nuclear-news

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

A drone pierced the outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant. Radiation levels are normal


AP News 14th Feb 2025

CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER STATION, Ukraine (AP) — A drone armed with a warhead hit the protective outer shell of Ukraine’s Chernobyl nuclear plant early Friday, punching a hole in the structure and briefly starting a fire, in an attack Kyiv blamed on Russia. The Kremlin denied it was responsible.

Radiation levels at the shuttered plant in the Kyiv region — site of the world’s worst nuclear accident — have not increased, according to the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, which said the strike did not breach the plant’s inner containment shell.

The IAEA did not attribute blame, saying only that its team stationed at the site heard an explosion and was informed that a drone had struck the shell.

Fighting around nuclear power plants has repeatedly raised fears of a nuclear catastrophe during three years of war, particularly in a country where many vividly remember the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, which killed at least 30 people and spewed radioactive fallout over much of the Northern Hemisphere.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which is Europe’s biggest, has occasionally been hit by drones during the war without causing significant damage……………………………………………………………………

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied Russia was responsible. “There is no talk about strikes on nuclear infrastructure, nuclear energy facilities. Any such claim isn’t true. Our military doesn’t do that,” Peskov said in a conference call with reporters.

It was not possible to independently confirm who was behind the strike. Both sides frequently trade blame when nuclear sites come under attack. https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-chernobyl-zelenskyy-71d781dbd66754d0a548edd388f3447a

February 17, 2025 Posted by | incidents, Ukraine | Leave a comment

UK Government urged to scrap nuclear weapons ‘once and for all’

While our armed forces wrestle with two decades of cuts, the UK Labour Government is determined to waste more than £100 billion on nuclear weapons over the next decade.

By Lucy Jackson, Multimedia Journalist, The National 15th Feb 2025

THE UK Government has been urged to scrap its nuclear weapons arsenal “once and for all” amid concerns the country’s defence capability is in a “woeful state”.

It comes after a former head of the army urged Keir Starmer to commit to defence spending or “be consigned” to “the bin of history”.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4, ex-chief of the general staff Lord Dannatt said defence spending should rise to a 3.5% share of the economy.

The UK currently spends around 2.3% of gross domestic product on defence, a figure the UK Government wants to increase to 2.5%.

Dannatt said: “Unless Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves can find ways of producing more money, well beyond 2.5%, towards 3% or 3.5% for starters on our defence budget, then this strategic defence review is going to be hollow, it’s going to be a failure and, frankly, it’ll consign Keir Starmer to the bin of history.

“Our military is so run down at the present moment, numerically and as far as capability and equipment is concerned, it would potentially be quite embarrassing.”

The SNP have backed calls for defence spending to be increased to at least 2.5%.

However, the party called for the UK Government to scrap its nuclear weapons defence enterprise “once and for all”.

The UK’s nuclear weapons arsenal is stored in Scotland at HM Naval Base Clyde, west of Glasgow. Submarines are based at Faslane, while nuclear warheads are stored, processed and maintained at the nearby Royal Naval Armaments Depot at Coulport.

The party’s Westminster defence spokesperson, Dave Doogan, said Britain’s defence capability was in a “woeful state”.

Doogan told The National: “As insecurity and conflict foment across the world, including here in Europe, the comments from Lord Dannatt are incredibly concerning and reveal the woeful state of Britain’s defence capability.

“While our armed forces wrestle with two decades of cuts, the UK Labour Government is determined to waste more than £100 billion on nuclear weapons over the next decade.

“With the UK’s nuclear weapon vanity obsession hanging like a millstone around our conventional forces’ budget, the Labour Government should for once do the right thing and scrap the defence nuclear enterprise once and for all.”……………………. https://www.thenational.scot/news/24938558.uk-government-urged-scrap-nuclear-weapons-once-all/

February 17, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Green power- not for us?


 Renew Extra 15th Feb 2025

The Social Market Foundation, a cross-party think-tank, says that 48% of UK survey respondents felt the ‘green transition’ was ‘happening to them, not with them’.  And 63% thought it wouldn’t work anyway. Certainly there has been some opposition to some green polices, and there have been claims that Starmer’s plan to remove ‘infrastructure blockers’, for example local objectors to green energy projects like wind and solar farms, and the extra grid links needed for them, could backfire.  Although Labours plans for ‘pushing past nimbyism’ and putting many new small nuclear plants around the country could also attract fierce local opposition. In this case, small isn’t green- indeed, as well as potentially costing more, SMRs may actually increase security, safety and waste management problem. Lots of issues there too then…………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………  for the present, wind, on and offshore, and solar, large and small, are by far the main contenders for UK power supply, with wind, now at 30% of UK power, already overtaking natural gas.  That’s good news, but, as David Toke has noted, with heat supply still not seriously being addressed, if we really do want to get to net zero soon, then the pressure will be on to get all the existing renewable options expanding even more rapidly- along with storage. And, I would add, also getting inputs from new sources like tidal turbines as fast as possible.  As well as paying proper attention to energy saving and energy efficiency- the cash and carbon saving option that few oppose, but sadly too few actually adopt.       https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/02/green-power-not-for-us.html

February 17, 2025 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Starmer’s latest con job

The government’s nuclear power expansion plan is a hollow betrayal of working people that panders to wealthy corporations and will rip off consumers, writes LINDA PENTZ GUNTER

No nuclear reactor, small or otherwise, will ever be built in time, affordably or in enough quantities to address the climate crisis that is already upon us.

February 15, 2025,
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmer%E2%80%99s-latest-con-job

IS KEIR STARMER really so desperate to bask in the orange glow of omnipotence radiating from the monomaniacal US president that he feels compelled to parrot Donald Trump’s catchphrases?

Apparently yes. Starmer really did say “build, baby build.”

The context for this abhorrent utterance was his announcement that mini-nuclear power plants — known as small modular reactors — would proliferate across Britain until they are “commonplace.”

According to Starmer, they would be smaller and cheaper than current nuclear power plants. Those living near nuclear construction sites could be compensated for this inconvenience with lowered electricity rates. New reactors would be in place by 2032.

All of this is completely unsubstantiated by any shred of empirical evidence, but more on that in a moment.

Starmer’s “fast forward on nuclear” would, he claims, deliver a supply of good jobs as well as “homegrown power.” (If you are searching a UK map for the “homegrown” uranium mines that would supply the fuel for these reactors, keep looking.)

The restriction on building new reactors on existing nuclear sites is to be lifted so they could be built anywhere and everywhere and people who “hadn’t thought there’s going to be anything nuclear near me” will simply “get used to the idea of it,” Starmer said.

Oddly, the first new site doesn’t appear to be adjacent to Number 10 Downing Street.

The whole thing is of course a massive con that would, if such a plan ever materialised, dramatically raise electricity rates, further fleece taxpayers, impede real progress on climate by diverting money away from already available renewable energy solutions, and put countless communities in danger.

And of course, what will become of the radioactive waste these “small” reactors would still produce? A recent Stanford study found that small modular reactors will actually generate more radioactive waste than conventional nuclear power plants.

Unions should not be fooled. Promising jobs that will likely never materialise and would be better created immediately in industries such as renewable energy that are here now and have a long-term future, isn’t a boon to working people, it’s yet another betrayal.

Further, nuclear power, as the industry has itself demonstrated over and over, is the slowest and most expensive energy choice among the so-called low-carbon options.

No nuclear reactor, small or otherwise, will ever be built in time, affordably or in enough quantities to address the climate crisis that is already upon us.

Study after study shows that greater carbon emissions can be achieved far faster by investing the same amount in renewable energy instead of nuclear power.

The Starmer government is deliberately ignoring that to pander to big corporations rather than invest in the public good.

Nuclear power is in any case not low-carbon, and certainly not carbon-zero as the industry often brags.


The Hinkley Point C two-reactor site on the Somerset coast will have used between 200,000 to one million tons of steel by the time the two reactors are complete, according to various estimates, and will consume the equivalent electrical power of a small country.

Further, nuclear power, unlike the renewable energy industry, has demonstrated negative learning by actually becoming slower to build and more expensive over time.


In October 2021, Lazard, one of the world’s leading financial advisory and asset management firms, calculated that the average construction cost of a utility-scale photovoltaic plant in the US was £695 per kilowatt of generation capacity. A nuclear plant, it said, would cost around £8,185 per kilowatt — almost 12 times as much.

A Sussex University study looking at 180 nuclear construction projects around the world found that 175 of them took, on average, 64 per cent more time than anticipated with final costs 177 per cent higher than originally predicted.

Small modular reactor projects will be more expensive than conventional nuclear plants because, being so small, they have poor economies of scale, requiring massive upfront orders to make a factory producing them financially viable.

Small reactors also require an equally massive deployment in order to generate the equivalent amount of energy currently produced by large-sized reactors. It’s why the industry has rejected small modular reactors for decades.


Wealthy corporations such as Rolls-Royce, one of the companies eager to build small modular reactors in Britain, are not willing to shoulder any of this risk. But, under Starmer’s scheme, the high costs of new reactor development and construction will be passed on to consumers and taxpayers.

In fact, this is already in place. A new Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model came into force in the UK in May 2022. RAB incentivises private investment in new nuclear projects by charging consumers through their electricity bills — with no guarantee that the nuclear plant will ever be completed.

This is precisely the fate that befell ratepayers in South Carolina in the US, where a similar law is in place and where two planned reactors were abandoned in 2017, by which time ratepayers had paid £1,6 billion for reactors that would never deliver a watt of electricity.

The extent to which the nuclear choice is a bad deal for Britain was made plain back in 2020, when the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy estimated that a large-scale solar project targeted to become operational in the UK in 2025 would produce electricity with a levelised cost of £44 per megawatt hour. Its estimate for nuclear power was £102 per megawatt hour. (Levelising takes into account all variable costs from licensing, construction, operation and eventual decommissioning and waste management.)

No nuclear corporations — not even multibillionaire Bill Gates’s nuclear reactor company Terrapower — will build new nuclear plants without charging both consumers and taxpayers to do it. Gates has asked the US government — ie US taxpayers — to foot half of his project’s likely underestimated £3.2 billion cost.

As physicist MV Ramana points out in his new book Nuclear Is Not The Solution, corporations only embark on new nuclear projects “when the public can be made to bear a large fraction of the high costs of building nuclear plants and operating them, either in the form of higher power bills or in the form of taxes.”

Starmer’s aspirations of empire that would make little Britain “one of the world’s leaders on nuclear” are no more than a craven capitulation to Rolls-Royce and other corporations, which have been complaining for years that the process in place is too arduous and slow, with too many regulatory hurdles. (Let’s not forget that Rolls Royce is an integral part of Britain’s nuclear weapons complex. Late last month the company got a new £9bn eight-year deal to support Britain’s nuclear submarine programme, the most lethal destructive force on Earth. This is not a coincidence.)

Cue Starmer’s Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce announced with a brazen headline on the government’s own website: “Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power.”

The taskforce mandate is ostensibly to fast-track and streamline approval of new reactor design and development. But despite Starmer’s protestations that there would be “no compromise on safety,” the phrases “fast-track” and “streamline” are code for precisely that; safety shortcuts.

Ripping up the rules is exactly what this is about — the rules concerning safety. They were there for a reason, given nuclear power is the most lethal method yet discovered by which to boil water. And reducing safety oversight is a particularly dangerous drift given that none of the current small modular reactors — still effectively just drawings on paper — have proven safety records.


Indeed, quite the opposite. Whether they are based on miniature versions of the traditional pressurised water reactor, such as those being built at Hinkley Point C, or “fast reactors,” none are new designs and all have significant known safety flaws.

Even the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a willing industry lapdog, declined the design submitted by Oklo for its 15-50 megawatt Aurora micro reactor because the company could not answer fundamental safety questions.

“Oklo’s application continues to contain significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components,” the NRC wrote.

That should be a warning for the British public who are not being asked but told by the Starmer government that they must accept a nuclear reactor in their community for the good of the country’s “energy security.”


This threat is perhaps the most sinister part of the entire new nuclear announcement. There will be no dissent. The Starmer government will “push past nimbyism,” “take on the blockers” and “break through” any line of resistance from MPs minded to prevent a mini-Chernobyl happening in their constituents’ backyards.

While his autocratic idol in Washington DC continues to fling out a daily stream of fascistic executive orders like a hippopotamus with diarrhoea, Starmer is seemingly striving to match him at every turn.

Whether it’s stripping pensioners of life-saving winter fuel allowances, keeping children in poverty by refusing to lift the two-child benefit cap, autocratically arresting peaceful protesters on climate or Palestine, or misleading the British public with false promises about nuclear power, Starmer is consistent in at least one regard: making one bad decision after another.

The new nuclear plan is a “great opportunity” for Rolls-Royce, a company so deserving it ranks as “among the best in the world,” crowed Starmer. Maybe he’s just looking for a shiny new car to go with those free designer suits and A-level crash pads?

Linda Pentz Gunter is a writer based in Takoma Park, Maryland, and the founder of Beyond Nuclear, a non-governmental anti-nuclear advocacy group.

February 17, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Germany has no realistic way back to nuclear power.

 Germany has no realistic way back to nuclear power, the vice-chancellor
and energy minister has said. In an interview with The Times, Robert Habeck
also said the country’s economic model was in jeopardy because it had
mistakenly clung on to 20th-century technologies and assumptions about
global politics.

The future of German energy is one of the most contentious
issues in the country’s Bundestag election, which will be held on
February 23. Costs rose dramatically after the Kremlin’s full-scale
invasion of Ukraine in 2022 forced Berlin to jettison its dependency on
Russian gas imports at the same time as it switched off its last three
nuclear power stations.

Habeck, 55, who is the Green party’s candidate
for the chancellorship and has presided over the sprawling energy and
economics ministry since the end of 2021, has faced heavy criticism and a
parliamentary commission of inquiry for refusing to extend the lifespan of
the remaining reactors in the midst of the crisis. The conservative
Christian Democratic Union (CDU), which is leading in the polls and is
likely to dominate the next government, has promised to look into reviving
nuclear power. The hard-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gone
further, pledging to bring the reactors back online “as quickly as
possible”.

However, Habeck said: “A return to nuclear energy is not a
realistic option. Nor do I know anyone in the energy industry who seriously
wants it.” Executives in the German energy sector, including the firms
that used to operate the reactors, broadly agree with Habeck that they have
passed the “point of no return”. Most German officials balk at the long
construction times and the costs, which according to one recent estimate
from the Fraunhofer institute in Munich would be anything from two to ten
times as expensive as the equivalent amount of wind power.

 Times 12th Feb 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/world/europe/article/germany-wont-turn-back-to-nuclear-power-nobody-wants-it-9pdxfkqg2

February 16, 2025 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Trouble at t’mill: local Councils rebel over nuke dump plan

The NFLAs have welcomed today’s statement made by the Leader of East Lindsey District Council that he shall recommend to his Executive that they ‘unanimously withdraw’ the council from the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership and the GDF process at their next meeting.

Coupled with the withdrawal of Millom Town Council from the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership and condemnation by Seascale Parish Council of the imposition of an Area of Focus for Mid-Copeland east of the village, this demonstrates that there is increasing disaffection amongst politicians with the process.

In his statement, ELDC Council Leader Craig Leyland cited the change of prospective site for a possible GDF surface facility from the former Theddlethorpe Conoco gas terminal to a 4km square parcel of farmland between the inland villages of Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton. This he describes as prime agricultural land that has not had any previous industrial use and that is ‘nestling close to the Lincolnshire Wolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’…………….

 
 NFLA 12th Feb 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/trouble-at-tmill-local-councils-rebel-over-nuke-dump-plan/

February 16, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

NFLAs endorse international appeal for justice over French nuclear tests

 NFLA 13th Feb 2025

Sixty-five years ago (13 February 1960), the first French nuclear test was conducted in its colony of Algeria, exposing French soldiers and Indigenous Tuareg civilians to radiation.

The NFLAs have been campaigning for justice for veterans and local communities impacted by British atomic and nuclear bomb tests in Australia and the Pacific Islands, so in the spirit of solidarity we have joined UK and international partners in endorsing a similar appeal to the French and Algerian Governments over the impact of the ‘Gerboise Bleue’ (‘Blue Jerboa’) test and those which followed.

President Charles de Gaulle ordered a nuclear test in the first quarter of 1960. After a plan to explode a device in Corsica was prevented by public protests, the Nuclear Experiments Operational Group relocated to the Saharan Military Experiments Centre near Reggane in (then) French Algeria.


‘Gerboise Bleue’ (or ‘Blue Jerboa’) was the operational name for the first test of a series. The name combined a reference to one of the colours of the French flag with a rodent that resided in the Sahara Desert. On 13 February 1960, the plutonium bomb was detonated atop a 100-metre steel tower. No journalists were allowed on site, but an eyewitness account given to the French press stated that “the desert was lit up by a vast flash, followed 45 seconds later by an appreciable shock-wave” with “enormous ball of bluish fire with an orange-red centre” followed by a mushroom cloud.

Following the test, France followed the United States, the USSR and the United Kingdom as the world’s fourth nuclear armed power.

With a yield of 70 kilotons, ‘Gerboise Bleue’ was over three times more powerful than the Fat Boy plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki and the largest by far of the first test bombs used by any of the previous nuclear powers.

Following this test until 1966, France carried out a further three atmospheric nuclear tests and another thirteen underground tests as the ‘Gerboise’ series at this location.

The French treatment of test veterans and Indigenous communities mirrored that of the UK.

The French Ministry of the Armed Forces maintained that the radioactive effects on humans present at the site would be “weak”, and “well below annual doses.” However, test veterans said that protection gear was lacking and charged the military authorities with using them  to study the effects of nuclear radiation on humans. After the later ‘Gerboise Verte’ test, soldiers were sent within 1 km of the hypocentre to practice combat exercises and to drive tanks, being subjected to high levels of radiation for three hours before being offered only a shower as a method to decontaminate.

After the tests, nuclear fallout was detected as far away as Senegal, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Sudan. According to the French NGO, ACRO, Saharan dust blown northwards by strong seasonal winds to France in early 2021 carried measurable levels of radioactive caesium-137 attributable to the ‘Gerboise’ tests……………………………………………………………….. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-endorse-international-appeal-for-justice-over-french-nuclear-tests/

February 16, 2025 Posted by | France, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste plan ‘would scar Lincolnshire Wolds’

BBC UK Sharon Edwards, Political reporter, Lincolnshire, 12th Feb 2025

A council is set to withdraw from talks to bury nuclear waste in the countryside.

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), a government body, has earmarked an area near Louth, Lincolnshire, to build a disposal facility.

However, East Lindsey District Council (ELDC) leader Craig Leyland said the scheme would “scar” agricultural land, and a consultation process had served only to “antagonise and distress” residents.

NWS thanked the district council for taking part in the talks and said it would continue working with Lincolnshire County Council.

In 2021, the district council joined a community partnership group with NWS to examine a previous proposal to bury waste at a former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe, near Mablethorpe.

Last month, NWS announced it had moved the proposed location of the facility to land between Gayton le Marsh and Great Carlton.

But Leyland said the new proposal would “scar several kilometres of Lincolnshire farmland on the margins of the Lincolnshire Wolds”.

He also said the consultation process had “not been effective” and the council had not been given all the information it needed from NWS.

East Lindsey councillors will be asked to formally vote to withdraw from the consultation.

‘A key role’

The move will not automatically kill the plan, which requires “community consent” to go ahead, as NWS is still working with the county council……………………………

Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) remains in the process, but leader Councillor Martin Hill said the authority shared some of ELDC’s concerns about the new location…………………………….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvqljq77p0o

February 16, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Safety Issues and Impact on Marine Environment of Extension of British Nuclear Plant Lifespan Queried by NGO

The Celtic League has noted that there was a previous review of a decision to extend Torness’s lifespan, after the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of some advanced gas-cooled power stations.

 Afloat 12th February 2025, https://afloat.ie/resources/news-update/item/66295-safety-issues-and-impact-on-marine-environment-of-extension-of-british-nuclear-plant-lifespan-queried-by-ngo

The Celtic League NGO has queried the impact on the marine environment of the British government’s decision to extend the life of four old nuclear power plants.

It has also said that the decision is one that both the Irish and Manx governments should be concerned about, given the potential environmental impact.

Last month, French state-owned company EDF Energy said that the lifespan of Scotland’s last remaining nuclear power station and three other plants in England would be extended.

The company said that Torness, in East Lothian, and its sister site  Heysham 2, in Lancashire, would continue generating for an extra two years until 2030.

Two other sites – Hartlepool and  Heysham 1 – will continue for an extra year until 2027, it said, and it planned to invest £1.3bn (sterling) across its operational nuclear estate over the next three years.

The Celtic League has noted that there was a previous review of a decision to extend Torness’s lifespan, after the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of some advanced gas-cooled power stations.

Bernard Moffatt of the Celtic League has submitted a number of questions relating to safety to British Chief Nuclear Inspector Mark Foy at the Office of Nuclear Regulation, and says it will publish any response it receives.

February 16, 2025 Posted by | environment, safety, UK | Leave a comment

Anas Sarwar’s insistences on nuclear energy serves wrong people.

Last week, Anas Sarwar challenged John Swinney over his
determination to continue SNP policy that uses planning to veto new nuclear
power plants in Scotland. Sarwar announced at FMQs that 29% of the energy
mix that morning came from nuclear.

John Swinney pointed out 70% came from
renewables and suggested Labour would only muddy the water for investors in
Scotland if they focused unduly on the “junior partner” in the energy
mix.

Sarwar then pointed out China has built 29 nuclear power plants. Fine
– China has also built two-thirds of the world’s wind and solar
resource, yet its use of coal also makes it the world’s largest emitter.

Which tells us what precisely? Forget China – focus on Scotland. Scotland
backing nuclear is like geothermal and hydro-powered Iceland backing gas.
It makes no sense at all. Our destiny is to develop clean, green baseload
energy sources for ourselves and the rest of the world.

What’s so wrong with nuclear?

Jings, where to start? Nuclear costs more to produce, plants
take far longer to construct, leave behind radioactive waste and depend
largely on highly enriched uranium derived from Russia and workers forced
to risk radiation and exploitation.

Wind critics complain that
intermittency means baseload (flick of a switch) energy like gas must be
ready for wind-free days. But nuclear isn’t flick of a switch either –
it takes too long to power up and down so stays permanently on (apart from
planned maintenance) even when wind is high.

Last year, six international
academics were so worried about Labour’s new stance, they issued a joint
statement. Maybe it didn’t reach the new Prime Minister, but it was
published in The National. Professor Steve Thomas, Dr Paul Dorfman,
Professor MV Ramana, Professor Amory Lovins and Tetsunari Iida stated that
after 60 years of commercial history, “nuclear power is further from, not
nearer to, survival without massive public subsidies”, and contributes as
much electricity in one year as renewables add in three days.

Nuclear isn’t cheaper – anywhere. The German Institute for Economic Research
examined 674 nuclear power plants built across the world since 1951 and
found the average plant made a loss of €4.8 billion. It also isn’t
greener – the International Panel on Climate Change says renewables are
now 10 times more efficient than nuclear at CO2 mitigation.

And it certainly isn’t quicker. Professor Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University
wrote in Scientific American: “The most recent US nuclear power reactors
were started in 2013 and are still not finished. That’s the problem with
imagined ‘breakthrough’ technologies. The breakthrough can be sudden,
but implementation is slow.” [Sarwar] wrote a column for the Daily Record
which insisted: “John Swinney could end the SNP’s ideological
opposition to nuclear power, with the stroke of a pen.” Ah, Anas. The
boot’s on the other foot.

Opposition to nuclear in Scotland isn’t
ideological. But Labour’s deep attachment certainly is. Anas Sarwar also
contended that if Swinney backed nuclear, “he could unlock billions of
pounds of investment in Scotland and create spates of new quality jobs”.
Mmm. Spates. Maybe this was written in a hurry. Like the billions not
invested by the City of London in Sizewell or Hinkley C over the past
decade? Come on.

So, what’s Labour’s nuclear love-in really about? Some
think Starmer inherited “an absolute monster” after the Tories’ bad
decision to put billions of public cash into Sizewell. But others like
Professor Andrew Stirling and senior research fellow Philip Johnstone
advanced a different theory in the latest edition of the European:
“Nuclear affections are a military romance. Powerful defence interests
– with characteristic secrecy and highly active PR – are mostly driving
the dogged persistence.”

 The National 13th Feb 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24931561.anas-sarwars-insistences-nuclear-energy-serves-wrong-people/

February 15, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Chernobyl nuclear power station hit by ‘Russian drone’

Despite hitting the nuclear plant, the small fire was quickly contained and officials said
there was no apparent radiation leak. The Chernobyl nuclear power station
was hit overnight in an apparent drone strike, International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) has said. Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, said a
Russian drone strike with a “high explosive warhead” hit the outer
shelter of the nuclear plant. The IAEA said that a UAV hit the shelter
protecting the site at approximately 1.50am local time.

Footage from lastnight, showing a Russian Drone striking the Containment Structure around
Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP) in Northern
Ukraine, as well as the extent of the Damage from inside the Containment
Structure.


iNews 14th Feb 2025,
https://inews.co.uk/news/world/chernobyl-nuclear-power-station-hit-by-russian-drone-3535413

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Belarus, incidents | Leave a comment

Great British Nuclear competition winners announcement still ‘around Spending Review’

13 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby

Great British Nuclear (GBN) has confirmed that the winners of its small modular reactor (SMR) competition will still be announced around the time of the Spending Review on 11 June 2025, despite reports that it would take place on 26 March at the Spring Statement.

GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR and Westinghouse Electric Co. were announced as the final four companies in contention following the conclusion of the initial tender
stage at the end of September. NuScale dropped out at this point, while EDF
exited the competition in July when it failed to submit documents before
the deadline.

GBN completed two rounds of assessment with the four
shortlisted companies and is now entering negotiations ahead of the
submission of final tenders. The nuclear body said in November 2024 it had
started “detailed negotiations” with the four small modular reactor
(SMR) developers remaining in its competition for deployment in the UK. GBN
debunks financial news site report. Financial news site The Motley Fool
reported on 11 February that the announcement was “expected to be
announced by Great British Nuclear on or around the time of the Spring
Budget Statement, scheduled for 26 March”.

New Civil Engineer 13th Feb 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/great-british-nuclear-competition-winners-announcement-still-around-spending-review-13-02-2025/

February 15, 2025 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Warning sent about need for strategic policing reform to address security of SMRs

New Civil Engineer, 2 Feb, 2025 By Tom Pashby

Security concerns have been raised following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy which would change where small modular reactors (SMRs) could be situated.

National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) was published in draft form on 6 February following an announcement by the prime minister about the slashing of legislation aroudn the development of nuclear energy generation projects………………………………….

Limited details about security in EN-7 raises policing questions

Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.

The proposed proliferation of SMRs in the UK presents a novel nuclear security risk because of there potentially being many more smaller nuclear-licensed sites which are closer to people and property than gigawatt-scale reactors which tend to be in remote coastal locations.

King’s College London Centre for Science & Security Studies research fellow Ross Peel previously told NCE that security planning for SMRs in the UK is “not where it should be”.

In a section titled “Security of Site”, EN-7 says “Ensuring that the proposed nuclear infrastructure will be secure is vital. The Security Considerations section of EN-1 addresses security considerations in detail.

“The applicant should engage with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as part of early engagement on securing a Nuclear Site Licence to understand what steps will be required to comply with relevant site security requirements.”

Recent analysis by the Alan Turing Institute’s Centre for Emerging Technology and Security said that policing capability was not up to scratch to protect SMRs.

Policing SMRs would require a significant uplift in funding and workforce at the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) which is run by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority (CNPA). The CNPA is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).

Local police forces, overseen by the Home Office, could also be required to increase their capacity to respond to CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) incidents.

It is currently unclear how any resource uplift would be funded, and which bodies would provide that funding. As things stand, gigawatt-scale nuclear power sites’ security is funded by the developers themselves.

The business model for SMRs is not yet settled, with different developers proposing different management mechanisms.

Existing policing model does not accommodate complex demands of SMRs

Former police investigations and review commissioner Scotland and co-author of the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security analysis on SMR policing John McNeill said: “The ONR can specify security standards for SMRs, but they cannot require policing bodies to comply with their requirements.

“ONR can specify, approve, or reject, security arrangements, and vary these in response to changes in the threat assessments. But they cannot require any Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) or Chief Constable (CC) to assign resources to meet their defined standards. Not even [the government] can direct them.

“Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly…………………………………………………………….

“The existing policing model does not readily accommodate the complex demands of responding to the protection of the critical national infrastructure, nor a spread of SMRs.

It’s an outdated model that is not fit for this purpose. Since 2012 the 43 local (directly elected) policing bodies have set the priorities and assigned the budgets, for their police areas.

“We have already highlighted the complexities of policing a proliferation of SMRs in new areas of the country. Policing will need to extend their capability and capacity to respond. And meet the associated costs. It will not be enough to promise a reduction in their electricity bills sometime in the future!

“In short, the deafening silence from the Home Office and policing bodies is not reassuring to apprehensive communities who may have an SMR (or more) in their back yard.

“Finally, who pays the piper? Contractors will baulk at paying for local security. Site security may be less problematic.”

Sheffield Hallam University hosts the Centre of Excellence in Terrorism, Resilience, Intelligence and Organised Crime Research (Centric).

Centric professor in governance and national security Fraser Sampson co-authored the policing reform analysis with McNeill.

Sampson said: “The introduction of SMRs (and now associated data centres) is being presented as wholly different from whatever has gone before. That means the policing and security arrangements will need to be wholly different as they are the solution to the wrong problem.

“The engineering, environmental and economic noises are deafening but so is the silence on the extraordinary challenges that this will bring for community-level policing and resilience.

Policing and security are a network of systems. Turbocharging one part of a system will only pay off if the rest of the system can keep up – otherwise, the fast bit has to wait for the rest. No one wants to be responsible for the weakest link in the security chain.

“Workforce vetting has proved challenging enough for policing; an exponential increase in both volume and speed of reliable vetting must have a significant resource impact but add in risks from supply chain integrity, cyber-attacks and insider threats.”

Sampson said that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “states more than half of radioactive [materials] thefts/losses since 1993 occurred during authorised transit.

“Where is the reassurance coming from that proliferation will improve these figures? We’re not dealing with Swampy anymore.”

Concerns about security of SMRs raised in parliament

In a debate about SMRs in the House of Lords, backbench Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey asked about the potential increased demand on nuclear policing. The debate took place on 22 January 2025, before the publication of EN-7.

Outside of parliament, Harris is chair of the National Preparedness Commission (NPC), which works “to promote policies and actions to help the UK be significantly better prepared to avoid, mitigate, respond to, and recover from major shocks, threats and challenges”.

In the Lords debate, Harris asked: “What consideration has been given to who will protect and police modular nuclear reactors?


“Will it be the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which would mean covering far more sites than it currently does, or will it be the other police forces?

“What discussions has the Minister had with his colleagues at the Home Office?”……………………………………………………………………..
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/warning-sent-about-need-for-strategic-policing-reform-to-address-security-of-smrs-12-02-2025/

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

Nuclear waste site plans in Midlands face major setback as council withdraws

 Proposals for a massive underground hazardous nuclear waste site in the
Midlands have hit a setback after a council withdrew from a major
partnership, ignited because the agency behind the scheme are now looking
at putting the entrance close to a national beauty spot rather than a
disused gasworks.

Yesterday (wed) the leader of East Lindsey District
Council announced it was leaving a community partnership with Nuclear Waste
Services (NWS), the government agency which is behind the project to
dispose of Britain’s radioactive waste in a Ground Disposal Facility (GDF).

 Insider Media 13th Feb 2025, https://www.insidermedia.com/news/midlands/nuclear-waste-site-plans-in-midlands-face-major-setback-as-council-withdraws

February 15, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

 Why Welsh speakers oppose Wylfa nuclear plant

 Letter David Thomas: I was dismayed to see your article (Report, February
8), blithely dismissing the impact of the planned Wylfa Newydd nuclear
power station on Welsh-speaking communities. You parrot the view of the
nuclear industry that nothing should stand in the way of the bulldozers,
with little regard for the wider picture here in Wales.

The valid concerns
of Welsh-speaking communities are deemed illegitimate by the nuclear
industry, and Welsh speakers’ interests are portrayed as akin to those of
bats and newts — as unnecessary “blockers” to progress.

The ongoing survival of the Welsh language is nothing short of a miracle in the face of
the linguistic, economic and political hegemony of our English neighbour.
To dismiss linguistic and cultural concerns that the Wylfa Newydd plan
might entail is to dismiss the very existence of Wales as a linguistic and
cultural entity.

The Welsh government has committed to a target of having
1mn Welsh speakers by 2050. This plan has been ratified on repeated
occasions by the Welsh electorate, and surveys show that an overwhelming
majority of the Welsh population are well disposed to the language, even
among groups of non Welsh speakers.

We might also question why Ynys Môn
(Anglesey) is perceived as a suitable site for a new nuclear power plant.
Wales is already a net exporter of energy, yet Welsh consumers pay more for
electricity than the vast majority of their English counterparts.
Possibilities for renewables in the form of onshore and offshore wind and
tidal energy appear promising, yet attempts to pioneer tidal power in Wales
have been blocked by successive UK governments.

 FT 12th Feb 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/3c9045c5-8cb4-4db3-bdf1-734b7cd789bf

February 15, 2025 Posted by | culture and arts, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »