nuclear-news

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

Consultation to strengthen UK nuclear manufacturing

HVM Catapult says more than £100bn of nuclear investment presents a major opportunity for UK manufacturing and supply chains

08/07/2026 , https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/08/consultation-to-strengthen-uk-nuclear-manufacturing/

The High Value Manufacturing (HVM) Catapult has launched a national consultation, to help UK industry capture the economic and industrial benefits of more than £100bn of expected investment in the country’s civil and defence nuclear programmes over the next decade.

The organisation is developing a ten-year Nuclear Manufacturing Strategy, arguing that the planned investment represents a “once in a generation” opportunity to strengthen the UK’s manufacturing base, improve energy security and create long-term economic growth.

The consultation will gather views from industry, government, academia and regional partners to identify how HVM Catapult can help accelerate industrial capability, strengthen supply chains and support businesses competing in future nuclear markets.

HVM Catapult Chief Executive Katherine Bennett said countries that succeed in the coming decade will be those that build advanced manufacturing ecosystems alongside new nuclear power stations.

She said: “Nuclear is both fundamental to the UK’s future energy security and one of the biggest industrial opportunities this country has seen in decades.

“It is a once in a generation moment to build a globally competitive manufacturing ecosystem that supports clean energy, strengthens defence, creates high-value jobs and delivers long-term economic prosperity across the country.

“Much of the capability needed to support the next generation of nuclear technologies already exists within UK manufacturing. The challenge is identifying it, connecting it to opportunity and giving businesses the confidence to invest.”

The consultation begins at the National Nuclear Manufacturing Conference on 9 July before continuing through a series of regional engagement events across the UK.

Feedback will inform HVM Catapult’s long-term strategy and wider discussions on strengthening domestic manufacturing capability, accelerating industrial growth and maximising the value of future nuclear investment.

July 11, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

NATO IS FAILING UKRAINE

Ukraine has received up to $470 billion in combined aid and lending since the war started.

In 2021, Ukraine’s gross domestic product, the total economic output produced in the country during that one year, was $200 billion.

AT THE ANKARA SUMMIT, LEADERS SHOULD GET BEHIND PEACE (BUT PROBABLY WON’T)

Jul 07, 2026I, ,an Proud, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/nato-is-failing-ukraine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=205725934&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

NATO is destroying Ukraine by funnelling money into it for a war against Russia that cannot be won.

Every mutli-billion commitment of financial and military assistance to Ukraine is another nail in Ukraine’s coffin.

At the Ankara Summit, NATO leaders should get behind peace in Ukraine, recognising that when the war ends, Ukraine will emerge much weaker than before the war started.

NATO leaders need to own their own failure, and yet I fear they won’t.

Rather, they will continue with more of the same, rendering Ukraine’s death even more painful.

There is a saying that wars are won by economies not armies.

According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, Ukraine has received up to $470 billion in combined aid and lending since the war started.

In 2021, Ukraine’s gross domestic product, the total economic output produced in the country during that one year, was $200 billion.

So, over the course of four and a half years of war, Ukraine has received aid greater than twice the value of its GDP before the war started, and yet Ukraine’s GDP in 2025 was measured by the World Bank at $213 billion, a rise of just 6.5% since the war started.

The money provided by the west has largely been wasted.

The reason it has been wasted, is that had the war finished in April 2022 after the agreement of a framework peace deal in Istanbul, the vast majority of this money would not have been spent. If the war had ended, and just a proportion of that western funding been spent on developing Ukraine’s economy, the country would be in a far stronger position today.

$470 billion literally amounts to killing Ukraine with fake kindness.

Let’s take a moment to consider that.

Most of that money has been tipped into the coffers of Ukraine’s government and military rather than into the real economy.

Ukraine’s government spending in 2021 was $67.6 billion.

Ukraine’s government spending in 2025 was $134 billion, twice as high as in 2021.

Ukraine’s industrial production is at 74% of its prewar level, in particular in heavy industry, especially basic chemicals (42.8% of pre-war levels), metals (44.5%), mining (39.1%) and refined products (21.8%). And it simply won’t get some of this back, as certain facilities and mines have fallen under Russian control in the Donbas.

Russia’s industrial production has continued to grow, and it 48-53% higher than in 2021 before the war started.

Ukraine invested $10bn less into its economy in 2025 compared to 2021, a drop of 38%.

Investment in Russia’s economy has grown from 23% to over 26% of GDP.

Ukraine’s economy has been hollowed out by war

Ukraine’s debt as a percentage of GDP has surged from 49% in 2021 to an estimated 110% this year.

Russia’s debt to GDP remains below 20%, a slight rise since the war started when it was 14% of GDP.

And the kicker is this, the vast amount of government spending is propped up by loans and donations from western nations which has consistently accounted for around half of all government spending.

And the problems extend beyond the economic.

The population inside of Ukraine has fallen by 25-30%, largely down to mass emigration, together with battlefield losses.

Russia’s population by contrast has seen a modest decline of 0.3-0.5% and is now almost five times larger than Ukraine’s population.

Ukraine’s birthrate has fallen by 38% – 105,000 fewer babies arrived in 2025 compared to 2021. The average birthrate per woman has now fallen to below 1.

Russia produced 1 million more babies in 2025 and it’s fertility rate, while low (1.378) is still significantly higher than in Ukraine.

I person in 3 inside of Ukraine today is a pensioner. For every employed worker there is one pensioner. In the UK, as a comparison, there are 2.6 workers per pensioner and in Russia 1.7-1.8.

When the war ends, there will be huge pressure in western nations to reduce their financial commitments.

That could see a brutal write down in the size of Ukraine’s GDP. If the Ukraine government reduced its spending to pre-war level, that would amount to a sudden drop of 30% in GDP.

Of course, that scale of drop won’t happen, as it will take some time to demobilise its army.

Ukraine will simply not be able to afford to pay for a military of 1 million personnel without further loans from the west. So will have to drive down military costs over time.

They will find that they have a disgruntled veteran class, resentful that a military success was offered by not delivered at a cost of 2.4 million killed and injured so far.

But, for the first time, Ukraine will have its economic fortunes in its hands.

If it chose to, it could do a massive debt restructuring and reopen itself to borrowing on the international markets, having been cut off of international borrowing since the war began.

It would almost certainly see a flood of foreign investment from western nations to rebuild its shattered cities and infrastructure.

It could start the process of weaning itself off of imports and reboot its exports, recognising that it has lost some of its valuable coal exports from the loss of territory.

However, it’s far from guaranteed that Ukraine would return to its prewar population, possibly ever, nor repair its catastrophic demographic crisis, as birthrates were already very low before the war started, at just 1.22 babies per woman.

So, the economic future for Ukraine looks bleak. It will have taken a permanent deadweight loss to its economic potential whenever the war ends.

An economy that is significantly smaller when the war ends compared to before it started. A population that is smaller and not reproducing itself.

However, what should be blindingly obvious is that the economic numbers will continue to get much worse for Ukraine for as long as the war continues.

Ukraine’s deficit of exports over imports will grow.

Industrial production will remain depressed and possibly fall further if Russia paints out Donetsk

Investment in Ukraine’s real economy will continue to slide

Ukraine’s massive debt burden will pile up further.

It is impossible to imagine that Ukraine will have cleaned up its grotesque levels of corruption if the war continues and billions of foreign money continues to pour in. That’s not to say that Russia doesn’t have a corruption problem too, of course. But the difference is, we are sending the billions to Ukraine for Zelensky’s cronies to pilfer.

Ukraine’s population will continue to decline

It will produce fewer babies and move to having more pensioners than workers.

There is no way to reverse any of these trends for as long as the war continues.

The $470 billion that western nations have tipped into Ukraine has been wasted.

And all for what?

What are the factors driving on NATO to keep Ukraine fighting?

The first, is the mistaken view that NATO can use a much smaller economically more fragile country like Ukraine as a battering ram to shatter Russia and inflict a strategic defeat that would topple the Putin government.

All of this is cloaked under the excuse that Ukraine should have the right to choose which military bloc is joins. However, in 2014 before the Ukraine crisis started, a majority of Ukrainians did not support joining NATO, as opposed to the EU, where attitudes were finely balanced in 2013 prior to the Vilnius Eastern Partnership Summit.

For those Ukrainians that did want to join the EU, their choice was soon labelled as a Euro-Atlantic, rather than a European choice after the unconstitutional removal of Viktor Yanukovych as President in February 2014.

The Ukraine crisis has always been about NATO membership.

Whenever efforts were made to broker peace, most notably after the Minsk II Agreement in February 2015 or the Istanbul talks in April 22 after the war started, those efforts were derailed by the Americans, with the help of the British.

And, as it turns out, even though the Europeans have become the major funders of the war in Ukraine since Trump came to power, it is now completely obvious that Ukrainian membership of the EU is further away than it has ever been, not least because of the boorish antics of Zelensky on the world stage, typified by his turning Poland into an irritant after his glorification of World War II Nazi collaborators. Zelensky has variously generated bad blood with other EU nations that he will rely on to obtain EU membership for his country, driven by his towering sense of entitlement and lack of self-awareness.

While I’ve always supported the theory of EU membership for Ukraine, the practice has become more complicated by the continuation of war. Important reforms in Ukraine have not been undertaken or have been held back.

So, the very point of the Maidan movement – if there was ever a point before it was hijacked by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists – has been betrayed by12 years of conflict and now war which has revealed that the true purpose of western sponsors has been to incorporate Ukraine into a military bloc, that not just Putin, but several esteemed western diplomats like Kennan and Matlock, has been saying for at least twenty years was a red line for Russia.

And yet, here was are, on the verge of another NATO summit in which cardboard cutouts like Mark Rutte will continue to insist that Ukraine is part of the NATO family. Further commitments will be made to funnel even more billions in aid into Ukraine to help Zelensky inflict a strategic defeat on Russia that will never happen.

NATO leaders won’t take the cue to end the war. There are just too many vested interests in the west to allow that to happen.

That Zelensky is attending the summit won’t help. He will persuade western leaders – who seem completely unable to say no to him – that they need to let him strike further and further into Russia to inflict pain on Russia’s economy.

And yet, every Ukrainian strike will self-evidently yield another massive retaliation from Russia that heaps suffering on ordinary Ukrainian people.

It won’t change the massive economic and demographic advantages that Russia has over Ukraine and will always have.

It will just prolong the war.

Western mainstream media and politicians are bitterly opposed to ending the war too.

They will trot out the usual tropes.

Russia’s economy is about to implode – it isn’t and I’ve been hearing this for 12 years including while I was in Moscow. Look at the numbers. Ukraine’s economy is in real trouble.

Russian people are turning against Putin because of gasoline shortages in some cities including Moscow. Yes, Russian people are tired of war and Putin has seen a reduction in his popularity, though at 67% it is far higher than anything western leaders enjoy. There is no evidence that Russian people are going to take to the streets to topple Putin. Indeed, Ukraine’s people have suffered far more from the destruction of energy and heating infrastructure during bitter winters. The inconvenience suffered by ordinary Russians is very small in comparison, although that doesn’t mean it isn’t impacting Russia’s domestic politics. The point is, it will never be enough to shift the dial, compared to the significantly greater cost Russia can impose on Ukraine.

Russia is finding it harder to recruit troops to the frontline. This is the worst misinformation of all. Yes, Russia has taken heavy casualties in the war although all the evidence points to Ukraine taking far higher casualties from a smaller population. Body swaps numbers are not a perfect comparator, but on every occasion Ukraine receives at least ten times more bodies than it returns to Russia. And, in any case, every body – Ukrainian or Russian – is a person whose life has been snuffed out by this pointless war.

Russia has avoided a general mobilisation whereas every day there are videos emerging of violent forced mobilisation – busification – of Ukrainian men to be sent to the meat grinder.

Zelensky is the leader of the free world. Utter claptrap. He is a corrupt dictator who absolutely refuses to listen to any advice and will carry on regardless, whatever injury he causes his own country, so long as the west keeps sending him money. Politicians are human and he is no different, I am sad to say. He will not be President of Ukraine after the war ends if fair elections are held. Everyone can see this except the western press. Zelensky biggest challenge when the war ends will be to stay alive, let along to stay inside of Ukraine.

Putin is going to die at any minute. Come on, I’ve been hearing this for twelve years.

Any attempt to get behind a peace settlement will be turned upon by the blob who cry that we are selling out Ukraine and are giving a gift to Putin.

But I am sick and tired of hearing this bullshit. The biggest gift to Putin is to keep the war going on and watch Europe disintegrate politically and economically.

But the only way to secure peace with Russia is through force. Utter nonsense.

Sure, Putin would probably prefer peace now. And, it has always been my impression, that Russia wants to have normal relations with Europe and, in fact, with Ukraine.

But he will not do that under the threat of NATO expansion and has been saying this for over two decades.

So, if NATO leaders want to keep helping Zelensky fight to the last Ukrainian it will be a disgraceful betrayal of the Ukrainian people and of the people of Europe who face a growing threat of general war and all the misery that would ensure, which ordinary Ukrainian people have suffered for four and a half years already.

Zelensky is killing his own country. NATO is helping him do it. We are led by idiots in the west. It’s time to end this nonsense now.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | 1 Comment

Scotland could freeze datacentre projects in challenge to UK’s AI strategy

Scottish government to consider SNP national council motion for moratorium on all new datacentres

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/07/scotland-could-freeze-datacentre-projects-in-challenge-to-uks-ai-strategy

The Scottish government is about to consider a sweeping moratorium on building new datacentres, putting a key plank of the UK’s AI strategy at risk.

Last Sunday the Scottish National party (SNP)’s national council passed a motion to freeze all new datacentres in Scotland. That motion has been sent to the Scottish government to consider.

It could apply to all datacentre projects that have not yet received planning permission – although its exact implementation is up to the Scottish government to decide.

Lesley Backhouse, a local councillor from one of the constituencies that put forward the motion, said that Scotland’s current datacentre plans amounted to “overdevelopment” and were “intrusive and not keeping with the local environment”.

The move emerged as the Guardian on Monday revealed how the developer and the UK government misrepresented the technical feasibility of a massive datacentre hub in Scotland in the face of community fears that their land would be subsumed by the development, and promised jobs and investments would never materialise.

This site, in Lanarkshire, was to be an “AI growth zone”, a key element of the government’s strategy to build national AI infrastructure in rural areas of Britain.

The SNP’s resolution came amid signs of a wider upheaval in the UK’s AI strategy as Andy Burnham prepares to replace Keir Starmer in Downing Street. He is reportedly considering a review of several critical planks of Starmer’s technology policy.

The Guardian previously reported that an “AI growth zone” in North Tyneside was more of a publicity stunt than a viable project, despite being supposedly backed by the maker of ChatGPT, OpenAI. Several other big UK AI projects have been found to be “phantom investments” after the government failed to audit investment numbers or jobs claims.

“I don’t think anyone is arguing that we should not have any datacentres in the UK or Scotland,” said Graham Simpson, a member of the Scottish parliament representing North Lanarkshire.

“But there needs to be a proper piece of work at the government level to decide how many the country needs and what is our capacity for them, in terms of our resources.”

A moratorium on datacentres in Scotland could strike at the heart of the UK’s wider AI strategy. British officials have pushed Scotland as the prime location for datacentres due to its access to plentiful renewable energy. The SNP’s resolution could halt projects such as the Lanarkshire AI growth zone.

The SNP resolution suggests that the number of massive datacentres planned in Scotland could overwhelm its renewables capacity.

It says there are 24 “hyperscale” datacentre projects in various stages of planning in Scotland. Combined, they would use more than one-and-a-half times the power Scotland uses at peak demand.

“It is extreme overdevelopment. I’m very supportive of the local community and their endeavours to prevent this from happening,” said Backhouse.

Meanwhile, the chair of the Commons science and technology select committee, Chi Onwurah, on Monday criticised the UK’s broader AI investment strategy, saying that without a proper plan for achieving sovereignty it has been “very opportunistic”.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government scraps public consultation on data centres and major infrastructure projects

Scrapping mandatory pre-application consultation requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will “disenfranchise” locals and “embed resentment”, experts say. Christine Murray reports

Christine Murray, Editor-in-Chief of The Developer and Director of the Festival of Place 03/07/26, https://www.thedeveloper.live/reportage/government-scraps-public-consultation-on-data-centres-and-major-infrastructure-projects

Just days after hundreds of people gathered near Great Torrington to oppose a £13bn data centre and battery energy storage project in the North Devon UNESCdata centre and battery energy storage project in the North Devon UNESCO Biosphere, the government has announced it is scrapping mandatory public consultation for major infrastructure projects including data centres, wind, solar, reservoirs and nuclear plants.


The changes confirmed on Friday will come into effect later this month on 24 July, before the completion of a government inquiry into the sustainability of data centres in the UK.

re-application consultation requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will be replaced by “earlier technical support and meaningful advice from the Planning Inspectorate before applications are submitted” through a redesigned pre-application service for developers.

The changes are delivered in the Planning and Infrastructure Act which also places limits on legal challenges to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The news comes amidst calls for increased scrutiny of AI growth zone plans with concern that developers are misrepresenting their plans and making misleading claims about data centres. The  government has announced five AI growth zones including sites in Lanarkshire and North Tyneside.

Oral evidence presented to the Environmental Audit Committee for the government’s data centre inquiry has already highlighted that local people don’t feel sufficiently heard in the planning process and that claims being made about the job creation may be misleading. 

Presenting evidence on 10 June, Oliver Hayes, Head of Policy at Global Act Plan said: “The jobs benefits really don’t seem to be what the developers are claiming.” 

“The data centre in Blythe, Northumberland… said this would lead to 4,000 jobs and the slightest bit of interrogation drew an admission that this actually would be 100 jobs. This is a £10bn investment in Blythe and that means you’re getting 1 job for every £100m pounds.”

“This change is essential given the need to build our own resilience in places across the country in an increasingly uncertain world”

Just days after hundreds of people gathered near Great Torrington to oppose a £13bn data centre and battery energy storage project in the North Devon UNESCO Biosphere, the government has announced it is scrapping mandatory public consultation for major infrastructure projects including data centres, wind, solar, reservoirs and nuclear plants.

The changes confirmed on Friday will come into effect later this month on 24 July, before the completion of a government inquiry into the sustainability of data centres in the UK. 

Pre-application consultation requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects will be replaced by “earlier technical support and meaningful advice from the Planning Inspectorate before applications are submitted” through a redesigned pre-application service for developers.

The changes are delivered in the Planning and Infrastructure Act which also places limits on legal challenges to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

The news comes amidst calls for increased scrutiny of AI growth zone plans with concern that developers are misrepresenting their plans and making misleading claims about data centres.

The government has announced five AI growth zones including sites in Lanarkshire and North Tyneside.

Oral evidence presented to the Environmental Audit Committee for the government’s data centre inquiry has already highlighted that local people don’t feel sufficiently heard in the planning process and that claims being made about the job creation may be misleading. 

Presenting evidence on 10 June, Oliver Hayes, Head of Policy at Global Act Plan said: “The jobs benefits really don’t seem to be what the developers are claiming.” 

“The data centre in Blythe, Northumberland… said this would lead to 4,000 jobs and the slightest bit of interrogation drew an admission that this actually would be 100 jobs. This is a £10bn investment in Blythe and that means you’re getting 1 job for every £100m pounds.”

“This change is essential given the need to build our own resilience in places across the country in an increasingly uncertain world” 

Internal correspondence obtained by The Guardian showed the government and developers of the £82bn AI data centre complex in Lanarkshire knew they would not be delivering new on-site renewable energy infrastructure even as they promised it to the public. Instead the data centre will connect to the grid. With an average 8-10 year wait for a grid connection, prioritising data centres could potentially delay electricity for housing developments.

The Scottish government is considering a moratorium on building new data centres, which would affect all data centres that have not yet won planning, as reported by The Guardian. 

Fergus Charlton, planning partner with national law firm Michelmores is concerned about the removal of mandatory public consultation: “Cutting the ability of the public at large and more importantly the local inhabitants – with their special connections to the land and knowledge of their milieu – to inform the design of nationally important infrastructure will further disenfranchise them from the planning process leading to embedded resentment to the system as a whole and the proposed development in particular.

The existing consultation requirements for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects does place a burden on the developer, but it helps strike a fair balance for the local community engaging in an infrastructure planning system that greatly favours the developer,” says Charlton.

“Local residents are getting very concerned and are feeling like they’re not able to participate in that planning process and not able to have their voices heard,” said Hayes. “I think that is a big risk for government.”

“There needs to be real interrogation of what it means to be living in AI growth zones and less of a laissez-faire approach,” Hayes said. 

The government claims cutting consultation will speed up planning applications by as much as 12 months and that infrastructure projects will enter the pipeline at a faster rate. 

Housing Secretary Steve Reed said: “Our reforms will get work started quicker on wind farms, solar panels and transport links to connect our communities and grow our economy.” 

Energy Minister Michael Shanks said: “Britain cannot afford to wait years for the clean energy infrastructure needed to strengthen our energy security and grow the economy.” 

The government says that data centres can opt into the National Significant Infrastructure Projects with three data centre proposals being included: Wapseys Wood in Buckinhamshire, Ampthill Road in Bedford and New Barn Lane in Dartford. 

The government says it will encourage the earlier submission of Local Impact Reports alongside relevant representations.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | 1 Comment

SNP call for temporary ban on AI data centre developments.

 THE SNP are set to back calls for a temporary ban on AI data centre
developments, The National can reveal. It comes after months of community
protest against proposed sites across the country, as well as pushback from
several MSPs from various parties. The SNP will now join the Scottish
Greens in calling for a Scottish Government-led moratorium on AI data
centre developments after a vote of the party’s National Council, a key
decision-making body in the party’s organisation.

The two parties hold a
clear majority in Holyrood, so if a moratorium is formally proposed by
either party it would likely pass, especially as figures from Labour, the
LibDems, Conservatives and Reform UK have all raised concerns about data
centre projects in their areas. However, it could be challenged on a point
of law from the developers.

 The National 6th July 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26257080.snp-call-temporary-ban-ai-data-centre-developments/

July 10, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Wildfire in southern France forces evacuation of 10,000 people

Neil Murphy

 A wildfire has forced the evacuation of thousands of people in southern
France as the country grapples with the impacts of an early summer heatwave
that scorched much of Europe. More than 10,000 people have been ordered to
leave more than a dozen small towns and villages in the foothills of the
French Pyrenees, near the border with Spain. The fire, located in
Trévillach near Perpignan, has burned at least 4,600 hectares (11,366
acres), local prefect Pierre Regnault de la Mothe said in a post on X.

 BBC 6th July 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlwweye9glo

July 10, 2026 Posted by | climate change, France | Leave a comment

£8.2bn Scottish datacentre development running out of steam?


by Chris Newbould, July 6, 2026,
https://www.prolificnorth.co.uk/news/8-2bn-scottish-datacentre-development-running-out-of-steam/

A huge Scottish datacentre development has misrepresented its plans to channel a nuclear reactor’s worth of power to a site in rural Scotland, according to a new Guardian investigation.

When the £8.2bn AI datacentre complex in Lanarkshire was announced in January, built by the US firm CoreWeave and the Scottish company DataVita, the government promised that it would be powered entirely from on-site renewables and built by 2030 – indeed, a central plank of the viability of the project, designed to help with Britain’s ambitions to keep up in the global AI race, was its ability to power itself.

CoreWeave, meanwhile, claimed that CoreWeave Lanarkshire would become “one of the most advanced AI sites anywhere in the world” following the completion of their plans.

Documents obtained by The Guardian under an FoI request, however, suggest the datacentre has virtually no chance of meeting that goal.

Internal correspondence obtained by the paper, however, suggest that the government and the site’s developers were privately acknowledging that the site had an “issue” with “power provision” and that this would not happen, even as they publicly promised that the Lanarkshire site would have up to 1GW of “new energy infrastructure”.

The government told The Guardian that the Lanarkshire complex would connect to the national, meaning it would join a years-long queue alongside housing and hospitals, although a government spokesman insisted the site’s needs would still be met “overwhelmingly” with renewables.

Energy is a particular issue for power-hungry data centres in the UK, where it is more expensive than anywhere else in Europe and there is an eight to 10-year queue for new developments to connect to the grid.

DataVita said it will power the site in Airdrie with more than 1GW of renewable energy, including 400MW of solar power and 800MW of wind. That is more than one and half times the wind energy produced by Whitelee, the UK’s largest onshore windfarm, also in Scotland, which occupies an area half the size of Bristol. It is roughly the power needed to supply 800,000 Scottish homes, although where this power is coming from for the Lanarkshire development remains unclear at this point.

July 10, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

We’re being asked to save two buckets of water a day. Meanwhile data centres drink a town’s worth

England is heading for a 5bn-litre daily water shortfall by 2055 – so why is the government fast-tracking one of the most water-hungry industries there is, and letting it keep its consumption private, asks campaigner Adele Walton


Adele Walton, Jul 8, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/adele-walton-heatwave-data-centres-water-shortage?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=farage-under-fire-tuesday-edition&_bhlid=8b1d393304f745e4dafb1328c154dd5ec4a3e882

Lying on my bedroom floor in front of a fan with a wet flannel on my head, desperately trying to cool down in the middle of the UK’s historic heatwave last month, I couldn’t stop thinking about one thing. Data centres. 

Every time I had a cold shower for a temporary relief, I was haunted by the knowledge that AI data centres are already gobbling up millions of litres of water that they require for cooling, and I became fearful of a day where I might turn on the tap and not be able to get a drop. I would go to my local park to seek shade and a cool breeze to no avail and have pressing visions of superscale data centres that endlessly whir and hum and churn out emissions. This is dystopian, but it’s not unrealistic. Lying on my bedroom floor in front of a fan with a wet flannel on my head, desperately trying to cool down in the middle of the UK’s historic heatwave last month, I couldn’t stop thinking about one thing. Data centres. 

Every time I had a cold shower for a temporary relief, I was haunted by the knowledge that AI data centres are already gobbling up millions of litres of water that they require for cooling, and I became fearful of a day where I might turn on the tap and not be able to get a drop. I would go to my local park to seek shade and a cool breeze to no avail and have pressing visions of superscale data centres that endlessly whir and hum and churn out emissions. This is dystopian, but it’s not unrealistic. 

England is predicted to reach water shortages of 5bn litres a day by 2055. Data centres are increasingly becoming one of the most water-intensive forms of infrastructure and the AI hype is rapidly exacerbating the speed at which our natural resources get stolen by Big Tech. Research by the campaign group Global Action Plan reveals that 84% of projected data centre developments in the UK are expected in areas already water-stressed or projected to be water-stressed by 2040. 

What makes this even more scandalous is the fact that the UK government classified data centres as critical infrastructure in September 2024, ranking them as important as essential services such as water, energy and even emergency services systems. Far from proceeding with caution, the government is bending over backwards to appease AI companies and attract their investment, at the expense of our planet. 

Andy Burnham’s recent appointment of James Purnell – the former chief executive of corporate lobbying firm Flint Global, whose clients included Apple, Google, Amazon and other tech giants – as his chief of staff highlights the revolving-door relationship between lobbyists and government. The EU, which had previously seemed to be taking a stronger stance on regulating the AI industry, is caving in to pressure, and is already preparing to water down plans to rate data centres on energy and water use, after pressure from tech lobby groups.

It’s vital that the next prime minister prioritises public need over private greed if we are to avoid heading straight into a climate crisis sponsored by Silicon Valley

How can we trust that our government will act in our interests when they consistently prioritise Silicon Valley’s financial motives? Eager to position itself as a global leader in the space race unfolding across the AI industry, the UK government is fast-tracking £14bn of private investment into data centres and AI growth zones. 

Quite frankly, it’s insulting that the government has launched their biggest ever campaign to encourage the British public to reduce water usage in a heatwave, while charging full steam ahead with data centre expansion. The government campaign urges Brits to cut their daily use by 28 litres; meanwhile, hyperscale data centres consume the equivalent of 10,000 people’s daily needs in a single day. Time and time again, the onus is put on individuals to make lifestyle changes that will barely make a dent, while tech corporations are given a get-out-of-jail-free card by our governments. 

As it stands, data centres are not required to disclose their water usage, and tech companies that do consistently underestimate their environmental impact. In May, Google’s developers were found to have understated by a factor of five the carbon emissions of two proposed AI data centres in Essex, again highlighting the lack of transparency within the industry. This is why climate charities and local communities are calling for a moratorium on all new data centre developments until necessary environmental regulations are in place. Our politicians ought to be managing data centre development, making decisions that protect our communities from the extractive nature of the AI boom. 

Just a few weeks ago, I helped organise a protest at London’s historic Truman Brewery venue on Brick Lane with Pull The Plug and Global Action Plan, because while the AI hype was being championed locally at the SXSW festival, lots of people weren’t aware of the current plans to turn part of this popular social and creative hub into a data centre. AI data centre development is being rushed through, right under our noses, while we get no say in where they’re built, what resources they access and how they’ll affect our lives. But now, the difficulty of just existing in a heatwave makes the need to push back against AI data centre development in the UK more urgent.

It’s vital that the next prime minister prioritises public need over private greed if we are to avoid heading straight into a climate crisis sponsored by Silicon Valley. Unquestioned AI expansion is directly in conflict with the planet’s limits, and the burden of political shortsightedness will fall on us if our government presses on – manifesting in unbearable temperatures, water and energy scarcity, and loss of life. Across the political spectrum the general public want stronger regulation of AI; politicians ought to see taking a bold stance on AI governance as a political opportunity, not a problem.

Adele Walton is a journalist and online safety campaigner. She is the author of Logging Off: the Human Cost of our Digital World and co-founder of Logging Off Club


July 9, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, water | Leave a comment

Scottish climate campaigners condemn new nuclear power plans.

By Nan Spowart, 5 July 26

CLIMATE activists have poured scorn on the UK Government’s attempts to foist new
nuclear power stations on Scotland. Last week saw the publication of a
report by Great British Energy Nuclear, ordered by Energy Secretary Ed
Miliband, which identified multiple sites in Scotland which could be used
for new reactors.

However, this will not fix the energy crisis Scots are
facing, according to climate campaigners, and also flies in the face of
Scottish Government policy which is firmly against new nuclear. Arguments
against new nuclear power stations include their huge expense, the amount
of time it takes before they are operational and the problems regarding
waste disposal.

“Instead of sinking billions of pounds into nuclear
power, investment should be channelled into renewable energy and other
projects that tackle climate change and benefit society,” said Fraser
Sutherland, coalition manager for Stop Climate Chaos Scotland. “We must
ensure Scots get their fair share of the wealth that comes from our natural
resources by increasing community and municipal ownership of renewables
schemes and building a solid Scottish manufacturing industry for the
sector.”

He pointed out that while nuclear power is often described as
“clean”, this ignores the climate emissions and resources used in
construction and operation of the plants. “Additionally, there are
significant uncertainties and lack of long-term plans relating to the
disposal of radioactive waste and decommissioning, meaning these reactors
are not a sustainable solution to our energy needs,” said Sutherland.

 The National 5th July 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26253766.scottish-climate-campaigners-condemn-new-nuclear-power-plans/

July 9, 2026 Posted by | UK | Leave a comment

Dunfermline MSP speaks out at possible Longannet nuclear site

By Hannah Emma Shedden, 3rd July, https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/26250982.dunfermline-msp-speaks-possible-longannet-nuclear-site/

A DUNFERMLINE MSP has called on the UK Government to rule out any future nuclear development at the former Longannet Power Station site in West Fife.

Shirley-Anne Somerville’s call follows a UK Government assessment of potential sites for new nuclear development, which appeared to identify the former power station as a candidate location.

Currently, through devolved powers, the Scottish Government have the power to block planning, and has said it would not permit the building of any stations.

So far, MSPs David Barratt and Mark Ruskell have come out against the plans, while MP Graeme Downie has said it would be “a wasted opportunity” to ignore nuclear energy.

Ms Somerville has now written to the UK’s Minister of State for Energy, Michael Shanks, urging him to remove the site from consideration.

She said: “Longannet should not be considered for a new nuclear power station, and I’ve told the Labour UK Government this directly.

“The SNP’s position on this is a long-standing one; we do not support new nuclear power stations in Scotland and communities in West Fife should not have one imposed on them.

“What this process really looks like is Labour’s much-hyped GB Energy searching for a mission to justify the money that’s been ploughed into it, rather than backing the clean industries Scotland is actually good at.

“Longannet powered Scotland for decades, and I want that site to go on playing a role in our energy future.

“However, that future must be built on clean energy, not on a technology that’s slow, expensive, and leaves radioactive waste behind for future generations to manage.

“I’ve therefore asked the UK Government to take Longannet off the table and to respect Scotland’s clear and consistent opposition to new nuclear development.”

July 9, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

MSP says ‘no’ to nuclear power plant as UK Government eyes Fife

4th July, By Hannah Emma Shedden, https://www.thenational.scot/news/26253439.msp-says-no-nuclear-power-plant-uk-government-eyes-fife/

FIFE has been revealed as a potential site for a nuclear power plant in a new UK Government report – but a local MSP says it “wouldn’t go down well” with communities.

The document, titled ‘Potential future nuclear power plant siting in Scotland ‘, published on Tuesday, June 30, was penned by both the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Great British Energy – Nuclear.

Ordered by Ed Miliband, the document’s scope was to offer “technical advice” on potential future sites.

In a section called “Land Areas of Interest”, Fife was identified as one of the areas across eastern Scotland which could be eyed up for new development by the UK Government.

The report read: “The northern shore of the Firth of Forth benefits from a strong industrial heritage, existing brownfield land, good transport connections and historic use of river water for power station cooling.

“The presence of previous energy generation sites and proximity to major industrial hubs supports technical suitability.”

SNP MSP for Cowdenbeath, David Barratt said: “The document implies quite heavily, I would say, about nuclear power at Longannet. It’s talking about a site on the north side of the Forth, in close proximity to areas of flood risk and oil and gas.

“The SNP’s position aligns, from my perspective, closely with what communities think. I don’t think if you went to any community and asked them whether they like a nuclear power station next door, I struggle to imagine any in Fife, or along the Forth shore, would say yes please.

“I don’t think that would go down well at all with communities (near Longannet) who have put up with enough environmental consequences of that site. Scotland is blessed with an abundance of renewable sources, and we don’t require nuclear.”

The new report picks out six areas in total that the government sees as ripe for the development of nuclear sites.
Torness Nuclear Power Plant in East Lothian, which is scheduled to end operations in 2030, Dounreay Nuclear site in Caithness, and Hunterston Nuclear Power Plant and the surrounding coast in North Ayrshire.

Both Dounreay and Hunterston are currently being decommissioned.

As well as the Forth, it selected two other larger areas, such as the south bank of the Forth in Stirling and the Aberdeenshire and Angus coast.

Overall, it came to the conclusion that “Scotland has land areas with high potential for new nuclear development”.

But the Scottish Government have pushed back, claiming that the report was put together “secretly” and that the push for nuclear energy “ignored the hard economic and environmental facts”.

They went on to cite financial inefficiency, longitude of developments, and a “deadly legacy of radioactive waste”.

On next steps, the document added: “Should the policy position of the Scottish Government change, specific local considerations and uncertainties notwithstanding, several significant land areas appear to offer suitable terrain, ready access to a source of cooling water, transport access by road, rail and sea as well as access to a skilled workforce, indicating a new nuclear power plant could be hosted.”

But the Scottish Government said: “Scotland does not need dangerous, extortionate nuclear white elephants built in our communities against our will. The Scottish Parliament has already passed an SNP motion demanding that power over our energy resources be fully devolved to Holyrood.”

July 8, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Lithuania to lift ban on nukes, president says

The country’s constitution bans nuclear weapons and foreign military bases, but its parliamentary leaders have agreed that this provision is now “outdated.”

July 2, 2026 , By Jonas Loesel, https://www.politico.eu/article/lithuanias-leaders-want-lift-ban-nukes-president-says/

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said Thursday that there was “practically unanimous” support among party leaders for ending the country’s ban on nuclear weapons.

“Opinions were practically unanimous. Almost all parliamentary faction leaders expressed the view that Article 137 has become obsolete and should not merely be amended but removed,” Nausėda told reporters, referring to the section of Lithuania’s constitution that bans nuclear weapons and foreign military bases.

Speaking after meeting with parliamentary faction leaders, Nausėda indicated that the legislature would soon look to amend the legislation. Vilnius, a staunch ally of Ukraine, has previously indicated interest in hosting U.S. nuclear weapons as it looks for deterrents against neighboring Russia.

Lithuania joined NATO in 2004, and Nausėda said the country’s parliamentary leaders did not want to be in a “gray zone” within the military alliance as one of the only countries that continues to ban nuclear weapons. Finland repealed a similar ban last June.

“Today, 35 years later, the situation is different. As NATO members, we have the right, the duty, and the desire to be full and equal members of NATO. The primary means of deterrence is nuclear deterrence,” said Juozas Olekas, the speaker of Lithuania’s parliament.

The Financial Times previously reported that the U.S. had discussed deploying nuclear warheads to countries on NATO’s eastern flank. U.S. nuclear weapons are currently stored on military bases in the U.K., Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

New nuclear plants a difficult option for Switzerland

04/07/2026 By Le News 

Switzerland does not need new nuclear power stations to complete the energy transition, according to a report by 19 energy specialists from ETH Zurich and the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), the country’s leading nuclear-research centre. They conclude that a system based on hydropower and solar energy, supplemented by wind power and electricity storage, can provide a secure supply without building new reactors.

…………….. For new nuclear plants to become commercially viable, several conditions would need to be met. The technology would require substantial government support, as other low-carbon energy sources already receive. Investors would also need state guarantees to cover the financial risks. Above all, construction costs would have to fall well below those of recently completed projects in France and Finland, both of which suffered major delays and cost overruns.

The report reinforces conclusions reached in two other recent assessments: a review by the Swiss Academies of Sciences published last year and an analysis by the energy company Axpo earlier this year. All three conclude that new nuclear power is technically possible but highly uncertain. The main obstacles are economic rather than technological. Any serious accident abroad, similar to the Fukushima disaster, could also rapidly alter the political climate.

The studies also agree that Switzerland has credible alternatives. Expanding solar generation is generally regarded as quicker, cheaper and politically easier than building new reactors. Continued investment in battery and other storage technologies could increasingly offset the intermittent nature of renewable electricity generation.

The debate is therefore less about whether nuclear power is technically feasible than whether it represents the most practical route to decarbonisation. The Federal Council and a majority in Parliament have recently backed lifting the ban on new nuclear power stations. Because the change would almost certainly face a referendum, the final decision is likely to rest with Swiss voters.

The three reports are also sceptical about the prospects for so-called Generation IV reactors. Advocates argue that these designs will be safer, cheaper and produce less radioactive waste. But for now those claims remain largely theoretical. Axpo, together with most of the scientists involved in the latest studies, concludes that such reactors are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to Switzerland’s electricity supply before 2050. https://lenews.ch/2026/07/04/new-nuclear-plants-a-difficult-option-for-switzerland/

July 6, 2026 Posted by | politics, Switzerland | Leave a comment

University of Manchester and United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) sign landmark nuclear partnership agreement.

Manchester University 3 Jul 2026

The University of Manchester and United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) formalising a wide-ranging partnership to advance nuclear science, grow the UK’s nuclear workforce, and strengthen the country’s position as a global leader in nuclear technology.

The agreement was signed at The University of Manchester by UKNNL Chief Executive Officer Julianne Antrobus and Professor Sarah Sharples, Vice President and Dean of the Faculty of Science and Engineering.

The MoU sets out a shared commitment to collaboration across decommissioning research, materials science, nuclear fuels and energy systems, waste management, and innovation — building on a relationship stretching back many years.

Julianne Antrobus, CEO, United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory UKNNL, said: “I am looking forward to our collaboration with the University of Manchester moving from strength to strength as we work together to develop the next generation of nuclear talent and technology.

“The 2024 Strategic Review gave us a clear direction: become the partnerships-led national laboratory that government and the sector needs. One of the most important things we can do in pursuit of that is to work strategically with the academic institutions that can genuinely help us deliver our mission.

 The University of Manchester is one of those vitally important institutions. This MoU formalises a relationship that is already delivering world-leading science and growing the next generation of nuclear talent — and it signals our intent to do much more together. Our partnership with Manchester, alongside our recent agreements with CEA, Bangor University, Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and Rolls-Royce, positions UKNNL at the centre of a network of world-class partners, so that we can deliver on our purpose: nuclear science to benefit society.”

Professor Zara Hodgson, Director of the Dalton Nuclear Institute, said: “I am delighted to see this MoU between UKNNL and The University of Manchester signed today. It provides us with a firm platform for a renewed and strengthened collaborative approach to serve the sector. Enabling our teams to work together more closely is a foundational step towards progress in vital research and innovation for a transforming sector and to  achieve an accelerated pathway to nuclear expertise that the sector needs now, and in the future……………………….

The agreement also establishes arrangements for sharing facilities and expertise, including access to UKNNL’s Preston and Central Laboratory facilities for Manchester PhD students and researchers, and reciprocal access to University facilities for UKNNL staff……………………………………………………………………………………………

A track record of collaboration

The two organisations have an established history of joint working that is already delivering results for the UK nuclear sector, including published research in leading journals on nuclear fuels and materials, support for PhD researchers in next-generation nuclear technologies, shared personnel arrangements including visiting and honorary academic appointments, and the establishment of centres of excellence such as the Effluents Centre of Excellence and the PHLAME (Photonics and Laser Analysis of Materials and Environments) collaborative research group. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/university-of-manchester-and-uknnl-sign-landmark-nuclear-partnership-agreement/

July 6, 2026 Posted by | Education, UK | Leave a comment

SGE unveils plans for 4.2GW UK Small Modular Reactor fleet

News provided by SGE 01 Jul, 2026, https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/sge-unveils-plans-for-4-2gw-uk-small-modular-reactor-fleet-302816135.html

Programme of 14 Small Modular Nuclear Reactors could accelerate UK new nuclear and power almost eight million UK homes

LONDON, July 2, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — SGE, a European Small Modular Reactor (SMR) development and investment platform, yesterday announced its plans to build fourteen GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactors on three sites in the UK. The deployment team includes SGE, GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Samsung C&T, Laing O’Rourke, Aecon Group Inc., Google Cloud, Fermi Development, Etara and an experienced nuclear operator.

The company has submitted an application under the UK’s Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) to develop a combined 4.2GW fleet which could deliver enough clean power for 11% of UK power demand or equivalent to an estimated almost eight million homes for at least sixty years. To support this ambition, SGE has established SGE SMR UK Limited as its dedicated UK-based project vehicle.

SGE’s proposal reflects a fleet-based development model, centred on repeatable deployment at scale. The project is targeting three multi-unit sites, the first to host six BWRX-300 units, with two further sites to follow in quick succession. In total, the programme represents a significant addition to the UK’s future nuclear capacity and supports the country’s long-term energy security, clean power and industrial growth ambitions.

The UK project builds on significant regulatory groundwork already in place for the BWRX-300, a tenth generation, proven technology that draws on the experience of 67 successful reactor deployments. The technology is under licensed construction in Canada and is on schedule to be the first SMR to operate in the OECD. In December 2025, the BWRX-300 successfully completed Step 2 of the UK’s Generic Design Assessment.

The partnership brings together proven reactor technology, significant project development experience, industrial capability and supply chain expertise and financing structure experience to support the deployment of the BWRX-300 in the UK. SGE is presenting a privately financed, commercially-led investment, supported by strong delivery partners. SGE plans to deploy under a Contract for Difference framework with National Wealth Fund engagement, meaning there will be no charges to consumers prior to operations.

Michał Sołowow, Founder of SGE, said: “We are focused on delivering efficient, safe, affordable, and clean nuclear energy power at fleet scale. The UK is home to one of the world’s most experienced nuclear workforce and the British Government has provided a clear path to market with the Advanced Nuclear Framework. Because of this, I am confident we will set a new standard for nuclear development by combining our disruptive business model with the BWRX-300’s tenth generation proven technology. We will rely strongly on the UK supply chain; it is a critical element for our project. Our project will create a distinct competitive advantage for UK economy.”

Rafał Kasprów, CEO of SGE, said: “The submission of our application under the Advanced Nuclear Framework marks a major milestone in our ambition to develop a fleet of BWRX-300 small modular reactors across the UK and the European Union. The United Kingdom is one of Europe’s most important and capable nuclear markets, with a highly skilled workforce, a strong industrial base, and a strategic need to lead the next generation of nuclear deployment. With a clear requirement for substantial new nuclear capacity over the coming decades, we believe our approach can make a meaningful contribution at scale. Standardisation, repetition, modularisation, and a fleet deployment strategy are the most effective ways to deliver new nuclear projects successfully, reducing costs, construction risk, and delivery times. We are committed to working with UK partners to provide secure, affordable, and clean electricity to millions of British households for generations to come.” 

Jason Cooper, CEO of GE Vernova Hitachi Nuclear Energy, said: “SGE’s vision reflects the growing momentum behind new nuclear across Europe and the critical role SMRs can play in strengthening energy security while delivering reliable, lower-carbon electricity. With construction already underway at the Darlington New Nuclear Project in Ontario, Canada, the first commercial-scale SMR under construction in the Western world, the BWRX-300 offers the confidence that comes from real project execution. We are proud to support SGE as they pursue this important opportunity in the UK.”

John O’Connor, Group Commercial Director of Laing O’Rourke, said: “Laing O’Rourke brings the power of its nuclear experience and pioneering industrialised construction methods to the development of Small Modular Reactors, like this programme, of which we are pleased to play a part. We are applying lessons learned from the use of advanced manufacturing in the construction of large-scale and other complex infrastructure to boost safety and certainty for our partners and clients.” 

Aaron Johnson, Senior Vice President, Nuclear, Aecon Group Inc., said: “Aecon is proud to serve as a leading partner on Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, supporting the first-of-a-kind BWRX-300 deployment in Canada. Drawing on deep expertise in construction management, advanced automation, fabrication, and modularization, Aecon is helping to drive meaningful improvements in safety, quality, schedule certainty, and cost efficiency. Early involvement in this landmark project positions Aecon to leverage first-of-a-kind experience and tailor proven approaches for SGE in the UK and in other international markets. We are building capabilities and insights that will enable us to support efficient and scalable deployment across North America and in global markets, including the UK.”

SGE anticipates this project will enter the Advanced Nuclear Pipeline in November 2026, with site selection and government support scheme negotiations completed in the first half of 2027; after which major investment, site preparation and licensing work would begin within approximately a year, with first commercial operation of the first unit targeted for 2034.

Media contact

Paulina Chorazewska 
SGE 
Communications Director 
+48 539 992 967 
paulina.chorazewska@sge.eu  

July 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »