Jellyfish Force another French Nuclear Reactor to Shut Down
By Charles Kennedy – Sep 04, 2025,
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Jellyfish-Force-another-French-Nuclear-Reactor-to-Shut-Down.html
For a second time in three weeks, a swarm of jellyfish has forced the closure of a nuclear reactor in France in another curious incident in which jellyfish entered the filters of the water cooling systems.
The Paluel nuclear power plant in Normandy, northern France, saw its electricity generation nearly halve by 2.4 gigawatts (GW) out of a total 5.2-GW capacity, due to the presence of jellyfish that have entered the filtering system, French operator EDF said on Thursday, as carried by Reuters.
One of four reactors at Paluel was shut down while power output at another reactor was curtailed to prevent further disruption due to the jellyfish swarm.
oday’s incident at Paluel occurred just over three weeks after a jellyfish swarm clogged the cooling system of the Gravelines nuclear power plant near Dunkerque and Calais. As a result, four of six units at one of France’s largest nuclear power plants automatically switched off, while the remaining two units were already shut down for planned maintenance. Gravelines has six reactors, each with a capacity of 900 megawatts (MW).
At the time, France’s EDF said there was “no impact on the safety of the facilities, the safety of personnel, or the environment.”
Reactors at the Gravelines power plant are cooled from a canal linked to the North Sea, where jellyfish are swarming near the coast during hot weather and warm waters.
Global warming can worsen the jellyfish problem in waters cooling reactors close to seas, scientists have warned.
In recent years, heatwaves and too hot waters in rivers have disrupted France’s nuclear power generation, too.
France’s nuclear power generation accounts for around 70% of its electricity mix, and when its reactors are fully operational, it is a net exporter of electricity to other European countries.
But in 2022 and 2023, EDF was forced to curb power generation at some nuclear plants as heatwaves raised the temperatures of rivers. The power plant operator had to limit electricity output because of environmental regulations for using river water for cooling nuclear reactors.
It’s past time to start protecting U.S. nuclear power reactors from drones.
September 3, 2025
In January, I shared a Bulletin of Atomic Scientists piece with you in which I recommended President Trump protect our nuclear power plants from drone strikes.
In the attached piece, “It’s past time to start protecting U.S. nuclear power reactors from drones,” I return to this topic. Over the last eight months, more drones have overflown American nuclear power plants. Meanwhile, the House Armed Services Committee has proposed legislation authorizing the Secretary of Energy to defend Energy Department-operated nuclear plants against drone attacks.
What’s missing is authority for civilian nuclear power plant operators to protect their plants against such threats. These reactors produce 19 percent of America’s electricity.
In the piece below, I recommend that the congressional committees with jurisdiction over these civilian plants—the energy and homeland security committees—grant the operators similar authority to destroy or disable threatening drones.
I also propose that the Energy Department’s National Nuclear Security Administration launch a “Nuclear Security Initiative” to ensure American reactors don’t become attractive military targets.
NPEC 3rd Sept 2025, https://npolicy.org/its-past-time-to-start-protecting-u-s-nuclear-power-reactors-from-drones/
Attacks on nuclear plants are being normalised – and the consequences could be disastrous
Nuclear power plants have become significant pawns in the Russia-Ukraine war
Molly Blackall, Global Affairs Correspondent, iNews 29th Aug 2025
Attacks on and around nuclear sites have become increasingly normalised during the war in Ukraine and the consequences could be disastrous, military watchers have warned.
Russia accused Ukraine this week of launching a drone attack which damaged Kursk nuclear power plant, which sits around 37 miles from the Ukrainian border, on Sunday.
The power plant authorities said that air defences shot down a drone that detonated near by just after midnight.
The incident damaged an auxiliary transformer and caused the plant capacity to drop by 50 per cent, they said.
The incident came on the day that Ukraine marked its 34th anniversary of independence from the Soviet Union.
Ukraine has not commented on the incident, but one Ukrainian military insider told The i Paper that troops had been ordered not to attack the plant during previous operations near by.
Another insider indicated it may have been accidental, saying that drone pilots work seven days a week and that unexpected outcomes sometimes cropped up.
There have long been fears of a nuclear incident as a result of the Russian invasion, with fighting taking place close to two major plants: Kursk and Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia, which is the largest nuclear plant in Europe.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, reported that radiation was at normal levels around the Kursk plant following the attack.
‘Previously shocking acts’ are now normal
Military experts said that fighting in and around nuclear plants was becoming increasingly normalised……………..
Dr Marina Miron, a war studies expert at King’s College London, said that attacks on nuclear plants “may becoming somewhat normalised, which is in itself disconcerting”.
“When it happens the first time everyone is shocked and you see all the headlines. Then the IAEA reports that there was no rise in radiation levels and then things calm down and after an nth time this becomes sort of normal.”
The plants have become significant pawns in the war.
“When Ukraine counter-invaded Russia last year, the idea was to take the Kursk power plant and probably exchange it for Zaporizhzhia power plant, so that they could then say, we’ll trade you; give us that one, and we’ll give you yours back,” Miron said.
Darya Dolzikova, a nuclear expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, previously warned that military activity around nuclear sites “should not be normalised” but that such attacks may become more common.
“The expected growth of the importance of nuclear power in the global energy mix in the coming decades may increase the likelihood that future armed conflict will see greater targeting of nuclear energy infrastructure,” she said.
As well as causing infrastructural damage to an adversary or sending strong military signals, the “psychological salience” of nuclear sites mean they may be used for “escalatory, deterrent or coercive purposes”.
It may also be a deliberate tactic to release radioactive material to make an area into a no-go zone, but could inadvertently expand to “friendly” areas or escalate the conflict it it seeps into a third country.
Attacks on nuclear sites ‘increasing danger’ of radiological accident
Lukasz Kulesa, director of nuclear policy at RUSI, said that while most nuclear reactors were relatively “well protected against attacks and accidents through their reinforced structures, this is not always the case”.
“Some reactors in Russia, including at the Kursk nuclear power plant, lack such a protective concrete dome, which makes them more vulnerable and dangerous in case of an attack,” he said.
“Artillery or drone attacks and other military activities can also threaten staff and personnel working at the site, and damage or destroy support infrastructure crucial for the functioning of the power plant, such as water supply and power grid connections and generators, or spent nuclear fuel storage sites.
“All such attacks disturb the operations of nuclear power plants and increase the danger, and the most serious ones can cause a direct threat of a radiological incident.”
Kulesa warned that “the fact that previous incidents related to the nuclear security of Zaporizhzhia power plant had not resulted in a nuclear accident should not be a reason for complacency”.
“There remains a danger that international norms with regards to the prohibition of military attacks against nuclear power plants, and the efforts by the IAEA to clarify and strengthen nuclear safety and security norms during armed conflicts would be ignored in other conflicts.”
However, Bollfrass said that these attacks were “unlikely to bring about the next Chernobyl”.
“The most serious damage has been to facilities themselves and their ability to deliver electricity, and the integrity of Ukraine’s energy grid as a whole,” he said.
“Something like a missile hitting stored spent fuel or an operating reactor would create a serious radiological hazard, but neither side has shown any interest in doing so. Most hits on or near nuclear power plants have been inflicted by drones with much less powerful warheads.”
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/attacks-nuclear-plants-normalised-consequences-disastrous-3878805
US nuclear safety regulators say their jobs could be at risk under Trump
By Timothy Gardner, September 4, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-nuclear-safety-regulators-say-their-jobs-could-be-risk-under-trump-2025-09-03/
- Summary
- Pressure high on nuclear regulators after Trump orders
- Trump wants to quadruple nuclear power capacity by 2050
- Commissioner: hard to make safety calls if more staff leave
WASHINGTON, Sept 3 (Reuters) – Two of the three remaining commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the U.S. nuclear safety watchdog, told a Senate hearing on Wednesday they feel President Donald Trump could fire them if they obstruct his goal to approve reactors faster.
Trump signed executive orders in May that set goals of fast-tracking new reactor licenses and quadrupling U.S. nuclear energy capacity by 2050 to boost the power grid, while also reducing staffing at the NRC.
Trump later fired Commissioner Chris Hanson, a Democrat, while Commissioner Annie Caputo, a Republican, left in July, saying she wanted to more fully focus on her family. That brought the traditionally five-member panel down to three.
Commissioner Matthew Marzano, a Democrat, told the hearing he felt he could be fired by the administration if he decides a new reactor design is unsafe and declines to license it.
Commissioner Bradley Crowell, also a Democrat, said he felt on “any given day I could be fired by the administration for reasons unknown.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
NRC Chairman David Wright, a Republican, said the agency has five applications from so-called advanced nuclear reactors that it is reviewing and it expects another 25 to 30 soon.
Wright declined to say whether he felt he could be fired, saying it would be “speculation.”
But he said NRC should not approve incomplete applications from companies looking to build new nuclear plants, even if it means missing an 18-month approval deadline set in Trump’s executive orders.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat who supports nuclear energy for its potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said about a dozen senior level managers at the NRC have left or announced they will leave since January, and that 143 staff departed between January and June.
“It’s a personnel bloodbath,” Whitehouse said. “The industry stands or falls on the NRC’s gold-standard reputation for nuclear safety. It’s now in jeopardy.”
Crowell said if the agency lost any more staff, it would be tough to credibly make safety cases on the timeline in Trump’s orders.
EDF’s Heysham 1 and Hartlepool nuclear plants to operate for further 12 months
New Civil Engineer, 02 Sep, 2025 By Tom Pashby
The operational lives of the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool nuclear power plants have been extended by 12 months by their operator EDF………………
Hartlepool, Heysham 1, Heysham 2 and Torness all underwent reviews by EDF in December 2024 to assess how long they can continue to generate electricity. Heysham 1 and Hartlepool were scheduled to stop producing power in March 2027.
At the time, an EDF spokesperson explained to NCE that the best-case scenario for the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool power stations was that they could justify a one-year extension. However, that was caveated with a need to await the outcomes of “important inspection and safety case milestones”, which were due to be completed in 2025.
Those milestones have now passed and the results were positive for the power stations. When EDF’s executive and licensee boards met yesterday, 1 September, they gave approval to extend the lives of the nuclear stations, so Heysham 1 and Hartlepool will now likely operate through to at least March 2028.
A statement from EDF on 2 September said: “Heysham 2 and Torness, which are both scheduled to generate until March 2030, were not in scope for this review after a two-year extension was granted last year.”
EDF still hopes to see all four AGRs continue producing electricity for as long as possible, so it can be expected to conduct further reviews down the line, but these reviews do not have set dates for completion, the spokesperson told NCE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
AGRs now well past their sell-by date’ – anti-nuclear campaigner
Nuclear Free Local Authorities secretary Richard Outram told NCE that the extension of the plants’ operating lives raises concerns about the possibility of graphite cracking.
“The EDF announcement is unsurprising. Although company bosses may crow a lot about the preservation of local jobs, the NFLAs suspect this is actually about the preservation of EDF’s bottom line,” he said.
“Given the parlous state of the French parent company’s finances, the intermittent output of the domestic fleet, and the vast overspend on Hinkley Point C, EDF has a clear incentive to keep open for as long as possible any nuclear plant in the portfolio which actually operates and generates profits.
“The NFLAs have previously expressed our concerns with the Office for Nuclear Regulation that these ageing AGRs are now well past their sell-by date, with graphite cracking being a real worry, as seen recently at the sister AGR plant at Torness.
“We shall continue to monitor the situation and ask challenging questions of regulators and the industry because public safety and environmental harm must never be compromised in favour of company profit.”………………………………………………. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edfs-heysham-1-and-hartlepool-nuclear-plants-to-operate-for-further-12-months-02-09-2025/
What will happen if the Ukrainian Armed Forces attempt to strike the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant?
A drone of the Ukrainian Armed Forces was shot down near the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. Metro learned what such an attack would entail if it hit the station
On Thursday, Kursk Region Governor Alexey Smirnov reported the destruction of a Ukrainian drone 5 kilometers from the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant. According to official information, the Ukrainian Armed Forces attempted to hit the nuclear power plant, but the drone was destroyed on approach.
As Andrey Ozharovsky, an engineer-physicist and expert on the Radioactive Waste Safety program, told Metro , the Kursk NPP is extremely vulnerable to external influences.
— The Kursk nuclear power plant has a serious feature that makes it extremely vulnerable to a military or terrorist attack. These are RBMK-100 reactors of the Chernobyl type. At this station, as at the Ukrainian one, there is no protective shell for the reactors. That is, the “cap” that usually covers the reactor itself at nuclear power plants and thus protects it from external influences, — the expert explained.
He noted that due to such a technical solution, any shelling poses a very serious danger to the station. According to the scientist, it is especially dangerous that the reactors at the Kursk NPP are located in non-specialized buildings.
“Of course, these Chernobyl-type reactors have been modernized and a literal repeat of Chernobyl is impossible. But in the event of a shelling at the station, a graphite fire and the release of a huge amount of radioactive substances into the environment with contamination of territories hundreds of kilometers away from the reactor cannot be ruled out,” the nuclear physicist emphasized.
He added that the recent attack by the Ukrainian Armed Forces could have been not on the station, but on another facility in Kurchatov.
Donald Trump’s assault on U.S. nuclear watchdog raises safety concerns
Donald Trump’s attack on the independence of the US nuclear safety watchdog
has accelerated a severe “brain drain” at the agency, raising the risks
of future accidents, former officials have warned. Almost 200 people have
left the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission since the president’s
inauguration in January, and the pace of executive departures shows little
sign of slowing with the resignation of the agency’s director of nuclear
security and its general counsel.
Nearly half of the agency’s 28-strong
senior leadership team has been installed in an “acting” capacity, and
only three of five NRC commissioner roles are occupied. Trump sacked
commissioner Christopher Hanson in June and Annie Caputo resigned
unexpectedly last month. “It is an unprecedented situation with some
senior leaders having been forced out and many others leaving for early
retirement or worse, resignation,” Scott Morris, the former NRC deputy
executive director of operations who retired in May, said in an interview.
FT 28th Aug 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/f082e338-d4bf-4b5b-882d-09a8795a93ef
OUR NUCLEAR WORLD: PICK YOUR TARGET
Why use your own nuclear weapons (with all the risks of escalation that this entails) when you can just take out your enemy’s nuclear power stations or nuclear waste facilities?
Jonathon Porritt 27th Aug 2025
I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only way the nuclear industry’s hype-machine is going to be stopped in its tracks is a Russian cyber-attack on the nine nuclear reactors still operating here in the UK, causing them all to close down and leading to the grid temporarily collapsing. That should do it.
I jest – sort of. But nothing else has worked. In just the last few weeks:
1 The Treasury’s financial modelling for the new power station at Sizewell C (seen by the Financial Times) gives a range of roughly £80 billion to £100 billion, far higher than the official estimate of £47 billion from the Department of Net Zero and Energy Security – which in itself was already nearly double the original cost of £20 billion!
2 The Treasury recently described the Government’s proposals for a new Geological Disposal Facility to deal with the 700,000 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel as ‘unachievable’. This is a truly extraordinary development – confirming that the UK still has NO idea what to do about its legacy nuclear waste, let alone the waste that will be produced by any new reactors. Yet this got hardly a mention in the media.
3 The Government confirmed that it will be splurging a further £17 billion of taxpayers’ money between now and 2030 on Sizewell C, Small Modular Reactors and fusion energy – even as it continues to ignore the scourge of chronic poverty here in the UK, with 4.5 million children living in poverty – the highest number ever recorded.
On top of which, the industry’s hype-machine is now being turbocharged by the even more powerful hype-machine of AI. Never forget that the nuclear industry is supremely well-equipped to leap onto any and every boondoggle coming down the track – the Bitcoin/Crypto boom a decade ago (which never quite happened), and then green hydrogen. With every hard-to-abate sector queueing up for its share of vanishingly small volumes of green hydrogen, the Knights of Nuclear were up into their saddles just as fast as enough hobby horses could be corralled together to claim that it is only nuclear power that can provide the electricity required.
And now it’s AI. We’ve all read the growth projections for AI-enabled markets – from billions of dollars today to trillions tomorrow. I won’t weary you with the extrapolated increases in electricity consumption for all the new data centres that this entails – but it’s going to be a lot. On a par with the electricity consumption of small countries. New data centres are being built right now, ever bigger, already gobbling up more and more electricity. Nor will I invite you to ask why this AI boom must not – ever, on any terms – be subjected to much deeper scrutiny as to the balance of costs and benefits that will emerge. AI represents the apogee of latter-day technological determinism: if it can be done, then it must and will be done. So suck it up.
I’m not making light of this. The AI-driven nuclear boom in the USA is for real. Donald Trump is getting rid of most regulatory oversight of the nuclear industry, to speed things up, and stock prices of all the publicly traded nuclear companies are up by huge percentages. And it doesn’t seem to matter what kind of nuclear we’re talking about: 40-year-old decommissioned reactors to be given a new lease of life; plans for new big reactors, even in blue states like New York, being fast-tracked; Big Tech applying for construction permits for Small Modular Reactors that are still on the drawing board; and more than $500 billion apparently raised for new fusion reactors – seriously!
It’s not (yet) quite so insane here in the UK, but the signals are worrying. Strenuous efforts are being made by Ministers to force the Office for Nuclear Regulation to fast track any old nuclear proposal. Sweetheart deals with the private sector are being sorted out – regardless of the costs to taxpayers. Rational, evidence-based decision-making is a long-gone memory.
What exactly lies behind this mania? In the timeless words of Sherlock Holmes: ”once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”.
So, let’s try that out for size in the context of nuclear power. It would surely be completely impossible for any responsible government pursuing a Net Zero energy strategy to prioritise nuclear power over all other options, given that:
- Large-scale nuclear reactors are now by far the most expensive option (on a Levelised Cost of Energy basis). UK Government figures in July this year showed new nuclear at £109 per MWh, offshore wind at £44MWh, large-scale solar at £41MWh and onshore wind at £38MWh.
- Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) don’t yet exist, but all experts agree their electricity will be even more expensive than that of large reactors – precisely because they can’t achieve the same economies of scale.
- The contribution of both big and small new reactors to a Net Zero electricity system in the UK will be literally ZERO before 2035 at the very earliest.
- Both big and small reactors will continue to produce significant levels of nuclear waste, adding to a waste crisis to which (as already mentioned) we have no long-term solution.
- ALL nuclear facilities pose a significant security risk, both from the point of view of cybersecurity (more later) and the very real possibility of physical attacks through ‘hostile third parties’.
Which brings us to the extraordinarily improbable truth of it: these days, nuclear power has little to do with electricity generation, and a whole lot more to do with the maintenance of the UK’s nuclear weapons capability……………………………………………………………………
It took a while for the UK Government to catch up, but in its latest Nuclear Roadmap it no longer beats around the bush. There are multiple references to the synergies between nuclear power and nuclear weapons: “this Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises….it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise”, and so on.
Big corporations are loving the fact that this is now out in the open. Bechtel, Babcock and Wilcox, AECOM, Rolls Royce – they’ve all spent decades feeding at the trough of either overt or hidden cross-subsidies between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Rolls-Royce has been one of the most outspoken advocates for Small Modular Reactors, arguing their importance back in 2017 “to relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of retaining the skills and capability”………………………………………………………………….
As nuclear nations double down on nuclear power, it’s blindingly obvious that they are ramping up serious threats to national security. Nowhere is this clearer than with the drive to develop SMRs. Most designs currently on the drawing board (that are not light water reactors) will be using as their fuel high-assay, low-enriched uranium – or HALEU, to use the jargon. When it’s first extracted from the earth, uranium concentrations are usually around 1% of the total volume of the ore. HALEU fuel has to be enriched up to around 19% – just below the 20% threshold for the kind of highly-enriched uranium judged to be viable for the manufacture of nuclear bombs. And almost all HALEU fuel comes from Russia!
Beyond that, every nuclear facility (old and new) becomes a target for hostile third parties. Welcome back to the inconceivably scary world of nuclear cyberwarfare. Despite the highest grade of propaganda promoted by the Ministry of Defence – that all nuclear facilities are ‘bomb-proof’ (I kid you not!) – most cyber-experts grudgingly acknowledge that this is just bullshit when it comes to cyber-defence.
And we have no finer example of that than Sellafield, one of the most hazardous nuclear waste and decommissioning sites in the world, sprawling across 2 square miles on the Cumbrian coast. Back in December 2023, a Guardian exclusive revealed that Sellafield had been hacked into ‘by cyber groups closely linked to Russia and China’ since 2015 – despite years of cover-ups by senior staff. “The full extent of any data loss and any continuing risks to systems was made harder to quantify by Sellafield’s failure to alert nuclear regulators for several years”. The denials didn’t last long. The Guardian’s painstaking research over 18 months had got Sellafield bang to rights. In October 2024, it was fined £400,000 by the Office For Nuclear Regulation after it pleaded guilty to criminal charges over years of cyber-security breaches. Astonishingly, the ONR also found that 75% of its computer servers were vulnerable to cyber-attack.
…………………..Why use your own nuclear weapons (with all the risks of escalation that this entails) when you can just take out your enemy’s nuclear power stations or nuclear waste facilities?
…………………… https://jonathonporritt.com/uk-nuclear-policy-risks/
Japan exploring whether AI could help inspect its nuclear power plants.
Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority has requested extra funds to
experiment with AI-powered nuclear plant inspectors. Japanese media report
that the authority wants to explore AI inspection because many nuclear
plants operated by Japanese energy companies are already old and will
likely need more oversight as they continue operating. Decommissioning
those plants will also create a need for extra supervision. The regulator
reportedly said it doesn’t have sufficient staff to handle the
inspections needed for extended operations and decommissioning of old
plants.
The Register 28th Aug 2025, https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/28/japan_ai_for_nuclear_inspectiona/
Ukraine drone hits Russian nuclear plant, sparks huge fire at Novatek’s Ust-Luga terminal
Reuters, By Guy Faulconbridge and Lidia Kelly, August 24, 2025
- Summary
- Ukrainian drone sparks fire at nuclear plant
- Nuclear reactor cuts capacity after attack
- Ukrainian drones strike Ust-Luga fuel export terminal
- Attacks come on Ukraine’s Independence Day
MOSCOW, Aug 24 (Reuters) – Ukraine launched a drone attack on Russia on Sunday, forcing a sharp fall in the capacity of a reactor at one of Russia’s biggest nuclear power plants and sparking a huge blaze at the major Ust-Luga fuel export terminal, Russian officials said.
Despite talk of peace by Russia and Ukraine, the deadliest European war since World War Two is continuing along the 2,000 km (1,250 mile) front line accompanied by missile and drone attacks deep into both Russia and Ukraine.
Russia’s defence ministry said at least 95 Ukrainian drones had been intercepted across more than a dozen Russian regions on August 24, the day that Ukraine celebrates its declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.
The Kursk nuclear power plant, just 60 km (38 miles) from the border with Ukraine, said that air defences shot down a drone that detonated near the plant just after midnight, damaging an auxiliary transformer and forcing a 50% reduction in the operating capacity at reactor No. 3.
Radiation levels were normal and there were no injuries from the fire which the drone sparked, the plant said. Two other reactors are operating without power generation and one is undergoing scheduled repairs.
The United Nations’ nuclear agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said it was aware of reports that a transformer at the plant caught fire due to military activity and stressed that every nuclear facility should be protected at all times.
A thousand km north, on the Gulf of Finland, at least 10 Ukrainian drones were downed over the port of Ust-Luga in Russia’s northern Leningrad region, with debris sparking fire at the Novatek-operated terminal – a huge Baltic Sea fuel export terminal and processing complex, the regional governor said.
PLUME OF BLACK SMOKE
Unverified footage on Russian Telegram channels showed a drone flying directly into a fuel terminal, followed by a huge ball of fire rising high into the sky followed by a plume of black smoke billowing into the horizon.
“Firefighters and emergency services are currently working to extinguish the blaze,” Alexander Drozdenko, governor of Russia’s Leningrad region, said. There were no injuries, he added……………………..
Ukrainian drones also attacked an industrial enterprise in the southern Russian city of Syzran, the governor of the Samara region said on Sunday. A child was injured in the attack, according to the governor, who did not specify exactly what had been attacked.
………………………………………………………………….Earlier this month, the Ukrainian military said it had struck the Syzran oil refinery. The Rosneft-owned (ROSN.MM)
, opens new tab refinery was forced to suspend production and crude intake after the attack, sources told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-drone-hits-russian-nuclear-plant-sparks-huge-fire-novateks-ust-luga-2025-08-24/
Fears are rising about the safety of a nuclear power plant in Russia after a Ukrainian attack overnight
Metro, 24 Aug 25
A fire broke out at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant after military forces shot down what they claimed was a Ukrainian drone flying near the site.
The ‘device detonated’ upon impact, sparking a blaze which the facility said ‘was extinguished by fire crews,’ authorities in Kursk said in a statement.
It added: ‘A combat unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) belonging to the Armed Forces of Ukraine was shot down by air defence systems near the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant………………….
Alexander Khinshtein, the regional acting governor, blamed Ukraine for the strikes in a post on Telegram, adding: ‘They are a threat to nuclear safety and a violation of all international conventions.’
The incident marks one of the most serious escalations in the targeting of energy facilities, fueling anxiety about fighting creeping dangerously close to nuclear assets.
Ukraine’s drone strike on Kursk was one of several reported overnights by Russian authorities.
Firefighters were also sent to an explosion and a fire at the port of Ust-Luga in Russia’s Leningrad region, which holds a large fuel export terminal.
The regional governor said about 10 Ukrainian drones were brought down and debris had sparked the fire.
Ukraine has not commented on the Russian accusations………….
Older reactors more susceptible to accidents; Nuclear is not a viable climate solution.
TCAN 19th Aug 2025, Statements of support from international energy scholars for Taiwan’s nuclear phase-out, Dr. M.V. Ramana | Professor; Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs (SPPGA), University of British Columbia
There is a debate in Taiwan about possibly extending operations of its nuclear reactors that have been shut down. Doing so poses risks and will not help with mitigating climate change.
Risks Associated with Nuclear Power Plant Extensions
As they age, nuclear plants become more susceptible to accidents. The likelihood of failures at reactors is often described by something called the bathtub curve. The failure rate is initially high due to manufacturing problems and operator errors associated with new technology. Then curving like a tub, the failure rate declines with experience. But then eventually it starts rising again as aging related wear and tear starts increasing. So, after some point in time, the dangers of continuing operations at nuclear reactors start increasing. As the examples of Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima, Japan in 2011 show, the consequences of a nuclear accident can be catastrophic with long-lasting and financially expensive impacts.
Nuclear Power is not a Solution to Climate Change
Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. This is the reason the share of the world’s electricity produced by nuclear power plants has been declining consistently since the mid 1990s. If one were to think about nuclear power as a solution to climate change, that share should be increasing while the share of fossil fuels must be decreasing. That is simply not happening. Investing in cheaper low-carbon sources of energy will provide more emission reductions per dollar. Second, it takes about a decade to build a nuclear plant. If you add the time needed for all the necessary preparatory steps—obtaining environmental and safety clearances, getting consent from a community that has to live near a hazardous facility for decades, and raising the huge amounts of funding necessary—you’re looking at 15-20 years. This timeline is incompatible with the urgent demands of climate science. Thus, nuclear power fails on two key metrics for evaluating any technology claiming to deal with climate change.
https://tcan2050.org.tw/en/nonuke-2/
Mile High City sparks fury over plan for one of America’s busiest airports
Daily Mail, By ALYSSA GUZMAN, US NEWS REPORTER, 24 August 2025
Bosses at one of America’s busiest airports have sparked fury by unveiling controversial plans to explore using nuclear energy.
Leaders at Denver International Airport in Colorado made the announcement earlier this month, sparking an immediate backlash from locals who claim they were never consulted.
The airport has since been forced to pause its plans for a feasibility study following the outcry.
Councilwoman Stacie Gilmore, who represents District 11, said the issue was never discussed with her constituents, who have questions about safety and nuclear waste.
‘It never came up,’ she told Daily Mail. ‘Denver International Airport is trying to put the cart before the horse, and they got called out by the community.’
The airport was planning to pay up to $1.25million for a six to 12-month study to determine if nuclear power is viable for the airport long-term, what are the risks, and how much it would cost, among other things.
But Gilmore said her constituents are unequivocally opposed and highlighted that the proposed nuclear reactor is a relatively new technology which would be located near the two most racially diverse populations in the city and county of Denver.
‘People don’t want something that produces radioactive waste – something that we currently don’t have a way to even store it – in a community of color,’ Gilmore added.
She called Denver Airport CEO Phil Washington’s ‘rushed’ plan ‘half-baked’.
But more than that, she said the airport hasn’t reached out the community to hear their concerns, which include, the heightened risk for cancers, air and noise pollution, and radioactive chemicals being nearby, among others. ……………………………………………………………….
This is brand new technology that nobody really knows long-term issues with,’ she told Daily Mail. ‘That’s irresponsible.’
Denver is the third busiest airport in the US and the sixth worldwide. It handles 80million passengers a year and is estimated to see more than 120million by 2045.
The city is hoping to find a more sustainable way to generate electricity to become ‘energy independent’ and to have the ‘greenest airport in the world,’ a press release stated. ………………………….
small reactors are still in the development stage in the US and it could be up to a decade before operations begin.
Another drawback to nuclear power is that waste is stored on site as the US does not have a national disposal site. …………………… https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15015601/denver-international-airport-fury-nuclear-power-busy.html
Call for investigation into serious nuclear leak at Faslane
By James Walker, Political Reporter
THE SNP have demanded urgent answers in a letter to the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) after the UK Government confirmed a serious nuclear incident
took place at Faslane earlier this year. Figures released to The Herald
last week revealed that a Category A event – the most serious category
– took place between January 1 and April 22 this year.
The MoD have since
claimed it posed no risk to the public. It came a week after it was also
forced to admit that Loch Long, which is next to the UK’s nuclear bomb
store at Coulport, is now contaminated with radioactive tritium following
years of infrastructure decay. Bill Kidd, a longtime campaigner against
nuclear weapons and SNP MSP (below), has condemned these revelations as a
“damning indictment of Westminster’s disregard for Scotland’s safety
and environment” and said it was proof that nuclear weapons are
“dangerous, immoral, and completely incompatible with the values of the
people of Scotland”.
The National 18th Aug 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25397459.call-investigation-serious-nuclear-leak-faslane/
Dumbing down: UK Taskforce charged with pushing nuclear deregulation .
The ‘reset’ is clearly driven by the frenzied demands of nuclear operators, developers, lobbyists, industry trades unions, politicians and sections of the media who are all interested at securing new nuclear with minimal red tape.
18th August 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/dumbing-down-taskforce-charged-with-pushing-nuclear-deregulation/
Despite conceding that the UK has a ‘strong track record in safety, delivered within a well-respected regulatory system’, the Government-appointed Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has just published an interim report proposing deregulation of Britain’s civil and military nuclear sectors.
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are gravely concerned that this agenda amounts to the dumbing down of regulation in order to reduce the associated costs and administrative burden on nuclear operators, and that this will inevitably compromise safety, environmental and public protection, transparency and accountability.
Deregulation in the civil nuclear sector was a direct contributory factor in the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, and the latest pivot towards nuclear deregulation in the UK worryingly mirrors the direction taken by the Trump Administration, with the President having recently dismissed the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Although the remit of the NRT is supposedly to support ‘energy security and national security’ it is based upon several falsehoods.
It is assumed that civil nuclear power is necessary to meet Britain’s future energy needs and that nuclear weapons are necessary for her defence:
‘Nuclear technology is critical to the UK’s future, both for low carbon energy and for our national security’.
And it is assumed that nuclear regulation is excessive, and therefore to facilitate the expansion of nuclear power and Britain’s nuclear arsenal there is need for reform:
Such sentiments have sadly been echoed by senior politicians. The Prime Minister has called for the nuclear sector to be freed to ‘Build, Baby, Build’, and Ministers have publicly stated their desire to railroad new nuclear projects past legitimate community objections with activists opposed to Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C having been dismissively branded ‘Nimbies’. Government intends to change the law to limit the ability of campaigners to challenge project approvals through the courts and is introducing new policies that grant considerable autonomy to developers in siting new nuclear projects.
Now the Taskforce proposes measures that represent a ‘radical reset’ and a ‘once in a generation’ transformation of the regulatory landscape.
This despite that fact that the report concedes that ‘The UK nuclear sector has a strong safety record overseen by expert and independent regulators’ with many consultees emphasising ‘the high level of credibility and trust in UK regulators’, which begs the question of if it ain’ t broken, why fix it?
It is assumed that civil nuclear power is necessary to meet Britain’s future energy needs and that nuclear weapons are necessary for her defence:
‘Nuclear technology is critical to the UK’s future, both for low carbon energy and for our national security’.
And it is assumed that nuclear regulation is excessive, and therefore to facilitate the expansion of nuclear power and Britain’s nuclear arsenal there is need for reform:
‘Over time, the regulation of civil and defence nuclear programmes has become increasingly complex and bureaucratic, leading to huge delays and ballooning costs, often for marginal benefit. With the UK’s ambitious civil and defence programmes set to expand to meet energy security, net zero, and deterrent demands, a reset is needed’.
The ‘reset’ is clearly driven by the frenzied demands of nuclear operators, developers, lobbyists, industry trades unions, politicians and sections of the media who are all interested at securing new nuclear with minimal red tape.
In response to the NRT’s Call for Evidence earlier this year, these parties clearly responded by bewailing the current ‘system’ as ‘unnecessarily slow, inefficient, and costly’.
Such sentiments have sadly been echoed by senior politicians. The Prime Minister has called for the nuclear sector to be freed to ‘Build, Baby, Build’, and Ministers have publicly stated their desire to railroad new nuclear projects past legitimate community objections with activists opposed to Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C having been dismissively branded ‘Nimbies’. Government intends to change the law to limit the ability of campaigners to challenge project approvals through the courts and is introducing new policies that grant considerable autonomy to developers in siting new nuclear projects.
Now the Taskforce proposes measures that represent a ‘radical reset’ and a ‘once in a generation’ transformation of the regulatory landscape.
This despite that fact that the report concedes that ‘The UK nuclear sector has a strong safety record overseen by expert and independent regulators’ with many consultees emphasising ‘the high level of credibility and trust in UK regulators’, which begs the question of if it ain’ t broken, why fix it?
The Taskforce has said that it ‘will continue to gather evidence and views [on its initial proposals] over the Summer and will publish final recommendations in Autumn 2025.’
The interim report can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce-interim-report
‘Concise and evidence based’ responses to the report are invited by email to nuclearregulatorytaskforce@energysecurity.gov.uk by 8 September.
For its part, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to see no watering down of Britain’s current arrangements and will be robustly outlining our objections to any changes which favour expediency and profit over safety, public health and environmental protection. We urge all those with a similar mindset to do the same.
For the NFLAs, the only points of consolation to be found in the interim report are that nuclear fusion is excluded from the NRT’s remit and that the Taskforce cannot ‘make recommendations for devolved governments in devolved areas’..For more information, please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (106)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 