nuclear-news

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

REVEALED: Labour said Scottish nuclear study could be seen as ‘waste of money’

 by Tom Pashby, The Canary 11th Feb 2026

The UK government has admitted that a study into the suitability of Scottish sites for new nuclear power projects could have been “a waste” of money. The government commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear (GBE-N), a public body, to carry out the study.

The revelation came after Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband told Scottish journalists in October 2025 that:

given the growing interest in nuclear in Scotland, I’m asking GBE-N to assess Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations, including at Torness and Hunterston.

This is going to be a very, very big issue in the Scottish election campaign. We are saying yes to new nuclear in Scotland.

Labour hoping to end SNP ban on new nuclear in Scotland

Scotland is due to go to the polls to elect a new Scottish parliament and Scottish government in May 2026. Labour is hoping to wrest back control from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In an article about the same interview published in October 2025, the Scotsman newspaper reported that a “senior UK government source” had said they were considering submitting planning applications for new nuclear developments at Torness and Hunterston because they expected a Scottish Labour victory at the Holyrood election.

The UK Labour Party and Scottish Labour support nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This position is coming under pressure as the Green Party of England and Wales, which vehemently opposes all nuclear, increasingly challenges Labour in public opinion polls.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, the government released documents to the Canary about Miliband’s request to GBE-N. These included a Q&A document prepared by DESNZ officials. It revealed that officials knew there would be concerns about new nuclear proposals in Scotland.

No new nuclear can be built in Scotland because planning policy is a devolved matter, and the ruling SNP opposes nuclear power. The rebuttal in the DESNZ Q&A was that there is “cross-party interest in new nuclear” in Scotland.

Energy department officials contradict each other on responsibility for study

The documents released under FOI also revealed that a DESNZ official, whose name was redacted, had sought to reassure GBE-N colleagues that DESNZ was not “behind the briefing” in an email sent on 22 October 2025 at 4:02pm.

That position was contradicted by an email in a separate earlier conversation where, on 21 October 2025 at 6:46pm, John Staples, DESNZ director for new nuclear strategy and fusion energy, said:

our SpAds [special advisors] want SoS [secretary of state] to be able to say the below to Scottish journalists.

‘Below’ in the email were lines drafted for Miliband which included:

I will ask Great British Energy – Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations.

The internally prepared Q&A included a question which asked:

Isn’t this study a waste of money?

The DESNZ answer said:

New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs to a region – UK ministers want to understand the potential for new projects right across Great Britain.

The Canary approached the Labour Party for comment, which deferred to DESNZ. DESNZ did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Obvious’ that study would be ‘waste of money’ – Scottish CND

A Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) spokesperson told the Canary:

It is obvious that an assessment of the viability of new nuclear sites in Scotland would be a waste of money, since the foremost issue is not the viability of sites but Scottish government policy.

Energy policy is devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish government very sensibly opposes new nuclear plants in Scotland.

There are a whole host of reasons why new nuclear plants in Scotland would be a terrible idea, including the absolutely exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction, the reliance on destructive and unjust international uranium supply chains, and the enormous and cross-generational burden of decommissioning nuclear plants, which in the case of Dounreay is expected to take hundreds of years.

In particular, the notion that Scotland, which is a net energy exporter and has the potential to become an international renewables powerhouse, should pivot to costly nuclear projects at this stage is somewhat absurd.

Investing the same sums invested in nuclear power plants – scores of billions and climbing for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – into the grid, home insulation and the renewables sector across Scotland would be an immeasurably better investment.

For Scottish CND, another concerning element of the renewed push for nuclear power is the deep imbrication [overlapping] of the ‘civil’ and military nuclear industries, as openly promoted in the 2025 Industrial Strategy.

From this perspective, investment in new nuclear power plants can be seen as defence spending by stealth and a means of shoring up the UK nuclear weapons industry – something which is of no benefit to Scotland and indeed causes major risks and harms in Scottish communities.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive – Scottish government minister………………………………………………….

SNP criticises ‘Westminster obsession with nuclear’………………………………………………

‘New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention’ – Scottish Greens……………………………………… https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/02/11/scottish-nuclear-study/

February 15, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power – A White Elephant in the Energy Debate

By Pete Roche, David Hume Institute 12th Feb 2026,
https://davidhumeinstitute.org/latest-news/2026/2/12/nuclear-power-a-white-elephant-in-the-energy-debate

As Scotland prepares for elections, pro‑nuclear lobbyists are urging the Scottish Government to lift its ban on new nuclear developments.Yet the evidence shows that building new nuclear power stations would be an expensive white elephant — too slow, too costly, and ultimately unnecessary for tackling climate change.

Investing in nuclear now risks diverting resources from cheaper, faster, and safer renewable alternatives that are ready to deploy and without the risk of hazardous waste.

Nuclear makes us more vulnerable

Recent events in Europe underline nuclear’s vulnerabilities in a warming world. In summer 2025, prolonged heatwaves forced several French nuclear plants to reduce output or shut down entirely because the rivers and coastal waters used for cooling became too warm to operate safely. At sites including Golfech and Blayais operators had to curtail production, while the Gravelines plant faced additional disruption when swarms of jellyfish clogged its cooling systems. These incidents show how our changing climate can turn nuclear plants into operational white elephants at precisely the time electricity demand is high as people try to cool homes and buildings.

All energy sources produce carbon emissions over their lifecycle, but nuclear power stations typically emit more CO₂ per kilowatt-hour than wind or solar when construction, uranium mining, and waste management are included. For example, Sizewell C, currently under construction in Suffolk, is not expected to offset the emissions generated during its build phase until the late 2030s — well after the UK should have largely eliminated fossil fuels from electricity generation. Renewables, by contrast, deliver low-carbon power from day one.

Nuclear increases risk

Nuclear also carries long-term environmental and security risks. Coastal and riverside sites face rising sea levels and heatwave-induced water shortages, creating further potential for nuclear plants to become white elephants. They produce long-lived radioactive waste with no permanent disposal solution, are vulnerable to terrorism or armed conflict, and uranium mining causes serious ecological damage. 

Advocates argue nuclear is needed for “baseload” power because wind and solar are variable. But baseload is an outdated concept.

Modern grid operators emphasise flexibility — blending renewables, storage, and demand management — rather than relying on inflexible generators. Large nuclear plants cannot easily ramp output to match demand and risk creating the same mismatch that critics cite for renewable variability. Proposed small modular reactors (SMRs) are similarly problematic: only two operate commercially worldwide, they are unproven at scale, and early evidence suggests they may be even more expensive per unit of electricity while producing more toxic waste — another potential white elephant. 

Voters need real solutions, not white elephants

Meeting Scotland’s energy needs with renewables is feasible and cost-effective. Analyses suggest a renewable-first strategy could save the UK hundreds of billions compared to nuclear-centric plans, making the most of Scotland’s wind, solar, and engineering expertise. In contrast, costly nuclear projects risk becoming long-term white elephants — expensive, slow, and unsafe — at a time when voters need solutions that work now, not in a far distant future.

February 15, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Whitehaven’s Polluted Harbour is “Riviera of the North” NuSpeak Lives

FEB 10, 2026, Lakes Against Nuclear Dump

This months Cumbria Life has a gushing “People and Places” article “A Day Out in Whitehaven” with the strap line “Cornwall and Cannes eat your heart out- Discover a popular seaside town on the Cumbrian Coast” Words and Photos by Geneve Bartholomew – Brand.

The article makes much of the Sellafield funded Beacon Museum and Edge water sports centre along with the also Sellafield funded new gaming centre called LEVELS “a new digital and gaming hub located at the Grade 11 listed former Whittles building in the heart of the town.” The gaming hub will no doubt be a recruitment source for the next generation of AI robotics operators at Sellafield.

The heart of the town is being bought up by Sellafield with a pithy letter in the 4th February Whitehaven News from former councillor Tim Knowles saying “I was recently concerned that Whitehaven had experienced some kind of emergency. The town seemed full of people wandering around in high visibility clothing but with no apparent purpose. I was later told that this is the latest in Sellafield outfitting…..is the Hi Vis -uniform becoming a rather “in your face” badge of relative wealth around town.” The letter goes on to remark about “the number of sheds and fences painted in the famous “BNFL blue” all around West Cumbria.” (takeaways still happen) 

Many £Millions of pounds of taxpayers money are being poured into Whitehaven filtered through the big brother hands of Sellafield. That is not all that is being poured into Whitehaven.

What the “Riviera of the North” article in Cumbria Life fails to mention is the outrageous state of the harbour with water that can no longer be called water in the docks. The ongoing pollution event started in 2022 and has continued ever since with the acid mine pollution from historic mines which includes the sulphur producing Anhydrite Mine at the old Marchon site (now scandalously approved for housing) . The ‘water’ only ran clear for a short time last September when Silt Buster machines were in operation in the rail tunnel which drains to the culvert in Queen’s Dock.

We recently released FOI answers to the authorities and the press. BBC online did cover this albeit not telling the whole story but with much more openness that that previously aired and certainly without the rose tinted specs of the Cumbria Life article. If this ongoing pollution event was happening in Cornwall or Cannes there would be banner headlines worldwide. But here in Whitehaven there are vested interests in keeping schtum about the impacts of deep mining because guess who wants to mine out the biggest void ever on the Lake District coast – yep our generous benefactor Sellafield.

The BBC online article can be read in full here extract below [on original] https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/02/10/whitehavens-polluted-harbour-is-riviera-of-the-north-nuspeak-lives/?page_id=1772

February 15, 2026 Posted by | media, UK | Leave a comment

Bad Beginnings: The End of New START

Putin was also of the opinion that “a complete renunciation of New START’s legacy would, from many points, be a grave and short-sighted mistake”, having “adverse implications for the objectives of the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].

11 February 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, AIM,

Future of How awful could it get? The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expired on February 5, terminating an era of arms control and imposed limits on lunatically contrived nuclear weapons programs of the United States and Russia. The New START Treaty entered into force on February 5, 2011 and initially imposed a timeline of seven years for the parties to meet the central limits on strategic offensive arms. Those limits would then be maintained for the duration of the Treaty.

Till its expiry, the countries maintained limits on the following nuclear arms and systems: 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and deployed heavy bombers capable of using nuclear armaments; 1,550 nuclear warheads on all three deployed platforms; and 800 deployed and non-deployed nuclear capable systems (ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and nuclear capable heavy bombers).

Such limits were hardly laudatory, or even exceptional. The cap of 1,550 nuclear warheads is the sort of thing that would only impress the limited crazed circle that passes for arms negotiators in this field, and the various thanocrats who populate such institutes as RAND. Such a show is merely intended for both Moscow and Washington to tell other countries with, or without nuclear weapons, that they could impose restraints on their own gluttonous conduct. Even then, New START, as with all such instruments dealing with limiting nuclear weapons, came with the intended, gaping lacunae. It failed to cover, for instance, tactical nuclear weapons, nor limit the deployment of new strategic weapon systems.

The treaty also fell into neglect with the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Suspended on-site inspections never resumed after 2022. As François Diaz-Maurin of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists points out, “Russia has not shared data on its deployed strategic nuclear forces since September 2022, it suspended its treaty participation altogether in February 2023, and the United States has not published any aggregate numbers since May 2023.” New START came to increasingly look like a gentleman’s agreement being sniffed at by truculent adolescents.

In September last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin dangled the prospect of extending the treaty’s core limits for a year. At a September 22, 2025 Russian Security Council Meeting, he promised that Moscow was “prepared to continue observing the … central quantitative restrictions” stipulated in New START for twelve months provided the US acted “in similar spirit.” Following the year’s extension, “a careful assessment of the situation [and] a definite decision on whether to uphold these voluntary self-limitations” would be made. Putin was also of the opinion that “a complete renunciation of New START’s legacy would, from many points, be a grave and short-sighted mistake”, having “adverse implications for the objectives of the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].

When word of this reached the White House, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed the view that the proposal sounded “pretty good.” Two weeks later, President Donald Trump responded to a question posed by a TASS reporter that Putin’s proposal sounded “pretty like a good idea to me.” Little, however, was subsequently done. Indeed, Trump has cut the number of diplomats tasked with nuclear matters in the State Department and made public statements last October that nuclear testing might be resumed. He has also complicated arms control matters by insisting that China be added to the limitation talks, something Beijing has shown little interest in doing. In January this year, the president seemed unfussed that the international document was about to pass into the archives of diplomatic oblivion. “If it expires, it expires. We’ll do a better agreement.”

The US political establishment had been struck by a distinct lack of interest, even lethargy, on the subject. New START seemed to be yet another irritating fetter on an administration more enthused by ignoring international obligations than following them. Only a clutch of Democrats seemed to show concern in reflecting about what would follow the treaty’s expiration in House speeches given on January 14. This month, Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ed Markey, co-chair of the Senate’s Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, held a press conference urging the Trump administration to renew the vows of fidelity to arms control agreements. “Let’s be honest. America needs another nuclear weapon about as much as Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.”………………………………………………………..

The two powers most responsible for keeping nuclear weapons unforgivably attractive to those who would acquire them show promise of blotting their copybook further. There is a serious sentiment in Washington that the nuclear stockpile will and should grow. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, in a fit of gloominess, moved its metaphorical Doomsday Clock just that bit closer to “midnight,” the point where biblical calamity will be assured. It now stands at 85 seconds to midnight. Not long to go now. https://theaimn.net/bad-beginnings-the-end-of-new-start/

February 14, 2026 Posted by | politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

French nuclear modulation to rise 11% to 35 TWh – Kpler

France’s nuclear power modulation – ramping reactors up and down to meet
demand and optimise fuel usage – will likely increase by 11% to 35 TWh this
year, up from 31.5 TWh in 2025, Kpler power analyst Alessandro Armenia said
on Thursday.

Montel 5th Feb 2026, https://montelnews.com/news/0ce52b4f-c919-4c3a-abdf-1ee5a3b67f5f/french-nuclear-modulation-to-rise-11-to-35-twh-kpler

February 14, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, France | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons workers vote for strike action

David Gilyeat, South of England, BBC 10th Feb 2026

Workers that build and maintain the UK’s nuclear weapons have voted to strike over a planned restructuring of the organisation.

Prospect said the Atomic Weapons Establishment’s (AWE) staff were being “pushed to the brink by the repeated errors” of its leadership, affecting sites including Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire.

The union said in November 500 jobs were at risk, with another 750 posts recruited for. Last month it said potential redundancies had increased to 800.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was “disappointed” by the result but was looking for a “constructive resolution”.

Prospect said 95% of staff who voted were in favour of action short of a strike, with 81% in favour of strike action.

The union has warned action could cost AWE millions of pounds at a time when the government has said it will invest £15bn in a new nuclear programme.

“This crucial investment risks being derailed if this restructure continues to cause internal chaos,” Prospect said.

But it said a “failed reorganisation could have much greater consequences for the future of the organisation”.

Prospect also accused AWE of “drip-feeding” information over weeks so full consultation with its scientists and engineers was “impossible”.

The union said the nature and timing of the industrial action would be “announced in due course”……………………….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c743l4rr4g1o

February 14, 2026 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C opponents to appeal High Court decision.

Mariam Issimdar, BBC. Suffolk, 8 Feb 26

Opponents of Sizewell C nuclear power station have submitted an appeal against the High Court’s decision to refuse an application for a judicial review of the plant’s flood defences.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) launched an action in June on the basis the power station could add extra coastal defences which were not outlined in the original planning application, and they would “disrupt nearby protected areas of wildlife”.

The group appealed for the judicial review, but it was refused by a High Court judge in December.

At the time, Sizewell C said it was pleased the legal claims had been dismissed.

In a statement on Monday, the pressure group said: “TASC is determined to use every avenue open to us to ensure public scrutiny and environmental assessment of the two additional huge sea defences that Sizewell C have committed to install in an extreme sea level rise scenario.”

Development consent for the new plant near Leiston was granted in July 2022 before the government committed £14.2bn towards it last June.

In the approved plans, Sizewell C said the power station would be built on a platform 7m above the current sea level and protected by a “sea defence structure which will be more than 14m above mean sea level”.

Chris Wilson, of TASC, said: “It is a scandal if it is deemed legal that a developer, in this case Sizewell C, is allowed to pick and choose which parts of a project it wants to include in its development consent order application.”

He added that the developer, EDF Energy, knew “as far back as 2015 that two additional huge sea defences would be needed to keep the site and its 3,900 tonnes of spent fuel safe from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario, yet chose not to include them in their 2020 planning application – a classic example of ‘salami-slicing’.”

Sizewell C said its “sea defence will be adaptable and could be raised in future if sea level rise turns out to be greater than current predictions”.

TASC claimed the power station wanted to build two more flood barriers, 9m and 10m high, further inland.

Sizewell C previously declined to comment on the extra details of how the flood defences could be changed.

TASC argued there should be a consultation on the defences, and it approached Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, asking him to revoke or change the development consent order.

That was not accepted, so the group opted for a judicial review and argued that Miliband had breached his obligations and duties…………………. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q5z1jez5o

February 14, 2026 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

£700m plan with ‘fish disco’ could save 90% of marine life, says Hinkley Point C study

Scientists find underwater acoustic project to stop fish being sucked into cooling systems could save 44 tonnes a year

Jillian Ambrose , Guardian, 10 Feb 26

Scientists have found that plans that include a “fish disco” to deter migratory marine life from the nearby Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor could help save 90% of fish from the power plant’s water intake pipes – but the measures are set to cost its developer £700m.

EDF Energy, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, said research it commissioned from scientists at Swansea University had found that using an acoustic deterrent system helped to ward off the “vast majority” of fish it tagged for the experiment.

The part of the costly system that is informally referred to as a “fish disco”, is designed to use more than 300 underwater speakers to emit sound pulses to repel fish from the water intake pipes, which will suck in water from the River Severn to help cool Hinkley’s reactors.

EDF said it expected to spend about £700m on the full solution, or 1.5% of the total cost of building the £46bn project, which would give Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation “more fish protection than any other power station in the world”.

This should help to save about 44 tonnes of fish a year – equivalent to the annual catch of a small fishing vessel. The company declined to speculate on the total cost per fish saved over the 25-year life of the reactor’s subsidy contract.

EDF has argued against the requirement to fit an acoustic deterrent in the past, instead suggesting that it could construct salt marshes to help protect marine life.

Under EDF’s subsidy contract it will earn a set return for the electricity generated by Hinkley, meaning it will need to absorb the extra cost of the fish disco rather than add it on to household bills.

The full system is expected to include special mouths fitted to the intake pipes to slow the water suction and allow fish to escape from as close as 2 metres away, and a fish recovery system which returns fish sucked into the pipes.

The scientists found that only one of its tagged twaite shad fish came within 30 metres of the test intake pipes when the speakers were turned on, compared with the 14 seen in the same area without the system turned on………………………………………….

The results of the research will be submitted for regulatory consideration and approval by the Marine Management Organisation later this year. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/10/hinkley-point-c-plan-could-save-fish-being-sucked-into-pipes-study-finds

February 14, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Is the UK keeping up with the nuclear revival?

 Steve Thomas: Since the Starmer government came to power in 2024, it has
made a series of announcements that have placed the UK at the forefront of
the so-called Nuclear Renaissance. The government talks about a “Golden Age
of Nuclear Power” in the country. However, a closer look shows that these
announcements primarily concern what the government hopes to do and what it
hopes to achieve, in the absence of new projects in the pipeline.


Currently, the burden of submitting proposals falls on the private sector.
Regarding current nuclear projects, there is one under construction,
Hinkley Point C; another, Sizewell C, for which an investment decision has
been made and construction could begin in two to three years; and a project
for three Rolls-Royce small modular reactors (SMRs) for the Wylfa site,
where an investment decision is hoped for 2029.

The Hinkley Point C project
for two French European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs, 3.2 GW) is seven years
behind schedule, is 90% over budget, and requires at least six years to
complete. The Sizewell C project is expected to be built along the lines of
the Hinkley design and was supposed to be built approximately two years
after Hinkley, so that the workforce could seamlessly transfer from Hinkley
to Sizewell.

This means it is at least nine years behind schedule. Even if
the government’s estimated completion date is met, Sizewell will not begin
generating power until 2039. The estimated cost of this plant, £40.5
billion (2024 funding), is 70% higher than the actual estimated cost of the
Hinkley Point project at the time of the Final Investment Decision.

This ridicules claims that Sizewell would be cheaper than Hinkley due to the
“expertise” built at Hinkley Point. If it goes ahead, the Wylfa project
will not begin generating power until 2035. If there are no further delays
to these projects, it will be 2040 before the UK’s nuclear capacity returns
to 2015 levels, or approximately 9 GW. In 2022, Boris Johnson’s government
set a target of “up to 24 GW” of new nuclear capacity, in addition to the
Hinkley project, to be achieved by 2050. The “up to” specification left
room for vagueness, and in fact the Starmer government has clearly not
adopted this target.

So why is it so difficult and takes so long to build
nuclear capacity? And has the UK not performed well in this regard?
Research commissioned by the UK government found that, on average,
globally, the construction of a nuclear power plant, from the investment
decision to first start-up, takes 13-17 years. Add to this the time
required to reach the final investment decision. This includes: choosing
the supplier and technology; project assessment by the national safety
regulator; identifying and verifying the suitability of the chosen site;
and defining a financial model to provide the capital, own the plant, and
purchase the energy.

This process is unlikely to take less than five years;
in fact, it could take longer. Therefore, the construction time for a
nuclear project is likely at least 20 years.

 Rienergie 12th Feb 2026, https://rienergia.staffettaonline.com/articolo/35901/UK+sta+al+passo+con++la+rinascita+nucleare++++/Steve

February 14, 2026 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

‘Green laws hold up nuclear plans — but we can’t say where’

Despite calling for a reduction in planning protections for the landscapes,
the energy department admits it can’t identify any where regulations are
a problem.

The energy department, run by Ed Miliband, has admitted that it
cannot name a single national park where regulations are holding up nuclear
projects, despite a review urging that protections for the landscapes be
reduced.

The recommendation also relied on a blogpost written by a member
of the reviewing panel, it has emerged.

Weakening or scrapping the
protected landscapes duty, which means that councils must further the
conservation aims of parks when making planning decisions, was one of the
calls of the government’s nuclear regulatory task force last year. Sir
Keir Starmer said he “fully accepted” the suggested reforms. However, a
Freedom of Information request has shown that the government holds “no
due diligence or impact assessment” about changing the protected
landscapes duty.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero conceded
that it had no list of specific national parks or national landscapes
(formerly AONBs) where a conflict exists between the duty and nuclear
development. The department also said one of the pieces of evidence
underpinning the recommendation was a blogpost written by a lawyer. That
lawyer, Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, also sits on the task force.

In an email to
John Fingleton, the economist who led the review, Latif-Aramesh appeared
unclear what the precise financial cost of the rules was to nuclear
companies. “It’s costing developers millions if not tens of
millions,” he wrote just weeks before the final report was published.
Rose O’Neill, the chief executive of the Campaign for National Parks, a
charity, said:

“This lays bare the fact that the prime minister is
considering scrapping national parks law on a recommendation that’s built
on nothing but hot air. The real shock is that the recommendation is
largely based on a single blog article written by one taskforce member.”


Barry Gardiner, a Labour MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group
for national parks and national landscapes, said: “Any suggestion that
the government might dilute its duty to protect these landscapes is not
just alarming, it represents a betrayal of Labour’s legacy in
safeguarding our countryside for the public good.”

Chris Hinchcliff, the
Labour MP who only recently had the whip restored after his rebellions on
welfare reform, said: “Our biodiversity is at breaking point. This is the
time for a rescue plan, not more backwards steps that are harmful to
nature, deeply unpopular, bad for our long-term future and will ultimately
put our national security at risk.”

 Times 10th Feb 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/ed-miliband-national-parks-nuclear-energy-2bcznpkzd

February 14, 2026 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

France slashes renewable energy targets, expands nuclear power with new law

FRANCE 24,  12/02/2026 https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260212-france-slashes-renewable-energy-targets-favour-of-nuclear-power-new-energy-law

France is this week set to pass by decree a new energy law slashing the country’s renewable energy targets and massively expanding nuclear power production. The law change comes as a relief for state-run electricity provider EDF, which had been mandated to close some of its nuclear plants and is struggling to compete with price pressure from European solar and wind power producers.

France set out a new energy law after years of wrangling on Thursday which slashes its wind and solar power targets and drops a mandate for state-run firm EDF to shutter nuclear plants.

“We need to stop ​our internal family ‌squabbling. We need both nuclear and renewables,” Finance Minister Roland Lescure told reporters.

The law, to be ⁠pushed through by decree on Friday after almost three years of bitter disagreement among lawmakers, also reverses a previous legal mandate to shut 14 reactors.

That was a 2017 campaign ‌promise of President Emmanuel Macron, who later changed course, backing nuclear expansion with a plan for at ⁠least six new reactors.

The move to pare back renewables should help shield EDF, which operates a fleet of 57 reactors, as power demand grows more slowly than expected over the next decade. The company is struggling to ​remain competitive as abundant wind and solar in Europe have pushed down power prices and ‌forced reactors to lower output.

The new 10-year framework, known as the PPE, aims for EDF to produce 420 terawatt-hours of power from its existing fleet in 2035, a 5 percent increase.

“Nuclear is the backbone of our electricity system,” said Lescure, adding that a first new reactor should ‌be inaugurated by 2038.

EDF CEO Bernard Fontana welcomed the proposal, saying it would allow the company to advance toward its objectives. The law had triggered fierce debate among lawmakers pitting support ​for renewable subsidies against financing new nuclear at a time when France is struggling with high debt. The PPE also governs wind and solar tenders, and a decision on the matter is expected to be welcomed by the wind industry, which ​has struggled amid uncertainty over the plans and delayed tenders.

Still, wind and solar targets were lowered, to 105-135 gigawatts (GW) of installed ​capacity by 2035 from drafts that had called for 133-163 GW.

“If this PPE is ​more than two years late on paper, it’s at least a decade behind in its vision of an energy transition,” Greenpeace France said in a statement.

It lowers France’s 2035 target ​for installed offshore wind capacity to 15 GW from 18 GW the government had submitted for consultation in 2024.

The target for onshore wind capacity drops to 35-40 GW from the 45 GW previously communicated.

Solar capacity will be 55-80 GW by 2035, the report added, down from a previous forecast of 75-100 GW.  The law calls for France to consume 60 percent of its own energy ⁠from decarbonised electricity by 2030, shifting from 60 percent of energy from fossil fuels currently, and up to 70 percent from decarbonised electricity by 2035.

The new law is unlikely ⁠to lead to lower ​prices for end-users, said Emeric de Vigan, managing director of energy consultancy 42 Advisors, adding this could keep them from switching to electricity from oil and gas-based fuels.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Russia says will act responsibly despite New START nuclear treaty expiry

Both Beijing and Moscow expressed their regret at the lapse of the last Russia-US nuclear arms control treaty.

By News Agencies 5 Feb 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/5/russia-says-will-act-responsibly-despite-new-start-nuclear-treaty-expiry

The Kremlin says Russia will continue to be a responsible nuclear power, despite the expiry of the last nuclear arms control treaty between Moscow and Washington, which experts say risks ushering in a new global arms race.

The New START treaty expires on Thursday, marking the end of more than half a century of limits on the United States and Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons.

“Today the day will end, and it [the treaty] will cease to have any effect,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday. Arms control experts had previously said their assumption was that it expired at the end of Wednesday.

Russia had suggested both sides voluntarily extend the terms of the agreement for one year to provide time to discuss a successor treaty, a proposal which it said US President Donald Trump had never formally answered.

“The agreement is coming to an end. We view this negatively and express our regret,” said Peskov, who said the matter had come up in a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping a day earlier.

“What happens next depends on how events unfold. In any case, the Russian Federation will maintain its responsible and attentive approach to the issue of strategic stability in the field of nuclear weapons and, of course, as always, will be guided first and foremost by its national interests.”

New START, first signed in Prague in 2010 by then presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, limited each side’s nuclear arsenal to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads – a reduction of nearly 30 percent from the previous limit set in 2002.

Deployed weapons or warheads are those in active service and available for rapid use as opposed to those in storage or awaiting dismantlement.

It also allowed each side to conduct on-site inspections of the other’s nuclear arsenal, although these were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and have not resumed since.

‘China will not participate in disarmament negotiations’

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs joined a growing international chorus expressing regret over the treaty’s expiry.

“China regrets the expiration of the New START treaty, as the treaty is of great significance to maintaining global strategic stability,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Thursday.

“The international community is generally concerned that the expiration of the treaty will have a negative impact on the international nuclear arms control system and the global nuclear order.”

Trump has said he wants a better deal that will also bring in China. But Beijing refuses to negotiate with the other two countries because it has only a fraction of their warhead numbers – an estimated 600, compared with about 4,000 each for Russia and the US.

Lin reiterated this point, adding that China would not be joining the bilateral arms‑reduction talks.

“China’s nuclear forces are not on the same level as those of the United States and Russia, and China will not participate in disarmament negotiations at this stage,” Lin said.

Russia and the US together control more than 80 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads.

China’s nuclear arsenal, however, is growing faster than any country’s, by about 100 new warheads a year since 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

China is estimated to have at least 600 nuclear warheads, SIPRI says – well below the 800 each at which Russia and the US were capped under New START.

The White House said this week that Trump would decide the way forward on nuclear arms control, which he would “clarify on his own timeline”.

A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called on the US and Russia to act with “responsibility and restraint” to maintain “global security”.

The official added that Russia and China were both ramping up their nuclear capabilities and that NATO “will continue to take steps necessary” to ensure its own defences.

February 13, 2026 Posted by | Russia, weapons and war | Leave a comment

UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.

Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.

JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/

The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX. 

The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.

RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025. 

The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.

Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations. 

The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.

Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.

The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions. 

This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.

The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.

In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.

This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.

It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.

The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.

Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.

Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.

The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.

“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.

Moog

The issue is not unique to RTX. 

Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.

The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.

However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.

Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024. 

Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.

Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred. 

According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials. 

“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.

Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.

This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.

Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.

Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.

Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.

February 12, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

The 24-site US military network in Britain worth £11 billion

America’s War Department owns more military and intelligence sites in Britain than the government has told parliament

MARK CURTIS, DECLASSIFIED UK, 3 February 2026

The US military owns 22 sites in Britain whose “replacement value” is $15.6bn (£11.4bn), according to a US War Department document found by Declassified UK.

This number of sites is larger than previously believed and more than UK governments have told parliament.

A US document published online identifies 16 of the US military’s locations in the UK and notes six “other sites” which are not specified. The document, published last year, outlines the US military’s “property portfolio” around the world as of September 2024. 

Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to be hosting US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to at least 24.

This doesn’t cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane. 

The 16 locations in Britain specified by the US War Department include the major US air bases at Lakenheath, Mildenhall, Croughton and Fairford but also lesser-known sites.

The smaller locations include a 35-acre US Air Force (USAF) site at RAF Bicester in Oxfordshire and a location said to comprise 35,397 square feet of buildings at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire.

The document also notes US ownership of facilities at the top secret Fylingdales spy station in Yorkshire, where it possesses 5,860 square feet of building space. 

Fylingdales is a joint enterprise between the US and UK and “provides a 24/7 missile warning and space surveillance capability for the UK and its allies”. 

While most of the locations are operated by the USAF, the single site where the US Navy is said to be active is Lossiemouth near Inverness, the only location mentioned in Scotland. 

A recent investigation by The Ferret found the US established a base there in May 2024, with the US navy helping to fund the construction of facilities for its Poseidon P8 anti-submarine spy and warplanes at the site. 

The investigation also found the Scottish government was not consulted about stationing US aircraft at Lossiemouth.

Other US sites mentioned in the War Department document include a 736-acre ammunition storage location at RAF Welford in Berkshire and a “transmitter annex site” at RAF Barford St John in Oxfordshire. 

These US sites stretch over 20 square miles, which is equivalent to around 11,500 football pitches, or an area larger than the city of Oxford.

Successive UK governments have failed to mention in parliament some of these 16 sites as being US military operating locations, such as RAF Oakhanger and RAF Bicester. The last time Oakhanger was mentioned in parliament was in November 1996.

More recently, in answer to a parliamentary question in February 2022, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) mentioned only eight sites from where US personnel were operating, along with “undisclosed locations”.

Two years earlier, in June 2020, a minister listed 11 bases which were “designated for use by the United States Visiting Forces” in the UK. This form of words appears to keep open the possibility that US personnel are also based elsewhere.

Where are the six other sites?

The US document specifies sites in Britain that are larger than ten acres or have a replacement value of over $10m (£7.3m)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-24-site-us-military-network-in-britain-worth-11-billion/

February 12, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Collapsing Empire: US Bows To African Revolutionaries

 Kit Klarenberg, Global Delinquents, Feb 09, 2026

On February 2nd, the BBC published an extraordinary report on how the Trump administration “has declared a stark policy shift” towards Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, the governments of which have sought to eradicate all ties to Western imperial powers, and forged the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). The independent bloc is a revolutionary enterprise, with the prospect further countries will follow its members’ lead. Washington is under no illusions about the new geopolitical realities unfolding in Africa.

The British state broadcaster records how Nick Checker, State Department African Affairs chief, is due to visit Mali to convey US “respect” for the country’s “sovereignty”, and chart a “new course” in relations, moving “past policy missteps.” Checker will also express optimism about future collaboration with AES, “on shared security and economic interests.” This is an absolutely unprecedented development. After military coups deposed the elected presidents of all three countries 2020 – 2023, the trio became Western pariahs.

France and the US initially aimed to isolate and undermine the military governments, halting “cooperation” projects in numerous fields. Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States, a neocolonial union of which all three were members, first imposed severe sanctions on Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, before its combined armed forces prepared to outright invade the latter in summer 2023. The three countries didn’t budge, and in fact welcomed Western isolation, forging new international partnerships and strengthening their ties. ECOWAS military action never came to pass.

In January 2025, the trio seceded from the union and created AES. Western-funded, London-based Amani Africa branded the move “the most significant crisis in West Africa’s regional integration since the founding of ECOWAS in 1975,” claiming it dealt “a significant blow to African…cooperation architecture.” Meanwhile, Burkina Faso’s leader Capt Ibrahim Traoré has become a media hate figure. A disparaging May 2025 Financial Times profile slammed him as a cynical opportunist leading a “Russia-backed junta”, and his supporters a “cult”.

As the BBC unwittingly explains, such antipathy towards Traoré stems from establishing himself “as a standard-bearer in resisting ‘imperialism’ and ‘neocolonialism’.” Via “vigorous social media promotion, he has gained huge support for this stance and personal popularity among young people across the continent and beyond,” ever since seizing office in September 2022. Far from just talk, Traoré and his fellow AES “junta” leaders have systematically neutralised malign Western influence locally, while pursuing left-wing economic policies for the good of their populations.

France and the US have proven markedly powerless to hamper, let alone reverse, this seismic progress…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/collapsing-empire-us-bows-to-african

February 12, 2026 Posted by | AFRICA, France, politics international, USA | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »