nuclear-news

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

Nuclear waste delivers a political haymaker. Five states say it can be done.

By Francisco “A.J.” Camacho, Hannah Northey | 08/05/2026, https://www.eenews.net/articles/nuclear-waste-delivers-a-political-haymaker-five-states-say-it-can-be-done/

From proposals to bury waste under the Gulf of Mexico to shooting canisters deep underground, GOP-led states mainly see economic opportunity.

Five Republican-led states are now jockeying to host nuclear technology hubs — and possibly spent nuclear fuel — in a show of heightened political interest in breaking through chronic barriers to new U.S. reactors.

Oklahoma, Louisiana, Idaho, Tennessee and Utah are in the running to host Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses — Energy Department-backed facilities that would support the full nuclear fuel cycle, from enriching uranium and fabricating fuel to reprocessing and disposing of waste.

But even as states raise their hands, and by and large view fuel enrichment and disposal as an economic opportunity, the thorny politics and financing of new long-term nuclear projects and waste disposal also remain challenges as they negotiate terms with the Trump administration.

All five finalists called for reprocessing nuclear waste into new reactor fuel, but they varied in tone and technique for ultimate disposal of nonrecycled waste.

“Oklahoma proposes to become the first U.S. state to establish a permanent disposal solution before it begins commercial nuclear deployment. No country in the world has done this,” Oklahoma officials said in the state’s proposal.

Idaho, in contrast, seems hesitant to handle waste long term, although it, alongside Utah and Oklahoma, expressed interest in drilling deep boreholes and dropping the waste hundreds of meters underground. Louisiana is eyeing underwater disposal underneath salt domes in the Gulf of Mexico. Tennessee seeks the more conventional route by mining a repository in the eastern part of the state.

“There have been some states that have been more open to this at times, and it sort of goes back and forth,” said Allison Macfarlane, a geologist and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission chair during the Obama administration, adding that New Mexico, Texas and Wyoming were all previously interested in hosting a repository before plans fizzled out. “It’s really important that you have an implementer that knows what it’s doing and does this carefully, because otherwise you’re looking at this going sideways yet again.”

A decade and a half ago, Congress slashed project funding and halted construction of a sole waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, in line with opposition from state residents and its elected leaders. Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was a powerful critic of the Yucca solution. That left the United States with no effective long-term solution for the country’s most radioactive waste as it collected across America’s 57 nuclear power plants.

Nevada’s Democratic senators returned to the question Tuesday, introducing legislation that would change a legal framework put in place by Congress directing the federal government to identify a sole waste depository. The Jobs, Not Waste Act sponsored by Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto would prohibit future consideration of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s permanent repository.

Getting state buy-in to host a voluntary disposal site is seen as crucial to avoid Yucca’s pitfalls, and DOE has offered some carrots with the new innovation campus program. The department says it may offer technical expertise, cost-sharing or loan guarantees to develop a campus, and it claims each campus could attract up to $50 billion in capital investment, $25 billion in state and local tax revenue, and 25,000 jobs.

With midterms looming in November, POLITICO spoke with elected officials and technical experts about each state’s disposal proposal for tackling the generational scientific, regulatory and political challenge.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma proposes working with a startup company to drill boreholes in the Anadarko sedimentary basin in western Oklahoma for permanent waste disposal.

“Oklahoma does not have a nuclear background, but knows energy well,” Lake Barrett, a former DOE nuclear staffer through several administrations, told POLITICO. “Their proposal is light on specifics, but seems serious.”

While partnering with Santa Clara, California-based Oklo for fuel reprocessing, Oklahoma would also work with Berkeley, California-based Deep Isolation on borehole disposal. Deep Isolation plans to drill 18-inch-wide boreholes “hundreds of meters” underground. Once drilled, canisters of waste can be slotted down until the given hole is full.

A 2020 paper co-authored by Macfarlane found few areas of the U.S. have optimal conditions for borehole waste disposal. The Anadarko Basin has shale gas reservoirs and heightened earthquake risks poorly suited for borehole waste, according to the article.

Barrett further notes that the Anadarko Basin partially overlaps with the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground freshwater supply.

Deep Isolation agrees that the concerns identified by Macfarlane and her co-authors must be evaluated through site-specific characterization and modeling, but it argues that their article overstates the technology’s hurdles.

“Oklahoma meets all preliminary site-screening criteria in Deep Isolation’s published site evaluation framework,” Oklahoma officials said in their pitch to DOE.

Louisiana

Among the potential hubs put forth by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry (R), one envisions storing waste in salt domes under the Gulf of Mexico.

Here again, there’s a long history. In 1987, then-Louisiana Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D) successfully scuttled plans to dispose of waste in his state by diverting it to Nevada and Yucca Mountain. Some liberal groups are contrasting that with Landry’s willingness to entertain disposal more than 3 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

“Even as Louisiana was at its economic nadir, fighting for solvency, [Johnston] realized that a nuclear waste dump was not the answer; that whatever short-term economic gains and temporary construction jobs would come into the state would not be worth the long-term damage to the state’s environment and reputation,” Jan Moller, CEO of the Louisiana Budget Project, wrote in a Substack post.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, who also chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, voiced caution about the state’s proposal. “I need to learn a lot more about it before I’m going to be supportive of the rest of the country dumping its nuclear waste on Louisiana,” Kennedy said.

“It seems to me a nonstarter,” said Macfarlane, the former NRC chair. “I say it’s the least serious in terms of disposal of spent fuel.”

While Macfarlane noted that an underwater repository can be done safely, as Sweden plans to do one near its coast, going so far offshore is likely to raise costs dramatically.

Barrett, the former DOE nuclear expert, noted regulators have long been wary of site problems such as volcanic activity or water pathways that might be discovered after a repository is filled. That’s why they required waste to be recoverable from Yucca Mountain, a rule that might be renewed with a new site.

“Salt’s difficult because the canisters will sink in the salt. Now you say I’m going to put the canister in the salt, and I’m going to put it more than 3 miles offshore. That’s a little more challenging [to recover],” Barrett said. “Can you do it? Yeah, with money you could.”

Idaho

Idaho’s proposal would build on expertise at the Idaho National Laboratory and include everything from fuel enrichment to recycling and waste storage. What the proposal does not call for is a permanent repository, which Utah is better suited to host, according to the proposal.

“While Idaho will not consider the establishment of a deep geologic repository below the [Idaho National Laboratory] site or above the Snake River Plain Aquifer, Idaho is willing to consider additional long-term monitored storage solutions for the DOE, possibly including deep borehole storage, in exchange for significant financial consideration,” the state’s 113-page report says.

While Republicans in Idaho are embracing the proposal as an extension of the state’s long history of developing nuclear power — it’s home to the Idaho National Laboratory — Democrats voiced concerns about a lack of details.

“This is an opportunity to build on that legacy, bringing new investment, new jobs, and new technology to Idaho while helping restore America’s leadership in the full nuclear fuel cycle,” Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke (R) said in a statement.

But state Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, a Democrat, said that while she supports exploring a federal program, she’s concerned about the state “taking on as much as one-third of the nation’s spent nuclear fuel, especially while major questions about long-term storage, safety and responsibility remain unanswered.”

“I cannot support a proposal without clear answers, binding protections, and full accountability,” said Wintrow. “No promise of federal funding or economic development is worth risking the health and safety of Idahoans or the future of our land and water.”

Tennessee

Tennessee’s proposal is centered on Oak Ridge, a major hub of nuclear military, energy and medical technologies for eight decades. The state says a repository could be mined somewhere between 25 and 75 miles west of the city on the Cumberland Plateau.

Barrett says Tennessee’s existing ecosystem of nuclear fuel cycle companies makes it an especially strong contender for the campus program and a repository.

“One thing Oak Ridge has done is they have made deals with Radiant Nuclear for microreactor manufacturing and Oklo for fuel recycling,” Barrett noted. “They’ve made deals on enrichment.”

An Orano uranium enrichment facility planned for Oak Ridge would be a major new nuclear investment if the French company commits to the plan.

DOE had planned a fuel storage facility at Oak Ridge in the 1980s, but it was rejected by state officials. Yet political support for the nuclear industry writ-large seems on the rise in the state.

“Tennessee leads the nation in nuclear energy, which is why our state was selected as a finalist to host [DOE’s] Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus,” Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote on X.

“There is no better place to innovate,” she wrote.

Utah

Utah identifies Tooele County just west of Salt Lake City for possible deep boreholes and, as a secondary preference, a mined repository.

Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, did not comment on whether he supported the state’s disposal options as presented in Gov. Spencer Cox’s (R) proposal for the program, but he expressed interest in formally taking Nevada’s Yucca Mountain off the table as the nation’s sole repository.

The top Republican and Democrat in the Utah Senate also weighed in.

If selected, the campus would strengthen America’s domestic nuclear supply chain, create thousands of high-paying jobs and help secure our nation’s energy future,” said state Senate President J. Stuart Adams, a Republican.

State Senate Minority Leader Luz Escamilla chastised the Trump administration for failing to address the uncertain future of the Great Salt Lake. “The federal government should help protect the Great Salt Lake because it is in the national interest to do so, not because Utah agrees to take on additional nuclear waste,” Escamilla said.

Macfarlane’s research suggests the earthquake risk in western Utah makes it inappropriate for the borehole approach, but she said Utah could be a good location for a deep geologic repository.

The state’s submission lists salt domes in Millard County as a possible location for a repository, which Barrett considers a good option at face value.

“Salt is a good geologic medium for high-activity nuclear waste disposal,” he said.

August 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Giant space radars in Pembrokeshire branded ‘instrument of evil’ as campaigners hail small victory in fight against Ministry of Defence plans

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

The radars, which would be built by American defence company Northrop Grumman are earmarked for Cawdor Barracks, near St Davids, and are part of the AUKUS security partnership between the UK, US and Australia.

“And the argument for it bringing jobs is just ridiculous,” he added. “Because the local people won’t be involved in the operation. Jobs will be lost.”

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

By Bronwen Weatherby, 6 Aug 2026, https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/radars-pembrokeshire-wales-campaign-5HjdfgP_2/?fbclid=IwY2xjawThW2BwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR4xadMM94NX9NwkoA9egZO764QyF026XrpxAGhLphH2dG6lSMLNQaypWZUNuQ_aem_AryMN-WJ0muRN-wPxngdOA

Campaigners have branded the proposed installation of twenty-seven giant space radars in Pembrokeshire “an instrument of evil”, claiming it would seriously impact the health, environment and safety of the local community.

A planning decision on the DARC – Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability – project was due to take place last week, but the Welsh Government called in the decision days before the vote – in a move that could trigger a row with Westminster over the UK’s national security.

Opponents of the radar have hailed it as a small victory in the battle against the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) plans, as the newly elected Plaid Cymru government has been openly resistant to it.

However, the area’s Labour MP Henry Tufnell was scathing of Plaid ministers saying “their priorities are all in the wrong place”.

The radars, which would be built by American defence company Northrop Grumman are earmarked for Cawdor Barracks, near St Davids, and are part of the AUKUS security partnership between the UK, US and Australia.

Each 20-metre-high by 15-metre-wide radar dish is designed to find, track, and identify objects up to 22,000 miles out in space and once in place, the three sites – one in each nation – would connect to give a complete 360-degree, 24 hours a day view of space.

‘Desecration of the land’

Among those leading the campaign against it is Game of Thrones star Jerome Flynn who spoke to LBC, saying: “I see it as a desecration of the land.

“It’s not our airspace, it’s our beautiful coastal birds and their migratory space. And there is much evidence to show that they’re one of the biggest emitters of harmful EMFs [high-frequency ionizing radiation]

“So we need to think about human beings, including the ones that come and visit here and what it might do to the tourist industry.

“And the argument for it bringing jobs is just ridiculous,” he added. “Because the local people won’t be involved in the operation. Jobs will be lost.”

“I don’t think anybody feels like that installation is going to make us safer.

“If we put such an installation like that it makes Wales suddenly a supporter of the most provocative regime in the world at the moment. That makes enemies.”

Mr Flynn argued the radars were “antithetical” to what the St David’s peninsula represents, particularly as an important pilgrimage site.

The MOD states ‘the radio waves used by DARC are non-ionising radiation. They are not hazardous to health because they do not have enough energy to cause harmful ionisation.

‘Levels of non-ionising radiation in the area surrounding the DARC site would be less than or equal to that received from using a mobile phone, presenting no danger to members of the public in the area.’

It also argues the radar would protect satellites essential to GPS navigation, emergency communications, banking systems, weather forecasting and military operations from hostile military actions including missiles, hostile spacecrafts and blinding lasers as well as accidental hazards such as fast-moving space junk and orbital debris.

But those against it fear the US would have primary control of the dishes, helping a US-led escalation in space warfare and to turn Wales into a military target for its enemies.

Northrop Grumman’s director of space surveillance, Kevin Giammo, has previously stated that he sees DARC as a key asset in the US’s ‘Golden Dome’ initiative – a plan to create an air and missile defense shield over America.

Several of those LBC spoke with at a PARC Against DARC (Pembrokeshire Against the Radar Campaign) rally referenced Iran’s destruction of radar infrastructure in the Gulf in response to the US-Israel attacks and their fear Pembrokeshire would become a similar target.

Roy Jones, one of the group who successfully fought a similar proposal in the 1990s told LBC: “We often get accused of being NIMBY’s. Yes I feel passionate about my local landscape and my local community, but I wouldn’t want to see this thing put anywhere in Britain or anywhere in the world because it’s an instrument of evil.”

Such is the strength of feeling among some in the community that local Labour MP, Henry Tufnell, has come under personal attacks with protesters referring to him as ‘Toff-nell’, holding cut outs of his face at rallies while chanting “Where’s Toff-nell?”

In response to Plaid’s move to seize control of the planning decision, he told LBC: “How do we make sure there are good well-paid jobs, how do we make sure they go beyond the construction phase, how do we make sure we reap the benefits as a local community? Those are the right questions to be asking.

Outside his office in Haverfordwest, Mr Tufnell who has publicly advocated for the plans insisted he had been engaging with the MOD and Northrop Grumman to minimise the impact on the landscape and on health and ensure it benefits the local economy.

“Not shall we put into question our national security and hand ourselves to China and Russia on a plate and forget about our international partners. I think they’re priorities are all in the wrong place.”

Welsh Ministers are no longer able to comment on the application while the call-in process is active but a statement provided by some Plaid backbenchers said: “We do not support the construction of the DARC radar array and have been consistent in expressing our serious concerns about the impact of this project on Pembrokeshire’s landscape, tourism economy, and public health – none of which have been adequately assessed.

“The scale of opposition also makes it clear that many residents reject this proposal and the lack of transparency surrounding it.”

An MoD spokesman said: “The programme has worked with Pembrokeshire County Council to develop the planning application in accordance with applicable regulations in addition to Welsh national requirements. This will continue to be the case as the application is now considered by Welsh Ministers.”

Northrop Grumman and Montagu Evans, the planning agent for the project, were contacted for comment.

August 9, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Time to build a Scotland without nuclear weapons

06 Aug 2026, https://greens.scot/news/time-to-build-a-scotland-without-nuclear-weapons

Nuclear weapons are a moral disgrace.Time to build a Scotland without nuclear weapons.

The UK Government’s commitment to weapons of mass destruction makes the case for an independent, nuclear-free Scotland, says Scottish Greens co-leader Gillian Mackay MSP.

Marking the 81st anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the Scottish Greens have called for the abolition of nuclear weapons and an end to the Labour Government’s “dangerous and immoral” nuclear policy.

Despite the atrocities of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the Labour government has described its commitment to the UK’s nuclear weapons system as “absolute”.

This past week, the UK government set out plans to spend £63.6bn over the next four years for the UK Government’s Defence Nuclear Enterprise, £47bn of which will go on nuclear submarines.

Scottish Greens co-leader Gillian Mackay MSP said: 

“Today we remember all those who were killed, those who suffered unimaginable injuries and the generations whose lives were devastated by the atomic bomb. 

“Hiroshima showed the world the horrifying reality of nuclear warfare – the destruction of a city and the mass killing of innocent civilians.

“The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were among the most inhumane atrocities ever committed. There can never be any justification for mass killings or the long and brutal legacy that they left behind. 

“We are 81 years on and the new Prime Minister is doubling down on his dangerous and immoral policy, committing tens of billions of tax-payer’s money on submarines and nuclear warheads designed to inflict mass-destruction.

“Housing weapons on the Clyde, capable of annihilating millions of people, do not keep Scotland safe – they make our communities a nuclear target while they pay the price through cuts, poverty and crumbling public services. 

“No government that genuinely believes in peace, human rights and international law should threaten the mass slaughter of civilians, putting our own communities at risk whilst lining the pockets of arms traders”

Gillian added: 

“There is always money at Westminster for nuclear weapons, but never enough to eradicate child poverty, repair our public services or ensure that everyone has a warm and secure home.

“Westminster’s nuclear obsession does not have to be Scotland’s. We can keep our communities safe by removing Trident from the Clyde, and taking our place internationally as a country committed to peace and disarmament. 

“Scotland deserves a future where our resources support our people and communities, not the profits of multi-national arms companies. An independent Scotland can sign the anti-nuclear treaty and be a country where the lessons of Hiroshima are reflected with a firm and steadfast commitment to peace and nuclear disarmament.” 

August 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Labour urged to end ‘dangerous’ nuclear weapons policy on Hiroshima Day

THE UK Government has been urged to put an end to its “dangerous and
immoral” nuclear policy and scrap its commitment to weapons of mass
destruction. The Scottish Greens made the comments to mark Hiroshima Day, as the party hit out at “Westminster’s nuclear obsession” which they said
makes Scotland’s “communities a nuclear target”.

In 1945, the United States
dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9
respectively, leading to the end of the Second World War with Japan’s
surrender. The bombs killed more than 200,000 people, with the Hiroshima
bomb killing more than 140,000 people, including 38,000 children. A number
of events are taking place around Scotland to mark Hiroshima Day, including
in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee.

 The National 6th Aug 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26440543.labour-urged-end-dangerous-nuclear-policy-hiroshima-day/

August 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

𝗪𝗛𝗢 𝗜𝗦 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟𝗟𝗬 𝗜𝗡 𝗖𝗛𝗔𝗥𝗚𝗘: 𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗔 𝗢𝗥 𝗜𝗦𝗥𝗔𝗘𝗟?

Israel is experiencing a golden era of influence, but its recent moves have not produced the results it expected.

more Americans and government officials are arguing that the United States must prioritize its own interests and avoid being pulled into endless foreign conflicts.

The political relationship between the United States and Israel comes down to a fundamental question: who is actually in charge?

Ibrahim Majed, Aug 06, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/9bb?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=209955647&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

When you look at the region today, the United States does not want a full-scale regional war. However, it also cannot afford to completely back down. Washington continues to support military pressure on Iran because a sudden retreat would undermine American deterrence, weaken its credibility among allies and adversaries alike, and erode the global perception of U.S. hegemony.

Israel, meanwhile, has pushed for even more aggressive action, creating growing tensions over how far the conflict should go.
The reality is that Israel cannot afford to keep taking endless losses, because running a nonstop military campaign with no real political achievements will eventually exhaust and destabilize any state

The balance of power between the two countries is not as simple as military strength alone.
The United States is clearly the stronger country, with far greater economic resources and military capabilities.
However, Israeli leaders have often been highly effective at navigating the political system in Washington, allowing them to build significant influence over American decision-making.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been in power for a very long time, and he understands how the American government works better than almost anyone.
In the United States, politics runs on money, lobbies, and deals made behind closed doors in Congress.
Ever since the 1960s, Israel has built a massive network of support inside Washington.
This does not mean Israel completely owns America, but it does mean Israeli leaders know exactly which politicians to talk to, which donors to use, and how to push the U.S. government to do what they want.

This influence works best when Israel’s goals match what the American President personally wants.
But there is a limit.
If a U.S. President ever feels that Israel is hurting his own political career or messing up America’s bigger plans, he has the power to tell Israel to stop, and Israel would have no choice but to listen.
The main reason America rarely puts its foot down is because the pro-Israel lobby has spent decades building power in Washington.


Israel is experiencing a golden era of influence, but its recent moves have not produced the results it expected.
The war on Lebanon in 2024 did not bring a clear victory, while the 2026 war on Iran caused massive destruction but failed to achieve its intended objectives. On the contrary, Iran emerged with a stronger regional position, greater influence, and increased leverage over key strategic waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz, giving it the ability to impact global energy markets and the world economy.
As a result, many governments and populations around the world are increasingly blaming Israel’s actions for escalating tensions and threatening the stability of critical global trade routes, including the Strait of Hormuz.

The way Israel keeps its hold on U.S. politics is through a mix of favors and political pressure, making it very risky for American politicians to speak out against Israeli decisions.
Even so, people inside the U.S. government are getting frustrated.
A leader with a big ego, like Donald Trump, hates feeling like a smaller country is bossing him around.
On top of that, when an American leader builds his entire image around being tough on Iran, he gets trapped into a corner where he cannot back down without looking weak.
Meanwhile, Iran is playing the exact same game, making unpredictable moves to counter American pressure.

This conflict has also disrupted major economic and diplomatic plans in the Middle East.
Before the recent escalations, countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Qatar were moving toward closer business and security partnerships with Israel, heavily pushed by figures like Jared Kushner.
However, the events of October 7 and the war that followed dramatically changed the regional and global environment.
Israel’s actions during the conflict, along with statements by some Israeli officials regarding territorial ambitions and visions of a “Greater Israel,” have increased concerns across the region and contributed to a major shift in public and political attitudes.

As a result, previous normalization and partnership efforts have been slowed or put on hold, forcing Washington to reconsider whether its regional strategy is still achievable.
At the same time, more Americans and government officials are arguing that the United States must prioritize its own interests and avoid being pulled into endless foreign conflicts.

Inside the U.S. national security system, major disagreements are emerging over how Washington should handle Israel and the wider regional conflict. Some officials and policymakers have grown increasingly concerned about Netanyahu’s government, the direction of the war, and the consequences for broader American interests.
Major American media figures and influential commentators have openly criticized these policies, showing that even within conservative circles in the United States there is growing division over the approach toward Israel and the wider conflict.
After the long, painful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, many people in Washington no longer believe that constant military action works.
That is why you see political figures like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance taking different approaches, it is a calculated way for political leaders to appeal to different groups of voters without losing control.

If you look back at history, America is the strongest empire the world has ever seen, but taking endless risks for a smaller ally is a dangerous strategy.
History shows that ancient superpowers, like the Roman Empire, would eventually put their foot down and crush any regional partner that caused too much trouble for the empire as a whole.
If America wants to remain the top global power, its leaders have to put American interests first instead of constantly backing another country’s moves.
Washington gave Israel a chance to handle the region on its own, but since that failed, smart decision-makers in the U.S. government are starting to think it is time to cut their losses before things get worse.

You can already see signs that both the United States and Israel are facing growing pressure and are looking for ways to manage the situation behind the scenes.
Washington’s priority is to avoid being dragged into a wider war, but it also cannot afford to appear weak or defeated.
The United States wants to preserve its image as the dominant global power and maintain its credibility and deterrence in the region.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s political position has become increasingly difficult, forcing his government to balance domestic pressure with the risks of further escalation.

Netanyahu is dealing with major political trouble at home and is looking for ways to protect himself if new elections happen.
On the ground, Israel is quietly trying to limit the intensity of the fighting.
Operations in Lebanon have shifted into smaller-scale actions, while direct confrontations with Iran have slowed down.
At the same time, Israeli forces in southern Lebanon continue to face attacks from the resistance, but many of these incidents are kept away from public attention to avoid highlighting vulnerabilities or creating pressure for a wider escalation.
Israel keeps quiet about these hits because it does not want the public to see its weakness or get pulled into a bigger war it cannot win.
At the same time, the resistance is keeping quiet so they can keep chipping away at Israeli forces without starting a massive new conflict.

In the end, even though Israel has been highly effective at influencing U.S. politics, the United States remains the far stronger power and will ultimately prioritize its own strategic interests.
History shows that great powers place their national interests above any individual alliance when they believe a partnership has become too costly or threatens their broader objectives.
The United States could lose its alliance with Israel and still remain a global power, but Israel’s strategic position is far more dependent on continued American military, political, and diplomatic support.

This is why Israeli leaders have repeatedly emphasized the need to develop greater independence in areas such as defense production, while pro-Israel political networks in the United States continue to push for maintaining strong American support. Their concern is that if Washington begins prioritizing its own interests over Israel’s regional objectives, Israel’s ability to sustain its current position and policies in the region would be significantly weakened.

Ultimately, the choice facing the United States is whether it continues to bear the costs of policies that primarily serve another country’s objectives, or whether it puts American interests first.
A great power maintains its strength by protecting its own security, economy, and global position, not by allowing any ally to influence the direction of its foreign policy.

August 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Brian Leishman MP blasts party’s own nuclear policy

Sizewell B, also in Suffolk, uses around 800,000 litres of fresh mains water per day, while Sizewell C is estimated to need more than 2 million litres per day by the time it is completed, according to the Guardian.

4th August, 26, By Lucy Jackson,
https://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/26435794.scottish-labour-mp-blasts-partys-nuclear-policy/

A Scottish Labour MP has blasted his own party’s policy on nuclear energy.

Brian Leishman, MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said Labour’s nuclear policy was “madness” in the face of the climate crisis.

Leishman made the comments in response to reports that Romania has been forced to “blast” the Danube river to help a nuclear plant as a result of the heatwave.

Romania, like much of Europe, has been subject to scorching temperatures, with water levels in the Danube reportedly dropping to just 23 centimetres.

Channel 4 News reports that the Romanian navy has blown up rocks at the side of the Danube, where it splits, in order to get more water flowing down the main branch of the river towards a nuclear power plant.

In response to the news report, Leishman wrote on Twitter/X: “We are suffering from climate crisis/extreme weather.

“Parts of the UK have declared drought status yet there is a political push for nuclear energy requiring huge amounts of water to operate.

“And AI data centres would require incredible amounts of water.

“Both are madness!”

We are suffering from climate crisis/extreme weather.

Parts of the UK have declared drought status yet there is a political push for nuclear energy requiring huge amounts of water to operate.

And AI data centres would require incredible amounts of water.

Both are madness! https://t.co/mDbeQ13XLP

— Brian Leishman (@BrianLeishmanMP) August 4, 2026

The Labour Party supports nuclear energy as part of its election pledge to “make Britain a clean energy superpower”.

It has vowed to build new nuclear power stations, such as Sizewell C in Suffolk, which is currently under construction and is expected to cost around £38 billion.

Nuclear power plants consume vast amounts of water, which is partly used to cool the reactor core in order to prevent meltdowns.

Sizewell B, also in Suffolk, uses around 800,000 litres of fresh mains water per day, while Sizewell C is estimated to need more than 2 million litres per day by the time it is completed, according to the Guardian.

Last month, Labour advocated for more nuclear power stations to be built in Scotland, with the UK Government publishing a report highlighting six areas where plants could be built “should the policy position of the Scottish Government change”.

The Scottish Government opposes new nuclear developments and has insisted the focus should instead be on renewable energy, with both Dounreay Nuclear site in Caithness and Hunterston Nuclear Power Plant in North Ayrshire currently being decommissioned.

Elsewhere, Torness Nuclear Power Plant in East Lothian is scheduled to end operations in 2030.

The Labour Party has been approached for comment.

August 7, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear industry and public invited to shape new regulatory principles for future UK nuclear

 The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is leading a major review of its
key regulatory frameworks which evaluate the safety of nuclear facilities
– and the whole sector can play its part in this milestone industry
change. The Safety Assessment Principles (SAPs) support inspectors in
assessing nuclear safety cases submitted by dutyholders and requesting
parties. From today (Monday, 27 July), ONR is opening a public consultation
on the SAPs revision and wants to hear from nuclear operators, industry
bodies, the public and all those with an interest in nuclear safety. Your
views will help ensure the updated SAPs are as clear and effective as
possible. The consultation will run for eight weeks, closing on 18
September with the final version of the SAPs expected to be published in
December 2026.

ONR 27th July 2026, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2026/07/nuclear-industry-and-public-invited-to-shape-new-regulatory-principles-for-future-uk-

August 7, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

After 157 days of Iran war failure, Trump must quit war or quit presidency.

Walr Zlotow  West Suburban Peace Coalition  Glen Ellyn IL , 4 Aug 26

President Trump is flailing around like every world leader in history who launched a criminal war of choice he can’t win but can’t quit. Like every losing criminal war predecessor, he’s becoming more and more unhinged searching for a magic bullet, make that a magic missile, that will turn his inevitable defeat into his cherished victory.

He fantasizes Iran has been destroyed and is begging to surrender in Trump’s terms. He threatens massive destruction one day, then calls off that destruction a day later for two reasons: he doesn’t have the firepower to inflict it, and knows Iran will inflict even worse damage to US Gulf State bases and Middle East energy infrastructure cratering the world economy. Thousands more Iranians may die and hundreds more US service casualties may pile up to no avail.

Iran won, the US has lost. Deservedly so. Iran did nothing to deserve Trump’s dastardly attack.

Except for a dwindling number of ‘destroy Iran dead enders’, Trump’s war cabinet must be apoplectic over Trump’s delusional descent into endless war madness. Neither VP Vance nor Secretary of State Rubio were keen on Trump’s cockamamie war but bowed to his hubris fueled by the power behind the push for war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On this war day 157 of Trump’s disastrous, failed war edging the world economy toward the fiscal cliff, Trump still has 900 days to ensure that happens. On his own he appears incapable of admitting defeat or simply resigning the presidency to allow Vance to begin negotiations to end the war on Iran’s sensible terms. We can only hope Trump’s was council will conduct an intervention. Instruct Trump to quit the war or quit the presidency. If not they should threaten resignation en mass to paralyze the government to fulfill the prophesy Bob Dylan once famously sang…. “Even the President of the United States sometimes has to stand naked.”

August 6, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Ukraine strike on Iran, a cynical Zelensky sales pitch

Finian Cunningham, July 31, 2026, https://strategic-culture.su/news/2026/07/31/ukraine-strike-iran-cynical-zelensky-sales-pitch/

Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

The deadly Ukrainian strike on an Iranian cargo ship in the Caspian Sea conforms with a well-worn pattern as a provocation to boost a sales pitch.

The drone attack on July 25, which killed one Iranian mariner and injured several others, was hailed by Ukraine’s puppet president Vladimir Zelensky as “very good” and a blow to Iran-Russia war shipments, even though Western media reported that a civilian cargo vessel was hit.

Three days later, on July 28, Zelensky was warmly received in the White House by U.S. President Donald Trump, following the funeral for war hawk Senator Lindsey Graham.

That funeral, by the way, was less a Christian service than a Satanic ritual of ghouls bidding their farewells to a fellow war-pervert and believer in blood sacrifice of innocents. Zelensky and Israeli genocider Netanyahu surrounded by Washington’s war criminals and Epstein associates was chilling in brazen evil presence.

Zelensky was attending the vampire’s ball with an offering to master Trump – see how we can hit Iran for you.

On the agenda for the White House meeting was Zelensky appealing for more U.S. Patriot air defense batteries and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump reportedly declined to offer additional supplies of the Patriot system, probably because Pentagon inventories have become so depleted, but he confirmed that the U.S. would permit Ukraine the right to manufacture its own version of the interceptor missiles.

Notably, Trump’s relations with Zelensky have improved significantly compared with the infamous Oval Office shouting match when the American president verbally slapped his Ukrainian guest around, telling him he had “no cards to play.”

Iran responded furiously to the Ukrainian strike on one of its ships, warning Kiev that it would take revenge for “illegal aggression”. Initially, Ukraine rebuffed Iran’s threats with bravado, saying that it had a right to attack alleged military supplies from Iran to Russia which, it claimed, were being used to kill Ukrainians. Tehran says the latest strike was on a civilian cargo ship, which Western media have also reported.

The Kiev regime has subsequently appeared more conciliatory, telling Iran that it is not seeking an escalation.

Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly said that his Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy Sybiha, assured him the attack on the Iranian vessel was unintentional and that Kyiv did not want the dispute to escalate.

So what was all the gloating a few days before by Zelensky about?

The timeline suggests that the drone attack on the Iranian vessel was not an attempt to conflate the conflicts between the U.S. and Iran and the NATO proxy war with Russia, as some analysts contended.

Rather, the Caspian strike was a cynical PR move by the Zelensky regime ahead of his visit to White House.

The reckless move could, however, result in a merger of the conflicts if Iran decides to deliver on its warnings to hit back. Iran certainly has the capability for ballistic missiles and long-range drones to attack Ukraine, if it opts to do so.

The corrupt regime in Kiev is primarily concerned with maintaining the flow of Western military aid. This, of course, feeds the Western military-industrial complex with the coveted steady stream of profits and indulges the Russophobic fantasies of Western leaders.

Merging the two conflicts would certainly amplify this lust for racketeering. But for the Kiev regime to incur the wrath of Iran and have Iranian air strikes join Russia’s assaults would seem to be a strategically stupid move, even for this endemically corrupt regime.

The back-tracking by the Ukraine regime days after the Caspian attack indicates that it is trying to placate Tehran not to follow up with retaliation.

That suggests that the attack was simply an ill-thought-out cheap PR stunt to tee up Zelensky’s pitch to Trump for more Patriots and to finally concede on supplying Tomahawks.

This is a classic pattern by the criminal cabal in Kiev. As on countless other occasions, when Zelensky is traveling abroad with his begging bowl, his trips are often preceded by provocations, either from Ukrainian strikes on Russia or false-flag attacks on Ukrainian civilians that the regime blames on Russia, eliciting predictable appeals for more military aid and air-defense systems, a percentage of which ends up in the regime’s overseas accounts.

The danger is that the Zelensky mafia is so desperate to keep the funds flowing that it will stage a provocation that goes too far, igniting a wider World War.

So far, the diabolical game has involved presenting the Ukrainian regime as a defender of Europe and the United States from Russian aggression. Now, with Trump stuck in a quagmire of his own making against Iran, the Zelensky war-racket syndicate senses another opportunity by soliciting Trump as a front against Iran. Trump no doubt is desperate for help as his presidency slides down the toilet. Hence his warmer rapport with Zelensky.

Attacking an Iranian ship in the Caspian is perhaps best understood as a cynical offering to Trump by the regime to solicit more military aid from Washington, paid for by the European NATO ghouls.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has recently taken to describing Ukraine as a “security provider” for the West. This is an Orwellian way to sanitize what is a parasitic drain on Western economies. Zelensky’s attack on Iran is aimed at boosting that illusion of Ukraine acting as a benefactor for Western security when, in reality, it is recklessly inciting more war – all to satisfy the corrupt money racket.

Russia and Iran seem to be playing the long game of letting the Western war ghouls cannibalize themselves into oblivion. Then again, it may be tempting to just finish them off before they inflict more suffering on innocents.

August 5, 2026 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Vice President of the European Commission Teresa Ribera warns that modular nuclear reactors are still projects, not an immediately available energy solution

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Informat.ro Călin Nicolescu, 21 July 2026,

Small modular nuclear reactors can become a component of the European energy system, but they do not yet represent a solution that can be used immediately to reduce emissions or cover the increase in electricity consumption, said the Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, Teresa Ribera. She urged governments not to delay investments and reforms already necessary while waiting for technologies that still need to be demonstrated and commercially implemented.

In short Teresa Ribera says that the choice of the energy mix, including the share of nuclear energy, belongs to each member state. The Commission must ensure compliance with common safety, competition, and public money usage standards. Small modular reactors benefit from European research programs and a Commission strategy aimed at launching the first projects in Europe in the early 2030s. Ribera warns that modular reactors remain, for now, projects in development. Governments should not postpone investments in grids, energy efficiency, renewable sources, or emission reductions until 2035. Building new reactors and extending the operation of existing plants often requires public funding, guarantees, and the state taking on part of the project risk. The Commission will check whether these forms of support produce overcompensations, subsidized prices, or advantages that affect competition among energy technologies and consumer access to electricity.

Teresa Ribera responded to a question about the future of nuclear energy and small modular reactors during the inaugural session of the sixth edition of the summer course “The great current challenges of the European Union,” held in San Sebastián. The Executive Vice-President said that opinions on nuclear energy differ profoundly among states and that European policy must respect each country’s right to establish its own electricity production mix.

Some governments have decided to build reactors, modernize existing plants, or extend their operational lifespan, while others base their strategy on renewable sources, storage, interconnections, and reducing consumption. The role of the Commission is not to impose the same energy structure on everyone, but the institution verifies compliance with European nuclear standards, safety requirements, and state aid legislation.

Small modular reactors, known by the acronym SMR, are designed for lower capacities than conventional nuclear plants. Their components are expected to be manufactured to a greater extent in industrial units and transported to the site for installation or assembly, a model that the industry claims can standardize construction and reduce some delays and costs. The Commission estimates that such reactors could provide electricity and heat for industry, urban heating systems, hydrogen production, and large consumers such as data centers.

Ribera insisted, however, on the gap between technological potential and commercial availability. The modular reactors currently being discussed are still projects, and the first European installations are expected for the early 2030s, not to address immediate energy needs. The European strategy adopted in March 2026 aims to accelerate the development and commissioning of the first projects during this period, confirming that the technology is still ahead of extensive commercial implementation………………………………………………….

The issue of public cost occupied an important part of Ribera’s response. Building new nuclear plants and extending the operation of existing ones typically required both public funding and guarantees through which the state takes on part of the project risks. These interventions may be necessary to attract capital into a sector with very high initial investments and long timelines, but they raise questions about the advantages granted to the producer and the effect on the market.

The Commission announced that it will create a guarantee of 200 million euros to support private investments in the first commercial units based on innovative nuclear technologies. The guarantee is intended to reduce risk for investors and should be seen as a tool for preparing the first projects, not as sufficient funding for building an entire fleet of reactors.

Any significant national support must also be analyzed from the perspective of state aid. The Commission’s competition services check whether the government compensates only the necessary costs and risks or whether the mechanism guarantees excessive revenues, disproportionately transfers losses to taxpayers, or grants a producer an advantage that competitors cannot obtain.

Ribera specifically warned about the possibility that public funding could influence electricity prices. Guaranteed contracts, support schemes, and risk coverage can provide stability to a nuclear project, but they can affect competition with renewable sources, storage, or other technologies if the support is not proportional and transparent.

The Commission’s analysis does not start from the idea that nuclear energy should be treated identically to any ordinary investment. Plants involve special safety requirements, very long operating periods, and obligations regarding decommissioning and waste. These characteristics may justify specific mechanisms, but do not eliminate the obligation of states to demonstrate the necessity, proportionality, and effect of support on the market.

The European strategy presents SMRs as a possible internal source of low-emission energy, capable of supporting energy security and decarbonizing hard-to-electrify industries. The Commission estimates that the installed capacity of these reactors in the EU could reach between 17 and 53 GW by 2050, but these figures are development scenarios, not capacities already under construction or guaranteed.

The first projects will need to show whether modular production can reduce the costs and delays that have affected many conventional nuclear plants. The economic advantages depend on the standardization of models, the number of units ordered, the capacity of factories, coordinated authorization, and the existence of a sufficiently large market for repeating the same design.

The debate on SMRs is therefore conducted on two levels. The Commission is investing in preparing a technology that could become important in the coming decades, but warns that projects should not be presented as an already available alternative to the investments that need to be made now.

The message conveyed by Ribera in San Sebastián was that technological neutrality does not mean suspending decisions until all options reach maturity. States can support nuclear energy and modular reactors, but they must continue in parallel to reduce emissions, modernize infrastructure, and expand sources that can produce results before the first European SMRs come into operation.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

China makes major nuclear expansion move, adds four new projects in $25 billion energy investment

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province.

Interesting Engineering, By Bojan Stojkovski, Aug 01, 2026

China is moving forward with a major expansion of its nuclear energy capacity after approving four new power projects expected to attract more than $25 billion in total investment.

The newly approved facilities include Phase II of the Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant in Zhejiang Province, Phase III of the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province, and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province.

Together, the projects will add eight new nuclear power generating units, according to media reports, as China continues to increase its reliance on nuclear energy as part of its broader energy strategy.

Six-unit nuclear base in Zhejiang with upgraded reactor technology

The Jinqimen Nuclear Power Plant is set to become the fourth nuclear energy base in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, as China continues expanding its low-carbon power infrastructure. The plant’s Phase II development will use Version 2.0 of Hualong One, China’s domestically developed third-generation nuclear reactor technology, while also allowing participation from private capital. ……

China’s latest nuclear expansion will also feature the upgraded Hualong One Version 2.0 technology at the Taipingling Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, according to CGN Power Co. Each reactor unit at the facility will have a generating capacity of 1,217 megawatts, with the six-unit plant expected to produce more than 55 billion kWh of electricity annually once fully operational. 

Meanwhile, the Zhuanghe Nuclear Power Plant in Liaoning Province and the Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province represent new nuclear development sites, according to statements from the companies involved.

The Laiyang Nuclear Power Plant in Shandong Province will feature two Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology, according to SPIC Industry-Finance Holdings Co. Each unit will have a generating capacity of 1,543 megawatts, marking another addition to China’s expanding nuclear power infrastructure.


Moreover, with an investment of around $18 billion, the Laiyang plant is expected to become China’s largest nuclear power station by installed capacity once all six units are completed. The project also marks the beginning of large-scale, standardized construction of Guohe One reactors, China’s independently developed third-generation nuclear technology…………………..https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-makes-major-nuclear-expansion-move

August 4, 2026 Posted by | China, politics | Leave a comment

What links Palestine Action arrests with Burnham’s nuclear weapons splurge?

MASS arrests of peaceful Palestine solidarity demonstrators in London were the backdrop to Andy Burnham boasting of his commitment to enlarging Britain’s nuclear arsenal in Barrow-in-Furness this week.

The left has a lot of work to do to turn the existing majority against British complicity in Israeli genocide, and the growing hostility to military partnership with a Donald Trump-led United States, into a more consistent rejection of the militarist agenda being forced down the country’s throat.

Not many will see a connection between the Palestine Action ban and Trident renewal, and many will even oppose the former while supporting the latter.


But the ban on Palestine Action — itself part of a wider project to suppress public solidarity with Palestine, from new police powers to outlaw protests to the prosecutions of peace movement leaders like Ben Jamal, Chris Nineham, Alex Kenny and Sophie Bolt — was never a random act of repression.

Nor — though this view is common on the left — was it primarily about banning criticism of Israel or a result of pressure from the Israeli state or its supporters, though of course both welcomed it.

The huge Palestine solidarity movement is a threat because it exposes the ugly truth about British foreign policy and the role the British military plays in the world.

A state which tries to warn international courts off investigating genocide is no defender of international law or human rights.

The armaments companies that help supply the weaponry for that genocide are complicit in it. They are also the beneficiaries of Labour’s militarist splurge.

And a military which actively assists the army committing the genocide — through the way bases like RAF Akrotiri act as staging posts for weapons supplies, or all those RAF surveillance flights over the killing fields of Gaza — is not a force for good in the world.


Early in the course of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, militarist pundit Paul Mason urged that it be reined in because outrage over Palestine would undermine support for the military more widely and for Britain’s interventions in other conflicts, notably Ukraine.

He was right to worry, though actually the implications of our complicity in Israeli war crimes, and more recently in the illegal US-Israeli war launched against Iran, are not widely enough recognised.

British military power is not used to deter aggression, but to enable it. Our principal allies are the most warlike countries on Earth, the readiest to resort to violence and the likeliest to plunge us into a new world war.

Once that is understood, the reckless rearmament drive — which itself is the result of pressure from President Trump — is much harder to justify. It makes Britain and the world more dangerous.

And support for rearmament rests anyway on shaky foundations. A plurality of the public oppose increased arms spending if it means tax rises or public service or welfare cuts.

Constant government hysteria has failed to instil war fever in the general public. Half of young people (aged 16-29 in a major poll this spring) say they would never fight in a war and ministers admit to a recruitment and retention crisis in the armed forces.

The causes are complex, with MPs like Clive Lewis pointing out rightly that many young people see little worth fighting for given Britain’s grotesque inequality and lack of decent jobs or affordable housing. But the success of the Palestine movement in opening eyes to the truth about our foreign policy and our allies should not be disregarded.
The ruling class wants war, or at least a population ready to be sacrificed in defence of the US-led imperialist order should war be required to shore it up.

That explains the rearmament drive. It also explains the continued repression of dissenting voices. Authoritarianism and militarism go hand in hand: we must oppose both.

August 4, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Needs Urgent Guidance On Preferred Reactor Concepts, (for small nuclear reactors) Says Fission Materials Roadmap

The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.

By David Dalton, 30 July 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/uk-needs-urgent-guidance-on-preferred-reactor-concepts-says-fission-materials-roadmap-7-4-2026

Interim report lays out priorities on shaping next generation of nuclear plants

The UK urgently needs guidance on preferred reactor concepts and operating environments so it can prioritise materials research as it strives to shape the next generation of nuclear reactors which will power the country’s nuclear future, a report has said.

The UK Fission Materials Roadmap Interim Report, published by the United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) and the Henry Royce Institute, said a decision is needed within one to two years on whether the UK should build a domestic materials test reactor.

Within five years the government needs to establish a national materials archive to preserve irreplaceable irradiated material samples

The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.

Four major technical themes are set out in the report: structural materials, fuels and cladding, disposability of materials and irradiation damage. These sit alongside six separate priorities: skills, infrastructure, funding, qualification, modelling and policy. Together, they form the foundation of a full roadmap planned for publication in late 2026.

Gareth Headdock, chief science and technology officer and deputy chief executive officer of UKNNL, said the interim report is the product of genuine collaboration across the UK nuclear sector.

“From structural steels to advanced fuels and waste disposability, we have identified the priorities that matter most and the decisions that cannot wait.

“The decisions ahead – on reactor concepts, materials test infrastructure and long-term funding – are consequential ones, and it is vital that we get them right.”

David Knowles, chief executive officer of the Henry Royce Institute, the UK’s national institute for advanced materials research and innovation, said the momentum behind the UK nuclear sector is clear.

He said recent agreements between Rolls-Royce SMR, UKNNL and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies demonstrate the growing international confidence in UK nuclear capability.

“At the same time, the continued progress of Rolls-Royce SMR in securing commercial opportunities and advancing deployment highlights the strength of UK nuclear engineering and the scale of the opportunity ahead,” he said.

Rolls-Royce SMR, a subsidiary of blue chip engineering giant Rolls-Royce, and Czech state power company ČEZ are working on plans to deploy up to 3 GW of SMR capacity in the Czech Republic.

The company, a Rolls-Royce subsidiary, is also deploying three units in the UK with the potential for six, with a launch programme of three units in Sweden .

August 3, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

The Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Hyper spreads to Italy

the government is focusing on small modular reactors, or SMRs

Industry estimates suggest a single 300-megawatt SMR could cost between 3 billion and 6 billion euros before infrastructure and grid expenses. The government hopes much of that financing would come from private capital

“Nuclear power that is being built today in Europe has exorbitant costs,” he said. “On the one hand, costs are extremely high, and on the other, private investors are running away.”

He also questioned whether SMRs would dramatically improve those economics, noting that the technology has yet to be commercially proven at scale.

The biggest political obstacle might be finding locations to build reactors and store the waste.

Four decades after Chernobyl, a generational divide reshapes Italy’s nuclear debate. By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 28 July 2026 , AP reporters Silvia Stellacci and Andrea Rosa in Rome contributed to this report.

ROME (AP) – Four decades after the Chernobyl disaster spewed radiation across Europe and turned Italy off nuclear power, Premier Giorgia Meloni ´s government is laying the groundwork to bring it back as the country seeks to improve its energy security.

The government is counting on a new generation of Italians who see nuclear power as a source of low-carbon electricity, a tool to help fight climate change and a way to strengthen stable energy supplies amid shocks from the Ukraine and Iran wars.

It´s betting that such support will blunt the opinions of Italians who lived through the 1986 nuclear accident, still view atomic energy through the lens of risk and disaster, and twice rejected nuclear power in national referenda, experts say.

Next week, Parliament is expected to approve government-sponsored legislation establishing a legal framework for next-generation nuclear technologies. The government would then have 12 months to draft implementing decrees covering reactor licensing, safety standards, waste management and siting.

“The duty of the government at this moment is to create the conditions so that those who will eventually decide on installations will be able to do so,” Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, minister for the Environment and Energy Security, told The Associated Press in an interview ahead of the vote.

Italy´s debate comes as several European countries, including France and Poland, expand or pursue nuclear power amid concerns about energy security and climate goals. Unlike them, however, Italy is trying to rebuild an industry voters dismantled decades ago.

Italy was once among Europe´s nuclear pioneers. Four reactors operated until a 1987 referendum effectively ended the country´s nuclear program in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Another attempt to revive nuclear power collapsed after Japan´s Fukushima disaster in 2011, when about 94% of voters opposed plans for new reactors.

As a result, Italy’s shift would mark one of Europe´s most ambitious energy reversals…………………………….

Rather than reviving the large plants of the past, the government is focusing on small modular reactors, or SMRs, and other advanced technologies that supporters say could be safer, more flexible and faster to build.

“We are talking about the third advanced generation (of nuclear power), much more workable compared to what are the needs, much safer because it is small in size with very short construction times,” Pichetto Fratin said.

“When people ask me for a timeline, I say 2033, 2034, 2035,” he added, referring to when the first next-generation reactors could realistically begin operating…….

At the sprawling Latina nuclear power plant south of Rome, workers in protective suits and masks are still dismantling the remains of Italy´s first nuclear era even as politicians discuss how to build a second.

The contrast is not lost on Viviana Cruciani, who oversees nuclear decommissioning at the site run by the state-owned company Sogin.

“There is a generation that came right after Chernobyl that still sees nuclear energy in light of the accident at Chernobyl only,” Cruciani told AP.

“But there is another generation, a lot younger, that is enthusiastic about nuclear, and it is even sorry that the country has not yet made any progress towards a comeback to this technology.”

A June 2026 survey by research firm Only Numbers found that about 55% of Italians support next-generation nuclear plants.

Michele Governatori, a senior energy adviser at climate and energy think tank ECCO, said support is more visible among younger Italians.

“There is greater openness, especially among younger generations,” he said, noting that many associate nuclear power with technological progress rather than with the accidents that shaped public opinion in earlier decades.

Not everyone is convinced.

“If we use nuclear as a backup … the average energy costs become devastating. So unfortunately it´s not a good complement to renewables and it´s not cheap,” Governatori said.

Pichetto Fratin acknowledged that nuclear power is not a short-term solution to high electricity prices.

“Nuclear power does not lower consumers´ bills today,” he said. “The nuclear power of tomorrow can help reduce them.”

Industry estimates suggest a single 300-megawatt SMR could cost between 3 billion and 6 billion euros before infrastructure and grid expenses. The government hopes much of that financing would come from private capital, Pichetto Fratin said.

Governatori believes that cost remains the weakest part of the government´s case.

“Nuclear power that is being built today in Europe has exorbitant costs,” he said. “On the one hand, costs are extremely high, and on the other, private investors are running away.”

He also questioned whether SMRs would dramatically improve those economics, noting that the technology has yet to be commercially proven at scale.

Even so, some critics support establishing a regulatory framework that could allow future projects to be evaluated on their merits.

The biggest political obstacle might be finding locations to build reactors and store the waste.

Italy still lacks a national repository for existing nuclear waste, much of which remains stored at temporary facilities across the country. Any future reactor or waste-storage site is likely to face strong local opposition.

Even if Parliament approves the legislation, opponents – including environmental groups and left-wing parties – could seek a new referendum once specific reactor locations and waste-storage plans emerge.

Surveys suggest support for nuclear power drops sharply when people are asked whether they would accept a reactor near where they live. Polls cited by experts indicate that about six in 10 Italians oppose having a reactor in their own province.

“When you have to seriously ask where a plant will be built and how much it will cost, it is likely that public opinion could become negative again,” Governatori said.

July 31, 2026 Posted by | Italy, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Canada’s silence on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s nuclear agreement isn’t neutrality. It’s something much worse


July 28, 2026, By Lloyd Axworthy, Contributor, Lloyd Axworthy is a former longtime MP who served as Canadian foreign minister from 1996 to 2000. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/canadas-silence-on-the-us-and-saudi-arabias-nuclear-agreement-isnt-neutrality-its-something-much-worse/article_99b7a436-6aa5-4627-9a04-15c688fcc5a7.html

Canada’s nuclear story has always been one of choice. In 1946, with Hiroshima still smouldering, Canada could have become a nuclear weapons state. It possessed the uranium, the scientific expertise, the industrial base, and the Manhattan Project experience that would have made it possible. The St Laurent government chose differently, pushing for international control of nuclear arms while directing Canadian nuclear power toward civilian ends. That was not weakness. It was judgment.

That decision forged a legacy of principled support for nuclear non-proliferation. But somewhere along the way, Canada lost its nerve. Today it speaks firmly against adversaries, grows cautious with allies and falls silent when principle would demand risk. The moral inconsistency is hard to miss.

Consider NATO. In 1998, Parliament did not rubber-stamp the government’s position on the Alliance’s Strategic Concept. It held hearings across the country, listening to Canadians, experts, and international voices. The skepticism about nuclear dependence that emerged was not an elite whim; it was the product of genuine democratic scrutiny, and Parliament pressed NATO to reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons in a post-Cold War world.

That tradition has withered. Canada remains outside the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, hovers at the margins of disarmament diplomacy, and supports the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty mostly in ways that preserve the system without challenging its glaring contradictions. Canada talks as if the nuclear order is stable, even as norms crumble under selective enforcement and expanding arsenals.

Which brings us to now. The United States and Saudi Arabia are negotiating a nuclear arrangement that could normalize sensitive nuclear know-how and open the door to enrichment capabilities. Meanwhile, Washington uses its military force to stop Iran from pursuing the very same path. The message is unmistakable: nuclear restraint is demanded of some, relaxed for others when strategic or commercial interests beckon.

Canada has said almost nothing. That silence is not neutrality. In matters of nuclear proliferation, silence in the face of double standards is complicity. If enrichment is too dangerous for Iran, it is too dangerous for Saudi Arabia. If latent weapons capacity is unacceptable in one context, it cannot be tolerated in another simply because the recipient is a partner.

Canada has learned, at some cost, what can happen when civilian nuclear cooperation outpaces strategic caution. In the 1960s and 1970s, Canadian-supplied technology and uranium helped power India’s nuclear program, which was later diverted toward weapons development. That episode reshaped Canada’s export controls and helped define its modern non-proliferation posture. It stands as a reminder that intent can change, safeguards can erode and today’s partner can become tomorrow’s proliferator.

The commercial dimension sharpens the point. Westinghouse, poised to profit from Saudi nuclear contracts, is owned by Brookfield Asset Management, which acquired the company in 2023. A former chair of Brookfield is now our Prime Minister. This does not prove wrongdoing. But in nuclear policy, the appearance of conflict can be as corrosive as conflict itself, because credibility depends on the public belief that decisions rest on principle, not convenience.

A serious Canadian response would begin with a simple standard: civilian nuclear cooperation must be judged by the same rules, regardless of the country involved. That means no weakening of safeguards, intrusive verification, strong IAEA oversight, and full transparency.

It is time for another cross-country parliamentary examination of Canadian nuclear policy: a genuine national inquiry for a more dangerous nuclear age. The last serious parliamentary engagement shaped Canada’s thinking in the 1990s. The world has changed. Nuclear rivalry has returned, arms control is fraying and civilian nuclear deals are becoming vehicles for strategic ambiguity once again. Canada needs a fresh review that hears from Parliament, experts, Indigenous communities, diplomats, arms-control advocates and alliance partners

Such an inquiry should ask uncomfortable questions. What does Canada actually believe about nuclear deterrence? How should it respond when allies weaken non-proliferation norms? What standards should govern Canadian approval of civil nuclear cooperation, and should Canada remain on the sidelines of nuclear-ban diplomacy? Most importantly, how does it reconcile its commitment to international law with the strategic bargains being negotiated?

Canada does not need to abandon its alliances to recover its voice. It needs to recover its judgment. The country that once chose not to become a nuclear weapons state (despite having every means to do so) should not now stand silent while others normalize nuclear pathways under the banner of peaceful use. The country that once used Parliament to re-examine its nuclear assumptions should do so again.

The challenge is not merely to condemn nuclear danger where it is politically easy, but to do so everywhere it appears, including among friends, allies and trading partners. That is the standard Canada should set for itself. Parliament should help it reclaim that standard.

July 30, 2026 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries