nuclear-news

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

Renewables deliver nearly two thirds of power fed to grid in Germany, not including self-consumption

 Nearly two thirds of all electricity fed into Germany’s public grid
between July and September 2025 came from renewable power sources, the
country’s statistical office Destatis said, based on preliminary data.
With 98.3 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), wind turbines, solar panels and
other renewables contributed 64.1 percent to the electricity mix, up from
63.5 percent in the same period last year. Total renewable power production
rose three percent compared to the third quarter of 2024, while total
electricity production increased by two percent. A robust expansion of
renewable power sources led to record output levels for a third quarter:
Wind power production increased by more than ten percent compared to the
third quarter of 2024, reaching a share of over one quarter (26.8%) of the
power mix, while solar PV output rose 3.2 percent to a share of 24.1
percent.

 Renew Economy 9th Dec 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/renewables-deliver-nearly-two-thirds-of-power-fed-to-grid-in-germany-not-including-self-consumption/

December 10, 2025 Posted by | Germany, renewable | Leave a comment

Japan pulls out of Vietnam nuclear project, complicating Hanoi’s power plans​

 Japan has dropped out of plans to build a major nuclear power plant in
Vietnam because the time frame is too tight, Japanese ambassador Naoki Ito told Reuters, potentially complicating Vietnam’s long-term strategy to
avoid new power shortages.

Vietnam, home to large manufacturing operations for multinationals including Samsung and Apple, has faced major power blackouts as demand from its huge industrial sector and expanding middle class often outpaces supplies, strained by increasingly frequent extreme weather, such as droughts and typhoons.

“The Japanese side is not in a position to implement the Ninh Thuan 2 project,” the ambassador to Vietnam said, referring to a plant with a planned capacity of 2 to 3.2 gigawatts. The project is part of Vietnam’s strategy to boost power generation capacity.

 Asahi Shimbun 8th Dec 2025, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16208469

December 10, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Japan, Vietnam | Leave a comment

The Colby Review, AUKUS and Lopsided Commitments

9 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-colby-review-aukus-and-lopsided-commitments/

In one of his many cutting observations about the fallibility of politicians, H. L. Mencken had this to say about the practical sort: “It is his business to convince the mob (a) that it is confronted by some grave danger, some dreadful menace to its peace and security, and (b) that he can save it.” Regarding Australia’s often provincial politicians, that grave danger remains the Yellow Peril, albeit it one garbed in communist party colours, while the quackery they continue to practise involves the notion the United States will act as shield bearer and saviour in any future conflict.

The AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States has turned the first of these countries into an expectant vassal state, mindful of security guarantees it does not need from a power that can, and would at a moment’s notice, abandon it. But more dangerously, the expectation here is that Canberra, awaiting Virginia Class (SSN-774) nuclear-powered submarines from the US, will offer unconditional succour, resources and promises to the projection of Washington’s power in the Indo-Pacific. Without any guarantee of such submarines, Australian money is underwriting US submarine production, which remains consistently tardy. (Currently, 1.3 boats are being produced annually, when 2.3 are needed.)

The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act makes it irrefutably clear that Congress shall be notified that any transfer of boats “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities.” Pursuing AUKUS still entailed “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” on the part of the US to meet undersea capabilities, with Australia advancing “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements” along with Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”

This true steal for US diplomacy, and sad tribute to Homo boobiens on the part of the Australians, has continued with the review of AUKUS conducted by Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby. The review is not available for public eyes, but Colby had previously released smoke signals that the AUKUS pact would only “lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.”  

The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters on December 4 that the review had been received. “We’re working through the AUKUS review, and we very much thank the United States for providing it to us.” (Surely that’s the least they could have done.) He had identified unwavering support for the pact. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also released a statement to the media expressing enthusiasm. “Consistent with President Trump’s guidance that AUKUS should move ‘full steam ahead,’ the review identified opportunities to put AUKUS on the strongest possible footing.” No doubt opportunities have been identified, but these are likely to be consistent with the lopsided arrangements Australia has had with the US to date.

Australia has so far provided A$1.6 billion in funding to the US submarine base, with the promise of more. What remains unclear is how much of this is also going into training Australian personnel to operate and maintain the vessels. “There’s a schedule of payments to be made,” explained Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in July. “We have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom. It is about increasing their capacity, their industrial capacity.” As part of such arrangements, “we have Australians on the ground, learning those skills.”

The joint fact sheet on the 2025 Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN), held between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and their Australian counterparts Penny Wong and Marles in Washington, makes one reference to AUKUS and nothing in terms of substance to Colby’s recommendations. There is, however, this bit of unpardonable gibberish: “In line with President Trump and Prime Minister Albanese’s direction to move ‘full steam ahead’ on AUKUS, the [ministers] recognised the work underway to deliver priority infrastructure works and workforce uplift plan in support of an enhanced trilateral submarine industrial base.”

Given such statements, it is hard to see what opportunities identified in the Colby report could possibly be advantageous to Australia, a mere annexure of the US imperium. There is bound to be continued pressure on Australia to increase its defence spending. There are also unaddressed concerns about how sovereign the SSNs in Australian hands are going to be when and if they ever make it across the Pacific. In a conflict involving the United States, notably in the Indo-Pacific, Canberra will be expected to rush in with that mindless enthusiasm that has seen Australian soldiers die in theatres they would struggle to name for causes they could barely articulate.

Even the confident opinion of Joe Courtney, a Democrat member of the House Armed Services Committee and representative of Groton, Connecticut (the “Submarine Capital of the World”), should be viewed warily. “The statutory authority enacted by Congress in 2023 will remain intact, including the sale of three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032,”comes his beaming assessment. The Colby review “correctly determined that there are critical deadlines that all three countries have to meet. Therefore, maintaining disciplined adherence to schedule is paramount.” That degree of discipline and adherence to schedules is unlikely to be an equal one. It is bound to favour, first and foremost, Washington’s own single perspective.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

The ‘Nuclearity’ of the Marshall Islands, and the Threat of US Testing

By Bea Paduano

ICAN Australia and Bea Paduano, Dec 09, 2025, https://icanaustralia.substack.com/p/the-nuclearity-of-the-marshall-islands?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6291617&post_id=181019673&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

This article explores how nuclearity exposes unequal power, why some lives are protected, and others sacrificed, and how these dynamics still matter today as talk of renewed US nuclear testing re-enters global politics. To avoid repeating the devastation imposed on the Marshall Islands, strong international support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is crucial.

Between 1946 and 1958, the United States tested sixty-seven nuclear weapons in the Republic of the Marshall Islands—turning entire atolls into fallout zones and reshaping life for generations. Seen through Gabrielle Hecht’s lens of nuclearity, which asks who decides what counts as “nuclear”, the Marshall Islands become one of the most nuclear places on Earth—yet they’re rarely recognised as such.

What is Nuclearity?

Historian Hecht describes nuclearity as a “technopolitical spectrum that shifts in time and space” that shapes “the degree to which something counts as ‘nuclear’.”1

In simple terms, nuclearity is a lens that reveals who has the power to declare something nuclear—or to deny it—even in the face of clear harm. Nuclearity isn’t only about radiation; it is shaped by history, geography, politics and power, and by the decisions that determine which harms are acknowledged and which are ignored.2

The Marshall Islands: a Nuclear Frontier
Japan seized the Marshall Islands during World War One to secure a strategic position in the Pacific, occupying them until the United States took control in 1944 during World War Two. After the war, the US turned the islands into a nuclear testing ground, beginning with Bikini and Enewetak in 1946. Over the next twelve years, the United States conducted sixty-seven atmospheric, underwater, and airburst tests that vaporised entire atolls, and exposed the whole country to severe radioactive fallout. The Castle Bravo test—the largest in US history—released an explosive yield equivalent to more than seven thousand Hiroshima bombs.

US officials justified these tests as being “for the good of mankind and to end all wars”.3 In other words, the Marshall Islands became a “display case for flexing military muscle” at the expense of the Marshallese people.4

Health, Identity and Culture

The health impacts of nuclear testing on the Marshall Islands were—and remain—catastrophic. Thyroid and other cancers, blood and metabolic disorders, cataracts, stillbirths, miscarriages, and birth defects have all been recorded and continue to affect Marshallese communities.5 The US Atomic Energy Commission’s Health and Safety Laboratory once described the atoll of Utirik as “by far the most contaminated place in the world.”6

Radioactive fallout poisoned staple foods, led to unexpected deaths, and weakened immune systems—patterns still seen in Marshallese communities today. Due to contamination, traditional foods became unsafe, and people were forced to give up practices that carry memory and meaning.

The damage is also cultural. Marshallese identity is deeply tied to land and water. In her poem Tell Them, Marshallese poet Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner writes, “we are nothing without our islands.”7 Nuclear testing destroyed homelands and forced many Marshallese into exile, severing connections to land, knowledge, and practices tied to fishing, food, and ceremony.8

Colonialism, “Remoteness,” and Power

Colonialism has long shaped understandings of remoteness, helping powerful states distance themselves from responsibility.9 This is evident in the US nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, where the construction of “remoteness” positioned the Marshallese at the margins. The US commission concluded that testing should take place overseas and away from US population centres until the health implications could be established.10 The location was chosen by spreading out maps and looking for sites considered remote.11 In his assessment of six nuclear testing sites, Jacobs concludes that it is no coincidence that all sites used were considered “remote.”12

The Marshall Islands were not only seen as geographically distant, but also racially distant, drawing on colonial ideas of eugenics. Eisenbud, Director of the AEC’s Health and Safety Laboratory in New York, justified the testing by claiming the Marshallese people were “more like us than the mice.”13 Their race and classification as “other” helped justify the testing and reveal the colonial underpinnings of the global nuclear order. Those considered racially inferior and physically remote have repeatedly been subjected to the harms of nuclear weapons testing. These colonial legacies maintain power dynamics and legitimise nuclear testing on Marshallese land and people.

The legacy of this history can be seen in the Runit Dome, the concrete cap covering nuclear waste on Enewetak. As the dome cracks and leaks into the sea, it adds to the already devastating implications of climate change for the Marshall Islands. As sea levels rise, the future of the Marshall Islands remains uncertain.

Who Decides What Counts as ‘Nuclear’?

Hecht’s concept of nuclearity helps explain how authorities can declare certain areas “safe” while people continue to live with radiation and illness.14 Nuclearity does not equate to radioactivity; it is constructed, fluid and changeable, and can be made and unmade by those with the power to define it.

The Bravo test is one example. Communities from Bikini and Enewetak were relocated south before the detonation, yet radioactive fallout still hit the newly inhabited islands. Although the US government claimed that the wind unexpectedly changed, research found that they had six hours’ notice.15 Similar patterns are found in French nuclear testing on the Gambier Islands.16 The US government also imposed arbitrary restrictions such as fishing bans in certain areas of the islands—restrictions that, as Jacobs notes, were not respected by the fish.17 This shows the continued construction of what is considered “nuclear” in specific areas and at specific times, despite ongoing radioactivity.

Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner refers to this denuclearisation in the line: “it’s not radioactive anymore, your illnesses are normal, you’re fine.”18 Despite such claims, the US government restricted visitors from other countries from travelling to the Marshall Islands and restricted the movement of islanders during the tests.19 In this sense, the US government constructed a claim that certain areas would be safe but only for certain individuals, “denuclearising” areas and people despite significant radiation exposure. This draws on Hecht’s concept of nuclearity—that nuclearity “is not the same for everyone, and it is not the same at all moments in time.” 20

Recent US Discussions on Nuclear Testing
These issues are not confined to history. As we watch the current global situation unfold, this article urges us to pay attention to what is considered nuclear and what is not. Donald Trump has suggested that the US should resume nuclear testing to match or surpass other states. Whether this would involve full-scale detonations or ultra-low-yield tests, the political effect is similar: signalling that nuclear threats are back on the table.

Even the discussion of testing changes nuclearity. It designates potential testing sites, shapes perceptions of risk and acceptability, and reinforces harmful colonial power dynamics. Despite no US tests being conducted for decades, and considerable work and commitment to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), this rhetoric threatens the nuclear taboo.

The TPNW, promoted by ICAN, prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons. At the time of writing, seventy-four countries have ratified the treaty. A strong global commitment against testing is needed to confront the harms to health, identity and culture that stretch across past, present and future.

The Marshall Islands illustrate what nuclearity looks like in practice: cancers and contaminated reefs, cracked domes, displaced communities and cultural loss that continues across generations. As talk of renewed nuclear testing returns, we must consider not only where the next “dangerous” place might be, but whose lives will again be treated as expendable.

We cannot allow others to quietly determine what—and who—counts as nuclear.

About the Author

Bea Paduano is a recent graduate of International Relations from the University of Leeds and was a participant in the ICAN-Hiroshima academy 2025 cohort. Her interests include the legacies of social and political injustice, specifically of nuclear testing and migration studies.

References ……………………………………………………………….

December 10, 2025 Posted by | indigenous issues, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

China’s New Underwater Drones Could Blindside the U.S. Navy

1945, By Reuben Johnson, 10 Dec 25

Key Points and Summary – China is quietly opening a new front in undersea warfare. Beijing’s latest AI-enabled underwater drones can execute zero-radius turns, recharge at submerged stations, datalink with each other, and reportedly operate below 90 decibels—making them extremely hard to detect.

-Designed to block shipping lanes, threaten warships, and autonomously target and attack, these systems fit neatly into China’s broader effort to keep U.S. and allied navies away from Taiwan.

China continues to make progress in drone technology—especially in aerial combat designs. 

Their vehicles are similar to those being developed in the West, such as Collaborative Combat Aircraft or “loyal wingman” programs. 

On Sept. 3, observers in Beijing were able to get a glance at one of China’s latest military innovations—a platform that could cause headaches for the U.S. and its allies.

The new design is for an unmanned underwater drone system controlled by what is described as advanced AI capabilities.

This new technology developed for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) could be a disruptive development and a ground-breaking capability in anti-submarine warfare. 

The new underwater drones are purportedly capable of zero-radius turns and can operate in almost any maritime environment. 

They are also promoted as being difficult to detect by modern sonar and other underwater sensor networks, since any noise they generate during operations is below 90 decibels.

According to a recent report by the South China Morning Post, the PLAN’s newest unmanned systems do not have to operate as solo platforms—they will datalink and coordinate with each other to carry out a host of different missions. 

These would include blocking shipping lanes, threatening naval vessels at sea, and launching attacks on seaborne targets.

Detection Impossible

China’s new underwater drone systems are reportedly also capable of long-endurance missions, as they can recharge batteries at underwater stations. 

Since they will operate in an almost self-aware mode using AI, they will be able to autonomously identify a target, develop a firing solution, and attack any platform they deem a threat.

The endurance capability, ability to operate without a datalink to an operator, and the extreme ranges at which they will be able to strike would all be new advancements in underwater unmanned vehicles.

However, the real worry for adversaries is these undersea drones’ unprecedented ability to evade detection. 

As one recent article points out, “this could disrupt the current global maritime security governance.”….. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/12/chinas-new-underwater-drones-could-blindside-the-u-s-navy/

December 10, 2025 Posted by | China, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Manufactured Narratives: A Century of Distortion and Dispossession in Palestine

9 December 2025 Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/manufactured-narratives-a-century-of-distortion-and-dispossession-in-palestine/

A recent report criticising Palestinian schoolbooks has revived a persistent narrative: that Palestinian culture inherently teaches hatred. This framing is not merely inaccurate; it is the latest tool in a century-long campaign to obscure a foundational truth – the establishment of Israel was predicated on the deliberate, violent dispossession of the Palestinian people, known as the Nakba (Catastrophe)¹. To understand the present conflict, one must confront the history of broken promises, calculated ethnic cleansing, and the sustained narrative warfare that has enabled ongoing oppression.

The Foundational Act: The Nakba and Systematic Dispossession

The Nakba (1947-1949) was not a tragic byproduct of war but a deliberate political project of demographic engineering. Following the UN partition plan granting 55% of Palestine to a Jewish state despite Jewish land ownership of only ~7%², Zionist militias executed a coordinated plan.

Mass Expulsion: Approximately 750,000 Palestinians – over half the indigenous population – were expelled from their homes or fled massacres³.

Destruction of Society: Over 500 Palestinian villages and urban neighbourhoods were systematically depopulated and often razed to prevent return⁴.

Massacres as Policy: Dozens of massacres terrorised the population into flight. Key examples include:

  • Deir Yassin (April 1948): Over 110 Palestinians were killed by Irgun and Lehi militias⁵.
  • Lydda (July 1948): Israeli forces killed an estimated 200 people and expelled 60,000-70,000 in a “death march”⁶.
  • Tantura (May 1948): Dozens to hundreds of civilians were killed by the Alexandroni Brigade⁷.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappé terms this process “ethnic cleansing”⁸. By 1949, Israel controlled 78% of historic Palestine, creating a refugee population denied their legal right of return – a direct consequence of foundational violence that continues today³.

The Colonial Blueprint: Broken Promises and Zionist Ambition

The Nakba’s roots lie in colonial politics and political Zionism. As noted in the prompt, critical betrayals set the stage:

  • The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (1915-16): Britain promised Arab independence in exchange for revolt against the Ottomans – a promise later broken⁹.
  • The Balfour Declaration (1917): In a colonial act, Britain promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, dismissing the indigenous Arab majority as “existing non-Jewish communities”¹⁰.
  • The British Mandate (1922-1948): Britain facilitated Zionist immigration and land acquisition, suppressing Arab resistance and fostering a “dual society” that marginalised Palestinians¹¹.

This period established the core dynamic: a colonial-backed settler movement facing indigenous resistance, falsely framed as a clash between two equal national movements.

Weaponising Narrative: From Greenhouses to Textbooks

Distorting history shapes perception and shifts blame. A prime example is the Gaza greenhouses narrative after Israel’s 2005 disengagement.

The propagated story was that Palestinians looted and destroyed valuable greenhouses left for them¹². The documented reality is different:

  1. Israeli settlers destroyed roughly half the greenhouses before departing¹³.
  2. The remaining greenhouses were purchased for $14 million by international donors for Palestinian use¹³.
  3. Palestinian entrepreneurs successfully revived the project, exporting produce by late 2005¹³.
  4. The project was then strangled by Israeli border closures. The critical Karni crossing was shut for months, preventing export and collapsing the enterprise¹³.

This lie – painting Palestinians as inherently self-destructive – serves to absolve Israel of responsibility for its siege’s economic devastation and to dehumanise Palestinians as incapable of peace¹².

This context is essential for the current textbook debate. While groups like IMPACT-se document concerning content, such analysis is often decontextualised¹⁴. It ignores the living curriculum of military occupation, home demolitions, and trauma that Palestinian children endure daily. Framing the teaching of historical resistance as “incitement” deflects from the occupation’s role as the primary teacher of resentment, misleadingly treating a symptom as the root cause¹⁴.

Gaza: The Continuation of the Nakba

The current assault on Gaza is widely seen as a continuation and intensification of the Nakba¹⁵.

  • Scale of Destruction: With over 64,000 killed, widespread displacement, and systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure, the assault aligns with acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention¹⁶.
  • Evidence of Intent: Statements by Israeli officials dehumanising Palestinians and invoking genocidal biblical rhetoric have been cited by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as “plausible” evidence of genocidal intent¹⁷.
  • Manufactured Consent: Media hesitancy to accurately describe the violence functions to sanitise the reality for international audiences. As Gaza-based journalist Rami Abou Jamous notes, the intent is clear: “They are not hiding it.”¹⁸

The propaganda that once blamed Palestinians for losing their land now blames them for their own societal destruction, all while displacement continues.

Conclusion: Confronting the Core to Break the Cycle

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a land conflict resolved through demographic engineering and sustained by narrative control. From “a land without a people” to blaming Palestinian curricula, the pattern is the denial of Palestinian sovereignty, identity, and victimhood.

Palestinian resistance to erasure is criminalised, and their history of trauma is reframed as incitement. Until the international community confronts the original and ongoing sin of the Nakba and advances a justice-based solution acknowledging Palestinian rights, this cycle will persist. The debate over textbooks is a distraction from the real-time erasure it seeks to obscure..

References…………………………………………………………………….

December 10, 2025 Posted by | history, MIDDLE EAST, Reference | Leave a comment

Zelensky ‘systematically sabotaged’ Ukraine anti-corruption efforts: Report

Close associates of Zelensky recently fled to Israel amid allegations of a $100 million corruption scheme

News Desk, DEC 6, 2025, https://thecradle.co/articles/zelensky-systematically-sabotaged-ukraine-anti-corruption-efforts

Over the past four years, the Ukrainian government “systematically sabotaged” oversight of the country’s state-owned companies and weapons procurement processes, “allowing graft to flourish,” a New York Times (NYT) investigation published on 6 December has revealed.

The investigation details how the government of Volodymyr Zelensky sidelined outside experts from the US and EU serving on advisory boards responsible for monitoring spending, appointing executives, and preventing corruption.

“President Volodymyr Zelensky’s administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty, or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kiev even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around,” the NYT report says.

The investigation was published amid a corruption scandal centering on close associates of the Ukrainian president.

Anti-corruption authorities have accused members of Zelensky’s inner circle of embezzling $100 million from the state-owned nuclear power company, Energoatom.

“Mr. Zelensky’s administration has blamed Energoatom’s supervisory board for failing to stop the corruption. But it was Mr. Zelensky’s government itself that neutered Energoatom’s supervisory board,” the NYT writes.

The investigation also found that Zelensky sidelined the supervisory boards of the state-owned electricity company Ukrenergo and Ukraine’s Defense Procurement Agency.

European leaders have justified funneling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Ukraine despite knowledge of the systematic corruption and theft plaguing the country.

“We do care about good governance, but we have to accept that risk,” said Christian Syse, the special envoy to Ukraine from Norway.

“Because it’s war. Because it’s in our own interest to help Ukraine financially. Because Ukraine is defending Europe from Russian attacks,” he added.

Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, resigned late last month amid the Energoatom corruption scandal and just hours after police raided his home.

Ukrainska Pravda reported that he had left for Israel, of which he is a citizen, just hours before the raid.

Yermak is widely considered the second-most-powerful official in the country, with influence over domestic politics, military issues, and foreign policy, Axios noted.

Businessman Timur Mindich, who co-founded the entertainment company Kvartal 95 with Zelensky, allegedly led the embezzlement scheme.

Mindich also escaped to Israel, where he enjoys citizenship, hours before a separate raid on his luxury apartment by police from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

“Timur had an apartment with golden toilets that was in the same building as Zelensky’s,” a former Ukrainian government official told Fox News.

December 10, 2025 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Report: Small Modular Distractors: Why a European SMR strategy hinders the energy transition

09/12/2025, https://caneurope.org/small-modular-distractors/

Click on image [on original] to download the report

“Our investigation demonstrates why betting on small modular reactors would be a costly mistake for Europe. These projects would be slow to construct, with long delays, over budget, a poor economic fit for our power system needs, and would produce toxic radioactive waste for which we do not have a solution. Many projects would likely not materialise and jeopardise our electricity supply. Distorting funding away from more realistic, lower-cost solutions such as renewables, storage, and demand side solutions risks derailing the energy transition, keeping our emissions and energy prices high.” – Thomas Lewis, Author and Energy Policy Coordinator at CAN Europe

An EU Small Modular Strategy is a distraction

Small modular reactors are not a viable solution to decarbonising our energy system and supporting a transition to net zero. The technology has not been demonstrated at any sort of scale, with great unknowns when it comes to design.

CAN Europe’s latest report details how SMR projects have been shown to be significantly delayed compared to initial estimates, are slower to construct than traditional nuclear, consistently over budget, more expensive than renewables, not economically fit to provide flexibility, not very small, deter funding away from realistic renewable solutions, produce more waste than traditional nuclear, and citizens have little trust in their governments to implement plans fairly. They are also planned under the assumption that the governments would take responsibility and invest in enabling infrastructure such as grids and nuclear storage facilities.

An EU SMR Strategy, as well as national plans to pursue SMRs, risks diverting attention, resources, and political momentum away from the proven solutions needed for a fast, fair, and effective energy transition. While the following recommendations aim to minimise the potential negative impacts of SMR-related initiatives, it is important to underline that only a transition pathway without new nuclear capacity can deliver the speed, cost-effectiveness, and system resilience required for Europe’s decarbonisation.

Diagrams and graphs within the report can be downloaded below: [ on original]

December 10, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

South Carolina’s abandoned nuclear plants could be revived as company offers $2.7 billion

 South Carolina´s stalled nuclear power project could finally finish
construction as a private company has offered to pay $2.7 billion to the
state-owned utility and a small share of the power if they can reach an
agreement to get the two reactors up and running. The half-built reactors
ended up so far behind schedule that the project was abandoned in 2017.


However, the potential deal is a long way from complete. There will be up
to two years of negotiations between utility Santee Cooper and Brookfield
Asset Management on the thousands and thousands of details. The deal would also let Brookfield keep at least 75% of the power generated by the new plant that they could mostly sell to whom they want, such as
energy-gobbling data centers. The exact amount of the rest that Santee
Cooper receives would be determined on how much the private company has to spend to get the reactors running.

 Daily Mail 9th Dec 2025, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-15368257/South-Carolinas-abandoned-nuclear-plants-revived-company-offers-2-7-billion.html

December 10, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear power will never be “beneficial”.

    by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/07/nuclear-power-will-never-be-beneficial/

Abandoning radiation protection will further endanger vulnerable populations, writes Cindy Folkers

As its name suggests, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created to regulate the nuclear power industry in order to protect people and the environment from the inherent dangers of that technology. As much as the NRC is currently failing to fully meet this mission, recent political maneuvers to curtail its influence threaten public health and safety even further.  

A May 23 executive order from President Trump will now transform the stated mission of NRC from safety regulator to industry enabler, and in fact, NRC mission wording has been changed to say that nuclear power “benefits” society, despite the evidence to the contrary given the often serious health impacts of all nuclear power-related operations. This mission shift has sparked alarm among experts and safety advocates who argue that abandoning core principles of radiation protection will further endanger communities, sacrifice vulnerable populations, and increase the nuclear industry’s grip on energy policy.

The slate of executive orders issued by President Trump on May 23 are designed to “fast-track everything nuclear.” Beyond Nuclear has already highlighted the many concerns posed by these orders. For example, EO 14300 – titled Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission – will weaken radiation exposure standards, posing grave risks to public health from nuclear technology. 

Among the decades of hard-won protections this executive order undermines is the scientifically supported foundation that there is no safe level of radiation exposure. The changes threaten not just U.S. regulatory integrity but global public health and environmental safety. 

Section 5(b) of EO 14300 is particularly alarming. It calls on the NRC to adopt “science-based radiation limits” and demands the NRC reconsider its longstanding reliance on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model. But in effect, this request contradicts itself.

The LNT model targeted for “reconsideration” is the scientific basis for radiation protection standards worldwide and rests on two principles:

1. Linear risk — the risk of disease rises proportionally with the radiation dose.
2. No threshold — there is no dose so low that it poses zero risk. 

The NRC distorts the first principle by claiming that lower doses are less “effective” at damaging health than higher doses, despite studies supporting a linear model.

The NRC has ignored the second principle by allowing exposures in the first place – since all nuclear power operations release radioactivity –  while also minimizing and even dismissing  the damage this has done to health, all in service of ensuring the nuclear power industry’s continued existence.

Such allowance also keeps nuclear power in the forefront of energy choices, despite being one of the most expensive forms of energy when including upfront capital costs.

Trump’s EO demands that the NRC find a radiation exposure threshold deemed “safe,” essentially ignoring science to further suit industry needs, rather than adhering to the scientific consensus that no such threshold exists.

But this request has put the NRC in an untenable position for two reasons. First, the NRC itself reaffirmed use of the LNT model in 2022. Second, contemporary health research has confirmed that LNT already underestimates cancer risk at lower doses in about half of cases. 

These findings are particularly striking because they were based on studies of nuclear workers, a part of the adult population and predominantly male that research has shown are at less risk from radiation exposure. Therefore, these studies do not adequately reflect the heightened vulnerabilities of women, children, and pregnancy to cancer or other radiation-associated diseases.

Exposures that may appear statistically small for adult male workers can translate into devastating risks for others. By discarding LNT, regulators would not only further ignore these findings but also codify a system that accepts — even demands — more sacrificial victims of radiation exposure. 

By undermining LNT, the executive order provides industry with a regulatory green light: higher allowable exposures, fewer safety restrictions, and a streamlined licensing process for new reactors, including small modular nuclear reactors. The scientific implication is clear, and by extension so are the policy implications: every exposure, however small, carries some risk of harm. And even though the NRC tacitly recognizes this by using LNT, it still allows radiation exposures because if it didn’t, the nuclear power and weapons industry couldn’t exist. 

Even more chilling is the NRC’s stated interpretation of the EO: “This EO provides the NRC with a great opportunity to rethink its radiation protection regulatory framework to…safely enable the nation’s use of nuclear power.” But the NRC’s history with regulation shows a willingness to stretch and redefine what is “safe”, and to muddle that definition with concepts such as “permissible” and “reasonable” that form the basis of the concept of ALARA or “as low as reasonably achievable.”

Industry has a much larger say than members of the public in what constitutes reasonable, achievable, or safe. In fact, historically, such distortion of the LNT model was necessary for the nuclear power industry to continue.

We already know that any radiation exposure poses a risk, and that women, children, (girls more so) and pregnancies are more at risk than the reference man used as the basis for U.S. radiation standards. To pretend that some radiation exposure is safe is already promoting a lie. In truth, there should be no allowable exposure.

The consequences of loosening radiation protections are far-reaching. Ionizing radiation is a proven cause of cancer, genetic mutations, infertility, birth defects, and developmental harm. The impacts are not confined to immediate exposures but ripple through generations with cancers occurring in the exposed and future offspring.

Furthermore, the effects of radiation are not abstract: they manifest in communities near uranium mines, uranium enrichment plants, nuclear reactors, and radioactive waste dumps. For these populations, exposure is not a distant risk but a daily reality.

A very small radiation dose to a pregnant woman doubles her risk of having a leukemic child and living near nuclear power facilities doubles the risk of leukemia in children. Abandoning the LNT model is tantamount to legitimizing their suffering as the price of nuclear expansion.

A mistake with wind or solar may cause a temporary power loss, unlike a mistake with nuclear which has led to meltdowns with cascading catastrophic and never-ending impacts that can render entire regions uninhabitable for centuries.  Scientific evidence associates exposure to radiation from catastrophic releases with increases in birth defects, spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, mental and developmental disorders, heart defects, respiratory illness, and cancers – particularly in children. This fundamental incompatibility with human fallibility means nuclear power is not aligned with who we are as human beings. A catastrophic release of radioisotopes from nuclear power leaves behind hazards that persist for millennia. 

The current trajectory of US nuclear policy represents a profound betrayal of public trust. By reorienting the NRC toward the false assumption that nuclear power is “beneficial” and that nuclear power can be enabled by further eroding the Linear No Threshold model, the Trump administration’s executive order prioritizes industry expansion, and economic and security interests over human health.

Cindy Folkers is the Radiation and Health Hazard Specialist at Beyond Nuclear.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | health | Leave a comment

Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet ‘no longer fit for purpose’.

The admiral, who led the Trident value for money review in 2010, called for Britain to pull out of the multi-billion “Aukus” defence deal with America and Australia to build 12 new nuclear submarines.

SSN-Aukus is a submarine which is not going to deliver what the UK or Australia needs in terms of capability or timescale. “Performance across all aspects of the
programme continues to get worse in every dimension.”

Former Navy chief calls for ‘radical’ action to revive programme after catastrophic failures.

Tom Cotterill, Defence Editor, 06 December 2025 

Britain is “no longer capable” of running a nuclear submarine programme after “catastrophic” failures pushed it to the brink, a former Navy chief has warned. In an extraordinary critique, Rear Admiral Philip Mathias said the UK’s “silent service” was facing an “unprecedented” situation that it was “highly unlikely” to recover from without a “radical” intervention. The former director of nuclear policy at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said delays in building new attack boats had reached record levels and had driven up the duration of patrols for crews from 70 days during the Cold War to more than 200 now.

This had led to the “shockingly low availability” of submarines to “counter the Russian threat in the North Atlantic”, the retired submarine commander warned. The admiral, who led the Trident value for money review in 2010, called for Britain to pull out of the multi-billion “Aukus” defence deal with America and Australia to build 12 new nuclear submarines.


“The UK is no longer capable of managing a nuclear submarine
programme,” he said. “Dreadnought is late, Astute class submarine delivery is getting later, there is a massive backlog in Astute class maintenance and refitting, which continues to get worse, and SSN-Aukus is a submarine which is not going to deliver what the UK or Australia needs in terms of capability or timescale. “Performance across all aspects of the
programme continues to get worse in every dimension.”

He added: “This is an unprecedented situation in the nuclear submarine age. It is a catastrophic failure of succession and leadership planning.” The Navy’s fleet of Astute submarines is already facing significant problems, with many having been stuck in port for years. Out of the seven planned, only
six are in service.

He also criticised the role of industry giants for
delays to programmes. He added not a single of the UK’s 23 decommissioned nuclear boats had been dismantled since the first, HMS Dreadnought, left service in 1980. “This is an utter disgrace and brings into question whether Britain is responsible enough to own nuclear submarines,” the admiral said.

 Telegraph 6th Dec 2025,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/06/britains-nuclear-submarine-fleet-no-longer-fit-for-purpose/

December 9, 2025 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Britain’s “borrowed bombs”

The extreme expense — at least £60 million per plane plus the costs of parts and maintenance — will be a burden on British taxpayers already suffering from cuts to social services.

“reflects a long-standing trend by the UK government to prioritising trans-Atlantic politics over genuine military needs“…………… “an opportunity to appease Trump “

    by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/07/britains-borrowed-bombs/

New reports shows UK purchase of US nuclear-capable aircraft is political grandstanding with little practical application, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

When the UK government announced its intention last June to purchase 12 F-35A nuclear capable Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft from the US by 2033 and join NATO’s ‘dual capable aircraft nuclear mission’, it described the decision as the “biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation”.

But a new study released on November 11 by two British watchdog groups, Nukewatch UK and Nuclear Information Service, argues that the purchase of the planes will incur massive costs to the British taxpayer while not actually being militarily necessary or advantageous.

The report, “Smoke andMirrors”, concludes that “the government’s decision is based principally on providing political ‘smoke and mirrors’ to distract attention from questions relating to the US-Europe relationship within NATO rather than developing a must-have military capability.” 

The purchase of the F35As “serves more as a diplomatic gesture than a military imperative,” the study said, designed to placate US president Donald Trump’s gripes about a perceived lack of financial commitment from NATO partners. 

The UK decision to participate in the NATO nuclear sharing mission “is being driven forward by the nuclear lobby within government itself, and raises questions about whether the decision was driven by strategic necessity or political expediency,” the study authors wrote.

The 12 F-35As are far too few to constitute a credible deterrent, according to experts, in large part because the plane’s track record already indicates that all 12 will rarely be in service at the same time. 

“On the basis of current performance, at any one time at best only 8 aircraft would be available to take part in a nuclear strike — and possibly even fewer. It is possible that not all of these aircraft would penetrate enemy air defences to reach their targets,” the study said.

The planes are expected to be stationed at RAF Marham in Norfolk. However, as the study noted, this is actually too far away for F35As to reach any meaningful targets inside Russia, for example, as “the maximum distance the aircraft can travel from its base to complete its mission and return without refuelling is 1,000 km,” (about 683 miles).

The F-35A will carry the American B61 nuclear gravity bomb, the only plane in the F-35 class able to do so. The current RAF fleet of F-35Bs and the Eurofighter Typhoon, are not nuclear-capable so the purchase “potentially gives the RAF a nuclear strike capability using this weapon” the Smoke and Mirrors report said.

Further, since the B61 is an American bomb, any deployment will remain under full US control, “rendering the operation entirely dependent on American permission,” the study said. 

According to Nukewatch UK, those bombs were already delivered in July to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk — in reality a US Air Force base despite its name. This would mark the first stationing of US nuclear weapons on UK soil since 2008.

Establishing the programme will also be costly, lengthy and complicated and is unlikely to reach fruition for many years, the study said, due to the many complex steps that will need to be taken before the UK can join the NATO nuclear sharing programme.

The extreme expense — at least £60 million per plane plus the costs of parts and maintenance — will be a burden on British taxpayers already suffering from cuts to social services, the report pointed out. “At a time when public services are struggling to meet demands, there is little public appetite for more military spending,” wrote the report’s authors. “An expensive nuclear weapon system that will not be available for nearly a quarter of a century is a low priority, even on the UK military’s wish list – if, indeed, such a capability is even needed.”

The purchase may also burden the UK military by depriving it of other resources, including the next tranche of F-35Bs. An analysis by Navy Lookout, which delivers independent Royal Navy news and analysis, concluded that a shortfall in F-35Bs could be problematic, “as F-35As cannot operate from carriers and contribute nothing to their strike power,” it said. 

The Navy Lookout analysis also argued against using RAF Marham for the planes, given the base “will need expensive refurbishment and regeneration” and recommended Lakenheath instead.

The Smoke and Mirrors study endeavors to extract the reality from the opaque government announcement, made on June 24 on the eve of the NATO Summit at The Hague. After “stripping away all the verbiage,” the study authors concluded that the statement lacked “even basic information such as when the aircraft are intended to be delivered and when their nuclear capability is intended to be operational.” 

Even without delays, the report said, “it will be years, rather than months, before they are available for operation.”

The report also points out that the UK’s own 2025 Strategic Defence Review published on June 2, does not include a recommendation to purchase F-35As equipped for US B61 bombs and instead advises a detailed study on such an option. “The fact that it’s not there indicates that we weren’t terribly enthusiastic about it,” the SDR’s lead reviewer, Lord Robertson, a former Defence Secretary and a former Secretary General of NATO, told the report authors. 

Despite this, the Starmer cabinet enthusiastically threw its support behind the proposal in what Robertson described as “a decision independent of the Review.” The report authors also point out that “the decision to join the NATO mission appears to have been made before the SDR was even published.”

Continue reading →

December 9, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

All French nuclear power plants are releasing tritium, according to Criirad.

December 5, 2025 , https://reporterre.net/Toutes-les-centrales-nucleaires-francaises-ont-rejete-du-tritium-selon-la-Criirad

All French nuclear power plants are releasing tritium. This is the finding of the Independent Research and Information Commission on Radioactivity (CRIIRAD), which issued a warning on December 3rd about uncontrolled releases.

Between 2015 and 2024, 16 power plants recorded levels exceeding 10 Bq/l in groundwater, some exceeding 1,000 Bq/l such as Bugey, Gravelines and Tricastin, the association details.

The three other power plants (Golfech, Nogent-sur-Seine, Paluel) experienced similar episodes before or after this period, notably Nogent-sur-Seine on January 17, 2025.

Criirad emphasizes that no power plant has been able to guarantee the permanent protection of groundwater and that any massive discharge would quickly affect the aquatic environment.

According to the Sortir du nucléaire network , the toxicity of tritium has been underestimated, particularly when it is absorbed by the body, where it then enters the DNA of cells.

December 9, 2025 Posted by | radiation | Leave a comment

Reeves’ £150 cut in UK’s energy bills will be nuked by Sizewell costs, ex-Labour donor claims

Dale Vince’s claims over the impact of paying for Sizewell C on energy bills is one of a number of hidden costs which could see consumers pay higher bills – instead of £150 less

David Maddox, Political Editor

Rachel Reeves’ pledge to take £150 off household energy bills could be wiped out because of the costs of nuclear energy, hidden green levies andnew levies being introduced by the energy regulator, it has been claimed.
In her Budget last week, the chancellor promised to take £150 off
household bills by scrapping the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) scheme.
But former Labour donor and green entrepreneur Dale Vince has now claimed that the impact of paying for building nuclear energy capacity will largely wipe out the £150 because of the £1bn cost in the first year and ongoing costs for nuclear power.

 Independent 7th Dec 2025, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/reeves-energy-bill-discount-nuclear-power-budget-b2878907.html

December 9, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear (in)flexibility, nearly 100% electricity from solar PV and offshore wind surge!

David Toke, Dec 08, 2025

I keep hearing claims, most recently from the British Government, about how nuclear power can be used flexibly to help balance fluctuating wind and solar. But in reality in most situations around the world nuclear is inflexible and its operation simply pushes wind and solar off the grid. Also, according to a report from Ember, cheaper batteries and proliferating solar can lead to solar on its own cheaply providing all electricity demand for 97-99 per cent of the time in the sunnier parts of the world. Meanwhile back in the UK offshore wind is now surpassing generation from natural gas according to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU).

Tales of SMRs nuclear (in)flexibility

Looking around the world, it is very difficult to find any examples of nuclear power being flexible. The main example quoted is France. However, France has some close connections with the rest of the European continent. These differ for example, to the connections to the UK and the continent.

Unlike the UK, the French electricity system operator has no choice but to order the scaling down of some French nuclear plant. This is to cope with inflows of wind and solar across its borders that they cannot stop. In Britain where the inflows can be better controlled, as elsewhere, nuclear operators would prefer not to be flexible. Instead, wind and solar power get turned off and the renewable sources are blamed for energy that is really being wasted by inflexible nuclear operations! A study of Scotland, where a lot of wind power is constrained because of a lack of grid capacity, found that most wind power would not have been be wasted if there were no nuclear power station s operating in Scotland (see HERE). And, in practice there is no chance of nuclear power plant being flexible in normal operations, whatever people say!

The current UK Government is struggling to mask the fact that it’s so-called new generation of ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs) is going to cost even more, MW for MW, than the much-overpriced Hinkley C and Sizewell C Nuclear plant. Rolls Royce is leading the charge here with a proposed 470MW (not small!) nuclear reactor. This will come into operation sometime in the next 20 years or so. According to Rolls Royce this development will be ‘equivalent to more than 150 onshore wind turbines’‘ (See HERE) Ah, so that’s the crack! SMRs are now promised to replace wind turbines! That will please the wideley expected future leader, Nigel Farage! Nigel hates windfarms but loves Rolls Royce and nuclear stuff – so patriotic, he claims!

I must say, it’s pretty small fare. I mean the Rolls Royce ‘SMR’ will only replace 150 onshore wind turbines – and at double or probably triple the price of onshore wind in delivered energy! (currently there are over 11000 wind turbines in the UK). Not much of a bargain really for Nigel, there I’m afraid. But really, as with populists the world round, its the headlines that matter, and never mind the facts!

Of course, as with other policies the Government is struggling to compete in messaging with the far-right. In doing so it feels it has to buy into a lot of myths about nuclear power. As one Government minister was made to say recently (presumably by his pro-nuclear civil servants) in an answer to a Parliamentary Question from a Liberal Democrat MP:

‘The next generation of nuclear, including small modular reactors (SMR), offers new possibilities including faster deployment, lower capital costs, and greater flexibility…..Whilst nuclear energy has a unique role to play in delivering stable, low carbon baseload energy, SMRs may be able to serve the electricity grid more flexibly than traditional nuclear, as well as unlock a range of additional applications in energy sectors beyond grid electricity.’ (See HERE)

What unbelievable nonsense! I would never want to be a government minister and have to spout such rubbish! I’ve already suggested that the SMR(s) will take a long time to emerge at eye-watering cost. But flexibility? Why should this happen? It does not happen now with the PWR plant at Sizewell B. So why should it happen with the Rolls Royce ‘SMR’ which is also a PWR? No reason at all!

In fact the Rolls Royce ‘SMR’ it is even less likely to operate flexibly than Sizewell B (which does not). This is because of the likelihood that, as in the case of Hinkley C, Rolls Royce will be offered a so-called ‘baseload’ contract. This means that the nuclear power plant are paid a set price for every MWh they generate – whenever it is generated. It does not matter whether wholesale prices become negative and wind and solar is forced off the system, nuclear continues to generate.

Rolls Royce will no doubt be given such a contract to ensure that the investors get a virtually guaranteed return. Otherwise it will be virtually impossible to attract private investors to give the required facade of part-private finance to the operation. In reality of course the bulk of the money to finance the equity for the plant will come directly from the taxpayer and the consumers will pick up the bill for the inevitable cost overruns.

To cap it all, the SMR(s) will contribute practically nothing to balancing renewables since that will be done by ‘peak’ gas plant (see my blog post HERE).

Almost 100 per cent 24/7 electricity from solar + batteries

Meanwhile solar PV is advancing around the world at several times the pace of new nuclear and fossil fuel power plant. See my earlier blog post HERE and the Figure below. Now, the energy think tank ‘Ember’ (see HERE) conclude that almost 100 per cent electricity can be delivered cheaply in the sunnier parts of the year using solely solar PV and batteries.

In places like Las Vegas and Oman 97-99 per cent of all electricity demand, 24/7 can be provided solely by solar PV for a cost of $104 per MWh. That is exactly the wholesale power price in the UK. It should be recalled that they are talking about just solar PV and batteries, never mind other renewables………………………………………………………………………………… https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/nuclear-inflexibility-nearly-100

December 9, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »