nuclear-news

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

I inadvertently misled parliament over a British nuclear scandal. Now I’m calling for justice

Tobias Ellwood, 3 Sept 26,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/02/british-nuclear-tests-compensation-for-veterans

Thousands of service personnel took part in dangerous cold war-era nuclear tests. The government owes them the truth – and compensation.

In December 2018, as defence minister, I inadvertently misled parliament. Asked whether blood samples had been taken from service personnel for radiological monitoring during the nuclear bomb tests, I relayed the line provided to me by the Ministry of Defence: it was “unable to locate any information” suggesting blood samples had been taken for radiological monitoring at the tests.

I now know the reality was very different – these samples were taken across the armed services branches. But those veterans seeking compensation for serious illnesses developed after radiation exposure have been unable to access them. This is among the greatest scandals in Britain, and it must be addressed.

More than 20,000 armed forces personnel took part in dozens of nuclear tests and nearly 600 radiation experiments, the majority between 1952 and 1967. This was for the entirety of the cold war. The science was deemed necessary. How effective were our own bombs and, just as importantly, how well could our military function if the Soviet Union used theirs against us? Test after test was conducted in the Australian desert, at Christmas Island in the Pacific, and we also sent service personnel into the atomic clouds of allies and enemies. Yet their medical records for the period are missing.

Other nuclear nations, such as the US, France and the Soviet Union, did the same. Yet they acknowledged that it happened and created dedicated compensation schemes for nuclear test veterans who subsequently developed serious illnesses. Britain stands apart here. In Britain, the burden was placed on veterans to prove their case. But how do you claim what happened decades earlier when potentially vital records are missing or inaccessible?

In 2007, about 1,000 nuclear test veterans and families took the MoD to court seeking compensation. Pilots had been instructed to fly through mushroom clouds. Service personnel sailed and crawled through fallout. Others witnessed nuclear explosions, in some cases just two miles from ground zero. Surely our service personnel deserved better?

This is where the scandal turns ugly. To deal with the veterans’ litigation, the MoD instructed the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) to collate relevant documentation into a searchable database called Merlin. More than 28,000 documents were eventually assembled, covering radiation, precautions, health monitoring and what was known about the possible biological effects of the tests. Yet the veterans’ lawyers had no practical access to this vast archive. Thanks to the extraordinary investigative journalism of Susie Boniface, historical documents began emerging referring to blood and urine testing.

When I saw the evidence, I raised it in November 2022 as chair of the defence committee. The MoD finally acknowledged that the AWE held copies of blood-test results and urine-radioactivity measurements for “a small number of individuals”. That took me straight back to my parliamentary answer four years earlier.

I challenged the then defence secretary, Ben Wallace. If this information existed within the MoD, why had ministers not been given the full picture? He agreed that withholding relevant medical information would be “deeply wrong” and undertook to investigate.

The dam was beginning to burst. Searches of Merlin for “blood” and “urine” subsequently identified 151 documents. Then another extraordinary twist. A software change meant the AWE could no longer provide a historical audit trail showing who had accessed Merlin.

September 7, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Devonport nuclear submarine dock upgrades could be accelerated


 Navy Lookout 3rd Sept 2026

The MoD hopes to speed up two major dock renewal projects at Devonport following the site operator’s release from 12 years of enhanced nuclear safety oversight. A parliamentary answer this week confirmed that acceleration of work on 10 and 14 Dock is being explored as part of the £7.1Bn Project Royal Oak investment in the base.

Responding to a written Parliamentary question, Defence Minister Luke Pollard, who is also MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, said: “opportunities to accelerate work on 10 and 14 Dock are being explored”. Following the nuclear regulatory review, delivery of both projects is being driven forward. Work on 10 Dock was originally scheduled to be completed in late 2027, but the current target date for handover is unclear.


The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) review concluded in March 2026 and returned Devonport Royal Dockyard Limited (DRDL) to routine regulatory attention. The site had been under ‘enhanced attention’, effectively special measures, since 2014 over concerns about ageing facilities, organisational capability and control of work. ….. With enhanced oversight lifted, there should be fewer regulatory obstacles to progressing complex nuclear construction work at the site.

Faster progress cannot come soon enough. The RN currently has just three facilities able to take a nuclear submarine out of the water: the shiplift at Faslane and 9 and 15 Docks at Devonport. 9 Dock is occupied by HMS Victorious in deep maintenance, while HMS Audacious only vacated the refurbished 15 Dock in June after becoming the first Astute-class boat to dock at Devonport. HMS Astute will take her place as she begins a lengthy mid-life validation period.

Under a £750M contract awarded in 2023, 10 Dock is being modernised to provide a second Devonport dock certified for both SSN and SSBN maintenance. Any acceleration would directly benefit submarine availability.

Work on 14 Dock addresses a different but equally longstanding bottleneck. Its recommissioning will allow submarine defuelling to resume at Devonport for the first time since 2004, when the old facilities were judged to fall short of modern standards. Of the 14 decommissioned boats stored afloat in 3 Basin, 10 still contain nuclear fuel, while their storage and maintenance costs around £30M annually. The old defuelling cranes have been replaced by a Reactor Access House that moves on rails over the reactor compartment, with roughly one boat per year expected to be defuelled once operations begin.

As part of Project Royal Oak, £7.1Bn will be invested in Devonport naval base and dockyard over the next decade, the largest share outside Faslane of the £26Bn naval infrastructure programme confirmed in July’s Defence Investment Plan. The scale of the investment reflects historic underinvestment as well as evolving operational requirements.

The upturn in work is visible in DRDL’s newly filed accounts for the year to 31 March 2026, with revenue rising 6.7% to £1.87Bn, driven by increased submarine maintenance across both the Astute and Vanguard classes. Operating profit reached £131M despite a one-off £5.9M charge relating to a closed group pension scheme, while profit after tax jumped from £76M to £132M, helped by a lower tax charge and higher interest income.

DRDL’s long-term order book fell from £2.1Bn to £1.7Bn, reflecting completion of Year 5 of the Future Maritime Support Programme (FMSP), only partly offset by a six-month bridging contract. This gives added importance to the Gateway Agreement now being negotiated with the MoD, a successor contract intended to run from September 2026 until March 2032, covering the period in which SSN-AUKUS work begins to build.

DRDL is a Babcock subsidiary and employs around 10,200 people, with staff costs of £670M. The Secretary of State for Defence also continues to hold a £1 special golden share in the company, providing powers to overrule ordinary shareholders in extreme circumstances. https://www.navylookout.com/devonport-nuclear-submarine-dock-upgrades-could-be-accelerated/

September 7, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Great British Energy -Nuclear (GBE-N) reveals £20bn SMR TP Contract forecast breakdown after saying it didn’t have budget details

Tom Pashby, Sep 03, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/gbe-n-reveals-20bn-smr-tp-contract?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=213980624&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) has admitted it does have a breakdown of the forecast £20bn initial estimate for its small modular reactor (SMR) technical partner contract (TP Contract), despite having previously said it didn’t have details of the budget.

GBE-N is the UK Government’s body responsible for building the UK’s first government-supported SMRs. Rolls-Royce SMR has been selected by GBE-N to built three of its SMRs at the Wylfa nuclear site in North Wales.

In May, GBE-N announced it had awarded Rolls-Royce SMR stage 1 of the SMR TP Contract. It said: “The forecast Stage 1 price of the TP Contract is £359,000,000. This forecast price may change.

“The forecast Stage 2 price of the TP Contract is approximately £8,168,000,000. This forecast price is indicative only as the pricing mechanism for Stage 2 remains subject to negotiation during Stage 1.”

Taken together, that placed the forecast cost of the total TP Contract at £8,527,000,000. It is worth noting that the TP Contract does not capture the full cost of GBE-N’s Wylfa SMR project.

The contract award announcement also said: “The estimated total value within the tender notice for the two-stage TP Contract was £20,000,000,000 excluding VAT. This value was indicative only and based upon GBE-N’s initial understanding of the potential costs of developing a first of a kind technology.

“This estimated total value was based on the fact that in the tender notice GBE-N reserved the right to make up to four awards, although GBE-N also reserved the right to award three, two or only one contract(s). GBE-N has ultimately decided to award only one TP Contract and the contract award notice value reflects this.”

Given that the notes say GBE-N had an initial estimated £20bn for the TP Contract, and that it reserved the right to make up to four awards, it could reasonably be assumed that it had estimated each contract would have a value of £5bn. However, this was unclear.

Via the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, GBE-N was asked to provide a breakdown of the £20bn figure.

In response, New Civil Engineer revealed that GBE-N said: “Following reasonable and proportionate searches of our records, we confirm that Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) does not hold the information you have requested.”

20 Working Days challenged this response via a request for an internal review and GBE-N chief financial officer Neil Cooper responded to say that upon further inspection, the organisation did have a breakdown of the figure.

“In our original decision, we concluded that GBE-N does not hold the information requested,” Cooper said.

He went on to say that, following the internal review, GBE-N concluded that it “does hold information within the scope of your request.

“Our review has found that our original decision did not identify this information because it sits within a document whose predominant purpose is not to explain the calculation of the £20bn figure and which was therefore not considered to fall within the scope of your request.

“We consider it was reasonable to have concluded initially that the document did not contain information within the scope of your request. On further review, however, we are satisfied that it does, and we have therefore continued to assess whether the information we hold is disclosable under the EIR (Environmental Information Regulations).”

However, he added: “Our review has concluded that the information held by GBE-N should be withheld from disclosure under the exceptions in Regulation 12(5)(e) (Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) and Regulation 12(5)(b) (The course of justice and inquiries) of the EIR.”

He went on to explain this further, saying: “We are withholding the requested information in reliance on Regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR, which permits a public authority to refuse to disclose information to the extent that disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.

“The information you have requested includes inter alia vendor cost estimates, government funding assumptions, the approach to negotiation strategies, and assessments of vendor capability relating to the Small Modular Reactor Technology Selection Process.

“Much of this information was obtained through confidential market engagement, and the information is identified as being market-sensitive.”

Cooper did find that he was able to provide an explanation for the £20bn figure without releasing internal documents.

“Although we have concluded that the information that you have requested is exempt from disclosure, we have set out below an explanation of how the £20bn figure was derived,” he said.

“The £20bn estimated total value in the Contract Notice of 2023 was an indicative, best-estimate at the time figure, published to meet the legal requirement to state the total potential value of the contract award including all options on the number of sites and technology providers.

“It was arrived at on an objective basis reflecting GBE-N’s understanding at the time, and anticipating a procurement capable of supporting up to two small modular reactor projects (broadly £10bn per project), across the whole life of a project, from early development through to commercial operation.”

It is unclear whether a single SMR ‘project’ would cover the three Rolls-Royce SMRs which are proposed for the Wylfa site, or whether that would mean a single reactor.

Cooper continued: “Because the technology is first-of-a-kind and yet to be developed, the estimate necessarily carried significant uncertainty, as the Contract Notice made clear.

“The detailed assumptions underpinning the figure comprise commercially sensitive vendor cost information and funding and negotiating assumptions obtained through confidential market engagement, and to the extent that they fall within the scope of your request these are withheld under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR for the reasons set out in this response.”

GBE-N was approached for comment.

September 6, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Reforming nuclear regulation


Innovation News Network, 2nd September 2026

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) explains how it is responding to government recommendations to reform the UK nuclear regulatory framework, and what this means in practice,……………………

 The independent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, commissioned by the Prime Minister, published its final report in November 2025, setting out 47 recommendations for reform of the nuclear regulatory framework. The government accepted all 47 in its implementation plan, Building Our Nuclear Nation, published in March 2026. ………………

The Taskforce’s central finding was that the UK’s nuclear regulatory framework had become more process-heavy than the actual risks warranted. Safety cases had grown in volume and complexity, regulatory interactions across multiple bodies were sometimes duplicated rather than coordinated. A tendency towards caution had taken hold.……………….

The Taskforce’s recommendation to establish a commission is the long-term solution to this issue. Until legislation can enact the commission, ONR has been designated as the interim lead regulator for the nuclear fission sector, with formal arrangements in place across what we have described as the ’super six’ regulatory bodies. We convened the inaugural Lead Nuclear Regulator Group meeting in early 2026, agreeing terms of reference and identifying priority projects for coordinated action. We are now focused on demonstrating the practical benefits of this approach through delivery on real projects…………………….

ONR Together will transform how we work, outlining the modernisation of processes, leveraging modern technology, and empowering us to make timely and proportionate decisions…………………

Bringing defence and civil nuclear regulation closer together

The government has committed to merging the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator into ONR……………….

International harmonisation

We are investing significantly in further strengthening our international collaboration – one of the areas with the greatest potential for practical benefit to the UK’s nuclear programme.

We are already working with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission on collaborative design assessments, including for the BWRX-300 reactor. …………………………….

Building capacity for what lies ahead

All this reform work sits alongside a very significant expansion in the UK’s nuclear programme – Sizewell C, the Wylfa SMR project, Hinkley Point C, The Dreadnought submarine programme, the ongoing decommissioning of legacy nuclear sites……………………………………………………….. https://www.innovationnewsnetwork.com/reforming-nuclear-regulation/73452/

September 6, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power is not the answer for energy needs.

1st Sep 2026, Paul Dorfman, University of Sussex, Brighton

Brian Wilson suggests that renewables are the problem, with fossil fuels and nuclear as the way forward (Scotsman, 29 August). Perhaps he should consider the following:

In 2025, wind and solar became the bedrock of European energy self-reliance, with power generation from renewables in Europe reaching a new record of 384.9 TWh. Meanwhile, Norway has just said no to nuclear power, and Nato now backs renewables as the solution to energy security.

In 2025 renewables made up 85.6 per cent of all new global power capacity additions. Renewables are now 53 per cent cheaper than nuclear for total system costs and, with a doubling cost over-run, nuclear remains the most expensive power source. With construction of just one station taking 20 years-plus, nuclear projects in Europe run years behind schedule and vastly over budget. Nuclear power construction has an average time over-run of 64 per cent.

The fact is, each year nuclear adds only as much net global power capacity as renewables add every two days. For Scotland, the direction of travel is clear. The challenge now is not just generation, but how quickly grids, batteries and flexibility can be deployed.

Too dangerous, is the worst possible time for Brian to be promoting nuclear power.

George Morton, Rosyth, Fife

I have quite a high regard for Brian Wilson, but am dismayed by his ongoing advocacy of nuclear power in his article on energy supply.

His cost argument fails to include guarding dangerous fission-products for centuries, and the fact that nuclear power plants have the advantage of being state-insured against litigation for environmental damage.

Most importantly, they’re potential war-targets (we know that from Iran and Ukraine). And it needn’t be a strike on a reactor; even a destroyed waste-storage facility would, on an adverse wind, require the evacuation of hundreds of thousands. Just think of Chernobyl.

The US predictionists at Polymarket are offering odds of 25 per cent (a one in four chance) of a NATO/Russia clash before the year is out (excluding cyberattacks). Now is the worst possible time for Brian to be promoting nuclear power.

September 5, 2026 Posted by | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Britain ‘must brace for more Iranian cyber attacks’

Former US security chief expects UK infrastructure to be targeted again, following unprecedented breach of power plant

Rozina Sabur, National Security Editor, Telegraph, 29 August 2026

nfrastructure could face further attacks from Iran, a former US cyber chief has warned.

The Telegraph revealed last week that hackers affiliated with Tehran shut down a British power plant for four days in an unprecedented cyber attack.

And Britain, the US and other Western allies should “expect attacks like this to continue” as Tehran ramps up its cyber warfare, according to Jen Easterly, the former director of the US cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency (CISA).

In an interview with The Telegraph, Ms Easterly said companies that failed to heed alerts from the Five Eyes intelligence network in particular would be seen as “low-hanging fruit”. Five Eyes is an alliance between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US……………………

With Tehran under growing diplomatic and economic pressure amid its confrontation with the US and Israel, the regime has dramatically stepped up its cyber attacks on the West.

Intelligence officials describe Iran as a capable adversary in the online domain, with its cyber apparatus working in concert with its wartime aims.

In the incident revealed by The Telegraph last week, hackers affiliated with the Iranian regime succeeded in closing down an energy facility in the UK…………

The shutdown is understood to have occurred at the same time as a series of attacks on US water infrastructure last month, which affected multiple states……………………………………. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/29/britain-must-brace-for-more-iranian-cyber-attacks/

September 1, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

This is how we can regulate data centres in Scotland

There’s an increasingly loud uprising happening in Scotland around AI data
centres. Possibly the biggest I’ve seen since the 2016 uproar over shale
gas fracking. Data centre companies are actively lobbying the Scottish
Government as we speak and are basically asking for John Swinney to open
the gates to them to flood Scotland with as many data centres as he’s
willing to make us all swallow.

It’s easy to see what the companies get out
of it. Scotland has plenty of space, a good amount of water and while
electricity prices are high they can often negotiate preferential rates
that we could only dream of. What does Scotland get out of it? Higher
energy prices, higher demand on increasingly scarce water, about
three-and-a-half jobs, and the Scottish Government gets to claim that the
“inwards investment” line goes up? Perhaps I can see why Swinney would
take that deal.

The National 27th Aug 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26498669.can-regulate-data-centres-scotland/

September 1, 2026 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

Germany in talks to help fund Trident

Berlin could bolster Britain’s nuclear programme under plans to end Europe’s reliance on America for defence

Joe Barnes Diplomatic Editor. James Rothwell Berlin Correspondent. James Crisp Europe Editor,  26 August 2026

Germany is in talks to invest in Britain’s nuclear deterrent, The
Telegraph understands. Berlin is considering offering financial support for
Trident as it spearheads efforts to reinforce Europe’s nuclear umbrella.
One well-placed source said Germany wanted to better integrate itself into
the existing British and French nuclear deterrents rather than pursue its
own bomb because of the nation’s wartime guilt.

“We have a very strong
interest that the existing nuclear powers in Europe extend their
capabilities,” the source said. The discussions between Paris, Berlin and
London have accelerated in recent months amid fears the Trump
administration will withdraw its military from Europe.

Telegraph 26th Aug 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/08/26/germany-talks-help-fund-britains-trident-nuclear-deterrent/

August 31, 2026 Posted by | Germany, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Claim about Scottish support for nuclear power doesn’t add up

Ni Holmes, St Andrews, 27 Aug 26

I WAS not surprised to find, when I got to the foot of a letter challenging Paul Kavanagh’s assertion that “Scotland does not need nuclear energy and most in Scotland don’t want it” as being “wrong on both counts” (Aug 26), that it was written by Lincoln Hill, the Nuclear Industry Association’s director of policy and external affairs.

Mr Hill appears not to be too good at maths. He cites a YouGov poll showing that fewer than a third of people in Scotland consider nuclear power as the most important energy source and that a similar number identified it as their preferred source of energy. To my understanding, the remaining two-thirds of Scots who do not support nuclear power are indeed most of the people in Scotland.

Mr Hill goes on to assert that Scotland needs “more than one source of electricity”. This suggests that lack of basic counting skills is the foundation of his weakness in maths. We already have multiple sources of electricity: we have had hydro-electric power for decades, we have wave generators, we have onshore and offshore wind turbines, and new technology is making solar power viable even in our climate. By my count those five already add up to the “more than one” that Mr Hill claims we need. We will still have more than one source after the last nuclear power station in our country is finally decommissioned.

It seems to me that it is Mr Hill that is wrong and Mr Kavanagh was entirely correct on both counts. We neither need nor want nuclear power in Scotland, the Nuclear Industry Association, or for that matter the Westminster Labour Party’s small-scale reactors and Starmer’s “GB Energy”. What we do need is our independence so that we can make our own choices in the interest of Scotland and the all of its people, rather than English energy requirements or the wealthy seek to profit from energy production.

August 31, 2026 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

UK seeks to tighten security of supply chains after Iran-linked cyber attacks

 The UK government is seeking to change the law so that it can block
companies from buying products from high-risk suppliers, in a move that
comes shortly after news that a hacking group had shut down a small energy
facility.

Ministers could demand companies in critical sectors such as
energy, healthcare and telecoms take extra security measures such as
implementing a phased removal of certain vendors or be banned from
acquiring technology from them under proposals announced on Monday.

The vulnerability of key UK infrastructure was highlighted by Sunday’s
revelation that hackers thought to be linked to Iran had forced a small gas
plant offline. The National Cyber Security Centre has also warned that
companies must do more to guard against cyber attacks. The government’s
plans were introduced via amendments to the Cyber Security and Resilience
Bill and are subject to parliamentary approval. They will seek to safeguard
the supply chains of companies, which are often used as a “soft
underbelly” by hackers seeking to target larger groups.

 FT 24th Aug 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/3d46e4cb-4dee-4f49-adc1-0bb0f63d4c49

August 30, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Britain’s Storm Shadow tech transfer to Ukraine will lead to more escalation. We need dialogue!

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, August 25, 2026, https://cnduk.org/britains-storm-shadow-tech-transfer-to-ukraine-will-lead-to-more-escalation-we-need-dialogue/?link_id=1&can_id=0a448bf4278898648e02a8f6dea4650f&source=email-britain-pushes-for-more-escalation-in-ukraine-aukus-webinar-register-for-cnd-agm-policy-conference&email_referrer=email_3374903&email_subject=britain-pushes-for-more-escalation-in-ukraine-aukus-webinar-register-for-cnd-conference

Britain’s decision to join France in transferring classified Storm Shadow blueprints to Ukraine so it can domestically produce the long-range cruise missile will only increase nuclear risks, warns CND.  

Prime Minister Andy Burnham made the announcement about the technology transfer during a visit to Kyiv on Monday.

The Storm Shadow is co-produced with France by the multi-national arms company MBDA and has a range of 155 miles (250km). The air-launched missiles also have bunker-busting warheads and are capable of hitting Russian targets in its territory. In November 2024, the British government, in coordination with the US administration, gave permission for Ukraine to use these weapons to hit targets deep inside Russian territory. This was in spite of Russia’s threat to use its nuclear weapons against such long-range attacks. 

France already agreed to hand over its own blueprints for the SCALP-EG (its French export name) in July, as part of a wider arms deal that included Rafale fighter jets and interceptor missiles.  

On Sunday, Russia’s foreign ministry said it had withdrawn its ambassador to London, Andrei Kelin, accusing Britain of choosing a “path of confrontation.”  This comes after Russia announced that there would be consequences for attacks on civilian infrastrcutrue by British-made long-range drones. Some reports have suggested that this could mean British drone factories could be attacked by “unknown sources.” 

Burnham’s announcement has been interpreted as an attempt by Britain and France to push the US into giving Ukraine its Patriot interceptor technology so it can produce them locally. During July’s NATO summit, Donald Trump told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the US would give a licence to produce Patriots only to backtrack on the promise weeks later saying it “a hard thing to give away.”

The reversal coincided with an escalation in the US’s illegal war on Iran in July. That conflict, ongoing since February, has led to a shortage in stocks of both Patriot and Tomahawk as the US and its Gulf allies use them to counter Iranian ballistic missiles and drones. It’s estimated that only 1,000 Patriot missiles remain in US stocks and current annual production is currently 600. Plans are already in place to set up new production lines in Germany and Poland to help replenish their stocks given to Ukraine, while Zelensky is also calling for a line to be set up in Ukraine. 

CND General Secretary Sophie Bolt said:
“The British government’s strategy of escalation is very dangerous. We have already seen the nuclear risks from such escalation in 2024 when Russia threatened to use its nuclear weapons against long-range missiles. Burnham needs to end this reckless war-mongering and focus on dialogue and de-escalation.” 

August 29, 2026 Posted by | UK, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Sizewell C nuclear project suffers setback after road building delayed.

Galliford Try replaced as key contractor following disagreement about cost
of work. Construction of two key access roads for Britain’s Sizewell C
nuclear power station has been delayed, and the main contractor replaced,
in a setback at one of the UK’s biggest infrastructure projects.


The delay threatens to prolong disruption around the Suffolk construction site
and comes as Sizewell C seeks to demonstrate that it can avoid the delays
and cost overruns that have plagued its sister project, Hinkley Point C in
Somerset.

The main contractor for the access roads, construction group
Galliford Try, has been replaced after failing to agree with Sizewell C on
the cost of the work. Galliford had been awarded a contract worth between
£150mn and £200mn to build the Sizewell Link Road and Two Village Bypass,
designed to carry construction traffic to the £38bn nuclear plant while
diverting heavy goods vehicles away from nearby villages.

 FT 25th Aug 2026,
https://www.ft.com/content/7a83b577-8d67-4435-9798-1e53d7fad4e9

August 28, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

British start-up to help US build nuclear-powered cargo ships.

Core Power has raised $200m from Japanese backers and will use its propulsion systems
in a fleet of American nuclear-powered merchant vessels. A British start-up
based on a west London trading estate is to help the American government
build a fleet of nuclear-powered cargo ships.

A public-private partnership
between the US Maritime Administration and Core Power, based in Chiswick
Park, was signed in Washington DC on Monday. The first-of-its-kind
agreement aims to accelerate construction of a US-flagged fleet of rapid
nuclear-powered merchant vessels, and revive a US shipbuilding industry
that has been decimated by cheaper competitors from China in recent years.

 Times 24th Aug 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/business/companies-markets/article/british-start-up-to-help-us-build-nuclear-powered-cargo-ships-8xl7bmnk8

August 28, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Polish billionaire’s financing plans for 14 UK SMRs analysed

“I think the price projections are utterly worthless. If you don’t know the construction cost and time, the cost of capital, the equity structure, not to mention the O&M (operation and maintenance) cost, you have no idea what the power price will be.”

“So if things don’t go to plan, it will be the government’s fault, not theirs. (SGE’s)”

– Stephen Thomas, professor at the University of Greenwich Business School, working in the area of energy policy. 

25 Aug, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/polish-billionaires-financing-plans-for-14-uk-smrs-analysed-25-08-2026/

Financing plans from Polish billionaire Michał Sołowow’s SGE to enable the deployment of 14 small modular reactors (SMRs) in the UK have been revealed by NCE and analysed by an expert.

In July, SGE – described as a dedicated European SMR development and investment platform – announced its plans to build 14 GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactors on three sites in the UK.

In total, the investment is expected to be around £35bn and the first SMRs are hoped to be operational in 2034.

To achieve that, SGE has submitted an application under the UK’s Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) to develop the combined 4.2GW fleet which, if successful, could deliver 11% of UK power demand for at least sixty years.

Using the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, New Civil Engineer (NCE) has secured correspondence between SGE and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) where SGE set out more details about its ambitions to finance its SMRs.

SGE’s representatives at etara – a power, energy and infrastructure advisory firm – sent a letter from SGE to DESNZ deputy director for advanced nuclear Andrew Cooke dated 26 June.

The letter was addressed to the then DESNZ secretary of state Ed Miliband.

“We are writing to set out how SGE’s privately led SMR fleet deployment programme can support DESNZ’s priorities on clean power, energy security, industrial growth and reliable nuclear baseload, ahead of our application to the Advanced Nuclear Framework (ANF) which we plan to submit next week on the 1 July 2026,” it said.

SGE said it is “bringing forward one of the UK’s most mature privately led SMR propositions”, and this would be “on better value for money terms helping reduce the long-term impact on UK bill payers”.

It backed up the promise of value for money by saying: “Our fleet approach across Europe, including leveraging our regional exclusivity on the GE Vernova technology deployment and our 14 unit programme in Poland with our JV partner Orlen, gives us confidence that we can deliver on attractive economic terms

Their plans were shown to University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Steve Thomas, who shared his analysis with NCE. SGE provided NCE with responses to his analysis.

SGE’s letter said: “Our preliminary financial modelling is indicating that the CfD (contracts for difference) strike price is expected to be below that of Hinkley Point C with a lesser risk transfer than the Sizewell C Rab (regulated asset base) model, offering better value for money.”

Thomas said: “As I never tire of pointing out, CfD tells you nothing other than that the plant is not bidding into the market. Hinkley has one, so will Sizewell. The very big difference is that for Hinkley, the price is fixed and the investor income will be what it will be and for Sizewell, the investor income is fixed and the electricity price will be what it will be.

“I think the price projections are utterly worthless. If you don’t know the construction cost and time, the cost of capital, the equity structure, not to mention the O&M (operation and maintenance) cost, you have no idea what the power price will be.”

Responding to Thomas’s analysis, SGE said: “It is true that for Hinkley the CfD price is fixed and the pain of overruns is impacting the investors.

“For Sizewell it is true that the consumer will pay whatever it costs, but it is not quite right that there will be a CfD, there already are charges to consumers under the Rab model – well before the plant is constructed or produces power.

“The CfD model proposed by SGE, as with Hinkley pre-sets at FID the strike price, so keeps the completion risk and majority of cost outturn risk with the investors, hence the projections do matter for the investors and for the value for money evaluation by the government.

“As with all standard project appraisals, our financial model underpins the indicative strike price. It is informed by live data from construction of the first BWX300 SMR in Canada and benefits from economies of scale from our projects across Europe.”

The letter said SGE’s offer would involve “lesser risk transfer than the Sizewell C Rab model”.

Thomas said it was “interesting that this is implicit criticism of the Sizewell deal and I wonder how that will go with DESNZ, which sold Sizewell on the basis it was better for consumers than Hinkley, now we are going back to the Hinkley model because it is better than Sizewell.”

Responding to Thomas’s analysis, SGE said: “There is no criticism of the Sizewell model, just a factual reference to the relative risk allocation – the CfD model keeps a greater level of risk (e.g. completion risk) with the investors, not with taxpayers or consumers.

“It is common practice to benchmark, and this is all that the reference does. The proposed model draws on lessons from Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and other reference projects across Europe.”

SGE’s letter said the success of its proposition is “subject to supportive government engagement” and said, “our delivery team with the capability of GE Vernova and Samsung is capable of delivering first power to the grid by 2034”.

Thomas said: “So if things don’t go to plan, it will be the government’s fault, not theirs.”

SGE responded, saying: “This is not a fault allocation point but a simple point that nuclear projects require state engagement – self-evidently, the CfD agreement needs the state’s agreement and signature.

“Delivery of any major infrastructure project requires close collaboration between government and the client organisation across planning, regulation, financing and delivery.”

The letter said: “To convert this mature proposition into delivery, we are seeking government support that is practical, targeted and designed to be off government balance sheet to mobilise our private capital.”

Thomas analysed, saying: “That sounds like the Rab process which didn’t go well as the government ended up having to take near enough half the project, so definitely not off the government balance sheet.”

SGE responded, saying: “The support proposed is not Rab but CfD. The ANF is seeking a structure that mobilises private capital. SGE is offering such private capital under CfD terms.

“Our proposal is designed to mobilise private capital through a structure that is intended to remain off the government balance sheet, subject to the final model and accounting treatment.”

Finally, the letter also said: “Utilising the CfD and SoSIA (Secretary of State Investor Agreement) contractual frameworks with specific modifications that take the lessons learnt from Hinkley Point C (HPC) and from a number of new nuclear projects across Europe that have since HPC been enabled under CfD structures.”

Thomas said: “I will give very good odds that one of the specific modifications is that the strike price is not fixed at the time of FID (final investment decision), but if costs go up, so will the strike price.”

SGE said: “As per the CfD structures in Europe that are referred to, there are pain share mechanisms, as well as gain share mechanisms, but not full pass-through to the strike price.

“SGE is an equity investor into a new nuclear programme and, along with its strategic partners, it intends to take development and construction risks – it will not simply transfer any cost increase into the CfD.

“Any modifications to the CfD and SoSIA frameworks would be subject to agreement with government and reflected in the agreed contractual and regulatory framework and be subject to the controls that exist for any state support regarding value for money considerations.”

Later in the correspondence between SGE and DESNZ officials, public relations staff working on behalf of SGE asked DESNZ officials to attend their press launch event in July and for a minister to provide a quote for their press release.

Officials were unavailable for the launch event.


In response to the request for a quote, a DESNZ official said: “As the submission of a proposal is part of a routine administrative process, consistent with the department’s approach to comparable processes such as entry into the Generic Design Assessment (GDA), DESNZ does not provide public quotes or commentary at the point of application.

“This approach helps ensure that the department remains impartial throughout the assessment process and avoids any perception that a submission has been endorsed or prejudged prior to the completion of the relevant assessment and decision-making processes.

“Should a proposal be successful, there may be opportunities for communications and stakeholder engagement at the appropriate stage. However, at the point of submission, the department will not be providing a quote.”

An SGE spokesperson told NCE: “SGE’s interactions with DESNZ have been and remain positive and constructive.

“We understand the department’s approach that reflects its standard policy in relation to the ANF process. We look forward to continuing our engagement with DESNZ as we progress our UK project.”

August 27, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Cabinet Office declines to share information it holds about PM’s nuke orders options

Tom Pashby, Aug 26, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/cabinet-office-declines-to-share?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=212821041&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The Cabinet Office has confirmed to 20 Working Days that it holds information regarding what options the Prime Minister has in terms of the orders they can give to nuclear-armed submarine captains in their ‘Letters of last resort’, but said it is withholding the information.

It is widely understood that one of the first tasks a Prime Minister has on walking through the door to Number 10 Downing Street is writing the letters to the captains of Trident submarines – the UK’s continuous-at-sea-deterrent.

The letters are written so that, if communications are not possible between the submarine and the wider military and political command and control structure, the submarine captains are able to find out what they should do by reading the pre-written letters which are believed to be sealed until they are needed.

The existence of the letters was confirmed by the MOD in an internal review of a FOI request in 2015. The results of the internal review were addressed to a Mr D Black.

In 2016, just before Theresa May took over the role from David Cameron, the Guardian reported: “The options are said to include the orders “Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there”; “Go to Australia”; “Retaliate”; or “Use your own judgment”.”

On 4 July 2026, using the FOI Act, 20 Working Days asked the MOD to share “any documents which show whether the options include the orders ‘Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there’; ‘Go to Australia’; ‘Retaliate’; or ‘Use your own judgment’,” as per the reporting in the Guardian.

In response, on 16 July, the MOD said: “As the letters are administered by the Cabinet Office, you may wish to approach them regarding […] what options the letters might contain.”

On the same day, 20 Working Days put that question to the Cabinet Office.

On 17 August, the Cabinet Office responded and said: “We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.

“Information you have requested is exempt under section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 24 exempts information from disclosure if its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.”

It added that “Section 24 is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information”, and confirmed “we have determined that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this Information”.

The Cabinet Office was approached for comment.

August 27, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »