nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Newcleo-Led Consortium Chosen For French Project On Floating Nuclear Power Plants

By David Dalton, 27 August 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/newcleo-led-consortium-chosen-for-french-project-on-floating-nuclear-power-plants-8-4-2026

Maritime sector a ‘largely unexplored opportunity’ for reactor industry

A consortium led by France-based advanced reactor and nuclear fuel company Newcleo has been selected to take part in a project supporting the decarbonisation of the French maritime sector.

The project, managed by France-based investment bank Bpifrance and named “n-Floating”, aims to demonstrate the relevance and technical feasibility of an innovative floating nuclear power solution, consisting of a non-self-propelled floating unit housing multiple Newcleo-developed LFR-AS-200 reactors, each offering an electrical output of 200 MW.

The consortium brings together Newcleo, Bureau Veritas Marine & Offshore, a leading classification society, and ABMI Groupe, a French engineering company with expertise both in maritime and nuclear sectors.

The project has been awarded almost €1m ($1.1m) in funding under the programme.

Work has already begun and is expected to run for approximately 18 months.

“Maritime deployment of advanced reactors opens a broader and still largely unexplored market for nuclear energy” said Newcleo chief executive officer Stefano Buono.

“Floating nuclear offers an opportunity to bring reliable, low-carbon power to applications at sea and in coastal locations.”

Newcleo said the project aims to develop a standardised, deployable and competitive solution for low-carbon energy generation at sea and in coastal locations.

The initial phase of the n-Floating project will focus on conceptual studies for a nuclear barge, assessing its potential to deliver reliable, low-carbon and competitive energy across a range of applications. These include supplying isolated regions, ports and associated industrial hubs, and coastal areas, as well as supporting energy-intensive applications such as desalination and the production of low-carbon fuels.

The project will also define the subsequent development programme and roadmap towards potential industrial deployment by 2036, with the ambition to design and build the solution in France.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | France, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Claim about Scottish support for nuclear power doesn’t add up

Ni Holmes, St Andrews, 27 Aug 26

I WAS not surprised to find, when I got to the foot of a letter challenging Paul Kavanagh’s assertion that “Scotland does not need nuclear energy and most in Scotland don’t want it” as being “wrong on both counts” (Aug 26), that it was written by Lincoln Hill, the Nuclear Industry Association’s director of policy and external affairs.

Mr Hill appears not to be too good at maths. He cites a YouGov poll showing that fewer than a third of people in Scotland consider nuclear power as the most important energy source and that a similar number identified it as their preferred source of energy. To my understanding, the remaining two-thirds of Scots who do not support nuclear power are indeed most of the people in Scotland.

Mr Hill goes on to assert that Scotland needs “more than one source of electricity”. This suggests that lack of basic counting skills is the foundation of his weakness in maths. We already have multiple sources of electricity: we have had hydro-electric power for decades, we have wave generators, we have onshore and offshore wind turbines, and new technology is making solar power viable even in our climate. By my count those five already add up to the “more than one” that Mr Hill claims we need. We will still have more than one source after the last nuclear power station in our country is finally decommissioned.

It seems to me that it is Mr Hill that is wrong and Mr Kavanagh was entirely correct on both counts. We neither need nor want nuclear power in Scotland, the Nuclear Industry Association, or for that matter the Westminster Labour Party’s small-scale reactors and Starmer’s “GB Energy”. What we do need is our independence so that we can make our own choices in the interest of Scotland and the all of its people, rather than English energy requirements or the wealthy seek to profit from energy production.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Can the Israeli military be trusted to investigate itself? Evidence shows genuine accountability is rare

Shannon Bosch, Associate Professor (Law), Edith Cowan University, August 20, 2026, https://theconversation.com/can-the-israeli-military-be-trusted-to-investigate-itself-evidence-shows-genuine-accountability-is-rare-290142

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says it’s an “outrage” the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have decided not to open a criminal investigation into the Israeli strikes that killed an Australian aid worker, Zomi Frankcom, and six of her colleagues in Gaza in April 2024. He added:

It falls far short of the accountability that we expect and consistently called for on behalf of Australia.

International law is clear: states are obligated to investigate alleged war crimes committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory. And, if it’s appropriate, they are obligated to prosecute the suspects.

To this end, military and civilian leaders must report suspected breaches of the law up the chain of command to ensure prompt, independent and impartial investigations are carried out.

On Wednesday, the IDF published the findings of an internal investigation into five incidents in Gaza since the war began in October 2023.

Two incidents were deemed to raise “reasonable suspicion of criminal misconduct”. The IDF ordered the Military Police Criminal Investigation Division, the primary investigative unit within the IDF, to open criminal probes into them. They are:

The killing of Hind Rajab, January 2024: The IDF acknowledged that soldiers opened fire on a vehicle carrying five-year-old Hind Rajab and her family as they fled Gaza City. In addition, the IDF said “a shell was fired toward” an ambulance trying to reach the car, killing two paramedics.

The killings of Palestinian rescue workers, March 2025: The review also referred the killings of 15 Palestinians in southern Gaza – some of whom it recognised as paramedics and medical personnel – to criminal investigators.

It said Israeli troops fired on three vehicles, which were later identified as ambulances, a fire truck and a UN vehicle.

Forensic Architecture, a research group at the University of London, alleges the military tried to cover up the killings by crushing and burying the medics’ vehicles.

The IDF investigators did not recommend further investigations into three other incidents, including:

The strikes on the World Central Kitchen convoy, April 2024: In addition to Frankcom, three British nationals, a Palestinian, a Pole and a dual US-Canadian citizen were killed when the IDF mistakenly identified their vehicles as carrying Hamas operatives.

The investigation found serious operational failures in the soldiers’ actions. Two commanders were stripped of their ranks and three officers were reprimanded. However, the review did not find “reasonable suspicion” of criminal conduct.

The other two incidents related to the killings of four employees of Médecins Sans Frontières in 2023 and 2024.

How often are Israeli soldiers prosecuted?

Statistically, very few complaints against IDF personnel result in investigations or criminal convictions.

The Israeli human rights group Yesh Din analysed complaints made to the IDF in 2019–20 and found 72% were closed without criminal investigation and just 2% led to prosecutions.

Another investigation of 52 Israeli military probes between 2023 and 2025 found 88% were either still under review or had been closed. Only one case had led to a prison sentence for an Israeli soldier.

What are the concerns with the IDF investigating itself?

Human Rights Watch has expressed serious concerns with IDF investigations into incidents involving Palestinian civilians. The group says they are “not impartial, thorough or timely”.

Cases often take months or years to navigate the IDF investigative process). Critics say this undermines the cases and diminishes the prospects for prosecutions.

Human Rights Watch reports that initial investigations largely rely on soldiers’ own accounts. The military advocate general, who advises the IDF during military operations, subsequently determines whether conduct should be criminally investigated or prosecuted.

Critics also argue that investigators frequently fail to contact readily available Palestinian witnesses, lack Arabic-speaking investigators, and rely heavily on Israeli NGOs to locate witnesses and obtain evidence.

Palestinian witnesses are often reluctant to cooperate in investigations because of fears of arrest, retaliation or mistreatment.

The military insists investigations are slowed by the difficulties of ensuring due process for its personnel in an active combat zone.

But rights groups say that by the time detectives are authorised to investigate, physical evidence is often long gone, the scenes have been compromised, and witnesses’ memories have faded.

That said, war crimes are not subject to any statutory limitation, meaning prosecutions can occur decades after an alleged offence.

What happens next in these cases?

The Hind Rajab and paramedic cases will now be transferred to military police for formal criminal investigations. They will collect forensic evidence, review communications logs and interrogate the soldiers and commanders involved.

Once complete, the investigation will be handed back to the military advocate general, who will decide whether to issue criminal indictments.

Structural legal barriers suggest, however, that the cases may not go anywhere.

Under Israeli military law, the legality of conduct in war must be assessed based on what a “reasonable commander” knew (or should have known) at the split-second the trigger was pulled. Did they honestly believe they were firing at a legitimate target?

Unless prosecutors can prove explicit intent to murder civilians, cases are often downgraded to “negligence” or closed entirely.

Lengthy proceedings can also create difficulties for eventual prosecution. As evidence becomes unavailable or less reliable over time, defence lawyers may argue that continued proceedings would prejudice their clients’ rights to a fair trial.

In some cases, concerns such as these can lead to reduced charges, plea agreements or the withdrawal of an indictment.

What other options exist?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is designed to be a “court of last resort”. This means it only steps in if a nation is “unwilling or unable” to genuinely carry out investigations of suspected war crimes.

Israel has long argued that its investigative procedures in cases such as these are both credible and independent.

However, international observers and groups like the Hind Rajab Foundation maintain these internal probes function primarily as a public relations shield rather than a pathway to genuine accountability for wrongdoing.

As Human Rights Watch has put it: “a system that overwhelmingly closes cases without accountability, years after the fact, and only in response to sustained international pressure, is not justice, it’s a whitewash”.

Cases like these could also be investigated and tried in other countries’ courts under what’s known in international law as universal jurisdiction.

This allows domestic courts to launch prosecutions, even when the countries have no link to the perpetrator, victim, national interest or territory where the incidents occurred.

These prosecutions can be supported by UN-appointed independent international commissions of inquiry. These fact-finding bodies collect evidence, interview witnesses and compile exhaustive archives of offences in war zones.

While these UN panels do not hold trials, their formalised, verified evidence files are designed to be handed over to foreign prosecutors or future tribunals.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Israel, Legal | Leave a comment

Army to spend $2B to build nuclear microreactors at 5 bases as US seeks to ramp up nuclear power

By  JENNIFER McDERMOTT and MATTHEW DALY , August 27, 2026

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Army announced Wednesday that it plans to add nuclear microreactors at five military bases from New York to Texas as a reliable source of energy independent of the commercial electric grid.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration pushes hard to develop the next generation of nuclear power, including billions in loans for large nuclear reactors to meet skyrocketing power demand from data centers and a pilot program to boost advanced reactor designs and projects for military and civilian use. No nuclear microreactors are supplying power to the commercial electric grid in the United States today.

Five companies selected by the Army will be awarded up to $2.2 billion in total over five years to own, construct and operate the microreactors, if they hit set milestones along the way for their performance. The Army expects that more than 20 nuclear microreactors will be built and operated………….. https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-trump-army-microreactors-janus-200edd5fb98b6fe04d029a3c1dba1a4a

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

The threat of nuclear weapons is greater than ever. Here’s how international law can help

Gareth Evans,  August 27, 2026 https://theconversation.com/the-threat-of-nuclear-weapons-is-greater-than-ever-heres-how-international-law-can-help-290523

The outlook for nuclear arms control is desolate in all three of its dimensions – risk reduction, non-proliferation and outright elimination. The important agreements of the past are dead or on life support. And the recent behaviour of the actors that matter most – the United States, Russia and China – has fed concerns things can only get worse.

The nine nuclear-armed states possess between them more than 12,200 nuclear warheads, with a combined destructive capacity of more than 145,000 Hiroshima bombs. Some 9,000 of these are militarily active or deployed.

Alarmingly, some 2,000 US and Russian weapons remain on dangerously high alert, ready to be launched within a decision window for each president, if their country is perceived – rightly or wrongly – to be under nuclear attack, of just four to eight minutes.

The US and Russia, holding between them 90% of the global stockpile, dramatically downsized their inventories after the end of the Cold War. But that momentum has completely stalled. Every nuclear-armed state is now modernising or increasing its arsenal. This is especially true of China, whose inventory has doubled in a few short years to nearly 600 weapons, with new land- and seaborne delivery systems.

More troubling still, the longstanding taboo against the use of nuclear weapons may be weakening, with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in particular talking up this prospect in the Ukraine war in language not heard since the height of the Cold War. A number of states are considering using nuclear weapons – especially so-called “tactical” weapons – not just for deterrence but for warfighting.

As agreements die, the threat rises

The big arms-control agreements of the past, which – at least between the US and Russia – banned certain systems outright, set constraints on deployments and built confidence through transparency, are now dead. These include the Anti-Ballistic Missile and Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaties.

With the expiry in February 2026 of New START, the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, Russia and the US are without any limit on their nuclear forces for the first time in more than 50 years.

Moreover, crucial multilateral treaties are only barely alive. Both the US and Russia have withdrawn from the Open Skies Treaty. The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, though operating in practice, has still not been finally ratified. Alarmingly, US President Donald Trump has floated the prospect of the US ignoring its prohibitions. And the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is in as fragile a condition as it has ever been.

The loss of confidence in Washington’s willingness to deliver on its extended nuclear – or even conventional – deterrence commitment to close allies has led to serious discussion in South Korea, and even in some quarters in Japan, about the need to acquire their own nuclear weapons. Such conversations are also now beginning in Europe.

The safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency is still reasonably functional, as are less formal restraint mechanisms such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime.

But about the only other good news on the non-proliferation agreement front is that regional nuclear weapon free zone treaties are continuing to hold their own in Southeast Asia (with China at long last agreeing to join), the South Pacific, Latin America, Africa and the Antarctic.

When it comes to nuclear disarmament, new heart has been given to campaigners by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This treaty, agreed by 122 UN member states in 2017 and in force since 2021, bans nuclear weapons outright.

But there is less to it than meets the eye. There is still no prospect of it being signed or ratified by the states that matter: the nuclear-armed states, or the “umbrella” states (such as Australia) that believe themselves to be sheltering under their protection.

Moreover, nuclear disarmament discussion has become more complicated in recent years. This is due to the increase in dual-use systems, especially ballistic or cruise missiles that could carry either nuclear or conventional weapons, and the emergence of real concerns about the development of weapons in space, hypersonic weapons, lethal autonomous weapons, cyberwarfare and the impact of artificial intelligence generally. Multilateral agreements for most of these new areas have not been even conceptualised, let alone negotiated.

Why international law matters more than ever

There is much more international law applicable to the threat or use of nuclear weapons than just the various nuclear-specific treaties that are for the most part now dead or on life support. There is the large body of law, starting with the UN Charter, relating to the threat or use of force, prohibiting any cross-border aggression except in legitimate self-defence or with Security Council approval.

There is the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that decided (albeit by the narrowest of majorities) “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.

There is the mass of international humanitarian law, or law of armed conflict, which – particularly in its emphasis on necessity and proportionality – has huge implications for the conduct of nuclear operations. This includes targeting policy, and other dimensions of NC3 (nuclear command, control and communications) generally.

International human rights law, especially as embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has some potential application, as does international law relating to wanton destruction of the natural environment.

However, when it comes to the application of all this additional constraining international law – critically important as it is protecting the world from the insanity of nuclear conflict breaking out, or doing at least something to mitigate its horror if it does – the unhappy reality is that the whole concept of international law is under greater stress than it has been within any of our living memories. Of all the outrageous assaults on decency perpetrated by Trump, the nadir was possibly his New York Times interview in January 2026, when he said that “I don’t need international law” and that the only constraint on his power as president of the US was “my own morality, my own mind”

Depressing as all this may be, the last thing the world can afford to do – and that anyone with half an instinct for sanity and decency should want to do – is give up on international law. There is no more important time than now than to reinforce the perception that there is huge ongoing utility in understanding the critical role international law has played in the past, and can and should play in the future, in constraining the use of these weapons. They are the most indiscriminately inhumane ever invented and the only ones currently posing an existential risk to life on this planet.

In this context, the good news is there is an online course on Nuclear Weapons Law now on offer at the University of Sydney. It is open to all comers worldwide, and aimed at educating on all the ways in which existing international law constrains both the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, and the critical importance of restoring its salience.

It is a long-overdue enterprise, one from which I am now acutely aware that I and my own generation of policymakers and practitioners would unquestionably have benefited.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Tell NRC: Do Not Weaken Radiation Protection!

Tell the NRC – https://www.protectbetter.org/nrc-comments?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=7a7efaf6-d89b-4f2a-bc04-cb2330ac6bc4

Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Fri, Aug 28,

Radiation harms. There is no safe level of exposure—and now the federal government is moving to weaken the standards meant to protect us.

President Trump’s Executive Orders are pushing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to weaken radiation protections as part of an effort to accelerate the construction of more nuclear reactors, nuclear-powered data centers, and the expansion of the nuclear weapons complex. These changes could expose people and communities to dramatically more radiation while disregarding decades of evidence about the health risks of even low-dose exposure.

WE MUST MAKE CLEAR:


  • No exemptions for radiation exposure.     Nuclear licensees must be required to track and count all radiation doses and radioactive emissions, with no minimum threshold. Any proposal allowing 25 millirem per year—or any millirem or microrem level—before exposures begin to “count” would effectively permit additional radiation exposure to go untracked. That could mean higher worker doses and increased radioactive releases into our air, water, and sewage, while making it harder to understand the true health impacts of cumulative, low-dose radiation exposure. If radiation is released and people are exposed, it should be tracked and reported and kept to a minimum.  
  • If new nuclear reactors are as safe and clean as the industry claims, why do our existing health and safety protections need to be weakened to build them? The rush to expand nuclear power should not come at the expense of safeguards designed to protect workers, communities, and the public. If nuclear expansion requires weaker radiation standards to move forward, that should raise serious questions—not justify lowering the bar. Don’t weaken the regulations. 
  • We MUST retain the goal of keeping exposures to radiation As Low As Reasonably Achievable.

This is not an abstract regulatory debate. It is about how much radiation the government considers acceptable for you, your family, and your community to be exposed to.

Weakening already inadequate radiation standards could  double or more allowable exposure—and the resulting cancer risk— And that risk is not distributed equally. Women, children, older adults, workers, and communities living near nuclear facilities face greater risks.

The science is clear that radiation’s harms extend far beyond cancer. Radiation causes  immune dysfunction and heart and cardiovascular disease. It could cause infertility, and disruption of pregnancy. In 2021, after a six-year review, the NRC itself rejected the industry proposal to do away with the Linear NoThreshold model.  NRC should rely on that decision, not weaken it. 

Yet instead of strengthening protections, the federal government is trying to move in the opposite direction.

We know what happens when regulators underestimate radiation risk. Billions of dollars in government compensation have already been paid to people harmed by radiation exposure—including people whose exposures occurred below legal levels  at the time. We  must not repeat those mistakes  to make nuclear expansion dirtier and cheaper.

If radiation standards are weakened while nuclear facilities proliferate, more radioactive materials will be produced, transported, processed, stored, and released into our environment. Once radioactive contamination is released, we cannot simply take it back.

This is a moment when we have to act. Regulators and lawmakers need to hear that public health protections are not an inconvenience to be eliminated in the rush to build more nuclear facilities.

NIRS is fighting to defend science-based radiation protections and ensure that the health of our communities comes before the nuclear industry’s expansion plans.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Europe’s Heatwaves Are Putting Nuclear Power Under Pressure

By Haley Zaremba – Aug 26, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Heatwaves-Are-Putting-Nuclear-Power-Under-Pressure.html

  • Extreme heat and drought are cutting nuclear and hydropower output just as cooling demand increases electricity consumption.
  • Hungary’s Paks plant fell to barely 10% of capacity, while heat and environmental constraints have repeatedly curtailed French nuclear generation.
  • Europe will need more storage, flexible demand, resilient grids and climate-adapted power plants to cope with hotter summers.

Europe’s energy sector is facing a stress test unlike any it has ever seen before. Not only are the markets being battered by the latest in a long succession of geopolitical supply chain snags thanks to the war in Iran, but the continent is also facing blistering heat waves that are pushing the grid to its absolute limit and increasing the risk of rolling blackouts when temperatures are dangerously high. As the fastest warming continent in the world, Europe needs to adjust to extreme heat as the new normal, and it needs to adapt its power supply accordingly.

“We have to plan our power system so that this might be our new reality,” Zsuzsanna Pató, power system lead for Europe at the non-profit Regulatory Assistance Project, recently told Bloomberg. “We don’t usually have such hot spells, but we just have to get used to it.”


The nuclear industry is facing the hardest test of all, with rising temperatures forcing reactors offline just when their output is most needed. Many nuclear power plants rely on rivers for their cooling systems, and when rivers are too hot or the waters are too low, operators are forced to reduce or shut down output altogether. Earlier this month, Hungary had to reduce output at the Paks nuclear power plant to just over 10 percent and just barely avoided total shutdown, which would have effectively cut off 40 percent of the country’s electricity generation overnight. Even though the Paks plant was never fully taken offline, the sharp reduction in production led to an enormous swing in electricity prices across the region, reaching a blistering €500 a megawatt-hour. And the hottest weeks of the summer could still be yet to come.

In July, France had to reduce output and shut down nuclear reactors at a record pace without sufficient and safe water supplies to cool its reactors as the country recorded its hottest day ever on record. While this might seem to suggest that nuclear power development is incompatible with rising temperatures without overhauling the way we cool them, some experts contend that these reductions are a symptom of policy rather than technological limitations. 

“What the heatwave revealed was not a failure of nuclear technology, but rather a narrow, well-understood constraint in how some riverside plants are allowed to operate during extreme heat,” The Conversation recently reported. Furthermore, despite curbing output at reactors across the country, France still had “sufficient generation capacity to meet electricity demand,” according to grid operator RTE.

However, the reduction did have critical impacts on consumers within and outside of France. “It is true that prices rose, exports to neighbouring countries fell, and the grid relied more heavily on gas as well as oil-fired reserve generation,” The Conversation conceded. “Yet these were temporary strains, and at no point was France’s supply in any kind of serious jeopardy.”

However, price spikes and energy poverty are a major concern for consumers, who can expect heat waves to keep getting hotter and more frequent. And turning down the air conditioning is not an option when the mercury is this high. A study from The Lancet found that nearly half a million people in the world died of heat every year between 2000 and 2019, most of whom were elderly. Under these conditions, air conditioning is not a luxury but a life-saving necessity, preventing an estimated 190,000 deaths each year.

Utilities therefore need to adapt their models to account for the changing climate as well as for continued geopolitical volatility, both of which are wreaking havoc on energy markets and squeezing consumers. “Utilities can adapt by planning for summer peaks, making cooling demand more flexible, reinforcing grids for high temperatures, deploying batteries and demand response, and climate-proofing power plants’ cooling systems,” Simone Tagliapietra, senior fellow at economic and policy think tank Bruegel, recently told MIT Technology Review.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Army Selects Vendors, Sites for Nuclear Microreactors

Aug. 27, 2026 | By U.S. Army Communication and Outreach Office , https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4584583/army-selects-vendors-sites-for-nuclear-microreactors/

The Army announced yesterday that the Janus Program selected five nuclear energy vendors and five initial locations to build and operate nuclear microreactors.

In partnership with the War Department’s Defense Innovation Unit, the Army is awarding up to $2.2 billion in total for these microreactors. The project will deliver safe, secure and reliable nuclear power, strengthening the Army’s ability to project power globally, while supporting the revitalization of American industrial capacity and technological leadership. 

“Since launching the Janus Program, our mandate from President [Donald J.] Trump and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth has been clear: secure the power our warfighters need to train, deploy and win,” said Dan Driscoll, Army secretary. “Awarding these contracts accelerates our ability to deliver safe, reliable baseload power directly to our installations. We are building the energy resilience necessary to project combat power globally, without relying on potentially vulnerable external grids.”

With private sector funding expected alongside government investment, the Army expects to build and operate more than 20 nuclear microreactors across War Department installations.

The five selected vendors and installations are:

  • Antares Nuclear Inc. at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
  • BWXT Advanced Technologies LLC at Fort Campbell, Kentucky.
  • General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems at Fort Hood, Texas.
  • Radiant Industries Inc. at Fort Benning, Georgia.
  • Westinghouse Government Services at Fort Drum, New York.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………As the Janus Program moves forward, vendors will bring nuclear technologies to other military installations for continued energy resilience across the entire War Department. The Army will announce additional military sites at a later date and continues to drive toward the September 2028 target outlined in Executive Order 14299 for operation of a first reactor.

“The Army is leading the nation in its return to nuclear preeminence,” said Jason Craft, Janus Program manager. “Our selected industry awardees represent the most viable technologies to achieve this capability, setting conditions for both installation energy resilience and operational energy solutions.”

Using a milestone-based payment model, vendors will receive government funding only after successfully hitting specific technical goals. This investment model brings together approximately $2.2 billion across fiscal years 2027-2031, along with significant capital investment from each vendor. 

This technology development model will speed up the delivery of next-generation energy solutions to the warfighter and promote innovation while ensuring accountability, Craft said. The prototype reactors will be contractor-owned and operated. Collaboration with utility providers is needed for the success of the Army’s nuclear power strategy and the Janus Program. The Army will work closely with providers on the program to ensure the best possible outcomes, while continuing to collaborate with them now and in the future.

“The Army’s Janus Program has my full support,” said Emil Michael, undersecretary of war for research and engineering and War Department chief technology officer. “The War Department is acting swiftly to implement President Trump’s executive order. … We are unleashing America’s domestic nuclear industrial base to ensure a more resilient and secure energy supply for the joint force.”

August 30, 2026 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Jellyfish close down France’s largest nuclear reactor

August 28 2026 , https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9339000/jellyfish-close-down-frances-largest-nuclear-reactor/

Reactor units at France’s largest nuclear power station in Gravelines have once again been shut down due to an influx of jellyfish.

A spokeswoman for the French operator EDF said on Thursday more than 200 metric tonnes of jellyfish had appeared since last night.

Two of the six reactor units have been completely shut down as a precautionary measure to “ensure that this situation has no impact whatsoever on the safety of (EDF’s) facilities.”

EDF said the jellyfish are appearing in the area of the filter systems at the seawater pumping station.

Consequently, no reactor units are currently in full operation, as two other units are being run at reduced power, and the remaining two have also been shut down, partly due to a maintenance inspection.

The jellyfish disrupted operations in the middle of the month and in August last year.

The Gravelines nuclear power station has set up monitoring systems to detect and manage large-scale jellyfish gatherings at an early stage, EDF added.

The EDF spokeswoman explained that support for this had been provided, among others, by the organisation France Pêche Durable (France Sustainable Fishing).

Seven boats are operating round the clock near the nuclear power station to catch the jellyfish and then release them further out to sea.

The spokeswoman stated that it was not yet possible to comment on the causes of the phenomenon.

She added that the plant was working with various partners to gain a better understanding of it.

The spokeswoman said the incident posed no risk to the electricity grid.

Gravelines is one of just under 20 nuclear power stations in France.

It is situated on the northern French coast, roughly halfway between Calais and Dunkirk.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | environment, France | Leave a comment

UN and Red Cross demand immediate global rules on autonomous weapons amid rising AI threats

[your]NEWS, Tue, 25 Aug 2026, https://www.sott.net/article/508094-UN-and-Red-Cross-demand-immediate-global-rules-on-autonomous-weapons-amid-rising-AI-threats

Leaders warn of moral and legal dangers as fully autonomous arms near deployment, urging binding treaties to prevent unchecked use in warfare.

The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Mirjana Spoljaric, issued a joint warning on Tuesday, stating that the world is “dangerously close to crossing a moral red line: the autonomous targeting of humans by machines.”

“Negotiations must begin now to urgently adopt a legally binding instrument to regulate autonomous weapon systems with clear prohibitions and restrictions,” the leaders stated. Their appeal comes as states prepare to meet in Geneva next week to discuss potential new rules governing the use of AI-assisted and semi-autonomous weapons, which have already been deployed in conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Iran, and the Gulf.

The discussions, which began in 2014, have seen some progress, but technological advancements have outpaced regulatory efforts. While fully autonomous weapons, such as anti-missile systems on warships, are already in use, there is no confirmed evidence of their deployment against human targets — yet.

Human rights groups have expressed concerns that AI-driven systems may not be adequately predictable or controllable, increasing the risk of fatal errors, such as failing to recognize injured or surrendering soldiers. Additionally, the lack of human oversight complicates accountability in potential war crimes cases.

“States must show political courage and move beyond incremental discussions towards decisive action,” the joint statement urged, pushing for formal negotiations to commence in November during a major review conference held every five years in Geneva.

Carolyne Mélanie Régimbal, chief of service at the U.N. Office for Disarmament Affairs, stated during a Geneva press briefing following the release of the joint statement:

“Some decisions must forever remain with the human being, none more than the decision of taking or not a human life.”

Although states agree that international humanitarian law (IHL) applies to lethal autonomous weapon systems, there are currently no specific binding international standards for these technologies. Opposition from major powers like Russia and the United States, who argue that existing laws are sufficient, has stalled progress. The Geneva talks, which require consensus to move forward, are taking place amid heightened geopolitical tensions and recent European withdrawals from treaties like the landmine ban, driven by Russian threats.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

We’re Half a Year Into Trump’s War on Iran. Congress Has Tools to End It.

 SCHEERPOST, August 26, 2026, By Hanieh Jodat

The clash over whether the US has a functioning constitutional process for starting and ending wars is coming to a head.

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is entering its seventh month after a series of attempts at diplomatic negotiations moderated by Pakistan and other countries in the region.  The U.S has embroiled itself in a conflict without a clear exit strategy, and Iran has shown no interest in bending under President Donald Trump’s pressure. As Washington and Tehran continue this agonizing yo-yo of threats, the growing reported number of casualties feel heavy. More than 3,400 Iranians have reportedly been killed, while over 26,000 have been wounded, including at least 4,000 women and more than 1,600 children. On the American side, the Pentagon currently reports that 14 U.S. service members have been killed and more than 700 wounded. However, one Department of Defense (DOD) official accused the Pentagon of “an accounting trick” in order to misrepresent the true casualty figures.

By now it has become obvious that Benjamin Netanyahu played a key role in convincing Trump to start this war of choice, after decades of pushing the United States to attack Iran. In recent years, Israel’s lobby, in collaboration with opposition leaders from the Iranian diaspora — including the son of Iran’s late Shah Reza Pahlavi and his monarchist advisors — and a group of hawkish American officials pushed the U.S. to the brink of this war.

Until recently, those attempts were unsuccessful — that is, until they finally found a U.S. president who would risk a strategic disaster and economic collapse for one of the most quickly unpopular wars in U.S. history. But after half a year of war, the question is no longer how we arrived at this war, but more so how Congress might limit the executive branch and force an end to the military hostilities.

Poll after poll reveals that people in the U.S. are increasingly questioning the motivation and cost of the war. After decades of U.S. military interventions across the Middle East and West Asia that have cost trillions of dollars without any sign of success, Americans have expressed their exhaustion with the financial and human toll of another conflict. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in late July found that only 33 percent of people in the U.S. supported the war with Iran, the lowest level of support measured since the conflict began. Sixty-nine percent said President Trump had failed to explain the objectives of the military operation in Iran clearly.

Diplomacy and negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have repeatedly faltered since Trump entered office for the first time and pulled out of a landmark nuclear deal engineered by the Obama administration. The possibility of a lasting political settlement remains buried beneath the weight of the bombs dropped on civilians, sanctions, military threats, and political calculation. And the consequences of the war of choice with Iran are not confined to the Middle East. Rising food and energy prices, inflation, regular attacks on U.S. bases with an unknown number of U.S. casualties, and the uncertainty over the war’s future have shifted the way both Americans and the rest of the world view U.S. recklessness. And the frustration has only gotten worse; by August, roughly two-thirds of people in the U.S. opposed the war outright, according to Reuters polling.

In the face of clear American opposition to the war, the question now is whether the United States has a functioning and democratic constitutional process for deciding when a war begins, how long it continues, and when it ends.

While Trump and his war cabinet have swung back and forth between the promise of diplomacy and peace or the threats of further military escalation, Congress has unsuccessfully attempted several times to reassert its constitutional authority. Only Congress has the power to declare war, and the 1973 War Powers Resolution gives the president a 60-day clock to terminate hostilities without congressional approval. The president has now blown through that deadline — bringing about several constitutional questions for lawmakers.

An Ever-Expanding War……………………………………………………………….

A Path Forward Beyond More War Powers Resolutions

Congress can strengthen congressional oversight over the war by requiring mandatory reporting, conducting investigations, and using the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the executive branch. How can Congress exercise its war powers if it doesn’t know what the Trump administration seeks to do?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://scheerpost.com/2026/08/26/were-half-a-year-into-trumps-war-on-iran-congress-has-tools-to-end-it/

August 30, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Beyond China’s humanoid robots, a quieter machine revolution is unfolding

Laura Bicker, 25 Aug 26,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62m4zn1q6mo

“I take a nap and the world changes,” says Chen Tianyu.

His world certainly does. The 28-year-old keeps up with the latest technology by spending his spare time in factories that are switching to automation. That way he knows what to prioritise when teaching his class about artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.

In front of him, around 30 college students are studying code. One of them is typing furiously as his eyes dart from the screen to the robot: “The idea is it will grab that cylindrical piece and move it over there.”

A line of industrial robots are waiting to be programmed, and in another part of the classroom, students are trying to develop robotic medical instruments. As he guides them, Chen declares: “If you are not needed by the world of AI and robotics, then you’ll definitely be among those eliminated”.

For the people in this room, this is a step – or rather a leap – towards a future that China is meticulously building: Xi Jinping’s $20bn (£14.7bn) plan to put his country at the forefront of innovation and in direct competition with the US.

The evidence is all around them. They are in the Hangzhou Technician Institute, one of several huge, purpose-built vocational schools that want to churn out the next generation of tech-savvy engineers. The campus sits on the outskirts of Hangzhou, a former imperial capital whose futuristic skyline is just the first hint of its role as a global tech hub.

Across the country, there are more than two million robots working in China’s factories – which is more than anywhere else – and they are continuing to scale up at extraordinary speed.

It is a commitment that will surely change the world, much like the last time the Chinese economy underwent a massive transformation. It is already shipping its robots across the globe: more than half of the world’s industrial robots are now made in China.

What is less clear is the impact of such sweeping automation in a country that sits at the heart of global manufacturing, trade and innovation. What does this mean for China’s human workforce, for instance? And how would we be able to truly measure the cost of this transformation in a regime that controls information so tightly?

The future of China’s workers is uncertain in the industrial revolution the world has been watching: gleaming solar grids, peak hours made noiseless by electric vehicles, machines that run faster than Usain Bolt. Over the weekend, China hosted the second edition of the World Humanoid Games where robots boxed, sprinted and marched.

What is fuelling this spectacle is another, less visible revolution happening inside factories and classrooms.

The BBC has visited industrial sites where we have been shown robots that do not look human, or dance or leap on stage but weld, paint, lift, assemble and work around the clock without a break or benefits. Some are designed to build more robots. We have also been inside academies where China is training the people who will work alongside its robotic workforce.

This is a front-row seat to what Xi calls China’s “new productive forces” – and how they could reshape the country.

On a factory floor in the southern city of Chengdu, the old and and the new are working side by side.

An assembly line of around 30 middle-aged men and women is screwing, drilling and polishing CRP Technology’s signature product: a robotic arm which performs various industrial tasks. Also in the room are four young engineers crowded around a console, trying to crack the code for a prototype, a new robot that they hope will help build other robots.

One of them, 31-year-old Pang Kai, who is part of the research and development team, pushes the sleek skeleton across the room. Because China’s future workforce is not quite ready to strut out. For now, it can only do simple repetitive movements, such as scan a QR code.

“Maybe in another half year, it can do another task,” Pang says, smiling wistfully. It’s a long road and the team are celebrating every small win.

CRP Technology, which employs around 300 people, has been building robot arms for nine years. Each arm can be tailored to a factory’s needs to help build cars, electronics or wind turbines. The firm says a single arm can be programmed to perform more than 90% of repetitive tasks.

The engineers also wonder if, one day, they can replace the company’s workforce. “We want our new robot to be like human beings. We hope it can think by itself,” says Pang. “We need these kinds of robots because maybe in 10 years, we won’t have enough workers in China.”

A shrinking population and an ageing workforce is another reason Beijing is in a hurry to revolutionise its factories. By 2035, more than a third of China’s population will be over 60, according to official estimates. The country will also lose nearly 60 million people in the next decade – almost equivalent to the population of France – according to some estimates.

The hope is that increased automation will fill this looming gap in the workforce before it starts to affect an already sluggish economy. But the speed of the transition is key. Around 120 million people still work in the manufacturing sector. If China moves too quickly, job losses could follow dealing a catastrophic blow to millions who depend on factory wages.

“In theory, machines can work 24 hours a day, which is certainly an advantage compared with human workers. But machines also require maintenance. Every day we need time for that, and each month the production line also requires inspection and repair,” says Cao Li, vice-president of EV maker Leapmotor.

Increasingly popular in Europe and the UK, the company’s budget-friendly, tech-focused cars come together at the Hangzhou factory with robots aiding the process at every step. At the end of the assembly line, more humans emerge.

The company has more than 25,000 workers and hundreds of them make the final checks as the sparkling new vehicles roll past. Will there be a day when they are no longer needed?

“It’s entirely possible,” Cao says. “And it may come relatively quickly. In workshops, including stamping, welding, and painting, we’ve basically achieved 100% automation.”

China has the edge over the US due to its enormous manufacturing base. Motors, batteries, electronics, gears, sensors – everything needed to build the body of a robot is all at hand.

“China also has an idea. It has a plan. They know where they want to be in five years. They plan at a top level, but they break it down to the regions, to the municipalities,” says Dr Susanne Bieller, General Secretary of the International Federation of Robotics.

“If you want to build a robot in Shenzhen – there’s an entire ecosystem. It takes you less than one hour to source the components you need to make a robot. In Europe it can take you up to a week.”

However, she acknowledges that while China is good at building the body, the US is still leading at building the “brain”, which includes developing the AI to programme robots. And yet Chinese firms, from DeepSeek to Moonshot, have been unveiling new AI models that they say can compete with top US firms.

Driven by an “open-source” approach, where AI start-ups share their code, Chinese innovation has been able to catch up faster than expected, despite US export controls over critical advanced chips. Analysts now believe that the next leg of this race will be determined not by who has the best language model, but who can put this intelligence into millions of machines.

And that is why China is also investing in producing a generation of students learning to imagine what could come next.

At the Hangzhou Technician Institute, for example, children can start from the age of 15. And the scale of what is being taught can feel staggering. There is an entire building dedicated to engines and aeronautics, and a restricted floor for students who will work to keep China at the forefront of processing rare earths – another crucial commodity in the battle with Washington.

Some see this as a solution to China’s stubbornly high youth unemployment rate, with one in five struggling to find a job. “Our students are in demand and can even be pre-booked by companies. They don’t need to worry about employment at all, and we hold competitions as part of their training,” Chen, the young teacher, says.

“It’s better to find your position within the technological wave. In the process of progress, structural changes are bound to occur, and these structural changes are exactly where students’ future employment opportunities lie.”

But China still faces serious economic challenges, from a property crisis that continues to drag on to huge local government debt and persistently low consumption.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | China, technology | Leave a comment

Hospitals to stock anti-nuclear pills near AUKUS base

Carla Hildebrandt, August 26, 2026 —https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-plan-to-stock-anti-nuclear-pills-at-hospitals-in-perth-s-southern-aukus-suburbs-20260825-p60re6.html

Hospitals in Perth’s southern suburbs could distribute iodine tablets to the community in the “extremely low” chance of a radiation spill, as WA prepares for the arrival of nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership.

It comes as the first US and UK submarine rotations are due to begin next year through Garden Island’s naval base, HMAS Stirling, under Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West).

The plans emerged earlier this year after Legalise Cannabis WA MP Dr Brian Walker questioned the health minister in parliament about the government’s emergency preparedness ahead of the incoming visits.

During question time, Walker asked whether the state government would supply the anti-nuclear pills to locals, “as a treatment against radiation poisoning in the event of a nuclear leak or spill”.

An emergency guide released by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, which leads the national response to a nuclear emergency, describes taking potassium iodide – or KI pills – as a “short-term” measure that blocks radioactive iodine from being absorbed by the thyroid.

The health minister wrote a response to parliament stating the WA Department of Health “has established plans and exercised processes to pre-position and distribute supplies of stable iodine to local hospitals, as required, based on needs and relevant circumstances”, but did not reveal which hospitals would hold the tablets or how many would be available.

Walker said the state government lacked “a clear emergency plan” for communities like Rockingham, Cockburn and Kwinana.

He pointed to France, where iodine tablets have been distributed to communities near nuclear facilities, but warned the pills were only one part of preparing for a potential emergency,

August 30, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, safety | 1 Comment

Port Hope’s past fuels pushback on nuclear reactor


The Canadian Press, 21 Aug 2026

The Ontario government announced earlier this year that it will build one of the world’s largest nuclear power plants in Port Hope, Ontario. Though the news was welcomed by some, it shocked a generation of Port Hope residents old enough to have lived through or learned of the community’s fraught history with the nuclear industry.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

US treasury chief claims Washington ‘unlikely to restart’ large-scale hostilities against Iran

Bessent said that illegal US sanctions are a replacement for a war of aggression that has failed to break Tehran

News Desk, AUG 20, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/us-treasury-chief-claims-washington-unlikely-to-restart-large-scale-hostilities-against-iran

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC on 20 August that Washington will likely “not restart” large-scale military operations against Iran, as the White House shifts to a campaign of maximum economic sanctions.

If we are doing the maximum economic pressure, then that means that likely there will not be a large-scale kinetic restart,” Bessent said in an interview with CNBC’s Squawk on the Street news program.

Trump had announced hours earlier on Truth Social that Washington would impose major economic penalties on any country extending Tehran what he called “any type of lifeline.”

“This will be an ECONOMIC D-DAY, and we need all of our Allies to stand with the United States of America to isolate, and defeat, the Iran threat,” Trump wrote.

Bessent said he would lay out the details of the plan at a press conference, telling CNBC that the message to every US ally would be: “You are either with us or against us.”

“If you insist on doing business with [Iran], either transferring money, buying their oil or doing seaborne ship transfers, then the US Treasury and the US government … will put its full might and force toward enforcing against you,” he said.

He described the campaign as “the greatest coordinated economic isolation in the history of the world.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed the campaign the same day, writing on X that it would deliver Washington nothing but “further defeat.”

“The so-called ‘Economic D-Day’ is a diversion from America’s own crisis: unprecedented debt & surging interest costs,” Araghchi wrote, describing US “economic terrorism” as a threat to the global economy.

Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said Washington had reached for economic warfare only after its military campaign failed to deliver.

“They claim Iran is on the verge of defeat and hanging by a thread, yet they are begging all their allies to help them,” he wrote on X, adding that the US had “named their next failure an ‘economic war.’”

Vice-Chairman of the Belt and Road Institute in Sweden Hussein Askary notes that the US naval blockade imposed in April has pushed Iran to shift its trade overland, sharply increasing freight traffic on the China–Iran railway and raising the strategic value of Eurasian land corridors as Tehran works to keep supply routes open beyond the reach of maritime pressure.

The Pentagon is reviewing whether to scale back its presence in Persian Gulf states after Iranian retaliatory strikes battered the largest US bases overseas, with sources saying a westward pullback is under consideration.

A regional intelligence source told Press TV that the Pentagon has concluded no military plan exists that could guarantee open shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, which carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil.

August 30, 2026 Posted by | Iran, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »