nuclear-news

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

The Next Nuclear Renaissance?

Will a new wave of nuclear power projects deliver the safe and economical electricity that proponents have long predicted?

CATO Institute, Fall 2025, By Steve Thomas 

Over the past decade, there has been a growing interest in building new nuclear power stations, particularly among policymakers. This comes some two decades after a previously forecast “nuclear renaissance” petered out, having produced few orders, all of which went badly wrong.

This article reviews the previous renaissance: What was promised, what was delivered, and why it failed. It then considers the current claims of a new renaissance led by Small Modular Reactors, forthcoming “Generation IV” designs, new large reactors, and extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants. Despite the need for clean generation, the growing demand for electricity to power new technologies and global development, and claims of nuclear generation breakthroughs that are either here or soon will be, this new renaissance appears destined for the same failure as the previous ones.

The Last Renaissance

Around the start of this century, there was a great deal of publicity about a new generation of reactors: so-called Generation III+ designs. These would evolve from the existing dominant “Gen III” designs—Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) and Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), collectively known as Light Water Reactors (LWRs)—rather than be radical new designs. There was no clear definition of the characteristics that would qualify a design as Gen III+ rather than just Gen III LWRs. However, Gen III+ was said to incorporate safety advances that would mitigate the risks of incidents like the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island (a Gen II design) and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown (a Soviet design that used Gen I/II technology). Three Gen III+ designs received the most publicity: the Westinghouse AP1000 (Advanced Passive), the Areva EPR (European Pressurized Water Reactor), and the General Electric ESBWR (Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor).

The narrative was that Gen III designs had become too complex and difficult to build because designers were retrofitting safety features to avoid another Three Mile Island. Gen III+ supposedly went back to the drawing board, rationalizing existing systems and incorporating new safety features, thereby supposedly yielding a cheaper and easier-to-build design. A particular feature of these designs was the use of “passive safety” systems. In an accident situation, these did not require an engineered safety system to be activated by human operators and were not dependent on external sources of power; instead, the reactor would avoid a serious accident by employing natural processes such as convection cooling. These had an intuitive appeal, and a common assumption was that because they were not mechanical systems, they would be cheaper, and because they involved natural processes, they would never fail. Neither assumption is correct.

Another major safety feature resulting from the Chernobyl disaster was a system that, if the core was melting down, prevented the molten core from burning into the surrounding ground and contaminating it. A common approach was a “core-catcher” (already used in a few early reactors) that would be placed underneath the reactor. An alternative, often used for smaller reactors, was a system to flood the core with so much water that it would halt the meltdown.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, designers attempted to further increase safety by strengthening the reactor shell so it could withstand an aircraft or missile impact. The core-melt and aircraft protection features inevitably tended to increase the size and complexity of the Gen III+ designs.

Nuclear advocates also claimed that the large cost and time overruns of previous plants were caused in part by the high proportion of work carried out on site. To combat this and the additional complexity noted above, designers vowed to rely more on factory-made modules that could be delivered by truck, reducing sitework mostly to “bolting together” the pieces. In practice, there was significant variability between the Gen III+ designs, with the AP1000 and ESBWR relying much more on passive safety and modular construction than the EPR.

What sold these designs to policymakers were some extraordinary claims about construction costs and times. It was claimed that their cost (excluding finance charges; so-called “overnight cost”) would be around $1,500–$2,000 per kilowatt (kW), meaning a large, 1,000-megawatt (MW) reactor would cost $1.5–$2 billion. Construction time would be no more than 48 months. While there were few existing nuclear projects then to compare the new designs with, these projected costs and times were far below the levels then being achieved with existing designs.

These claims convinced the US government, under President George W. Bush, and the UK government, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, to launch large reactor construction programs. As those countries were two of the pioneering users of nuclear power, this appeared to be a strategically important victory for the nuclear industry.

US / In 2002, President Bush announced his Nuclear 2010 program, so-called because it was expected the first reactor under the program would come online in 2010. It was assumed the new nuclear designs would be competitive with other forms of generation,………………………………………..

In states with regulated electricity markets, utilities were concerned that regulators might not allow them to recover their costs from consumers if there were time and cost overruns. Most of the other projects were abandoned on these grounds, leaving only two to enter the construction stage: a two-reactor project to join an existing reactor at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina, and a two-reactor project to join two existing reactors at the A.W. Vogtle project in Georgia. All four new reactors would be Westinghouse AP1000s.

In those two states, regulators gave clear signals that the utilities would be allowed to recover all their costs. The state governments broke with regulatory practice by passing legislation allowing the utilities to raise rates and start recovering their costs from the date of the investment decision, not the date when the reactors entered service…………………………………………….

Consumers started paying for the reactors in 2009–2010, even though construction didn’t start until 2013. By 2015, both projects were in bad shape, way over time and budget. Westinghouse, then owned by Toshiba of Japan, was required to offer fixed-price terms to complete the projects. Those prices soon proved far too low, and in March 2017 Westinghouse filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The whole of Toshiba was reportedly at risk as a result. In August 2017, the V.C. Summer project was abandoned. The A.W. Vogtle project continued, and the first reactor was completed in July 2023 with the second unit following in April 2024, six or seven years behind schedule and at more than double the forecasted cost. There are now no proposals for additional large reactor projects in the United States.

UK / In 2003, a UK Energy White Paper (DTI 2003) concluded there was no case for nuclear power because renewables and energy efficiency measures were cheaper. According to the report, “the current economics of nuclear power make it an unattractive option for new generating capacity and there are also important issues for nuclear waste to be resolved.” Only three years later and despite the lack of evidence that nuclear had become cheaper or that renewables and energy efficiency had become more expensive, Blair reversed the government’s position, claiming nuclear power was “back on the agenda with a vengeance.”

As with the US program, the assumption was that the new designs would be competitive. A key promise that made the program politically acceptable was there would be no public subsidies.  Politicians—even those who were favorable to nuclear—were aware that previous UK nuclear projects had gone badly and the costs of this had fallen on taxpayers and electricity consumers. The energy minister told a Parliamentary Select Committee:

There will be no subsidies, direct or indirect. We are not in the business of subsidizing nuclear energy. No cheques will be written; there will be no sweetheart deals.

This promise of no subsidies remained government policy until 2015, despite it being clear long before then that new nuclear projects were only going forward in anticipation of large public subsidies……………………………………………………………

Three consortia were created, each led by some of the largest European utilities………………………………………………….. As early as 2007, the consortium led by EDF established a leading presence, with the CEO of EDF Energy, Vincent de Rivaz, notoriously claiming that Christmas turkeys in the UK would be cooked using power from the Hinkley Point C EPR in 2017. In 2010, the UK energy secretary still claimed Hinkley would begin generating no later than 2018.

The Final Investment Decision (FID) for Hinkley was not taken until October 2016, when it was expected the two reactors would be completed by October 2025 at an overnight cost of £18 billion (in 2015 pounds sterling, equivalent to $35 billion in today’s dollars). ……………………………………………..In January 2024, EDF issued a new cost and time update—its fifth—with completion now expected to be as late as 2032 at a cost of £35 billion (in 2015 pounds sterling, equivalent to $68.7 billion in today’s dollars). As a result, EDF wrote off €12.9 billion ($14 billion) of its investment in Hinkley Point C in 2023. By 2018, EDF recognized the error it made in accepting the risk of fixing the power price, and it abandoned plans for an EPR station at Sizewell using the Hinkley C financial model. In July 2025, an FID was taken on the Sizewell C project using a different financial model and completion is not expected before 2040.

The effect of the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear plant disaster, where a tsunami resulted in meltdowns in three reactors, combined with the effect of competition in wholesale and retail markets in electricity meant that European utilities could not justify to their shareholders the building of new reactors. The Horizon and Nugen consortia were sold to reactor vendors Westinghouse and Hitachi–GE, respectively. Those firms did not have the financial strength to take significant ownership stakes in the reactors, but they saw this as an opportunity to sell their reactors on the assumption that investors could later be found. Westinghouse (then planning three AP1000s for the Moorside site) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2017. Hitachi–GE abandoned its two projects (four ABWRs, two each at Wylfa and Oldbury) in 2019 when it became clear that, despite the UK government offering to take a 30 percent stake in the reactors and to provide all the finance, other investors were not forthcoming.

Lessons learned / Thus ended the last nuclear renaissance. Its failure does not determine the outcome of the present attempt, but there are some important lessons that will shape the outcome this time:

  • While governments have always had to play a facilitating role in nuclear power projects, such as providing facilities to deal with the radioactive waste, they were centrally involved in the 2000 renaissance. This trend has continued, and governments are now offering to provide finance, take ownership stakes, offer publicly funded subsidies, and impose power purchase agreements that will insulate the reactors from competitive wholesale electricity markets.
  • Forecasts of construction costs and times made by the nuclear industry must be treated with extreme skepticism. The claim that the new designs would be so cheap they would be able to compete with the cheapest generation option then available—natural gas generation—proved so wide of the mark that other claimed characteristics, such as supplying base-load power and offering low-carbon generation, are now given as the prime justifications for the substantial extra cost of nuclear power over its alternatives.
  • The technical characteristics claimed to give advantages to the Gen III+ designs (such as factory-manufactured modules and passive safety) have not been effective in controlling construction times and costs.
  • The large reactor designs now on offer are the same ones that were offered previously. No fundamentally new designs have started development this century. It is hard to see why these designs that have failed by large margins to meet expectations will now be so much less problematic……………………………………………… https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2025/next-nuclear-renaissance#small-modular-reactors

October 30, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK, USA | Leave a comment

America’s $80bn nuclear reactor fleet exposes Sizewell C costs.

 The plants are expected to be bankrolled by Japanese investors as part of the $550bn investment pledged by Tokyo under the new US-Japan trade deal.

The United States has announced an $80 billion plan to build a fleet of nuclear power plants for less than two thirds of the cost per gigawatt of
Britain’s Sizewell C project. About eight of Westinghouse’s one
gigawatt AP1000 reactors are to be built across America, under a
partnership between the US government and the reactor-maker’s owners,
Brookfield and Cameco, to accelerate nuclear power deployment. The plants are expected to be bankrolled by Japanese investors as part of the $550 billion investment pledged by Tokyo under the new US-Japan trade deal.

The cost of about $10 billion (£7.5 billion) per gigawatt of new capacity is
significantly cheaper than the UK government’s recently approved plans
for the Sizewell C plant in Suffolk. Sizewell is due to generate 3.2
gigawatts of electricity — enough to power six million homes — at a
cost of £38 billion, or £11.9 billion per gigawatt. The contrast will do
nothing to alleviate concerns about the high costs of Britain’s nuclear
programme, although the US plans are still at a much earlier stage.

Critics have blamed factors including the UK’s choice of EDF’s “EPR”
reactor and safety red tape for inflating nuclear construction costs in
Britain. The costs of the 3.2GW Hinkley Point plant in Somerset, already
under construction, are estimated to have risen to as much as £48 billion.

 Times 28th Oct 2025,
https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/americas-80bn-nuclear-reactor-fleet-exposes-sizewell-c-costs-qxcqfdv5z

October 30, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Dounreay waste particle ‘most radioactive’ find for three years

Steven McKenzie, Highlands and Islands reporter and Rachel Grant, BBC Scotland. 23 Oct 25

A fragment of waste found near the decommissioned experimental nuclear power facility in Dounreay in April was the most radioactive to be detected in the past three years, the Highland site’s operator has said.

The fragment, categorised as “significant”, was discovered during monitoring work around the nuclear power plant near Thurso. It is the latest in a long line of particle discoveries in the area.

Dounreay was built in the 1950s as the UK’s centre of fast reactor research, but during the 1960s and 1970s sand-sized particles of irradiated nuclear fuel got into the drainage system.

Work to clear the pollution began in the 1980s, after particles were found washed up on the nearby foreshore.

The facility closed in 1994. The multi-billion pound decommissioning process involves hundreds of workers and is expected to last into the 2070s.

The full decontamination of the site is expected to take more than 300 years.

A Dounreay spokesperson said: “Particles are a legacy of industrial practices dating back to the early 1960s and our commitment today to environmental protection includes their monitoring and removal from the marine environment and transparent reporting of our activities.”

A group of independent experts, who advise the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) and Dounreay, classify particles by the radioactivity of their caesium-137 content.

The categories are minor, relevant and significant.

Significant means a reading greater than one million becquerels of CS-137.

A becquerel is the standard unit of radioactivity.

The particle was found on the western part of Dounreay’s foreshore on 7 April. Eight other finds reported since then have been categorised as “minor” or “relevant”.

A significant-category particle was last discovered in March 2022.

Thousands of particles of different categories have been removed from beaches, foreshore and seabed at Dounreay.

The site’s operator said monitoring on the site on the north Caithness coast continued to be done on a fortnightly basis.

On occasions it said the scheduled work could be interrupted by bad weather or the presence of protected species of ground-nesting birds……………………………………………………..

What risk is there to the public?

According to official reports, risk to people on local beaches is very low.

Guidance issued by the UK government’s Nuclear Restoration Services says the most at-risk area is not accessible to the public.

The particles found along the coast vary in size and radioactivity with smaller and less active particles generally found on beaches used by the public.

Larger particles have only been found only on the foreshore at Dounreay, which is not used by the public.

The particles found on beaches are believed to come from the disintegration of larger fragments in the seabed near Dounreay. The area is continuously monitored for traces of radioactive materials.

Harvesting of seafood is prohibited within a 2km (1.2 mile) radius of a point near Dounreay. This is where the largest and most hazardous fragments have been detected.

Dounreay’s radioactive history

  • 1954 – A remote site on the north coast of Scotland is chosen as the site of a new type of nuclear reactor. Modern homes were built in Caithness to attract workers to the sparsely populated area.
  • 1957 – A chain reaction which provided sustained and controlled nuclear energy is achieved for the first time.
  • 1959 – A new disposal site for radioactive waste called the Shaft opens. It drops 65.4m (214.5ft) below ground.
  • 1962 – The fast reactor inside the dome is the first in the world to provide electricity to a national grid.
  • 1977 – The original “golf ball” reactor is shut down and waste disposal in the Shaft ends after an explosion.
  • 1994 – Dounreay nuclear power generating facility closes.
  • 1998 – Decommissioning programme is announced.
  • 2008 – Operation to scour the seabed for hazardous material begins and the Shaft shaft is encircled in a boot-shaped ring of grout to prevent contamination.
  • 2020 – Clean-up begins of the highly contaminated Shaft – a three decades-long project.
  • 2333 – Decontamination expected to be complete, making the 148-acre site available for other uses. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz91nx0lv59o

October 27, 2025 Posted by | radiation, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

ED MILIBAND’S NUCLEAR NIGHTMARES

Jonathon Porritt, 22 Oct 25, https://jonathonporritt.com/uk-nuclear-subsidies-desnz-spending/

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, the legions of nuclear fat cats residing here in the UK are smiling very broadly indeed. It would appear that both Rachel Reeves and Ed Miliband have nothing better to do with our money, as taxpayers, than to go on filling up their subsidy saucers more or less on demand.

Taxpayers really don’t know very much about how DESNZ spends our money. More problematically, not a lot of the UK’s more or less mis-informed energy correspondents are particularly interested in helping taxpayers to understand what’s really going on – for the most part because they’re ‘ideologically captured’, with very little interest in the truth.

A bit harsh? Well, why is it, for instance, that not one of them provides any serious analysis of DESNZ’s annual expenditure? Not least as the details of this (on p.18 of its 2024-2025 Annual Report & Accounts) are completely mind-blowing. To summarise:

DESNZ TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL SPEND

Total departmental spend:     £8.6 billion

Total spend on nuclear power:   £5.1 billion (60%)

Total spend on everything else:  £3.5 billion (40%)

See what I mean? Literally mind-blowing! A few more details on the nuclear side of things:

*Great British Nuclear: £26 million (the more or less useless quango overseeing this fiasco).

*Nuclear Decommissioning Agency : £3 billion (dealing with the legacy of past nuclear programmes).

*Support for Sizewell C power station: £1.67 billion.

*UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA): £400 million (doing bonkers stuff like nuclear fusion).

That’s the size of the nuclear sink hole: roughly £5.1 billion! Leaving roughly £3.5 billion for everything else, including all direct support for renewables, ‘delivering affordable energy’, science, research and ‘capability’, as well as other arm’s length bodies. Moreover, even that low figure is not quite what it seems: roughly £450 million is set aside for another of Ed Miliband’s sink holes, namely Carbon Capture and Storage.

Do you need any more persuading that this is obviously a completely mis-titled Department: instead of DESNZ, it really should be called DNPB&B – the Department of Nuclear Power and Bits & Bobs.

Where the hell are you, Rachel Reeves? For those sick of your hangdog ‘black hole blathering‘, it would be wonderful to think you might instruct just a few of your civil servants to instruct the ever-well-meaning Ed Miliband to undertake an exercise in zero budgeting for FY 25/26. Great British Nuclear could go at a stroke of a pen – no one would notice. The UKAEA’s budget could be halved, leaving it to focus on decommissioning redundant reactors and dealing with nuclear waste. Subsidies for Sizewell C could be massively reduced – although the Department did such a poor deal with various private sector investors that there will be significant compensation to be paid.

Sadly, of course, there is nothing that can be done about the £3 billion set aside, EVERY YEAR, for dealing with the legacy of earlier nuclear programmes – decommissioning, site security, managing nuclear waste and so on. Nuclear campaigners have struggled for years to explain that our ‘nuclear legacy’ is in fact our ‘current nuclear reality’, and that this is a figure which can only grow and grow over the years. The Public Accounts Committee looked recently at the cost of decommissioning many of the facilities at Sellafield, currently assessed at £396 million through to 2070, and couldn’t have made their incredulity any clearer. On top of that, we have the looming additional cost of building a long-term Geological Disposal Facility, for which taxpayers will be paying hundreds of billions of pounds through to the end of this century.

Ask the Treasury or officials at DNPN&B what they believe that total legacy figure will be in FY2030/2031,or FY2040/2041, and you can be absolutely guaranteed to get literally no answer at all.

And yet – AND YET – we go on pouring yet more billions into NEW waste-generating nuclear monstrosities like Hinkley C and now Sizewell C.

It’s nearly 50 years since the highly influential Flowers Report was published in 1976. Its single most important recommendation was as follows:


“There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of long-lived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future.”    

We are, truly, led by nuclear donkeys.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, all this never-ending filling-up of the industry’s subsidy saucers has massive opportunity costs for what we should really be doing with precious taxpayers’ money.

As in:

  • getting as enthusiastically as possible behind the potential for tidal power (see yesterday’s blog).
  • getting as enthusiastically as possible behind retrofitting and the green economy (see tomorrow’s blog).

I’ll return to the whole question of just how many billions Rachel Reeves could divert from these nuclear sink holes as we get a little closer to the budget in November.

Managing our ‘Energy Legacy’: £85 million (roughly half the total figure).

October 26, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Miliband starts fight with SNP over deploying new nuclear in Scotland

 By Tom Pashby

 Miliband starts fight with SNP over deploying new nuclear in Scotland.
Energy secretary Ed Miliband has asked Great British Energy – Nuclear to
explore deploying new nuclear at Torness, Hunterston and potentially other
parts of Scotland, despite the fact that the SNP-run Scottish Government
does not allow new nuclear developments in Scotland.

 New Civil Engineer 24th Oct 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/miliband-starts-fight-with-snp-over-deploying-new-nuclear-in-scotland-24-10-2025/

October 26, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

MPs ‘deeply concerned’ about government’s proposed new nuclear siting policy

 By Tom Pashby

 MPs ‘deeply concerned’ about government’s proposed new nuclear
siting policy. MPs have said they are “deeply concerned” that the
government’s proposed new siting policy for new nuclear reactors “fails
to present a truly joined-up approach across planning, safety and
environmental regulation”.

 New Civil Engineer 24th Oct 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/mps-deeply-concerned-about-governments-proposed-new-nuclear-siting-policy-24-10-2025/

October 26, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Early engagement launched on £360m nuclear waste capping scheme

 By Harmsworth

 Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), the state-owned body responsible for
managing the UK’s radioactive waste, has launched early market engagement on a £360m programme to cap and extend the Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) in Cumbria.

NWS operates the repository on behalf of the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA), a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

The scheme will involve installing a permanent engineered cap over disused trenches and Vault 8 at the LLWR site near Drigg. Capping is a method used to isolate radioactive waste from the environment. It involves layering materials such as clay, concrete and geomembranes to prevent water from reaching the waste and to contain any gas emissions.

 Construction News 24th Oct 2025,
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/early-engagement-launched-on-360m-nuclear-waste-capping-scheme-24-10-2025/

October 26, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear construction workers plan third strike.

 Construction workers employed by contractors at a nuclear site are to go
on strike for a third time in two months in a dispute over pay. Unite
members at Sellafield in Cumbria will take action from Monday until 2
November after previously striking earlier in October and for four days in
September.

The union said it was because construction workers at other
nuclear projects received pay premiums that contractors at Sellafield did
not match. Sellafield Ltd said it did not directly employ those taking part
in the action but “safety and security” would continue to be its priority
throughout the strike.

 BBC 24th Oct 2025,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy16l08eldo

October 26, 2025 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government look at bypassing SNP amid block on ‘billion pound’ nuclear investment.

The Scottish Government is refusing to give planning permission for any new nuclear reactors to be built in Scotland – despite the possibility of billions of pounds of investment.

UK Government look at bypassing SNP amid block on ‘billion pound’ nuclear
investment. The Scottish Government is refusing to give planning permission for any new nuclear reactors to be built in Scotland – despite the possibility of billions of pounds of investment. There has been interest
from the likes of Rolls Royce in building nuclear reactors north of the
border, but any planning applications would be rejected by the SNP
Government.

However, a source close to the UK Government suggested that it was pushing for reactors to be built in Scotland. It would put it on a
collision course with the SNP who are anti-nuclear. Former Scottish
Secretary Alister Jack suggested a few years ago that his office were
already plotting a similar move, if the SNP are kicked out of office in
2026. Now, this idea has been revived, it is understood, with Scotland set
to miss out on billions of pounds of investment if John Swinney clings on
to power in May next year. The UK and USA signed a lucrative deal last
month which will fast track the creation of small nuclear power stations,
halving the time it takes to gain regulatory approval for nuclear projects
from up to four years to two.

Express 22nd Oct 2025, https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/uk-government-look-bypassing-snp-36109802

October 25, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

True cost of nuclear waste disposal facility £15bn higher than recent Treasury figures

MP says ministers ignore long-term waste costs of nuclear power

“Government ministers are very happy to talk about the so-called benefits of nuclear power without reference to its long-term impacts and the eye-wateringly large amounts of money associated with storage and security of nuclear waste, which is in the tens of billions of pounds just to create the GDF,” he said.

23 Oct, 2025 New Civil Engineer, By Tom Pashby

The true cost of an underground facility for long-term storage of nuclear waste has been revealed to be up to £68.7bn – £15bn more than the sum listed in the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s (Nista’s) recent annual report.

A Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) represents a monumental undertaking, consisting of an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of approximately 1km2 on the surface. This facility is designed to safely contain nuclear waste while allowing it to decay over thousands of years, thereby reducing its radioactivity and associated hazards.

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) is responsible for the GDF project and declares that this method offers the most secure solution for managing the UK’s nuclear waste, aimed at relieving future generations of the burden of storage. NWS is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is itself an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ).

Nista is a unit of HM Treasury and published its NISTA Annual Report 2024 to 2025 in August 2025, where it described the GDF project as ‘Red’, meaning the projects appears to be “unachievable”, and as having a whole life cost of from £20bn to £53.3bn.

However, Nista’s Infrastructure Pipeline lists the GDF’s CapEx (capital expenditure) range for new infrastructure in 2024/2025 prices as being from £26.2bn to £68.7bn, with the top end being slightly over £15bn higher than the figure published in the annual report.

A government source explained to NCE that the discrepancy is because the figures published in Nista’s annual report are based on 2017/2018 prices, meaning the effects of long-term inflation were not accounted for.

Criticism was previously levied at High Speed 2 (HS2) because of its use of historic pricing figures to reduce the impact of inflation on budget projects and make the total cost of the project appear to be lower than it would end up being.

Parliamentarians told NCE that ministers should face up to the long-term legacy costs associated with the nuclear industry.

Current GDF pricing only provided by Nista to ensure consistency with pipeline

A government source told NCE that the difference in the two ranges for whole-life costs for the GDF  is a factor of the price basis for each quoted figure.

They said that the NDA provided Nista with data in 2017/18 prices with the total range of £20bn-53.3bn, which was reflected in the Nista annual report.

The same data for this project was converted to 2024/25 prices for the Nista Infrastructure Pipeline, to ensure consistency with the rest of the data in the set, the source said. This is reflected in the higher figure of £26.1bn-£68.7bn.

NWS did not provide any comment.

MP says ministers ignore long-term waste costs of nuclear power

SNP spokesperson for energy security and net zero, transport, and science, innovation and technology, Graham Leadbitter MP, told NCE that ministers ignore the long term legacy of nuclear power when promoting projects.

“Government ministers are very happy to talk about the so-called benefits of nuclear power without reference to its long-term impacts and the eye-wateringly large amounts of money associated with storage and security of nuclear waste, which is in the tens of billions of pounds just to create the GDF,” he said.

He added that the waste would have to be managed for 1,000’s of years, and the money budgeted for nuclear waste management would be better spent on “more valuable infrastructure projects … that would support high-quality employment, investment in skills and vastly improved public services.”

Government must ‘face up to the legacy’ of nuclear – peer

Liberal Democrat Lords spokesperson for energy and climate change Earl Russell told NCE: “If this Government truly want to see a renaissance in nuclear power, it must finally face up to the legacy it leaves behind.”

Russell reiterated the fact that Nista described the GDF as “unachievable” and added: “The government must have a credible, long-term strategy for managing the waste new nuclear projects will produce.”……………………………………………………………………… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/true-cost-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-facility-15bn-higher-than-recent-treasury-figures-23-10-2025/

October 25, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Parliamentary Committee calls for clear direction on Oldbury and Wylfa, and a “one-stop shop” to finally overcome excessive cost and delays in deployment of nuclear energy

  House of Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, 24 October 2025

In a report today the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee says new planning guidance for building Britain’s future nuclear energy generation brings a welcome ‘presumption of consent’ for low-carbon generation across a range of nuclear technologies.

But the UK’s move into unprecedented territory of private development of new nuclear sites creates new challenges. The Committee is concerned that the “exhaustive” drafting of the criteria in EN‑7, intended to introduce the flexibility to consider a wide range of factors towards approval, may in fact just duplicate issues also addressed by specialist regulators and create more uncertainty, delay and cost.   

It concludes that new policy statement EN-7 “fails to present a truly joined-up approach across planning, safety, and environmental regulation” and so risks undermining its own purpose: to provide a definitive and coherent framework for decision-making.  Commercial developers, facing a front-loaded application system and potential review both by multiple regulators and in Court, may be driven to “gold plate” applications with excessive detail.  ……………………………………………………………………………… https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/664/energy-security-and-net-zero-committee/news/209808/committee-calls-for-clear-direction-on-oldbury-and-wylfa-and-a-onestop-shop-to-finally-overcome-excessive-cost-and-delays-in-deployment-of-nuclear-energy/

October 25, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

UK Government planning for nuclear power in Scotland in anticipation of a Labour 2026 victory

A senior UK Government minister also says Scottish
independence would be a win for Vladimir Putin. The UK government could
soon start submitting planning applications for new nuclear power stations
in Scotland in anticipation of a Labour administration at Holyrood. A
senior government source said ministers do not want Scotland “to be left
behind” and suggested potential sites including Torness in East Lothian
were being actively considered.

A senior government source said that civil
nuclear companies see Scotland as “off limits” because of the SNP’s
stance on nuclear energy. However, they said: “The reality is planning
law is devolved and so that requires a change of government in Holyrood
next May to translate these possibilities but we are planning practical
changes on the ground because we don’t want Scotland to be left behind.”


Scottish Labour has high hopes of winning the 2026 Scottish Parliament
election and its leader Anas Sarwar has repeatedly lauded the benefits of
nuclear power. However the party has slipped back in the polls and is now
several percentage points behind the SNP, who are the current favourites to
win on polling day.

Scotsman 22nd Oct 2025, https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/uk-government-planning-for-nuclear-power-in-scotland-in-anticipation-of-a-labour-2026-victory-5369530

October 24, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

A Genuinely Just Transition: Kill Off Sizewell C – Shaft Reform UK

the insanity of Labour’s nuclear obsession

Jonathon Porritt. 23 Oct 25,
https://jonathonporritt.com/just-transition-uk-sizewell-c-reform/

I’ve been more than a little mean about Ed Miliband in my last two blogs – which is somewhat ungenerous given that he would appear to be the last sensible, caring person standing in this misbegotten Labour Government.

So, let me big him up for a bit!

Last Saturday, he gave what is probably his most important speech since becoming Secretary of State at DESNZ – on what (in my opinion) is probably the single most important policy area within the sprawling DESNZ portfolio: the green economy, skills, energy efficiency, retrofit etc.

He was unveiling details of the Government’s latest scheme to create an extra 400,000 ‘green jobs’ over the course of the next few years. Thirty one skilled trades have been identified as priority areas, with HVAC (heating and ventilation engineers) and plumbing at the top of the list, with carpenters, electricians and welders next in line.

The Government won’t just be targeting those particular skills, but those who they hope will end up in the new jobs: school leavers, NEETS, veterans, ex-offenders – and those exiting the once safe embrace of fossil fuel jobs (the package includes a designated fund of £20 million to upskill workers from the oil and gas industries). Miliband indicated that any companies benefiting from Government money will have to demonstrate the contribution they can make to those goals.

There wasn’t anything like enough in the speech about ramping up the current retrofitting programmes to reduce still chronic levels of fuel poverty here in the UK, let alone about opportunities to support energy efficiency schemes across the economy – including the highly effective SALIX scheme which is allocated a miserly £32 million a year.

As we all need to keep reminding people, overall energy consumption here in the UK has actually declined by a massive 28% over the last 20 years – one of the reasons why our greenhouse gas emissions have declined by 40% during that time. As the indefatigable Andrew Warren points out:

“There is no good reason why this trend should not continue. There are still approaching nine million homes on the gas network running gas-guzzling boilers, and many of these could readily switch to electric heating. There are still some fifteen million homes with grossly inadequate insulation. And still a majority without energy efficient glazing”.

So let’s hope we hear more about these critical areas in the future. But for the time being, let’s celebrate what looks like Labour’s most substantive attempt yet to set about a genuinely ‘just transition’ away from fossil fuels.

And that’s why Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves should go on backing Ed Miliband every step of this politically contested way! The two of them still seem to have not the first idea of how to combat the surging success of Reform UK in the polls – other than to claim (pretty idiotically) that they will deliver Nigel Farage’s agenda in a rather nicer and less aggressive way.

By contrast, Miliband gets the true threat from Reform to Labour. His interview on Sunday with Laura Kunzberg was splendidly combative, providing Labour with its strongest strapline yet: that Reform UK “is waging war on jobs”.

“Obviously, this is a massive fight with Reform. Reformers say they will wage war on clean energy. Well, that’s waging war on these jobs….. it’s all part of its attempt at a culture war, but I actually think they’re out of tune with the British people because I think people recognise that we need the jobs from clean energy”.

If I wasn’t somewhat suspicious of the whole idea of ‘eco-populism’, I’d say this is a very clear signal of Miliband taking the fight directly to the climate-denying neanderthals in both Reform and Badenoch’s Tory party – and, in the process, reminding Zack Polanski, the Green Party’s new leader, that he shouldn’t expect to command this territory unchallenged!

Which is precisely why my blog yesterday – about the insanity of Labour’s nuclear obsession – highlighted the scale of the challenge Ed Miliband faces. This whole ‘green economy’ commitment has been allocated £880 million in the DESNZ budget – 50% of what Sizewell C will get in direct subsidy! And that’s before we all start paying through the nose for Sizewell C on our electricity bills. It’s abundantly clear that this newly unveiled strategy is going to need a whole lot more backing than that.

Which is why Miliband has a very strong signal to send to Rachel Reeves: kill off Sizewell C – shaft Reform. 

October 24, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Pay attention to the nuclear threat on our doorsteps

 THOSE who fear for the future of our planet understandably focus on global
heating, biodiversity loss, autonomous weapons and an unsustainable and
unequal economic system. But there remains far too little attention to the
nuclear threat on our doorsteps.

That threat of nuclear conflagration has
edged a little closer this past week, highlighting both the dangerous
fiction of “deterrence” as a guarantor of security and how preparing
for war to protect peace can head rapidly in the wrong direction.

There has been little in the mainstream media over the past few days on the nuclear strike training taking place over European skies – which still includes Scotland, despite our lack of a seat around any of the tables that
influence or decide these things.

 The National 18th Oct 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25552853.pay-attention-nuclear-threat-doorsteps/

October 21, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

It is now antisemitic to object to Israeli football hooligans causing violence in your city

Laura and Normal Island News, Oct 18, 2025, https://www.normalisland.co.uk/p/it-is-now-antisemitic-to-object-to?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1407757&post_id=176482013&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Aston Villa football club caused outrage when it banned Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from an upcoming UEFA Europa League match. The pathetic excuse was that West Midlands police had intelligence that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were planning violence. Aston Villa took that intelligence seriously, just because Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had been violent at other European football matches.

In previous incidents, local authorities sensibly lied to protect Israeli fans, and pretended local fans caused the violence, disregarding camera footage and eye witnesses. News outlets such as Sky News were quick to apologise for their initial reporting and correct the narrative. This saved them from getting the same treatment as journalists in Gaza.

I’m proud to say I’m one of the few journalists who has consistently stuck to the officially authorised version of the truth, which is as follows:

In Amsterdam, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were innocently chanting words such as “There are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left” and the all-time classic, “Death to Arabs”. Obviously, only a racist would object to such chants.

Video footage shows Maccabi Tel Aviv fans carrying chains, and terrorising train passengers, and threatening journalists, and beating up random members of the public who had nothing to do with the football match. Outrageously, some local people attempted to defend themselves against these fans.

As we all know, it’s antisemitic for anyone to defend themselves against Israelis, whether they be Palestinians, or local football fans, or random people who did not know what the fuck was going on.

When Israel attacks your people, the only non-antisemitic response is to throw your people under a bus and blame them for being attacked. However, Aston Villa decided to ignore that principle, provoking outcry from all the politicians who are owned by Israel.

The UK’s most prominent genocide supporters, such as Michael Gove, suggested the ban of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans meant “no Jews allowed”. Please understand, it is not antisemitic to conflate Jews with Israel when Zionists do it.

Reassuringly, Sir Keir Starmer was instructed to say the ban was the “wrong decision.” The prime minister tweeted: “We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”

Just so we’re clear, Starmer meant that Israeli football fans can enjoy the game. He doesn’t give a fuck if you’re the victim of violence and intimidation.

Thankfully, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmoud has stepped in and demanded Maccabi Tel Aviv fans be allowed into the game. She has promised additional police patrols so Maccabi Tel Aviv fans can chant “death to Arabs” and beat up Aston Villa fans without retaliation. She will take full responsibility for any violence by blaming Aston Villa fans who act in self-defence.

The home secretary has confirmed that any Aston Villa fans who defend themselves will be extradited to Israel where they will get the Greta Thunberg treatment. She has demanded the chair and board of Aston Villa resign for trying to protect their fans. She has requested that Aston Villa be banned from all UEFA tournaments, and insisted we should boycott, and divest from, the city of Birmingham.

If Birmingham fails to straighten up its act, Mahmoud will not rule out airstrikes against Villa Park x

October 20, 2025 Posted by | Religion and ethics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »