Putin urges Iran to accept ‘zero enrichment’ nuclear deal with US – Axios
Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged Iranian officials to accept a
nuclear agreement that would ban uranium enrichment, a key US demand in any
future talks, Axios reported Saturday citing multiple sources. Putin
conveyed his position to both President Donald Trump and Iranian leaders in
recent weeks, encouraging Tehran to move toward a deal that would help
restart negotiations with Washington.
Iran International 12th July 2025,
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202507120964
Trump to Ukraine: ‘Squander another half million casualties to prevent defeat on my watch’
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL. 13 July25
Most esteemed observers put Ukraine’s dead and wounded at north of a half million in their lost war with Russia. Several million young Ukrainian men have fled conscription while stragglers are rounded up like stray dogs to be thrown into the meat grinder of warfare they’re totally unprepared to fight.
But the war is much more than Ukraine defending itself from a Russian invasion. It’s America’s proxy war to weaken, Russia from Western European political economy. Its origins go back 17 years when the US pitched NATO membership to Ukraine to achieve that senseless goal. It virtually guaranteed war after the US engineered the 2014 coup against Russian friendly Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. It ignited a civil war between the Kyiv government and the Russian cultured Ukrainians in the Donbas on Russia’s border. Russia tried diplomacy for 8 years to no avail before invading both to keep Ukraine out of NATO and end protect the beleaguered Donbas Ukrainians. Just before the invasion the US stupidly told Russia that NATO membership for Ukraine and Russia’s security concerns were not subject to diplomacy.
America’s best laid plans to prevail failed spectacularly. Now Ukraine will never join NATO but Donbas Ukrainians are largely safe and thrilled to be under Russian protection from the terrors imposed by Kyiv. Ukraine’s fate was sealed once Biden announced he’d only waste US treasure for weapons but not one drop of US blood for Ukraine’s defense. Three and a half years and over $200 billion in US/NATO weapons have simply put Ukraine on US/NATO life support.
Biden was able to keep Ukraine in the fight for nearly 3 years, squandering a half million of its finest, so he could pass the war on to successor Trump. After being eviscerated by the US national security class for his admitting defeat and withdrawing from the 20 year Afghan war, Biden was loathe to incur another defeat on his watch. So he loaded up Ukraine with tons of weapons in his last months to ensure Ukraine would not collapse before his leaving.
Even before retaking office, clueless Trump bragged he’d end the war in one day. He tried to browbeat Ukraine President Zelensky to negotiate war’s end, even humiliating him before the world in the Oval Office. One hundred seventy-five days in Trump is facing his own Afghanistan style defeat as Ukraine nears collapse.
To stave off impending defeat he reversed the Pentagon’s withdrawal of new weapons based on US stockpiles running low. But all he could sputter was that he’s releasing “defensive weapons” only which will do no good with Ukraine running out of cannon fodder to fire them.
For Trump that’s A-OK. ‘Fight on Ukraine…I’ve only got three and a half years to keep this going till I can pull a Biden and pass it on the next clueless idiot trying to defeat an undefeatable Russia.’ The real issue is not whether Trump will succeed. He can’t. The ominous issue facing the US, indeed peoplekind, is whether Trump’s plan to avert defeat will lead to nuclear war that has been a possibility every day in Ukraine for the past three and a half years.
Nuclear waste to nuclear reactor: The case of Russia in Kazakhstan
Ayushi Saini, 11 Jul 2025 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/nuclear-waste-nuclear-reactor-case-russia-kazakhstan
Facing energy deficits, Kazakhstan turns to Russia’s Rosatom for nuclear
power despite a history of environmental and dependency concerns.
After shutting down its last Soviet-era reactor in 1999, Kazakhstan is now on the cusp of returning to nuclear energy. Long reliant on non-renewables and electricity imports, the country faces rising energy demands and an urgent need to diversify its energy sources.
In October 2024, a national referendum strongly backed the construction of a nuclear power plant, with Russia’s Rosatom ultimately selected to lead the project. The decision marks a major shift in the country’s energy strategy and reaffirms Russia’s enduring influence in Central Asia’s high-stakes infrastructure sector.
However, the decision raises several concerns, including environmental risks, increased energy dependence on Russia, and the revival of unsettling memories of Soviet-era nuclear contamination in Kazakhstan. Understanding why Kazakhstan is turning back to nuclear power and why it chose Russia for its first Nuclear Power Plant (NPP)merits a closer look at the strategic and geopolitical factors behind this move.
Nuclear past, nuclear future
Kazakhstan’s journey with nuclear technology is fraught and painful. As a Soviet republic, it served as a major testing ground, most notably at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, where more than 450 atmospheric and underground nuclear detonations took place. This placed a heavy toll on the environment of Kazakhstan, without the nuclear waste having been taken care of by the Soviet Union.
From 1979 to 1999, Kazakhstan hosted a high-neutron Soviet nuclear power plant. After independence in 1991, Kazakhstan dismantled its arsenal and embraced nuclear non-proliferation with the Semipalatinsk test site closing in the same year.
Now, facing power deficits, it is returning to nuclear power for civilian use. The new plant will be built near the village of Ulken by Lake Balkhash – a site chosen for its geographical viability, including proximity to water access. However, environmental concerns persist. Kazakhstan lacks the domestic capacity to manage nuclear waste and must rely on external actors. Despite its past role in Kazakhstan’s nuclear contamination, Russia has reemerged as a key partner in the country’s nuclear revival.
Illusion of a consortium
Astana designated Rosatom to lead the construction of its first NPPafter a competitive bidding process involving China’s China National Nuclear Commission (CNNC), France’s Electricité de France (EDF), and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power. While authorities claim the formation of an international consortium, Rosatom remains the undisputed leader, reflecting both its technological edge and Moscow’s strategic weight in Astana. Kazakhstan claims that it is the exclusive owner, operator, and supplier of uranium fuel, with complete control over the technological processes of its upcoming nuclear power plant.
Meanwhile, China has been selected to lead the second nuclear power plant, with feasibility studies underway. Kazakhstani officials argue that China is best suited to cooperate with Russia, given their regional rapport. Though framed as multinational, the consortium appears largely symbolic, aimed at balancing ties with major powers. Rosatom’s financing offer further tightens Russia’s grip on Kazakhstan’s energy future.
Why Russia?
Kazakhstan’s decision to shift to nuclear power comes amid a growing electricity production deficit. The country faces a projected shortfall of over 6 GW by 2030, making energy security urgent. The selection of Rosatom to carry out the construction is officially justified by Kazakhstani authorities, given Russia’s global leadership in nuclear technology and its advanced VVER 3+ generation reactors, which are already in operation across several domestic and international sites. Rosatom was deemed to have submitted “the most optimal and advantageous proposal.”
This outcome is not surprising. Talks between Kazakhstan and Russia on nuclear cooperation began in 2011, leading to a feasibility study and a series of agreements. In 2014, an MoU was signed for constructing a VVER-based plant with a capacity of up to 1200 MWe. Kazakhstan also holds a 25% stake in parts of Russia’s nuclear energy sector, and Rosatom’s subsidiary, Uranium One, is already active in Kazakhstan’s uranium mining. Additionally, Russia was Kazakhstan’s top electricity supplier in 2024, exporting 4.6 billion kWh.
Kazakhstan’s alignment with Russia reflects shared Soviet-era technical standards, institutional continuity, and a workforce fluent in the Russian system. Rosatom’s reactors are cost-effective, geographically proximate, and supported by uranium supply and tech transfer offers. Russian remains a common language among elites, and Rosatom’s regional presence, including in Uzbekistan, adds further appeal.
As Kazakhstan’s oil and gas sector is dominated by Western companies (such as ENI, Shell and Chevron, and Russian Lukoil only having 13% stakes in Kashagan Oil Field), choosing Russia for nuclear energy helps Astana maintain a strategic balance and avoid overdependence on any one bloc, without triggering Western sanctions, as Rosatom remains unsanctioned.
Balancing act
Kazakhstan’s decision to pursue nuclear power under Rosatom’s leadership marks a turning point in both its energy strategy and ties with Russia. While the project aims to ease electricity shortages and boost Kazakhstan’s global energy profile, it also deepens reliance on Russia, whose regional influence had waned after the Ukraine crisis.
Although Kazakhstan seeks diverse partnerships – “middle power” diplomacy being a recent fous – geographic and historical ties continue to draw it toward Moscow. The inclusion of other countries in the proposed consortium reflects Astana’s multi-vector foreign policy, an attempt to maintain geopolitical flexibility while meeting infrastructure needs. As the consortium’s lead, Rosatom reinforces its influence over the region’s energy and political landscape. Yet, Kazakhstan’s visible effort to balance Russia and China suggests it won’t sideline either in its strategically vital energy sector.
Hoping for nuclear to boost the economy -will not end well.
Samuel Rafanell-Williams, Scottish CND:
MANY readers will be conscious of
the emerging PR operation to promote nuclear power and admonish the
Scottish Government over its long-standing opposition to new nuclear
projects in Scotland.
This comes at a time when The Ferret reported 585
cracks in the reactor of the Torness nuclear plant in East Lothian,
prompting fears about radioactive risks (Hunterston B power station was
closed in 2022 following the discovery of 586 reactor cracks).
The industrial messes of the Hinkley and Sizewell nuclear projects in England,
both running billions over budget, also don’t sweeten the case for
starting similar projects in Scotland.
Transparently, this media drive is
an attempt to manufacture consent for new potential nuclear plants in
Scotland in the wake of the UK Government’s recent proud announcement of
“Nuclear Britain”.
These PR efforts in Scotland are being led by
lobbyists like Britain Remade, a group composed of former Tory party
officials firmly committed to lifting Scotland’s ban on nuclear power, as
recently reported by Bella Caledonia.
Make no mistake, the UK
Government’s promotion of nuclear power is integral to its vision of a
war economy: massive investment, including exorbitant public expenditure,
into so-called “civilian” nuclear power (£40 billion-plus for Hinkley,
£40bn-plus for Sizewell) is a precondition for shoring up the nuclear
weapons industry. As Scottish CND have frequently argued, much of the same
technical expertise, personnel and fissile materials are required in both
fission and the production of warheads and propulsion reactors for naval
vessels. All nuclear states know building their omnicide weapons relies on
a nuclear power programme.
The National 11th July 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25305651.hoping-nuclear-boost-economy-will-not-end-well/
SIZEWELL C, RISING SEA LEVELS AND EDF’s SILENCE
The dust has just about settled since Labour’s ‘golden nuclear
moment’ laid out by Rachel Reeves in her recent Spending Review. Plans
for the monstrous Sizewell C took another step forward, nudged along by the
offer of another £14.2 billion of taxpayers’ money, together with a
further £2.5 billion promised for Small Modular Reactors, and roughly the
same amount for fusion, the nuclear industry’s very own black hole.
So
loud were the fanfares, so overblown the hype, that the real story of that
week got lost. EDF’s deeply ingrained habits of secrecy and deceit were
– yet again – exposed to the harsh light of a Freedom of Information
request from the indefatigable Together Against Sizewell C (TASC). One of
the principal concerns that TASC has doggedly pursued over the last few
years is the vulnerability of Sizewell C being built on one of Europe’s
most rapidly eroding coastlines and its lack of resilience to the impacts
of climate change. The evidence regarding future sea level rise goes from
deeply worrying to totally terrifying – with the very real possibility of
at least a 1 metre rise – and possibly as much as 2 metres – by 2100.
Given that the spent fuel used at Sizewell C throughout its operating life
(around 4,000 tonnes) will need to be stored on site until at least 2160
this is clearly a matter of the greatest concern.
Johnathon Porritt 7th July 2025, https://jonathonporritt.com/sizewell-c-flood-risk-and-edf-silence/
Staff walk out at Hinkley Point C over alleged ‘bullying’
“This bullying has been going on for far too long.”
Staff at Hinkley Point C walked out
on an unofficial strike on Wednesday over alleged bullying. An unconfirmed
number of workers in the MEH group of contractors have downed tools at the
nuclear power station construction site in Somerset yesterday (July 9). A
person involved in the staff walk out told the Local Democracy Reporting
Service it was a response to bullying from senior management. They said:
“This bullying has been going on for far too long.”
Somerset Live 10th July 2025, https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/local-news/staff-walk-out-hinkley-point-10333388
Why new nuclear power is a bad way to balance solar and wind
As we continue to respond to the coordinated propaganda campaign for new nuclear power in Scotland we hear from David Toke, the author of the book ‘Energy Revolutions – profiteering versus democracy’ (Pluto Press).
In the UK it has almost become an accepted truth in the media that new nuclear power is needed because there is no other practical or cheaper way to balance fluctuating wind and solar power. Yet not only is this demonstrably false, but it actually runs counter to the way that the UK electricity grid is going to be balanced anyway. Essentially the UK’s increasingly wind and solar dominated grid is going to be balanced by gas engines and turbines that are hardly ever used. But you would never guess this from the coverage.
Bella Caledonia 9th July 2025,
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2025/07/09/why-new-nuclear-power-is-a-bad-way-to-balance-solar-and-wind/
UK Moves Closer to Approving Sizewell C Nuclear Plant Project
The UK government has reached a deal with French authorities, allowing
Electricite de France SA (EDF) to retain a 12.5% stake in the Sizewell C
nuclear reactor project. The UK government and other investors will hold
the remaining stake, with the UK investing £14.2 billion in the project to
replace aging atomic plants and provide low-carbon electricity. EDF is set
to hold a board meeting to greenlight its participation in Sizewell C,
which will help the UK government make a final investment decision on the
project soon after.
Bloomberg 7th July 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-07/uk-moves-closer-to-approving-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-project
Trawsfynydd unlikely for new nuclear development, council hears.
Gwynedd Council indicates it’s highly unlikely Trawsfynydd will see new nuclear
projects soon, focusing instead on a science park. It is “highly
unlikely” that Trawsfynydd will be considered for new nuclear development
in the near future. Gwynedd Council’s full meeting on 3 July heard that
despite “uncertainty” over the site, work was underway with partners to
establish a science park and future jobs. Decommissioning work was
programmed until 2060, according to Nuclear Restoration Services plans.
“There is considerable uncertainty about the direction of government’s
policy, funding and priorities, which means that it is highly unlikely that
the Trawsfynydd site will be considered by government and the private
sector for new nuclear development in the near future”.
Cambrian News 8th July 2025, https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/news/trawsfynydd-unlikely-for-new-nuclear-development-council-hears-810243
Zaporizhzhia loses off-site power for first time in 19 months
7 July 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/zaporizhzhia-loses-off-site-power-for-first-time-in-19-months
The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant lost its off-site power supply for more than three hours on Friday, having to rely on its emergency back-up diesel generators for the first time since December 2023.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “What was once virtually unimaginable – that a major nuclear power plant would repeatedly lose all of its external power connections – has unfortunately become a common occurrence at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. Almost three and a half years into this devastating war, nuclear safety in Ukraine remains very much in danger.”
The 18 emergency diesel generators started operating when the external power supply was lost. The power is needed to cool the cores of the reactors – which are all currently shut down – and the used fuel pools. Ten days worth of fuel for the back-up generators is stored at the plant, and the generators were turned off after the power supply returned.
Energy Scotland’s John Proctor responds to The Herald’s pro-nuclear spread.
Nuclear power in Scotland – not needed, not economic, not wanted, not safe
Leah Gunn Barrett, Jul 07, 2025, https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/energy-scotlands-john-proctor-responds
Energy Scotland* convener John Proctor has given me permission to publish a letter he sent to The Herald in response to its series of pro-nuclear articles published at the end of June. The Herald is owned by London-based Newsquest which, in turn, is owned by US media conglomerate, Gannett. The Herald has not published his letter.
I see Joani Reid MP has joined Anas Sarwar MSP and Michael Shanks MP in the chorus calling for new nuclear energy plant in Scotland (The Herald 28th June).
Of course, Joani has no concerns about someone building one of these in her back-yard – as her back-yard is in London, but Michael Shanks was bit more bullish when he declared he would be relaxed about having a Small Modularised Reactor (SMR) erected in his constituency. I am not sure how the good people of Rutherglen feel about this.
What I find mystifying is the lack of proper scrutiny being applied to the claims made by those members of the Nuclear Energy All-Party Parliamentary Group and their well-funded nuclear lobbyists. It does not surprise me that they are unable to set out what configuration they favour, as the reactors which they claim will produce 400 MWs do not exist. They have not been manufactured, tested or installed – anywhere!
As an Engineer, I would be keen to ask the politicians if they have thought about some of the basic elements of a power plant. Do they have any ideas what the thermal capacity of the proposed reactors are? Have they understood what the cooling requirements might be? How about the status of design of the ‘core catcher’ (the system designed to prevent a Chernobyl type event)?
Be under no illusion, Ms Reid, Mr Shanks and Mr Sarwar and the Nuclear lobby are building a Potemkin village.
They of course don’t want to talk about the European Power Reactor (EPR) configuration being installed at astronomical cost at Hinkley C.
This project is forecast to cost £45,000,000,000 when it finally comes on line sometime next decade. It is not easy to get a proper sense of this sum – but it might surprise the readers of The Herald that this is the equivalent of paying £1 million every single day for 110 years – and this is just the construction cost. We have not even started talking about operational costs, asset management and asset decommissioning.
Hinkley C is the same configuration Labour have just committed to at Sizewell C. Are we really gullible enough to believe Julia Pyke (Managing Director of Sizewell C) when she assures us that the Consortium have learned the lessons from Hinkley C?
If I can be generous for a moment, and accept that they can achieve a 10% saving relative to Hinkley C, that would still indicate a £40 billion project cost – which is enough to build 80 hospitals similar to the Forth Valley Hospital.
When Ms Pyke was recently asked on BBC how the project was going, she answered airily that it is ‘on schedule and within budget’. I waited eagerly for the obvious follow up question – ‘What is the budget and schedule?’ but that question never came.
The supporters of nuclear energy tell us that we need these plants for baseload capacity. They fail to acknowledge that in Scotland, we already generate more capacity from renewables than we consume – and this surplus is only going to grow as we continue to see more investment in wind, solar, tidal and energy storage.
‘What about intermittency and lack of system inertia?’ is the nuclear advocates’ stock question when discussing the growth of renewables.
The answer is beautifully simple – we will continue to do what we do now – rely on gas fired CCGTs (Combined-Cycle Gas Turbines). Which is reassuring – as there will be no nuclear plant coming on stream anytime soon.
‘But what about Net Zero?’ might be the next question. Thankfully, there are a raft of solutions to this currently available and more coming on stream every week. For example, gas turbine manufacturers are again building on 50 years of experience of burning hydrogen in gas turbines, and they will be ready to burn hydrogen or blended hydrogen/methane as quickly as the hydrogen market can come on stream.
My prediction is that the hydrogen market will come on stream faster than any SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) can be built – and if UK politicians had a strategic bone in their body, they would be trying to beat our friends in Europe to win the hydrogen race.
However as we have seen with HS2 and the third runway at Heathrow, they will carry on with their blundering plans to build new nuclear.
This comes to the final question that is not asked of nuclear supporting friends in the English Labour and Tory parties. How will they reduce the cost of energy when they are committed to this ruinously expensive nuclear build program?
The UK Government have no answer to this – and this is why the Scottish Government must keep in place the moratorium on new nuclear in Scotland and continue their support of renewables such as tidal power and also fully commit to their Hydrogen Action Plan.
John Proctor
Convener – Energy Scotland
*Energy Scotland, a member of the Independence Forum Scotland (IFS), is an association of Scottish-based energy professionals committed to addressing Scotland’s energy challenge of building a secure, decarbonised, affordable energy system which benefits Scottish industry and consumers.
Sellafield nuclear power plant safety fears as ‘potentially deadly nitrogen gas leaks’
One incident involved an ‘elevated level’ of nitrogen gas,
which can cause asphyxiation, at the plant’s Magnox facility. The incident
was played down, the source claimed.
Safety at the UK’s biggest nuclear
site is under threat due to a culture of secrecy and ‘cover ups’, a whistle
blower told the Mirror. The source described a potentially deadly incident
in which nitrogen gas, which can cause asphyxiation, leaked at the
Sellafield Magnox storage facility. The incident was covered up, the source
claimed, adding that staff are afraid to raise safety issues because they
fear they will be “targeted”.
The leak was at the Magnox Swarf Storage
Silo – the most hazardous building within Sellafield in Cumbria – where
waste products from used nuclear fuel rods are stored. The source said the
leak in May 2023 was raised as an incident report and “was of a level
that needed to be escalated”. But it was not escalated, according to the
whistleblower, who added that “no lessons were learned”. They said:
“There is no confidence or trust in the senior management now. We are
dealing with nuclear waste and people are afraid to speak up.
The problem is that people are being victimised if they report safety issues. “Or
they are escalated to managers who then try to cover them up or sweep them
under the carpet. And that is a really dangerous culture in a place like
Sellafield.”
Mirror 5th July 2025,
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sellafield-nuclear-power-plant-safety-35504096
From Scotland to Cumbria – Not All Waste Is Equal.
Next week Cumberland Councillors will be asking questions about the
“unacceptable” transport of wastes from Scotland to Cumbrian landfill.
Meanwhile the transport of thousands of tonnes of radioactive wastes from
Scotland to Cumbrian landfill continues entirely unchallenged.
Letter belowto Cumberland councillors and Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney.
Dear Councillor Dobson, Councillor Rollo and First Minister John Swinney,
Radiation Free Lakeland agree completely with the reported statement by
Scotland’s First Minister, that the situation of landfill waste arriving
from Scotland into England and specifically Cumbria is “not
acceptable..” A related issue of great concern is that so called High
Volume Very Low Level and Exempt Radioactive wastes from Scotland are being
increasingly diverted to landfill. We note that the Low Level Waste
Repository (LLWR) at Drigg, Cumbria, now only accepts less than 5% of waste
with the remainder being diverted to recycling (radioactive scrap metal),
landfills or via incineration.
Radiation Free Lakeland 6th July 2025, https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/from-scotland-to-cumbria-not-all
Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route
July 05, 2025, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/07/nuclear-reliability-uncertain-route.html
uclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination.
Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea! A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’.
A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup – especially given their high capital cost and lack of flexible operation. There are easier ways to provide the necessary grid balancing e.g. via flexible demand and supply management, smart grid transfer/green power trading, and via short and long duration energy storage, including green hydrogen storage.
All in all, as I’ve noted in earlier posts, it’s hard to see why the UK is pushing ahead with nuclear. As a recent US study found, the investment risk is high for nuclear compared to renewables. And as one of the authors put it ‘low-carbon sources of energy such as wind and solar not only have huge climatic and energy security benefits, but also financial advantages related to less construction risk and less chance of delays’
In which case it seems very strange that the UK Treasury seems happy to devote most of its new energy funding in the next few years to nuclear, with over £16bn evidently being earmarked for planned nuclear spending in 2025-2030, compared to under £6bn for renewables- see David Toke’s summary chart. It’s actually all a bit up the air at present since no one knows when Hinkley will be running- Toke even said it might not be until 2035! And no one knows for sure if Sizewell C will really go ahead and if so when – it’s still awaiting a final go-ahead decision. But some of the presumed nuclear spend is for Sizewell and some also possibly for SMRs, the latter getting £2.5bn diverted from renewables. And that’s not the end of it- consumers will also be shelling out to support Sizewell, if it goes ahead, paying an advanced surcharge on their bills to reduce construction risks under the RAB subsidy system.
To be fair, consumers do have to meet a range of green levies, including the Renewables Obligation, although that one may be phased out soon – with renewable technology support costs falling very well under its replacement, the Contract for Difference system. CfD strike prices were agreed in 2024 for wind at £54-59/MWh and solar PV at £50MWh, whereas Hinkley Point C got a £92.5 strike price in 2016, inflation index linked, so it would be over £128/MWh now and likely more by the time its running- in maybe 2030.
The next round of the CfD auctions for new renewable projects should be opening up soon, with the Clean Industry Bonus providing extra support for some key projects, including not just offshore wind as at present, but also possibly onshore wind and hydrogen systems. The next CfD round should also in indicate how tidal stream technology is getting on. However, it will be while before all the final strike prices are agreed for the various options – possibly not until early next year. But, by then, maybe the details of the Sizewell funding and SMR costs will have been revealed. So, we might then be able to see what makes economic sense for the future. It will be interesting to see what the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee has to say on all this in its updated nuclear roadmap review, which ought be out around then- if not before.
It certainly has felt like an uphill struggle over the years. But now at least there seems to be some progress, with, for example, the new Solar Roadmap setting out the steps needed for the government and industry to deliver 45-47 GW of solar by 2030, which it is claimed will support up to 35,000 jobs and use less than half a percent of total UK land area. It will be aided by governments aim to increase solar deployment on new build homes through the new Future Homes Standard requirements. In addition, the government says it has ‘taken action to deploy the technology at scale, approving nearly 3 GW of nationally significant solar – more than in the last 14 years combined’. It does seem more serious on solar now….certainly than the preceding Tories. And on wind too, including onshore wind, with, in all, the current wind industry workforce put at 55,000 and likely to double by 2030.
Of course this sort of expansion will face problems, for example leading to more wasteful curtailment of excess wind generation, unless transmission capacity is significantly expanded. Adding more inflexible nuclear to the system would of course not help – it would make it all harder to balance. But, oddly, that seems to be the plan with Sizewell C. And the proposed development of SMRs also has issues. For example, a recent review of nuclear options noted that ‘about 65% of Britain’s data centre capacity is concentrated in the London region’, and it suggested suggest that co-locating SMRs with data centre clusters could ‘assist in alleviating capacity constraints in areas of high data centre concentration like London.’ But would people in London, or indeed, other big cities, welcome SMRs, given the safety and security issues? And is this really the way to go?
New nuclear power plant in Switzerland not before 2050
The possible construction of new nuclear power plants in Switzerland, as currently
discussed, depends on many factors. Even if the ban on new construction
were lifted, there would still be numerous other political, technological,
economic, and social uncertainties, as the Energy Commission of the Swiss
Academies of Arts and Sciences outlines in a new report.
Even if the ban on
new construction is lifted, commissioning a new nuclear power plant is
unlikely before approximately 2050. Before connecting to the power grid,
various political, administrative, and economic decisions must be made.
Several referendums and even appeals are expected. The majorities are
uncertain from today’s perspective and could change due to individual
events such as Fukushima.
Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences 1st July 2025, https://akademien-schweiz.ch/news/neues-kernkraftwerk-in-der-schweiz-fruehestens-2050
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 