A mad for nuclear world?
July 25, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-mad-for-nuclear-world.html
While renewables are being supported in the UK by private sector investment, most recently via the Contracts for Difference market system, with no direct government cash input, over 70% of the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero expenditure is now nuclear related. DESNZ’s annual report and accounts says that ‘Great British Energy – Nuclear has remained a key component of the Government’s approach to energy security and decarbonisation, with work continuing to support the delivery of new nuclear projects, providing greater certainty for industry and investors, supporting highly skilled jobs across the supply chain, and contributing to a resilient, low carbon energy mix’.
It notes that through the Spending Review the department secured a capital settlement of £62.8bn from 2025-26 to 2029-30 and a resource settlement of £5.8bn from 2026-27 to 2028-29, including £8.3bn for GBE/GBE-Nuclear including SMRs and £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor.
However, the theory is that this government support will attract private sector investment, for example for new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The government has put aside £2.5 bn for its SMR programme, to be led by Rolls Royce, but there are signs of entrepreneurial interests, with SGE, a consortium led by Polish billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow talking about a £35bn plan to build 14 GE/Hitachi Boiling Water SMRs, on three sites across the UK, possibly including on the former Olbury nuclear plant site.
There have also been some UK government backed moves by US developers for SMR projects in the UK, including from X Energy, Holtec and TerraPower, but not everyone is convinced that any of them will be successful, certainly not soon, or sees the wider UK nuclear programme, including the big Sizewell project, as value for money, especially given that there are security risks. Will anyone want SMRs near them given the safety and security issues? The UK government has been revamping the planning system to make it easier for projects like this to go ahead, but local opposition is still likely. In particular, Labour ministers in London have been slammed for identifying sites in Scotland for nuclear power plants despite the devolved Scottish Government’s ongoing opposition to new nuclear developments. Very provocative, especially given that Scotland often produces more green power than it needs and exports the rest south…
However, the big UK push to nuclear continues, with some odd twists. For example, enriched uranium is to be produced by UK based Urenco for use by Ukraine in its nuclear plants. This at a time when the US is making strenuous efforts to stop Iran from developing and using uranium enrichment technology. But then consistency is often not very apparent in nuclear policy around the world. For example the US is, it seems, keen to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium. Meanwhile the UK is still importing enriched fuel for Sizewell B derived from Russia. While its claimed that this is only a temporary aberration (the UK is to build its own new specialist enrichment plant), some contrarian outliers see Russia as the EU’s best supplier!
Will any of this help us deal with climate change? Not everyone is convinced that it will -based on past experience, we may need to be wary of nuclear hype. It is interesting then to look at what is happening in China. An Australian review noted that China has been installing ‘record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear’. Based on 2024 data, it said that China had installed the wind & solar equivalent of 5 large nuclear plants per week, although, in output terms, that was more like 1 nuclear power equivalent, given the different capacity factors. But the disparity in outputs has grown since 2024, with renewables roaring ahead as the favoured new energy option.
By comparison, the USA is stalling on renewables and trying to push nuclear ahead as fast as possible, with US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm calling for ‘hundreds’ of new large plants by 2050. Not everyone is convinced that this is possible, even with the new US loan scheme, but the Trump government is obviously keen and is pushing for reduced worker and public radiation exposure standards to help, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seemingly being compliant on this and other related issues. Clearly some see NRC reg. changes as being vital for the success of multiple SMRs. And, following a court ruling, it seems that NRC may no longer need to take account of climate issues in plant licensing decisions. This at a time when nuclear plants in Europe are having to be shut down due to heat waves…
So, with shifts like that underway, how is it likely to go in the USA? It’s not clear if any big new projects will go ahead, but there are a lot of new SMR players entering the game, and some progress has been made, for example with a go ahead on some micro SMR safety test programmes. However, it is very early days with SMRs and big technical and economic uncertainties remain. That’s true for new nuclear generally, a view that seems to be shared quite widely, as was summed up well in a recent letter in Lancet, which ended by calling for the focus to be on renewables instead. Quite so, along with storage and smart demand management…But then there are evidently people who think differently, for example in Germany and Japan, in relation to reactor restarts, although that risks opening up old issues, not least, where to put the active wastes. Do we really need to face all that again?
* Back in the UK, there has been no word yet on the nuclear issue from the new Labour Cabinet. Andy Burham has been supportive of nuclear in the past. Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, is seen as likely to be a strong supporter of Labours clean energy and decarbonisation strategy. But she was chair of the New Economics Foundation which has been consistently anti-nuclear. So things may yet change. As I argued in my last post, there is certainly a strong case for a rethink on new nuclear.
Approval for VVER uranium/plutonium fuel production in Germany
VVER-440 fuel. A mixture of enriched uranium with RECYCLED URANIUM and PLUTONIUM received from the used nuclear fuel of other VVER reactors is used instead of a standard enriched uranium.
Friday, 24 July 2026,
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/approval-for-vver-fuel-production-in-germany
The Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Protection, acting on behalf of the federal government, has approved an application from Framatome subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels to expand its facility in Lingen for the production of fuel for VVER-1000 reactors. The approval is subject to strict conditions.
Framatome subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF) applied in March 2022 under the Atomic Energy Act for permission to begin producing hexagonal pressurised water fuel elements under licence with TVEL, the fuel arm of Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom. The fuel elements are to be manufactured using Russian licences and Russian technology in a joint venture with TVEL for the Eastern European market. The licence application includes some changes to some manufacturing and testing equipment and the installation of some additional equipment in existing buildings to enable the manufacture of VVER fuel elements.
The federal government had already clarified in a supervisory letter to the state that, given the current assessment by federal security authorities regarding the risk of sabotage or espionage, there was no legal basis for denying the permit.
The Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment, Energy and Climate Protection has now announced that it has approved ANF’s application, subject to a number of conditions, as “after intensive review and inquiries, [it] had no legal grounds under the Atomic Energy Act to reject or limit the application”. The restrictions it has imposed include a general ban on entry to the facility for employees of TVEL or Rosatom, as well as persons authorised by them. Entry is only permitted in very limited cases and under the supervision of the regulatory authority.
In addition, the ministry said the hardware and software of the TVEL-licensed machines must undergo external security audits, and these machines must be data-integrated with the rest of the fuel element factory’s operational technology and information technology infrastructure. Also, the finished gadolinium fuel rods arriving from Russia must be 100% inspected for potential tampering using active and passive scanners according to the ‘four-eyes’ principle. Furthermore, ANF employees must receive regular training and awareness programmes to protect against espionage and sabotage.
Lower Saxony’s environment ministry said the approval could be revisited “if new risks are identified”, particularly in “national security”, Euractiv reported.
ANF was created in 1975 and currently employs around 400 people in Lingen. ANF fabricates fuel rods and assemblies for pressurised water reactors and boiling water reactors for customers worldwide.
In recent years, especially since the war with Ukraine began, nuclear power operators in European Union countries who had previously relied on Russian-supplied fuel have sought alternative suppliers. Nineteen VVER reactors – developed during the time of the Soviet Union and historically reliant on Russian fuel supplies – are currently in operation in the EU, including four VVER-1000 reactors in Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, and 15 VVER-440 reactors in the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Slovakia.
Framatome has “a dual-track approach” to supplying fuel to VVER reactors in operation in the EU. In the short term, it will fabricate fuel identical to the proven design currently used by the reactors. In parallel, Framatome is developing and qualifying European sovereign fuels of its own design for VVER-440 and VVER-1000 reactors. The qualification of a new design requires several years within the framework of regulatory and usual certification practices, Framatome notes.
Framatome had planned to produce both VVER-1000 and VVER-440 fuel under licence from and as part of a joint venture with Rosatom at its subsidiary Advanced Nuclear Fuels in Lingen. However, it was recently reported that Framatome has now decided to produce the VVER-440 fuel at its Romans-sur-Isere fuel production site in south-east France. The company expects to submit a request to the French nuclear regulator, the Autorite de Surete Nucleaire et de Radioprotection, by the end of 2026 for approval of the changes needed at the French plant for the production of VVER-440 fuel.
‘Fire cloud’ over Bordeaux as France braces for new heatwave
A rare “fire cloud” has formed in Bordeaux as wildfires continue to
ravage France forcing British tourists to flee. The “apocalyptic”
fires, which have so far forced the evacuation of 360,000 people across
France and Spain, have created a “pyrocumulonimbus”, a fire cloud never
seen before in France. The giant cloud, normally caused during volcanic
eruptions, creates its own winds and lightning that can worsen fires.
Telegraph 27th July 2026,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/07/27/fire-cloud-over-bordeaux-as-france-braces-for-new-heatwave/
Republican senator breaks ranks with Trump over controversial nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia
Another GOP senator breaks with president on the Middle
East as war with Iran divides his party. A key Republican senator who has
previously stopped from going as far as publicly condemning the president’s
Middle East strategy is doing just that.
Sen. John Kennedy appeared Sunday
on CBS’s Face the Nation, where he questioned the idea of providing the
technology to another Gulf state at the same time that the U.S. was trying
to permanently shut down Iran’s nuclear program. Asked directly whether he
was comfortable with the Saudi deal, as it had been presented, Kennedy
replied: “Nope.”
Independent 26th July 2026, https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kennedy-senate-trump-iran-saudi-b3021839.html
As Trump boosts nuclear power, regulators seek to eliminate a longstanding radiation safety practice
Count On News 2. by: JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press, Jul 26, 2026
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to eliminate a foundational safety principle that has for 50 years minimized the radiation people in the United States are exposed to and that has been adopted around the world.
Currently, facilities such as nuclear plants, hospitals or academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure radiation exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” — the ALARA principle. The NRC proposal would abandon that philosophy while keeping a separate standard on maximum radiation exposure.
The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, while ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical under those limits. Research shows radiation exposure increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, a risk that increases as the dose increases.
The dose limits are not changing. But the NRC, which regulates civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “graded approach” that includes several actions facilities must take depending on the potential dose of radiation to workers. More rigorous radiation protection measures would be required when approaching dose limits to ensure they aren’t exceeded.
This comes as President Donald Trump attempts to quadruple domestic nuclear energy production because of surging electricity demand amid a data center and artificial intelligence boom. Reforming the NRC is one way Trump is trying to speed up nuclear reactor development. He instructed the federal agency in an executive order last year to “ adopt science-based radiation limits.”
The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months………………………………………………………………………………………….
Without ALARA, could radiation doses creep closer to the limits?…………………………………………………………….
Some experts question the wisdom of eliminating ALARA
Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that some parts of the NRC proposal could raise permissible radiation doses in certain cases, while still staying below the cap. Lyman highlighted a proposed revision to radionuclide emissions standards, in particular.
Radiation exposure to the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. A typical dose of radiation from a chest X-ray is 10 millirem.
The NRC wants to increase its radionuclide emissions standards from a conservative 10 millirem per year dose to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house at the property line for a nuclear plant.
The NRC should improve, rather than eliminate, ALARA, Lyman said, to protect the public and workers. ALARA has become a political target because some people mistakenly believe radiation exposures have to be as low as possible no matter the cost, Lyman said. In reality, it allows tradeoffs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/ap-as-trump-boosts-nuclear-power-regulators-seek-to-eliminate-a-longstanding-radiation-safety-rule/
An Iranian missile attack on the UK is no longer far-fetched.
It is unsurprising that Iran considers the UK bases used by US bombers to attack
the country – RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the
Indian Ocean – to be “legitimate targets”.
Such threats might have been
dismissed in the past as unrealistic bombast, but in a year when warfare in
the Gulf and Ukraine has been dominated by drones, along with cruise and
ballistic missiles, nations that once believed themselves safe have
suddenly become vulnerable. Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia in
March which failed in flight or were shot down, but the Iranians clearly
believed they had the range to reach the island. Diego Garcia is 2,350
miles from Tehran, while London is 2,750 miles away.
iNews 25th July 2026, https://inews.co.uk/opinion/iranian-missile-attack-uk-no-longer-far-fetched-4660624
Campaign steps up opposition to south Wales nuclear project
They noted that Last Energy had not yet installed any SMRs anywhere in the world, branding nuclear projects unsafe, unclean, expensive, and unnecessary.
26 Jul 2026, Nation.Cymru Staff, https://nation.cymru/news/campaign-steps-up-opposition-to-south-wales-nuclear-project/
Campaigners have stepped up efforts to oppose plans for a new nuclear power project in a south Wales valley as public consultations come to a close.
Friends of the Earth Cymru is backing a campaign against proposals by micro-reactor company Last Energy to build four small modular nuclear reactors at Cwm Llynfi, near Maesteg.
Last Energy is a commercial developer of micro-modular PWR-20 nuclear power plants headquartered in Washington D.C.
Last Energy UK Limited, the company’s British subsidiary, announced plans to develop the clean energy project in south Wales in October 2024.
Formally titled ‘Prosiect Egni Glan Llynfi’, it is to be built on the 14-acre site of the former Llyfni coal-fired power station which ceased operation in 1977.
“Working to power and decarbonise industry in South Wales”, the company’s proposal includes development of up to four 20-megawatt micro-modular nuclear power plants, “intended to provide electricity to local industrial customers and to be privately financed”.
Last Energy UK intended to provide £300m financing, and expects the project to power 250,000 homes and create around 100 jobs for the local community.
In February 2025, Last Energy UK formally entered the site licensing process for the project, as the first commercial nuclear power reactor to seek licensing since 1978.
Michael Jenner, CEO of Last Energy UK, said that the process was “another critical milestone necessary to unlock nuclear power at scale in the UK, which will help meet growing energy demand and alleviate grid restraints.”
At the time, the company had said it aimed to complete construction on the first micro reactor in Wales by 2027. However, in July 2025 after a Preliminary Design Review by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, it was reported that they do not expect to receive site licensing until December 2027, “if necessary submissions to the required standard” are delivered according to schedule.
Friends of the Earth Cymru, local campaigners and anti-nuclear groups had voiced early opposition to the proposals, arguing the development would have long-term consequences for the environment and surrounding communities
In a May 2025 FoE Cymru blog post, Jenny Lloyd, Local Action and Community Campaigns Officer, supported by anti-nuclear activist Brian Jones, said: “The struggle to protect Wales from the dangers of nuclear is one that has been fought by communities for decades.
“Activists persuaded every county council in Wales to declare themselves “Nuclear Free Zones” in the 80s, marched to Greenham common to protest against the siting of guided nuclear missiles at the RAF base, and rallied against the redevelopment of Wylfa nuclear power station…”
They noted that Last Energy had not yet installed any SMRs anywhere in the world, branding nuclear projects unsafe, unclean, expensive, and unnecessary.
They continued: “If this proposal is allowed to go ahead it threatens our health, our environment and our communities for generations to come.”
In June 2026, Last Energy UK notified Welsh ministers that, in line with the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, it would make an application for a Significant Infrastructure Project.
It said: “The project comprises four PWR-20 modular reactor units with associated plant, substation, buildings, security and access infrastructure.”
They also provided two images to the Welsh Government’s planning portal, one with four reactors, and another with only one reactor and other operational buildings.
The company held four public consultations on the project in Bridgend, Porthcawl, and Maesteg throughout July.
FoE Cymru once again voiced their opposition with grassroots campaign group No Nuclear Llyfni, this time directing supporters to “show that we are against this damaging proposal” and sign a petition ‘No nuclear in Cwm Llynfi’.
Currently at almost 1,500 of 2,000 signatures, the petition via ActionNetwork reiterates that the project is unsafe, unclean, and expensive, adding that “To make a profit, the company aims to mostly sell the energy straight to businesses – we won’t benefit from this energy.”
They affirm that “Our community and our beautiful valley deserve better than this!”
Nuclear stagnates while renewables soar
Solar and wind alone cut global greenhouse emissions by 12% writes David Toke [Good graphs]
Wind and solar power are making major cuts in global carbon dioxide emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions would be at least 12 per cent higher if not for solar and wind power. Almost all of today’s solar and wind generation has arisen since 2010. Meanwhile nuclear’s contribution has remained almost the same in volume terms (as in 2010), and has greatly declined in terms of proportion of total electricity generated. This is despite the never-ending talk of a ‘nuclear renaissance ’.
Solar and wind’s contribution to world electricity generation has increased to nearly 20 per cent in 2025, whilst nuclear’s contribution has fallen from a peak of 18 per cent in 1996 to just 9 per cent in 2025. This can be seen in Chart 1. The fact that solar and wind are making increasingly large cuts in carbon emissions is often overlooked. In addition, the impact of the closure of the Hormuz Straits has been lessened by renewable energy. Again, the contribution of renewables is often overlooked. Renewables, alongside energy efficiency and batteries, are turning out to be the leading force for energy security.
Wind and solar’s undercounted contribution
When energy statistics are collected, there is a clear statistical, if not actual political, bias against non-fossil fuels other than nuclear power and biomass. This is because in energy statistics all of the energy output of producing energy is counted, even though most of it is wasted. Fossil fuel energy is also wasted when used in inefficient machines such as motor vehicles or gas boilers. In the case of nuclear power, only one third of the energy is turned into electricity – the rest is wasted in warm water sent to rivers and seas. So in the energy statistics nuclear power counts for three times as much as solar, wind or hydro-electricity.
But the real impact of non-biomass renewables in cutting carbon emissions is at least three times their actual output. That is because otherwise fossil fuels would be producing the electricity, and electric machines are much more efficient at point of use (eg cars). Efficiency varies among power plants, with gas-fired generation generally wasting less energy than coal or oil plants. Overall, around 60 per cent of world fossil fuel energy is wasted in producing electricity.
But then, on top of this, you have to consider the carbon emissions that are saved by substituting fossil fuels for renewable electricity. For example, electric vehicles use around a third as much energy used by fossil fuel vehicles. Walking and cycling use even less! Heat pumps will use the electricity at least three times as efficiently as gas boilers. These gains are on top of the efficiencies gained in electricity production.
Electricity now makes up over 22 per cent of world final energy use, and this proportion is increasing (see Here). However, the problem, globally, is not as one reads in the media that electricity use is hurtling upwards as a result of plans for data centres (many of which never get built). Rather, it is that electrification is not happening fast enough! We need a great push for energy-efficient technologies. The EU has set a target for electrification of 46 per cent of final energy by 2040………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear non-renaissance
Of course nuclear revival is always (in the media) just around the corner. Until, of course, little turns up afterwards. Tony Blair talked up a nuclear revival in 2006, soon after his US buddy George Bush had promoted laws, in 2005, which offered massive loans for new nuclear power plants. However, only two nuclear power plants were built, eventually, very much over-cost, especially to electricity consumers in Georgia where the plants were based (at the same site). Another two plants were started in South Carolina, but the projects proved disastrous and were abandoned unfinished.
Now we’ve got the same thing happening again under Trump – but with a twist – in the USA at least there aren’t any new plants being built at all! (see HERE). That’s despite Donald Trump’s government offering large loans to fund them. Ah yes, there’s the ‘small modular reactor’ programme. But that, as I have already discussed in an earlier post, is a fantasy. Their electricity would cost a lot more than even conventional reactors (see HERE).
But of course a small number of power plants will get built called SMRs. They will not be followed by any amount of capacity that will rival even Denmark’s renewable programme on its own. I understand a lot of stress is also being placed on the completion of small micro-reactors that are to be used by the US military (instead of diesels?). Well, US military, good luck with that. Just keep them away from the drones!
True, the Chinese have been building quite a few nuclear power stations – indeed, half of all nuclear power plants in the world under construction are in China. But then China’s nuclear programme is dwarfed by its renewable energy programme. Around 75 nuclear power plants might be built by 2035 in the world. However, what is often not mentioned is that this may not be much more than the number of plants that are retired, which runs at around 7 a year.
In the UK the latest excuse for the non-completion of the Hinkley C reactor is that the poor hapless (French) state-owned EDF is being forced to reduce the number of fish that it kills during operation. But is this an excuse for the plant being already behind its 2025 start-up date and heading for start-up beyond 2030? I think it is. Its sister plant, Sizewell C, which is slated to follow on, is, according to the UK Government’s own admission, already more expensive than Hinkley C. And that is before the rest of the cost overruns rack up and before any of that coveted first concrete is poured.
When will Sizewell C be in operation? I wouldn’t bet on it this side of 2040! The main function provided by new nuclear power to governments such as the UK and the USA is that of a notional fig leaf to exorcise a failure to push ahead more vigorously with a strategy based on renewables and energy efficiency.
Conclusion
The world needs energy to be used efficiently through electricity. It needs this to be supplied by renewable energy. Anything else that doesn’t help this is most likely a distraction at best. That also includes the methods used to count energy, which are dysfunctional because the bulk of the energy they count is wasted. This appears to reduce the real impact of renewables and electricity. Electrification means technologies like heat pumps and EVs, and the real power of electrification will be running heating, transport, and industrial mechanical activity through renewable energy.
David Toke is the author of the book ‘Energy Revolutions – profiteering versus democracy’ (Pluto Press); He is Reader in Energy Politics at the University of Aberdeen and Director of 100percentrenewableuk. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/26/nuclear-stagnates-while-renewables-soar/
U.S. Prioritizes Small Nuclear Reactors Across Southeast Asia
By Charles Kennedy – Jul 24, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Prioritizes-Small-Nuclear-Reactors-Across-Southeast-Asia.html
The U.S. has identified cooperation on small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) as a key priority in its engagement with Southeast Asia as regional electricity demand continues to climb.
Speaking after Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended the ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Manila, U.S. Ambassador to ASEAN Kevin Kim said the administration was in “deep discussions” with several governments in the region over the new technology.
The renewed push for SMRs comes on the heels of the memorandum of understanding signed by the U.S., Japan, and South Korea at the NATO summit on July 7. Under the agreement, the three countries will work together to accelerate the deployment of small modular reactors in third countries, initially across the Indo-Pacific.
While Kim declined to provide specifics on any potential deals, he emphasized that cooperation on SMRs was “an absolute priority for the administration,” adding that the reactors would play “a critical role” in meeting future energy demand.
The comments underscore a broader U.S. strategy to expand its energy footprint in Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on LNG, grid technologies, and small modular reactors. As part of that strategy, the U.S. unveiled a $1.5 billion investment platform in early June to support the build-out of energy security infrastructure in India and Southeast Asia.
Separately, the U.S. outlined several new energy initiatives alongside Rubio’s ASEAN meetings, including a $60 million grant to enable energy sector investment in the Philippines, $17 million in funding to secure critical mineral supply chains across the Mekong region, and $5 million to develop power markets across Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Washington’s latest efforts to expand its energy presence across Southeast Asia reflect the administration’s broader energy agenda: increase LNG exports, advance small modular reactor technology, and secure critical mineral supply chains.
Fukushima nuke plant struggles to clear radioactive waste debris
By TOMOYUKI SUZUKI/ Staff Writer, July 25, 2026 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16663961
Fifteen years after the nation’s worst nuclear accident, the upper floors of the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant remain littered with wreckage from a hydrogen explosion.
Just clearing all the radioactive waste, a significant step toward decommissioning, remains a mountain to climb at the crippled plant, which suffered triple meltdowns.
The huge amount of debris must be cleared before the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., proceeds with the removal of spent nuclear fuel assemblies stored in the water-filled cooling pool located on the upper portions of the No. 1 reactor building.
But the long-overdue clearance would require TEPCO to construct new interim storage facilities in a race against time to keep up with the increasing waste volume in what is likened to a “cat and mouse game.”
Experts on nuclear decommissioning say TEPCO and other stakeholders should tackle reducing the radioactive waste as an urgent priority in tandem with the greatest challenge of removing the melted nuclear fuel.
The No. 1 reactor building holds 392 spent fuel assemblies in the cooling pool, apart from the melted nuclear fuel.
A new crane installed on the upper floor is expected to load debris from the hydrogen explosion into containers for the transfer to an on-site solid waste storage facility. The clearing work began on June 22.
The hydrogen explosion at the No. 1 reactor building occurred on March 12, 2011, the day after the magnitude-9.0 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami struck Japan’s eastern Tohoku region, resulting in the loss of power at the facility to cool the reactors.
The blast blew off the structure’s upper floors, scattering numerous pieces of the roof and the overhead crane.
Today, the No. 1 reactor building is shielded with a giant retractable cover, which measures 56 meters by 66 meters. The cover, together with a new crane, weighs about 7,900 tons, the equivalent of two Tokyo Towers.
The cover was installed in January to prevent radioactive dust from escaping into the air and rainwater from seeping inside during the spent nuclear fuel recovery, which is scheduled to begin between fiscal 2027 and 2028.
TEPCO has been conducting checks of the upper floors for potential large cracks. It has been moving some debris through a remote-controlled demolition system.
Containers holding the waste from the clearance work will be stored temporarily in a solid waste storage facility at the plant.
Known as the No. 10 storage facility, it consists of A, B and C buildings. Buildings A and B have been in use since 2024. The newest one, building C, is 50 meters by 180 meters and 20 meters in height.
Inside building C, containers are neatly stacked. Receptacles with readings of high levels of radiation are sited in the center of the building and surrounded by ones with lower readings, which serve as shields to lower air dose rates in the surrounding area.
In contrast, the grounds outdoors appeared jumbled. Trees chopped down to create space for tanks and working space for operators were left lying on some parts of the grounds while waste containers were piled up in the open.
In addition, TEPCO still relies on makeshift storage in areas along the coast that stores waste on an impermeable liner spread underground and covered with soil.
The company intends to house all the radioactive waste in the indoor facilities by fiscal 2028 to safeguard the containers from fire risks and corrosion.
Before the nuclear disaster, the nuclear plant had eight waste storage facilities. The No. 9 and No. 10 facilities were added after the 2011 accident. Construction of the No. 11 facility is underway for the planned opening for May 2028.
If everything goes as planned, the nuclear plant’s capacity for waste storage would rise to 216,000 cubic meters by the end of fiscal 2028, sufficient for an estimated 207,000 cubic meters of waste to be produced by the time.
It is clear, however, that TEPCO may need additional storage space. The company is considering constructing a No. 12 facility, given that the plant’s storage capacity is projected to be full by fiscal 2035.
The entire situation is even more concerning as little progress has been made in the discussion of the final disposal of the vast amount of radioactive waste.
Moreover, waste produced from the treatment of contaminated water, such as slurry and sorbents, is not included in the materials bound for these storage facilities.
TEPCO will transport parts of such waste into the No. 1 large-scale waste storage facility during the current fiscal year. The storage area, which measures 23 meters by 186 meters and 17 meters in height, underwent seismic retrofitting recently and is ready for use.
The big question is the total amount of radioactive waste that will be generated.
The utility estimates that there will be around 800,000 cubic meters of waste by the end of fiscal 2036. But it has not provided a figure for the overall amount during the decommissioning process.
An Atomic Energy Society of Japan committee advising on the decommissioning of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant estimates there will be about 5.6 million cubic meters of radioactive waste–equivalent to 4.5 Tokyo Domes–unless reduction measures are taken.
TEPCO plans to sort waste by radiation level for interim storage. Of the projected 800,000 cubic meters of waste, 70 percent is eligible to be held in solid waste storage facilities.
While the company aims to halve the volume of this waste, it is set to recycle the remaining 30 percent.
Scrap metal or concrete waste with a dose of 0.005 millisievert per hour or more will be cut or partially crushed to reduce the size. For waste with a dose of less than 0.005 millisievert per hour, TEPCO will consider having it melted for recycling.
But the facility for melting metal will likely be completed between fiscal 2032 and 2034, three years behind schedule, due to a design review.
The amount of melted nuclear fuel, or fuel debris, is estimated at 880 tons at the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors where the meltdowns occurred.
TEPCO plans to eventually retrieve all the fuel debris, but it has yet to determine the final disposal method.
Satoshi Yanagihara, a guest professor for nuclear decommissioning at the University of Fukui, called on TEPCO to more aggressively reduce the waste volume.
“Since utilities’ primary focus is on operating power plants, they tend to invest less in the management of nuclear waste in terms of money and human resources,” he said. “Recovering melted fuel is certainly a daunting challenge, but TEPCO should also grapple with how to lessen the waste volume simultaneously.”
The hidden expansion of Britain’s nuclear strategy
24 July 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/hidden-expansion-britains-nuclear-strategy
“CAN our nuclear subs fire missiles from under the Arctic ice?” This was a question posed jokingly at a meeting of the House of Commons defence committee earlier this summer.
It did not need an answer. The intent was to validate Britain’s adoption of an additional airborne system for its nuclear strike force. It is with such levity that some of our legislators seem to frame the most deadly shifts in policy.
The July edition of the Bulletin of the Nuclear Scientists has outlined the background to this decision to finance a new and supplementary delivery system for Britain’s nuclear bomb. It was a decision only announced publicly in the very last week of the Starmer government and was closely linked to the fracas over the additional £15 billion for military hardware in the Defence Investment Plan.
But why, anyway, should Britain be wanting to fire missiles from “under the Arctic ice.”
This again is linked to policy developments that have largely escaped public scrutiny. It concerns Britain’s leadership role within the Joint Expeditionary Force. Set up in 2014 this sounded like a fairly harmless left-over from some earlier war.
It is not. This “Force” is legally independent of Nato and not bound by any requirements for unanimity in the use of nuclear weapons. It is composed of the Baltic and Scandinavian states plus the Netherlands and Britain. Its territorial remit, within the current Nato division of responsibilities, is the “High North,” effectively Russia’s icebound Arctic frontiers. Hence the need for airborne nukes.
We don’t yet know too much about the logistical implications of this decision. But earlier meetings of the Commons defence committee and also of the Scottish affairs committee give some strong indications. In terms of the deployment of supporting army, navy and air force units Scotland is seen to be the focus. Arbroath and Lossiemouth are cited. For the airborne nukes Lakenheath seems to be at least the interim base. But the nukes may also, for obvious logistical reasons, go north.
Are there deadlines for the implementation of these war preparations? Again the Commons defence committee minutes give some indications: 2030 onwards.
And this brings us to the wider context. Britain has no particular economic interests in the “High North.” As one of Europe’s two nuclear powers, it is taking part in a wider division of labour whereby nuclear-armed France teams up with Germany to cover central Europe. And this again is within a still wider division of labour that allows the US to focus its full military might on China.
Our media have built up “Russia” as the aggressor that threatens us all. But the bigger picture makes it quite clear that China is the overall strategic target.
The current vacillations by Andy Burnham and some members of his Cabinet over the 3 per cent GDP target on arms by 2030 may indicate some awareness of the wider dangers implicit in this decision — as well as its dire consequences for the funding of any progressive social policies.
The current issue of the US journal Foreign Affairs carries an article from Ely Ratner, formerly Joe Biden’s assistant secretary defence Asia-Pacific, making a clear bid for a more senior position in a future Democrat administration from 2030. His article is about how to hobble and, if necessary, militarily defeat a resurgent China.
As we approach one further anniversary of Hiroshima, the trade union and labour movement need to mobilise alongside our working-class communities. The costs of potentially devastating warfare are being posed against what is needed for welfare — and for a war that ultimately serves a dying imperialist superpower. Decisions will be made over the next few weeks.
Trump stuns Saudis by pinning nuclear deal to Israel ties
By AFPT, 24 July 2026, https://www.dailymail.com/wires/afp/article-16000561/Trump-stuns-Saudis-pinning-nuclear-deal-Israel-ties.html
President Donald Trump is making Israel a key part of the US nuclear deal with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
US President Donald Trump said Thursday that a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia depends on the kingdom recognizing Israel, throwing the agreement into turmoil just the day after it was signed.
The apparently new condition comes despite Riyadh having long resisted joining the so-called Abraham Accords with Israel, insisting on a pathway to a Palestinian state.
It was not mentioned in the civilian nuclear deal announced on Wednesday, which had appeared to be a major win for the Saudis even as Trump wages war on Iran over its nuclear program.
But Trump stunned the Saudis with his post on his Truth Social network saying the deal “will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.”
The White House insisted that Trump had previously told Saudi Arabia the deal was contingent on recognizing Israel.
“The president is always the final dealmaker. He has said if they don’t join the Abraham Accords, the deal is off,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.
“The president has spoken directly with the Saudis about this in numerous conversations in the past, and the administration will continue to engage in those conversations.”
– ‘Historic leap’ –
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recognition by Saudi Arabia, a regional power and home to Islam’s holiest sites, would mark a “historic leap” forward for peace in the Middle East.
Leavitt said she did not know of any calls between Trump and Netanyahu following the announcement of the Saudi agreement.
There was no immediate reaction from Riyadh.
Should it go through, the deal to establish a civilian nuclear program in Saudi Arabia would generate billions of dollars for American companies.
But with Trump’s latest announcement, it was unclear whether it would ever see the light of day.
If Washington “tries to force normalization on Riyadh, it’s not likely to work out very well,” said H.A. Hellyer, senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a leading UK defense and security think tank.
“Would Saudi decide to do a complete 180 on what it has declared for the past three years, or 30 years? Quite dubious,” he told AFP.
Critics have also insisted that the deal could precipitate a nuclear race in a region already battered by war.
One provision would potentially see US companies build a uranium enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The US Energy Department made no mention of such a provision and did not offer comment when asked about it by AFP.
And Trump seemingly quashed it by saying on Truth Social that there would be “no enrichment of material!”
The deal will be submitted to Congress for review.
US lawmakers from both parties and Israeli officials have previously voiced opposition to such a project over fears Saudi Arabia could eventually convert it to develop nuclear weapons.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that any civil nuclear agreement signed by Washington with another country “is going to be one that will have safeguards in place to ensure that it can’t be turned into a weapons program.”
– Proliferation concerns –
Riyadh, like Tehran, has long been adamant about its right to pursue a civilian nuclear program. Last year it signed a mutual defense pact with nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Policymakers have long feared that if Iran produced a nuclear weapon, the move would set off an arms race across the Gulf.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright dismissed concerns, insisting the deal was in Washington’s economic and strategic interest and involved the “highest standards of nuclear safety and nonproliferation.”
The United States has agreements governing nuclear cooperation with more than 50 countries.
The Saudi deal meanwhile comes as Riyadh looks set to be dragged further into the Middle East war, with Yemen’s Houthi rebels starting to attack ships in the Red Sea to enforce what they say is a blockade on Saudi Arabia.
Trump vowed to punish both Iran and the Houthis if the attacks continue.
Plan to Bring Failed Japanese Fast Breeder Reactor’s Contaminated Sodium to Workington
Marianne Birkby, Jul 24, 2026, https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/plan-to-bring-failed-japanese-fast
Japan is looking to get shot of nuclear waste from its failed experimental “fast breeder” Monju reactor and Workington’s MP along with Cumberland Council is only too happy to help. “Subject to the necessary planning and regulatory permissions, Cavendish Nuclear, together with its delivery partner Amentum, will be constructing a new facility at the port. This development is part of their wider project to support the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) with decommissioning of the Monju Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), in Fukui Prefecture, Japan.”
Monju Fast Breeder Reactor was a failed £7.2bn experiment in creating a nuclear plant that would burn its own spent fuel (this is what George Monbiot and others have been advocating in their much vaunted nuclear enthusiasm).
It was only operational for 250 days before it was decommissioned. Japan has long since pulled the plug on Monju, an experimental fast breeder nuclear reactor that was plagued by accidents, cover-ups and cost overruns.
Now our nuclear obsessed Cumberland Council and MP are fizzingly saying that Japan’s failure will be Workington’s gain as they scramble to accept the unacceptable, radioactively contaminated sodium coolant aka nuclear waste from yet another failed nuclear experiment and this time its not even our own. Have they stopped to ask why Japan does not want to have the wonderful opportunity of cleaning up this radioactive mess? It has been sitting around long enough as construction started on Monju in 1986 with the reactor achieving criticality in April 1994. The reactor has been inoperative for most of the time since it was originally built. The main product – an expensive toxic mess.
Below is a description of just one of the accidents at Monju in its short operating life
On December 8, 1995, a prototype fast breeder reactor, Monju, located in Tsuruga City, 350km west of Tokyo, was operating at 40% power Refer to JNC’s detailed technical explanation in English of Monju and the accident at http://www.jnc.go.jp/zmonju/mjweb/index.htm.. The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp (PNC), a government controlled organization, operated this reactor. At 19:47 high temperature liquid sodium coolant at one of the three secondary heat exchangers started leaking through a broken thermometer sheath (designed by IH Company, OD: 10mm, ID: 4mm, Length: 150mm) on the piping and it ignited on contact with air. As shown in Fig. 1, the primary heat exchangers are designed to take heat out of the core of the reactor to the secondary heat exchangers, which then transfer the heat to steam generators for power. Because of this design, it was a simple fire caused by the leakage of chemically reactive but non-radioactive sodium coolant. But due to the delay in shutting down of the reactor, 640kg of the sodium leaked in 3 hours and caused some unexpected damage by the fire and chemical reactions to the surrounding structure
Here on original – excellent diagrams and explanation of the accident
The PNC had been always asked by neighbors as well as anti-nuclear organizations whether their nuclear reactors are absolutely safe. They felt constrained to reply “yes” under the circumstances. Under these conditions, the initial cover up of hiding the videotapes taken at the site and of showing them after editing and the PNC’s delay (of about one hour) in informing the neighboring community agencies of the accident ignited a fierce protest by the public.
This example teaches the students following lessons:
Influence of quality of engineering works
The small design errors in the cheap component which may come from lack of competence and care of designers in the IH Company and JNC as the user, caused the accident.
The cover up of the video tapes and delay in informing others of the accident
The cover up decision was made by managers including ex-engineers. When I asked our students in the class if they do the same under the situations, one-third of them said they might although they think it is a very stupid act. The delay of informing the accidents is mainly due to lack of the system oversight and to the bureaucracy within the JNC organization. These caused loss of public trust in general and have delayed the several tens of billion dollar project at least 6 years, although the government wants to resume the project as soon as possible.
Importance of professional work in accidents
The manuals to handle this kind of the accident were not made although they had some for other types of sodium coolant leakage. Manuals are necessary and useful especially in simple operation. But in accidents like this, which no one had expected and which are generally much more complex than those anticipated in manuals, professional judgments are much more important and necessary. In this case, the air conditioners, which had not been shut down, continued to supply fresh air to the fire.
Learning from past experience
The earlier experimental fast breeder reactor, Joyo, which was designed based on practical experiences by the engineers of previous generation, had not had any serious sodium leak accident for 18 years since its start of the operation in 1977. Most of these engineers, however, were retired or moved to other job as time passed. New generation of engineers might have thought it easy to handle. This is the problem of transferring and learning engineering experience and skills between generations.
Responsibility of managers (ex-engineers) to the public
Engineers know “nothing is absolutely safe”. But sometimes political pressure forces managers to say yes to the public on the absolute safety question. But the more realistic question form the public is that the engineers make a maximum professional effort to eliminate the safety hazard. Engineers should have realized the responsibility of clarifying the situation. After a long discussion on the safety including the following two accidents, the Committee of the Nuclear Safety Commission in Japan formally declared in “The White Paper 2000 on Safety of Nuclear Energy (in Japanese)” approved on March 27, 2001 that “none can say nuclear energy is absolutely safe”.
Israel builds massive barrier inside Gaza to partition strip beyond ‘Yellow Line’
“The Israeli military is quietly but quickly building a giant earthen barrier separating the over 50 percent of the Gaza Strip it controls from the rest of the territory,”
New satellite images show that the barrier has allowed occupation forces to now control 65 percent of the strip
News Desk, JUL 22, 2026, https://thecradle.co/articles/israel-builds-massive-barrier-inside-gaza-to-partition-strip-beyond-yellow-line
According to satellite imagery released on 21 July, the Israeli army is constructing a ground barrier extending hundreds of meters beyond the so-called “Yellow Line” in the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip, effectively partitioning the enclave and deepening its military presence there.
The imagery, reviewed by both AP and Haaretz newspaper, shows Israeli forces building a 23-kilometer earthen barrier, which has been described as a partition effort.
The barrier is mainly a trench that has allowed Israel to expand its control and occupation across around 65 percent of the strip.
Varying figures released over recent months indicate Israel could control even more than that.
In one part of southern Gaza, the barrier extends beyond the Yellow Line by more than a kilometer, according to Haaretz.
In Khan Yunis, part of the new Israeli barrier extends around 400 meters beyond the line – stretching along the Salah al-Din Road that connects the north and south of the strip.
Haaretz reported that in Rafah, the barrier pushes beyond the line by approximately 1,300 meters in one area.
The Israeli army has been working on this barrier for months, steadily expanding it.
Satellite images have further confirmed what has previously been reported – Israeli troops have systematically razed much of the territory around the Yellow Line, leveling entire towns, destroying agricultural land, carving new road networks, and constructing military bases on the ruins of Palestinian communities.
They also show that construction is advancing rapidly. The expansion has been described as an Israeli bid to partition the Gaza Strip.
“The Israeli military is quietly but quickly building a giant earthen barrier separating the over 50 percent of the Gaza Strip it controls from the rest of the territory,” wrote AP.
More than 23 kilometers have been constructed in recent months, running through Palestinian communities demolished by the [Israeli] military,” the report added.
The Yellow Line was meant to act as an initial perimeter to which troops would withdraw as part of the agreement last year.
Israeli occupation forces have been pushing beyond it and erecting permanent outposts along the line since the launch of the US October 2025 ‘peace plan’ and so-called ceasefire.
Further withdrawals are contingent on “progress” regarding the disarmament of Hamas, which the Palestinian resistance, as a whole, rejects until the formation of an independent Palestinian state.
As the Israeli occupation of Gaza expands, so does a severe health crisis which began as a result of the genocide and has consistently worsened.
Dozens of hospitals have been completely destroyed by Israeli attacks in Gaza since October 2023, resulting in a collapse of the medical sector and the spread of serious infectious diseases and illnesses.
A new chickenpox virus has now spread across Gaza. Almost 10,000 cases have been recorded across displacement camps recently, according to Doctors in Gaza.
“The situation requires urgent intervention. Medicines, medical supplies, and healthcare services must be provided before the crisis worsens,” said Dr Mohammad Abu Afash, director of Medical Relief in the Gaza Strip.
Other serious illnesses, such as cholera, have spread throughout Gaza during the genocide as a result of Tel Aviv’s destruction of the health system.
The US-Saudi nuclear deal
Learning that Saudi Arabia wants a nuclear programme is nothing new. But
news of an agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia this week set phones
around the world buzzing. No wonder. President Trump will have been at war
with Iran for six months to the day next Tuesday. If he’s that determined
to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons capability, why is he offering a
start-up deal to the Saudis? That’s pretty obscure, even by Trump’s
standards.
Labour Hub 25th July 2026
https://labourhub.org.uk/2026/07/25/the-us-saudi-nuclear-deal/
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (219)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 