nuclear-news

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

Too Great a Risk

But, by far the most significant yet most neglected reason for avoiding the road to nuclear is the risks that nuclear power engenders in our increasingly unstable world. The concentration of power produced at a single site constitutes a megarisk of meltdown and massive radioactive fallout from cyber attack, terrorism, warfare and even nuclear attack as events in Ukraine and elsewhere have demonstrated

13 May 2025. https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/too-great-a-risk/

Andrew Blowers discusses the contrast of historic and current energy generation seen across the Blackwater estuary in the May 2025 column for Regional Life.

Out across the Blackwater estuary into the North Sea a quiet revolution in the way we get our energy is evident. The vast arrays of wind turbines, shimmering in sunshine and faintly visible in an overcast sky are the palpable evidence of the energy transition that is gathering pace as we struggle to eliminate fossil fuels in favour of renewable sources of energy, especially offshore wind. Wind is safe, low cost and secure contributing 30% of our electricity and rising.

On the Bradwell shore lies the gleaming hulk of a former nuclear power station, now a mothballed but active radioactive waste store which will not be cleared until the end of the century at the earliest. Nuclear power has been in decline since the turn of the century. Nuclear is unsafe, high cost and insecure contributing only 12% of our electricity and falling.

And yet, despite the risks, the Government claims that ‘there is an urgent need for new nuclear which is a safe and low carbon source of energy’. It is proposing to build up to 24GW of nuclear capacity. That’s something like ten giant 2.2 GW power stations, the size proposed for Sizewell C and the now abandoned Bradwell B project, or the equivalent of around 80 Small Modular Reactors (at 300MW each).

The Government’s Civil Nuclear; Roadmap to 2050 would displace vast amounts of the cheaper, credible, reliable and more flexible renewable power sources that can navigate a plausible pathway to a Net Zero future. Such a scaling up is clearly unachievable.


But, by far the most significant yet most neglected reason for avoiding the road to nuclear is the risks that nuclear power engenders in our increasingly unstable world. The concentration of power produced at a single site constitutes a megarisk of meltdown and massive radioactive fallout from cyber attack, terrorism, warfare and even nuclear attack as events in Ukraine and elsewhere have demonstrated. And the risks from accidents, and the impacts of climate change, not to mention institutional neglect or breakdown, are unknowable and unfathomable, though nevertheless real. And, let’s not forget nuclear energy leaves a long-lasting, dangerous and presently unmanageable legacy of highly active nuclear waste.

Sites such as Bradwell are sitting targets for malevolent actions as well as being exposed to the impacts of climate change. Far better for the now closed Bradwell power station to remain a passive store with a low risk than revive any ideas for nuclear plant which would pose an existential threat to the communities of the Blackwater and beyond.

Meanwhile, out into the North Sea the turning turbines signal a future that is relatively safe, secure and sustainable.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C site served notice after crane ‘component failure’

 AN improvement notice has been served to the developers of Hinkley Point
C’s construction site after a component failure was found in a crane. The
Office for Nuclear Regulation told the NNB Generation Company (HPC) Ltd
(NNB GenCo) that it must improve monitoring and management of tower cranes
at the Hinkley Point C construction site near Bridgwater.

This enforcement
action follows the discovery of a failing component in a tower crane at the
site in February this year. An operator undertaking pre-use checks on site
found the failure of a pin connecting two mast sections together, and
evidence of cracking within a mast section. The findings were reported
under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences
Regulations (RIDDOR). The issue was identified before there was any broader
failure of the crane, so there were no injuries to any workers.

 Bridgwater Mercury 12th May 2025.
https://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/25156847.hinkley-point-c-site-served-notice-crane-

May 15, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

False promises, real costs: The nuclear gamble we can’t afford

Beyond the financials, nuclear represents a specific vision of governance; centralised, top-down, and resistant to scrutiny. A small number of well-connected corporations manage most facilities. The civilian sector remains intertwined with military infrastructure. Decision-making processes often exclude community consultation. Most notably, nuclear generates waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, demanding long-term institutional stability that even the Nuclear Waste Management Organization acknowledges no government can guarantee.

Scotland and Canada must forge an energy future that works

by Ben Beveridge, 11-05-2025 , https://bylines.scot/environment/false-promises-real-costs-the-nuclear-gamble-we-cant-afford/

Nuclear power is staging a quiet comeback. In boardrooms across Scotland and Canada, familiar promises are being repackaged as bold new solutions: reliable baseload electricity, energy security, and climate alignment. But behind the sleek rhetoric, the same truths remain. Nuclear power is still the slowest, most expensive, and least flexible energy option on the table.

Both countries now face pressure to commit to a nuclear future they neither need nor can afford. This isn’t the natural evolution of energy policy. It’s the resurrection of a failing model, defended not on merit, but on legacy interests.

In the UK, projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C have seen cost projections soar, with current estimates exceeding £30bn. Scotland, despite producing 97% of its electricity from renewable sources, remains tied to a UK-wide strategy shaped by Westminster’s nuclear ambitions

In Canada, Ontario’s Darlington refurbishment has grown from C$6bn to more than C$12bn. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick are investing heavily in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which have yet to prove commercial viability. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has raised significant concerns over the feasibility, safety, and cost of these technologies, yet federal investment continues, often at the expense of grid modernisation and renewable storage.

Nuclear: more expensive, less flexible, needs political intervention

The narrative has shifted from energy independence to climate urgency, but the fundamentals have not. Lazard’s 2023 analysis puts the levelised cost of new nuclear at US$131–204 per megawatt-hour, while utility-scale solar sits at US$26–41, and wind at US$24–47. Nuclear projects frequently exceed ten-year construction timelines. By contrast, wind and solar facilities can be operational within five. Nuclear plants also lack the flexibility modern grids require, locking in oversupply and reducing the effectiveness of variable renewable sources.

Private capital has walked away. No nuclear facility proceeds without government subsidies, price guarantees, or risk backstops. The market has made its judgment. Nuclear survives only through political intervention, not economic logic.

Beyond the financials, nuclear represents a specific vision of governance; centralised, top-down, and resistant to scrutiny. A small number of well-connected corporations manage most facilities. The civilian sector remains intertwined with military infrastructure. Decision-making processes often exclude community consultation. Most notably, nuclear generates waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, demanding long-term institutional stability that even the Nuclear Waste Management Organization acknowledges no government can guarantee.

Renewables: decentralised, democratic and resilient

In contrast, the model offered by renewables is decentralised, participatory, and adaptive. Community energy projects across Scotland – from the Isle of Eigg to the Outer Hebrides – demonstrate how generation can be local, democratic, and resilient. In Canada, provinces like Quebec and British Columbia have built near-100% clean grids through hydroelectricity, rejecting nuclear while Clean Energy Canada shows generational energy security and affordability.

So why does nuclear persist? The answer lies in its structure. Nuclear development creates concentrated profit centres, contracts for reactor manufacturers, engineering giants, uranium suppliers, and vertically integrated utilities. These stakeholders benefit from centralised generation, not distributed ownership. Regulatory frameworks often entrench their advantages, creating barriers for smaller-scale or community-led projects. The result is a policy environment that protects incumbents rather than enabling transition.

This is not a neutral technological debate. It’s a structural contest between legacy systems and emergent models of energy democracy. The framing may be about climate, but the stakes are about convention, and control.

Scotland and Canada renewable partnership

Scotland and Canada are uniquely positioned to lead an alternative path. Their respective strengths are complementary. A Scotland-Canada renewable partnership, modelled after the North Sea oil and gas collaboration, could drive investment in shared technologies like offshore wind, pumped hydro storage, and smart grid systems. Agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and Scotland Development International already maintain Canadian operations and could broker this cooperation directly.

The Commonwealth presents another opportunity. A Commonwealth Energy Transition Alliance could support shared investment frameworks, model policy design, and collaborative R&D between countries with aligned infrastructure and ambitions. It could also serve as a counterbalance to the lobbying power of the nuclear-industrial complex, directing climate funding towards solutions that scale affordably and equitably.

The choice facing both nations is not nuclear or catastrophe. It is between centralised systems that demand public subsidy and deliver rising costs, versus renewable models that are increasingly faster, cheaper, and community-driven. The facts are clear. The economics are settled. What remains is the political will to choose a future built for the many, not the few.

Scotland and Canada no longer need permission to lead. They need resolve. The nuclear mirage still shimmers, but it’s time to walk towards the real oasis: a clean, democratic energy future, and we have it already.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Want to know how the world really ends? Look to TV show Families Like Ours

John Harris, 1 May 25

The Danish drama is piercing in its ordinariness. In the real world, the climate crisis worsens and authoritarians take charge as we calmly look awaySun 11 May 2025 21.35 AESTShare649

The climate crisis has taken a new and frightening turn, and in the expectation of disastrous flooding, the entire landmass of Denmark is about to be evacuated. Effectively, the country will be shutting itself down and sending its 6 million people abroad, where they will have to cope as best they can. Huge numbers of northern Europeans are therefore being turned into refugees: a few might have the wealth and connections to ease their passage from one life to another, but most are about to face the kind of precarious, nightmarish future they always thought of as other people’s burden.

Don’t panic: this is not a news story – or not yet, anyway. It’s the premise of an addictive new drama series titled Families Like Ours, acquired by the BBC and available on iPlayer. I have seen two episodes so far, and been struck by the very incisive way it satirises European attitudes to the politics of asylum. But what has also hit me is its portrayal of something just as modern: how it shows disaster unfolding in the midst of everyday life. At first, watching it brings on a sense of impatience. Why are most of the characters so calm? Where are the apocalyptic floods, wildfires and mass social breakdown? At times, it verges on boring. But then you realise the very clever conceit that defines every moment: it is really a story about how we all live, and what might happen tomorrow, or the day after.

The writer and journalist Dorian Lynskey’s brilliant book Everything Must Go is about the various ways that human beings have imagined the end of the world. “Compared to nuclear war,” he writes, “the climate emergency deprives popular storytellers of their usual toolkit. Global warming may move too fast for the planet but it is too slow for catastrophe fiction.” Even when the worst finally happens, most of us may respond with the kind of quiet mental contortions that are probably better suited to literature than the screen. Making that point, Lynskey quotes a character in Margaret Atwood’s novel The Year of the Flood: “Nobody admitted to knowing. If other people began to discuss it, you tuned them out, because what they were saying was both so obvious and so unthinkable.”

These days, that kind of thinking reflects how people deal with just about every aspect of our ever-more troubled world: if we can avert our eyes from ecological breakdown, then everything else can be either underestimated or ignored. There is a kind of moment, I would wager, that now happens to all of us. We glance at our phones or switch on the radio and are assailed by the awful gravity of everything, and then somehow manage to instantly find our way back to calm and normality. This, of course, is how human beings have always managed to cope, as a matter of basic mental wiring. But in its 21st-century form, it also has very modern elements. Our news feeds reduce everything to white noise and trivia: the result is that developments that ought to be vivid and alarming become so dulled that they look unremarkable.

Where this is leading politically is now as clear as day. In the New Yorker, Andrew Marantz wrote, in the wake of Trump’s re-election, about how democracies slide into authoritarianism. “In a Hollywood disaster movie,” he writes, “when the big one arrives, the characters don’t have to waste time debating whether it’s happening. There is an abrupt, cataclysmic tremor, a deafening roar … In the real world, though, the cataclysm can come in on little cat feet. The tremors can be so muffled and distant that people continually adapt, explaining away the anomalies.” That is true of how we normalise the climate crisis; it also applies to the way that Trump and his fellow authoritarians have successfully normalised their politics.

Marantz goes to Budapest, and meets a Hungarian academic, who marvels at the political feats pulled off by the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán. “Before it starts, you say to yourself: ‘I will leave this country immediately if they ever do this or that horrible thing,’” he says. “And then they do that thing, and you stay. Things that would have seemed impossible 10 years ago, five years ago, you may not even notice.” The fact that populists are usually climate deniers is perfect: just as searingly hot summers become mundane, so do the increasingly ambitious plans of would-be dictators – particularly in the absence of jackboots, goose-stepping and so many other old-fashioned accoutrements. Put simply, Orbán/Trump politics is purposely designed to fit with its time – and to most of its supporters (and plenty of onlookers), it looks a lot less terrifying than it actually is.

Much the same story is starting to happen in the UK. On the night of last week’s local elections, I found myself in the thoroughly ordinary environs of Grimsby town hall, watching the victory speech given by Reform UK’s Andrea Jenkyns, who had just been elected as the first mayor of Greater Lincolnshire. For some reason, she wore a spangly outfit that made her look as if she was on her way to a 1970s-themed fancy dress party, which raised a few mirthless laughs. She said it was time for an end to “soft-touch Britain”, and suddenly called for asylum seekers to be forced to live in tents. That is the kind of thing that only fascists used to say, but it now lands in our political discourse with not much more than a faint thump.

Meanwhile, life has to go on. About 20 years ago, I went to an exhibition of works by the French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson – one of which was of a family of four adults picnicking by the Marne, with their food and wine scattered around them, and a rowing-boat moored to the riverbank. When I first looked at it, I wondered what its significance was. But then I saw the date on the adjacent plaque: “1936-38.” We break bread, get drunk and tune out the noise until carrying on like that ceases to be an option: as Families Like Ours suggests, that point may arrive sooner than we think.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | climate change, Denmark, media | Leave a comment

Zelenskyy says he is willing to meet Putin in Istanbul for peace talks

 Euronews with AP 11/05/2025

The Ukrainian president said on Sunday he expected Russia to confirm a ceasefire starting Monday, and that he was prepared to meet with his Russian counterpart in Turkey on Thursday for direct talks to end Moscow’s war, now in its fourth year.

Zelenskyy’s words came in response to Putin’s remarks to the media overnight, in which he effectively ignored the idea of a ceasefire — pushed for by Western leaders — and proposed restarting direct talks with Ukraine in Istanbul on Thursday instead “without preconditions”.

Putin did not specify whether the talks on Thursday would involve Zelenskyy and him personally.

He added, however, that “the very first step in truly ending any war is a ceasefire.” “There is no point in continuing the killing even for a single day. We expect Russia to confirm a ceasefire — full, lasting, and reliable — starting tomorrow, May 12th, and Ukraine is ready to meet,” the Ukrainian leader said on X.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv on Saturday and issued a coordinated call for a 30-day truce starting Monday. The plan has received backing from both the European Union and Washington.

The leaders pledged tougher sanctions on Russia if Putin did not accept the proposal.

Prior to the Kyiv visit by the quartet of European leaders, US President Donald Trump insisted Ukraine accept Russia’s latest offer of holding direct talks in Turkey on Thursday. Ukraine, along with European allies, had demanded that Russia accept an unconditional 30-day ceasefire starting on Monday before holding talks, but Moscow effectively rejected the proposal and called for direct negotiations instead…….

Trump said in a social media post earlier Sunday that Ukraine should agree to Putin’s peace talks proposal “immediately.”……………………………..https://www.euronews.com/2025/05/11/zelenskyy-and-putin-to-meet-in-turkiye-on-thursday-possibly

May 14, 2025 Posted by | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Resuscitation at Zaporizhzhia?

    by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/05/11/resuscitation-at-zaporizhzhia/

Why would the US, Ukraine and Russia contemplate this when renewables could answer energy needs faster and more safely, writes Linda Pentz Gunter

The Trump administration has been dangling all sorts of offers before the embattled (literally) Ukrainian government lately. These include a US grab for Ukraine’s minerals in exchange for continued support of its war with Russia, and asking Ukraine to serve as an overseas prison for those residents of the US deemed “illegals” and “criminals” by Trump’s (in)justice department. 

Now, the White House is apparently suggesting that the US should first rebuild and then operate the damaged six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in the southeast of Ukraine, the area of some of the most intense fighting between Ukrainian and Russian forces.

This bizarre proposal is detailed in a new column by the director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Henry Sokolski, in the May 6, 2025 edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Along with the question of whose nuclear plant Zaporizhzhia actually is, or who damaged it, Sokolski also asks just how complex and expensive restoring the plant would be and whether it is even needed?

In reading through the list of challenges to a restart that Sokolski outlines, the answer to that last question becomes increasingly more obvious: No. It is glaringly evident that nuclear power is the wrong choice for Ukraine at this point (and, we would argue, always has been).

Renewable energy can take a couple of years — and in some cases just a few months — to build and bring into operation. Given Ukraine’s previous reliance on nuclear energy for around 55% of the country’s electricity (before the war interrupted the flow), developing an energy supplier that can come on fast and doesn’t present a safety risk (under war conditions or at any other time) is, as they say here, a “no brainer”.

And yet all three countries are vying to be the one responsible for a Zaporizhzhia restart. All three are also married to the idea of a nuclear-powered future and therefore cannot be relied upon to take the more sensible renewable energy route. Even in the midst of a war, Ukraine has signaled its intention to build as many as nine new Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at all four of its existing nuclear sites —yes, even at Zaporizhzhia! Both Russia and the US are expanding their nuclear power capacity, at home as well as abroad, including through the export of reactor technology.

Why then are any of these countries even contemplating an attempt to surmount the likely insurmountable challenges of resurrecting the existing Russian built VVER Zaporizhzhia reactors, which comprise the largest nuclear power plant in Europe at 5,700 MW?

As Sokolski asks in a preamble to his Bulletin article:

“Russia destroyed the Kakhovka Dam upstream of the plant. What would be required to assure a steady clean supply of cooling water for the reactors? The Russians laid mines around the plant; the area is also laced with unexploded ordnance. How will these be neutralized? Who will do this? The Russians looted and damaged much of the plant’s control equipment. How will it be repaired and replaced? Who will certify that the work has been done properly? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission? The Ukrainian State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate? Rosatom?”

Then there’s the issue of cost.

“Will seized Russian assets foot the bill?” Sokolski asks. “Or will it be European Reconstruction Bank funds? What of US investment, taxpayer funds, and any private entity potentially interested in chipping in? Once funds are allocated, who would receive the profits, if any, or be responsible for the losses? Who would assume responsibility for possible accidents and damage to property beyond the plant’s site? And, finally, who will bear the costs of ensuring the plant’s security so that its reactors do not become again the targets of future attacks?”


It’s not just a question of repairing the reactors of course. It’s also an issue of repairing the damaged — and in parts destroyed — electrical grid. Even assuming Zaporizhzhia gets restared, how will the electricity it generates even reach its customers? And do they even have homes left where the lights can be switched on? Let’s remind ourselves one more time that there is a war going on in Ukraine, a bloody and protracted one that began on February 24, 2022 when Russia invaded its neighbor. (The arguments about why and what the precursors were have raged on, especially on the left, but are not the subject of this present discussion.)

There seem to be altogether too many questions surrounding a Zaporizhzhia restart to make any such prospect an even vaguely rational proposition. And there would be no need to ask any of these questions, if the obvious alternative — renewable energy — was mooted instead. These days you can ask AI — a not entirely unbiased source to be sure — which responds that Ukraine hasn’t turned to renewable energy  because it “requires significant investment and infrastructure development.” Yes, but not nearly as much as trying to re-establish broken nuclear power plants and reconnect them to a destroyed electricity grid.

None of this will cross the radar at peace talks between the warring parties and the US in its self-appointed role as peacemaker. That’s because solar panels and wind turbines don’t come with the radioactive inventory that has somehow earned nuclear power a position of international — and aspirational — prestige. What it should trigger instead is an array of red warning flags, and not the kind any of us would want to “keep flying here”.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. Opinions are her own.

.

May 13, 2025 Posted by | technology, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Chernobyl shelter’s drone damage includes 330 openings in outer cladding.


 World Nuclear News 9th May 2025

The International Atomic Energy Agency has outlined the scale of the damage caused by a drone strike and subsequent fires to the giant shelter built over the ruins of Chernobyl’s unit 4.

The agency said that investigations continue to determine the extent of the damage sustained by the arch-shaped New Safe Confinement (NSC) shelter following the drone strike on 14 February.

The impact caused a 15-square-metre hole in the external cladding of the arch, with further damage to a wider area of about 200-square-metres, as well as to some joints and bolts. It took about three weeks to fully extinguish smouldering fires in the insulation layers of the shelter.

n its update on the situation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said: “It took several weeks to completely extinguish the fires caused by the strike. The emergency work resulted in approximately 330 openings in the outer cladding of the NSC arch, each with an average size of 30-50 cm.

“According to information provided to the IAEA team at the site, a preliminary assessment of the physical integrity of the large arch-shaped building identified extensive damage, for example to the stainless-steel panels of the outer cladding, insulation materials as well as to a large part of the membrane – located between the layers of insulation materials – that keep out water, moisture and air.”

The main crane system, including the maintenance garage area, was damaged and it is not currently operational, the IAEA said. The heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems are functional but have not been in service since the strike. Radiation and other monitoring systems remain functional, the IAEA said. There has been no increase in radiation levels at any time during or since the drone strike.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “We are gradually getting a more complete picture of the severe damage caused by the drone strike. It will take both considerable time and money to repair all of it.”

…………………………………………………………………………………The New Safe Confinement was financed via the Chernobyl Shelter Fund which was run by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). It received EUR1.6 billion (USD1.7 billion) from 45 donor countries and the EBRD provided EUR480 million of its own resources.

On 4 March the EBRD allocated EUR400,000 from the administrative budget of the continuing fund for specialist-led damage assessment……………………………..https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chernobyl-shelters-drone-damage-includes-330-openings-in-outer-cladding

May 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Improvement notice issued at Dounreay nuclear power plant

By Gabriel McKay, 8 May 25, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25146874.improvement-notice-issued-dounreay-nuclear-power-plant/

An improvement notice has been issued at Dounreay nuclear power plant following a “significant potential risk to work safety”.

In February of this year a worker sustained a minor injury when a radiological contamination monitor, which weighed around two tonnes, toppled over.

Though there were no serious injuries, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said there was a “significant potential risk to worker safety”.

Dounreay operated from 1955 until 1994 – though research reactors continued to function until 2015 – and is now Scotland’s largest nuclear clean-up and demolition project.

All plutonium on the site had been transferred to Sellafield by December 23, 2019.

The site upon which it stands is scheduled to become available for other uses by 2333.

Tom Eagleton, ONR Superintending Inspector, said: “This was a preventable incident that could have had serious consequences for those nearby.

“The improvement notice requires the Dounreay site to implement measures that will reduce the risk of similar occurrences in the future. 

“Specifically, they must identify all operations involving the movement of heavy equipment and ensure comprehensive risk assessments and appropriate control measures are implemented before the work starts.” 

Nuclear Restoration Services, which owns the plant has until 25 July 2025 to comply with the notice.

The company said: “We take the protection of people and the environment from harm very seriously.

We are taking action to strengthen our practices and management in this area, and will comply with the requirements of the notice received in April, having reported the incident to ONR and carried out an investigation.”

Torness in East Lothian is the last remaining nuclear power station in Scotland still generating electricity.

It is scheduled for shutdown in 2030, following Hunterston B in North Ayrshire in 2022, Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway in 2004 and Hunterston A in 1990.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Hearts and Minds: Report highlights East Lincolnshire still not a ‘willing community’.

A report recently published by campaigners opposed to a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in Lincolnshire demonstrates that theirs is still ‘not a willing community’ when it comes to the nuclear waste dump.

‘The Nuclear War for Lincolnshire’ published by Guardians of the East Coast (GOTEC) may conjure up an image of a decimated, burnt out waste land in the aftermath of an attack by nuclear weapons, but fortunately the publication is instead a detailed narrative of the relentless struggle to win public ‘hearts and minds’ support for a GDF first began by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) in the middle of 2020, and continually valiantly resisted by GOTEC and its allies, amongst them local elected members and the Nuclear Free Local Authorities.

Following the announcement of a new inland ‘Area of Focus’ between Gayton le Marsh and the Carltons at the end of January, NWS ran a series of public events across the Theddlethorpe GDF Search Area. At each of these events, activists from Guardians of the East Coast offered attendees the opportunity to vote outside in a special private ‘ballot box’, built for the purpose by local Councillor Travis Hesketh.

535 members of the public attended these events. 93% took up the opportunity to vote. The result was decisive. 93% of those who voted wanted a public vote on the proposal now and 93% wanted the GDF to end now. The result was consistent across all the events.

A separate parish poll was also held in Gayton le Marsh in February 2025. 88% of parishioners voted and 93% expressed a desire to see an immediate vote.

These are just the latest expressions of the pronounced opposition to the GDF amongst residents…………………………………………………………………………………………………

 NFLA 8th May 2025

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/hearts-and-minds-report-highlights-east-lincolnshire-still-not-a-willing-community/

May 11, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

How Miliband can make renewables cheaper – but there is really no alternative to renewables

giving longer term contracts to renewable energy developers will make solar and wind schemes even cheaper

In a world where the costs of building all sorts of power plants are
increasing, the Government has a powerful card up its sleeve to keep down
the cost of new renewable energy projects. The Government is considering
extending the contract length under which new renewable energy projects
receive their fixed payments per MWh that is generated.

If contracts for
difference (CfDs) are issued to last for 20 years instead of 15 years, this
could reduce the price of power from the renewable projects by at least 10
per cent (according to my calculations). By offering lower annual returns
over a longer period, the projects can be delivered for a lower fixed price
per MWh that is generated. Such a cost reduction seems likely to offset any
temporary (Trump-induced) cost increases for renewables.

The ‘Trump
effect’ may have led Orsted to discontinue its massive 2.4 GW Hornsea 4
offshore wind project near East Anglia. However, some commentators such as
Jerome Guillet argue that Orsted should have planned better to avoid this
outcome. Other countries operating the CfD system for renewable energy
employ 20-year contracts, and it has always been a mystery to me why the UK
Treasury plumped for a 15 year period. This is an artificially short period
compared to the project lifetime of 25 or 30 years.

Hinkley C, by contrast,
was given a 35-year premium price contract. Meanwhile, the French
Government is pressing the UK Government to put more money into the
long-delayed construction of the Hinkley C power plant. This, it seems, is
part of the price for EDF agreeing to the construction of the successor
Sizewell C plant. This is even though Hinkley C was given a contract that
pays it over £130 per MWh in today’s prices.

That compares to the most
recent auctions of wind and solar PV, whose contracts are worth £71-£83
per MWh at 2025 prices. As I write this, there appears to be a standoff in
negotiations over the terms for Sizewell C between the British and French
governments.

Quite apart from the cost, the idea that nuclear power is
going to be delivered anytime soon is fanciful. The idea that so-called
small modular reactors are any sort of alternative to the big ones is
ridiculous. They are just more expensive still!

At the end of the day,
energy efficiency and renewables are the only real options. After all, over
90 per cent of the new generation being deployed in the world last year was
renewable, almost all of it being solar or wind. The reason this is
happening is that their costs are falling and they continue to fall.
Renewables are the present and future. We need more electricity to
electrify transport, heating, and much else. Sceptics may rail and sneer at
Miliband’s clean power programme. If it has any faults, it is because it
is too mainstream, wasting money and time on carbon capture and storage and
nuclear power.

 Dave Toke’s Blog 8th May 2025 https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/how-milband-can-make-renewables-cheaper

May 10, 2025 Posted by | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Atomic lobby seizes on Spanish blackout

Spain has rejected claims that
more nuclear power would have helped as recriminations erupt over last
week’s outage. Europe’s nuclear advocates are pushing their favorite
energy source as a deterrent against the type of blackout that seized Spain
and Portugal last week — even if the facts paint a muddied picture. The
EU’s atomic allies are claiming that having more nuclear energy coursing
through the grid can help ensure a stable power supply to back up renewable
sources like wind and solar. “If you want a lot of power and you want it
to be fossil-free, then nuclear is your pick,” 

Swedish Industry and
Energy Minister Ebba Busch said in an interview. Specialists and other
officials, including those in Spain, aren’t convinced. While they concede
that having more overall power can aid in certain circumstances, they
aren’t convinced nuclear energy would have prevented Monday’s outage,
which was caused by a sudden loss of power in the Iberian grid. Europe’s
grids, like those in Spain, need upgrades, better linkages and more storage
tech like batteries to keep power stable, they stress.

 Politico 8th May 2025 https://www.politico.eu/article/nuclear-power-push-europe-spain-portugal-outage-energy-security/

May 10, 2025 Posted by | Spain, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl

Attack damaged €1.5bn containment structure over nuclear reactor with repair costs likely to be borne by western governments


Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl

 Attack damaged €1.5bn containment structure over nuclear reactor with repair costs likely to be borne by western governments

Dan Sabbagh in Chornobyl. Photography by Julia KochetovaWed 7 May 2025

A Russian Shahed drone costing up to £75,000 is estimated to have inflicted tens of millions worth of damage to the site of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, according to initial assessments and engineering experts.

The cost of a full fix is likely to be borne by western governments including the UK, because initial estimates are that a complete repair will cost more than the €25m available in a special international contingency fund.

The strike in mid February did not cause an immediate radiological risk, but it significantly damaged the €1.5bn containment structure built in 2017 to encase the destroyed reactor and is likely to take months if not years to completely repair.

The 110-metre high steel structure at Chornobyl was hit before 2am on 14 February, with sensors registering “something like a 6 to 7 magnitude earthquake,” according to Serhiy Bokov, the chief engineer on duty. “But we clearly understood it wasn’t that,” he said.

The attack – quickly concluded to be caused by a drone flying below at a level where it could not be detected by radar – punctured a 15-sq-metre hole in the outer roof. It also caused a particularly damaging, complex smouldering fire to the inner cladding of the structure that took over a fortnight to put out.

Consisting of two double arches and longer than two jumbo jets, the New Safe Confinement (NSC) was completed in 2017 to secure the hastily built, unstable Soviet-era sarcophagus, which covers over Chornobyl’s ill-fated reactor number four, the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in April 1986.

But the attack in February has rendered the sarcophagus open to the elements again, meaning that radioactive dust could get out and rainwater in, though the country’s environmental protection ministry says “the radiation background is currently within normal level and is under constant control”.

More significantly, the confinement structure is now more vulnerable in the longer term to rusting due to greater exposure to the elements and damage to the cladding. Two hundred small boreholes were also drilled into the structure in the effort to douse the cladding fire with water.

“Not fixing it is not an option,” said Eric Schmieman, an American engineer who worked on the design and build of the Chornobyl shelter for 15 years. A complete repair, he said would “cost a minimum of tens of millions of dollars and it could easily go to hundreds of millions” with the repairs taking “months to years,” he added.

Previously the shelter was intended to have a 100-year design life, allowing time to decommission the sarcophagus and nuclear waste below, but this is now in doubt without it being repaired, Schmieman added. Unlike other large metal structures, such as the Eiffel Tower, it was never possible to repaint it to prevent corrosion.

Below the sarcophagus lies a highly radioactive lava like mass, a mix of 200 tonnes of uranium from Chornobyl reactor number four and 5,000 tonnes of sand, lead and boric acid dropped on to the site by Soviet helicopters in the immediate aftermath of the disaster caused by the reactor going out of control.

A more detailed impact assessment is expected to be released in May, but the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which funded the building of the shelter and is involved in the post bombing analysis, said “it is clear that the attack has caused significant damage”.

Other sources, familiar with the assessment exercise, told the Guardian that Schmieman’s estimates appeared correct. Though the EBRD holds €25m in funds to allow for emergency work, it said “significantly more funding is required” to tackle long-term decommissioning challenges thrown up by the incident…………………………………………………

Further cash for repairs is most likely to come from western governments. Twenty-six countries contributed to the cost of the original shelter, including the US, UK, France, Germany and even Russia – of which the vast steel arch structure cost €1.5bn out of a total €2.1bn fund. Others also made donations, including Turkey.

Home to the remains of a nuclear reactor that went out of control and exploded in April 1986, the Chornobyl site is seven miles from the border with Russia’s ally Belarus. It was occupied by Russian soldiers trying to capture Kyiv in February 2022, and has remained on the frontline after Ukraine regained it that April……………………………………………….

Remotely operated cranes hanging from the confinement shelter were intended to dismantle the sarcophagus and nuclear material below, and the strike hit a point near the maintenance garage Bokov said. That too may impair the plans to gradually dismantle and decommission the disaster site below……………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/07/russian-drone-strike-caused-tens-of-millions-worth-of-damage-to-chornobyl

May 9, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia: Hurdle or catalyst for a peace deal in Ukraine?

May 6, 2025, Henry Sokolski , https://npolicy.org/zaporizhzhia-hurdle-or-catalyst-for-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

In all the peace proposals the United States, Russia, Europe, and Ukraine have made public, one item always shows up: the reopening of the damaged six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Washington wants to rebuild and operate it, Moscow insists the plant is theirs, and Kyiv says that it must remain Ukrainian. But, it will be to restart the plant. 

Russia insists it can get at least one of the reactors up and running within several months. The United States has no timeline. Ukraine says, even with a solid peace and full control over the plant, bringing all six reactors back online would still take two years or more. No one has ventured how much any of this would cost.

And, there are additional challenges. Russia destroyed the Kakhovka Dam upstream of the plant. Now, what would be required to assure a steady clean supply of cooling water for the reactors? The Russians also laid mines around the plant; the area is also laced with unexploded ordnance. How will these munitions be neutralized? Who will do it? The Russians have looted and damaged much of the plant’s control equipment. How will it be repaired and replaced? Who will certify that the work has been done properly? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission? The Ukrainian State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate? Rosatom? 

More than 75 percent of Zaporizhzhia’s nuclear staff no longer work at the plant. Can they be replaced? Who will replace them? Then, there’s the challenge of rebuilding all of the damaged power lines and transformers necessary to export any electricity from the site. Where will the electricity be sent? Ukraine? The European Union? Russian territories? Who will pay for all of this work? Who will be held responsible if there are accidents? Who will defend the plant against future attacks? The United States? Ukraine? Russia? The EU? 

There are even more questions than these. But as I make clear in the attached piece, we need to get the answers if we want the situation with Zaporizhzhia to be anything other than a hurdle to reaching any lasting peace.

……… Power for whom and at what cost? Even if the Zaporizhzhia reactors could be safely restarted, the problem of distributing the plant’s power remains. Before the war, Zaporizhzhia helped feed Ukraine’s electrical grid and exported surplus power to Europe. Now, the infrastructure connecting the plant to customers is shattered. Transmission lines must be rebuilt. Substations and transformers need replacement. Technical adjustments will need to be made and agreements negotiated over where the electricity will go and how: western Europe, southern Ukraine, or to Russian-controlled territories?

Another question is who will pay for all this work? Will seized Russian assets foot the bill? Or will it be European Reconstruction Bank funds? What of US investment, taxpayer funds, and any private entity potentially interested in chipping in? Once funds are allocated, who would receive the profits, if any, or be responsible for the losses? Who would assume responsibility for possible accidents and damage to property beyond the plant’s site? And, finally, who will bear the costs of ensuring the plant’s security so that its reactors do not become again the targets of future attacks? None of this is yet clear.

As Ukraine, the United States, and Russia have all made refurbishing and operating Zaporizhzhia a condition for peace, dodging these questions is a prescription for mischief. Without clear answers, resurrecting Zaporizhzhia could become more of an obstacle to than a catalyst for peace.

Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Virginia, served as Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy at the Pentagon (1989-93), and is author of China, Russia and the Coming Cool War (2024).

May 9, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Westinghouse drops out of UK SMR competition

 Nuclear Engineering International 30th April 2025, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/westinghouse-drops-out-of-uk-smr-competition/

S Westinghouse has pulled out of the UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) design competition, according to the UK The Telegraph.

Earlier in April, three of the four competition finalists in Great British Nuclear’s (GBN’s) small modular reactor (SMR) competition submitted their final tenders. The four finalists received an Invitation to Submit Final Tender (ISFT) in February – GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR, and Westinghouse Electric Company.

GEH (part of GE Vernova) proposed its BWRX-300 boiling water reactor; Holtec proposed its SMR-300 – a 300 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR); the Rolls-Royce SMR is a 470 MWe PWR; and the Westinghouse AP300 is a 300 MWe/900 MWt PWR. Westinghouse, however, failed to submit its final tender.

GBN was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each. The winners will be awarded contracts to co-fund further design development as well as the necessary regulatory, environmental and site-approvals before a final investment decision is taken in 2029. The contracts are expected to total £20bn ($26.7bn) – £10bn each if two companies are selected.

However, The Telegraph reported in February that the Government was considering awarding only one contract as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor “is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed ‘fiscal rules’ for borrowing.

According to The Telegraph, Westinghouse did not deny it had withdrawn but declined to give its reasons. “One industry source suggested the company had baulked at the commercial offer made by the Government.”

A spokesman from the UK Energy Department said: “Great British Nuclear is driving forward its SMR competition for UK deployment. It has now received final tenders, which it will evaluate ahead of taking final decisions this spring.”

There is growing concern that the economics of SMRs could prove even hard to justify at the high costs for the initial four units. None of the bidders has built their designs which are still in development. All SMRs in the GBN competition will be first-of-a-kind units (FOAK), which will push up costs.

Commenting on the issue, Neutron Bytes noted: “Most estimates are that economies of scale based on factory production of SMRs, promised by all four vendors, only kick in when order books come in “fleet mode,” e.g. by the dozen or more. It follows that even £10bn could be insufficient to cover the costs of four units any of the three 300 MWe offerings based on their status as FOAK projects.”

It added: “Splitting the difference for the GBN competition, e.g. awarding one winner £10bn, keeps the SMR initiative alive, but does nothing to promote long-term “fleet mode” production of SMRs which the UK nuclear industry points out is the only way to achieve economies of scale with factory production of SMRs.”

May 8, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Sellafield’s massive water abstraction plan for its new construction work has no environmental impact assessment and inadequate monitoring

Sellafield blithely apply to the Environment Agency for new water abstraction and in the same application admit that they have already contaminated the freshwater aquifer beneath them

Lakes against Nuclear Dump and NFLA , Marianne Birkby, May 07, 2025

Campaigners concerned that Sellafield’s water abstraction plan has no environmental impact assessment and inadequate monitoring

In a recent response to an Environment Agency consultation on a application by Sellafield Limited to extract water to support construction work at the site, campaigners at Lakes against the Nuclear Dump [LAND], a campaign of Radiation Free Lakeland, and the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have expressed concerns that no environmental impact assessment has been carried out and that plans to monitor contamination in discharges are inadequate.

Sellafield plans to extract an additional 350,000 cubic metres of water a year from the Lake District to support the construction of new facility to repackage radioactive waste, whilst proposing to discharge almost a million litres of contaminated water every day into the River Calder and out into the sea. This for an indefinite and uncertain period.

LAND and the NFLAs are concerned that this will be done without an Environmental Impact Assessment being carried out and with no proper plans in place to monitor the discharged water, adding to fears that the work will lead to yet more radioactive contamination in the already fragile local environment.

Sellafield may believe that the discharges are safe and within legal limits, but the two campaign groups do not subscribe to the view that there is a safe limit when it comes to radiation and in recent years there have been large research studies demonstrating the cumulative effects of low-level, but legal, radiation on human health.

May 8, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »