nuclear-news

Military action near nuclear plants puts external power needs in spotlight

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi
suggests recent events means there may be a need for a fresh look at the
layout of external power lines. Grossi, responding to a media question
about whether nuclear power plant design safety standards needed to be
reviewed as a result of military action near them, said safety standards
were kept under constant review, although he did not feel there was a need
for a big overhaul.

However there was an increased emphasis on emergency
preparedness and response, he said, praising the reaction of the operators
of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant in the UAE after an electrical generator
located outside the inner site perimeter of the NPP was damaged by a drone
on 17 May – “they demonstrated the professionalism, skills and preparedness
that nuclear safety demands every day”, he said.

“The UAE never imagined in
their wildest dreams that one day Barakah would be attacked,” he added at
the media briefing after his opening address to the IAEA Board of
Governors’ meeting. “I am sure that there will be analysis and evaluation –
there is going to be, for example, a further look into the layout of
external power supply lines … sometimes the connections and
inter-connections are not designed for situations where loss of outside
power could happen more frequently.”

 World Nuclear News 5th June 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/military-action-near-nuclear-plants-puts-external-power-needs-in-spotlight

June 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment

Net zero fusion project could trigger nuclear disaster

A prototype
reactor that works as a ‘mini-Sun’ is being developed in
Nottinghamshire as UK hopes to lead world in nuclear fusion power.
Britain’s attempts to harness fusion energy could trigger a nuclear
disaster, official documents reveal.

A prototype reactor that works as a
“mini-Sun” is being developed in Nottinghamshire to create huge amounts
of energy by smashing atoms together. Fusion energy is seen as a panacea
for the energy crisis and for sustainable, long-term net zero energy
generation.

But official documents reveal concerns that a disaster at the
site could contaminate 15,000 hectares of surrounding land, costing farmers
£80m in lost profits, and result in thousands of cases of cancer in
civilians and workers. A worst-case event, such as an explosion of the
reactor itself, could lead to millions of pounds of damage, with the costs
borne by the taxpayer.

 Telegraph 4th June 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/04/net-zero-fusion-project-nuclear-disasters-possible/

June 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment

The military threat to nuclear power plants around the world

Direct strike could release radioactive material and cause mass terror

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK, https://theweek.com/world-news/the-threat-to-nuclear-power-plants-around-the-world

The “vulnerability” of the civilian energy infrastructure was exposed this week when a drone strike on the United Arab Emirates cut off power to a nuclear reactor, said Bloomberg.

It’s the first time a fully operating nuclear power plant has had to rely on back-up generators because of a military attack, but reactors in Ukraine and Iran have also been threatened by recent conflicts.

Why would a nuclear site be targeted?

A country might target a nuclear power plant to cripple an enemy’s power grid, or to force a surrender through the psychological terror of threatening a radiological disaster. An attack on such facilities could also be used to delay a nation’s ability to enrich nuclear material.

Alternatively, armies may attack, or occupy, a nuclear plant to seize control of a strategic geographic corridor or to prevent defending forces from using the area.

What does international law say?

Under the Geneva Conventions, civilian structures, including nuclear power plants, “are protected against attack”, but the treaties also state that they can be hit “for such time as they are military objectives”. This is a “loophole” that “aggressor states” have “interpreted widely”, said Dan Sabbagh, The Guardian’s defence and security editor.

Attacking a nuclear power plant also breaks legal resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors.

What would happen if a site were hit?

An attack on a nuclear site would not necessarily lead to a mushroom cloud or an immediate release of radiation because modern plants are built with multiple safety systems that can shut down reactors and contain damage.

But the reactor’s core could continue to heat up after a strike. This could lead to a build up of hydrogen gas, which could cause further explosions and damage. If the reactor began to degrade, radioactive material could be released and that can remain in the environment for years or even decades. It could potentially spread across borders and enter water systems or settle into the soil.

There are other consequences. Attacks on nuclear installations “risk undermining the emerging nuclear renaissance” in Western economies as an alternative to fossil fuels, said Bloomberg. Politicians and the public are “highly sensitive to radiation emergencies”, so an incident in one country “tends to dampen enthusiasm” for nuclear power elsewhere.

An attack on a nuclear plant would also be a hugely symbolic moment. Although conventional power plants have been “repeatedly bombed” by Russia during the Ukraine war, said Sabbagh, Kyiv’s three functioning nuclear plants have “remained relatively unscathed” because Moscow regarded a direct attack on them to be “taboo”.

May 25, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety | Leave a comment