Why Nuclear Reprocessing?
Does Britain really need nuclear power? – by Ian Fairlea beyondnuclearinternational
“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..The initial rationale for reprocessing in the 1950s to the 1980s was the Cold War demand for fissile material to make nuclear weapons.
Reprocessing is the name given to the physico-chemical treatment of spent nuclear fuel carried on at Sellafield in Cumbria since the 1950s. This involves the stripping of metal cladding from spent nuclear fuel assemblies, dissolving the inner uranium fuel in boiling concentrated nitric acid, chemically separating out the uranium and plutonium isotopes and storing the remaining dissolved fission products in large storage tanks.
It is a dirty, dangerous, unhealthy, polluting and expensive process which results in workers employed at Sellafield and local people being exposed to high radiation doses.
Terrorism
A major objection to reprocessing is that the plutonium produced has to be carefully guarded in case it is stolen. Four kilos is enough to make a nuclear bomb. Perhaps even more worrying, it does not have to undergo fission to cause havoc: a conventional explosion of a small amount would also cause chaos. A speck of plutonium breathed into the lungs can cause cancer. If plutonium dust were scattered by dynamite, for example, thousands of people could be affected and huge areas might have to be evacuated for decades………….. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/
Google, NextEra expand collaboration to develop nuclear-powered gigawatt AI campuses
The initial three campuses under this new accord are now in the active development phase.
Interesting Engineering ByAman Tripathi, Dec 13, 2025
NextEra Energy and Google Cloud announced a significant expansion of their ongoing collaboration, creating a partnership designed to develop multiple gigawatt (GW)-scale data center campuses across the United States………………………………………………………………………………………………..
This collaborative effort focuses on accelerating the deployment of data centers by systematically addressing critical infrastructure hurdles.
These challenges include land acquisition, managing load interconnection, and the simultaneous development of supporting power generation resources needed to sustain large-scale artificial intelligence operations.A central component of this energy strategy involves the revitalization of nuclear power capabilities to support the electrical grid.
“Most recently, the companies announced the restart of the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Iowa followed by two new long-term power purchase agreements to add 600 megawatts of clean energy capacity to Oklahoma’s electricity grid to support Google’s technology infrastructure,” noted a press release.
To facilitate this restart, NextEra Energy has formally requested that the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) restore grid connection rights for the shuttered facility.
This regulatory filing seeks to reclaim interconnection rights that had previously been transferred from the nuclear plant to a planned solar energy project at the same site.
The move follows a licensing change request that NextEra filed with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in January, marking a distinct shift from solar back to nuclear baseload power to meet steady demand.
Digital transformation of operations
Beyond the construction of physical infrastructure, the partnership will implement a digital transformation of NextEra Energy’s operations using Google Cloud’s artificial intelligence tools. ,…………………………………………………………
NextEra Energy Chairman and CEO John Ketchum characterized the partnership as a reflection of the current moment where the energy and technology sectors are becoming increasingly intertwined. He noted that the joint effort intends to build infrastructure at scale and change how energy companies function.
Similarly, Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian stated that combining NextEra’s domain expertise with Google’s AI infrastructure is necessary to support the digital future of energy infrastructure and meet the rising demand for AI technologies. https://interestingengineering.com/energy/nuclear-powered-gigawatt-ai-campuses-google
Search for UK fusion plant engineering partner to restart in 1-2 years after failed first attempt
09 Dec, 2025 By Thomas Johnson
The procurement for an engineering partner to construct the UK’s Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (Step) fusion power plant will resume “in a year or two” after a failed first attempt, but the choice of a construction partner is imminent.
……………………..
The government launched a competition to select engineering and construction partners for the prototype fusion energy plant in Nottinghamshire in May last year, with the contracts rumoured to be worth close to £10bn. Then in January, the shortlist for both partners was revealed.
The shortlisted organisations for Step’s engineering partner were:
- Celestial JV: consisting of Eni UK Limited as the lead member and AtkinsRéalis, Jacobs Clean Energy (now Amentum), Westinghouse and Tokamak Energy as other members.
- Phoenix Fusion Limited: consisting of Cavendish Nuclear as the lead member, KBR and Assystem Energy and Infrastructure as other members.
Engineering procurement hits the wall
Despite announcing the two-consortia shortlist, the project recently divulged that the process of selecting the engineering partner had broken down, with the approach being taken as being deemed “not suitable”…………………………………………………………..
Speaking at the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) annual conference on 4 December, UKIFS chief executive Paul Methven stated procurement for the engineering partner would resume “in a year or two”……………………………………………………………… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/search-for-uk-fusion-plant-engineering-partner-to-restart-in-1-2-years-after-failed-first-attempt-09-12-2025/
U.S. Nuclear Fusion Industry Asks for Federal Help
By Irina Slav – Dec 09, 2025, https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Fusion-Industry-Asks-for-Federal-Help.html
The nascent nuclear fusion industry in the United States has asked the Trump administration for billions in financial support in order to advance the technology, which is seen as one of the most promising for the future—but also one of the most challenging.
“Now is the time for the U.S. to make a significant investment, and that means over a billion dollars per year in annual appropriations and a one-time infrastructure investment,” the chief executive of the Fusion Industry Association, Andrew Holland, said this week, as quoted by Reuters. “If they ask for it, we are confident Congress would pass it,” he added, following a meeting between industry representatives and officials from the Department of Energy.
Reuters noted in its report that the Trump administration had just canceled several billion dollars in subsidies for the wind and solar industries. Presumably, some of that money could be redirected towards nuclear fusion. The Department of Energy even set up an Office of Fusion earlier this year as it shut down the wind and solar offices.
Nuclear fusion has long been considered the answer to zero-emission by-product-free energy generation. However, no one has cracked the nuclear fusion code yet because of the challenges associated with the environment in which the process could take place.
Nuclear fusion research and development have gained momentum in recent years after several momentous breakthroughs and achievements. The global race to overcome the engineering challenges to achieving zero-emission power from a nuclear reaction without risking disaster and radiation has heated up.
Earlier this year, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a multinational endeavor to build a system to experiment with nuclear fusion, completed the world’s most powerful electromagnetic system in a landmark moment for fusion research.
There is still a long way to go before nuclear fusion becomes commercially viable; One of the main challenges remains the ratio between input energy and output energy, with the former currently exceeding the latter.
Report: Small Modular Distractors: Why a European SMR strategy hinders the energy transition
09/12/2025, https://caneurope.org/small-modular-distractors/
Click on image [on original] to download the report
“Our investigation demonstrates why betting on small modular reactors would be a costly mistake for Europe. These projects would be slow to construct, with long delays, over budget, a poor economic fit for our power system needs, and would produce toxic radioactive waste for which we do not have a solution. Many projects would likely not materialise and jeopardise our electricity supply. Distorting funding away from more realistic, lower-cost solutions such as renewables, storage, and demand side solutions risks derailing the energy transition, keeping our emissions and energy prices high.” – Thomas Lewis, Author and Energy Policy Coordinator at CAN Europe
An EU Small Modular Strategy is a distraction
Small modular reactors are not a viable solution to decarbonising our energy system and supporting a transition to net zero. The technology has not been demonstrated at any sort of scale, with great unknowns when it comes to design.
CAN Europe’s latest report details how SMR projects have been shown to be significantly delayed compared to initial estimates, are slower to construct than traditional nuclear, consistently over budget, more expensive than renewables, not economically fit to provide flexibility, not very small, deter funding away from realistic renewable solutions, produce more waste than traditional nuclear, and citizens have little trust in their governments to implement plans fairly. They are also planned under the assumption that the governments would take responsibility and invest in enabling infrastructure such as grids and nuclear storage facilities.
An EU SMR Strategy, as well as national plans to pursue SMRs, risks diverting attention, resources, and political momentum away from the proven solutions needed for a fast, fair, and effective energy transition. While the following recommendations aim to minimise the potential negative impacts of SMR-related initiatives, it is important to underline that only a transition pathway without new nuclear capacity can deliver the speed, cost-effectiveness, and system resilience required for Europe’s decarbonisation.
Diagrams and graphs within the report can be downloaded below: [ on original]
The UK wants to unlock a ‘golden age of nuclear’ but faces key challenges in reviving historic lead.
The U.K.’s Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce called for urgent reforms after identifying “systemic failures” in the country’s nuclear framework. It found that fragmented regulation, flawed legislation and weak incentives led the U.K. to fall behind as a nuclear powerhouse.
The government committed to implementing the taskforce’s guidance and is expected to present a plan to do so within three months. There is not, at the moment, a single SMR actively producing electricity under four revenues. They will all come at best in the 30s,” Ludovico Cappelli, portfolio manager of
Listed Infrastructure at Van Lanschot Kempen, told CNBC.
While SMRs are a “game changer” thanks to their ability to power individual factories or small towns, their days of commercial operation are too far away, he said.
From an investment standpoint, “that is still a bit scary,” he added. To secure the large baseloads needed to offset the intermittency of renewables, “we’re still looking at big power stations,” added Paul Jackson, Invesco’s EMEA global market strategist.
CNBC 6th Dec 2025, https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/06/the-history-of-nuclear-energy-lies-on-british-soil-does-its-future-.html
Do we really want to bust net zero targets for AI cat pics?
In total, across Scotland, according to the tech justice non-profit Foxglove, energy-hungry data centres which would demand “a minimum of 2000MW of electricity supply, and as much as 3000MW” are already in planning.
That figure, Foxglove points out is already equivalent to “the total generation capacity of all of Scotland’s offshore wind turbines in 2024 (2971MW)” or “the total output of the Torness and Hunterston B nuclear power stations while both were still in operation”. One projection from Loughborough University’s Digital Decarb Design Group suggests that, globally, if data consumption continues unabated, “electricity demand
driven by data could exceed global electricity production by 2033”
Of course, AI can be helpful. There are many good things already which have come out of it. It can diagnose disease, prevent accidents, help us cut waste, streamline systems, even streamline the energy and material use by AI itself.
But we only need to open our social media apps to see what much of it is actually doing. I do think my cat looks majestic in full flight, but she is far cuter sitting on the chair by me as I write. Do we really want to risk climate goals in order to just power up relentless AI video slop?
Herald 2nd Dec 2025, By Vicky Allan, Environment correspondent, https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/25666089.really-want-bust-net-zero-targets-ai-cat-pics/
$400 Million DOE Bailout for “SMRs” at Palisades
Multiple reactors on the tiny 432-acre site also introduce the risk of domino-effect multiple meltdowns
Holtec’s inexperience exacerbates these synergistic old and new reactor risks. Holtec still has no NRC-approved SMR-300 design certification, has never built a reactor, nor operated one, nor repaired and restarted one, let alone a reactor as perpetually problem-plagued as the 60-year old Palisades zombie.
DECEMBER 3, 2025, by Kevin Kamps
regarding the announcement by the U.S. Department of Energy, Holtec International, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer of a $400 million federal bailout for “Small Modular Reactor” deployments at the Palisades nuclear power plant in Covert Township, Van Buren County, southwest Michigan.
Holtec’s uncertified and untested so-called ‘Small Modular Reactor’ design, the SMR-300, is not small. At 300 megawatts-electric (MW-e) each, the additional 600 MW-e would nearly double the nuclear megawattage at Palisades, given the unprecedented zombie restart of the 800 MW-e, six decade old reactor there. The zombie reactor was designed in the mid-1960s, and ground was broken on construction in 1967, with the learn-as-we-go dangerous design and fabrication flaws at the nuclear lemon baked in, still putting us in peril to the present day.
Just look at the harm smaller infamous 67 MW-e Michigan reactors have caused in the past. At Fermi Unit 1 on the Lake Erie shore in Monroe County, “we almost lost Detroit” when the plutonium breeder reactor had a partial core meltdown on October 5, 1966. John G. Fuller wrote an iconic book about it by that title in 1975. And Gil Scott-Heron wrote a haunting song about it in 1977, two years before he joined Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) in response to the 1979 Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown, the worst reactor disaster in U.S. history — thus far anyway.
And at Big Rock Point — Palisades’ sibling reactor — near Charlevoix on the northwest Lower Peninsula’s Lake Michigan shore, the 67 MW-e experimental reactor shockingly released more than 3 million Curies of hazardous ionizing radioactivity into the environment, from supposedly ‘routine operations’ from 1962 to 1997. In the 1970s, local family practitioner, medical doctor Gerald Drake, and University of Michigan trained statistician Martha Drake, documented statistically significant spina bifida in the immediate area downwind. There is also anecdotal evidence of widespread thyroid pathology as well. This is similar to Palisades, where 50 cases of diagnosed thyroid cancer have been alleged by part-time residents of the small, 120-year old Palisades Park Country Club resort community, where there should not be a single such case of this exceedingly rare disease made infamous by Chornobyl and Fukushima.
Given the damage done by 67 MW-e reactors in Michigan in the past, just imagine what havoc could be wreaked by two 300 MW-e reactors — each 4.5 times larger — at Palisades going forward.
Increased breakdown phase risks at the 60-year old zombie reactor, and break-in phase risks at the two SMR-300 new builds, are a recipe for disaster at Palisades.
Palisades has a long list of breakdown phase risks. From the worst neutron-embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the country or perhaps even the entire world, to severely degraded steam generator tubes, a reactor lid that needed replacement two decades ago, lack of fire protection, calcium silicate containment insulation that would dissolve into sludge with the viscosity of Elmer’s Glue blocking emergency core cooling water flow, the worst operating experience in industry with control rod drive mechanism seal leaks from 1972 to 2022, etc., the Palisades zombie reactor has multiple pathways to reactor core meltdown, which would unleash catastrophic amounts of hazardous ionizing radioactivity into the environment, on the beach of Lake Michigan, drinking water supply for 16 million people along its shores, and more than 40 million people downstream and downwind, up the food chain, and down the generations throughout the Great Lakes region.
Chornobyl in Ukraine in 1986, and Three Mile Island-2 in Pennsylvania in 1979, are examples of brand new reactors causing catastrophes. Through design and construction flaws, and operator inexperience, Holtec’s SMR-300s will introduce increased break-in phase risks at the Palisades nuclear power plant, located on the Great Lakes shoreline. The Great Lakes comprise 21% of the planet’s, 84% of North America’s, and 95% of the United States’ surface fresh water.
Multiple reactors on the tiny 432-acre site also introduce the risk of domino-effect multiple meltdowns, as happened at Fukushima Daiichi, Japan in March 2011.
A 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) study the agency unsuccessfully tried to suppress reported that a Palisades meltdown would cause a thousand acute radiation poisoning deaths, 7,000 radiation injuries, 10,000 latent cancer fatalities, and $52 billion in property damage. Adjusting for inflation alone, property damage would now exceed $168 billion. And since populations have increased around Palisades in the past 43 years, casualty figures would be significantly worse, as more people now live in harm’s way.
Holtec’s inexperience exacerbates these synergistic old and new reactor risks. Holtec still has no NRC-approved SMR-300 design certification, has never built a reactor, nor operated one, nor repaired and restarted one, let alone a reactor as perpetually problem-plagued as the 60-year old Palisades zombie. Holtec’s incompetence and corruption has been on full display in just the past several weeks, including a leak of large amounts of ultra-toxic hydrazine into Lake Michigan, the unprecedented fall by a worker into the radioactive reactor cavity, and evidence of potential alcohol consumption and/or drug impairment, including in the protected area, and by a supervisor. Despite all this, NRC has rubber stamped weakened work hour limitations, meaning overworked employees will be more fatigued, as Holtec races to restart the zombie reactor, in order to hold its announced Initial Public Offering, hoping to raise another $10 billion in private investment, for SMR-300 deployment across the country and around the world, with Palisades as the dangerously dubious prototype to be followed.
Speaking of money, Holtec has, thus far, been awarded $3.52 billion (with a B!) in public funding at Palisades alone. But it has requested another $12 billion (with a B!) more. These bailouts significantly impact the pocketbooks of hard working Americans — state and federal taxpayers, as well as electric ratepayers. Palisades represents a wealth redistribution scheme, from the American people to Holtec, compliments of Governor Whitmer, the Michigan state legislature, Congress, President Biden, and now President Trump. Abe Lincoln described the ideal of government as “of, by, and for the people.” At Palisades, government seems to be of, by, and for an inexperienced, incompetent, careless, corrupt and greed-driven corporation, playing radioactive Russian roulette, carrying out a large-scale nuclear experiment, with Great Lakes residents as the unwitting Guinea pigs.”
UK is running out of water – but data centres refuse to say how much they use.
One Government insider said ‘accurate water figures have historically been very hard to get from facilities of any size’.
Tech firms are failing to tell the Government how much water they use in
their data centres, as concerns grow that the UK does not have enough water to meet its needs.
Experts are calling on the Government to introduce
tighter regulations on data centres amid warnings that new power and
water-intensive supercomputers could be built in areas vulnerable to
drought. Campaigners have raised concerns that the Government is “too
close” to tech lobbyists and is failing to fully consider the impact a
data centre boom could have on the UK’s natural resources.
iNews 1st Dec 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/uk-running-out-water-data-centres-refuse-say-4062230
Europe militarizes its space agency.
Sat, 29 Nov 2025 , https://www.sott.net/article/503252-Europe-militarizes-its-space-agency
The ESA has been awarded record funding, dropping its civilian-only focus and branching out to military and security missions.
The European Space Agency (ESA) will begin working on defense projects for the first time, in a move it is describing as “historic.” A resolution by its 23 member states says the agency has the tools to develop space systems “for security and defense.”
The EU and NATO are pouring tens of billions in taxpayer and borrowed money into supporting defense firms and churning out weapons, claiming Russia poses an imminent threat. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that EU leaders are inflating the alleged danger to push their own political agendas and funnel cash into the arms industry.
Next year’s budget allocates a record €22.1 billion (around $24 billion) to the ESA for the next three years.Its member states include virtually all European NATO countries, as well as non‑NATO members such as Switzerland and Austria.
The new budget is a sharp rise from the previous €17 billion. Germany is the top contributor with €5 billion, followed by France and Italy at over €3 billion each.
According to ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, Poland was instrumental in promoting the agency’s new strategic direction. He confirmed that Warsaw is currently in discussions to host a new ESA center dedicated to security-focused projects.
Across the EU, defense budgets are surging as Brussels and its allies push for rearmament under the banner of security. The European Commission’s ‘ReArm Europe’ plan aims to pour hundreds of billions into joint weapons procurement and infrastructure, while member states have boosted arms purchases by nearly 40% in just one year.
Research and development spending is also up sharply, signaling a full-speed shift toward a greater military focus.
ESA approves first-ever defense program:
Europe is taking its biggest step yet into space militarization. The centrepiece of this shift is European Resilience from Space (ERS), a new dual-use program intended to build a military-grade “system of systems” combining national satellites for secure surveillance, communications, navigation, and climate monitoring.
ERS received $1.39 billion of the $1.56 billion ESA sought. In February, ESA will ask European defense ministries for an additional $290 million.
ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher called the decision “a clear defense and security mandate,” noting that support from 23 member states — including non-EU countries such as the UK — was nearly unanimous.
At the ministerial summit in Bremen, ESA member states also approved:
- a total transportation budget of $5.09 billion (4.39 billion EUR) to develop reusable European rockets;
- $4.18 billion for commercial space partnerships;
- continued funding for the Rosalind Franklin Mars mission, now slated for launch in 2028 with NASA’s confirmed support;
- initial studies for a mission to Saturn’s moon Enceladus, seen by astrobiologists as a prime target for finding extraterrestrial life.
Germany — already planning to invest $40.6 billion in military space capabilities by 2030 — extended its lead as ESA’s largest contributor. In exchange, Berlin secured a commitment that a German astronaut will be the first European to join NASA’s Artemis lunar missions.
Space consultants note that while ERS funding is substantial, it remains politically delicate. “The coming year will be decisive for whether Europe can truly stand up a sovereign, rapid-response intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance constellation,” said Maxime Puteaux of Novaspace.
Earlier, Maj. Gen. Paul Tedman, head of the UK Space Command,reported that Russia was routinely shadowing and trying to jam British military satellites.
Star Wars redux: the false promise of space-based missile defense
by Najam Ul Hassan, November 24, 2025, https://spacenews.com/star-wars-redux-the-false-promise-of-space-based-missile-defense/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Opinions%3A%20Is%20space-based%20missile%20defense%20a%20non-starter%3F&utm_campaign=Opinions%20-%202025-11-29
Star Wars is back in vogue with President Trump’s executive order to establish the “Golden Dome” missile defense shield. It will feature an ambitious space-based boost-phase interceptor program in addition to terrestrial systems. While admittedly the holy grail of defense against ballistic missiles, the obstacles that plagued its discontinued predecessor, “Brilliant Pebble,” under the Strategic Defense Initiative, remain unaddressed. The technological breakthroughs in launch capacity, decreasing costs of sending mass into space and faster data transfer have led to renewed hope for space-based missile defense, but the fundamental hurdle — physics, not technology — remains to be effectively overcome.
Recurrent interest in space-based missile interceptors (SBI) is driven by the motivation to neutralize the missile in the boost phase, contrary to the other air defense systems that intercept either in the mid-course or the terminal phase. This offers numerous advantages: it is substantially easier to detect and target as the booster has not detached yet, making the target bulkier; the plume from the burn makes it visible; its speed is slower compared to other phases; and the target has not hardened yet, making it more vulnerable. Once the missile enters the midcourse, it deploys decoys with a similar radar cross-section as the actual warhead, which float at similar trajectories, making it exponentially harder to achieve an effective kill. Additionally, the deployment of multiple warheads in case of a Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle or zig-zag moment of hypersonic glide vehicles adds another layer of complexity to successful interception.
However, this lucrative promise is heavily outweighed by the drawback of what could be termed the absenteeism problem in physics. These satellites, carrying kill vehicles, must be stationed in low Earth orbit (LEO) to reach the target in the boost phase, which only lasts from three to five minutes after launch. The fundamental problem is that objects in LEO cannot be parked above one point on Earth; they revolve around Earth, completing a cycle between 90 and 120 minutes. To cover the entire stretch of potential launching points and establish a genuinely global air defense, a constellation of 950 satellites has to be deployed, according to conservative estimates. The estimated cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, is $542 billion as opposed to the $175 billion claim by President Trump.
Not only is the scaling dynamic flawed, but the system is also easy to defeat. The constellation is easily overwhelmed by simultaneous launches. Even if each satellite were to carry more than one interceptor, the system still saturates quickly. Once that happens, instead of a linear increase in required satellites to intercept additional hostile launches, the requirement jumps exponentially, which is untenable. Besides, the enemy can simply punch holes in the chain by employing anti-satellite missiles, as the satellites can be tracked.
Furthermore, attempts to field even a limited number of SBIs for tests could pose a security dilemma for other states. These SBIs can be effective ASAT vehicles as they would require high thrust and maneuverability, allowing them to potentially reach and attack satellites in geosynchronous orbits. This can trigger an arms race of satellite-based weapons as well as counter-space capabilities, resulting in a net effect of added insecurity for all, including the U.S. itself, which depends heavily on its space capabilities. Challenging the effectiveness of an adversary’s deterrent would have profound strategic implications, at least insofar as it would either find qualitative ways to evade the newly developed defense architecture, or increase the number of their missiles to overwhelm the systems, or both. Ultimately, durable security cannot be achieved alone but in concert with others, including the adversary, and perhaps the only way to prevent attacks and ensure long-term stability remains deterrence by punishment.
The proposal for SBIs has also triggered sharp international reactions. China has already fielded its own “Golden Dome” prototype, which is essentially an early warning system with enormous big data computation ability, that uses the present capabilities in a more integrated and efficient manner, rather than seeking new platforms for interceptors. Criticizing the American approach, Beijing has asserted that SBIs would disturb “global strategic balance and stability” and turn “space into a war zone”, while Moscow has called it “very destabilizing.”
The desire to secure the homeland drives this saga, undergirded by the belief that technology could fundamentally alter defense logics. Yet despite significant progress in almost all the technological components needed to improve the cost-benefit equation, the physical — and perhaps insurmountable — barriers remain as formidable as they were three decades ago. The return to space-based interceptors thus reflects a recurring faith in technological solutions to strategic problems that are, at their core, governed by physics and deterrence. Rather than investing in an orbit-based missile shield that risks instability and imposes exorbitant costs, pursuing balanced security arrangements may offer a sustainable path toward long-term stability.
Najam Ul Hassan is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies, Lahore.
DARPA Going Hard on Insect-Sized Spy Robots
It’s giving “bugged” a whole new meaning.
By Joe Wilkins, Sep 24, 2025, https://futurism.com/future-society/darpa-robot-insects
Forget robot wolves and missile-deflecting satellites — those things are already becoming old news. Instead, future wars just might revolve around insect-size spy robots.
A recent digest of present-day microbots by US national security magazine The National Interest breaks down the many machines currently in development by the US military and its associates. They include sea-based microdrones, cockroach-style surveillance bots, and even cyborg insects.
Arguably the most refined program to date is the RoboBee, currently being shopped by Harvard’s Wyss Institute. Originally funded by a $9.3 million grant from the National Science Foundation in 2009, the RoboBee is a bug-sized autonomous flying vehicle capable of transitioning from water to air, perching on surfaces, and autonomous collision avoidance in swarms.
The RoboBee features two “wafer-thin” wings that flap some 120 times a second to achieve vertical takeoff and mid-air hovering. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has reportedly taken a keen interest in RoboBee prototypes, sponsoring research into microfabrication technology, presumably for quick field deployments.
In the future, the little bots may very well carry payloads of monitoring equipment like microphones and cameras, though that’s easier said than done at such a minute scale.
Other developments, like the aforementioned cyborg insect, remain in early stages. Researchers have successfully demonstrated the capabilities of these remote-control systems using of a range of insect hosts, from the unicorn beetle to the humble cockroach.
Though DARPA has been funding insect-machine technology since 2006, their practical application is up in the air. Still, researchers are trying to keep up with the times, looking into ways to tune drone swarming algorithms to fit their cyborg creations.
Underwater microrobotics are another area of interest for DARPA. In this case, the application is said to be less mobile, instead focusing on clandestine monitoring of vulnerable underwater infrastructure.
The Interest also points to an alleged “robo-jelly” the agency has in the works, a soft-bodied autonomous drone which can silently glide through coastal waters. How practical this is remains to be seen — jellyfish are notorious drifters, following the ebbs and flows of coastal tides and deep ocean currents.
Last is the cockroach bot, the Dynamic Autonomous Sprawled Hexapod (DASH) in the works at DARPA’s notorious proving grounds at UC Berkeley. A white paper released by UC Berkeley back in 2009 defines DASH as a 16 gram, 10cm long autonomous robot which maneuvers via six legs powered by a single motor. It’s also capable of surmounting steps greater than its own height, and absorbing significant blows, including falls “from any height.”
According to the Interest, DASH is being developed with an eye toward crush resistance implying a quality-over-quantity approach compared to more agile systems like the RoboBee.
Elon’s last grift
The US is one big grift these days: the Trump Administration, traditional and social media, corporations, crypto, financial markets are all selling some kind of spurious promise. It’s hard to pick the most egregious example. But for me, it’s hard to go past Tesla. Having lost its dominant position in the electric car market, the company ought to be on the edge of delisting. Instead, its current market capitalisation is $US1.33 trillion ($A 2 trillion). Shareholders have just agreed on an incentive deal with Elon Musk, premised on the claim that he can take that number to $8.5 trillion.
Having failed with the Cybertruck and robotaxis, Tesla’s value depends almost entirely on the projected success of the Optimus humanoid robot. There’s a strong case that Optimus will be outperformed by rivals like Unitree But the bigger question is: why build a humanoid robot at all?
The choice of a humanoid form factor reveals more about the sloppy thinking of our tech elite than about engineering logic. The design represents a triumph of anthropomorphic fantasy over functional optimization, producing machines that excel primarily at generating media buzz rather than performing useful work.
In promoting Optimus, Tesla offers a long list of functions such as robot might perform: lifting and stacking goods in warehouses, operating in dangerous situations with ground too uneven for wheels and tracks, and performing various kinds of domestic labour.
In each of these cases, there is a better alternative available. Modern warehouses are designed around automated systems that exploit the advantages of robotics —conveyor networks, sorting systems, and wheeled or tracked robots specifically designed for lifting and moving tasks.
Industrial robots—fixed-position systems with multiple articulated arms—have dominated automotive and electronics assembly for decades precisely because they abandon human form constraints in favor of functional optimization.
Mobile warehouse robots can navigate autonomously while carrying loads that would topple any humanoid robot. Meanwhile, human workers remain more cost-effective for complex picking tasks, combining visual recognition, fine motor control, and problem-solving capabilities that no current robot approaches.
In less controlled environments, with uneven ground surfaces, quadruped robots (commonly presented as dog-like) are more stable than bipeds. They can be equipped with a wide range of grasping appendages including, but not limited to, the mechanical hands of a humanoid robot. Examples are already in use for tasks like bomb disposal and disaster response.
In domestic applications, Musk’s presentations envision Optimus folding laundry, preparing meals, and performing general housework—tasks that supposedly justify the human form factor because homes are designed for human occupancy.
This argument doesn’t stand up to even minimal scrutiny. Specialized appliances consistently outperform generalist approaches in domestic environments—robotic vacuum cleaners navigate more efficiently than any humanoid could, dishwashers clean more thoroughly than humanoid hands, and washing machines handle laundry with greater consistency than any robot attempting to mimic human movements. Where genuine flexibility is required, the combination of purpose-built tools and human intelligence remains unmatched. The complexity of truly autonomous domestic robots would require artificial intelligence capabilities that remain decades away, if achievable at all.
A final idea is that of robots as companions for lonely humans. This seems likely to fall into the “uncanny valley” – too human-like to be viewed as a machine, but too mechanical to be seen as human. But, if there is any market for Optimus, this will probably be it.
The humanoid form factor serves primarily to create an illusory impression of human-like intelligence. By mimicking human appearance and movement, these robots suggest cognitive capabilities they fundamentally lack. The fact that humans are more intelligent than dogs encourages the fallacious (implicit) inference that robot resambling a human must be more intelligent than one resembling a dog.
The humanoid form factor consistently proves inferior to specialized alternatives across every proposed application domain. I persists because it generates the kind of media attention and investor enthusiasm that Tesla requires for its business model. Effective robotics emerges from careful analysis of specific problems and optimisation for particular environments, not from attempts to recreate human form and movement. Until the technology sector abandons its anthropomorphic fantasies in favour of functional engineering, robotic development will remain trapped between impressive demonstrations and practical irrelevance.
Meanwhile, Tesla’s share price keeps going up, along with (until very recently), crypto, AI stocks, and the fortunes of the Trump family. By this time, the remaining sceptics have given up short-selling and retired to the sidelines to wait for the crash. That’s about the best advice I could give (bearing in mind that I Am Not a Financial Advisor).
But I’d be interested to read any contrary views on why humanoid robots are The Next Big Thing, or why bubbles like this can last forever.
The Invention of “Ethical AI”
Kissinger declared the possibility of “a world relying on machines powered by data and algorithms and ungoverned by ethical or philosophical norms,”
How Big Tech Manipulates Academia to Avoid Regulation
Rodrigo Ochigame, The Intercept, December 20 2019
The irony of the ethical scandal enveloping Joichi Ito, the former director of the MIT Media Lab, is that he used to lead academic initiatives on ethics. After the revelation of his financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier charged with sex trafficking underage girls as young as 14, Ito resigned from multiple roles at MIT, a visiting professorship at Harvard Law School, and the boards of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the New York Times Company.
Many spectators are puzzled by Ito’s influential role as an ethicist of artificial intelligence. Indeed, his initiatives were crucial in establishing the discourse of “ethical AI” that is now ubiquitous in academia and in the mainstream press. In 2016, then-President Barack Obama described him as an “expert” on AI and ethics. Since 2017, Ito financed many projects through the $27 million Ethics and Governance of AI Fund, an initiative anchored by the MIT Media Lab and the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. What was all the talk of “ethics” really about?
………………….. Inspired by whistleblower Signe Swenson and others who have spoken out, I have decided to report what I came to learn regarding Ito’s role in shaping the field of AI ethics, since this is a matter of public concern. The emergence of this field is a recent phenomenon, as past AI researchers had been largely uninterested in the study of ethics……………………………
At the Media Lab, I learned that the discourse of “ethical AI,” championed substantially by Ito, was aligned strategically with a Silicon Valley effort seeking to avoid legally enforceable restrictions of controversial technologies………………….
I also watched MIT help the U.S. military brush aside the moral complexities of drone warfare, hosting a superficial talk on AI and ethics by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and notorious war criminal, and giving input on the U.S. Department of Defense’s “AI Ethics Principles” for warfare, which embraced “permissibly biased” algorithms and which avoided using the word “fairness” because the Pentagon believes “that fights should not be fair.”
…………………….IT lent credibility to the idea that big tech could police its own use of artificial intelligence at a time when the industry faced increasing criticism and calls for legal regulation.
…..corporations have tried to shift the discussion to focus on voluntary “ethical principles,” “responsible practices,” and technical adjustments or “safeguards” framed in terms of “bias” and “fairness”…………………………..
To characterize the corporate agenda, it is helpful to distinguish between three kinds of regulatory possibilities for a given technology: (1) no legal regulation at all, leaving “ethical principles” and “responsible practices” as merely voluntary; (2) moderate legal regulation encouraging or requiring technical adjustments that do not conflict significantly with profits; or (3) restrictive legal regulation curbing or banning deployment of the technology. Unsurprisingly, the tech industry tends to support the first two and oppose the last. The corporate sponsored discussion on ethical AI” enables precisely this position. ……………………….
Thus, Silicon Valley’s vigorous promotion of “ethical AI” has constituted a strategic lobbying effort, one that has enrolled academia to legitimize itself. Ito played a key role in this corporate-academic fraternizing, meeting regularly with tech executives. The MIT-Harvard fund’s initial director was the former “global public policy lead” for AI at Google. Through the fund, Ito and his associates sponsored many projects, including the creation of a prominent conference on “Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency” in computer science; other sponsors of the conference included Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.
……………………………………….. After the initial steps by MIT and Harvard, many other universities and new institutes received money from the tech industry to work on AI ethics. Most such organizations are also headed by current or former executives of tech firms……………………..
Big tech money and direction proved incompatible with an honest exploration of ethics, at least judging from my experience with the “Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society,” a group founded by Microsoft, Google/DeepMind, Facebook, IBM, and Amazon in 2016. PAI, of which the Media Lab is a member, defines itself as a “multistakeholder body” and claims it is “not a lobbying organization.” In an April 2018 hearing at the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Partnership’s executive director claimed that the organization is merely “a resource to policymakers — for instance, in conducting research that informs AI best practices and exploring the societal consequences of certain AI systems, as well as policies around the development and use of AI systems.”
……— the partnership has certainly sought to influence legislation…….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… the corporate-academic alliances were too robust and convenient. The Media Lab remained in the Partnership, and Ito continued to fraternize with Silicon Valley and Wall Street executives and investors. …………………………………..
Regardless of individual actors’ intentions the corporate lobby’s effort to shape academic research was extremely successful. There is now an enormous amount of work under the rubric of “AI ethics.” To be fair, some of the research is useful and nuanced, especially in the humanities and social sciences. But the majority of well-funded work on “ethical AI” is aligned with the tech lobby’s agenda: to voluntarily or moderately adjust, rather than legally restrict, the deployment of controversial technologies. How did five corporations, using only a small fraction of their budgets, manage to influence and frame so much academic activity, in so many disciplines, so quickly?
…………….The field has also become relevant to the U.S. military, not only in official responses to moral concerns about technologies of targeted killing but also in disputes among Silicon Valley firms over lucrative military contracts. On November 1st the Department of Defense’s Innovation Board published its recommendations for “AI Ethics Principles.” The board is chaired by Eric Schmidt, who was the executive chair of Alphabet, Google’s parent company,…….. The board includes multiple executives from Google, Microsoft, and Facebook, raising controversies regarding conflicts of interest. ……………………
The recommendations seek to compel the Pentagon to increase military investments in AI and to adopt “ethical AI” systems such as those developed and sold by Silicon Valley firms. …………………………………………..
“some applications will be permissibly and justifiably biased,” specifically “to target certain adversarial combatants more successfully.” The Pentagon’s conception of AI ethics forecloses many important possibilities for moral deliberation, such as the prohibition of drones for targeted killing.
The corporate, academic, and military proponents of “ethical AI” have collaborated closely for mutual benefit. For example, Ito told me that he informally advised Schmidt on which academic AI ethicists Schmidt’s private foundation should fund. Ito even asked me for second order advice on whether Schmidt should fund a certain professor who, like Ito, later served as an “expert consultant” to the Pentagon’s innovation board…………….Kissinger declared the possibility of “a world relying on machines powered by data and algorithms and ungoverned by ethical or philosophical norms,”….
No defensible claim to ethics” can sidestep the urgency of legally enforceable restrictions to the deployment of technologies of mass surveillance and systemic violence. Until such restrictions exist, moral and political deliberation about computing will remain subsidiary to the profit-making imperative expressed by the Media Lab’s motto, “Deploy or Die.” While some deploy, even if ostensibly “ethically,” others die. https://theintercept.com/2019/12/20/mit-ethical-ai-artificial-intelligence/
The Sandoval County Rocket and Missile Complex Deal Was Done Before the Public Ever Had a Say
By Elaine Cimino, 17 Nov 25
Sandoval County residents woke up Monday to the Rio Rancho Observer declaring that Castelion Corporation has “selected” Sandoval County as the site for its massive 1,000-acre solid-rocket-motor and missile assembly complex. But anyone who has followed the paper trail knows this wasn’t breaking news—it was political theater.
The State Land Office signed the leases months ago. County officials, the City of Rio Rancho, and the Economic Development Department all coordinated a tightly scripted rollout long before the public ever heard the words “Project Ranger.” Monday’s headline simply confirmed what insiders already knew: the “selection” was locked in before a single required hearing, study, or disclosure ever took place.
The Observer framed the announcement as a triumph of economic development. But it left out the most important fact—the legal process was reversed and violated at nearly every stage. LEDA requires a public hearing before an approval hearing. Necessary documents must be accessible before a vote. Environmental and hazard studies must be available. None of those requirements were met.
We now know that the 16-page “Sandia safety report” withheld from the public was not a safety review at all—Sandia explicitly warns it is “not an approved explosives safety document.” Meanwhile, the Project Participation Agreement reveals that land purchases, leases, and even LEDA financial structures were already in place. By the time the public meeting occurred, the outcome was predetermined.
This isn’t transparency. It’s not even bad governance. It is a deliberate circumvention of state law.
What’s Ahead for Sandoval County
The public is being told this project brings “high-paying jobs” and a “$650 million economic impact.” But buried in the PPA is the truth: Castelion commits to only 300 jobs and can close operations after five years. If they walk away after collecting public subsidies, the clawback penalties total just $10 million—far less than the public investment that enabled them to arrive here in the first place.
More concerning is what’s missing from every public statement:
• No federal NEPA environmental review.
• No ammonium perchlorate plume model—although the PPA references a “plume study.”
• No wildfire, evacuation, or transportation risk analysis despite half-mile blast zones and multi-thousand-foot withdrawal zones for trucks carrying explosives.
• No groundwater contamination modeling, even though perchlorate and combustion byproducts travel miles and persist for decades.
These aren’t hypotheticals. This is the same class of toxins that has contaminated groundwater around multiple rocket-motor test sites nationwide. This is the same wildfire-prone mesa where residents already face evacuation challenges. And this is the same water-stressed aquifer basin that state leadership claims to be protecting through its Strategic Water Supply agenda.
The public deserves science, not slogans.
A Statewide Pattern of Back-Room Deals
What happened here follows a now-familiar pattern: announcements made first, studies done later—or never. Whether it’s hydrogen hubs, produced-water schemes, data-center subsidies, or now hypersonic missile manufacturing, New Mexico’s political class increasingly treats residents as obstacles rather than constituents.
The Observer bought into the narrative that this facility represents innovation and opportunity. But what it really represents is a democratic bypass—one where decisions with generational consequences are made behind closed doors, backed by the voices of military contractors rather than the people who must live with the fallout.
What Comes Next
New Mexicans must demand independent environmental review, legally compliant public hearings, and a reset of the approval process—not a rubber-stamped after-the-fact validation of a deal already done.
We deserve leadership willing to follow the law, not bend it. We deserve economic development that strengthens communities, not exposes them to explosive hazards and toxic plumes. And we deserve a press willing to ask questions rather than repeat talking points.
The truth is simple: the public was cut out. But the fight is not over.
This is only the beginning.
1 This Month.
Let’s keep radioactive waste away from our river!
Nuclear Power? -Never again
(Switzerland –https://www.greenpeace.ch/de/handeln/atomkraft-nie-wieder/+)
PETITION – Close Down the Monticello Nuclear Reactor on the Mississippi River!
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (213)
- 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)
- January 2025 (250)
-
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 