F-35 components sent to Israel from Royal Air Force base
Parts for Israel’s most advanced fighter jet have been secretly shipped from a British military base during the assault on Gaza.
Declassified UK JOHN McEVOY, 31 October 2024
- The shipments have continued under Keir Starmer’s Labour government
Reported in partnership with Irish news site The Ditch
F-35 fighter jet parts have been secretly transported to Israel from a British air force base in Norfolk, it can be revealed.
At least seven arms shipments have been sent from RAF Marham to Israel’s F-35 airbase at Nevatim since the Gaza bombing began.
Two of the deliveries took place this summer shortly after Keir Starmer became UK prime minister.
The information is contained within cargo documents reviewed by The Ditch and Declassified.
The documents show that the UK government has not only been approving F-35 export licences to Israel, but actively facilitating their transportation through British military sites.
F-35 supplies have become particularly controversial after it emerged that Israel used one of the planes to bomb a designated safe zone in Gaza, Al-Mawasi, killing 90 people.
Campaign Against Arms Trade’s Sam Perlo-Freeman told Declassified: “The F-35 plays a major part in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and brutal bombardment and invasion of Lebanon”.
He added that “the UK is not only licensing the supply of spare parts, but actively using UK military assets to facilitate their delivery. This makes UK ministers and potentially even military personnel complicit in war crimes”.
The International Criminal Court is currently considering arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. Human Rights Watch has warned that countries supplying Israel with arms could be complicit.
F-35 shipments
The seven shipments of F-35 parts from RAF Marham took place on 11 November 2023, 13 January, 21 January, 7 February, 28 April, 28 July, and 6 August 2024.
In six of those cases, the registered sender was the Lockheed Martin UK Integrated Systems office which is based in Havant, a town near Portsmouth.
Lockheed Martin is a major US arms corporation and the lead player in the international consortium that produces the F-35 fighter jets.
The Havant site is Lockheed Martin’s main headquarters in Britain, employing over 500 staff and working on the F-35 programme.
The components were transferred from RAF Marham to Heathrow Airport, and then transported to Tel Aviv on cargo flights operated by Israeli airline El Al……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Munitions for Israel
Labour suspended some arms export licences to Israel last month but will continue to allow shipments of F-35 components to Israel through “global hubs”.
The UK Ministry of Defence did not dispute that F-35 parts had been supplied directly to Israel from RAF Marham on the dates found by The Ditch and Declassified………………………………………………………………..more https://www.declassifieduk.org/f-35-components-sent-to-israel-from-royal-air-force-base/?utm_source=drip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ICYMI+-+Weekly+Roundup
Why Nimbys are wrong about solar farms

Opponents of solar farms often say that solar panels should be put on roofs and that fields should be left for agriculture so i asked the experts on whether they agreed
By Tom Bawden, Science & Environment , November 3, 2024 ,
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/why-nimbys-are-wrong-about-solar-farms-3355702
Tory leadership loser Robert Jenrick said that solar panels are “for roofs not fields” when asked byi last month if he supported a proposed giant solar farm in his Nottinghamshire constituency.
He is by no means alone in that view, which is a common argument given by opponents of solar farms.
Those who protest against solar farm developments argue fields would be better used for growing food, while solar panels could and should be concentrated on roofs, of which there are quite literally millions in the UK.
“I’ve said that we must ban solar farms from prime agricultural land and I mean it. These facilities are despoiling our beautiful countryside and jeopardising our food security. We must end it,” Mr Jenrick added.
But since Labour came to power Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has approved four of the five biggest solar farms to be given planning permission in the UK.
Mr Miliband has vowed to take on “the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who oppose large solar and onshore wind development to help the UK meet its ambitious targets to make the country’s energy supply virtually carbon neutral in just six years.
As the Government steps up its campaign to drive through new solar and wind projects, it is likely we will be seeing more projects of a similar scale too that opposed by Mr Jenrick in the coming years.
i asked experts whether it was feasible for the UK to do without new solar farms and instead confine new solar panel installations to the rooftops of households, offices and other business properties, and what effect this could have on food security.
The sale of the solar challenge
Experts were clear that there needs to be a huge and rapid increase in renewable energy generation if the UK is to have any chance of meeting its highly ambitious climate targets.
And, as the cheapest source of renewable energy – now costing less than onshore and offshore wind, according to government figures – solar will inevitably play a key role in the transformation of the UK’s energy supply.
The Conservative’s British Energy Strategy in April 2022 outlines the need for 70 gigawatts (GW) of solar power to be installed by 2035 – enough to power 20 million homes, according to National Grid.
As of June 2024, the UK only had about 17GW installed capacity (powering around 4.5million homes), meaning the country needs to quadruple its solar power generation in the next 11 years.
Two thirds of the current solar power is generated by solar farms with panels on the ground – known as “ground mount” – with the remaining third coming from the rooftops of businesses and over 1.5 million homes.
Meanwhile, government advisor the Climate Change Committee estimates that we will need 90GW of solar by 2050 (5.3 times current capacity) if we are to hit our legally binding target of becoming Net Zero.
Dr Simon Harrison, a member of the Government’s new advisory commission to help make the UK’s power generation virtually carbon neutral by 2030, told i the task is so great that it’s “going to require vastly more renewable energy generation” – meaning that “in practice both solar farms and roof top solar will be needed at scale to meet our needs”.
“There’s a significant role for both,” added Professor Rob Gross, who also sits on the commission.
What are the advantages of solar farms?
The first major advantage of solar farms is the sheer amount of energy they produce.
The 600 MW Cottam Solar farm that was granted planning permission in September would be the UK’s largest – supplying 180,000 homes, or 1,500 homes for every 5MW of energy generated.
By contrast, large solar rooftop installs, say over an airport or large of space, typically generate hundreds of kilowatts (kW) potentially up to a few megawatts (MW).
While the average solar rooftop installation size on someone’s home for their own use is typically 4kW.
So the Cottam Solar project would generate at least 200 times the electricity of the very largest commercial roof top installations and around 150,000 times as much as a typical household solar panel setup.
Tony Slade, technical director of Beaverbrook Energy, which designs, finances and builds low-carbon energy generators, told i: “Ground mounted solar farms also suffer from less ‘shading’ (blocking of direct sunlight through obstacles and obstructions) and ‘directional losses’ by being angled in the wrong direction.
“About 50 per cent of roofs face the wrong way and of those that face the right way about 25 per cent suffer from shading issues,” he said.
Are solar farms cheaper than roof panels?
Yes, in part because they benefit from economies of scale. In other words, the bigger the solar farm, the cheaper each unit of electricity will be, as more panels can benefit from the infrastructure.
Professor Gross, who is also director of the UK Energy Research Centre coalition of researchers, told i “the principal advantages are economic”.
“It is far cheaper to install each solar panel in a large array of thousands of panels than it is to install a handful of panels on a roof.
“Ground mounted is cheapest, followed by larger arrays on commercial units, followed by new build, followed by residential retrofit. All categories are getting cheaper but it is impossible to get away from the fundamentals – the cheapest solar will always be the simplest to install, in the largest arrays,” he said.
“And ground mounted developers building large schemes may also be able to negotiate the best deals for panels and equipment,” he added.
Mr Slade explains that greenfield ground mount solar panels on fields typically cost two thirds as much, per unit of energy, as large scale solar panel arrays on commercial buildings such as warehouses, shopping centres and factories – as well as new build domestic and commercial buildings, where the solar panels are fitted as part of the original construction.
Meanwhile, installing solar panels above car parks is typically twice as expensive as wind farms and retrofitting homes is about three times as expensive, he said.
What about food security?
Opponents of large solar farms often argue that the land would be better used for agriculture and that too many of them could impact food security.
But the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero firmly rebuts those suggestions, arguing the amount of agricultural land involved would make very little difference to the UK’s food production.
“Our plans to boost solar power do not risk the UK’s food security. The total area of agricultural land used for solar is very small and is often the lowest grade quality for food production.
“Even in the most ambitious scenarios, solar would still occupy less than 1 per cent of the UK’s agricultural land, while bringing huge benefits for the British public and our energy security,” the spokesperson added.
Meanwhile, in July, National Farmers’ Union boss Tom Bradshaw warned MPs against making “sensationalist” claims about food security.
“It’s a small amount of land which is being taken out of production,” he told the Politico Europe website.
The role of rooftop solar panels
“They can potentially play a very important role, accounting for perhaps 40 per cent of new installation of solar. But it’s important to be clear that rooftop and ground based are additive not competitive,” Professor Gross said.
Dr Harrison says “there are serious considerations to make on where solar is placed”, meaning that sometimes roof top solar power can be far more suitable than those in fields.
“In the simplest terms, there is more space in rural areas for solar panel installations and it is often easier to optimise their positioning for greater energy capture. But they are generally further from existing grid connections and with sometimes competing requirements for land use,” he said.
“On the other hand, rooftop solar, most commonly in urban settings, often avoids use of congested electricity networks, especially when combined with local batteries, and when used in homes tends to drive greater awareness and action by residents in other areas such as energy efficiency improvements, as well as reducing bills. In practice both will be needed at scale to meet our needs.”
The Government estimates there are 250,000 hectares of south-facing, industrial roof space across the country. That’s an area bigger than London and Manchester combined, with the potential for a vast amount of solar panels.
Even a very conservative estimate suggests that this commercial roof space could provide an area big enough to generate approximately 25GW of energy.
This amounts to nearly half the total amount recommended by the Climate Change Committee (CCC), according research by University College London for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
Mr Ramandani agrees that fields and rooftops can play different, complementary, roles in UK energy generation.
“We need about 18GW more of rooftop solar to hit 70GW by 2035 to keep us on the right path to Net Zero. So it will play a massive role,” he said.
“Rooftop solar can power people’s homes and business onsite without needing to pull from the grid, and excess generation can be stored or exported back to the grid, which supports the flexibility and security of the grid. And they operate at a smaller scale with some export to the overall grid system.
“Solar farms, meanwhile, are not onsite generation – they operate at a much bigger scale and power the grid with greater quantities of energy, which is used by the whole system and not specific to a home or business (before they export the excess generation that they don’t use or store).”
Is there a big role for household solar panels?
UK households are already waking up to solar panels, receiving record sums last year for the amount of excess energy they generated that they sold back to the grid, Ofgem said last week.
Homeowners received more than £30m for the energy they didn’t need in the year to March 2024, four times the £7.2m they made the previous year.
Although this amounted to a relatively small amount of energy – enough to power 88,000 homes – experts say there is considerable scope to increase this and they expect this to happen in the coming years.
“There is definite major role for rooftop solar in the UKs future energy mix,” said Mr Slade. “As installations become cheaper and the market for excess generation becomes fairer to the home owner rooftop domestic solar will continue to grow,” he said.
Mr Ramandani says: “Onsite solar rooftop generation takes money off consumer’s bills as they purchase less from the grid, and excess generation can be exported to the grid for income. This in turn creates a stable grid system with less demand side pressure, as well as supplementary energy generation from homes and businesses.
For a typical house, installing a PV system could lower bills by the equivalent of nearly 330 every year over the 30-year lifespan of the system, according to a study by Cambridge University and the Think Three property development company for Solar Energy UK.
101 BBC journalists say it is biased against Palestine

Sat 2 Nov 2024, https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/101-bbc-journalists-say-it-is-biased-against-palestine/
JVL Introduction
The BBC has been accused of bias against Israel but here over 230 people, including 101 BBC journalists have argued that there is a strong bias towards Israel and certainly the Israeli narrative. The letter was sent to the Independent arguing that Broadcaster bias is failing to hold Israel to account.
It is noteworthy that only 72 of the 230 signatories felt able to sign openly and this included none of the BBC journalists. Distrust of mainstream media is growing but there is a real need for unbiased reporting. The BBC has previously claimed that the fact it receives complaints from those in support of Israel as well as those in support of Palestine shows its impartiality. This letter, and many other articles and letters before, show this to be nonsense.
LL
This article was originally published by Digi on Fri 1 Nov 2024. Read the original here.
Hundreds of journalists and personalities accuse BBC of bias in favor of Israel and call for a return to “fairness and impartiality”
More than 230 members of the media industry and personalities, including 101 BBC employees, accuse the British media outlet of providing favourable coverage of Israel and call on the public broadcaster to “recommit to fairness, accuracy and impartiality” in its reporting on the Gaza Strip.
Digi
In a letter sent to Tim Davie, signed by more than 230 members of the media industry, including 101 anonymous BBC employees, the corporation is criticized for failing to enforce its own editorial standards by lacking “fair evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza.”
Seen exclusively by The Independent, the letter, which was also signed by Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, calls on the BBC to report “without fear or favour” and “to recommit to the highest editorial standards – with an emphasis on fairness, accuracy and due impartiality.”
The letter also calls on the broadcaster to implement a number of editorial commitments, including “reiterating that Israel does not offer foreign journalists access to Gaza; clarifying when there is insufficient evidence to support Israeli claims; clarifying where Israel is the perpetrator in article titles; including the usual historical context before October 2023; and firmly challenging the Israeli military and government in all interviews.”
The BBC denied these claims, insisting that it “strives to live up to our responsibility to provide the most reliable and impartial news”.
“When we make mistakes or have made changes in the way we report, we are transparent. We are also very clear with our audience about the limitations imposed on our reporting – including the lack of access to Gaza and restricted access to certain parts of Lebanon, as well as our continued efforts to attract reporters to those areas,” a spokesperson said.
Other signatories on the list include historian William Dalrymple, Dr. Catherine Happer, lecturer in sociology and director of media at the University of Glasgow, Rizwana Hamid, director of the Centre for Media Monitoring, and broadcaster John Nicolson.
This is not the first time the BBC has been criticised for bias during the Gaza war. In September, the BBC rejected claims that it had violated its own guidelines more than 1,500 times following a controversial report that claimed some BBC correspondents had excused or downplayed Hamas’ activities. A BBC spokesperson said at the time that it would “carefully consider” the complaint, but denied the allegations of bias.
However, the signatories of the letter insist that the BBC favors Israel. A current staff member who signed the letter told The Independent that some of their colleagues had left the institution because of its cover-up. “I have never witnessed, in my entire career, such low levels of confidence,” they said. “I have colleagues who have left the BBC in recent months because I simply don’t think our reporting on Israel and Palestine is sincere. Many of us feel paralyzed by fear.”
Another said they were “losing faith in the organisation they work for” after seeing a “huge difference” in the BBC’s approach to Israel. They added: “I really care about the future of the BBC and every day I see that we are losing the trust of audiences around the world. People change the channel to find the reality of what’s going on because we just don’t give it to them.”
Examples provided by staff include “dehumanizing and misleading headlines,” including the one given to an article about a six-year-old girl who was shot by the Israeli army in Gaza in January 2024. Speaking about the headline “Hind Rajab, 6, found dead in Gaza days after phone calls for help,” a signatory of the letter said: “This was not an act of God. The perpetrator, Israel, should have been on the front page and it should have been clear that she was killed.”
“Palestinians are always treated as an unreliable source and we consistently prioritise Israel’s version of events, despite the IDF’s well-documented history of lying,” says another BBC employee, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“It seems that we often prefer to drop Israel from the title, if possible, or question who might be to blame for the airstrikes. The level of verification expected for anything related to Gaza far exceeds what is the norm for other countries,” he said.
Other concerns raised by staff include coverage omissions, such as the failure to livestream the plea of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice on January 11, but the choice to livestream Israel’s defense the next day.
Of the 237 signatories, 72 signed publicly, including former British Foreign Secretary and Baroness Warsi and actress Juliet Stevenson, as well as dozens of academics. The letter, while focusing on the BBC, also highlights the shortcomings of other media outlets, including ITV and Sky.
“This conflict is one of the most polarizing stories that people are reporting on, and we know that people feel very much about how it is presented, not only on the BBC, but in all media. The BBC holds itself to very high standards and we strive to fulfil our responsibility to provide the most reliable and unbiased news – weighing and measuring the words we use, fact-checking and seeking a wide range of interviews and expert opinions,” the BBC said.
While acknowledging that “the BBC does not and cannot reflect any worldview”, a spokesperson insisted that it receives an almost equal measure of complaints alleging bias against Israel. “This does not mean that we assume that we are doing something right and continue to listen to all criticism – from inside and outside the BBC and reflect on what we can do better,” the institution also said.
Launch of papers on UK’s unachievable nuclear programme
Today, Friday 1 November we are launching two papers:
- ‘It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all’ (long paper);
- ‘New Nuclear – Unaffordable, Undesirable and Unachievable’ (short paper) (as Word doc).
In our view, these papers irrefutably demonstrate why the government’s proposed vast expansion of nuclear power in the UK is unnecessary, unjustifiable but also impossible.
We believe it is imperative that government reviews and reconsiders its nuclear policy and recognises that it cannot proceed.
The longer paper provides our considered and detailed analysis which reveals that nuclear is too costly, takes too long, is technologically challenged and leaves an expensive and unmanageable burden of wastes for future generations. More than that, there are no suitable sites for new power plants and those that are supposedly ‘potentially suitable’ will all be vulnerable to the impending ravages of Climate Change during their lifetimes.
The shorter paper (which is available for publication) presents our arguments concisely, presenting a fundamental challenge to current orthodoxy on the case for nuclear. At a time of pressure on public spending, nuclear does not represent good value for money, nor is it attractive against other more pressing social welfare priorities.
Biographical Notes:
Andrew Blowers, OBE, Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences, Open University. Former member of Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) and Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC); author The Legacy of Nuclear Power.
Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich. Editor-in-Chief of the journal Energy Policy.
Why ‘British’ nuclear weapons are really very American

But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.
Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population.
By Lynn Jamieson, Scottish CND, The National 3rd Nov 2024
THE approach of a US election is a good time to consider the reality of the so-called British nuclear weapon system – its integration with and dependence on the United States of America.
Since the first test and use of nuclear bombs in 1945, the heads of the UK Government have brushed aside efforts at international agreement to ban nuclear weapons.
After the Second World War, British prime ministers wanted Britain to have nuclear bombs to keep up with America. Now the British nuclear program can only exist because of “sharing” with America.
The UK Government ignores new efforts at banning nuclear weapons. This is despite knowing that any nuclear war will end comfortable liveable life across most of this planet and that the majority of non-nuclear countries in the world disagree with their viewpoint and support the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Deviating from this blinkered commitment to nuclear weapons would rupture the “special relationship” with the USA.
The so-called British nuclear weapon system includes four nuclear-powered submarines each ready to simultaneously launch at least 40 nuclear bombs in clusters, fanning out from eight independently targeted missiles. That is eight regions to be totally obliterated by five bombs each.
This is the system described by this government and governments before it as “Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent”. This name combines the idea that the UK Government alone controls the nuclear weapon system – hence “independent” – and that it will stop any aggressor ever attacking – hence “deterrent”. Both the independent and the deterrent ideas are deeply flawed.
Many things are written about the failures and problems of deterrence, including the possible catastrophic mistakes in games of bluff and counter-bluff, the tendency towards constant escalation in nuclear arms, the target it puts on our back, the absurd costs, and the very real risks created by nurturing mass death machines in your own back yard.
But the idea that this weapon system is “independent” involves just as much magical thinking and is more myth than fact. Unfortunately, such myths are not harmless but deadly dangerous for every one of us and for the future of our planet.
The United States is involved at every level of the so-called British nuclear weapon system, from design and procurement to operation and targeting.
The flow of knowledge, technology, materials and military personnel between the US and the UK is made possible by a number of treaties, most importantly the Mutual Defence Agreement treaty. It was first signed in 1958 and has been extended and expanded multiple times since.
Nuclear bombs assembled in Britain are based on a US design and have components shipped from the USA. The USA also builds, supplies, and maintains the missiles used to “deliver” the bombs to their targets……………………………………………..
Neither the US base nor the subsequent development of the Faslane Royal Navy into a nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarine base involved consultation or agreement with Scottish people, a situation that many have resisted ever since………………………………………………………………………………………………
Lakenheath is RAF in name only as it is primarily populated by US personnel and equipment. US sources have revealed that permission has been given once again for Lakenheath to host US nuclear bombs without prior consultation with the population…………………………………………………….. https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24696487.british-nuclear-weapons-really-american/
NGOs call for more secure interim storage facilities for Germany’s nuclear waste

29 Oct 2024, Jack McGovan, Germany, https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/ngos-call-more-secure-interim-storage-facilities-germanys-nuclear-waste
Clean Energy Wire / Tagesspiegel Background
Many nuclear waste storage facilities in Germany are not up to safety standards with issues like rusting drums and interim sites being used without permits, found a report by anti-nuclear organisation Ausgestrahlt and the NGO Munich Environmental Institute. The organisations are calling on the German government to take the dangers of improper nuclear waste storage seriously and demand a comprehensive and safe nuclear policy.
“We don’t have a single interim storage facility that is sufficiently safe,” said nuclear waste expert Helge Bauer from Ausgestrahlt to Tagesspiegel Background.
29 Oct 2024, 13:22
|
Germany
NGOs call for more secure interim storage facilities for Germany’s nuclear waste
Clean Energy Wire / Tagesspiegel Background
Many nuclear waste storage facilities in Germany are not up to safety standards with issues like rusting drums and interim sites being used without permits, found a report by anti-nuclear organisation Ausgestrahlt and the NGO Munich Environmental Institute. The organisations are calling on the German government to take the dangers of improper nuclear waste storage seriously and demand a comprehensive and safe nuclear policy.
“We don’t have a single interim storage facility that is sufficiently safe,” said nuclear waste expert Helge Bauer from Ausgestrahlt to Tagesspiegel Background.
One issue the activists highlight is the transportation of nuclear waste, which they say is being moved back and forth because nobody wants to be responsible for storing it. The report found that this also makes Germany vulnerable to sabotage. In August, there were drone flights of unknown origin over Brunsbüttel where there is currently an interim storage facility for highly radioactive waste, reports Tagesspiegel Background.
The report looked at 216 nuclear facilities across 71 sites in the country, including 84 that were currently in operation and 56 that were decommissioned or already being dismantled. Other organisations have also shown support for the report, including BUND and Robin Wood.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), which advises EU institutions like the Commission and the Parliament, adopted a firm stance after a plenary session in October that civil society groups should receive funding to be able to monitor the management of radioactive waste.
The discussion regarding what to do with nuclear waste has been a big topic in Germany recently as a report in August found that the hunt for a final repository could go on until the 2070s. Germany completed its nuclear phase-out last year and will now have to store around 1,900 large containers, or around 28,100 cubic metres, of high-level radioactive waste by 2080.
Safety analysis is not yet approved for Sweden’s nuclear waste dump plan, despite the hype.

| Brennain Lloyd, 3 Nov 24 |
Sweden’s Land and Environmental Court has granted SKB an environmental permit to build and operate the DGR for nuclear fuel waste …. almost.
This is the last step in the licensing process, and while a political approval had already been issued, this permit from the Lands and Environment Court was still outstanding, and so we were still on sound ground saying that there was no “approved and operating deep geological repository anywhere in the world” (Finland has constructed the underground workings, but still is in the early or mid-stages of the review of their operating license).
Now SKB has “granted” the permit, but there are still two more steps: the Uppsala County administrative board has to approve a “control program”, which sounds from this article like it might be the rough equivalent of the CNSC “License to Prepare a Site” (but it might not be! that’s my speculation based on this description).
The larger point is that “Before SKB can start on the actual mining of the repository tunnels, an approved safety analysis report is required from the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority.”
So, in summary, it seems that the permit has been granted, but the safety analysis report has not been approved, so there is still – as of this moment – still no “approved and operating deep geological repository anywhere in the world”.
Given that the detail of the approval of the safety analysis report might not get media coverage (even nuclear industry media coverage) we’d probably be on sounder ground to now simply say that “there is no operating DGR anywhere in the world, and therefore no operating experience the nuclear industry can point to”.
Why were the floods in Spain so bad? A visual guide

Guardian 1st Nov 2024
At least 205 people have died in Spain after torrential rains triggered the
country’s deadliest floods in decades, unleashing a deluge of muddy water
that turned village streets into rivers, destroyed homes and swept away
bridges, railways tracks and cars. An unknown number of people remain
missing, while thousands of others are without electricity or phone
service. The majority of those killed were in the coastal region of
Valencia, where the state-run agency said that nearly a year’s worth of
rain had fallen in just eight hours. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/31/why-were-the-floods-in-spain-so-bad-a-visual-guide
After two months, Nuclear Free Local Authorities receive vague response on Advanced’ Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs)
After a two month wait, the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities has just received a cryptic reply from Labour’s Nuclear Minister in response to our concerns about the future of Britain’s aging ‘Advanced’ Gas-Cooled Reactor (AGR) plants.
Four AGR plants – Hartlepool, Heysham-1, Heysham-2, and Torness – remain operational, each equipped with two gas cooled reactors. They first began generating in either 1983 or 1988, with an estimated operational life of 30 years. The plants are currently expected to cease operations by 2028, but in the Labour Party energy manifesto ‘Mission Climate’, the party pledged to ‘extend the lifetime of the existing plants until 2030’.
The AGR fleet has been operating for many years longer than intended. The NFLAs are concerned that the graphite moderators within each reactor are degenerating, compromising safety. We have previously raised our concerns with senior officials in the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). It is our view that it is this independent regulator which has the expertise and the legal responsibility to determine whether to further extend the operating dates that should do so, and that it is ‘frankly not the business of Ministers’.
Consequently in his letter to Nuclear Minister Lord Hunt, NFLA Chair Councillor Lawrence O’Neill posed the central question:
‘Can the Minister therefore please reassure me that Labour Ministers will not seek to apply pressure on EDF to make an application to operate these plants beyond 2028, unless they genuinely wish to do so, and more importantly will not apply pressure on the independent regulator ONR to automatically sign off on any application without rigorous scrutiny?’
In his reply, Lord Hunt says cryptically that:
‘Decisions regarding the future operation of the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor fleet or any nuclear power station in Great Britain would be for the operator, EDF Energy, (and) the ONR. The ONR would not allow a reactor to operate, return to service or extend its operating life if it judged that it was not safe to do so’.
We are hoping that the Minister means that it will fall to the operator EDF Energy to determine if it wishes to apply to the ONR for permission to extend the operating life of any, or all, of the AGR plants, but that it will be the responsibility of the ONR to decide if it can grant that permission based upon the safety case submitted.
This is a situation that the NFLAs shall continue to watch.
The Wylfa nuclear power station site needs “better storage facilities for waste”
New Civil Engineer 1st Nov 2024
The Wylfa nuclear power station site needs “better storage facilities for
waste” according to independent experts who visited. The Committee on
Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) shared a diary entry-style update
about a recent visit it made to Ynys Mon (Anglesey) for meetings and to see
the nuclear power plant.
The nuclear power plant on the island has two
reactors but Reactor 2 was shut down in 2012 and Reactor 1 was switched off
on 30 December 2015, ending 44 years of operation at the site .https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/wylfa-nuclear-site-needs-better-storage-facilities-for-waste-01-11-2024/
New nukes not a plus for unions
Nuclear power is nothing if not hugely capital, not labour, intensive.
Trades unions should oppose nuclear power as there would be far more jobs in renewables and related industries, argue activists
UK union leaders Mike Clancy of Prospect and Gary Smith of GMB recently appealed to British prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to commit to finalising financial arrangements for the Sizewell C nuclear project in order to ‘help the UK meet its net-zero targets, deliver sustainable energy, and strengthen the economy’.
In response, the activist group Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) has written to the unions’ general secretaries setting out why they need to think again regarding their support for Sizewell C.
What follows is the text of their letter, edited for context and clarity, which also debunks the myths that new nuclear power plants will provide long-term sustainable jobs for union workers. (Note: UK spellings in the original have been retained.)
We write in response to your recent appeals to Sir Keir Starmer to commit to finalising financial arrangements for the Sizewell C nuclear project in order to ‘help the UK meet its net-zero targets, deliver sustainable energy, and strengthen the economy.’
In the first instance, we refer you to two important documents. The first, written by Professors Andrew Blowers, OBE, a social scientist of impeccable pedigree and lecturer at the Open University, and Steve Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, is entitled: It is time to expose the Great British Nuclear Fantasy once and for all.
The second document we are sending you — an open letter to the Labour Party on energy policy — submitted in June 2024 before the election, was written by members of this organisation, which has been fighting Sizewell C for more than a decade.
The truth is that the government nuclear energy policy which is most brazenly and shamelessly represented by Sizewell C is unattainable and a recipe for financial and environmental calamity. Keir Starmer, an apparent subscriber to the ‘duty of candour’, will, at some stage, be required to agree. It is noticeable that in all public statements since the election of the Labour administration, ‘nuclear’ is a word which has been studiously avoided. We don’t believe that’s coincidental.
The final investment decision (FID) for Sizewell C has been delayed because it is a manifestly bad investment option for UK plc and the private investors who have demonstrated their agreement with that view by shunning appeals to invest. Why should the public purse come to the rescue for a venture that was supposed to be ’subsidy-free’, which is already predicted to be at least three times the original cost and years overdue in completion?
There will be no seamless transition of workers and supply chains from Hinkley because the sites and conditions are entirely different in timing and need. Whatever way the Sizewell C employment issue is regarded, each of the 900 long-term jobs created will have cost several tens of millions of pounds to create. That is a very bad investment in itself.
Nuclear power is nothing if not hugely capital, not labour, intensive. It costs billions, the plants are always late and over budget, and it doesn’t do what it says on the tin in terms of climate change and security (it relies upon uranium from abroad and Sizewell C is a French design with a French developer – nothing home-grown about it). ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Sizewell C will not, in any way, be the salvation of East Suffolk nor UK plc. We are quite simply being swamped by a development which is a Boris Johnson vanity project, one that is unnecessary to the national energy requirements and that will fail to do all the things you and your trades union colleagues have been told to believe it can do.
Trades union support for nuclear power is in itself disappointing when an energy policy based on a similar investment programme to that identified for nuclear could be invested in renewables and storage technology, energy conservation projects, microtechnology, decentralisation, and retrofitting thermal insulation. This can be coupled to the creation of many more job opportunities for today’s young people in industries that do not have the stigma of being linked to the nuclear weapons industry and the mass destruction that implies.
If we need anything right now in the UK, we need Starmer’s duty of candour to be levelled at the nuclear industry and for the trades union movement, of which we are mainly supportive, to help us show the way to a nuclear-free world.
Learn more at Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) and Stop Sizewell C. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/11/03/new-nukes-not-a-plus-for-unions/—
Campaigners slam chancellor Rachel Reeves for £2.7 billion pledge to nuclear power station

Rachel Reeves pledged £2.7 billion to nuclear power station
31st October, By Dominic Bareham, https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24689882.rachel-reeves-pledged-2-7-billion-nuclear-power-station/
Campaigners opposed to the new Sizewell C nuclear power station have slammed chancellor Rachel Reeves for continuing to back the project in her budget. In her first budget, she pledged a further £2.7 billion of government funding for the new dual reactor power station, which is expected to cost £20 billion.
But campaign groups opposed to the project, including Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) and Stop Sizewell C, were “appalled” at the news.
TASC chair Jenny Kirtley said: “TASC find this decision appalling – Labour promised ‘change’ but there is no change here as they quietly splurge a further £2.7 billion on Sizewell C, a Boris Johnson vanity project, despite the poor state of this country’s finances and the lack of transparency surrounding the full cost of the project.”
And Alison Downes, from Stop Sizewell C, said: “For a government that criticised the opposition for playing fast and loose with the nation’s finances, the Chancellor is surprisingly happy to do the same, allocating another £2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money on risky, expensive Sizewell C, without making any guarantee of a Final Investment Decision being taken.
“Including £2.5 billion already spent, this means £5.2 billion of our money will be spent on a project that cannot even help Labour achieve its energy mission and is looking increasingly toxic to private investors.”
The campaigners are opposed to Sizewell C because they fear the impact the new power station will have on the surrounding environment, particularly nearby Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
They also fear for the nature reserve at RSPB Minsmere.
Czech watchdog prohibits nuclear power contract signing amid appeals

PRAGUE, Oct 30 (Reuters) – The Czech anti-monopoly office UOHS put a temporary block on the conclusion of a contract with South Korea’s KHNP for the construction of a new nuclear power unit following challenges by Westinghouse and EDF.
UOHS said that the preliminary measure to prohibit the conclusion of the contract was not indicative of how the case will be decided and was standard procedure in such a case.
The measure comes after the office started official proceedings work in September on appeals from U.S. group Westinghouse and France’s EDF against the country’s choice in July of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company (KHNP) as preferred bidder to build new nuclear reactors.
The Czech government and majority state-owned utility CEZ (CEZP.PR), opens new tab aim to conclude negotiations with KHNP and sign contracts by next March, and complete the first reactor by 2036.
CEZ said it believed the preliminary measure would not impact the tender’s schedule. “(The company) is convinced it acted in accordance with the applicable laws from the first moment in the selection of the preferred bidder,” it said.
Legal disputes are a potential sticking point in the country’s largest-ever energy procurement deal, expected to be worth up to $18 billion at current prices.
The Czechs plan to use the new nuclear power units, together with small modular reactors and renewable sources, to replace a fleet of coal-fired plants as well as some older nuclear reactors that are nearing the end of their lifespan.
($1 = 23.4270 Czech crowns) Reporting by Jason Hovet; editing by Philippa Fletcher
Gravelines nuclear power plant: EDF refuses to respond on flood risks and tries to silence whistleblowers

Greenpeace France reminds that Monday morning’s action in the perimeter of the Gravelines power plant carries a message of public interest on the risks of marine submersion and flooding on the Gravelines power plant, an area combining climatic, industrial and nuclear vulnerabilities. For Greenpeace France, in light of the forecasts of scientists and the large uncertainties of the different climate scenarios, it is too dangerous to build two new nuclear reactors on this site, as EDF aims to do.
Greenpeace France 30th Oct 2024, https://www.greenpeace.fr/espace-presse/gravelines-edf-refuse-de-repondre-sur-les-risques-dinondations-et-tente-de-faire-taire-les-lanceurs-dalerte/
After more than 48 hours of deprivation of liberty, 10 of the 12 activists arrested have just been released. This arrest follows the action of Greenpeace France in the perimeter of the Gravelines power plant . Since 9 a.m. this morning, a gathering has been taking place in front of the Dunkirk Judicial Court, at the initiative of several local organizations that came to support the activists. The court informed the activists that a trial would be held on March 3, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. for intrusion into a civil facility housing nuclear materials in assembly. EDF has filed a complaint [1].
After spending two nights in police custody, the activists were brought before the Dunkirk Judicial Court in the early morning, at the request of the public prosecutor. The first activist to be released was deprived of his liberty for a total of 52 hours.
Greenpeace France reminds that Monday morning’s action in the perimeter of the Gravelines power plant carries a message of public interest on the risks of marine submersion and flooding on the Gravelines power plant, an area combining climatic, industrial and nuclear vulnerabilities. For Greenpeace France, in light of the forecasts of scientists and the large uncertainties of the different climate scenarios, it is too dangerous to build two new nuclear reactors on this site, as EDF aims to do.
While EDF refused to respond to Greenpeace France’s questions sent during the summer concerning the consideration of the impacts of climate change on the choice of the Gravelines site and the construction of new nuclear reactors, Greenpeace France dug into the subject and examined EDF’s project file, which resulted in the publication of a report on October 3 demonstrating the underestimation of the seriousness of climate change and the risks inherent in this project to build new reactors.
Greenpeace France also got involved in the consultation areas, particularly the ongoing public debate in Gravelines, and repeated its questions to obtain information on flood risks and the protective measures planned for the new reactors, ahead of the meetings on nuclear safety (theme of 19 November) and climate change (theme of 10 December). After Monday’s action, media reported that EDF did not wish to comment.
For Pauline Boyer, Energy Transition campaign manager at Greenpeace France: ” EDF is ignoring our questions about the risks that the construction of the two EPR2 reactors in Gravelines would create for the population, the workers at the plant and for the environment. In line with its behavior during the public debate for its similar project in Penly, it is clearly sending a signal of contempt for questions from the public, whether NGOs or residents. EDF is operating a diversion strategy by taking activists to court over the form of their action, in order to better evade the substantive issues. EDF is losing more points of trust. EDF will not succeed in gagging the whistleblowers. “
For Marie Dosé, the activists’ lawyer: ” The custody measures are unjustified and have only one purpose: to dissuade activists from alerting the population on a subject of general interest. All of them could have been the subject of a free hearing but, once again, the prosecuting authority preferred to make them sleep two nights in cells and bring them hastily before the court. “
Two activists remain in court at the time of writing this press release.
NextEra No Longer Bullish on Nuclear SMRs

By Alex Kimani – Oil Price , Oct 31, 2024,
NextEra Energy is exploring the reopening of the Duane Arnold nuclear plant amid rising data center interest but remains cautious on the viability of small modular reactors.
SMRs, though promising in terms of smaller size, lower fuel needs, and modular design, face significant challenges.
High production costs for HALEU, estimated to reach up to $25,725/kg, pose a substantial financial hurdle.
……………………..CEO John Ketchum said he was “not bullish” on small modular reactors (SMRs), adding that the company’s in-house SMR research unit has so far not drawn favorable conclusions about the technology.
“A lot of [SMR equipment manufacturers] are very strained financially,” he said. “There are only a handful that really have capitalization that could actually carry them through the next several years.”
Ketchum might have a valid point. …………………………………………….
The U.S. Department of Energy has so far spent $1.2B on SMR R&D and is projected to spend nearly $6B over the next decade. Last year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certified NuScale Power Corp.(NYSE:SMR) VOYGR 77 MW SMR in Poland, the first ever SMR to be approved in the country.
But there’s a big problem here because the fuel required to power these novel nuclear plants might be really expensive.
Three years ago, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved Centrus Energy Corp.’s (NYSE:LEU) request to make High Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) at its enrichment facility in Piketon, Ohio, becoming the first company in the western world outside Russia to do so. A year later, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) announced a ~$150 million cost-shared award to American Centrifuge Operating, LLC, a subsidiary of Centrus Energy. HALEU is a nuclear fuel material enriched to a higher degree (between 5% and 20%) in the fissile isotope U-235. According to the World Nuclear Association, applications for HALEU are currently limited to research reactors and medical isotope production; however, HALEU will be needed for more than half of the SMRs currently in development. HALEU is only currently available from TENEX, a Rosatom subsidiary.
………..A 2023 survey by the Nuclear Energy Institute on U.S. advanced reactor developers estimated that the total market for HALEU could reach $1.6 billion by 2030 and $5.3 billion by 2035.
Last year, the Nuclear Innovation Alliance (NIA) published a report wherein they discussed production costs for HALEU. Here’s an excerpt from the report:
‘‘Calculated HALEU production cost for uranium enriched to 19.75% is $23,725/kgU for HALEU in an oxide form and $25,725 for HALEU in a metallic form under baseline economic assumptions but could be higher.’’
The report claims that a SWU (Separative Work Unit) is going to cost a lot more in a HALEU enrichment cascade compared to a standard LEU (Low-Enriched Uranium) enrichment cascade.
……………….NIA reckons it might cost ~$2000/kgU to make HALEUF6 into HALEUO2, and as much as $4000/kgU to make HALEUF6 into HALEU-metal. At the end of the day, you’d end up with HALEU with 28 times the fissile content of natural uranium at over 100 times the price.
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/NextEra-No-Longer-Bullish-on-Nuclear-SMRs.html
-
Archives
- April 2026 (275)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


