Sizewell C’s Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the line (- with the public purse)
“This much-delayed Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the
line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors,
will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns. Even so, UK households
will soon be hit with a new Sizewell C construction tax on their energy
bills. It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed,
that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost
doubled to an eye watering £38 billion – a figure that will only go up.
Given that Ministers claimed not to recognise the cost was close to £40
billion is there any wonder there is so little trust in this project?”
Stop Sizewell C 22nd July 2025,
https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/finalinvestmentdecision?e=326ee81c22
Why Starmer’s nuclear power push raises cancer fears
The UK is investing £14.2bn in a new Sizewell plant and £2.5bn in small nuclear reactors. In 1942, the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in Missouri, US, was
processing uranium for the first atomic bomb. It ran out of space for its
radioactive waste and moved it to an open air storage site near Coldwater
Creek, north of St Louis.
More than 80 years later, Harvard University has
found that communities living near the creek, a tributary of the Missouri
River, have an elevated risk of cancer. The findings, released this week,
showed a dose-response effect, with those nearest the water having a far
higher chance of developing most cancers than those living farther away.
Researchers say it highlights the dangers of exposure to even small amounts
of radiation over time. They say governments must be cautious when building
new nuclear sites near towns and villages. The public was first alerted to
the possibility that nuclear plants could be causing cancer when an ITV
documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases
between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield. While
less than one case should have been expected in such a small community,
researchers found seven youngsters suffering from the condition. Residents
feared that radioactive discharges may be to blame and the Committee on
Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) was set up to
investigate.
Investigations by Comare did show that rates of two types of
childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were significantly higher
than expected, and researchers found a similar cluster at Thurso near
Dounreay. However, researchers did not find raised rates in other villages
near Sellafield and Dounreay, leading them to think that something else was
causing the rise, potentially local infections which are known to trigger
cancer in some cases. The investigators theorised that an influx of workers
moving to Seascale and Thurso to work in the nuclear industry might have
exposed local residents to new infections, sparking a rise in childhood
cancer rates. Viruses such as Epstein-Barr are thought to be linked to
cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Telegraph 19th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/19/why-starmers-nuclear-power-push-raises-cancer-fears/
Ed Miliband admits Sizewell C cost has almost doubled to £38bn
New power station approved despite costs almost doubling from an estimate made five
years ago. Ed Miliband has admitted Sizewell C will cost at least £38bn to
build as he gave final approval for the construction of the nuclear power
station. The Energy Secretary took the final investment decision on the
controversial power station on Tuesday.
The site will take at least a decade to build. The Government confirmed the project will cost £38bn in 2024 prices, or £39.3bn once inflation since then is factored in. The
total is almost double the £20bn estimate given by the government and
developers EDF in 2020.
Sizewell C will be part-funded by a new levy on
household electricity bills called the Regulated Asset Base. The aim is to
pay the construction costs as they are incurred rather than borrow and then
pay decades of interest. Mr Miliband has claimed this levy will add only
£12 a year to the average household bill, but his claim is being treated
with scepticism by critics who point out that almost all major nuclear
projects suffer massive delays and cost overruns.
Telegraph 22nd July 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/22/miliband-gives-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-the-green-light/
On the hook! Taxpayers to foot much of £38 billion bill for Sizewell C farce.
“It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.
NFLA 22nd July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/on-the-hook-taxpayers-to-foot-much-of-38-billion-bill-for-sizewell-c-farce/
As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signals the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant with today’s approval of the Financial Investment Decision,[i] it is notable that the estimated cost of building the UK’s latest nuclear white elephant has already almost doubled to £38 billion.
Taxpayers will be on the hook for billions, as Ministers have failed to secure the full private sector funding that they desperately wanted and as France has reined in its own commitment.
The UK government’s stake is now 44.9%, whilst Amber Infrastructure (7.6%), Centrica (15%), EDF Energy (12.5%), and La Caisse (20%) will also take stakes. The National Wealth Fund – the government’s principal investor and policy bank – is also making its first investment in nuclear energy.
Interestingly, although much was made of continued French Government involvement through its sole ownership of EDF, President Macron cannot have been very impressed with the hospitality he received on his recent visit to the UK as the French subsequently reduced their stake to 12.5%. Originally both the UK and French Government had each committed to taking a near 20% stake.
The previously published official cost for the project was £20 billion, with the plant expected to be generating in the mid to late 2030s. But sceptics never believed the claimed £20 billion figure and they placed little faith that the delivery date will be met given that Sizewell C is largely a remake of her older sister, Hinkley Point C, which is massively over budget and behind schedule.
This plant under construction in Somerset is now expected to cost £46 billion to complete, and it will be delivered up to six years late; but at least in the case of Hinkley Point C it is French-state owned EDF Energy that must stump up the extra cash.
Clearly some prospective investors baulked at the cost unknowns and project risks of the Suffolk white elephant, and Alison Downes, Director of Stop Sizewell C, said that consequently the latest project had “only crawled over the line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors, will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns”.
Whitehall and industry insiders have previously revealed to the press that the £20 billion only represented half the true cost and Julia Pyke, Sizewell C’s Managing Director had conceded that the earlier £20 billion cost estimate failed to account for inflation or risk.
In Sizewell C’s media release today, Ms Pyke revealed the price hike:
“Our plan is to deliver Sizewell C at a capital cost of around £38bn. Our estimate is the result of very detailed scrutiny of costs at Hinkley Point C and long negotiations with our suppliers. It has been subject to third-party peer review and has been scrutinised by investors and lenders and has been subject to extensive due diligence as part of the financing process. A capital cost of £38bn represents around 20% saving compared with Hinkley Point C and demonstrates the value of the UK’s fleet approach.”[ii]
In response, Ms Downes added: “It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.
Also commenting, the Chair of a second local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), Jenny Kirtley, said,
“This decision is a financial and environmental disaster for the UK and a betrayal of future generations.
“We are in a climate crisis that needs immediate action, yet this government has chosen to squander billions of public funds on a project that will not be operational until the late 2030s and has already seen a staggering 90% uplift in cost over the last 5 years.
“At nearly double the original £20bn price tag, a figure still being touted by joint managing director Julia Pyke until recently, how can anyone believe that £38bn Sizewell C will provide ‘value for money’ for consumers and taxpayers. The scale of potential exposure of public funds to the Sizewell C project is revealed as a staggering £54.589 billion in the government’s Financial Investment Decision subsidy scheme[iii].
“So much for claims made by EDF and government that there would be huge cost savings from ‘lessons learned’ from the Hinkley Point C build.
“In TASC’s view, the cost of this risky project can only increase as there are still many unresolved issues, including the recently revealed hidden sea defences which were not included by EDF in the 2020 DCO planning application even though EDF knew they would be needed in 2017.[iv] Future generations will have the responsibility to protect the Sizewell C site until the late 2100s and are depending on us to get it right.”
Although disappointing, the news was not unexpected by campaigners. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are therefore confident that they shall soon pick themselves up and continue the fight, and we shall stand alongside them as the battle continues.
US nuclear weapons ‘on UK soil’ for first time in 17 years.
Flight from New Mexico to RAF Lakenheath believed to have dropped off B61 nuclear bombs that can be carried by Britain’s new F-35A fighter jets
The US has stationed nuclear weapons in Britain for the first time in
nearly 20 years for potential deployment on a new squadron of British jets,
analysts have said. A transport plane was tracked on Thursday during a
ten-hour flight from Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, the US Air
Force’s main nuclear storage site, to RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk.
Analysts said that the route taken by the C-17 transport looked like a “one-way
drop-off” and meant that it was likely that the UK was hosting US nuclear
weapons for the first time since 2008. The US and the UK declined to
comment.
Times 21st July 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/defence/article/us-nuclear-weapons-uk-soil-first-time-17-years-wvgz8m6wl
Investment decision to be made on Sizewell C nuclear.
The UK government is expected to reach a final investment decision on the
Sizewell C nuclear power plant on Tuesday. “We are in constructive,
commercially sensitive negotiations with a range of potential investors as
part of the equity raise process,” a spokeswoman for the Department for
Energy Security and Net Zero told Energy Voice in an emailed statement.
“A final investment decision will be made following the conclusion of the
process, which we are targeting for this summer.”
The Financial Times reported that the price tag for the planned nuclear power station in
Suffolk, a replica of Hinkley Point C, will hit £38 billion including
equity and debt. Ministers will reportedly unveil the cost of the project
by the parliamentary recess on Wednesday.
Campaign pressure group Together
Against Sizewell C (TASC)’s chair Jenny Kirtley said: “What
right-minded government would commit billions of public funds to a project
that has already seen a staggering 90% uplift in cost over the last 5
years? “This government and Sizewell C Limited both denied recent build
cost estimates of £40bn for Sizewell C stating there would be a 30%
reduction from Hinkley Point C’s costs due to ‘lessons learned’ so,
why would anyone believe government claims that £38bn Sizewell C will
provide ‘value for money’ for consumers and taxpayers?”
The group has called for a value-for-money assessment of the project to be independently
audited to establish what cost provisions have been included for
“unresolved issues”, including sea defences that were not in EDF’s
original development consent order application.
The main developer on the project, EDF, has reduced its equity stake in the project to 12.5%, valued at about £1.1bn, Energy Voice reported this month. British energy supplier
Centrica is expected to take a 15% stake in the nuclear power plant.
According to a report in Les Echos, Amber Infrastructure and Canadian fund
la Caisse de dépôt et de placement du Québec (CDPQ) now plan to take a
stake of between 25% and 30% in the project.
Reports suggest that a
consortium led by Brookfield Asset Management pulled out of its bid to take
a 25% stake in Sizewell C at the last minute. Greencoat Schroders, which
had entered the round with Brookfield, has also exited the bidding,
according to a separate report. This latest reshuffle would leave the UK
government with an implied minority stake of as little as 42.5%.
Energy Voice 22nd July 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/576815/investment-decision-expected-on-sizewell-c/
Centrica really can’t lose at Sizewell
Centrica’s £1.3 billion investment in Sizewell C guarantees substantial returns, even with cost
overruns. Now we know what Ed Miliband means by his “golden age of
nuclear” — golden for the companies putting their money into Sizewell
C. Yes, reactor projects have a habit of blowing up private investors. But
maybe not this one. It looks more like an exercise in transferring risk to
consumers and the taxpayer.
Times 22nd July 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/centrica-really-cant-lose-at-sizewell-k33brftl2
Ukrainian bots want the BBC to endorse war crimes
Social media trolling takes a new and sinister turn
Ian Proud, Jul 23, 2025, https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/ukrainian-bots-want-the-bbc-to-endorse?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3221990&post_id=168976248&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
On 18 July I made a post on social media platform X in response to a BBC report entitled ‘Kill Russians, win points: is Ukraine’s new drone scheme gamifying war?’ It produced a spectacularly dark backlash from the Ukrainian bot community.
The BBC report explored a Ukrainian military scheme in which its soldiers could claim points for kills by First Person View (FPV) drones and use those points to buy the most preferred military technology in an ‘Amazon for war’.
While Paul Adams, the BBC diplomatic correspondent, touches briefly on the moral challenges that this scheme presents, he was clearly impressed.
‘The e-points scheme is typical of the way Ukraine has fought this war: creative, out-of-the-box thinking designed to make the most of the country’s innovative skills and minimise the effect of its numerical disadvantage.’
‘Points for kills. Amazon for war. To some ears, it might all sound brutal, even callous. But this is war and Ukraine is determined to hold on. By fighting as effectively, and efficiently as it can.’
Every day, military personnel on both sides of the conflict are killed by drones and other military technologies. That is why I have consistently called for the war in Ukraine to be ended through diplomatic means and is why I continue to do so.
The problem I had with the article was its heading – about killing Russian soldiers using drones – was accompanied by a photograph of a soldier (one might presume, Russian) with his back turned to the First Person View on screen with his hands in the air, suggesting surrender. I found this juxtaposition, on UK state-owned media, deeply troubling.
One might easily gain the impression by the headline and the photograph combined that the soldier’s fate was death. And if that was so, then that would constitute a war crime.
Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion” is a war crime in international armed conflicts
One cannot know the fate of the soldier and whether he is killed or taken prisoner. And the article goes on to point out that Ukrainian soldiers can claim higher points for encouraging a Russian soldier to surrender, though does not point out how this would be possible with an armed drone.
It is certainly the habit of the western media to churn out clickbait headlines in a bid to maintain waning public appetite for a war that Ukraine is losing and which Europe is funding at enormous expense.
However, it sets a dangerous precedent if the UK state-owned broadcaster is producing articles that infer war crimes are taking place and implicitly endorse the means of that happening.
I therefore included in my post a poll which asked people to vote on:
Do you want the BBC through its reporting implicitly to endorse war crimes and show images purporting to or giving the impression of the circumstances leading up to a war crime taking place?
I don’t have a huge X following, but my post garnered 20,000 votes over three days with over 90% of those who voted responding ‘no’, specifically that appearing to endorse war crimes in media reporting was wrong.
As I didn’t mention a specific country, some people argued that the allegation might also be levelled at BBC reporting of IDF atrocities in Gaza.
However, on 21 July my post was seized on by very-obviously-Ukrainian bots flinging all sorts of insults in my direction, such that I spent several hours blocking and reporting offensive content on my feed.
In a very short space of time, my account was swarmed by a blizzard of insults and false accusations, including of being an asset of the KGB (sic!).. being a Putin apologist, sucking Russian dicks and being a paedophile who uses teenage Russian prostitutes.
I was added to hate ‘Lists’ that x members keep, such as ‘nazi whore cowards’ and ‘vatniks’ (Russian propagandists).
All very annoying and intended to discredit me en-masse. But as Glenn Diesen joked when we spent some time together in Tblisi, in early June, ‘if you wanted to be popular, you should have sold ice creams’.
When one expresses a personal view on such an emotive topic as this pointless war in Ukraine, you are likely to get attacked from one direction or the other, or even both. However, some made more disturbing comments that can only be interpreted as threats of causing me physical harm.
Many made generalised comments about how any Russian solider in Ukraine should deserve such a fate (to die while surrendering) and so on. However, this was not the most sinister aspect of the response to my post.
In addition to voting that the BBC should not implicitly endorse war crimes, the other option was to vote for: ‘Please endorse war crimes’.
353 people voted in the poll before I closed my post to public comments. 213 people voted in favour of the BBC endorsing war crimes through its reporting of Ukraine. That’s right, just over 60% of, one assumes, mostly Ukrainian or Ukraine-supporting voters, endorses the BBC endorsing war crimes, in this context committed by Ukraine.
Herein the central truth of this and all wars; that they generate intense hatred of the other. That hatred fires the bloodlust that drives war crimes in any theatre of conflict. No war is free of war crimes. British, French, American, Russian and, yes, Ukrainian, service personnel have been documented as having committed war crimes, together with those of many other countries.
War reduces humanity to the darkest depths of depravity in which the most unconscionable acts are justified on the basis of defeating the hated other. Forgive me for believing that the BBC should not be glorifying that, even if implicitly, or encouraging others to do so.
I would far sooner they were pushing for a negotiated settlement to this terrible war.
Oxford fusion pioneer risks running out of cash within months
First Light scrambles for funding despite Labour promise to invest £2.5bn in nuclear
research. A British nuclear fusion pioneer has warned it risks running out
of cash within six months as it races to raise millions of pounds in
funding to secure its future. First Light Fusion, which is based in Oxford,
is in talks with investors to raise £20m after burning through tens of
millions of pounds to develop its novel fusion technology. The start-up,
founded in 2011, had sought to develop what it called “projectile
fusion”, developing a giant gas-powered gun that would fire a 5p-sized
projectile at extreme speeds into a fuel source, sparking a fusion
reaction. However, the company abandoned plans to build a prototype reactor
earlier this year as it struggled to raise funds.
Telegraph 20th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/20/oxford-fusion-pioneer-running-out-of-cash/
Pay danger money to communities impacted by nuclear projects, say NFLAs
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities have called on government ministers to
make the operators of nuclear plants pay their neighbouring communities
‘danger money’ to properly compensate them for living with the risk.
The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero has just concluded a
consultation on plans to introduce a mandatory scheme obliging energy
generators to pay community benefits. The amount of money payable annually
would be based on one of two models, the potential generating capacity of
the plant or the actual amount of electricity generated.
Ministers would make the scheme applicable to nuclear plants, as well as larger renewable
energy projects, but the NFLAs want them to factor in a premium on payments
made by nuclear operators to reflect the potential for accidents, the
environmental contamination caused during their operations, and their
legacy of deadly radioactive waste. We also want nuclear plants to make
payments through their lifecycle, including during the period of
decommissioning and waste management after closure.
NFLA 18th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/pay-danger-money-to-communities-impacted-by-nuclear-projects-say-nflas/
Ministers set to admit Sizewell C nuclear plant price-tag has soared to £38bn.
New official estimate reflects surging construction inflation and
contingency costs. Sizewell C nuclear plant will cost £38bn to build, the
UK government is set to admit for the first time next week as it reveals
the terms of an expected deal for private investors to fund a small portion
of the bill,
The new official estimate is a big increase from a £20bn
figure given by French energy giant EDF and the UK government for the
project in 2020, reflecting surging construction inflation and new
contingency costs.
A trio of private companies are set to invest around
£9bn of equity in Sizewell, but the majority of the construction will be
funded by loans underpinned by a levy on consumer bills, according to
people familiar with the matter.
The UK government is expected to remain
the largest investor in the project with a 47.5 per cent stake, the
Financial Times previously reported. The £38bn cost, details of the deal
and how the financial risk of the project will be shared is set to be
announced before the parliamentary summer recess begins on Wednesday, the
people said.
FT 18th July 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/d4315905-e7b5-4c2c-a0d1-32dd302e7761
Local website reveals city’s secret nuclear weapons programme
by Paul Linford , 18 Jul 2025, https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2025/news/local-website-reveals-citys-secret-nuclear-weapons-programme/
A city news website has revealed a university’s role in a programme to develop a new nuclear warhead.
The Sheffield Tribune, part of Mill Media, found evidence of a secure cell established at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre – part of the University of Sheffield.
The unit was set up by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) – an MoD body responsible for developing nuclear weapons — with the purpose of helping develop a new warhead for the UK’s nuclear arsenal, known as Astraea.
Data journalist Daniel Timms pieced together the story from documents already in the public domain, including a set of minutes from a meeting of parish councillors in Berkshire.
Danie spent four months working on the story and has written a first-person piece about how he uncovered the scoop.
Local website reveals city’s secret nuclear weapons programme
by Paul Linford Published 18 Jul 2025
A city news website has revealed a university’s role in a programme to develop a new nuclear warhead.
The Sheffield Tribune, part of Mill Media, found evidence of a secure cell established at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre – part of the University of Sheffield.
The unit was set up by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) – an MoD body responsible for developing nuclear weapons — with the purpose of helping develop a new warhead for the UK’s nuclear arsenal, known as Astraea.
Data journalist Daniel Timms pieced together the story from documents already in the public domain, including a set of minutes from a meeting of parish councillors in Berkshire.
Daniel, pictured, spent four months working on the story and has written a first-person piece about how he uncovered the scoop.
The key breakthrough came when he read a set of minutes from a meeting of Berkshire parish councillors around the AWE’s Aldermaston HQ in November 2023 which was addressed by an AWE director, Andrew McNaughton.
Wrote Daniel: “Unsurprisingly, AWE publishes very little. But they do have occasional meetings with local parish councillors around their Berkshire site. And in the published minutes, I finally find what I’d been searching for.
“It was the 108th meeting of the committee, in November 2023. Andrew McNaughton, the executive director for infrastructure on the fissile programme, explained that AWE had not had to design new warheads for decades, and taking this on will require new buildings and facilities.
“But in the meantime, they were doing some work elsewhere. And this was where the key admission was made.
“‘We already have a secure cell in Sheffield (part of Sheffield University) where we have some of the equipment we have been using… where we are going to be trialling the processes and training some of our employees,” McNaughton said.”
The Tribune gave both the Ministry of Defence and the university the opportunity to dispute its reporting, but they did not.
Added Daniel: “I’ve been working on this story for four months. I have no previous experience with the defence sector, and I assumed it would be an interesting diversion that would ultimately lead nowhere.
“Instead, largely by relying on freely available documents, I’ve been able to reveal where a significant aspect of the UK’s nuclear weapons programme is taking place — in a building with apparently minimal security just outside Sheffield.
“It’s possible that others with more of a headstart — and with less benign motives — have been able to do the same. But, given the lack of pushback (we haven’t been asked not to publish) perhaps the parties involved aren’t too concerned.”
A spokesperson for the university told The Tribune: “Our work at the AMRC involves developing and testing new technologies and processes for manufacturing companies and does not involve production of components for deployment.
Local website reveals city’s secret nuclear weapons programme
by Paul Linford Published 18 Jul 2025
A city news website has revealed a university’s role in a programme to develop a new nuclear warhead.
The Sheffield Tribune, part of Mill Media, found evidence of a secure cell established at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre – part of the University of Sheffield.
The unit was set up by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) – an MoD body responsible for developing nuclear weapons — with the purpose of helping develop a new warhead for the UK’s nuclear arsenal, known as Astraea.
Data journalist Daniel Timms pieced together the story from documents already in the public domain, including a set of minutes from a meeting of parish councillors in Berkshire.
Daniel, pictured, spent four months working on the story and has written a first-person piece about how he uncovered the scoop.
The key breakthrough came when he read a set of minutes from a meeting of Berkshire parish councillors around the AWE’s Aldermaston HQ in November 2023 which was addressed by an AWE director, Andrew McNaughton.
Wrote Daniel: “Unsurprisingly, AWE publishes very little. But they do have occasional meetings with local parish councillors around their Berkshire site. And in the published minutes, I finally find what I’d been searching for.
“It was the 108th meeting of the committee, in November 2023. Andrew McNaughton, the executive director for infrastructure on the fissile programme, explained that AWE had not had to design new warheads for decades, and taking this on will require new buildings and facilities.
“But in the meantime, they were doing some work elsewhere. And this was where the key admission was made.
“‘We already have a secure cell in Sheffield (part of Sheffield University) where we have some of the equipment we have been using… where we are going to be trialling the processes and training some of our employees,” McNaughton said.”
The Tribune gave both the Ministry of Defence and the university the opportunity to dispute its reporting, but they did not.
Added Daniel: “I’ve been working on this story for four months. I have no previous experience with the defence sector, and I assumed it would be an interesting diversion that would ultimately lead nowhere.
“Instead, largely by relying on freely available documents, I’ve been able to reveal where a significant aspect of the UK’s nuclear weapons programme is taking place — in a building with apparently minimal security just outside Sheffield.
“It’s possible that others with more of a headstart — and with less benign motives — have been able to do the same. But, given the lack of pushback (we haven’t been asked not to publish) perhaps the parties involved aren’t too concerned.”
A spokesperson for the university told The Tribune: “Our work at the AMRC involves developing and testing new technologies and processes for manufacturing companies and does not involve production of components for deployment.
“Our collaboration with partners in the defence sector helps them to overcome sustainability and productivity challenges, and support UK security and sovereign capabilities.”
Joshi Hermann, proprietor of Mill Media commented: “This is a fantastic story from Daniel Timms, revealing the existence of a secret nuclear weapons programme in Sheffield.
“If he can work this out from sources and the minutes of a parish council meeting in Berkshire, then the Russians/Chinese can too.”
Remembering the radical anti-nuclear Greenham Women’s Peace Camp
Huck Mag 18th July 2025, https://www.huckmag.com/article/anti-nuclear-greenham-womens-peace-camp-life-fence-janine-wiedel
Life at the Fence — In the early ’80s, a women’s only camp at an RAF site in Berkshire was formed to protest the threat of nuclear arms. Janine Wiedel’s new photobook revisits its anti-establishment setup and people.
Coming of age in the shadow of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Janine Wiedel remembers the “duck and cover drills” of her childhood years, where students hid under school desks, head in hands, practicing quiet surrender to nuclear Armageddon.
By the ’80s, Wiedel was living and working as a photographer, documenting working-class life in the UK. With Ronald Reagan in the White House, Cold War tensions reached a fevered pitch. Across the pond, Margaret Thatcher, Reagan’s “comrade-in-arms”, welcomed the NATO bequest of 96 US-manufactured, nuclear “cruise missiles”, which were to begin arriving at RAF Greenham Common in 1983.
As NATO and the USSR ran up their arsenals, a grassroots resistance movement sprouted in Greenham, in the English county of Berkshire, taking the shape of a “women’s only” peace camp in 1982. Despite evictions, fences, and spies organised to bring them down, the resistance stayed the course until the American forces packed up their weapons and went home following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Their struggle made headlines, with even the Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev paying homage to the ‘Greenham women and the peace movement of Europe’ at the signing of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But those initial media reports, Wiedel remembers, were ultimately disparaging of the women, so she decided to visit the camp for herself in 1983.
“I was fascinated by the community that had evolved as a result of it being ‘all women’ – there were no leaders,” Wiedel says. “The women built homes out of wood they collected, and they lit and tended the fires. They attended and spoke at conferences. They represented themselves in court when they were arrested. Everyone had an equal voice. Confidence grew. The actions were spontaneous and flexible; the authorities and police never knew what they would do next.”
The lesson became clear: don’t stop until the job is done. Now, Wiedel revisits this historic chapter of protest history with Life at the Fence: Greenham Women’s Peace Camp 1983 – 84 (Image & Reality). Through transportive imagery and interviews conducted at the time, the book brings together Wiedel’s masterful reportage as she takes us through the camps, which were built along the nine-mile perimeter of the RAF base, while paratroopers perched in lookout towers, binoculars in hand. Against the backdrop of gnarly barbed wire, the women sorted themselves out among different camp sites, each named for a different colour of the rainbow. It was a world of striking contrasts.
Drawn to women who had given up everything to live in primitive, volatile conditions, Wiedel listened to the women, recording their testimonies, songs, and remembrances which she weaves alongside documentary, portraits, landscape, still life, and reportage of non-violent direct actions.
“At the time, as a ‘women only’ protest, it was subjected to every form of abuse and ridicule by the media,” says Wiedel. “Its presence at the base also became an embarrassment to the Thatcher government. The women, however, managed to remain at the base for 19 years. Everyone I spoke with said it had transformed their lives.”
Life at the Fence: Greenham Women’s Peace Camp 1983 – 84 by Janine Wiedel is published by Image & Reality.
UK’s nuclear push may hand investors a cushy deal
while the financing looks “private”, the real backstop is public.
Yawen Chen, July 18, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/commentary/breakingviews/uks-nuclear-push-may-hand-investors-cushy-deal-2025-07-18/
Brookfield’s (BAM.TO), opens new tab reported plan to take a 25% stake, opens new tab in the Sizewell C nuclear project would mark a big vote of confidence in Britain’s atomic energy revival. But while it suggests that private capital could play a role in funding the country’s energy security, taxpayers are likely to take much of the risk.
The Canadian giant is no stranger to infrastructure, but nuclear power comes with high upfront costs, delays and cost overruns. Sizewell C could cost up to 40 billion pounds ($54 billion) to build, the Financial Times says, up from the latest government estimate of 20 billion pounds.
Britain’s track record is far from reassuring. Take Hinkley Point C, which was majority owned by EDF. Construction began in 2017 and was originally expected to be completed in 2025 and cost 18 billion pounds. It is now unlikely to be operational before 2030, with the overall cost revised to up to 35 billion pounds in 2015 prices. EDF had little protection against those delays as the chief backing it got from the government came from energy price commitments, which kick in when the plant is running.
Bringing in private investors may therefore require a new approach. That’s why the government passed legislation in 2022 so that the Sizewell C plant will be financed via a model, opens new tab seen in utilities like water companies or energy networks, dubbed the regulated asset base (RAB). That model fixes an allowed return to investors by passing on costs to consumers. Crucially, it allows a project to generate revenue from the moment construction begins, instead of only when it becomes operational.
The closest precedent is probably London’s Thames Tideway Tunnel, which funded the construction of a new sewer. There, consumer bills are charged enough to cover a blended return to debt and equity investors, or weighted average cost of capital (WACC), of 2.5% over inflation while the project is under construction. Given the risks in nuclear, industry experts reckon a WACC of 4% above inflation is more likely, equivalent to a nominal rate of 6%. And, as with Thames Tideway, nuclear plants will likely require a commitment from the government for it to compensate investors if cost overruns exceed a certain threshold.
That’s means the RAB model could easily end up becoming pretty expensive. The National Audit Office’s modelling suggests that the WACC of a hypothetical nuclear project could rise to 9% if expenses were to come over budget by between 75% and 100%. As Hinkley Point showed, that’s quite plausible.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer may not have much choice. The government says
, opens new tab it needs new nuclear power stations to help its transition to net zero and ensure energy security threatened by Russia. And Chancellor Rachel Reeves will be loath to fund them all on balance sheet, given the country’s fiscal state. Brookfield’s interest shows that institutional investors may be able to step up. But while the financing looks “private”, the real backstop is public.
Context News
UK energy secretary Ed Miliband said in June that Sizewell C would be the beginning of a “golden age” for nuclear in Britain. He also said the project would be “majority public funded”. The government has committed 14.2 billion pounds
The UK government is closing in on a final deal to secure private investment into the Sizewell C nuclear power project. Its 84% stake in the development is expected to be diluted to around 47.5%, with Canadian investor Brookfield Asset Management, British energy supplier Centrica and French energy giant EDF holding the remainder, the Financial Times reported on July 9 citing people with knowledge of the ongoing negotiations.
Brookfield is likely to take a 25% stake, with Centrica buying 15%, the report said.
France’s state-owned EDF, which is leading the development of the site, said on July 8 it would reduce its holdings to 12.5%.
Office for Nuclear Regulation says its ‘insufficient organisational capability’ is increasing strategic risk.
18 Jul, 2025 By Tom Pashby
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has identified its “insufficient
organisational capability” as an increasing strategic risk in its latest
annual report. The risks are: Insufficient organisational capability, the
ONR being ineffective at discharging its duties as a regulator, failure to
deliver objectives due to an inability to respond to incidents, poor
knowledge management, inflexible funding, the impact of changes to deliver
leadership and insufficient security controls.
Each of these risks has been
analysed on whether it is static, increasing or decreasing. Notably, it
said the risk of “insufficient organisational capability” was found to
be increasing. This has “matured out of the former Insufficient
Organisational Capability and Capacity risk to allow for an enhanced focus
on the capability of the organisation. “We have implemented a review of
regulatory competence and capacity to meet future regulatory
requirements.” An ONR spokesperson told NCE: “The government has
announced its biggest expansion of nuclear power in several decades and so
maintaining a resilient regulatory capability and capacity to deliver our
mission remains a key priority.
New Civil Engineer 18th July 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/office-for-nuclear-regulation-says-its-insufficient-organisational-capability-is-increasing-strategic-risk-18-07-2025/
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
- April 2026 (68)
- 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)
-
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 