nuclear-news

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

Nuclear Waste Transportation and Burial Plan Could be “Pre-Approved

3 July 26, https://nuclearwastewatch.weebly.com/

NUCLEAR WASTE ACTION ALERT! On June 24th three federal Ministers lined up to announce that it had referred three projects to the Major Project Office to consider the potential “listing” of the NWMO DGR under the Build Canada Act (aka Bill C-5). That’s a bit cryptic, but what it means is that these projects – if listed – would in essence be pre-approved. As the Minsters’ statement put it, this would mean “shifting Canada’s regulatory focus from ‘whether’ … to ‘how.”


Shockingly, one of these projects is the extremely controversial plan to transport, process, bury and abandon all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste at the Revell site in northwestern Ontario.  The project is the subject of broad opposition and is in the early stage of an impact assessment. It’s unprecedented – there are no other operating deep geological repositories for nuclear fuel waste anywhere in the world – and the plan is still largely conceptual, with many parts of the operation not yet designed. If ever there was a project that needs a rigorous review it is this one. The plan includes 2-3 trucks per day hauling the waste for thousands of kilometres and radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for one million years. Does this sound like a project that should be handed over to the rubber-stamp department?
 
The federal government is not inviting public comment. Take one minute to send your message today. Go to tinyurl.com/MessageMPs. 

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


The federal government has unleashed a “discussion paper”  outlining the next rush to dismantle what remains of environmental assessment. Top target: independent assessment of nuclear projects, which the paper proposes would be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The deadline for comment has been extended to July 22. It’s expected that new legislation will follow quickly. Read more HERE.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory.

ANISHINABEK NATION TERRITORY (July 1, 2026) – The Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief shares a statement as the Nation prepares to celebrate Canada Day.

“We wish you a Happy Canada Day! 

Anishinabek Nation statement on Canada Day

ANISHINABEK NATION TERRITORY (July 1, 2026) – The Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief shares a statement as the Nation prepares to celebrate Canada Day. https://anishinabeknews.ca/2026/07/anishinabek-nation-statement-on-canada-day/

“We wish you a Happy Canada Day!   We celebrate the diversity, cultures, and contributions of this Nation with pride and encourage others to join in celebration. However, we also encourage citizens of this Nation to take the time to understand that this land you have come to know as Canada has a colourful past with a legacy that continues to negatively affect the Original People of this land. While some parts of the country are celebrating, First Nations people are contemplating the Government of Canada’s plans for a toxic nuclear waste dump in a small town in Northwestern Ontario within the Treaty 3 territory.

The Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory from southern Ontario to the proposed burial of nuclear waste in the Township of Ignace, Ontario, and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. While Prime Minister Carney claims, ‘We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free’, there is a stark contrast between words and actions, and rightsholders and citizens of this land are taking note. Instead of protecting our homeland, the plan is to pollute it with toxic nuclear waste, far from the populations that utilize and benefit from nuclear energy produced in the south.

The Anishinabek Nation stands united in unequivocal opposition to the transportation of nuclear waste through the entire Anishinabek Nation territory from southern Ontario to the proposed burial of nuclear waste in the Township of Ignace, Ontario, and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. While Prime Minister Carney claims, ‘We are defending and building together, the true North, strong and free’, there is a stark contrast between words and actions, and rightsholders and citizens of this land are taking note. Instead of protecting our homeland, the plan is to pollute it with toxic nuclear waste, far from the populations that utilize and benefit from nuclear energy produced in the south.

Imagine for a moment that the federal and provincial governments proposed nuclear waste in a DGR in Southern Ontario, the most densely populated heart of the country. Would you be so eager to impose such a dangerous burden on those communities that have no choice but to live with the risk? Would there be silence or dismissiveness? Or would Canadians stand up and demand meaningful engagement, transparency, and respect for their health and environment?

magine for a moment that the federal and provincial governments proposed nuclear waste in a DGR in Southern Ontario, the most densely populated heart of the country. Would you be so eager to impose such a dangerous burden on those communities that have no choice but to live with the risk? Would there be silence or dismissiveness? Or would Canadians stand up and demand meaningful engagement, transparency, and respect for their health and environment?

As stated in Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of Indigenous Peoples without their free, prior and informed consent,” and we do not consent to the transportation of this nuclear waste in our territory and member First Nations.

We call on the federal government to reconsider its pursuit of a dangerous, toxic nuclear waste dump that threatens our future generations, and to cease these reckless plans immediately. We ask that you respect the treaty relationship, our inherent rights, and our sovereignty. Listen to our voices and prioritize safe and environmentally sound solutions that do not put any communities or the environment at risk. It is painfully clear that the transportation and disposal of hazardous nuclear waste bring risks, uncertainty, and consequences for all.

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

National interest in nuclear site gets mixed reaction

Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.

“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,” 

 

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization says such a designation would not weaken oversight, opponents of the deep geological repository don’t agree

Matt Prokopchuk, Jun 24, 2026

IGNACE — The potential for changing how a proposed nuclear waste facility is studied has set off a flurry of reactions across the region.

On Wednesday, the federal government announced three initiatives were being referred to its Major Projects Office, which will consider whether to name them projects of national interest under the Building Canada Act. That designation is designed to alter the processes that determine whether projects get approved, with the goal of speeding up that decision.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed deep geological repository for high-level used fuel near Revell Lake was one of the initiatives Ottawa announced was up for consideration.

“The deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel is nationally significant infrastructure that supports clean growth, advances reconciliation, delivers long term economic benefits and strengthens Canada’s energy security and resilience,” the Nuclear Waste Management Organization said in an emailed statement.

The NWMO is a government-mandated not-for-profit funded by the nuclear industry tasked with the long-term management of the country’s nuclear waste. It selected the Revell Lake-area site in 2024.

The project is currently undergoing a multi-phase environmental impact assessment and regulatory review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. They have been tasked with deciding whether to green-light the proposed facility through a scheduled years-long study.

Organizations opposing the waste site say they’re worried, should the repository be deemed a project of national interest, that oversight would weaken.

“Our major concern would be the approval process being fast-tracked,” said Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North, a coalition of organizations and residents opposing the transportation and storing of nuclear waste in northern Ontario. “What we’ve been relying on so far is the impact assessment office and an impact assessment. And we’ve been assured that it was going to be a full impact assessment, which was a win for us.”

“Now, that is all potentially taken apart if this referral to the major projects office actually does go through.”

According to a federal government media release, consultations about whether to list the project will “begin over the coming weeks,” with a decision expected in the fall.

Newswatch has requested comment from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada about what listing the deep geological repository under the Building Canada Act would mean to the ongoing review the agency is doing.

Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Chief Clayton Wetelainen told Newswatch, should the project receive the “national interest” designation from the Major Projects Office, the First Nation’s independent parallel approvals process won’t be affected. Wabigoon Lake is one of two host communities for the repository, along with Ignace.

“That’s why we, in our agreement to host it, to look at it, is that we have our own independent sovereign regulatory approval process that will mitigate if there’s anything that Wabigoon Lake sees that is going to be problematic,” he said.

The NWMO, in its statement, argued making the project one of national significance “would not reduce the scope, rigour or independence of the regulatory decision-making process.”

Opponents say they’re not convinced, adding that the public consultation phases of the ongoing impact assessment have garnered hundreds of comments, with many expressing concern or outright opposition.

“The risks are monumental and Canadians deserve a thorough examination of the risks in a full impact assessment,” O’Connor said.

“That is what we continue to press for and we were sure that was going to happen and now this (announcement) puts it in question again.”

The Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association, which represents 37 municipalities across the region, including Ignace, said in a media release that it and its sister organization in the northeast “welcome” the referral, but “stress that the project must continue through a rigorous regulatory, environmental, scientific, and Indigenous consultation process before any final decisions are made.”

The organizations added that similar consideration should also be given to the Trans-Canada Highway through the north — particularly with the prospect of hundreds of trucks of nuclear waste travelling each year on Highways 11 and 17.

“Should the deep geological repository ultimately proceed, transportation associated with the project could occur on northern Ontario highways within the coming decades,” NOMA’s media release said.

“Preparing for that future requires a highway system that is safe, reliable, resilient and capable of supporting nationally significant projects.”

In Wabigoon Lake, Wetelainen said the time to make a decision on a nuclear waste site is now.

“It’s a problem today and it’s been a problem yesterday,” he said. “The critical voices and the people who are supportive of it, are going through some times.”

July 4, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

CORWM visits Sizewell A and Sizewell B, -92% of pond low level waste is diverted to landfill

 Members of CoRWM visited Sizewell A and Sizewell B to examine interim
storage arrangements for intermediate level waste and spent nuclear fuel.


The visit, held on Thursday 26 February, was arranged to inform a study on
interim storage being undertaken by CoRWM Sub-Group 6 (Waste, Spent Fuel
and Nuclear Materials Inventory Management).

Sub-Group 6 members Pete
Bryant, Derek Lacey, Barry Lennox, and Simon Webb were joined by CoRWM
member Mark Kirkbride. The study will report on current and future interim
storage requirements for spent nuclear fuel and intermediate level waste
(ILW), considering the UK nuclear legacy, the existing operational fleet
and new build.

At Sizewell A, now in the early stages of decommissioning
following de-fuelling between 2006 and 2014, members reviewed progress in
the retrieval and conditioning of ILW, including material from the ponds.
They discussed arrangements for transferring ILW, including by rail, to the
Bradwell Interim Store, which is designed to accommodate waste from
Bradwell, Sizewell A and Dungeness until reactor dismantling begins.


Members noted the achievement of diverting approximately 92% of pond low
level waste from the Low-Level Waste Repository (LLWR) to permitted
landfill sites. This helps preserve capacity at the LLWR.

CoRWM 26th June 2026, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/corwm-visits-sizewell-a-and-sizewell-b

June 29, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Finland buried nuclear waste in copper canisters 430 meters down, but the metal may not survive as long as the promise.

Every nuclear country has the same uncomfortable problem. ……………………….. spent fuel remains dangerous for time periods that are hard to grasp…….its most important results will arrive long after today’s engineers, regulators, and politicians are gone. That is not comforting, exactly, but it is the truth.

By Indux,  June 23, 2026, https://www.vozpopuli.com/indux/en/finland-buried-nuclear-waste-in-copper-canisters-430-meters-down-but-the-metal-may-not-survive-as-long-as-the-promise/6314/ 

Finland is close to doing something no country has fully done before. At Olkiluoto island, Posiva Oy has built Onkalo, a deep underground repository meant to hold spent nuclear fuel far below everyday life, traffic, homes, schools, and the electric bills that come with nuclear power.

The bold part is not just the depth, it is the bet. The fuel will be sealed in copper-and-iron canisters, wrapped in bentonite clay, and placed about 1,300 to 1,400 feet underground in bedrock that is roughly 1.9 billion years old.

Some scientists still question how long the copper canisters will really last, but Finland’s plan leans on a bigger idea: no single barrier is supposed to carry eternity alone.

A world-first nuclear waste plan

Posiva submitted its operating license application at the end of 2021 for an encapsulation plant and final disposal facility for spent nuclear fuel. The Finnish government said the planned license period runs from March 2024 to the end of 2070, with the repository located in bedrock at a depth of about 400 to 430 meters.

That timeline has not gone as smoothly as planned. Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, known as STUK, says its review has been extended and that it now has additional time until the end of June 2026, if possible, to submit its statement. The government can only grant the operating license if STUK supports it.

What goes inside the rock

The waste is not simply lowered into a tunnel and forgotten. Posiva’s disposal canister has a cast iron inner structure that holds the fuel elements, while the copper shell works mainly as a corrosion barrier. The copper shell is about 2 inches thick, and the lid is welded shut to keep groundwater away from the fuel.

In practical terms, it is a layered defense. First comes the fuel itself, then the iron insert, then copper, then clay, then rock, then the deep groundwater conditions around it. That is why the project is not just a story about a metal container, it is a geology story.

Why copper is controversial

Copper was chosen because it is expected to corrode very slowly in the oxygen-poor conditions deep underground. For the most part, that remains the basis of the KBS-3 concept used by Posiva and Sweden’s SKB.

Not everyone is convinced, however. A long-running scientific debate has focused on whether copper can corrode even in oxygen-free water. A 2023 assessment of canister degradation noted that anoxic copper corrosion and localized sulphide corrosion were among the most debated mechanisms reviewed by Swedish safety experts.

That does not mean the canisters are expected to fail tomorrow. It means the safety case has to survive tough questions. And with nuclear waste, “tough” means thinking beyond normal human planning, past elections, past companies, and past the lifespan of every building we know.

The rock is doing the heavy lifting

So why keep building if the copper debate is still alive? Because the Finnish design does not rely only on copper.

Posiva says geological disposal in Finland means placing the waste in crystalline bedrock, which makes up most of Finnish bedrock and is among the oldest in the world. The company also says deposition holes are drilled in solid rock zones where water seepage through cracks is as small as possible.

That ancient rock is the quiet star of the whole project. It has already been through immense geological time, ice sheets, and environmental change. The logic is simple enough to understand, even if the engineering is anything but simple: put the waste where the world changes slowly.

Licensing is still the near-term test

Onkalo may be physically close to operation, but the paperwork still matters. STUK says the review is close to completion, but it has been delayed by deficiencies in Posiva’s application documentation, updates tied to plant changes, and remaining uncertainties in the long-term safety case.

That is not a minor detail. The first real loading of spent fuel would mark a historic moment for nuclear energy, but regulators are still checking whether the full system is ready. Empty and test runs can prove a lot, but radioactive waste proves more.

Why this matters beyond Finland

Every nuclear country has the same uncomfortable problem. Reactors can produce large amounts of steady electricity with low carbon emissions, but spent fuel remains dangerous for time periods that are hard to grasp.

Finland’s answer may not fit everywhere. The United States, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom all have different rocks, politics, and public trust problems. You cannot just copy and paste a 1.9-billion-year-old Finnish bedrock system into another country.

Still, Onkalo is being watched closely because it turns decades of theory into a real facility. If it works as intended, it gives nuclear nations a serious example. If unexpected corrosion or groundwater behavior shows up later, that will matter, too.

A bet measured in centuries

The strange thing about Onkalo is that its most important results will arrive long after today’s engineers, regulators, and politicians are gone. That is not comforting, exactly, but it is the truth.

For now, Finland’s bet is clear. Copper may be debated, clay may shift, and regulators may keep asking questions, but the rock beneath Olkiluoto is the anchor of the plan. In the end, the country is asking ancient stone to help solve one of the most modern problems humans have created.

The official statement was published on STUK.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Finland, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Autopsy for Indian Point Decommissioning?

June 25, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-autopsy-during-indian-point-decommissioning/

On June 18, 2026, Beyond Nuclear was the guest speaker before the New York State Decommissioning Oversight Board (NYDOB) in a public meeting focused on the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power station entitled, “Mind the Gap: Decommissioning’s Critical Link to Public Safety & Extended Reactor Operations.” The presentation and Q&A session with the state board is video archived and available for viewing on YouTube beginning at time mark < 01:40:08 to 02:24:18 >. Beyond Nuclear is providing links to supporting documentation.  Following the presentation, the NYDOB recognized further inquiry into  broadening decommissioning’s role at Indian Point is warranted to include the equivalent of an autopsy on the closed reactors’ residual safety margins as an appropriate “cost of doing business” to  enhance public safety and reliable operations at other reactors that are seeking to renew operating licenses in New York and beyond.

The Ginna nuclear power station, a Westinghouse Electric Pressurized Water Reactor by design in upstate New York on Lake Ontario, has filed a Subsequent License Renewal Application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting to extend the 56 year old single unit reactor’s operating license to 60 to 80 years.

The permanently closed Indian Point nuclear station is certified by both the owner Holtec International and the NRC for decommissioning only. Similarly, Holtec International is also certified by the NRC solely as the decommissioning operator of the permanently closed Palisades nuclear station in Covert, Michigan, Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor. Holtec Internationalis however attempting to “recommission” the Palisades operating license to return to full power. Holtec International has submitted a Letter Of Intent to the NRC that it plans to submit an application to extend its Subsequent License Renewal (60 to 80 years) if it does restart.

Beyond Nuclear presented the State of New York Department of Public Service’s NYDOB with the idea that the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power station in Buchanan, NY is a critically important opportunity. Indian Point is not merely just decommissioning project for dismantlement and site remediation of the three-unit nuclear power station. It is also the opportunity to conduct a scientifically rich strategic “autopsy” of the nearly 50-year old commercial reactor site during the dismantlement and site remediation process. Rather than the decommissioning operator, Holtec International, developing the “custody of care” plan to also haul off the radioactive debris for permanent burial at a distant nuclear waste facility. Beyond Nuclear sees the nuclear waste company, now an aspiring would-be nuclear waste generator, should be directed to develop the “custody of care” to strategically target, harvest and deliver samples of decades old “real world” aged, mapped materials extracted safety-related systems, structures and component to a national laboratory qualified to observe, measure and scientifically analyze the residual safety margins in those material samples taken during the Indian Point decommissioning process.

These aged, extracted samples could then be analyzed and materially evaluated for their residual safety margins after irradiation and embrittlement of the reactors’ base metals, radiation induced cracking in dissimilar beltline weld materials from the reactor pressure vessels. Additional, samples could be cut from reactor internals, concrete core samples from the containment structure and “spent” fuel pools, and sections strategically cut from the original, previously inaccessible 47 and 46 year old electrical cables from Units 2 and 3 as well as other reactor safety-related systems, structures and components. These various harvested materials and their residual safety margins now need to inform a host of identified and unanswered “technical knowledge gaps” for such safety issues as how quick cracks can initiate and grow into the failure of those systems, structures and components in reactors seeking extreme license renewals.

For example, strategic harvesting and the associated laboratory analysis needs to determine the synergy of materially damaging conditions (neutron bombardment, extreme ranges of exposure to heat and rapid cooling, metal fatigue and vibration, extreme pressure, humidity, etc.) is needed to benchmark computer modeling of projected material safety margins remaining in operational nuclear power plants now making application to extend their operating licenses well beyond the original 40 year license at construction, beyond the “initial” 20 year license renewal period for 40 to 60 years and now extending into the first “subsequent” 20 year renewal period from 60 to 80 years of exposure to the harsh operational conditions inside a nuclear power station. The NRC and the nuclear industry are in the planning stages for the second “subsequent” 20 year license renewal period from 80 to 100 years becoming the US nuclear industry’s most apparent “bridge to the future.”

Nuclear autopsies are not a new idea. Harvesting and scientific analysis at the decommissioning stage of permanently closed nuclear power stations has long been recognized by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories for a critical role to provide “reasonable assurance” of the public safety and reliable reactor operations of safety-related systems, structures and components in reactor licensing and relicensing.

The DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the state of Washington was contracted by the NRC Office of Research late in 2015 to publish a Technical Letter Report entitled “Criteria and Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant Harvesting to Support Subsequent License Renewal” (PNNL-27120). Published on December 7, 2017, the PNNL technical letter set out how to identify and mitigate known, but still unresolved “technical knowledge gaps” and make recommendations to effectively resolve and close those “gaps.” PNNL concluded that the targeted extraction of “experiential real world” aged materials from safety-related systems, structures and components permanently closed decommissioning nuclear power stations for laboratory analysis was . The resulting insights into a host of age-related degradation mechanisms to measure and project precise margins to failure will be essential to provide “reasonable assurance” that the materials/components will continue to perform their safety function throughout the subsequent license renewal period for 60 to 80 years.

US regulatory law is now in radical transition by politically-driven pro-nuclear agenda, nuclear industry hype and questionable White House’s decrees for the wholesale rewrite of regulatory law to refocus on “nuclear power benefits.” However, “reasonable assurance” needs to be safe guarded as the evidentiary standard in the NRC’s regulatory process for a legal standard of “adequate protection” established under the Atomic Energy Act for safe and reliable operations under the NRC commercial the reactor licensing and relicensing process.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

IAEA produces global mapping tool of used nuclear fuel

WNN, Monday, 22 June 2026

The global total of used nuclear fuel produced by nuclear power plants is about 448,000 tonnes of heavy metal, with three quarters in storage and one quarter reprocessed, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s first interactive tool showing how much used nuclear fuel the world has – and where it is stored – by country.

The agency says that 41% of used nuclear fuel is in wet storage, “mainly the pools that cool … [it] after it leaves the reactor and other centralised pools. Another 31% is in dry storage which are the casks, buildings, and modular systems used for keeping spent fuel under dry conditions”.

The figures for the interactive map – which allows people to look by country, by region and by storage type – comes from the Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention, which is “the principal international legal instrument to address the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management on a global scale”. It is the second edition of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Global Spent Nuclear Fuel Inventory.………………………………… You can find the IAEA’s Global Spent Nuclear Fuel Inventory here. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/iaea-produces-global-mapping%20tool-of-used-nuclear-fuel

June 25, 2026 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

AUKUS has a big waste issue – and not only money

The fundamental problem is that the AUKUS agreement was negotiated in secret in 2021 by the leaders of the three countries involved, Australia, Britain and the US.

Not one of those leaders is still in office. There has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the deal in Australia.

While they could operate away from base for longer periods and at greater depth than conventional submarines, their size would prevent them operating in the comparatively shallow waters around Australia’s northern coastline, making them less useful for defending our territory. 

Hidden in the fine print of the AUKUS agreement is the need for Australia to manage the nuclear waste produced by new submarines, writes Ian Lowe.

The New Daily, Jun 22, 2026,

Many people are shocked by the price of the AUKUS agreement. The government has budgeted a staggering $368 billion, hundreds of times the cost of a new hospital.

But hidden in the fine print is a further huge cost. If the proposal goes ahead, we will have to manage the nuclear waste produced by the submarines. 

Nobody knows what that will cost. The US and Britain have operated nuclear submarines for more than 50 years, but still have not worked out how to manage the intractable radioactive waste.

The decommissioned boats are sitting alongside docks, with British and American scientists trying to work out what to do.

We can get some idea of the possible extra cost from the work done 10 years ago by the South Australia Nuclear Royal Commission. I was a member of the expert advisory group for that inquiry.

It commissioned a study of what it would cost to build and operate a facility to store radioactive waste from nuclear power stations in Asian countries.

It came up with a figure of $145 billion, in 2016 values. Scaled up to 2026 dollars, it is equivalent to $190 billion – half as much again as the budget for the submarines.

That figure is almost certainly an underestimate because the royal commission was considering management of waste from nuclear power stations.

The proposed submarines use highly enriched uranium, weapons-grade material. The resulting waste is much nastier. It also poses serious security issues.

At the end of its life, the reactor in a Virginia class submarine still has enough enriched uranium for about 20 bombs. So the waste management facility will need military guarding to prevent misuse of the uranium.

It is also unclear how our government expects to find an acceptable site for waste storage.

There have been three attempts to find a place to store the comparatively benign low-level waste from nuclear medicine and industrial applications.

All have foundered because of opposition by the affected First Nations groups. They have not forgotten the harm done by British testing of nuclear weapons on their land.

The government has made vague suggestions about Defence property, but it is hard to see how it could obtain free prior informed consent from the Indigenous people whose land would be used.

There are also questions about whether acquiring nuclear submarines powered by highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium would be a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Some Pacific Island leaders have expressed concern, arguing that it would certainly not be consistent with the spirit of our treaty obligations.

The fundamental problem is that the AUKUS agreement was negotiated in secret in 2021 by the leaders of the three countries involved, Australia, Britain and the US.

Not one of those leaders is still in office. There has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the deal in Australia.

It continues to be shrouded in secrecy, despite the high stakes and eye-watering projected cost. Retired major-general Michael Smith has described the arrangement as “the worst defence decision since we relied on Britain to defend us in World War II”. 

A public inquiry into the agreement is being conducted under the auspices of the Australian Peace and Security forum.

It is considering the fundamental question – would AUKUS keep us safe? At what cost?

The inquiry is headed by five distinguished community leaders, headed by Peter Garrett, who was lead singer of Midnight Oil before becoming a Cabinet minister.

The critical question is whether owning and operating eight nuclear-powered submarines would actually enhance our security.

I participated in a one-day seminar run by the Submarine Institute of Australia well before the AUKUS agreement was negotiated. The submariners were clearly divided about the question of whether the next generation of submarines should be nuclear-powered.

While they could operate away from base for longer periods and at greater depth than conventional submarines, their size would prevent them operating in the comparatively shallow waters around Australia’s northern coastline, making them less useful for defending our territory. 

That observation poses an obvious related question about sovereignty and independence.

Would the AUKUS arrangement move Australia away from being an independent middle-sized country like Japan or Indonesia, locking us into the US war machine and increasing the risk of being dragged into great-power conflict with China, our major trading partner?

Some observers fear that AUKUS could actually make Australia a nuclear target. Given that China is our major trading partner, it seems bizarre to imagine that we need to protect our ocean-going trade from the Chinese navy, but that has been proposed as a reason for acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.

All these questions are being considered by the public inquiry, which is receiving submissions from the community and holding a series of hearings in major cities.

Its October report should provide the basis for a serious re-examination of the AUKUS agreement.

June 24, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, wastes, weapons and war | 1 Comment

The forgotten towns of the Chernobyl exclusion zone

Sam Farley, Tue 16 June 2026, https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/the-forgotten-towns-of-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone/

When reactor four of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant melted down in 1986, beyond impacting Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, it had an effect across the world.

In the years that have followed, it’s become a niche tourist attraction, with dark tourists fascinated by this apocalyptic environment,  with pictures abound on the internet of that famous, rusting Ferris wheel, the tall tower blocks being eaten up by nature and the school gymnasium littered with gas masks. Everyone remembers Pripyat, and it’s undergone a second life in popular culture, decades after the final resident left, but there lie some other towns and villages, forgotten from the Chernobyl exclusion zone.

Pripyat was the zone’s largest settlement, but it’s estimated that around 40,000 people from outside that city were forced to flee the area after the reactor went ablaze. The village of Zalissya was once the largest in what became the exclusion zone, with a population of around 3,000 people, and unlike Pripyat, which was built with the power plant, it had been a settlement for 400 years before the accident, surviving conflict, famine, occupations and even revolution.

Now, Zalissya is littered with the remains of those who fled in May 1986; there are toys left to rot, alongside signs of domestic life with pots and pans, and even canned food. Despite being regularly used as the first stop for dark tourist tours of Chernobyl, pre-Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s largely been reclaimed by Mother Nature, with buildings overtaken by greenery and vegetation carpeting the streets.

Not far away is Kopachi, or more technically, was Kopachi, a village, once home to 1,100 people, situated by the plant’s cooling pond, roughly equidistant between the towns of Chernobyl and Pripyat. While the place was evacuated like everywhere else, the radiation levels were so high that the authorities decided that abandonment wasn’t enough, and they needed to bury the village entirely.

Besides two brick buildings, one of which was the village’s nursery school, everything else was buried. From a distance, Kopachi looks like a bumpy meadow, but under those mounds remain houses and a reminder of the panic that defined those early weeks following the accident. Then, just over a mile from reactor four sits Yaniv, which housed only 100 people but was significant thanks to the train station there serving the plant. As of April 2003, it’s no longer a village, having been deregistered, but it still has an incredible story.

Some of the machinery used pre-accident and even after in the clean-up still sits there and sets Geiger counters off with their high levels of radiation; hence, the decision to not bury some of the equipment, such as the engineering vehicle built on the chassis of a tank, was a strange choice. During the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it was even occupied by invading forces for two months in early 2022, which was both a crazy decision given the health risks, and a reminder that history doesn’t stop.

It’s easy to think that all the abandoned settlements in the zone were tiny villages, but that wasn’t always true, like Poliske, which was a thriving town founded in 1415, and had led many lives, both as a textile production hub and a home for Jews, who made up 80% of the population around a century before the accident. Due to its location right on the western edge of the exclusion zone, it wasn’t abandoned with the haste of many other towns and villages closer to the power plant.

There was a decline following the accident, but it wasn’t until 1999, some 13 years after, that most of the population was evacuated. In fact, there were still around 1,000 people living there as recently as 2005, with a number of the elderly refusing to leave and happy to see out their days there. Its abandoned buildings have inspired the computer game STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, and like Yaniv, it was occupied by Russian forces during the invasion.

The village of Krasne has long been silent; just four miles from Pripyat, it was on the northern contamination track, which was one of the first directions that saw nuclear fallout following the explosion. While its residents have long gone, it’s notable because the over 200-year-old wooden church of St Michael still stands tall, its decay almost noble and rebellious, as it greys and is slowly devoured by weeds and undergrowth from below, serving to remember the power of faith.

The disaster at Chernobyl has had a lasting impact on Ukraine and the Soviet Union (the eventual collapse of which can be attributed to the incident), but while we think of Pripyat and its huge abandoned tower blocks, it’s worth remembering that there was life all over what is now the exclusion zone, where generations of families grew up, got old, married, and died, in the villages and towns that all got caught up in this epic disaster.

June 20, 2026 Posted by | environment, Ukraine, wastes | Leave a comment

What does France’s nuclear waste plan in Bure mean for Luxembourg?

burying radioactive waste underground risks making the problem invisible rather than fully addressing its implications, particularly since some of the materials involved will remain hazardous for up to 100,000 years.

Christophe Wantz, adapted for RTL Today,  11.06.2026 

The Cigéo project in Bure, in the Meuse region of France, is one of the country’s most controversial projects. If approved, underground facilities for the long-term storage of radioactive waste from France’s nuclear power plants will be built.

The facility is located in the rural Meuse region, far from populated areas and close to the Haute-Marne border. Its remote location was not the main reason for its selection, but rather its geology.

Around 500 metres beneath the surface lies a thick layer of clay that formed around 160 million years ago. This rock formation has remained remarkably stable for millions of years and is highly impermeable, making it particularly well suited to long-term underground storage.

The underground laboratory, a unique scientific facility designed to support the development of the Cigéo project, was built here.

Despite its 2.5 kilometres of tunnels, the laboratory itself will never house radioactive waste. Instead, it serves as a research centre where scientists can study and measure the properties of the Callovo-Oxfordian clay formation in its natural environment.

The underground laboratory is used to develop and test the engineering techniques required for excavating and supporting the future repository. In preparation for the first construction phase, France’s National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (Andra) is constructing and testing structures in the laboratory that closely resemble those planned for the Cigéo facility.

However, it is not expected that any radioactive waste will be stored at Bure before 2050.

Once all the necessary approvals have been received, the Cigéo project will begin the permanent disposal of France’s most hazardous radioactive waste at a depth of around 500 metres.

The repository is intended to house waste generated by reprocessing spent fuel from the country’s nuclear power plants.

In total, the site is designed to hold 83,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste, which is roughly equivalent to the volume of 33 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

This includes 10,000 cubic metres of high-level waste and 73,000 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate-level waste that can remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years.

A one of a kind underground facility

………………………………………………………………. The planned facility will comprise around 250 kilometres of underground tunnels and galleries. The project is expected to cost more than €33 billion, which will be financed by France’s nuclear waste producers, including EDF, Orano, and the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA).

A highly contested project

Beyond its technical and scientific aspects, the Cigéo project has become a focal point in the debate about nuclear energy in France.

Since the early 2000s, the town of Bure has faced sustained opposition from local residents, activist groups, and environmental organisations, who see the project as an irreversible commitment with consequences that will affect future generations.

One such critic is the Collective Against the Burial of Radioactive Waste (Cedra), which questions whether safety models can reliably predict the behaviour of a geological repository over such immense timescales.

Opposition to the project extends well beyond the local level. During a demonstration in Bure last September, Green Party lawmaker Sandrine Rousseau criticised the overly optimistic faith placed in humanity’s ability to control and manage the long-term consequences of nuclear technology.

She argued that burying radioactive waste underground risks making the problem invisible rather than fully addressing its implications, particularly since some of the materials involved will remain hazardous for up to 100,000 years.

Roger Spautz, Greenpeace Luxembourg’s nuclear policy specialist, has also raised concerns about the project’s long-term reliability and irreversible nature.

While he does not consider the repository itself to pose a direct threat to Luxembourg, he highlights the scale of the transportation operation required to supply the site.

According to Spautz, between 70,000 and 80,000 shipments would be needed to transport highly radioactive waste from France’s La Hague reprocessing facilities to Bure.

In his view, the possibility of an accident during transportation that could release radioactive material can never be entirely eliminated.

Critics are questioning whether local communities have genuinely consented to the project. While some local officials support Cigéo for its potential economic benefits, opponents argue that the region is being asked to bear an unfair share of the burden for the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, supporters point to the project’s economic benefits. Cigéo is expected to create over 3,000 direct and indirect jobs in an area that has experienced decades of industrial decline.

However, for many residents, the development remains controversial, with some describing the region as a ‘sacrificial territory’ chosen to bear the long-term consequences of France’s nuclear waste.

Cigéo is part of France’s wider nuclear strategy. The government is promoting a revival of nuclear energy to meet climate objectives, but the long-term management of radioactive waste remains politically and socially sensitive.

Although the project has already passed several administrative milestones, it still depends on key approvals, including a declaration of public utility and a construction permit. Environmental groups have challenged it multiple times, contributing to delays in the overall timetable.

In May, Cigéo entered a major new phase with the launch of a public inquiry. Thousands of pages of documents prepared by France’s National Radioactive Waste Management Agency have been made available in town halls in affected municipalities, and residents there have until 2 July to submit comments or questions.

Neighbouring countries have also been notified. So far, only Luxembourg has formally requested to be kept informed about the process.

A national debate

At the centre of the controversy is a basic question: what should be done with high-level nuclear waste in the long term? According to France’s National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, more than half of the waste destined for storage in the Meuse region has already been produced, and current surface storage solutions are considered to be no safer than burying the waste 500 metres underground.

Some in the scientific community currently believe that deep geological disposal is the most reliable way to keep radioactive waste away from human activity and environmental hazards.

The clay formation at Bure is believed to significantly limit the spread of radionuclides over long periods, and Andra’s studies suggest that the site has remained stable for over one million years.

However, other experts argue that further research is needed into alternative approaches, such as reducing the radiotoxicity of waste or developing controlled near-surface storage solutions.

Ultimately, the Cigéo project reflects the broader dilemma of the energy transition: how to meet present-day energy needs while taking responsibility for consequences that extend far into the future.

In Bure, beneath layers of clay, decisions are being made that will have consequences lasting well beyond human timescales.

Watch the report here: – (on original ) https://today.rtl.lu/news/world/what-does-frances-nuclear-waste-plan-in-bure-mean-for-luxembourg-1621893378

June 16, 2026 Posted by | France, wastes | Leave a comment

Reactor reboot at world’s largest nuclear plant highlights flaws in Japan’s radioactive waste plans

With a lot of spent fuel accumulating at nuclear power plants across the country, a final disposal of radioactive waste is a crucial challenge that must be resolved,”

Finding a community willing to host a highly radioactive dump site has been difficult, even with a raft of financial enticements.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 11 June 2026,
https://www.dailymail.com/wires/ap/article-15890689/Reactor-reboot-worlds-largest-nuclear-plant-highlights-flaws-Japans-radioactive-waste-plans.html

KASHIWAZAKI, Japan (AP) – Japan has resumed operations at the world´s largest nuclear power plant to help the country meet huge electricity demands during a global oil crisis, but the reboot highlights a big problem: Japan is running out of space for spent nuclear fuel and has no viable plans for permanent disposal of the radioactive waste.

The restart of No. 6 reactor at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station earlier this year was meant to spur a movement to bring more nuclear reactors online. Kashiwazaki-Kariwa is one of three plants whose cooling pools will be full in five years, according to the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan.

“Without solid (fuel management) plans, our power generation will stall sooner or later,” Kashiwazaki-Kariwa General Manager Takeyuki Inagaki said.

After decades of seeking permanent storage for highly radioactive spent fuel, the government is considering Minamitorishima, a remote Pacific island south of Tokyo. But the selection has faced skepticism and criticism stemming from Japan’s arbitrary actions on spent fuel and radioactive waste management.

Only 15 of Japan´s 54 reactors have restarted since the March 2011 Fukushima disaster, when a 9.0 earthquake off Japan´s northeastern coast and a subsequent tsunami caused meltdowns at three reactors operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, or TEPCO. About 160,000 people fled from Fukushima and some areas remain unlivable.

Kashiazaki-Kariwa, also run by TEPCO, was shut down after the Fukushima disaster as part of a nationwide nuclear power stoppage.

The spent fuel in a cooling pool at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa No. 6 reactor, which is 88% filled, can be seen from a top-floor observation area. TEPCO has installed filtered venting systems and devices to prevent hydrogen explosions among additional safety measures based on lessons from Fukushima.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is pushing to bring more nuclear plants online, resulting in more spent fuel. Without a viable permanent storage plan, there are worries that reactors will have to close when storage space runs out.

There are two options for dealing with spent nuclear fuel: direct disposal as waste or recycling to extract plutonium and uranium for reuse.

Japan insists on recycling, saying it will help the resource-poor nation’s energy needs while reducing the toxicity and volume of radioactive waste. But a reactor designed for plutonium reuse, a key part of the recycling, has failed. Reprocessing also won´t be able to handle all the spent fuel, adding to a plutonium stockpile that already is large enough to arm thousands of atomic bombs.

Experts say Japan should also consider the direct disposal option.

As of December 2025, cooling pools at 17 Japanese nuclear power plants held more than 17,000 tons (15,422 metric tons) of spent fuel, using nearly 80% of total storage capacity, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Beyond the large amount of radioactive waste from normal reactors, Japan also “has to deal with massive and largely unknown high-level nuclear waste from the Fukushima disaster,” said Lila Okamura, a Senshu University professor and expert on environmental politics and nuclear waste management.

Choosing a final disposal site for spent fuel and building a facility would require 100 years and tens of thousands of years to monitor the storage deep underground. For a generations-long project, Japan should plan carefully and not rush the current plan that is full of uncertainties, Okamura said.

Weeks after Kashiwazaki-Kariwa’s No. 6 reactor came back online for the first time in 14 years since the Fukushima disaster, Industry Minister Ryosei Akazawa approached Ogasawara village to request a feasibility study for a high-level radioactive waste site on Minamitorishima, an island administered by Ogasawara, which is part of Tokyo.

“With a lot of spent fuel accumulating at nuclear power plants across the country, a final disposal of radioactive waste is a crucial challenge that must be resolved,” Akazawa said in a letter to Ogasawara Mayor Masaaki Shibuya.

The government-owned Minamitorishima, about 2,000 kilometers (1,242 miles) south of Tokyo, has no permanent residents. The Japanese army is constructing a firing range for long-range, surface-to-ship missiles as a deterrent to China. The island also has deep sea deposits rich with rare earth minerals.

“The move seems political,” said Satoshi Takano, a member of a government panel looking at final disposal of spent fuel. “There will be little opposition from a government-owned remote island.”

Some experts say the island, which sits on a geologically stable tectonic plate, could be suitable. Many residents on Ogasawara and two nearby islands raised concerns about safety and tourism.

“I was baffled when I heard about the plan,” Ogasawara assembly member Yusuke Hirano told an assembly meeting. “I think nuclear waste is incompatible with islands that are a UNESCO Natural World Heritage site.”

Finding a community willing to host a highly radioactive dump site has been difficult, even with a raft of financial enticements. Minamitorishima is the fourth location to have a feasibility study since the government started looking in the early 2000s.

The whole review process will take about two decades. Municipalities participating in the first stage can receive up to 2 billion yen ($12.8 million) in government subsidies. The next stage would bring up to 7 billion yen ($44.7 million). Funding details for a final study haven’t been disclosed.

The world´s first final disposal site for spent nuclear fuel is set to open in Finland later this year. Britain, Germany and the United States have abandoned reprocessing largely because of high costs and technical challenges, while several other countries are discussing plans for direct disposal sites.

Inagaki, the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa general manager, said TEPCO is transferring spent fuel from No. 6 reactor to other reactors at the plant with more space, but the utility hopes to resume shipments to a dry cask storage in northern Japan as a near-term solution. Other utilities with nearly full pools have announced plans to build dry-cask storage at their plants.

Many residents worry about Japan’s growing stockpile because high-density storage of spent fuel could also increase overheating risks.

Mie Kuwabara, a civil activist in Niigata, wondered “where will it go next?”

“It’s irresponsible to accelerate restarts and produce more spent fuel without deciding its final destination,” said Kuwabara, who also is skeptical about using Minamitorishima.

“It’s like saying that it’s OK to put a facility there because nobody is around to complain if there is a problem,” Kuwabara said. “It’s scary.”

June 15, 2026 Posted by | Japan, wastes | Leave a comment

Spiralling costs, fish discos and vast radioactive waste. Is nuclear really the solution to Britain’s energy problem?

an “unsolved environmental problem for future generations… a heavy burden to lay on our children and their children’s, children.” Porritt is aghast: “This is 
a truly extraordinary development – confirming that the UK still has NO idea what to do about its legacy nuclear waste.” And there is, of course, a huge cost involved, firstly with decommissioning a nuclear reactor and then storing the waste.

an “unsolved environmental problem for future generations… a heavy burden to lay on our children and their children’s, children.” Porritt is aghast: “This is 
a truly extraordinary development – confirming that the UK still has NO idea what to do about its legacy n

In an increasingly energy-hungry Britain, is nuclear the best way to meet soaring demand without burning fossil fuels? Fergus Collins investigates the benefits and risks

Fergus Collins, BBC CountryFile, June 8, 2026

“…………………………………….. The UK currently has nine operational nuclear reactors at five plants, with four more due to come online in the 2030s – two at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and two planned at Sizewell C in Suffolk – demonstrating Government commitment to this energy source (devolved Scotland has no nuclear plans).

“Nuclear will play a central role in meeting the UK’s future energy needs as we deliver our net zero target,” says the current minister for nuclear Lord Patrick Vallance. “As set out in our clean power mission, while our future electricity system will be dominated by renewables, we still need firm, low-carbon power to ensure the system is stable, secure and affordable. Nuclear provides that essential backbone – delivering clean power for millions of homes while underpinning a safe, resilient and cheaper system for the decades ahead.”

Not everyone is convinced, especially those concerned about safety issues; the shadows of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters, in 1986 and 2011 respectively, still dog the industry. Nuclear power creates vast amounts of potentially lethal radioactive waste, which must be contained and stored securely for thousands of years. Then there are questions of cost. Nuclear reactors are massive infrastructure projects and hugely expensive, not least because of the requirements of mitigating safety risks. Is it worth the investment – or could we power the UK through other means?

………………………………………………………………..The two new nuclear power stations at Hinkley Point and Sizewell are being built by EDF, France’s state-owned energy company. EDF manages eight nuclear sites in the UK – seven Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor (AGR) sites and one Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). It says it’s driving the transition towards “an Electric Britain

………………………………….Who opposes nuclear power?

Some of the strongest voices against nuclear power in the UK come from groups protesting against the new reactors at Hinkley and Sizewell. Former science teacher Allan Jeffrey has been voicing concerns for over 40 years as part of campaign group Stop Hinkley, which works closely with TASC (Together Against Sizewell C). He doesn’t mince words: “Nuclear power stations are toxic radioactive waste factories” and argues that nuclear is “neither clean nor green” saying “large amounts of greenhouse gasses are produced in the nuclear fuel cycle from uranium mining and fuel processing to the building of power stations and waste storage sites and decommissioning old reactors.”

Jeffrey dismisses the idea that nuclear is more ethical than the gas or coal supplies the UK buys from unstable or openly hostile foreign states. “Uranium is not a renewable fuel,” he says, “and is mined in countries such as Australia, Canada, Niger and Kazakhstan. The miners frequently get lung cancer from the Radon gas, and much environmental pollution is left locally by the mining tailings and river water pollution.”

Jeffrey also points at the cost of nuclear: “Nuclear reactors take too long to build and pay back their greenhouse gas emissions.” He has a point with Hinkley Point C, which has been a building site since being approved by the Conservative Government in 2016.

Stop Hinkley and TASC are supported by statistics from CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) and many prominent anti-nuclear voices, including the environmentalist and friend of King Charles, Jonathan Porritt. In a recent blog post he claimed: “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 DESNZ – which in itself was already nearly double the original cost of £20 billion!”

DESNZ argues that there will be a big saving with Sizewell C because it is a replica of Hinkley and will be “built at a cost of £38bn in 2024 real terms. This would represent around 20% saving on the capital cost of the project compared with Hinkley C”.

What are the wildlife costs of nuclear power?

One very public reason for rising costs – and one the press have leapt on – is mitigation measures to prevent deaths of wildlife, especially fish. Nuclear power stations are located on the coast so they can draw seawater to cool the reactors. But they also suck in large numbers of fish; the Environment Agency has estimated 4.6 million per year at Hinkley, a figure EDF strongly contests.

EDF says it has spent £700 million in mitigation measures, including sonic fish deterrents developed with Swansea University. These use ultrasound to drive fish from the water intakes and have been dubbed ‘fish discos’ in the press.

That said, the Government’s own review, led by Sir John Fingleton, found that Britain was the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear facilities due largely to a “fragmented” regulatory system that had led to “conservative and costly decisions not proportionate to the actual risk being managed”.

However, Matt Browne, head of public affairs at The Wildlife Trusts, disputes EDF’s claims. “The developers of Hinkley C continue to misrepresent the impact that the nuclear plant will have on nature… 
This is highly misleading and allows EDF to pretend that £700 million is being spent to protect nature, when the real figure is closer to £50 million. It also misrepresents the number of fish affected by the proposed plant.”

Browne goes on to say: “On the basis 
of these false claims, the Government is now considering progressing recommendations which will lead to nature protections being 
severely compromised.”……………………………….

What happens to nuclear waste?

One area where there is a gap in the Government and EDF’s positive messaging – and one that tallies with Stop Hinkley and Porritt’s deeper fears – is just how and where to store nuclear waste.

Even after it’s no longer useful for generating heat, it continues to emit radiation, which breaks molecular bonds and causes severe damage to cell tissues in all organisms, leading to cancers and other severe health issues. And, as it breaks down very slowly, the waste emits this harmful radiation for tens of thousands of years.

The ONR says “Nuclear waste is primarily transferred to specialised, secure and regulated facilities for storage pending long-term disposal. Current Government policy is that UK higher activity radioactive waste will be managed in the long-term through geological disposal facilities (GDF)”.

GDF means burying the waste in deep subterranean vaults and leaving it alone till its radiation cools.

For Allan Jeffrey, this is simply an “unsolved environmental problem for future generations… a heavy burden to lay on our children and their children’s, children.” Porritt is aghast: “This is 
a truly extraordinary development – confirming that the UK still has NO idea what to do about its legacy nuclear waste.” And there is, of course, a huge cost involved, firstly with decommissioning a nuclear reactor and then storing the waste.

Currently, most high-level nuclear waste is being stored at Sellafield. Once at the forefront of the UK’s nuclear programme, Sellafield stopped generating electricity in 2003 and is now in the process of being decommissioned. As well as dealing with Sellafield’s own waste – spent fuel rods and other debris stored in silos and artificial ponds – it holds waste from other plants.

High level waste usually occurs in liquid form, a byproduct of processing spent fuel. This is mixed with crushed glass in a furnace and the molten product is poured into steel cannisters where it cools and solidifies, making it stable and safe for storage. But it is temporary storage only and Sellafield is almost full. Communities in Cumbria and Lincolnshire have been identified as potential nuclear waste sites.

…………The decommissioning of Sellafield is a massive project that may take over 100 years, with spiralling costs – but that’s a blink of an eye in terms of nuclear radiation. 

………………………..Such gigantic periods of time, when all current decision makers and hundreds of generations of their descendants will be long dead, are hard to comprehend. Opponents of nuclear, such as Stop Hinkley and TASC, urge policymakers not to take the risk and to invest instead in renewables such as wind, solar and hydro power. In 2025, wind provided approximately 30% of the UK’s electricity needs compared to just 11–17% provided by nuclear. The UN’s International Energy Agency predicts renewables will generate 90% of all new power in the coming years. And yet you’ll find protest groups opposing almost every new wind or solar farm with the same vigour as those who 
are anti-nuclear……………..https://www.countryfile.com/environment/spiralling-costs-fish-discos-and-vast-radioactive-waste-is-nuclear-really-the-solution-to-britain-s-energy-problem

June 12, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Startups Are in “Advanced Negotiations” to Buy Cold War Plutonium

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

By Haley Zaremba – Jun 03, 2026, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Startups-Are-in-Advanced-Negotiations-to-Buy-Cold-War-Plutonium.html

  • The Trump administration is in “advanced negotiations” with nuclear startups, including Oklo, to convert more than 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium into commercial reactor fuel — the first time the U.S. government would make such material available to private companies.
  • The move is framed as a fix for a critical nuclear fuel supply chain bottleneck, with Russia controlling roughly half of global uranium conversion capacity and squeezing Western reactor development.
  • Nonproliferation experts are raising safety and security concerns, warning that moving weapons-grade material out of tightly controlled government facilities significantly reduces oversight.

As nuclear energy regains favor around the globe, competition for nuclear fuel is heating up. In an era of multiple and compounding energy crises driven by conflict, climate, and the power-hungry artificial intelligence boom, nuclear has resurfaced as a highly strategic option for building up energy security and independence for many nations around the world. But nuclear fuels supply chains are highly concentrated, and many of them are controlled by Russia, presenting critical geopolitical tradeoffs.

Today, there are only five plants in the world that operate large-scale uranium conversion, and half of that capacity is in the hands of the Kremlin, resulting in a critical resource bottleneck and geopolitical pain points. Accordingly, “U.S. nuclear energy faces fuel supply chain vulnerabilities, with tight uranium supplies, geopolitical risks, and rising costs threatening both existing reactors costs and advanced reactor development,” according to a January report from Stanford Energy.

It is therefore in the United States’ strategic interest to build up alternative nuclear fuel supply chains, preferably home- and friend-shored ones. But it’s a little late for the United States to get a foothold in alternative uranium markets, as Russia and China, which never saw a decline in their respective nuclear sectors, have already been cornering them for years.

“Russian and Chinese players have been very keen to secure access to resources in central Asia and Africa, creating a very aggressive competitive environment,” Benjamin Godwin at Prism Strategic Intelligence told the Financial Times last year.

The United States is taking steps to build up its own uranium supply chains, as the country is home to plentiful natural reserves of the 92nd element. But the country is also home to another vast reserve of nuclear fuel that is far more readily accessible — decades of stockpiled nuclear waste. Research into recycling spent nuclear fuel indicates that resource utilization could be boosted by a jaw-dropping 95 percent.

“Used nuclear fuel is an incredible untapped resource in the United States,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish told World Nuclear News back in February. “The Trump Administration is taking a common-sense approach to making sure we’re using our resources in the most efficient ways possible to secure American energy independence and fuel our economic growth.”

And now the Trump administration is looking to a new, and significantly more controversial, source of recycled nuclear fuel — cold-war era nuclear warheads. The government wants to convert weapons-grade plutonium into viable nuclear fuel as part of the Trump administration’s aim to “reestablish the United States as the global leader in nuclear energy.

The United States is sitting on more than 50 tons of plutonium left behind by nuclear weapons programs. The Department of Energy had previously planned to dilute and bury the hazardous material, but the Trump administration wants to give it new life in nuclear reactors and has entered into “advanced negotiations” with a handful of nuclear startups to begin the process of selling the plutonium for use as nuclear fuel.

“A lack of fuel is one of the biggest choke points in expanding nuclear power right now,” said Jacob DeWitte, the chief executive of Oklo, one of the companies in conversation with the Trump administration about acquiring plutonium to power its next-gen small nuclear reactors. “This will help us get more nuclear power online faster.”

While it seems like a win-win for nuclear waste cleanup and clean energy development in the United States, some critics are concerned about safety and security implications of the deal. Currently, this highly dangerous, weapons-grade material is kept in a highly regulated and secure environment. Selling it to energy companies would significantly compromise oversight. “The plan has generated debate and some unease among nonproliferation experts,” the New York Times reports. “If finalized, it would mark the first time the U.S. government has made weapons-grade plutonium available to private companies.”

June 7, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

Step forward in £4.6 billion Sellafield nuclear decommissioning programme

 Hundreds of delegates gathered for an event which saw SMEs meet with
industry leaders to discuss how a £4.6 billion programme of work will be
delivered over the next 15 years. The Decommissioning Nuclear Waste
Partnership Supply Chain Engagement event saw dozens of SMEs meet with DNWP
partners, Sellafield leaders, and the wider supply chain. The full-day
event at Energus, at Lillyhall, near Workington, gave suppliers early
visibility of upcoming opportunities in the decommissioning process. They
had direct access to buyers, project teams and decision-makers, and were
given a clear understanding of how work will flow. The event was organised
by Industrial Solutions Hub (iSH) in collaboration with the BECBC Nuclear
Sector Group.

 Business Crack 3rd June 2026, https://businesscrack.co.uk/2026/06/03/step-forward-in-4-6-billion-sellafield-nuclear-decommissioning-programme/

June 6, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

The costs of nuclear wastes from “in service” nuclear submarines.

Richard Marles weasels his way out of this problem

3 June 2026 Noel Wauchope AIM Extra , https://theaimn.net/the-costs-of-nuclear-wastes-from-in-service-nuclear-submarines/

It is a rather nauseating entertainment, watching Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles wriggling around to con the public into believing that it will be cheaper for Australia to buy used nuclear submarines, than to buy new ones. I’m not quite sure who invented the new term to replace “used” – but “in service:” is a lovely euphemism, worthy of Marles. Australia’s not buying “used” nuclear submarines – oh no – we’re getting “in service” nuclear submarines.

You gotta admire Richard Marles – he is indeed the master of the weasel word:

“The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying supply chain management, operational and maintenance requirements, and maximising cost efficiencies. This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCS in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VCS variants.”

“Chasing simplicity is at the heart of why we have pursued this.”

“So firstly, we are paying an amount to the US in terms of its industrial base. That is to create the space for the Virginia-class submarines to be transferred to Australia. But then there is the purchase price in respect of each of the submarines and this will be more cost effective in relation to that and it’ll be significant.”

Work all that out, if you can be bothered.

Anyway, all that doesn’t matter. We know now that (a) these nuclear submarines will be unsuitable for monitoring Australia’s coastline, and really intended for attacking China on behalf of the USA, and (b) will be obsolete by the time we get them, anyway.

But here’s the bit that nobody’s talking about – the “elephant in the ocean.”

Australia is to cop the management of the nuclear wastes in these second hand submarines. Do we know how old they are? Do we know how long before that toxic forever radioactive trash has to buried, or stored in concrete canisters, or what?

And – dare I be so rude as to mention this? What about the costs of disposing of theUSA’s nuclear submarine wastes?

The entire global nuclear establishment is very coy about assessing the real long term or short term costs of nuclear wastes.

France has been working on this since 1991 with its Cigéo project in Bure (Meuse). This project was launched in 1991. Its regulatory process spans decades, with partial commissioning expected by 2050 and a public inquiry in 2026.

On the costs of this project – Wikipedia states:

“Evaluation of the total cost of Cigéo must take into account all the costs of storage over more than 100 years: studies, construction of the first structures (surface buildings, shafts, declines (sloped tunnels)), operation (staff, maintenance, energy…), the gradual construction of underground structures, then their closure, their monitoring etc. Part of these costs/investments will be the salaries of the workforce employed in the digging, construction and storage work, who, according to Andra, will number 1500 to 2000 persons for at least a hundred years.”

The French government has had a bash at estimating these costs:

“A ministerial decree published in France has confirmed the latest cost estimate of the planned Cigéo deep geologic spent nuclear fuel repository at €33.4bn ($39bn) – €37bn including taxes – of which €9.7bn is for initial construction.”

Apart from all the other well-known considerations – safety, danger, terrorism risks, risks of nuclear proliferation, and public opposition, there has been a great reluctance in the nuclear establishment to address the problem of the costs of nuclear wastes.

So Richard Marles can go on, comfortingly bleating about the financial benefits of these second hand nuclear submarines and their second-hand radioactive trash, because as we say in upper class parlance – it’s “just not done” to talk about the financial costs of nuclear wastes.

And now that both Liberal and Labor governments have committed us to taking over American nuclear submarine wastes, will that be the last of it? Are these useless nuclear submarines just the foot in the door for Australia to become the USA’s nuclear waste dump?

June 4, 2026 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »