‘Significant milestone for nuclear sector’ as Hunterston B relicensed for decommissioning
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has approved the relicensing of
the Hunterston B nuclear power station, ushering the North Ayrshire site
into its formal decommissioning phase.
From 1 April, Nuclear Restoration
Services (NRS), a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA), will take on full responsibility as site licence holder, replacing
EDF, which operated the Advanced Gas‑Cooled Reactor (AGR) until it ceased
generation in January 2022 after 46 years in service.
This first phase of
decommissioning work at Hunterston B, on the Firth of Clyde, will involve
the removal of all buildings and plant from the site, with the exception of
the reactor buildings and some adjoining structures which will be modified
to create a Safestore structure.
This Safestore is designed to maintain the
reactor buildings in a safe state through the Quiescence phase of around 70
years. Following this, the final site clearance phase will involve the
removal of the reactors and debris vaults housed in the Safestore
structure, making the site available for future use.
New Civil Engineer 19th March 2026 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/significant-milestone-for-nuclear-sector-as-hunterston-b-relicensed-for-decommissioning-19-03-2026/
Scottish National Party face an uphill battle in home of UK’s nuclear subs
FIVE years ago, the SNP fell just one seat short of an overall majority in
the Scottish Parliament, and it perhaps isn’t over-egging the hyperbole to
suggest the one seat in question was Dumbarton.
Of the 11 constituency
seats across the country that the SNP failed to win, Dumbarton was the only
one they should have taken on the basis of national trends. After the
knife-edge result in the previous election, they required less than a 0.2%
swing from Labour to gain the seat, which was below the modest swing from
Labour to SNP of just over 1% that was actually achieved Scotland-wide.
But locally voters bolted in completely the opposite direction, and Labour’s
incumbent MSP Jackie Baillie increased her margin of victory to almost four
percentage points. It can’t be denied that many businesses in Helensburgh
do extremely well out of the presence of a facility that ultimately only
exists to give the UK Government the ability to obliterate foreign cities
at the press of a button.
That very specific type of dependence on the
status quo has created a large segment of the local electorate that is
highly motivated to thwart a party that not only wants Scotland to leave
the UK, but also wants its nuclear weapons to be banished from local
shores.
The National 18th March 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25948137.snp-face-uphill-battle-home-uks-nuclear-subs/
UK universities getting more enmeshed in the nuclear lobby
Swansea University will play a key role in a new £65.6 million UK Research
and Innovation (UKRI) Doctoral Focal Award in Nuclear Skills, helping to
train specialists essential to future clean energy, national security and
advanced nuclear technologies. As part of DRIVERS (Developing Researchers
with an Interdisciplinary Vision for Engineering Reactor Systems), experts
from the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences will train more than 80
PhD researchers over the next seven years in reactor physics, thermal
hydraulics and through-life structural integrity.
Swansea University 18th March 2026, https://www.swansea.ac.uk/press-office/news-events/news/2026/03/swansea-university-part-of-major-656-million-ukri-investment-to-train-next-generation-of-nuclear-engineers-and-scientists.php
Scottish Labour donation linked to ‘astroturf’ nuclear campaign
Anas Sarwar’s party accepted over £7,000 from Stonehaven, a lobbying firm which represents the owner of Scotland’s last nuclear power station. Scottish Labour has sought to make nuclear power a battleground in the May election.
Paul Dobson, Billy Briggs, March 19 2026, https://www.theferret.scot/scottish-labour-astroturf-nuclear/
Scottish Labour accepted a donation from a lobbying firm linked to a controversial “grassroots” campaign pushing to overturn Scotland’s ban on nuclear power.
The £7,200 contribution came from Stonehaven, a London-based public relations (PR) company which counts the French state-owned energy giant EDF as a paying client. EDF owns Scotland’s last nuclear plant at Torness and could be one of the biggest beneficiaries if the ban on new nuclear plants is overturned.
This week The Ferret revealed close ties between Stonehaven and Britain Remade, which claims it is a “grassroots”, “pro-growth” campaign group, and is leading calls for the Scottish Government to reverse its opposition to nuclear energy.
We found that the private company behind Britain Remade had appointed senior Stonehaven staff as directors, as well as other overlaps between the firms. Britain Remade has denied that it has ever taken corporate money and insists its campaigning is not influenced by funders.
Scottish Labour said the donation, made in May 2025, related to a commercial sponsorship. Stonehaven previously donated to the Conservative party while it was led by Boris Johnson.
We reported on the donation in January, but it was wildlife campaigner Danica Priest who first highlighted its potential significance in relation to Britain Remade and renewed pressure to overturn the nuclear ban.
Several figures in Scottish Labour have come out strongly in support of new nuclear power over the last few years, and the issue is set to be a battleground in May’s Holyrood election.
The party’s leader north of the border, Anas Sarwar, has described the SNP’s opposition to nuclear as “irrational” and accused first minister John Swinney of being “stuck in the politics of the 1970s”.
Labour argues that investing in new nuclear energy could create and protect jobs and provide important back up to renewable energy generation. The Scottish Government says it is too expensive and investment is “better placed” in renewable energy.
Norman Hampshire – the Labour leader of East Lothian council where Torness is located – was among the speakers at a launch event for the ‘Scotland for nuclear energy’ campaign which was organised by Britain Remade in Glasgow in February. Glasgow MSP Paul Sweeney was also in attendance.
Former co-leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, claimed Britain Remade was a “collection of the usual corporate suspects pretending to be a grassroots campaign”. He branded the group “radioactive astroturf”.
UK’s nuclear research body consults on plans to cut about 200 jobs.
Britain’s national nuclear research body is consulting on plans to cut its
staffing by up to a fifth because of financial pressures, leading union
officials to question the government’s claims to be building a “golden
age” for the industry.
The United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory
(UKNNL) is looking at cutting about 200 jobs from a workforce of about
1,100 via a mixture of voluntary and compulsory redundancies. Described by
ministers as “the custodian of some of the UK’s most critical nuclear
skills and capabilities”, the public corporation’s research supports the
development of cutting-edge technologies in nuclear generation, defence and
other areas such as medicine.
The union Prospect, which represents staff at
UKNNL, said the proposed cuts appeared to be driven by funding problems
that had left the organisation unable to pursue its goals — and even, the
union claimed, to honour its own contractual redundancy terms — rather
than by any change of strategy.
FT 18th March 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/fe8ac14a-0463-44ca-986b-a035a97b29ba
‘We deserve to know the truth’: 11 questions about US bases in Britain
From where they are exactly to the laws governing them, here’s what we need to know to hold the UK government accountable for Trump’s use of British bases
MARK CURTIS , Declassified 4th March 2026
Keir Starmer has given his approval for Donald Trump’s US to attack Iran using British military bases.
But the UK government imposes a considerable veil of secrecy over the US use of these bases, keeping the British public in the dark about how its territory is used in foreign wars.
Former Labour Party leader and independent MP Jeremy Corbyn said: “From transferring equipment to refuelling planes to surveillance flights, we deserve to know the truth about exactly what these military bases are and have been used for, whether to benefit the US or Israel or both.
“There is a reason why the government is so reluctant to tell us: they know that this information could tip British complicity in genocide and war into active participation. We will continue to push for a full, public and independent inquiry into the use of these bases.”
Here are some of the things we need to know about the US military and intelligence presence in the UK and British territories.
Where exactly are they?
We don’t know where all US military personnel in Britain are. Whenever governments answer questions about the US presence in the UK, they mention major bases which the US Air Force operate – such as at Fairford, Mildenhall and Lakenheath – but have also referenced “undisclosed locations”.
The government also says that, in addition to the major air bases with a US presence, there are six other designated Nato facilities in the UK, where US military personnel can also be located.
But Declassified recently found a US War Department document highlighting 22 American military sites in Britain, some of which successive UK governments have failed to mention. It is not clear how many of these 22 sites are currently hosting US military personnel.
Declassified has identified other locations in Britain that are likely to host US military or intelligence personnel, bringing the total to 24.
Even this may not cover the full scale of the US military presence in the UK, since it is believed that US military personnel are frequently, if not permanently, stationed at still more sites, such as the key Royal Navy bases at Coulport, Devonport and Faslane.
Keir Starmer’s government is also refusing to tell parliament how many US forces are located at each of its major bases in Britain. The reason it gives for not saying is that “we are in a new era of threat that remains more serious and less predictable”.
The government also refuses to say where the US has any navy, army or marine detachments in the UK. Incredibly, it says “the overall US force composition across its UK footprint is a matter for the US”.
Who really owns the US military sites in Britain?
This is also unclear. The US War Department document we found states that, as of 2024, it owned, leased or otherwise controlled 22 military sites in Britain, and that these are worth £11bn. The UK government contends that the War Department owns no facilities in Britain, making the exact terms of the US presence even more unclear.
The US document, for example, said its War Department owns 12 buildings covering over 39,000 square feet at RAF Oakhanger in Hampshire, which is a satellite ground station.
Yet in answer to a recent parliamentary question, the MoD said it owns RAF Oakhanger.
The government also says it owns MOD Bicester, which is another site where the US War Department says it holds 261 buildings. What are the terms and conditions governing these holdings?
What military operations does the US conduct from Britain?
Governments have refused to give us the full picture. The standard response is: “The Ministry of Defence does not comment on the operational activity of other nations”, even when they’re operating in Britain.
When the US bombed Iran in June last year, the MoD refused to say if US aircraft based in Britain had been involved.
The MoD also refuses to say if the US has used its British bases to transport arms to Israel.
What US military operations need UK approval?
Britain has a vague agreement with the US on the use of British bases, going back to a 1952 communiqué between prime minister Winston Churchill and president Harry Truman. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.declassifieduk.org/we-deserve-to-know-the-truth-11-questions-about-us-bases-in-britain/
Pro-nuclear group faces questions over ‘links’ to major London PR firm.
BRITAIN Remade is the apparently “grassroots” group leading the push
to overturn Scotland’s ban on nuclear power. But The Ferret has found
that two of its directors come from a firm which lobbies for the UK’s
biggest nuclear company.
Britain Remade organised the recent launch of the
“Scotland for nuclear energy” campaign and has repeatedly called for
Holyrood to reverse its long-standing opposition to new atomic energy. The
“pro-growth” group campaigns to make it easier to build things in the
UK – including housing, transport links and clean energy.
It says it is
“independent” and “grassroots”. But it has been alleged that
Britain Remade has close ties to the London-based public relations firm
Stonehaven. Stonehaven represents EDF – the French energy giant that owns
Scotland’s last operational nuclear power station at Torness in East
Lothian. EDF could be one of the biggest beneficiaries of any move to lift
the ban on new nuclear plants.
A Ferret investigation into the relationship
between Stonehaven and Britain Remade uncovered that BRM Futures Ltd –
the private company behind the campaign group – recently named two senior
Stonehaven figures as directors. We also found other overlaps including
that Britain Remade had been incorporated at an address that was previously
the registered office of Stonehaven, by an individual whose name resembles
that of Stonehaven’s finance director.
Critics argued the public has “a
right to know who is behind any campaign” otherwise there was a risk of
Scottish democracy being “undermined behind closed doors”. Britain
Remade told The Ferret it had “never taken a penny of corporate money”,
sets its own priorities and campaigns “on what we think matters for the
country”. It also said any claim that funders get a veto on anything it
writes or campaigns on is “categorically untrue”.
However, despite
direct questions, it did not confirm the nature of its relationship with
Stonehaven or whether it had been set up by anyone at the firm. Stonehaven
did not respond to a request for comment. Companies House filings –
updated on February 3, just two days before the Glasgow launch of the new
nuclear campaign – show that BRM Futures Ltd appointed Pandora Lefroy and
Rachel Wolf as directors in October 2024. Lefroy has worked at Stonehaven
for more than 10 years and is now the firm’s managing partner. Wolf is
the chief executive of Public First, another consultancy firm bought by
Stonehaven last year, and now sits on the board of the wider Stonehaven
Group Holdings Limited. Filings show that BRM Futures Ltd was incorporated
in February 2022 on the first floor of an office building called Thavies
Inn House, in the Holborn area of London. Until three months previously,
that same address had been Stonehaven’s registered office.
The sole
founding director listed on the incorporation document was Henry Frank
Lewis. He resigned in November 2022 when the campaign was officially
launched and current staff members Sam Richards, Sam Dumitriu and Jeremy
Driver were appointed. Stonehaven’s finance director is Harry Lewis.
Britain Remade did not respond to a question about whether he and Henry
Frank Lewis were the same individual. Like EDF, Britain Remade is named as
a client of Stonehaven on the professional lobbying register. It has also
reportedly used technology provided through Stonehaven to launch a petition
on onshore wind that secured more than 11,000 signatures. James Mitchell, a
professor of public policy at the University of Edinburgh, said the public
should be “very wary” of any organisation which was unwilling to
provide “such basic information”.
“The public has a right to know who
is behind any campaign pursuing a policy including, crucially, who funds
the campaign and with what level of funding,” he said.
The National 15th March 2026
Starmer’s Self-Defence Fudge: The UK’s Growing Involvement in the Iran War
Healey confirmed that the US was using British bases to target Iranian missile sites from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.
The dangers of closer involvement with the US in this war should be all too clear for Starmer and the Labour Party. In March 2003, as a human rights lawyer, he warned the government of Tony Blair that pre-emptive action against Iraq to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein of alleged weapons of mass destruction would find itself, from a legal perspective, on thin ice.
10 March 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/starmers-self-defence-fudge-the-uks-growing-involvement-in-the-iran-war/
Wars can distract, and for leaders in political purgatory, they can be particularly useful. It remains to be seen whether the UK’s increasing involvement in the illegal war being waged on Iran by Israel and the United States will serve that purpose. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, the great saviour of the British Labour Party in taking them to victory in 2024, is finding himself in sinking desperation. Being less popular than a pandemic, he has much work to do if he is to retain his premiership till and after the next election.
This deepening involvement in the Iran War has been messy. Britain, along with France and Germany, were initially clear in their joint February 28 statement that they had not participated in the strikes on Iran but were “in close contact with our international partners, including the United States, Israel, and partners in the region.” Instead of condemning the pre-emptive attack on Tehran as a crime of aggression in breach of the United Nations Charter and international law, the statement went on to “condemn Iranian attacks on countries in the region in the strongest terms.”
Within a matter of hours, Starmer rebadged his country’s engagement in the conflict as a matter of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, making what can only be regarded as a spurious use of international law – or whatever was left of it. The press release on March 1 again reiterated condemnation for Iran’s “reckless and ongoing discriminate attacks against countries in the region,” taking no account as to why Tehran was engaged in such an avenging task. But international law permitted the UK and its allies “to use or support force in such circumstances where acting in self-defence is the only feasible means to deal with an ongoing armed attack and where the force used is necessary and proportionate.”
It followed from this that the UK had “military assets flying in the region to intercept drones or missiles targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict.” A request from Washington had also meant that his government would “facilitate specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes at regional allies.” The statement went on, weakly, to ward off suggestions of any “wider involvement in the broader ongoing conflict between the US, Israel and Iran.”
On March 9, in an oral statement to the House, the UK Secretary of State for Defence John Healey revealed the sheer scale of British involvement. The briefest of references was made to Starmer’s justification along lines of collective self-defence under international law. To put some flesh on the bone, it was important to inflate the threat posed by the Iranian regime, a force of cruel destruction that had “slaughtered protestors in its own streets,” supplied Shahed drones to Russia in its “illegal invasion of Ukraine” and conducted cyber-attacks against Britain and plotted assassinations on it streets.
Healey confirmed that the US was using British bases to target Iranian missile sites from RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. He also outlined various “defensive operations” that had taken place: the destruction of Iranian drones over Jordan by F-35s; the use of Typhoons to shoot “down targets heading towards Qatar”; and “counter-drone units defeating further attacks against coalition bases in Iraq.” Various “defensive air sorties in support of the UAE” were also being conducted. Given this burgeoning list, it is surely a matter of time, given the prolongation of conflict, for Starmer to join the full-blooded effort and hit sites in Iran proper. The pretence to legality will have all but collapsed by that point.
The US President Donald Trump, for his part, has been petulant, scornful of Starmer for not doing more. “This is not Winston Churchill,” he moaned to journalists over the PM’s initial tardiness in permitting the use of British bases to launch strikes on Iran. In a social media post, Trump revealed that the UK, “our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East.” With a bitchy turn, the President informed the PM that “we don’t need them any longer – But we will remember.” He had “no need for people that join Wars after we’ve already won!”
The dangers of closer involvement with the US in this war should be all too clear for Starmer and the Labour Party. In March 2003, as a human rights lawyer, he warned the government of Tony Blair that pre-emptive action against Iraq to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein of alleged weapons of mass destruction would find itself, from a legal perspective, on thin ice. “The mere fact that Iraq has a capacity to attack at some specified time in the future is not enough.” No one believed that Iraq was imminently about to attack the UK or its allies, and any claim to self-defence “would sit uncomfortably with the US position that military action is justified to destroy such weapons of mass destruction as Iraq may have, and to bring about a change of leadership.”
Despite these warnings, Blair, with a poodle’s dignity, joined President George W. Bush alongside that other servitor, Australia, to attack Iraq, finding no WMDs and inviting the deserved opprobrium of the international law community. The public inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the war, chaired by John Chilcot, noted that “the circumstances in which it was decided there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.” The phase of planning and preparations for a post-Saddam also proved “wholly inadequate.” But the inquiry report also made an unimpeachable observation troublingly relevant as Britain gets ever more involved in the current crime of aggression: “The US and UK are close allies, but the relationship between the two is unequal.”
While Hinkley Nuclear Was Being Built, The UK Grid Decarbonized
Clean Technica, Michael Barnard, 6th March 2026
The latest announcement about Hinkley Point C was predictable. The first reactor at the plant in Somerset is now expected to begin generating electricity in 2030. The cost estimate has climbed again, now reaching roughly £35B in 2015 pounds or about £49B in current money according to Electricité de France. When the project received final approval in 2016, the expected construction cost was £18B and the first reactor was expected to begin operating in 2025. In the span of a decade, the expected capital cost nearly doubled while the schedule slipped by five years. The project illustrates the pattern described by Oxford megaproject scholar Bent Flyvbjerg. Large infrastructure projects tend to run over budget, over schedule, and deliver fewer benefits than originally promised. Hinkley Point C appears to be achieving the full trifecta.
To understand how the project arrived at this point it is necessary to revisit the electricity system that existed when Hinkley was first proposed……………………………Policymakers faced a looming capacity gap as aging coal plants approached retirement under European pollution rules and older nuclear reactors approached the end of their operating lives. Large baseload nuclear plants seemed like a logical replacement for retiring coal and nuclear capacity while maintaining system reliability and reducing emissions.
EDF entered the picture in 2008 when it acquired British Energy for about £12.4B. This acquisition gave the French utility access to several UK nuclear sites including Hinkley Point in Somerset……………………… T.he UK government supported the project through a Contract for Difference that guaranteed a strike price of £92.50 per MWh in 2012 pounds for 35 years. Adjusted for inflation that price is now roughly £120 to £130 per MWh in current money.
The timeline of the project reflects the slow progress typical of large nuclear builds……………………………………………………….. The most recent revision places the cost at about £35B in 2015 pounds with startup expected in 2030. If the schedule slips to 2031, EDF estimates another £1B in additional cost..
Hinkley is not an isolated example. The reactor design used at the site is the European Pressurized Reactor. Other projects using this design have experienced similar difficulties. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland began construction in 2005 and entered commercial operation in 2023. The project took roughly 18 years from start to finish and cost about €11B compared with an original estimate of about €3B. Flamanville 3 in France began construction in 2007 and only began producing electricity in 2024 after more than a decade of delays and cost escalation. These projects demonstrate that modern nuclear construction faces structural challenges including complex regulatory oversight, large supply chains, and one-off engineering work.
While Hinkley Point C progressed slowly, the electricity system around it began to change rapidly. UK grid carbon intensity fell from about 520 gCO2 per kWh in 2006 to roughly 120 gCO2 per kWh in 2025 according to National Grid data. That represents a reduction of about 77%. Coal generation collapsed during the same period. In 2012 coal still produced about 40% of UK electricity. By 2024 the last coal plant closed and coal generation fell to zero. Gas generation initially increased as coal declined, providing a bridge fuel that cut emissions roughly in half per kWh compared with coal. At the same time renewable energy expanded quickly.
Wind power became the largest contributor to this change. ……………………………………………………………………………..
The grid also evolved to accommodate the growing share of renewable energy. Market reforms played a significant role. The Contract for Difference program created long term price stability for renewable developers………………High voltage direct current interconnectors connected the UK to electricity markets in France, Norway, Belgium, and Denmark. These interconnectors allow power to flow between regions and help balance variable generation.
Grid operations also changed to manage a system with lower inertia and higher renewable penetration. Batteries began appearing in grid services markets around 2017. These batteries provide fast frequency response and reserve capacity.
The economic dynamics of electricity generation shifted during the same period. Nuclear plants represent a form of megaproject economics. Each plant is a large custom built facility that takes many years to construct. Learning effects are limited because each plant is unique. Wind turbines and solar panels follow a different model. These technologies are manufactured in large volumes. Production learning and scale economies reduce costs over time. ………………………………………………………………..
The rising cost of Hinkley also raises questions about opportunity cost. The current estimated cost of about £49B in today’s money represents a very large capital investment. Offshore wind projects in Europe commonly cost between £2M and £3M per MW of installed capacity depending on location and turbine size. At £2.5M per MW, £49B could finance roughly 20 GW of offshore wind capacity. With a typical offshore wind capacity factor of about 45%, that capacity would produce around 79 TWh of electricity annually. Hinkley Point C is expected to produce about 25 TWh annually. The comparison is not exact because nuclear provides firm generation while wind is variable. The scale difference is significant.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. The next UK nuclear project, Sizewell C in Suffolk, raises obvious questions about what lessons policymakers are drawing from the experience at Hinkley Point C. Sizewell C is planned as a near replica of Hinkley using the same European Pressurized Reactor design and similar capacity of about 3.2 GW. The estimated construction cost is currently around £20B to £30B depending on assumptions about financing and schedule. Unlike Hinkley, the project will be financed through a regulated asset base model that allows developers to collect revenue from electricity consumers during construction. This structure reduces financing risk for investors but shifts more cost exposure onto the public.
The core question is whether the UK energy system in the 2030s and 2040s still requires additional nuclear megaprojects built on decade long timelines when wind, solar, and storage technologies continue expanding on much shorter deployment cycles. A second question concerns opportunity cost. If Sizewell C ultimately approaches the capital intensity seen at Hinkley, the same level of investment could finance tens of gigawatts of renewable capacity or large expansions of grid infrastructure. Policymakers therefore face a strategic choice between continuing the megaproject model for firm low carbon generation or allocating capital toward technologies that can scale incrementally and rapidly across the electricity system.
The broader lesson from the Hinkley experience concerns the pace of technological change in energy systems. Large infrastructure projects require long planning and construction timelines. Energy technologies such as wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries follow faster innovation cycles driven by manufacturing scale and global deployment. Between the time Hinkley Point C was conceived and the time it will enter operation, the UK electricity system transformed itself. Coal disappeared. Wind capacity expanded more than tenfold. Carbon intensity fell by more than three quarters. The project will arrive into a grid that has already undergone much of the transition it was designed to support.
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/03/06/while-hinkley-nuclear-was-being-built-the-uk-grid-decarbonized/
A chilling reminder of the deceit & violence of Iraq war
March 09, 2026, by Bruce K. Gagnon
This film ‘Official Secrets’ is a true story. It’s now airing on Netflix and I urge folks to watch it.
‘Official Secrets,’ which opened in 2019, is the best movie ever made about how the Iraq War happened. It’s startlingly accurate, and because of that, it’s equally inspiring, demoralizing, hopeful, and enraging.
It’s been mostly forgotten now, but the Iraq War and its abominable consequences — the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the rise of ISIS terrorism, the nightmare oozing into Syria, arguably the presidency of Donald Trump — almost didn’t happen.
In 2003, as politicians in Britain and the US scheme to invade Iraq, GCHQ translator Katharine Gun leaks a classified e-mail that urges spying on members of the UN Security Council to force through the resolution to go to war.
Charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act, and facing imprisonment, Katharine and her lawyers set out to defend her actions. With her life, liberty and marriage threatened, she must stand up for what she believes in…
During this present Iran war – packed with lies, distortions and evil boasts of killing by the US and Israel – this 2019 film reveals the kind of ugly twists and turns that are regularly used to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
Now and then a principled person stands against the dark wall of endless war.
The Welsh dragon is getting ready to roar.
Citizens of Wales are gearing up for another assault on their right to a safe, clean and healthy environment
Anti-nuclear campaigners meeting in Wrexham last 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.
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 new initiative came in conjunction with a screening of the award-winning film SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome, which highlights the impact of the decommissioning and the legacy of managing deadly radioactive waste faced by the neighbors of the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California.
The film’s messages resonate with international audiences faced with identical threats and challenges. At the screening, the audience heard from the filmmakers Marybeth Brangan and the now sadly late Jim Heddle as well as from Professor Stephen Thomas, Emeritus Professor in Energy Policy at Greenwich University and Richard Outram, Secretary of the Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities.
“The nuclear industry tries to assure us the radioactive waste disposal and reactor decommissioning are established processes with easily affordable costs,” Thomas said. “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 that 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 Môn) 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.
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 millennia 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 power will worsen fuel poverty and climate change. As Welsh people face spiraling energy costs, with many in fuel poverty, while a new nuclear levy is to be added to all customers’ energy bills to help pay for the construction of the eye-wateringly expensive Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk. Further, nuclear generation costs much more than generation from renewables, meaning more expensive electricity for consumers……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Read the Declaration. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/03/08/the-dragon-is-getting-ready-to-roar/
Trident workers to strike in row over nuclear job cuts.
Union says staff have been ‘pushed to the brink’ and warns walkout could cost millions of pounds
The workers who build and maintain Britain’s Trident nuclear arsenal are
to go on strike in a row over hundreds of job cuts at the Ministry of
Defence’s atomic weapons factories. Members of the Prospect union voted
81pc in favour of strike action at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE),
which is responsible for manufacturing warheads intended for use on the
UK’s nuclear submarines.
The ballot covered sites including the AWE’s
plants in Aldermaston and Burghfield. Strikes are expected to take place on
March 12 and March 26. Union leaders accused the agency of a “litany of
errors” in a dispute over a restructuring that is expected to see as many
as 800 jobs cut.
Telegraph 6th March 2026,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/06/trident-workers-to-strike-in-row-over-nuclear-job-cuts/
14 March – Protesters to rally at Faslane base in anti-nuclear demonstration
PROTESTERS are set to rally at the Faslane naval base to protest against
the UK’s nuclear arsenal. The rally, organised by the Scottish Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament (CND), will be held at HMNB Clyde’s north gate on March
14. The Scottish CND told The National that “nuclear weapons are a threat
to Scotland and the whole world”, saying the presence of the UK’s nuclear
submarines in Scotland is putting “a target on our backs”.
The National 3rd March 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25903195.protesters-rally-faslane-base-anti-nuclear-rally/
Coastal erosion risks to planned Sizewell C nuclear power station
Letter Nicholas Malins-Smith: : The comment by Sir David King, the former
chief scientific adviser, about how the eastern side of Britain is
“tilting into the sea”, particularly around Norfolk and Suffolk, is the
result of more than just aggressive coastal erosion caused by climate
change (“Residents lambast ‘nuts’ location of Sizewell C as coastal
erosion gains pace”, Report, February 24).
Britain is still experiencing
land mass movement where the north and western parts are slowly rising,
while the south and eastern parts are sinking. This phenomenon is a very
gradual geological process known as “glacial isostatic adjustment”
(GIA). During the last ice age, the weight of massive ice sheets pressed
down on Scotland and northern Britain, forcing the land to subside.
Meanwhile, the southern part of Britain acted as a counterweight and was
raised slightly. The melting of the ice sheets resulted in the land that
was pressed down to begin slowly rising, causing a “see-saw” effect
that lowers the south by an approximate equal amount.
The “tilting”
effect of GIA has been going on quite independently of more recent concerns
about sea-level rise caused by climate change, although the combination
exacerbates the likely impact on certain coastal areas.
The Suffolk
shoreline has long known about the effects of coastal erosion. Most of the
original town of Dunwich was lost to the sea in storms a very long time
ago. The little that is left of Dunwich is about 3.5 miles north of where
the Sizewell C nuclear power station will be built.
FT 4th March 2026, https://www.ft.com/content/bb9265e4-a235-4830-8c4b-49b6953cf753
Capenhust-based nuclear facility faces prosecution after uranium leak
A WIRRAL company that transports uranium overseas will be prosecuted for
health and safety offences following an incident involving a leak at its
facility. The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has notified
Capenhurst-based Urenco ChemPlants Ltd that it faces prosecution
alongside contractor Babcock Critical Services Ltd after the incident in
2024. According to the ONR in February 2024 at the Tails
Management Facility on the Urenco UK Ltd. nuclear licensed
site in Capenhurst, a metal container holding almost 11
tonnes of uranium oxide powder fell from a forklift
truck, striking surrounding equipment within the facility.
Wirral Globe 4th March 2026, https://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/25905939.capenhust-based-nuclear-facility-faces-prosecution-uranium-leak/
1 This Month
of the week – Shut Down Drone Warfare!
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
Petition to revoke the licensing of the Near Surface Nuclear Disposal Facility (NSDF) at Chalk River. https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-7247
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 