1 NUCLEAR ISSUES « nuclear-news

A stormy future? Financial impact of climate change-related disruptions on nuclear power plant owners

Ali Ahmad , Andrei Covatariu , M.V. Ramana, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957178722001485

Highlights

•Globally, climate change driven extreme events are impacting nuclear power plants.
•Nuclear reactors in Western Europe are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.
•We project an increase in climate-linked unplanned outages in Western Europe nuclear reactors.
•Adaptation options include financial and contractual measures and maintenance planning.

Abstract

In recent years, extreme weather events potentially caused by climate change have led to several nuclear power plants being shut down for varying periods, and such unplanned outages will become more frequent in the future. Nuclear plants are already finding it difficult to compete in electricity markets due to the availability of cheaper alternatives. We quantitatively assess the additional impact of such extreme weather events on the finances of plant owners using Western Europe as a case study and draw some policy implications for existing owners and those considering new nuclear plants.

Introduction

In May 2022, Electricite de France (EDF) warned that unusually warm river temperatures would likely result in it being forced to reduce power generation from its nuclear power plants (Starn, 2022), an increasingly frequent event in recent years; the concern was not misplaced. In 2018, EDF was forced to halt operations of three power plants due to heatwaves, showcasing the utility’s vulnerability to extreme weather events, especially at its river-based nuclear power plants (WNISR, 2021). With increasingly sophisticated methods employed to demonstrate the attributability of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change, it has become more apparent that the kind of hot weather events that disrupted these nuclear power can be linked to climate change with a high degree of attributability (Diffenbaugh, 2020; Schiermeier, 2019). IEA, 2021, the IPCC Working Group I report reported that “recent hot extreme events would have been extremely unlikely to occur without human influence on the climate system” (IPCC et al., 2018).

Other kinds of extreme events are also becoming more frequent. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that human-induced warming “has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events” and predicted that almost all parts of the world would record increased climate disruptions (IPCC et al., 2018). Other international and scientific bodies have come to similar conclusions.

Many agencies, like the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), posit that an expansion of nuclear power will be a critical component of any effort to mitigate climate change (IAEA, 2020; IEA, 2021). For nuclear power to significantly reduce global emissions, new nuclear plants would have to be built in many countries (Deutch et al., 2003). Many of these areas will be subject to extreme weather events in the coming decades.

At the same time, nuclear power generation is vulnerable to climate change-related extreme weather events (Ahmad, 2021). Climatic disruptions affect nuclear power plants for days or weeks (Becker et al., 2020; D’Agostino, 2021; Lyons, 2020; Neuhauser, 2019). Financial institutions realize the challenges that climate change brings to the financial position of nuclear power plant owners (Lahiri, 2020).

To give an illustration of the financial impact of climate change on nuclear power, we build on earlier work on the vulnerability of nuclear plants to extreme weather events (Ahmad, 2021) by quantifying the impact of extreme weather events on nuclear power plant operations by estimating the losses in energy production and revenues in Western Europe. The region consists of six countries with active nuclear power programs.

Together, these nuclear plants generated 565 TW h of electricity in 2020, approximately 42 percent of the total electricity generation in Western Europe – see Fig. 1. Almost two-thirds of this electrical generation is in France, which generated around 70 percent of its electricity in 2020 from nuclear power plants. The reason behind choosing Western Europe as a case study is the availability of data and the fact that it has a higher reliance on nuclear power than any other region.

Section snippets

The Economics of Nuclear Power

Before discussing the financial impact of climate change-related extreme events, we briefly discuss the economics of nuclear power. In 2003, an influential interdisciplinary study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated, “Today, nuclear power is not an economically competitive choice” (Deutch et al., 2003). That study compared nuclear power to coal and natural gas plants.

In the two decades since, what has changed enormously is the cost of other low-carbon non-fossil-fuel alternative

The effect of extreme weather events on nuclear generation

In recent years, the impact of extreme weather events on the reliability of electricity provision in many parts of the world has become more noticeable (Perera et al., 2020).³ Extreme weather can disrupt all energy sources and the grid that connects them. As such, the high frequency,

Method

We use a “bottom-up” approach that identifies climate-linked disruptions in nuclear power plants and aggregates the impact of climatic disruptions over the last decade (2010–2019) in Western Europe to assess the effects of extreme weather events on the economics of nuclear power generation. The methodology is based on the same type of analysis presented in (Ahmad, 2021). However, in comparison to that analysis, which provided a global view of climate-linked power outages, this paper adds two….

Results

The first set of insights that can be obtained from the analyzed data is related to the time distribution of climatic outages of nuclear power plants in Western Europe. Fig. 3 shows the monthly probability distribution of such outages once they took place, based on actual historical data. Climate-driven outages can happen at any time of the year. However, they seem to be most probable in the summertime. As shown in Fig. 3, about two-thirds of the total climatic outages occur between June and

Policy recommendations

Extreme weather events have numerous policy implications for nuclear power. Because of the expected increase in the frequency of outages, nuclear power plant operators will have to undertake various adaptation measures. The financial impacts of these measures make the role of nuclear even more precarious than it already is, due to the high costs and the combination of safety and financial risks.

One adaptation measure might involve aligning plant shutdowns for refueling and maintenance with…..

REFERENCES ………………………………………

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, climate change | Leave a comment

Nuclear needs $6tn investment surge to meet 2050 ambitions

Huge world wide opportunity in nuclear growth predicted for the next 25 years

29/07/2026, https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/29/nuclear-needs-6tn-investment-surge-to-meet-2050-ambitions/

Global nuclear investment must rise above $250 billion (£187bn) a year to meet growing electricity demand and triple generating capacity by 2050, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Its new investment guide estimates the sector represents a cumulative opportunity worth around $6 trillion (£4.5tn) over the next 25 years.

The Roadmap to Mainstream Finance sets out how nuclear could move away from bespoke, state-led funding and become a mainstream infrastructure asset backed by banks, pension funds and other institutional investors.

Investment will be needed not only for new reactors but across the nuclear fuel cycle, supply chains and supporting infrastructure required to deliver projects at scale.

The association said nuclear must expand beyond a handful of established markets if it is to strengthen energy security and support global decarbonisation.

Its roadmap identifies six conditions needed to attract capital: stronger institutional support, standardised business models, clearer risk and reward, market frameworks that properly value nuclear power, mature supply chains and mechanisms to move projects from development into operation.

It argues other capital-intensive industries including offshore wind and liquefied natural gas have followed similar paths when governments, developers and investors created common frameworks.

Dr Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of World Nuclear Association, said: “The challenge is not a shortage of capital. The challenge is creating the confidence, capability and investment architecture that allow capital to flow to nuclear projects at scale.“

Financial institutions are being urged to improve their understanding of nuclear, build teams capable of assessing projects and support clearer allocation of construction, regulatory and market risks.

Early transactions could then help establish the track record needed to unlock larger pools of private capital.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

US Navy’s nuclear battleship plan raises questions for carriers, submarines and AUKUS

The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit

Navy Lookout 30 July 26, https://www.navylookout.com/us-navys-nuclear-battleship-plan-raises-questions-for-carriers-submarines-and-aukus/

The US Navy has confirmed that its planned Trump-class guided-missile battleship, whose lead ship would be USS Defiant, will be nuclear-powered. The propulsion decision could have consequences extending beyond the BB(X) programme (now redesignated BBGN), placing additional pressure on US aircraft-carrier construction and the naval nuclear industrial base, with potential second-order implications for AUKUS and the submarine programmes of Australia and Britain.

Going nuclear

When BBG(X) was unveiled at the end of 2025, the Navy’s initial concept depicted conventional integrated electric propulsion using gas turbines and diesel generators. The FY2027 thirty-year shipbuilding plan subsequently confirmed that the battleship would be nuclear-powered, while Navy officials told Congress that it was expected to use the A1B reactor type fitted to the Ford-class carriers.

There is an operational logic to the decision. A large combatant intended to carry extensive missile batteries, high-output lasers, powerful sensors, electronic-warfare equipment and future energy-intensive weapons will require considerable generating capacity. Nuclear power also removes the fuel constraint that would otherwise limit a ship expected to operate across the distances of the Indo-Pacific, and it would make the Defiant-class the first American nuclear-powered surface combatant since the last of the Virginia-class cruisers paid off in the 1990s.

Industrial chokepoint

The difficulty is not the nuclear technology itself, which is proven in service and is a design that could be adapted for the battleships. The issue is the increased pressure on the supply chain. Nuclear-powered surface ship construction in the United States is dependent on one yard, HII Newport News. This facility is already experiencing delays and cost growth delivering the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. The most significant industrial bottleneck is the naval reactor supply chain centred on BWX Technologies, the sole supplier of US naval reactor cores and key reactor components. BWX are simultaneously supplying the CVN programme (each ship has 2 reactors) as well as two major submarine programmes. Adding the nuclear requirement to the battleship programme when there is no spare industrial capacity to draw upon means it must compete directly for nuclear-certified labour, drydock time and reactor components already committed years ahead.

The House Armed Services Committee has backed a requirement for the Navy to explain how the programme would avoid disrupting Ford-class carrier construction and the wider naval nuclear industrial base. The concern is grounded in the sequencing of the work, since naval reactors are ordered two to three years before the hulls they power, so any diversion of components or skilled staff is felt long before a battleship takes shape. The Columbia-class SSBN programme, which replaces the sea-based leg of the American nuclear deterrent, is already running late, while Virginia-class SSN construction is below the rate the fleet requires. Adding a third demand to that base without expanding it invites exactly the outcome Congress is trying to avoid.

The AUKUS dimension

The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit. Nuclear surface ship construction is concentrated at HII Newport News alone. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. Reactor components come from a single supplier, BWX Technologies, that is also supplying the Columbia and Virginia submarine lines. The clearest direct risk is to the Ford-class carrier programme, but submarine output would probably be indirectly impacted, through competition for reactor components, nuclear-qualified personnel and investment across the wider supplier base.

For UK reactor production, the exposure is less significant. British naval reactors are designed and manufactured through the UK Defence Nuclear Enterprise, centred on Rolls-Royce Submarines at Raynesway. Reactors for the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS boats are made in Britain and complement rather than compete with US capacity. What the UK relies on from the States is the design pedigree of the PWR3, which, to an unknown extent, is modelled on the S9G reactor that powers the Virginia-class and was developed with USN engineering support.

The last public figure put the UK’s Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile at 21.86 tonnes in 2002, but its present size, composition and availability for future naval fuel are not publicly known. Over half of that stockpile was of US origin and none of it is immediately replenishable since domestic weapons-grade enrichment ended in 1962. It is unclear if there is enough for the 4 Dreadnoughts, up to 12 RN SSN-As planned in the medium-term. (Provision of HEU for the 8 Australian SSN-As also has to be considered, although the source for this has not been publicly established). The genuinely usable reserve is smaller than the headline figure once spent cores, warhead reservation and material form are accounted for, and the stock must also serve every future class indefinitely. Building sovereign enrichment capability takes 15-20 years; the UK has committed £1.7bn to a Nuclear Fuels Programme to explore re-establishing a domestic enrichment to reduce dependence on the US in the long run.

Political and industrial reality

The propulsion decision has also exposed the BBGN programme to an even greater extent politically. Before the decision was finalised, then-Navy Secretary John Phelan said the service was still examining the trade-offs. Admiral Daryl Caudle had earlier warned that nuclear propulsion would add a construction ‘tail’ that could push the ship beyond the timeframe of the operational requirement, although he subsequently endorsed the nuclear design. The ambition for 15 battleships sits awkwardly against a fleet that the same plan does not expect to reach 355 ships until FY2040, and then only if industry achieves a dramatic improvement in delivery performance.

There are plenty who believe that BBGN is essentially a vanity project that will be axed as soon as Trump leaves office. Congress has strongly supported the USN’s continued development of the large, but less demanding, conventionally-powered DDG(X) project, although this is officially a replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers an

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Is it safe to extend the life of a nuclear power station?

BBC, Pamela Tickell, North East and Cumbria

When Hartlepool’s nuclear power station came online in 1983, it had an initial lifespan of 25 years. Now in its 43rd year, its operator has announced another extension. While the news has been welcomed by hundreds of employees, is it safe to keep doing so?

“Yeah, absolutely,” is the short answer from Mark Wenman, professor of nuclear materials at Imperial College London.

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), which Wenman describes as a “very stringent regulator”, would not grant a licence unless they were sure it was safe to do so, he said.

Hartlepool is one of five sites, including Heysham 1 and Sizewell B, which have had their lifespans extended multiple times.

Even when French energy firm EDF took over all of the UK’s working nuclear power stations in 2009, Hartlepool was due to stop generating electricity in 2014.

On Friday, it extended the lifespan again until 2030……………………………………………..

However, opponents argue that while the technology might be clean and safe, it is not completely clean, or completely safe.

Nuclear power produces radioactive waste and disposing of it can be costly and comes with environmental risks, which Friends of the Earth says there is “no answer for”.

The UK government is currently looking for a site to build an underground storage facility for its radioactive waste, some of which would have to be buried for thousands of years before its safe.

Why is the lifespan limited anyway?

The radioactivity permanently degrades the nuclear reactor’s core over time.

At about 10 metres (33ft) high, uranium fuel is channelled through the core.

The graphite bricks, which make it up, break down due to cracking and weight loss and cannot be replaced.

“Once they [the core graphite bricks] reach the end of their life, that is the end of the life of the reactor,” Wenman said.

Can they be brought back online?

You would not get another one in the exact same spot because it takes a long time to decommission a reactor, Wenman said.

“Remember, everything in there is radioactive,” he said.

Equipment may be left to sit there for many years so it can lose its radioactivity over time.

“It will be quite a slow process, so where the actual AGR is built right now, they’ll probably leave it there for quite a few years,” Wenman said……….. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp87y14r11do

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear revival needs $250bn a year, industry says

Banks urged to unlock
private capital as governments consider more atomic energy projects. Global
annual investment in nuclear power needs to triple to about $250bn if
governments want to meet their stated energy goals, the industry’s main
lobby group said as it urged banks to channel more private capital into the
sector.

Nuclear power has recently enjoyed a revival as countries around
the world seek reliable low-carbon electricity to meet rapidly rising
demand. Countries that had previously shut down nuclear stations, such as
Japan and Taiwan, are bringing them back online while German Chancellor
Friedrich Merz has said the country’s decision to shut down its plants in
2013 was a “serious strategic error”.

But the industry continues to
struggle to attract investment because new plants are expensive, take years
to build and carry significant construction and political risks. Bilbao y
León the director-general of the World Nuclear Association, argued the
sums were not excessive when set against spending elsewhere in the energy
system. The International Energy Agency expects about $665bn to be invested
in renewable power globally this year, while spending on oil, gas and coal
is forecast to reach $1.2tn.

FT 29th July 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/f78ab650-062d-4058-bbcb-315901a1eeb6

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

UK Nuclear output sinks to 40-year low

Lastest stats from DESNZ show the pressures of the transition in terms of generation, demand and fuel mix

Energy Live News 30th July 2026

UK nuclear generation fell to its lowest level since the 1980s last year, forcing greater reliance on gas even as renewable output reached another record.

Official DESNZ figures show nuclear generation dropped 12% in 2025 to 35.9TWh because of refuelling, planned maintenance and unplanned outages across the ageing fleet. The decline helped push the low-carbon share of electricity generation down slightly to 64.3%.

The fall comes at a difficult time for Britain’s power system.

Electricity demand increased 1.2% to 323TWh while the Government is preparing for much sharper growth from electric heating, transport, industrial electrification and data centres.

New nuclear projects are not expected to arrive quickly enough to replace all the output lost as older stations close. That creates a growing gap between the existing fleet and future projects including Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and planned small modular reactors………………………………………………………

Renewable generation rose 5.9% to a record 153TWh and supplied 52.1% of UK electricity. It was only the second year in the published series that renewables provided more than half of generation………………………………………

Data centres are becoming an increasingly important part of that picture. DESNZ estimates they consumed 4.5TWh of grid electricity in 2024, up from 1.3TWh in 2020.

That represents an increase of 246% in four years and helps explain Ofgem’s concern in the surge in speculative data centre connection applications………………………………………………https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/30/nuclear-output-sinks-to-40-year-low-as-power-demand-rises/

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Diplomacy Without De-Escalation: The Manila Talks and Ukraine’s Escalation Strategy

While Washington and Moscow were attempting to preserve diplomatic channels in Manila, Ukraine expanded strikes against infrastructure with high political and economic visibility inside Russia

The central question is whether this approach will actually improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, or whether it will make a political settlement increasingly difficult to achieve.

Adrian Korczyński, July 29, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/07/29/diplomacy-without-de-escalation-the-manila-talks-and-ukraine%e2%80%99s-escalation-strategy/

On July 23, 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit.

The meeting lasted thirty-seven minutes, making it the fourth bilateral encounter between the two since September 2025. The United States initiated the contact, and both sides acknowledged the need to end the war in Ukraine. On paper, this was a diplomatic gesture. In practice, it exposed a growing contradiction within the Western approach to the war: diplomatic channels remain open, while military strategies based on continued pressure and escalation are increasingly narrowing the space for compromise.

What Was Discussed

Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s position: further arms deliveries to Kyiv are “unacceptable.” He also criticised what he called the destabilising policy of European states aimed at inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. At the same time, he confirmed Russia’s readiness for a political and diplomatic settlement, reaffirming the proposals put forward by the U.S. side during the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska last August. Rubio, for his part, said Washington remained willing to play a constructive role in ending the conflict, but noted that the war had “impeded the ability of Russia and the United States to find areas of agreement on other topics.”

No breakthrough was announced. No new proposals emerged. The talks confirmed that the fundamental positions of both sides remain unchanged. Russia continues to insist that any settlement must address what it defines as its security concerns and the territorial realities created by the conflict, while Washington continues to support Kyiv and simultaneously seeks a diplomatic outcome that does not amount to a strategic defeat for the West.

The Escalation Beyond the Meeting Room

The Manila talks took place against the backdrop of intensified Ukrainian long-range strikes against Russian territory. During the same period, Ukrainian drones repeatedly targeted warehouses operated by Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer. The company, which processes roughly 20 million orders daily, has seen four of its logistics centres hit. At least nine people have been killed. Ukrainian authorities have claimed that these facilities store components for Russian military drones, a claim the Kremlin has denied. Regardless of the competing claims surrounding the facilities’ military role, the strikes represent a broader expansion of Ukraine’s target set beyond conventional military infrastructure.

Simultaneously, Ukraine has continued its campaign against Russian energy infrastructure, striking refineries and fuel depots. The cumulative effect has added further pressure to Russia’s domestic fuel distribution network. Russia, despite being one of the world’s largest oil producers, has faced growing strain on its domestic fuel market, with reports of regional shortages, higher prices and distribution problems. Airports around Moscow have been temporarily closed following mass drone strikes, and explosions have been heard in Crimea, including near Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Yalta.

A Strategy of Escalation

The timing of these strikes is significant. While Washington and Moscow were attempting to preserve diplomatic channels in Manila, Ukraine expanded strikes against infrastructure with high political and economic visibility inside Russia. The choice of targets and the timing of the attacks indicate that the objective extends beyond immediate military effects. Such actions also increase the political costs associated with any future compromise. They also illustrate the growing disconnect between diplomatic efforts pursued by Washington and the military strategy pursued by Kyiv

The strategy appears to rest on a simple assumption: that increasing the economic and political costs for Russia will ultimately compel Moscow to negotiate from a weaker position. Whether such an approach is strategically sound remains highly uncertain. The more politically visible these attacks become, the less room the Kremlin has for compromise without appearing to retreat under pressure. Such strikes reinforce the perception that military pressure, rather than compromise, remains Kyiv’s preferred instrument. This makes any diplomatic opening politically harder to justify.

What This Means

The Manila meeting was a diplomatic gesture, not a turning point. The United States wants to find a way out of a conflict that is draining its resources and attention. Russia wants a settlement that recognises its security concerns and territorial realities created by the conflict. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to escalate, calculating that increased pressure on Moscow can improve its negotiating position.

Whether such an approach accelerates negotiations or instead hardens Russian resolve remains one of the central strategic questions. The strikes on Wildberries, the attacks on refineries, and the drone operations targeting Moscow’s airports reflect a deliberate strategy of sustained escalation designed to increase the costs of continuing the war for Russia. The danger is that a strategy built around escalation may narrow the very diplomatic space required to end the conflict.

The central question is whether this approach will actually improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, or whether it will make a political settlement increasingly difficult to achieve. Escalation can alter the military balance, but it does not automatically create the political conditions required for a negotiated settlement. The Manila talks produced no breakthrough, because the gap between diplomatic engagement and battlefield escalation remains unresolved. Western policy now appears to operate on two increasingly divergent tracks: diplomatic engagement with Moscow and continued support for Kyiv’s strategy of military escalation. The wider the gap between them becomes, the more difficult it will be to sustain a coherent long-term strategy.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Is It Just About AIPAC’s Money, or Does the US-Israel Rot Run Far Deeper?

The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.

By Ramzy BaroudJuly 24, 2026, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/is-it-just-about-aipacs-money-or-does-the-us-israel-rot-run-far-deeper/

Two major stories regarding the United States and Israel in recent days represent profound watershed moments in the history of the relationship between both countries.

The first incident occurred on July 8 when US Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) and his delegation were detained by armed, illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

“These hoodlums come in with machine guns—an M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us,” Khanna in a stunning statement. “They block off the road. And then they call the IDF, and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans.”

Equally shocking to the congressman’s direct encounter with the raw, lawless reality of the occupation was the response of US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Rather than defending an elected American lawmaker, Huckabee dismissed Khanna’s harrowing experience as a mere “stunt.”

This defiance of old taboos, however, is not confined to progressive factions. In an even more unprecedented development on July 15, US Vice President JD Vance used an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience to deliver some of the sharpest criticism of Israel ever uttered by a sitting, top-tier US official.

Addressing a reported Israeli government-funded online influence campaign aimed at sabotaging the administration’s diplomatic efforts, a furious Vance “certain elements within the Israeli government” of actively trying to derail peace negotiations and manipulate American public opinion. He went so far as to target the operators behind the foreign-backed campaign, telling them directly to “go to hell.”

Yet, even as fierce criticism of Israel reaches the very apex of American politics, a profound, schizophrenic rupture divides Washington. While the American public, influential media personalities, and top-tier politicians are openly turning against Israel’s unbridled violence, the traditional power structures continue to toe the line.

This is explicitly evident in Congress, where establishment politicians remain busy acting as defense contractors for Tel Aviv. Lawmakers are quietly pushing forward with Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027. Far from distancing the US from the ongoing regional bloodbath, this legislation aims to permanently integrate and synchronize the US and Israeli militaries under a joint “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.”

This institutional blind spot is why the entire alliance is beginning to look utterly ridiculous.

Traditional foreign policy theory views Israel as an American ‘vessel’ or ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ in the Middle East, policing the region on behalf of Western hegemony. Whether that was ever true is highly debatable. Today, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the relentless war on Iran, and the escalating aggressions against Lebanon and Syria have yielded zero strategic value to the American people. Instead, the United States has paid a massive financial and moral largesse to fund bloody regional wars that disrupt the global economy and make Washington a direct, complicit partner in the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Yet, the American administration continues to offer unquestioning support, with the exception of occasionally leaked, manufactured of ‘tense’ phone calls between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. No matter the physical, economic, or reputational damage inflicted on the US, Washington continues to march blindly toward the precipice.

To believe this subservience is a recent phenomenon is to misunderstand history. For many, the physical detention of Congressman Khanna by Israeli forces evokes the memory of Rachel Corrie—the 23-year-old American peace activist who was brutally crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah on March 16, 2003, while peacefully shielding a Palestinian family home from demolition. In both cases, the message from Tel Aviv was clear: American status offers no protection.

Yet, this dependency runs deeper, rooted in the 1967 USS Liberty incident. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces launched a relentless two-hour attack on an unarmed US intelligence ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. Instead of demanding accountability, the Johnson administration accepted Israel’s excuse of a “mistake” and covered up the truth to protect its ally. This established a decades-long precedent: Washington would act as a political and military shield for Israeli actions, even at the cost of American lives.

It is often argued that Israel’s stranglehold on American policy stems entirely from the financial power of its lobby in Washington, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Conventional wisdom holds that AIPAC’s true dominance as the ultimate kingmaker began in 1981, when it waged a historic, ferocious battle to block President Ronald Reagan’s proposed sale of AWACS early-warning surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.

But the USS Liberty incident occurred long before the lobby wielded such immense power. The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.

This is precisely why JD Vance’s recent remarks are so critical. It proves that the armor of absolute impunity is cracking, and the language of genuine, systemic criticism of Israel has officially been normalized in mainstream political discourse.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA | Leave a comment

Russia’s Starlink killers showcase new era of electronic battlefield warfare.

from

Lisa Savage, 30 July 26

Russia has ramped-up EW use to detect and jam Elon Musk’s Starlink terminals and satellites, Ukrainian media reports.

Volna Kupol Garant

Russia’s latest electronic warfare system reportedly uses a directed high-frequency radio beam to disrupt Starlink operations. Rather than damaging satellites orbiting roughly 500 kilometers above Earth, the system blinds them – cutting their ability to connect with ground terminals while they remain under attack.

According to reports, Volna is a mobile system built around six trailers. Each carries a pair of steerable satellite dishes mounted on rotating platforms. A single battery is reportedly capable of denying Starlink coverage across an area of up to 20 sq km. Some analysts say the system was previously referenced under the designation Peresvet-M, although this has not been independently confirmed.

Ukrainian sources claim Volna was first deployed during Russia’s offensive in the Kharkov region in 2024. They also say its use has increased significantly in recent months.Tobol

The secretive Russian EW complex is reportedly used to disrupt signals from NATO-linked satellite networks, including GPS, Galileo, and Starlink. Reports claim that Tobol attacks satellite communications on both ends of the link – jamming downlinks from satellites to ground receivers and uplinks from Earth to orbit. Its power and range also allegedly allow it to create an electromagnetic “umbrella.”

Kalinka

The system is designed to hunt down satellite communications signals, including those transmitted by Starlink terminals at distances of up to 15 km. It can reportedly track and lock onto even Starshield – SpaceX’s hardened military variant of Starlink. Western media warns that while Tobol disrupts GPS signals on a broad scale, the Kalinka’s precision-targeting capabilities could pose a more direct threat to specific military operations.

Krasukha

The Krasukha-S4 is designed to neutralize reconnaissance satellites, ground-based radar installations, and airborne surveillance systems. It does so by emitting powerful electronic jamming signals that disrupt key radar bands and other radio-frequency emissions. A standard Krasukha-S4 battery consists of two vehicles and has an operational range exceeding 300 kilometers.

Borshchevik

The light mobile system is designed to detect and geolocate Starlink terminals within a 180-degree sector at ranges of up to 10 km, with a reported accuracy of five meters. Using direction-finding and biangulation algorithms, it can locate a target in less than three minutes at a single scanning position. The Borshchevik-2 airborne system hunts Starlink signals from the sky, with reported accuracy down to 0.4 m.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

USA firm McDermott to support potential Dutch Rolls-Royce SMR projects

Dutch nuclear development company ULC-Energy has signed a cooperation
agreement with USA-based engineering and construction firm McDermott to
support development of Rolls-Royce SMR projects in the Netherlands. The
cooperation includes the integration of small modular reactor-powered
energy solutions with energy-intensive industrial processes. It is expected
to leverage McDermott’s expertise in energy transition and industrial
decarbonisation, including low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia, sustainable
aviation fuel and carbon capture and utilisation, combined with
ULC-Energy’s nuclear project development capabilities.

World Nuclear News 29th July 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/mcdermott-to-support-dutch-deployment-of-rolls-royce-smr

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Trump Administration Picks Five States for Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Hubs

By Tsvetana Paraskova – Jul 29, 2026

The U.S. DOE selected five Republican-led states—Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho—as potential sites for Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses to support fuel recycling, advanced reactors, and nuclear manufacturing.
The campuses could attract up to $50 billion in investment, create nearly 25,000 jobs, and help address America’s growing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel while strengthening domestic nuclear fuel production.
The initiative aims to boost U.S. energy security, reduce reliance on foreign enriched uranium, and support the Trump administration’s goal of quadrupling U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050.

The U.S. Department of Energy has picked five states led by Republican governors to potentially host nuclear fuel waste in exchange for billions of dollars of support to advance manufacturing in the full nuclear fuel cycle.

These so-called Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses are an ambitious project by the Trump Administration to store and repurpose spent nuclear fuel, support advanced reactor deployment, expand domestic manufacturing, and potentially co-host data centers. The campuses have the potential to attract up to $50 billion in capital investment, generate as much as $10 billion in state and local tax revenue, and create nearly 25,000 jobs with the establishment of a campus, DOE said this week.

The Department of Energy has picked Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho as potential hosts of the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, part of the Administration’s ambition to expand America’s nuclear power industry, targeting to quadruple U.S. nuclear energy capacity from about 100 gigawatts (GW) now to 400 GW by 2050.

\Reestablishing the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy would also need the federal government to find hosts for the nuclear waste once its purpose to fuel reactors has been fulfilled.

Campuses in the five Republican-governed states would be designed to support activities across the full nuclear fuel lifecycle, including fuel fabrication, enrichment, reprocessing used nuclear fuel, and final disposition of used nuclear fuel.

In addition, depending on state priorities and regional capabilities, the campuses may also host advanced reactor deployment, power generation, advanced manufacturing, and co-located data centers, DOE said.

Storing nuclear fuel has been a multi-decade-old issue for U.S. Administrations, which have tried to find a solution to the problem.

There was a project to store spent fuel in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but it was halted amid fierce opposition from the state.

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | wastes | Leave a comment

Zelensky’s Dangerous Gambit To Merge The Iran And Ukraine Wars

Of course this would also appeal to Israel, prolonging the Middle East war and potentially drawing European governments into the theater, too.

Trita Parsi Responsible Statecraft, https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/29/zelenskys-dangerous-gambit-to-merge-the-iran-and-ukraine-wars/

As Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky arrives in Washington, much indicates that he is no longer merely trying to draw greater American support into its war against Russia. Increasingly, it appears to be pursuing something far more consequential: merging the Ukraine war with the U.S.-Iran conflict into a single strategic theater.

The distinction matters. If the two wars become one, Ukraine ceases to be merely a recipient of American military assistance and instead becomes a direct participant in Washington’s war with Tehran. By the same token, the United States would no longer simply be Ukraine’s principal arms supplier. It would become an active belligerent against Russia through a conflict that stretches from the Black Sea to the Caspian.

For Kyiv, this would represent the strategic breakthrough it has sought since Russia’s invasion in 2022.

From the outset of the war, Ukrainian leaders consistently urged NATO to move beyond supplying weapons and intelligence. Zelensky repeatedly appealed for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, warning that anything less amounted to allowing Russia to bomb Ukrainian cities with impunity. He pressed Western governments to provide increasingly sophisticated weapons systems long before they were politically acceptable in Washington. And he argued that victory required the West to abandon what he viewed as self-imposed escalation timidity.

The Biden administration sympathized with Ukraine’s predicament but consistently refused to cross several red lines. President Joe Biden rejected sending American ground troops, arguing that direct combat between U.S. and Russian forces risked a wider war between nuclear powers. He repeatedly ruled out establishing a no-fly zone because enforcing one would require U.S. pilots to shoot down Russian aircraft. His administration initially declined to provide F-16 fighter jets, long-range ATACMS missiles, and other advanced systems for fear of uncontrolled escalation, only relaxing some of those restrictions gradually after lengthy internal debate.

Throughout those decisions, Washington’s guiding principle remained consistent: help Ukraine defend itself without allowing the United States to become a direct combatant against Russia, while also eschewing diplomacy that could have brought the fighting to an end.

Today, however, the strategic landscape has changed. The Trump administration’s war with Iran has produced exactly the dilemma many critics predicted. Washington possesses overwhelming military superiority, yet it has suffered a strategic defeat at the hand of Tehran. Iran has demonstrated an ability to widen the battlefield horizontally, impose costs across multiple theaters, and force the United States to defend allies and assets far from the original front lines. Iran has escalation dominance; Trump has no good military option and he lacks the patience to pursue the diplomatic ones with discipline.

Trump’s vulnerability creates a historic opening for Kyiv. Instead of appearing as a country dependent on American assistance, Ukraine can now present itself as a strategic asset capable of helping Washington turn a military debacle into a splendid victory. Ukrainian drone warfare has evolved faster than almost any military innovation during the past three years. Its experience integrating inexpensive autonomous systems into conventional warfare has few equals.

Just as important, Ukraine could offer something Washington currently lacks: an opportunity to expand the conflict into an entirely new geographic theater. That is, turn Iran’s horizontal escalation against it.

The Caspian Sea represents such a possibility, in the Ukrainian argument. Opening pressure against Iran from the north would complicate Tehran’s military planning, force it to redistribute scarce resources, and reduce its ability to dictate where the conflict is fought.

From Kyiv’s perspective, offering that capability transforms Ukraine from America’s benefactor to its savior.

But a greater strategic prize for Kyiv would be to fuse the two conflicts into one. Such a merger would fundamentally alter the political logic of both wars. American personnel, intelligence assets, logistics, and operational planning would become increasingly intertwined across the two theaters. Russian and Iranian military cooperation would likewise encourage Washington to treat them as components of a single conflict rather than separate crises.

Once that threshold is crossed, the distinction between supporting Ukraine and fighting Russia becomes progressively harder to sustain.

This dynamic would also appeal to Israel. First, it would give the Iran war another lease on life. Second, it would internationalize the conflict further by drawing European governments into the Iran theater through their deep commitments to Ukraine. And third, perhaps most significantly, it would transform the political narrative. Defeating Iran would no longer be presented as a necessity to defend Israel, but rather, to defend Ukraine.

Given the levels of elite and public support Ukraine enjoys — after all, it was the victim of an illegal invasion — such a framing is far more politically digestible than centering the war on Israel, given Israel’s plummeting standing in the West due to its genocide in Gaza and critical role in starting the illegal war with Iran

None of this means that Ukraine’s gamble will succeed. But Trump may be susceptible to it given his self-inflicted predicament in the Strait of Hormuz. (However, judging by the decision not to hold a press conference today, this may mean Zelensky’s meeting with Trump earlier at the White House was less than successful.)

Though Biden’s Ukraine policy deserves much criticism, he is resisting this type of escalation because the risk of direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could lead to a much larger and more catastrophic war. Those concerns have not disappeared simply because the White House has changed hands or because Trump has trapped himself in a foolish war.

Attempts to solve one strategic problem by broadening the scope of a conflict have often made both problems harder to resolve. The greatest danger today may not be that Trump chooses to fight two wars simultaneously, but that seemingly small escalatory steps pave the way for a disaster both Biden and Trump have sought to avoid.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | EUROPE, Israel, Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Suffolk fire live: Hundreds of firefighters battle ‘unprecedented’ wildfire near nuclear plant

A wildfire is raging in Dunwich Heath, Suffolk where evacuations have been ordered – the blaze is close to three nuclear plant sites, and has burned an area the size of 210 football pitches

Olivia Beeson UK & World News Reporter , Joe Smith News Reporter, Rucsandra Moldoveanu Live News Reporter, Patrick Hill Senior News Reporter and Ethan Davies, 3o July26https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/suffolk-fire-sizewell-weather-b-37492955

Hundreds of firefighters are battling through the night to contain a massive wildfire in Dunwich Heath, Suffolk, that has devasted a huge nature reserve and threatened a nearby nuclear power plant.

Temperatures soared into the mid-30s in southern England on Thursday, burning an area the size of 210 football pitches in a National Trust reserve just a few miles away from Sizewell B – the UK’s largest nuclear power plant.

Some 200 caravans were evacuated this morning, with holidaymakers woken up by banging on their doors. Eighteen fire engines and more than 100 firefighters are now at the scene, with authorities saying they expect crews to be battling the blaze for the next two days.

There is also concern for wildlife in the area, after nature reserve RSPB Minsmere announcing its closure this morning. RSPB Suffolk area manager Adam Rowlands said the land was home to rare wildlife including nightjars – and it could take “more than a decade” for the habitat to recover.

Prime Minister Andy Burnham said the fire service will have “all of the support” they need in tackling the blaze.

On Thursday afternoon, an EDF spokesperson said the fire was “not affecting operations at Sizewell B power station”.

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, UK | Leave a comment

Colonel Doug Macgregor: Sleepwalking into World War III

07/21/2026• Claudio Grass, https://mises.org/power-market/colonel-doug-macgregor-sleepwalking-world-war-iii

[Part of the upcoming “World War III” documentary]

Excerpts from this interview with Colonel Douglas Macgregor offers a most necessary and timely opportunity for self-reflection that the US and Europe so desperately need at this critical moment. Colonel Douglas Macgregor holds up a mirror to the West and uses his deep historical knowledge and personal experience of previous conflicts to clearly demonstrate the parallels, the motivations and the dynamics that are still in place and dictate policy to this day.

On the Ukraine war, he offers a scathing critique of Western leadership and “strategy,” specifically targeting the political elite in London, Paris, and Washington for operating under the assumption that prolonged conflict will somehow trigger an internal rebellion against President Putin that the West could then take advantage of.

“That’s all nonsense,” he argues.

Russian society is cohesive and durable. It’s the West that has a society, or societies, that are not cohesive, that are not durable. So you would have to say that the people that are pushing this are certifiable. They all belong in Bedlam somewhere. It’s a combination of ignorance, arrogance, and wishful thinking. You put the three together, and you get Starmer, you get Macron, you get Merz, at least at this point, in Berlin. These people are living in a fantasy world. They don’t understand how close they are to a confrontation that could cost millions of lives.

On the Israel-Gaza conflict, his assessment is even more devastating. He points out that the Israeli aggression and brutality displayed in the genocidal war has made the nation a pariah in the international community and that their push for a wider conflict will prove catastrophic both for Israel and for the US. In fact, he saw the current war coming and, quite prophetically, he anticipated that,

The Iranians have an enormous arsenal now that allows it to strike back with great power against Israel and, for that matter, against any US installation. So the point is that what seems to people in Washington as something that is limited and narrow could very quickly move just beyond the region and involve major powers around the world.

He also answered the question that countless observers have been asking: Israel has been trying to instigate a war with Iran for decades, using the same narratives and threats over and over, so why did it happen now? According to Macgregor,

. . .the aggressive posture of Israel is not sustainable over the long term. And I think that Netanyahu and his supporters know that. That’s why there’s enormous pressure to do things now, because they have control of the United States, its armed forces, its population, its government, in ways they’ve never had before, and it’s not going to last.

However, he reserved his most surgical criticism for his own country, its conduct in the majority of wars it has waged, including the ongoing one, and, most importantly, the impact that it all had on the nation’s own economy and on its own people. Drawing a direct historical parallel to the Vietnam War and how it was a catalyst for abandoning the gold standard, Macgregor argues that the US has a habit of “spending itself into oblivion” and hollowing out its industrial base to serve the military-industrial-congressional complex. This fiscal decay is now colliding with a profound crisis of trust within the American public.

Macgregor sees the covid pandemic as a turning point, where citizens realized they were being lied to by institutions ranging from the NIH and the WHO to the Department of Defense. He concludes that, while Americans are increasingly suspicious of the institutional media and the political class on the Hill, the nation remains largely ill-prepared for the transition from a condition of abundance to one of scarcity and potential civil unrest.

(Watch the full interview with Colonel Doug Macgregor here and help us spread the crucial message behind the “World War III” documentary.)

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | 1 Comment

Cernavodă Reactor Shut Down as Drought Lowers Danube Flow

By Romania Journal , Jul 28, 2026

Romania’s Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant shut down Reactor 1 in a controlled manner on Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. due to the exceptionally low level of the Danube River caused by severe drought.

State-owned nuclear energy producer Nuclearelectrica said the measure is preventive and aimed at protecting the plant’s equipment. The company also warned that Reactor 2 could be shut down if water levels continue to decline.

Energy& Utilities

The decision to disconnect Unit 1 was taken in accordance with operational procedures for severe drought conditions, following the latest forecasts issued by Romania’s National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management (INHGA).

According to Nuclearelectrica, Reactor 1 will be reconnected to the National Energy System once operating conditions allow the safe resumption of activities, with the company set to announce the restart date.

However, the company warned that if the Danube’s water level continues to fall and operational parameters approach safety limits, it may also decide to shut down Reactor 2.

“If certain parameters associated with the low Danube water level approach the permitted operating limits, while fully complying with nuclear safety procedures and standards, the plant’s experts will implement the necessary operational measures to maintain safety margins, including the decision to shut down one or even both units if current conditions do not improve. Such measures are preventive and are intended to protect nuclear safety and the reliability of the facilities,” Nuclearelectrica said in a press release………………..

According to the Energy Ministry, the Danube’s flow has dropped to approximately 1,630 cubic meters per second, prompting the shutdown of Reactor 1 to protect the plant’s three cooling pumps……

Authorities estimate that Romania’s peak electricity demand this week will reach around 7,300 MW, while domestic production is expected to range between 4,000 MW and 4,300 MW. The resulting shortfall will be covered through electricity imports………………….

Former Energy Minister calls for caution over Iron Gates III project

Former Energy Minister Virgil Popescu said the shutdown of Reactor 1 due to the Danube’s low water level highlights how vulnerable Romania’s energy system can become in the face of changing hydrological conditions…………………………. https://www.romaniajournal.ro/top_news/cernavoda-reactor-shut-down-as-drought-lowers-danube-flow/

August 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »