is a piece of low-hanging fruit that the Trump administration should have seized months ago,” he said.
Wolfsthal is among experts involved in the “Doomsday Clock” meant to symbolize how near humanity is to destruction. It was recently moved closer to midnight in part due to New START’s demise……………………………………………………………………………………………….https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20260201-with-trump-mum-last-us-russia-nuclear-pact-set-to-end
Malaysian Officials take action as concerns arise about nuclear power plants: ‘Preparing for that possibility’
It also requires clearer decommissioning plans and long-term waste management strategies
Malaysia will only decide on the use of nuclear energy for electricity after 2030
“We cannot begin preparations only after a decision has been made.”
by Christine Dulion, January 31, 2026, https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/nuclear-regulatory-law-malaysia-amendment/
Malaysia has taken a major step toward strengthening public and environmental safety with the rollout of a newly amended nuclear regulatory law. Officials say it’s designed to tighten oversight as the country weighs nuclear power as part of its long-term energy future.
The Atomic Energy Licensing Bill (Amendment) 2025 officially took effect on Dec. 1, according to the Edge Malaysia. The changes come as the government evaluates whether nuclear energy could help meet its goal of reaching net-zero pollution by 2050, while also addressing concerns around safety, waste, and accountability.
Under the updated law, anyone involved with atomic energy is required to be licensed, including for the possession or use of radioactive materials, operation of radiation generators, management of radioactive waste, and the construction or decommissioning of nuclear-related facilities. The amendment also introduces a new permit system for cross-border activity, making it illegal to import, export, or transport nuclear materials or technology without government approval.
Violations can carry serious consequences. . Anyone found illegally moving nuclear or radioactive materials across borders could face up to 10 years in prison, fines of up to $123,300, or both. The law also criminalizes the intentional misuse of radioactive materials if it is meant to cause injury, death, or environmental damage.
Supporters say the law reassures residents that any future nuclear activity, such as recycling radioactive waste, will be tightly regulated. It also requires clearer decommissioning plans and long-term waste management strategies, making sure radioactive materials are monitored throughout their entire lifecycle.
Nuclear energy is a complex topic. While it can produce large amounts of low-pollution electricity and support energy security, it also raises concerns around radioactive waste, high upfront costs, and long-term safety. Malaysia’s new legislation doesn’t settle that debate, but it does put firmer rules in place before decisions are made.
“Although Malaysia will only decide on the use of nuclear energy for electricity after 2030, this amendment represents a step in preparing for that possibility, as we cannot being preparations only after a decision has been made,” said Science, Technology, and Innovation minister Chang Lih Kang.
Is it time to replace NATO with EATO?
The very worst outcome following the end of the war in Ukraine would be for a new Iron Curtain to be drawn, with Europe and Ukraine continuing to pursue a policy of political and cultural exceptionalism against Russia, while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of the next war.Time to think about a Eurasian Treaty to secure peace and security between Russia and Europe
If all that the Treaty included was a version of the Washington Treaty Preamble with Articles 1 and 2, it would help Europe, Ukraine and Russia to take a huge stride towards peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial economic cooperation across the Eurasian landmass. Perhaps, with war seemingly approaching its final chapter, it’s time to create a new vision for coexistence.
Ian Proud, Jan 31, 2026, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/is-it-time-to-replace-nato-with-eato?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=186398540&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
In recent weeks, there has been renewed discussion of the future of NATO as a guarantor of security on the European mainland.
The newly published US National Defense Strategy has made it clear that it is for European States to manage the risk of future military conflict with Russia, to allow America to focus its efforts on competition with China in the Pacific.
America has reintroduced the concept of gunboat diplomacy, threatening to invade Greenland and to attack Iran, while also kidnapping the leader of a sovereign nation in Venezuela. And while only the first has induced genuine horror in European capitals, other developments, most notably the gunning down of two protestors in Minnesota, have made European citizens, if not its leaders, increasingly anxious about ties with the Americans.
Times have changed since the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington DC on 4 April 1949.
Then, America was the nation that had provided enormous military support and troops to Britain and the Commonwealth, to take on Hitler’s Germany on the western front of World War II, as the Soviet Union drove the Nazis out, having halted their advance in Stalingrad.
Wartime allies became adversaries following the war, as Winston Churchill raised the spectre of Communism’s spread across Europe.
Yet the Soviet Union no longer exists as an epochal threat to the freedom and democracy of European States emerging from the devastation of World War II.
European states have largely all achieved a level of prosperity, peace and stability unseen in centuries, on a continent that was historically dominated by war and conquest by the largest powers.
Russia is now a functioning market democracy, albeit one that does not wish to see itself shackled to a normative system of liberal ‘values’ that increasing numbers of citizens across Europe are turning away from, as they press their governments to focus on domestic priorities.
The main outlier to that is Ukraine, which remains an economically failing state and seething hotbed of conflict, caused by the aspirations to expand a NATO military alliance and to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia which, in the future, historians will come to regard as a catastrophic mistake.
If the current trend of the USA turning its gaze across the Pacific continues, loosening the fabric of NATO to the point of disintegration, the primary underlying driver of war in Ukraine would evaporate.
No NATO would radically shift the nature of pan-European security, removing a long-standing and oft-stated Russian fear of external aggression from a military bloc that, even before members lift defence spending to 5% of GDP, accounted for 53% of global military expenditure.
Indeed, no NATO might also allow existing European Members to reappraise whether vast increases in defence spending were, in fact, necessary, or whether a new approach to pan-European security might allow them to re-focus in on the prosperity for which their citizens yearn.
That would only be possible, however, if, after the war in Ukraine ends, there was an effort by European states to re-establish relations with Russia, while at the same time deepening relations with Ukraine, despite the evident suspicion on all sides.
In the immediate post-war period, Ukraine would be the only state in the heart of Europe that did not fit in with the club.
Issues such as Ukraine’s endemic corruption, its war-induced democratic back-sliding, its tolerance of the neo-Nazi extremist fringe, and its efforts to erase all traces of Russianness, would have to be addressed should it pursue its stated aspiration of membership of the European Union.
Yet there is no reason to believe that it could not rebuild, with its sizeable, generally well-educated and industrious population, should it repopulate the country after the war ends.
A normalisation of relations with Russia, beyond the obvious benefits from the reopening of borders and reestablishment of people-to-people links, would help to reindustrialise European economies with the benefit of lower cost energy.
The very worst outcome following the end of the war in Ukraine would be for a new Iron Curtain to be drawn, with Europe and Ukraine continuing to pursue a policy of political and cultural exceptionalism against Russia, while arming themselves to the teeth in anticipation of the next war.
The very big risk is that a Ukraine so bruised and resentful following the cessation of hostilities would seek to shape European policy to remain explicitly anti-Russian, in the manner that Poland and the Baltic States have tried to do for many years.
That should never be allowed to happen.
For the very reason that grievance and distrust may dominate some aspects of European relations for a generation to come, a more stable framework for pan-European security will be needed to prevent another repeat of an avoidable war in Ukraine.
That might require the creation of a Eurasian Treaty (and associated Organisation – EATO) perhaps, based on the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, but without the commitment to collective defence within Article 5.
If all that the Treaty included was a version of the Washington Treaty Preamble with Articles 1 and 2, it would help Europe, Ukraine and Russia to take a huge stride towards peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial economic cooperation across the Eurasian landmass. Perhaps, with war seemingly approaching its final chapter, it’s time to create a new vision for coexistence. A draft Eurasian Treaty might begin as follows:
The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.
They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the Eurasian area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this Eurasian Treaty :
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Sellafield is Awash with Acid Chemicals – Rivers, Sea, Soil, Nothing is Off Limits for “Disposal” of This Toxic Brew Mixed with Dangerous Radioactive Isotopes at the Arse End of Atomic “Clean Energy”
Sellafield’s Latest £22 MILLION Chemical Tender for wiping the Arse End of “Clean Energy”
Marchon Chemical Works , contaminated industrial site, which supplied Sellafield with a sea of acid used in processes on site, is now insanely earmarked for housing!……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
There is a requirement for Sellafield Ltd to implement a Contract for Bulk and Packaged Chemicals to support site-wide operations and decommissioning activities across the Sellafield site.
This will include, but is not limited to, the following scope:
- Sodium Hydroxide 22% – IBC 1000L/1245kg
- Aluminium Sulphate 8% – Delivered via road tanker.
- Ferric Nitrate Solution – Delivered via road tanker.
- Praestol DW-31-EU – 1L/1.1kg
- Hydrochloric Acid 14% – IBC 1000L/1071kg
- Hydrated Lime – Per kg
- Nickel Nitrate – 10kg
- Sodium Carbonate Light – 25kg
- Sodium Hypochlorite (14/15%) – IBC 1000L/1255kg
- Pure Dried Vacuum Salt – Per kg
- Sodium Nitrate 36% – 834L/1068kg
- Granulated Sugar – 1000kg
- Sulphuric Acid 77% – IBC 1000L/1698Kg
- Sulphuric Acid 96% – Per kg
- Silver Zeolite Cartridges
- Silver Zeolite – 35g
- Brenntamer CL 845 – 25kg
- Lithium Nitrate – Per kg or 1230kg
…………………………………………………………………..
CPV classifications
24960000 – Various chemical products
24311521 – Caustic soda
24411000 – Nitric acid and salts
24311520 – Sodium hydroxide
24311410 – Inorganic acids
24311470 – Hydrogen chloride
24313100 – Sulphides, sulphites and sulphates
24311500 – Hydroxides as basic inorganic chemicals
24312120 – Chlorides
24311522 – Liquid soda
24311411 – Sulphuric acid
24313000 – Sulphides, sulphates; nitrates, phosphates and carbonates
24313120 – Sulphates
24313300 – Carbonates
24962000 – Water-treatment chemicals………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2026/01/31/sellafield-is-awash-with-acid-chemicals-rivers-sea-soil-nothing-is-off-limits-for-disposal-of-this-toxic-brew-mixed-with-dangerous-radioactive-isotopes-at-the-arse-end-of-atomic/
SNP rules out any new nuclear power plants in Scotland
THE Scottish Government has again ruled out building new nuclear power plants, despite a plea from West Scotland MSP Jamie Greene.
31st January, Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald, 30th Jan 2026
At Holyrood on Thursday, the Liberal Democrat member asked if the SNP government would continue its opposition to new nuclear plants.
A new plant to replace Hunterston A and B in North Ayrshire has been called for in recent years – to no avail.
Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, responded: “We do not support the construction of new nuclear power stations in Scotland under current technologies.
“And while we recognise the role that nuclear has played, new nuclear would take decades to deliver, comes at a very high cost and creates long-term radioactive waste liabilities.
“Scotland has abundant resources with the clear potential to meet electricity demand through continued deployment of renewable energy and storage, and we are prioritising technologies that are quicker to deliver, lower cost and proven to maintain security of supply rather than the new nuclear projects that would take decades to materialise.”………………………………………………………………………….
“I have to point out the cost of nuclear, if you look at Hinkley Point C. It was expected to be completed in 2025 at a cost of £18 billion. Now the cost is estimated at £46 billion and it is delayed until 2031. I think that’s a lesson for all.”
https://www.ardrossanherald.com/news/25808021.snp-rules-new-nuclear-power-plants-scotland/
1 This Month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- February 2026 (31)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
-
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
nuclear-news 