nuclear-news

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

New energy policy for Burnham?

, RENEW EXTRA WEEKLY

The soon to be UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is being portrayed as a ‘new broom’ that could, or might, adopt better polices in all areas. Well, what about the energy sector? It’s in a mess, economically, driven by high fossil gas prices, with retail electricity prices at an all-time high, despite renewable energy doing well (65 GW so far) with its wholesale price mostly being low. It’s in a mess technologically, at risk of undermining the crucial next stage of its important renewables programme by diverting cash to support major high-cost nuclear and fossil carbon capture and storage projects.

Both of these programme involve multi-billion funding. The much delayed Hinkley Point nuclear plant may end up costing £40-50bn, inflation adjusted, when it finally gets completed, probably in 2030. Its follow-on project, Sizewell C, may not do much better, despite promises about learning from Hinkley, and despite the investment risks being met by a consumer levy.  There are already construction issues. A late 2030s start up at best? By then we might also be seeing some outcomes from the very speculative funding for small modular reactors and even maybe some results from the even more speculative fusion funding, with £2.5bn set aside for it.

Is any of that good value for money?  Will it deliver anything useful on time?  On past performance, it’s very uncertain. Same for the £21.7 bn  Carbon Capture and Storage programme, the full cost of which has been put at possibly up to  £264bn by 2050. CCS is basically an attempt to allow us to keep burning fossil fuel.  Is that sensible? Or for that matter the controversial Drax wood pellet combustion plant– it got £1bn in subsidies last year.  Burning imported wood from forests does not seem to be a very sustainable option…

There are arguably so many more worthy projects, for example in green hydrogen production and storage, a vital new area for expansion.  Heat storage linked to local heat networks too. To be fair, some of these ideas are now getting a bit of funding. For example, pioneering green hydrogen producer ITM Power has received £86.5 m from Great British Energy and DESNZ. It will be used to expand ITM’s electrolyser production at its Sheffield plant to 1GW p.a. But we need more like that for the rapid expansion of short and long duration storage. Freed from drain of endless nuclear and carbon capture diversions, we could also accelerate the newer renewables, like tidal stream turbines, via expansion of the Contacts for Difference (CfD) system. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What next? Hinkley Point C is about half-built, so a lot of capital has already been sunk in it, but there are yet more billions scheduled to be spent on it. Burnham is unlikely to be willing to halt it (he is, it seems, pro-nuclear) but he might be persuaded to ditch Sizewell C, work on which has hardly started.

And the big proposed CCS programme too, so as to release further billions. To soften the change of policy, he could keep some small projects going (an SMR perhaps, or a CCSU project) as ‘insurance’ options, much as some renewables were treated in the past (including, at one stage, offshore wind) when nuclear was seen as the main new UK energy option. 

More or less everyone, except some deadhead Reform supporters, now see renewables as that. The only debate seems to be on what backup might be needed. Large inflexible nuclear plants are not much use at that, nor are costly CCS fossil gas plants, while SMRs are as yet uncertain in terms of cost and viability.

But we don’t need any of this to deal with variable renewables. Storage, large and small scale, is part of the answer, along with improved transmission and flexible demand management plus smart grid systems, so as to balance local variable demand and variable supply efficiently.

We have to build a new system and that will inevitably be costly, although, arguably, not as much as trying to keep the old system going with dubious supply choices and carbon fixes. For example, on the basis of its latest LCOE data, Lazard says ‘Despite rising and inflationary cost pressures across all generation technologies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidised basis’.  

And economic cost is not the only issue. For example, if built, Sizewell C will produce around 40,000 kg of plutonium in its spent fuel over its 60-year lifespan. Plutonium has a half-life of around 25,000 years, with SMRs, if they ever work, also adding to the pile. Is that what we want to bequeath our far-off descendants? Along with other long-lived nuclear wastes? 

That’s a big challenge. Andy Burnham has made some commitments on energy and climate, but only so far mostly in a limited and cautious way. Will he now come up with something more radical? We will have to wait to see. Meanwhile, the latest data show that over 70% of DESNEZ expenditure is now nuclear related…   
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/new-energy-policy-for-burnham.html?m=1

July 23, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

JD Vance Says Israeli Officials Are Pressuring U.S. to Prolong Iran War

 SCHEERPOST, July 16, 2026

Vice President JD Vance has made one of the most striking public acknowledgments yet of tensions between Washington and Israel over the future of the Iran conflict, claiming that members of the Israeli government are actively working to keep the United States engaged in an open-ended military campaign.

In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, Vance said he was “beyond a shadow of a doubt” certain that Israeli officials had attempted to shift U.S. policy away from negotiations and toward indefinite military action.

“There have been people within the Israeli government who are trying to shift us away from that policy because they want to continue the military campaign.”

Vance framed the dispute as one between competing national interests, saying that while Israeli officials naturally prioritize Israel, his responsibility is to pursue what he believes serves Americans.

“I care about America first.”

Claims of an Israeli Influence Campaign

Vance also alleged that individuals connected to Israel were attempting to manipulate American public opinion in favor of continuing the war.

According to Vance, some actors were:


  • Leaking information to reporters.
  • Coordinating attacks against him on social media.
  • Opposing negotiations with Iran in favor of continued military operations.

He further claimed he had been falsely accused of acting on behalf of Qatar or taking direction from conservative commentator Tucker Carlson because of his position.

JD Vance on Israel, U.S. Policy, and the Iran War

Vance argued that he sees himself as occupying a moderate position in the debate over Israel within American politics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A Growing Divide Inside the Republican Coalition

The interview also highlighted a widening divide within the Republican movement over U.S. foreign policy.

While some Republicans continue advocating close military coordination with Israel, others—including Vance and several prominent “America First” figures—have increasingly argued against deeper U.S. involvement in another prolonged Middle East conflict.

The debate reflects broader disagreements over whether Washington should prioritize diplomacy, military escalation, or a more restrained foreign policy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/16/jd-vance-says-israeli-officials-are-pressuring-u-s-to-prolong-iran-war/

July 22, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Hamas’s Governance Exit Exposes Israel’s Real Objectives

Abbas Hashemite, July 15, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/07/15/hamass-governance-exit-exposes-israels-real-objectives/

Hamas’s decision to relinquish governance of the Gaza Strip appears to be derived from domestic and international strategic needs, and to further weaken the Israeli propaganda.

Hamas’s Administrative Withdrawal Amid Gaza’s Humanitarian Catastrophe

After ruling Gaza for around two decades, Hamas recently announced that it was prepared and willing to hand over the Strip’s governance to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, the technocratic administration set up under US President Donald Trump’s so-called Board of Peace. According to the spokesperson of Hamas, the decision was made to “remove any pretexts for the [Israeli] occupation.” Indeed, the Israeli genocide, war crimes, occupation, and war of extermination against the Palestinian people persist despite the ceasefire, which took effect in October 2025.

According to a UNOCHA report, “nearly all of Gaza’s current population of 2.1 million people has been displaced, lacking access to sufficient shelter, food, life-saving medical services, clean water, education, and livelihoods.” According to some reports, the IDF has butchered more than 80000 Palestinians from October 7, 2023, to January, 2025; the actual figure is estimated to be much higher, as many bodies are still buried under rubble. The Israeli Defense Forces have also committed many other war crimes, such as raping Palestinian women and intentionally bombing hospitals, mosques, churches, and educational institutions, along with targeting journalists and welfare workers.

There are several indications that the Zionist regime may resume its full-scale genocidal operations in Gaza, using the resistance group’s refusal to surrender its arms and weapons as a pretext. Nonetheless, it appears that the Western nations have put the onus of honoring the deal only on Hamas, and Tel Aviv enjoys the freedom to violate the ceasefire at its will. This is evident from the fact that the IDF continues to kill Palestinian civilians, including women and children, despite the ceasefire. Moreover, it continues to control around 70 percent of the Gaza Enclave.

Why Relinquishing Governance Is a Strategic Calculation, Not a Defeat

Considering these developments, Hamas, in a strategic move, has decided to dissolve the Government Emergency Committee in Gaza. However, considering it as a surrender or defeat would be erroneous. In the current regional and domestic scenario, this was the most accurate move that Hamas could make. Through this move, the resistance group has reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the ceasefire deal and fulfilling Hamas’s objectives.

Even after one of history’s most horrific wars, the Zionist occupational regime has failed to achieve its primary objective: eliminating Hamas. The resistance’s decision to relinquish Gaza’s administration allows Hamas to reorganize its operational and institutional structures, minimize its institutional exposure, and focus on its fundamental objective, the struggle of Palestinian national liberation from the Zionist occupation. The Israeli government has long leveraged on the political, geographical, and ideological division between the West Bank and Gaza. This move would end this leverage and allow the two sides to unite.

A New Test for Israel and International Mediators

Despite this decision, the new administration would not mean complete foreign control over the Strip or exclusion of native Palestinians from politics, as Gaza belongs to its native population, not to any foreign-backed administration. Therefore, the most crucial challenge for the Western mediators will be to rebuild a representative and deeply rooted Palestinian leadership capable of raising the genuine concerns of the native people in the West Bank and Gaza. Otherwise, this new administrative structure will lose its credibility and domestic acceptance.

Another significant point to understand is that resisting and governing are two distinct functions. Therefore, this move must not be mistaken for a withdrawal from resistance. Hamas took this decision to advance its broader strategic objectives. For years, the Zionist regime of Israel has justified its war crimes, genocidal operations, and blockade of the Strip under the pretext of Hamas’s so-called threatening presence for the state.

After the resistance group’s complete compliance with the terms of the ceasefire and its announcement to transfer the administration of the Strip, the Zionist regime now seeks to hinder the implementation of the deal and hamper the National Committee from assuming the administrative responsibilities, to amplify the sufferings of the Palestinian people. This further exposes the propaganda of the Israeli government. It demonstrates that the actual ambition of the occupational regime was never to eliminate Hamas from the government; it was to deprive the Palestinians of their fundamental rights and resistance.

According to the Israeli government, the objective of this recent war was to end Hamas’s government in Gaza. After the recent decision by Hamas, the Israeli government has no reason left to blockade or bomb the Strip. Through this strategic move, Hamas is now confronting all the mediators and actors with their responsibilities. Moreover, this decision has further increased complications for the Zionist regime to legitimize its military aggression and genocidal operations in Gaza. It has been revealed once again that Hamas’s government was never the actual problem, but the refusal of the Palestinians to submit to the Israeli occupation. Through this decision, Hamas has not only gained strategic leverage but also achieved an opportunity to reorganize and restructure itself.

Аbbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist

July 21, 2026 Posted by | Gaza, Israel, politics | Leave a comment

‘Seismic Shift’ as Over 100 House Democrats Vote to Cut Off US Military Aid to Israel

 

“This should be a blaring wake-up call for Democratic leaders,” said one campaigner. “The political tide is clearly turning against unconditional US military support for Israel.”

SCHEERPOST, Brett Wilkins Common Dreams,  July 16, 2026

Nearly half of all Democrats in the House of Representatives voted Wednesday to cut off US military aid to Israel, a move that underscored a dramatic shift away from the US support the Mideast ally has enjoyed for nearly 60 years.

While House lawmakers ultimately rejected Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-Ky.) amendment to a national security spending bill that would have eliminated the $3.3 billion in annual foreign military financing provided to Israel’s military, the details of the vote were viewed as an encouraging sign by defenders of Palestine and the rule of law.

Massie and 103 Democrats voted for the measure, while 215 Republicans and 98 Democrats rejected it. The overall tally was 104 for, 314 against, and 10 “present” votes, with 9 absences.

“I cannot vote for aid to a country that committed genocide and has used tax dollars to detain Americans like me,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said ahead of the vote, referring to an incident in which heavily armed residents of an Israeli settler colony stopped and surrounded him last week in the illegally occupied West Bank of Palestine.

Speaking to reporters after the vote, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas)—who had urged colleagues to support Massie’s amendment—noted, “It used to be that just a small number of House Democrats would vote against sending taxpayer dollars to weapons for the Israeli military.”

“Today, over 100 House Democrats voted for a measure to block billions of dollars in weapons to [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” he continued. “That is enormous progress. That is a victory for our movement, for security, peace, and justice for all people.”

The vote, Casar said, “sasends a strong message to Netanyahu that the days are over of an unaccountable blank check to his wars and his war crimes, at least from the Democratic Party.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/16/seismic-shift-as-over-100-house-democrats-vote-to-cut-off-us-military-aid-to-israel/

July 21, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

Liberals Have Relaxed About Trump Because They Trust Him To Keep The Wars Going

Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 16, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/liberals-have-relaxed-about-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=207158487&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Have you noticed how the liberal establishment hasn’t been nearly as emotional and outraged about Trump’s second term as they were about his first? Now that he’s the president who bombed Iran, the entire western political/media class is cool with him.

The term “Trump Derangement Syndrome” has always been used by the MAGA crowd as a blanket pejorative to protect the president from criticism, but during Trump’s first term it wasn’t entirely unfair. You’d see Democrats shrieking their lungs out over Trump doing things that other US presidents did all the time like cozying up with dictators and tyrants. They’d lose their minds over relatively sane things like Trump talking about moving troops out of Syria. The whole Russiagate thing was liberals going bat shit over a crazy conspiracy theory that caused them to push for the escalations against Russia which ultimately gave rise to the war in Ukraine.

We’re not seeing any of that in Trump’s second term. That extra layer of screeching emotionality simply isn’t there. There are no Russiagates or emotional support Maddows this time around. Democrats hate Trump, but they hate him about as much as they’d hate any Republican president. The emotional response to his second presidency is wildly, wildly different from the first.

Which is nuts, because he’s quantifiably far worse this time around. His domestic policies are much more tyrannical. He’s as evil a warmonger as the White House has ever seen. He’s so corrupt that he’s just openly admitting to being bought and owned by Zionist oligarchs while making his family a fortune using the power of his office. Now that he doesn’t have to worry about re-election, he’s being completely nakedly monstrous.

And what’s creepy is that’s why the liberal establishment is so much more mellow about him. They’re no longer worried that he’s going to promote “isolationist” foreign policy and roll back the US war machine. He went to war with Iran, so they like him now. Because they know he’s fully compliant.

I’ve had many a Trump supporter tell me that all the anti-Trump vitriol we saw from the imperial political/media class was evidence that he really was fighting the Deep State and draining the swamp, but that was never what was actually happening. As I have been arguing since Trump’s first term, the oligarchs and empire managers never opposed Trump because they believed he was opposed to them. Rather, they simply viewed him as a poor steward of the empire. They didn’t trust him to keep the imperial gears turning in the way they must turn to maintain the status quo.

Clearly that has changed. They trust him now. They know he will keep the bombs dropping, keep the capitalism chugging along, and keep the power centers where they are.

They view him as one of their own now. When he finally dies, he will be lovingly eulogized by all the same liberal institutions which called him a second Hitler during his first term. He did enough to reassure them that the presidency of the United States had not been accidentally awarded to a decent human being.

July 20, 2026 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

‘Extreme risk’: AUKUS warnings as Garrett’s inquiry docks in Adelaide

16 July 26. https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/just-in/2026/07/16/extreme-risk-aukus-warnings-as-garretts-inquiry-docks-in-adelaide

“Extreme” economic risk and nuclear waste disposal concerns for the $368 billion AUKUS submarine project are being heard at an independent inquiry in Adelaide today.

The risk associated with the Federal Government’s $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine project are being criticised by former federal senator and self-described ‘transparency warrior’ Rex Patrick this morning at an independent inquiry held in Adelaide today.

And transparency warnings were raised over the government’s plans for nuclear waste from submarines built at Osborne in South Australia, Patrick saying he was fighting in the Federal Court for information to be made public.

Meanwhile, former South Australian Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, who was Minister for Defence from 2018 until his retirement in 2019, said he “thought twice about appearing” at the inquiry led by famed Australian musician and former federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

Pyne said he bit the bullet because he believed in the “battle of ideas”.

The independent inquiry into the defence agreement between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States was established earlier this year to scrutinise the deal.

It is being led by former Labor MP and Midnight Oil front man Peter Garrett, with public hearings taking place across the country, including in Adelaide today and tomorrow.

Other commissioners included First Nations leader Karina Lester, former West Australian Premier Carmen Lawrence, former Chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie and co-CEO of the Australia Institute Leanne Minshull. A final report was expected on October 30.

“Adelaide is at the epicentre of the AUKUS project,” Garrett told reporters at a press conference before the inquiry started.

“Whether it’s questions on the safe, long-term storage of radioactive waste, whether it’s the impact on communities in Adelaide and around Osborne, whether it’s the question of opportunity cost for the Adelaide economy.

“It is a matter of some regret that the AUKUS decision – the biggest-ever decision by any Australian government to spend public money on submarines, some not even built – was made with minimal public debate.”

The inquiry has been supported by trade unions and non-profit organisations to address questions over whether risks – economic and political – were being managed appropriately, Patrick telling the inquiry the country was taking on a “hugely risky program”.

“From an absolute cost perspective, it is unaffordable and it is bankrupting,” he said.

“There’s also an opportunity cost. You know – $360 billion – if you think about what you can spend with that amount of money… we wouldn’t be worrying about fuel security, we wouldn’t be worrying about industrial resilience.”

He added that nuclear waste storage was “a problem that needs to be solved”, noting he was fighting in the Federal Court for the release of documents around where the government was planning to store waste from the nuclear submarines.

“I’m not asking for the release of documents that relate to how fast a submarine might go, how many weapons it might have… I’m asking for information that is incidental to this project but really important to it: Where are you going to put the waste associated with this?” Patrick said.

Pyne gave evidence ahead of Patrick, and emphasised the importance of the AUKUS project in terms of national defence against China, saying the uplift in defence capability would be imperative “if we find ourselves on our own in the worst case scenario”.

He described AUKUS as “unstoppable” and said it would deliver a permanent boost for defence spending, an upgrade to Australia’s bases and facilities, an investment in STEM and trade skills, and would be a permanent change to Australia’s national security.

The inquiry was set to continue until this evening, with other speakers including anti-nuclear campaigner David Noonan and SA Greens MLC Melanie Selwood.

The Greens today released new findings from a survey of 343 South Australians, showing 83.7 per cent of respondents were “mostly concerned” about AUKUS.

Seventy-one per cent said AUKUS would make Australia less secure, and 74.5 per cent said they did not see “clear benefits” from the defence pact.

AUKUS was set to be a boon for the South Australian economy and jobs creation, with the nuclear submarine shipbuilding yard set to be constructed at Osborne at a cost of at least $30 billion.

Both the state and federal governments said they hoped the project would create 10,000 jobs in design and construction as well as up to 1000 apprentices per year at an on-site training facility, with the first newly built submarines expected to be delivered to the Australian Navy in the 2040s.

Enough steel to make 17 Eiffel Towers as well as 710,000 cubic metres of structural concrete will be used in the construction of the 420-metre-long fabrication hall.

However it has already weathered several hiccups.

In June, Federal Defence Minister Richard Marles announced Australia would only buy three second-hand nuclear-powered submarines instead of the promised mix of new and used US vessels.

This plan was expected to happen before Australia eventually built its own submarines using US nuclear-propulsion technology and parts made in Britain.

The second-hand subs announcement comes after the US has struggled to make enough Virginia-class submarines for its own use, leading some American lawmakers to question how it could also build enough of the boats to meet Australia’s needs.

Australia faces a critical window to receive the submarines before its existing, 1980s-designed Collins-class vessels are retired from service.

July 20, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

July 22 deadline to comment on downgrade of impact assessment for nuclear projects | Canada’s Federal government pushing for power with a “nuclear fist” | Dates and Deadlines.

The Nuclear Fist: Five Federal Initiatives Pushing and Promoting Nuclear Power
There are currently five federal nuclear related initiatives / announcements: “Getting Major Projects Built in Canada – Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms” announced May 8th with the deadline now extended to July 22; the electricity strategy “Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy” which was announced May 14 with comment invited but no deadline; the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the Environment electrification study with the deadline – and the study – now extended to mid-September; the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada announced June 22 with no comment invited and so no deadline for comment, and the June 24 announcement of the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5), also no public comment period.

July 22nd Deadline to Comment on “Big Projects” Discussion Paper

The comment period will close on July 22nd on the federal government’s Discussion Paper Delivering on Big Projects in Canada. Released on May 8th, the discussion paper proposes that impact assessment of nuclear projects would be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.Visit Assessing-Nuclear-Risk.ca for more information including submissions by public interest groups, media coverage and contacts and updates.  Take one minute to send a message – the message tool is HERE.

July 19, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

The risk of nuclear war is rising. This is what Burnham must do.

In his first Downing Street briefing, the incoming prime minister is going to learn some hard truths about his country’s ultimate deterrent

David Blair

The risks of nuclear war are rising. This is what Burnham must do. In his
first Downing Street briefing, the incoming prime minister is going to
learn some hard truths about his country’s ultimate deterrent. The ritual
for an incoming prime minister, unchanged for decades, has never been so
fraught with significance.

Soon after Andy Burnham enters No 10, he will be
taken to a secure room where Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the
Chief of the Defence Staff, will brief him on how to authorise a British
nuclear strike. At that moment, Burnham will join the handful of world
leaders with the individual power to inflict a greater measure of
destruction than has ever been wrought before.

Burnham will be inducted
into the dreadful – in the true sense of the word – and singular
responsibility of what Lord Hennessy, the constitutional historian, calls
the “purely prime ministerial function” of overseeing Britain’s
ultimate deterrent and deciding this country’s nuclear policy.

 Telegraph 13th July 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/13/burnham-must-bolster-britains-nuclear-defences/

July 17, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Add stopping Sizewell C to Andy Burnham’s “to do” list.

10 July 2026,
Alison Downes, Executive Director
Paul Collins, Chair, Stop Sizewell C

Andy Burnham is on the cusp of succeeding Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, and one more nomination by a Labour MP will guarantee it. Help us add to his swelling in-box by asking him to reconsider Sizewell C!

We’ve drafted a very short sample email at the bottom of this email, but we strongly encourage you to write your own message as it will be more impactful. You could use some of the following suggestions:


  • It would free up £ billions of taxpayers’ money (£14.2bn was committed to the end of this parliament but some has been spent), but we recognise money would have to be spent to restore East Suffolk.
  • It would reduce household expenses by removing the Regulated Asset Base (RAB, or “nuclear tax”) from energy bills.
  • It would save us from expensive electricity in future: the National Audit Office found Sizewell C’s electricity would cost £133 – £155/MWh [2024/25 prices], more than Hinkley C.
  • Sizewell C cannot provide value for money given it is unlikely to operate at 90% load factor and there is a major risk of placing so much electricity generation capacity on an eroding coastline. It will be another HS2.
  • The EPR reactor is an unproven technology in the UK and has a catastrophic delivery track record elsewhere in the world.
  • Call on Andy Burnham to keep the UK progressing to net zero by prioritising cheaper renewable energy, responsibly delivered, and developing storage capacity.
  • If you want more ideas, read our report “Sizewell C, the Unanswered Questions”:https://stopsizewellc.org/sizewell-c-the-unanswered-questions/.

How to contact Andy:
Once you have written your message you can email it to: andy.burnham.mp@parliament.uk or copy it into the contact form on andyformayor.co.uk/contact or contact.no10.gov.uk. Or post a letter to House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or 10 Downing Street, London SW1A 2AA.

Quick news roundup

July 16, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Government U turn as Sizewell B is to  get a fixed-price government contract.

 Government awards the last UK nuclear power station a fixed power
contract, backing away from its shift towards a new model of funding.

The UK energy department has extended the life of the Sizewell B nuclear power
plant in Suffolk by 20 years with a fixed-price government contract, after
energy price shocks following the war on Iran.

Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Rachel Reeves, called the nuclear power project “a vital part of
Britain’s energy future”. French project owner EDF said it has secured
a 20-year fixed price power contract from the UK government that will last
from 2035 to 2055.

Previously EDF had planned to commence decommissioning
of the plant in 2035. The French power company said it is “funding a
refurbishment of the nuclear power station during planned outages over the
next fifteen years, costing around £800 million”.

British Gas owner Centrica also said it is investing an undisclosed amount in the extension
of the 1.2 GW operational nuclear power project in Suffolk. It is the first
time that the Sizewell B nuclear power project will operate under a fixed
government power contract, priced at £70.50 per megawatt, after delayed
project Hinkley Point C was awarded such a contract a decade ago.


The energy department has since moved to shift nuclear power projects onto a
regulated asset base (RAB) structure for funding, the model that will be
used to finance Sizewell C at the Suffolk coastal site, a replica of yet to
be finalised nuclear power station Hinkley Point C in Somerset.

 Energy Voice 8th July 2026,
https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/600397/government-u-turn-as-sizewell-b-is-first-nuclear-plant-to-get-cfd/

July 15, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power is Now Trump Power…What Could Go Wrong?

Karl Grossman – Harvey Wasserman, July 10, 2026, https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/07/10/nuclear-power-is-now-trump-power-what-could-go-wrong/

Donald Trump is now the ultimate face of the U.S. nuclear power industry.

What could go wrong?

If you are advocating atomic energy in any form, you are promoting The Donald’s latest and largest fiscal fleecing of the American people. It mirrors his mega swindles in crypto and so much more—except this time with apocalyptic impact.

It’s a hyper-push for nuclear power.

As The New York Times this week headlined the “Climate Forward” column of Claire Brown: “Trump’s plans for nuclear power lurch ahead.”

Her July 7th piece began: “President Trump wants to quadruple nuclear power production in the United States by 2050. To get there, developers would need to build about a hundred times as much nuclear capacity in the next 25 years as they did in the past 25. In recent weeks, a series of government announcements have nudged the country a bit closer to that goal.”

It continued: “Nuclear power has broad bipartisan support in Congress, and many climate experts have embraced it as a low-emissions source of energy. Other experts remain opposed, arguing that it is too expensive or that the safety risks are too high.”

Through its Truth Social corporate front, the Trump Family has bought a major interest in TAE Technologies, a $6 billion California-based plunge into nuclear fusion.

To serve that investment, Trump is scamming his presidency to funnel billions of public dollars into a “Peaceful Atom” from which he expects to personally profit.

Right now, he’s pushing through Congress a $17.5 billion interest-free slush fund to promote more U.S. reactor construction.

Similar handouts from George W. Bush and Barack Obama fed two new nuclear power plants in Georgia. Originally promised at around $15 billion, the two plants fired up last year some seven years late and nearly $25 billion over budget. Their most recently reported price tag approaches $40 billion. Their output will never compete with renewables. They’ll bleed Peach State mega-cash as long as they operate.

Two abandoned nuclear plants in South Carolina blew $9 billion outright. The double debacle bankrupted Westinghouse, once the world’s leading reactor producer.

Meanwhile Trump pushes so-called Small Modular Reactors, hyped to power data centers that produce his beloved crypto. Projected to operate around 2030, SMR cultists hope their juice might (at best) cost a mere three times the proven cost of solar panels, and four times or more than that of currently operating onshore wind turbines.

But despite Trump’s frantic efforts to kill it, the real-world transition to green “Solartopian” renewables may be. Epic advances in battery technology essentially eliminate any need for the base-line power nuclear plants produce when they don’t break down or blow up. California’s battery capacity is now seven times as large as the maximum output that can be produced by the state’s last two hyper-expensive Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants.

Those dangerously decrepit reactors are surrounded by at least a dozen earthquake faults. They sit just 45 miles from the San Andreas fault.

In 2013, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission site inspector Dr. Michael Peck warned that Diablo might not withstand a credible quake from the seismic faults surrounding it. Peck’s warning was ignored. Now he is gone from the commission. In the Trump era, no such report could be written in the first place.

In 2018, California adopted a comprehensive plan to shut Diablo and to phase in renewables. The transition was hugely accelerated by massive advances that have dropped battery prices while expanding their capabilities. Through at least part of most days now, California gets 100% of its electricity from renewables, much of it coming from solar panels in the Central Valley.

But “green” Governor Gavin Newsom is trashing the transition. In 2022, he handed Diablo’s owner, PG&E, billions in Trump-style grift while promoting his own run for The White House. As a result, California’s electric rates are now the highest in the continental U.S.

Meanwhile, Trump attacks the green competition with billions of public dollars to buy out leases from wind and solar projects, which threaten to produce electricity far cheaper than his beloved nukes. With the epic spread of cheap batteries (which are also fueling a global boom in electric vehicles) more than 80% of the world’s newly installed electric generating capacity now comes from renewables. All Trump’s mob-style assaults in the U.S. are being challenged in court and at the grassroots. But the global market push remains unrelenting.

Despite the growing danger as they deteriorate from age and maladministration, atomic reactors have been federally shielded from accident insurance requirements since 1957. Amidst escalating safety concerns, Congress has extended the liability exemption to SMRs, meant to power thousands of the crypto-loving data centers now being vehemently opposed by grassroots citizens throughout the US.

Last year Trump became the first U.S. president to fire a chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The U.S. Supreme Court has now confirmed the royal prerogative of a sitting president to fire any regulatory official. In the wake of Musk’s DOGE purge of at least 100 technical experts at the NRC, Trump is now sole arbiter of health and safety regulations, which are now in terrifying free fall at the 94 licensed U.S. nuclear power plants.

Trump also wants to put new reactors on military reservations, shredding residual NRC restraints through the even looser Department of Energy.

Two operating U.S. nuclear power plants (at North Anna in Virginia and Perry in Ohio) have already been significantly damaged by earthquakes (Perry twice).  With neither accident insurance nor credible safety regulation, Trump/Nukes Inc. is a sitting duck for terror attacks. Russian drones have already damaged reactors and fuel storage sites at Ukraine’s Zaporizhia and Chernobyl. Others have been under fire.

Trump has infamously launched outright war on Iran’s nuclear weapons production. But as in Ukraine, a single drone could turn any of the world’s 400-plus reactors into a radioactive weapon of mass destruction, plunging us into an economic, ecological and health abyss from which we might never recover.

Meanwhile, an industry that hypes itself as “climate friendly” burns at 500 to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. In France, the U.S. and elsewhere, commercial reactors super-heat lakes and rivers that can no longer cool them, while boiling billions of marine organisms.

Seven decades after the first commercial reactor opened in Pennsylvania, The Donald is the undisputed self-dealing face of the “Peaceful Atom.”

He’s its top investor. He rules the shell of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He’s the presidential purveyor of taxpayer grift and chief hit man aiming to kill the renewable competition.

If you are for nuclear power, you are for Trump power.

What could go wrong?

Harvey Wasserman wrote the books Solartopia! Our Green-Powered Earth and The Peoples Spiral of US History. He helped coin the phrase “No Nukes.” He co-convenes the Grassroots Emergency Election Protection Coalition at www.electionprotection2024.org  Karl Grossman is the author of Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power and Power Crazy. He the host of the nationally-aired TV program Enviro Close-Up with Karl Grossman (www.envirovideo.com)

July 14, 2026 Posted by | PERSONAL STORIES, politics, Reference | Leave a comment

Great British Energy appoints Amentum and Cavendish in £360M SMR deal 

06 Jul, 2026 By Gavin Pearson, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/great-british-energy-appoints-amentum-and-cavendish-in-360m-smr-deal-06-07-2026/

Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE‑N) has awarded a long-term Owner’s Engineer (OE) contract worth up to £300M to two contractors. 

Amentum Clean Energy and Cavendish Nuclear were signed to the role in a 14‑year contract which formally runs from 23 April 2026 to 23 April 2040. 

The contract notice also states the possibility for an extension that could take it to October 2041.  

The total value for the contract including VAT is listed as £360M and £300M without VAT, although GBE‑N said the contract’s final value is uncertain and depends on how the project progresses. 

This will include timetables and milestones agreed with the SMR technology partner but the procurement notice envisages the OE supporting the client up to the completion of the first fuel cycle for the initial reactor. 

The OE role will provide independent technical assurance and oversight to GBE‑N’s “Intelligent Customer” and “Intelligent Client” teams as the SMR programme moves through design stages and towards a final investment decision.  

Responsibilities will include specification, audit, review and advice on design, scope, budgets, risk, delivery and contract compliance and acting as a subject matter expert delivering “Line of Defence 2” assurance on major design and build contracts. 

Amentum and Cavendish are both established contractors in energy and nuclear services. Cavendish Nuclear is part of Babcock International Group, known for nuclear construction and engineering work in the UK and Amentum is an international engineering and technical services company. 

The contract includes monthly reporting against key performance indicators such as deliverable quality, core team availability and social value measures, including targets for female apprenticeships.  

July 14, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Labour MP Brian Leishman opposes new nuclear energy near Clacks

10th July, By Hannah Emma Shedden,
https://www.alloaadvertiser.com/news/26259252.brian-leishman-opposes-new-nuclear-energy-near-clacks/

BRIAN Leishman MP says he “cannot support” new nuclear power plants – despite his party earmarking Fife and Stirling for future development.

Last Tuesday, a UK Government report identified six locations across Scotland where the Labour administration would like to develop as part of their drive towards alternative energy sources.

To the east of Clackmannanshire, “the north coast of the Forth” was listed, which many local politicians understood as referring to Longannet, a site next to Kincardine and just over seven miles from Alloa town centre.

West of the Wee County, the “south bank of the Forth” near Stirling, was identified, though the exact location remains unclear.

Currently, through devolved powers, the Scottish Government have the power to block planning, and said they would not permit the building of any nuclear sites.

Mr Leishman, Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth, said: “On balance, I simply cannot support plans to expand nuclear power plants, including any potential sites in Scotland.

“The reasons for this are numerous and even if issues such as the huge construction costs to the taxpayer were resolved, the problem of nuclear waste remains.”

He said it is often ignored that there are “considerable” carbon emissions from nuclear fuel and waste disposal cycles, adding: “We also need to look at the sky-high cost of decommissioning, Sellafield being a prime example.

“We are yet to deal with all the waste from previous nuclear programmes, and I do not see how nuclear would help us with the climate emergency, considering the length of time it takes to plan and build such power plants.

“I believe that pound for pound, renewables such as wind and solar offer much better value for money as we look to achieve net zero.” 

July 14, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Trump Sweetens the Nuclear Energy Pot, But Will Anyone Play?

By Thomas A. Firey, July 6, 2026, https://www.cato.org/blog/trump-sweetens-nuclear-energy-pot-will-anyone-play

Last week, the Trump administration announced it is offering $17.5 billion in financing to build five new two-reactor nuclear power plants featuring Westinghouse Electric’s AP1000 large reactor. The offer comes on the heels of last November’s Trump announcement of an $80 billion deal with Westinghouse intended to jump-start a fleet of new US reactors.

Government doling out money (and other breaks) to nuclear power is old hat. But the two announcements, taken together, put a new spin on the practice of politicians picking winners and losers in the marketplace: Under the November deal, Uncle Sam could get a 20 percent equity stake in Westinghouse if its nuclear business booms in the coming years. Writing at the time, I predicted that it probably won’t happen: Nuke makes lousy business sense, as energy economist Steve Thomas recently detailed in Cato’s policy magazine Regulation, and it’s doubtful energy companies would take on such risk. Apparently, my prediction’s been right so far, so the Trump administration is offering a sweetener to get things going. 

The announced financing envisions $3.5 billion in federal loan money per plant, with Westinghouse and the recipient energy companies contributing a billion dollars of their own money to each project, giving them some “skin in the game.” According to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, there is “tremendous interest” in the initiative. 

But interest is one thing, and completed nuclear plants are something else entirely.

The last time Uncle Sam meddled in nuke was back in the early 2000s under George W. Bush’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program. Enticed by government loan guarantees and rate subsidies, energy companies quickly proposed some 30 reactors. But interest faded after those companies crunched the financial numbers and found they didn’t add up. Only four reactors went into construction, and just two—Units 3 and 4 at the A.W. Vogtle power station in Georgia—ultimately entered service. 

Vogtle shows why the other energy companies backed off: Construction of those two units—featuring Westinghouse AP1000s, it bears noting—began in 2013 (though site work started in 2009). Completion was expected in 2016/2017 at a cost of a little over $14 billion. But the reactors didn’t come online until 2023/2024, at a cost of $30 billion. That’s a common pattern with nuke: Expect it to take twice as long and cost twice as much as projected. 

When asked about Vogtle’s $30 billion plant cost compared to the $4.5 billion envisioned by the Trump financing initiative, Wright averred that things will be different this time. Building “at fleet scale” will let the industry avoid Vogtle’s cost burden, which he attributed to bad planning, supply-chain snags, and the pandemic (which happened 3–4 years after Vogtle was to be completed). In his mind, nuclear plants are like cars on an assembly line: The more units you build, the lower the total cost per unit. But as Thomas explains in his Regulation article, nuclear plants are bespoke and offer minimal economies of scale.

This push for nuke is perplexing not just because the economics are grim, but also because of other Trump policies. If the administration really is interested in increasing America’s electricity supply (in part to power new data centers), then why is it spending billions of taxpayer dollars to get wind companies to not build generation? Moreover, why is the administration so keen on nuclear, given its hostility to climate change concerns (though even a reasonable carbon tax wouldn’t make nuclear competitive with other low- and no-emission power sources).

Perhaps the answer is nuclear socialism: Trump wants to boost an industry in which Uncle Sam could have an equity stake. This is part of the broader pattern of Trump corporate socialism, with government stakes in Intel, US Steel, MP Materials, Lithium Americas, Trilogy Metals, Vulcan Elements, ReElement Technologies, Korea Zinc, USA Rare Earth, L3Harris Technologies, Anduril, xLight, and others. 

Circling back to nuclear power specifically, is there no way the technology will ever make economic sense? Never say never, but the odds are long. That goes not just for large reactors like the AP1000, but also the “small modular reactors” (SMRs) now lionized by some politicians and parts of the industry. As Thomas explains in his article, SMRs face the same problems and are bespoke like their bigger brothers, but with much less output. Again, never say never, but it’s bad policy for politicians to be pushing this mature technology—whether large reactor or small—on taxpayers and ratepayers.

My Cato colleague Travis Fisher said it best when he questioned the executive branch’s becoming so deeply embedded in the electricity business, especially when some future administration could offer sweeteners to different technologies entirely. Removing barriers to entry and letting energy companies build generation that passes a market test remains a much better policy than government picking winners and losers—especially when it’s acting as owner, banker, and regulator of those competitors.

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, USA | Leave a comment

Great British Energy –  Nuclear offers £1bn contract for SMR partner

The company is seeking aid in delivering its programme of building a power plant by the 2030s.

Energy Voice July 7th 2026, 

Great British Energy – Nuclear is seeking a delivery partner for its small modular reactor (SMR) programme in a £1.08 billion procurement contract.

The successful applicant will support the state-backed company deliver its programme by providing expertise across programme management, infrastructure delivery, commercial management, engineering support, and risk management.

Working alongside GB Energy – Nuclear, the company will help drive collaboration across suppliers, support effective programme delivery, and ensure value for money over the lifetime of the programme

The procurement process will include an initial selection stage, followed by tender. evaluation, dialogue, due diligence and a final selection stage before the appointment of a preferred bidder. Tenders must be submitted by 6 August 2026.

The long-term deal has the possibility of running until 2046.

Great British Energy – Nuclear interim chief commercial officer Beverley Grey said. “The appointment of a delivery partner will help ensure we have the capability, expertise and capacity needed to support the successful development and delivery of our Small Modular Reactor programme.

“This is a significant long-term procurement which will bring together technical, commercial and project delivery expertise to help us achieve our objectives and support the delivery of new nuclear capacity in the UK.”

GB Energy – Nuclear has £2.6bn to spend on its SMR programme and previously brought in Rolls‑Royce to provide the design the reactors………………………..

The government-run scheme aims to deliver a new nuclear power plant using SMRs by the mid-2030s, helping the UK seize part of a market estimated to be worth £500bn by 2050. https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/nuclear/600336/gb-energy-nuclear-smr-partner/

July 12, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »