nuclear-news

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

British Nuclear Jets Programme Costs ‘Unrealistic’ – CND

“Just as we’ve seen the ‘blank cheque’ approach to the spiralling costs of replacing Britain’s nuclear submarines, so we see it again here with Britain’s new nuclear-capable jets.”

, by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), https://labouroutlook.org/2025/11/08/british-nuclear-jets-programme-costs-unrealistic-cnd/


The chair of the Government’s Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, has described the MoD’s cost forecast for the F-35 fighter jet programme as “unrealistic”.

The report also shines a spotlight on the repeated and systematic failure of the MoD to demonstrate financial responsibility or accountability. Just as we’ve seen the ‘blank cheque’ approach to the spiralling costs of replacing Britain’s nuclear submarines, so we see it again here with Britain’s new nuclear-capable jets.  

The Public Accounts Committee report states that the MoD ‘acknowledged that becoming certified for the NATO nuclear mission will add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure.’ Yet, PAC reports that it was only once the Committee requested evidence about the F-35 programme that the MoD started discussions with ‘other partner nations’  to understand these requirements.  Therefore ‘the Department [MoD] did not provide any indication of forecast costs.’

The MoD had argued that buying the F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets would be 20% to 25% cheaper than the F-35B non-nuclear fighter jets.  However, PAC’s report reveals that because the MoD had not familiarised itself with the technical implications of NATO integration before the decision was made to buy the F-35As, it had not allowed for additional costs associated with this. The report concludes ‘We believe it is a reasonable assumption that this may end up proving more expensive’.


This is the latest in a series of failures to forecast costs for the programme, resulting in substantially underestimating the scale of the spending needed. Back in 2013, when the decision was made to buy 138 F-35 fighter jets, the MoD set out the initial cost of £18.4 billion, which was only for the first 48 fighter jets. It was then discovered that the MoD had failed to update this figure following the extension of the programme from 2048 to 2069 – more than a 20 year extension. The MoD then revised this figure to £57 billion but did not include any of the far more costly sustainment expenditure such as personnel, infrastructure or fuel.

The National Audit Office calculates the full programme is likely to be £71 billion. However, this does not take into consideration the additional costs associated with the certification of the F-35A jets for NATO nuclear missions, so this figure will certainly increase. And there are still further questions about the purchases of an additional 63 F-35A jets, as whether these will also be part of NATO’s nuclear mission.


The committee also reveals the level of chaos, mis-manageable and lack of planning of the programme. For instance, the MoD underestimated the number of engineers it would need for the programme, failing to consider annual leave and staff working in other roles. Consequently staffing costs have had to be increased by 20%. 

A delay in upgrading the accommodation at RAF Marham, which has been the main operating base for the F-35s since 2013, means not all the accommodation will be ready in time for the 2029 delivery of the new F-35A fighter jets, likely causing delays and further costs in the programme.

This mismanagement, lack of financial accountability resulting in spiralling costs is typical of Britain’s nuclear weapons industry. The replacement of Britain’s nuclear submarines has been repeatedly rated ‘unachievable’ by the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority, due to cost overruns and delays.

Instead of pouring hundreds of billions more into this black hole of deadly weaponry – tying Britain even closer to NATO and Trump’s reckless nuclear war drive – the British government should redirect these funds to kick-start the British economy investing in transport, housing and healthcare, improving living standards and tackling the real threats we face from climate breakdown

The Committee – which scrutinises the financial accounts and holds the government to account for the delivery of public services’ – produced a report into the MoD’s management of its F-35 fighter jet programme, which will see Britain buy a total of 138 jets – likely to be 63 F-35B ‘stealth’ jets and 75 of the nuclear-capable F-35A fighter jets.  

Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement in June at the NATO summit that Britain, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, would be expanding its nuclear capability through the purchase of 12 F-35A jets, the Committee’s report reveals the Ministry of Defence had little understanding of the implications – both technical or financial – of NATO integration of its nuclear-capable fighter jets when this announcement was made.

November 10, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

What will the UK do in a new nuclear arms race?

 Tom Vaughan, a lecturer in international security at the University of
Leeds, notes that the UK is pressing ahead with its procurement of F-35
stealth fighter aircraft. These can carry nuclear bombs but, as Vaughan
notes, would require US authorisation before they could be used. Equally,
Britain’s nominally independent nuclear weapons system, Trident, is
reliant on US support and maintenance.

As Vaughan points out, it makes the
UK into “a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two
unpredictable and violent superpowers”.

 The Conversation 7th Nov 2025, https://theconversation.com/what-will-the-uk-do-in-a-new-nuclear-arms-race-269224

November 9, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

EDF Braces for More Delays at UK Hinkley Point Nuclear Project. 

The Hinkley Point nuclear project in the UK, ridden by repeated delays and cost overruns, is bracing for yet more setbacks. The latest schedule for
completion around the end of the decade is likely to be pushed back by at
least another year as operator Electricite de France SA continues to
grapple with the installation of electrical systems, a person familiar with
the matter said, asking not to be named discussing private information. The
delay may stretch for 12 months or more if corrective action plans continue
to prove challenging, another person said.

 Bloomberg 7th Nov 2025, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-07/edf-braces-for-more-delays-at-uk-hinkley-point-nuclear-project

November 9, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Talk of new atomic tests by Trump and Putin should make UK rethink its role as a nuclear silo for the US.

The Conversation, November 7, 2025, Tom Vaughan. Senior Research Associate, CERI, Sciences Po ; University of Leeds

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has said that Russia may could carry out nuclear weapons tests for the first time since the cold war.

In what appears to be a response to a statement by Donald Trump on October 30, that he had ordered the US to restart nuclear tests “on an equal basis” with Russia and China, Putin said he’d been advised by his defence staff that it was “advisable to prepare for full-scale nuclear tests”.

At present there is no evidence that either Russia or China is conducting nuclear tests, which were discontinued by most nuclear states after the test ban treaties of the early 1990s.

Nonetheless, the two leaders’ nuclear bluster is a sobering reminder of the dangers posed by nuclear brinkmanship between the US and Russia.

It is worth remembering that at the height of the cold war, the superpowers prepared to settle their confrontation in the territories of central Europe with little regard for the millions they would kill. US strategists hoped that a “tactical” nuclear conflict might contain the war to Europe, sparing the continental United States.

Independent deterrent?

This is the context for the UK public accounts committee releasing a report last week which detailed further “delays, cost inflation, and deep-rooted management failures” in the RAF’s procurement of F-35 stealth fighter aircraft.

The F-35 is increasingly coming to be viewed in some US defence circles as an expensive failure. This year, however, the UK’s Labour government committed to buying 15 additional F-35B aircraft (having already ordered 48), but also adding 12 of the F-35A variant………………………………………………………………………………….

Incompatible with democracy

This is a clear demonstration that nuclear weapons and deterrence policies have always been incompatible with democracy. They require huge secrecy, and the speed involved means that launch decisions are out of the public’s hands. Instead, any decisions to use these incredibly destructive weapons – with all that this implies for the planet – are concentrated in the hands of individual leaders.

The logic of nuclear deterrence breaks down, however, once we remember that the UK’s control over its own nuclear weapons – not to mention the US weapons hosted on its soil – is very limited. The US could at any moment withdraw its assistance for the Trident programme, making questions of British willingness to fight a nuclear war irrelevant.

The F-35A purchase redoubles the UK’s commitment to serving as Donald Trump’s nuclear aircraft carrier. It makes the country a target in any nuclear war that might be started by two unpredictable and violent superpowers. Other US allies get the same treatment: Australian analysts lament that the Aukus submarine deal with the UK and US yokes the country’s future “to whoever is in the White House”…………………………………………………………………………… https://theconversation.com/talk-of-new-atomic-tests-by-trump-and-putin-should-make-uk-rethink-its-role-as-a-nuclear-silo-for-the-us-269040

November 9, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The UK’s £1 billion Thank You to Uncle Sam

The UK is set to buy a fleet of US fighter jets that can drop nuclear bombs. The purchase is purely political, say watchdogs

RICHARD NORTON-TAYLOR, 6 November 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-uks-1-billion-thank-you-to-uncle-sam/

Keir Starmer’s plan to buy American fighter jets armed with nuclear bombs whose use will be entirely under the US president’s control makes no military sense, nuclear weapons monitors warn. 

In a report released today, the Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK make clear that the deal, announced by the prime minister on the eve of a Nato summit in June, is a blatant attempt to appease President Trump.

The new fleet of F-35 As is estimated to cost about £1 billion. That does not include the cost of the nuclear bombs which the aircraft would carry. 

But the cost is only one of many uncertainties surrounding the project.

The decision to buy twelve F-35 A aircraft for the Royal Air Force capable of dropping US B61 gravity, “free fall” nuclear bombs – so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons – risks triggering a dangerous nuclear escalation, increasing the threat to British citizens, says the report. 

And because their role would be dependent on the US, it would do nothing to address European concerns about America’s commitment to the Nato alliance, it adds.

The report says the decision “was made for purely political purposes rather than to provide a military capability that will play any meaningful role in defending Nato”. The move also undermines the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT).

UK picks up the tab

The nuclear bombs provided to RAF aircraft would replicate capabilities already provided by other European Nato members, says the report. 

Moreover, the monitors find there is no guarantee that the weapons carried by F-35s with a limited range would succeed in any conflict.

The decision to buy the fleet of nuclear bombers from the US “reflects a long-standing trend by the UK government to prioritise trans-Atlantic politics over genuine military needs”, the report emphasises.

It quotes Bernard Gray, a former top Ministry of Defence official responsible for weapons procurement who said: “If money was no object, we could view the £2 bn price tag for doing this as a Thank You to Uncle Sam.” 

Gray, who was referring to the potential price of both the planes and the bombs, added: “The UK is in effect picking up part of the cost of the mission that would otherwise fall on the US. In a world that wants to please President Trump, it’s easy to see how it plays well to buy aircraft primarily built in Texas.”

The authors of this year’s Strategic Defence Review, led by former Labour defence secretary Lord George Robertson, have downplayed the idea of Britain joining a Nato “tactical nuclear” weapons mission. 

Robertson has suggested that a perceived capability gap between strategic nuclear deterrence and tactical nuclear weapons could be bridged by investing, instead, in heavy long-range conventional weapons.

His caution was echoed by Fiona Hill, British-born former national security adviser to Trump, during a Defence Committee evidence session in June.

Pointing to how Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey host US nuclear weapons, she added: “There are other allies who already have dual capable aircraft as part of their arsenal”. 

In a reference to Britain’s Trident nuclear missile system, she made the point that Britain already played a “unique role” in Nato.

Concerns over Trident reliance

But today’s report also points to potential vulnerability of Trident, Britain’s strategic nuclear weapons system which relies heavily on US support, and serious mechanical problems affecting the new Dreadnought fleet of submarines designed to carry the missiles.

The report points to widespread scepticism about the role of theatre nuclear weapons, and the misleading assumption that using them would not escalate a conflict leading to the use of longer range and larger nuclear weapons systems. 

It quotes Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of Britain’s foremost military strategists, as saying: “There are lots of ways of hurting countries without actually having to use nuclear weapons yourself”.

“The idea that the further proliferation of theatre nuclear weapons is necessary or will make the world safer in any way is clearly absurd,” says the report. 

“When looked at objectively, they are merely a ‘solution’ looking for a problem.”

The report also makes the point that while the theatre nuclear weapons proposed for the RAF would be entirely dependent on the US, Trident is far from being the independent deterrent as successive British governments have persistently claimed.

Britain relies entirely on the US for Trident missiles as well as the design of modern nuclear warheads. 

There are also growing concerns about the reliability of Trident submarines leading with longer and longer patrols at sea, while the timetable for replacing the existing Vanguard class with Dreadnought class is slipping.

Turning back the clock

Okopi Ajonye, research manager at Nuclear Information Service told Declassified: “The UK government went to a lot of trouble to denuclearise the RAF at the end of the Cold War. This move was welcomed by the service, as it allowed the air force to focus on more important and relevant roles. 

“Starmer and Healey now want to turn the clock back and commit the RAF to an entirely unnecessary nuclear mission that will have major implications for the service and considerable hidden costs.”

Ajonye added that the proposal “has all the hallmarks of having been pulled together in a hurry without any thought about its practicalities or consequences” and guided by the politics of the Nato alliance rather than military need.

“The government’s plan is basically just political smoke and mirrors to deceive the public and politicians from other Nato countries into thinking that the UK is taking a significant step to strengthen its nuclear forces when in reality it is doing next to nothing,” he said

“The UK’s entry into Nato’s nuclear mission is driven less by strategic or military necessity and more by a desire to reassure two audiences: domestic political concerns over the crumbling Trident programme, and international concerns about the credibility of US security guarantees to Europe”.

Costs add up 

There are also concerns over the management of the existing F-35 fleet with a recent report by the Commons Public Accounts Committee expressing serious concerns about the MoD’s handling of the warplanes, including what it calls an unacceptable shortage of engineers. 

It added: “There are also questions over the additional costs of operating nuclear-capable F-35As, and how long the necessary arrangements will take to prepare.

“The deal would add new requirements to training, personnel and possibly infrastructure yet discussions in this area are at an early stage, and no indication of forecast costs has been provided by MoD.


Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the committee, commented: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

He added: “There are basic lessons here that MoD has been worryingly slow to learn. Its appraisal of the F-35’s whole-life cost is unrealistic, which it currently gives as at almost £57bn through to 2069.”

The message from MPs is that the total cost to British taxpayers of taxpayers of the nuclear-armed American F-35s will be significantly more than that.

Nuclear Information Service and Nukewatch UK will hold a webinar about the report and F-35 nuclear-armed aircraft on 11 November. 

November 8, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bpifrance helps UK nuclear reactor to financial close.

6 November 2025 By Jacob Atkins

 French export credit agency Bpifrance is covering a £5bn loan from 13
commercial banks to help finance the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear
power station in England. The facility, structured as a green loan, sits
alongside a £36.5bn term loan from the UK’s National Wealth Fund, which
was announced earlier this year, as well as a £500mn working capital
facility. Bpifrance has secured refinancing from French public development
bank Sfil, according to a November 4 statement. BNP Paribas acted as joint
debt advisor to Sizewell C, with HSBC as French authorities and green loan
co-ordinator, and Santander as documentation co-ordinator on the Bpifrance
facility. The other lenders on the Bpifrance loan are ABN Amro, BBVA,
Crédit Agricole, CaixaBank, Citibank, Crédit Industriel et Commercial
(CIC), Lloyds Bank, Natwest, Natixis and Société Générale.

 Global Trade Review 6th Nov 2025, https://www.gtreview.com/news/europe/bpifrance-helps-uk-nuclear-reactor-to-financial-close/

November 8, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Scottish National Party reject UK Government’s ‘nonsense’ national security threat smear

 THE SNP have rejected the UK Government’s “nonsense” accusations
that they are a threat to national security. Three Cabinet ministers have
levelled the accusation against the party three times since the beginning
of the week.

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Defence Secretary John
Healey said: “The continuation of the Scottish nationalist Government in
Scotland is a threat to our security and to future prosperity and jobs in
that country.”

Asked about those claims at a meeting of the Scottish
Affairs Committee on Wednesday, Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander
replied: “I find myself, as usual, in agreement with the Defence
Secretary.” He pointed to the SNP’s opposition to nuclear weapons and
to its historic ban on public money being spent on weapons manufacture.

North East Green MSP Maggie Chapman said: “Trident is a moral abomination that swallows huge sums of money that we could spend instead on improving people’s lives, on tackling poverty, on funding our public services.

The Scottish Government should not be offering even more funding for
multibillion pound weapons giants who have armed and supported Israel’s
genocide against Gaza. These are not extreme statements. They are views
held by large numbers of people, including me. The military industrial
complex does not ensure our security: it lays the foundations for future
conflict and misery.”

 The National 5th Nov 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25599877.snp-reject-uk-governments-nonsense-national-security-threat-smear/

November 8, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point B to begin 95-year decommissioning plan

Clara BullockSomerset, 5 Nov 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c986pvg41y2o

A former nuclear power station will begin its 95-year decommissioning process after regulators granted formal consent.

EDF’s Hinkley Point B, which lies on the Somerset coast near Stogursey, has been given the green light to be demolished by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

In August 2022, Hinkley Point B reached the end of its operating life after nearly 46 years of generating electricity.

Dan Hasted, ONR director of regulation, said: “We will continue to proportionately regulate the Hinkley Point B site throughout the decommissioning phase to safeguard workers and the public.”

The nuclear site will transfer from EDF to the Nuclear Restoration Services next year, which will oversee the site’s dismantling.

Under the proposals, Hinkley Point B, which opened in 1976, could be decommissioned in three phases.

The first phase, which will last until 2038, includes the dismantling of all buildings and plant materials except for the site’s safestore structure. This facility will be used to store and manage the residential nuclear waste from the power station.

The second phase will see “a period of relative inactivity” of up to 70 years from 2039, to allow for the radioactive materials within the safestore to safely decay.

The final phase will see the former reactor and debris vaults being dismantled and removed.

Meanwhile, a new nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C, is being constructed near Hinkley B.

November 8, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government rapped as billions unaccounted for in nuclear spending

THE UK spending watchdog has raised serious concerns about the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) finances after auditors found it was “unable” to
explain billions of pounds of expenditure listed as going towards nuclear
weapons programmes.

As a result, the National Audit Office (NAO) has issued
qualified opinions on the MoD’s 2024–25 financial statements, meaning
the accounts do not meet normal standards of accuracy and transparency.

Crucially, the NAO found that the UK Government has “not provided
accounting records for ongoing capital projects” carried out on its
behalf by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), a non-departmental public body that helps deliver the UK’s nuclear weaponry. Auditors found that AWE projects on behalf of the MoD “constituted £6.13 billion of the
value of the department’s assets under construction”.

Of this total, £1.5bn was said to relate to “legacy projects” – but the MoD was found to be “unable to provide supporting evidence” that this figure
was appropriate. The NAO also said it had found “several other
balances” within the £6.13bn figure that did not meet the standard
required to be signed off by auditors, without going into specifics.

 The National 4th Nov 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25595083.uk-government-rapped-billions-unaccounted-nuclear-spending/

November 7, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

No to Nuclear, Yes to Renewables for Wales

28th October 2025, Nuclear Free Local Authorities

Anti-nuclear campaigners meeting last weekend in Wrexham (25 October) issued a declaration calling on politicians representing Welsh constituencies in parliaments in Cardiff and Westminster to work for a nuclear free, renewables powered Wales.

Attendees at the screening of the award-winning film SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome organised by PAWB (Pobol Atal Wylfa-B, People against Wylfa B) hosted at the Ty Pawb Arts Centre in Wrexham also saw a special video message sent by the Californian filmmakers and heard from Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor in Energy Policy at Greenwich University and Richard Outram, Secretary of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who both joined the meeting online.

Welsh campaigners are working with US, Canadian and other UK activists to establish a Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance to campaign on issues of common concern. The film (https://sanonofresyndrome.com/) highlights the impact of the decommissioning and the legacy of managing deadly radioactive waste faced by the neighbours of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.


The film’s messages resonate with international audiences faced with identical threats and challenges. Commenting Professor Thomas said:

“The nuclear industry tries to assure us the radioactive waste disposal and reactor decommissioning are established processes with easily affordable costs. The truth is that we are three or more decades away from permanent disposal of waste and of carrying out the most challenging stages of decommissioning. The cost will be high, and the failure of previous funding schemes means the burden will fall on future taxpayers, generations ahead”. 

28th October 2025

No to Nuclear, Yes to Renewables for Wales

Joint Media Release

Anti-nuclear campaigners meeting last weekend in Wrexham (25 October) issued a declaration calling on politicians representing Welsh constituencies in parliaments in Cardiff and Westminster to work for a nuclear free, renewables powered Wales.

Attendees at the screening of the award-winning film SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome organised by PAWB (Pobol Atal Wylfa-B, People against Wylfa B) hosted at the Ty Pawb Arts Centre in Wrexham also saw a special video message sent by the Californian filmmakers and heard from Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor in Energy Policy at Greenwich University and Richard Outram, Secretary of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities, who both joined the meeting online.

Welsh campaigners are working with US, Canadian and other UK activists to establish a Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance to campaign on issues of common concern. The film (https://sanonofresyndrome.com/) highlights the impact of the decommissioning and the legacy of managing deadly radioactive waste faced by the neighbours of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.

The film’s messages resonate with international audiences faced with identical threats and challenges. Commenting Professor Thomas said:

“The nuclear industry tries to assure us the radioactive waste disposal and reactor decommissioning are established processes with easily affordable costs. The truth is that we are three or more decades away from permanent disposal of waste and of carrying out the most challenging stages of decommissioning. The cost will be high, and the failure of previous funding schemes means the burden will fall on future taxpayers, generations ahead”. 

Despite this, the UK Government will introduce developer-led siting plans, permitting nuclear operators to apply to locate new plants in sites throughout Wales, and intends to reduce regulation in the nuclear industry. A recent Memorandum of Understanding was also signed with the United States which could lead to British regulators being obliged to accept US reactor designs not currently approved for deployment in the UK. Great British Energy – Nuclear has also acquired land at Wylfa in Anglesey (Ynys Mon) as a potential site for the deployment of one or more so-called Small Modular Reactors being commissioned from Rolls Royce and the US company Westinghouse has also expressed interest in constructing a larger nuclear plant there. The Welsh Government specifically created Cwmni Egino to develop a new nuclear plant on the Trawsfynydd site at the heart of the beautiful Eryri National Park. And in South Wales, US newcomer Last Energy is seeking permission to deploy multiple micro reactors on a former coal power station site at Llynfi outside Bridgend.

Now eight leading campaign groups have backed the Wrexham Declaration which denounces the continued political obsession with the pursuit of nuclear power as a ‘fool’s errand’.

NFLA Secretary Richard Outram explains why: “Nuclear is too slow, too costly, too risky, contaminates the natural environment compromising human health, and leaves a legacy of nuclear plant decontamination and radioactive waste management lasting millenia that is ruinously expensive and uncertain. And nuclear plants represent obvious targets to terrorists and, as we have seen in Ukraine, to hostile powers in times of war”.

Campaigners are also convinced that nuclear will worsen fuel poverty or climate change……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/no-to-nuclear-yes-to-renewables-for-wales/

November 7, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

UK’s nuclear waste problem lacks a coherent plan.


The [GDF] will comprise vaults and tunnels of a size that may be
approximate to Bermuda, but without the devilish tax evaders, coupled with
a 1 km square surface site that will periodically swallow up trainloads of
toxic radioactive waste. It would be unsurprising if Nuclear Waste
Services, the agency charged with finding and building the site, placed a
job advert for its own Hades to manage this dystopic underworld and if the
postholder engaged Cerberus to guard the entrance.

The plan comes with an enormous bill for taxpayers which will scare the ‘bejeebers’ out of taxpayers. Previously the Government’s new National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) had identified in its August 2025 report that the GDF facility may have a whole life cost estimated to range from £20 billion to £53 billion.

Now PAC members have had a further frightener placed on them because these headline figures were based on 2017/18 prices and they have found that, when adjusting to the present, the undersea radioactive monster might cost over £15 billion more. It would be far cheaper to hire Godzilla.

The Public Accounts Committee Chair Geoffrey Clifton-Brown has called on the Government to produce a ‘coherent plan’ to manage the UK’s stockpile of radioactive waste

NFLA 31st Oct 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/trick-not-treat-nuclear-dump-is-full-of-nasty-surprises-not-sweet-treats/

November 6, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Ministry of Defence still unclear on cost of RAF nuclear jet plan, MPs say

“Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 F-35A jets

Christopher McKeon, Friday 31 October 2025

Ministers still do not know when RAF jets will be able to carry nuclear weapons or how much the project will cost, the Commons spending watchdog has found.

In a report published on Friday, the influential Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) had still not set out how much it would cost to operate new F-35A jets.

Sir Keir Starmer announced at the Nato summit in June that the UK would purchase 12 of the jets, which could join the alliance’s airborne nuclear mission.

The committee said the project was still “at an early stage”, with the MoD “starting to understand” the requirements of being certified for the Nato nuclear mission.

The MoD told the committee that the F-35As were “20 per cent to 25 per cent cheaper” than the F-35Bs currently operated by the RAF and Royal Navy “and slightly cheaper to support”.

But with the additional training and personnel required to join the nuclear mission, the committee said it was a “reasonable assumption that this may end up proving more expensive”.

The MPs added that the MoD had yet to set out how long it would take to make the necessary arrangements for equipping the jets with nuclear weapons.

The F-35 is the most advanced fighter jet the UK has ever possessed, and the MoD expects the overall programme to cost £57 billion over its 56-year lifespan.

That figure is already triple the original estimate, but the committee said it did not include the costs of personnel, infrastructure and fuel, with the National Audit Office (NAO) suggesting an overall cost of £71 billion.

In July, the NAO issued a wide-ranging criticism of the F-35 programme, saying its return on investment had been “disappointing” and its capability remained below the MoD’s expectations.

The watchdog also criticised severe personnel shortages and “short-term affordability decisions” that hindered the delivery of the aircraft and its full capabilities.

On Friday, the PAC reiterated many of these findings, accusing the MoD of “a pattern of short-term decision-making” that had led to increased costs.

The committee cited delays to investment in a facility to test the jet’s stealth capability, which saved £82 million in 2024-25 but added an extra £16 million to the overall cost; and delayed investment in infrastructure at 809 Naval Air Squadron until 2029, which both reduced capability and added almost £100 million in extra costs.

MPs also found the MoD had miscalculated the number of engineers needed per plane, as it had failed to take into account staff taking leave or performing other tasks.

And they questioned the department’s intention to declare the F-35 to be at full operating capability by the end of the year, despite still not having a missile to attack ground targets from a safe distance.

Committee chairman Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said: “Making short-term cost decisions is famously inadvisable if you’re a homeowner with a leaky roof, let alone if one is running a complex fighter jet programme – and yet such decisions have been rife in the management of the F-35.”

He added that the MoD had been “worryingly slow” to learn “basic lessons” from the project, and described its appraisal of the F-35’s overall cost as “unrealistic”.

Sir Geoffrey said: “The F-35 is the best fighter jet this nation has ever possessed. If it is to be wielded in the manner in which it deserves, the MoD must root out the short-termism, complacency and miscalculation in the programme identified in our report………………………….https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/raf-fighter-jets-f35a-nato-b2855616.html

November 5, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Officials launch investigation after hazardous incident at shut-down nuclear plant: ‘Deeply concerning’

A government investigation got underway after radioactive water leaked from Scotland’s Dounreay nuclear site. In June 2024, NRS alerted the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to “a potential leak of radioactively contaminated water from a carbon bed filter on the Dounreay site,” an agency spokesperson described, according to The National, a Scottish paper.
SEPA later confirmed a “small leak” that released different radioactive
substances, including Caesium-137 and alpha-emitting radionuclides. While NRS reported no increase in groundwater radioactivity downstream of the event, SEPA found the company had breached regulations and ordered a full review of its monitoring systems.

The Cool Down 29th Oct 2025, https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/dounreay-nuclear-site-radioactive-water-leak/

November 5, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

EDF’s plan to decommission Hinkley Point B approved despite regulator’s concerns

31 Oct, 2025 By Tom Pashby

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has approved EDF’s plans for the
decommissioning of its Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, despite
wide-ranging concerns raised by organisations, including the Environment
Agency, which regulates the nuclear sector.

 New Civil Engineer 31st Oct 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edfs-plan-to-decommission-hinkley-point-b-approved-despite-regulators-concerns-31-10-2025/

November 4, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste removal under way at silo.

“Because the removal of the waste had not been planned when the building was opened, engineers had to retrofit an exit route for it.“

COMMENT. Doesn’t that tell you everything about the stupidity of the men who design the nuclear industry?

Jonny Manning, Local Democracy Reporting Service, 1 Nov 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgvq930vwpo

Seventy tonnes of radioactive waste have been removed from a nuclear site’s most hazardous building.

Teams at Sellafield in Cumbria have removed the waste from the Magnox Swarf Storage Silos with the company saying it has placed it into safe storage.

The work began in 2022 after two decades of preparation, because when the building was constructed in the 1960s no-one had considered how the waste would be removed.

Sellafield’s head of legacy silos Phil Reeve said so much waste had been removed that a 7m (23ft) crater had been dug in the middle of the pile.

However, the crater presents a risk of the waste around the edges collapsing inwards.

To fix the issue, Sellafield has created its own version of a garden rake – a 1.4 tonne machine which uses its stainless steel arms to pull the nuclear waste into the centre.

“It’s a big moment to see it successfully deployed in an active environment for the first time,” said Mr Reeve.

“It allows us to crack on with confidence.”

Because the removal of the waste had not been planned when the building was opened, engineers had to retrofit an exit route for it.

This involved assembling huge retrieval machines on top of the building’s 22 waste compartments.

One machine is currently up and running with another two set to start soon.

But while work is well under way, the Sellafield team still has about 10,000 tonnes of waste to remove.

November 3, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »