UK « nuclear-news

Further charges on health and safety offences at a nuclear construction site

Following a pre-trial review hearing held today at Bristol Crown Court, a
trial date has been set in the prosecution of two companies charged with
health and safety offences at a nuclear construction site. Two further
charges were added to the indictment at today’s court hearing, bringing the
total of charges to four.

The organisations face a charge of failing to
plan, manage and monitor construction work without risks to health and
safety contravening Regulation 15(2) of the Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 2015, and previously entered not guilty pleas at a
hearing held in December 2025. An additional charge that Laing O’Rourke
Delivery Limited and Bouygues Travaux Publics SAS both failed to conduct a
suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the risks to the health and
safety of their employees, under Regulation 3 (1) (a) of the Management of
Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999, contravening Section 33(1)(c)
of the Act has now also been added. Both organisations have pleaded not
guilty to these charges.

ONR 17th Feb 2026, https://www.onr.org.uk/news/all-news/2026/02/new-charges-added-in-rebar-mesh-wall-incident-at-hinkley-point-c

February 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

British taxpayers bankroll French nuclear giant while Hinkley Point C quietly receives 500-tonne reactor heart.

The contrast couldn’t be starker: French taxpayers owning British energy infrastructure, while British taxpayers guarantee the profits.

For a typical family using 3,000 kWh annually, the Hinkley surcharge could add £15-25 yearly to bills once the plant is operational. That might sound modest, but it’s on top of already record-high energy costs and other energy levies.

Olivia Hunt February 15, 2026, https://secom.es/hinkley-point-c-receives-500-tonne-reactor-heart-british-taxpayers-bankroll/

Sarah Mitchell stared at her energy bill in disbelief. £340 for the month. Again. The single mother from Bristol had already switched off the heating in two bedrooms and started cooking with just one burner. Yet somewhere across the Channel, a massive steel cylinder was being loaded onto a ship, destined for her county of Somerset. That 500-tonne nuclear reactor vessel would eventually power her home—and she was helping to pay for it, twice over.

It’s a story playing out across Britain right now. While families ration their heating and businesses close early to save on electricity, a French-built nuclear giant is making its way to British shores. The destination is Hinkley Point C, the controversial power station that’s become a symbol of everything complicated about Britain’s energy choices.

The scene in Cherbourg was deliberately low-key. No cameras, no politicians cutting ribbons. Just dockworkers watching as France’s most sophisticated nuclear technology rolled toward a waiting vessel, bound for a country that’s paying through the nose for foreign expertise.

Hinkley Point C represents the biggest bet Britain has made on its energy future in decades. When the deal was struck in 2016, it looked like smart planning. Today, with energy prices through the roof and household budgets stretched thin, it feels more like an expensive gamble with other people’s money.

The reactor pressure vessel now crossing the English Channel is the beating heart of what will become Britain’s newest nuclear power station. Built by Framatome, France’s state-owned nuclear champion, this steel colossus will sit at the center of two European Pressurised Reactors (EPR) designed to generate enough electricity for six million homes.

“This vessel represents the pinnacle of nuclear engineering,” explains Dr. James Crawford, a nuclear physicist at Imperial College London. “But the question isn’t whether it’s impressive technology—it’s whether British taxpayers should be funding French state enterprises while struggling with their own energy costs.”

The numbers behind Hinkley Point C make for uncomfortable reading. The project has ballooned from an initial estimate of £18 billion to potentially over £35 billion. Meanwhile, British households are locked into paying a guaranteed “strike price” of £92.50 per megawatt-hour for the electricity it produces, inflation-adjusted over 35 years.Follow the Money: Who Pays and Who Profits

The financial structure of Hinkley Point C reads like a masterclass in how to transfer risk from private companies to ordinary citizens. Here’s how the money flows:

Who Builds	Who Owns	Who Pays	Who Guarantees
EDF (French state-owned)	EDF (66.5%) + CGN (Chinese, 33.5%)	British bill payers	British government
Framatome (French)	Foreign shareholders	British taxpayers	British taxpayers

The strike price mechanism means British energy users will pay a premium for Hinkley’s electricity regardless of market conditions. If wholesale prices fall, we top up the difference. If they rise above £92.50 per MWh, EDF keeps the extra profit up to a point—but taxpayers still carry the underlying risk.

Key financial commitments include:

£92.50 per MWh guaranteed electricity price (2012 prices, now worth over £110 with inflation)
35-year contract duration with built-in price increases
Government loan guarantees reducing EDF’s borrowing costs
Planning and regulatory costs covered by British authorities
Decommissioning fund contributions from British sources

“It’s the most expensive electricity deal in Europe,” notes energy economist Professor Michael Roberts from Oxford University. “We’re essentially giving EDF a 35-year annuity underwritten by British households, while they retain ownership of a strategic asset.”

Real Homes, Real Bills, Real Consequences

While the nuclear reactor makes its journey from France, the human cost of Britain’s energy choices plays out in living rooms across the country. The Hinkley Point C contract means every household will contribute to EDF’s guaranteed profits through their electricity bills for the next three and a half decades.

The timing feels particularly brutal. As the French-built reactor vessel crosses the Channel, British families are making impossible choices between heating and eating. Food banks report unprecedented demand, partly driven by people choosing groceries over gas bills.

“My constituents are furious,” says MP Caroline Davies, whose constituency includes several towns near Hinkley Point C. “They see foreign companies profiting from guaranteed contracts while they’re choosing between turning on the heating or buying school uniforms for their kids.”

The broader economic impact extends beyond household bills:

Small businesses closing early to avoid peak-rate electricity charges
Manufacturers relocating to countries with cheaper, more predictable energy costs
Public services cutting back on heating and lighting in schools and hospitals
Pensioners rationing heating despite rising winter fuel allowances

Meanwhile, EDF’s shareholders—ultimately the French state—benefit from one of the most generous infrastructure deals in recent British history. The contrast couldn’t be starker: French taxpayers owning British energy infrastructure, while British taxpayers guarantee the profits.

The situation raises fundamental questions about energy sovereignty and democratic accountability. When foreign state-owned companies control critical infrastructure that British citizens are compelled to fund, traditional notions of national ownership become meaningless,

Energy analysts warn this model could extend to other major projects. If Hinkley Point C proves profitable for foreign investors at British expense, similar deals for future nuclear plants, offshore wind farms, and other infrastructure become more likely.

As that 500-tonne reactor vessel approaches British waters, it carries more than just sophisticated nuclear technology. It represents a profound shift in how Britain powers itself—and who controls the switch.

February 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Major leak at Highland nuclear site triggers hunt for mystery bunkers

A 1960s bunker at a Highland nuclear site quietly leaked radioactive water
for at least a year before the alarm was raised – and officials have now
ordered a hunt for other similar hidden structures that may be leaking too,
the Sunday National can reveal.

Dounreay, on the Caithness coast, was the
UK’s centre for experimental fast‑reactor research from the 1950s until
the 1990s and is now a major nuclear decommissioning site. The clean‑up
is funded by the UK Government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and
carried out locally by Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), which runs the
site and is responsible for managing its ageing reactors, waste pits and
other legacy facilities.

The National revealed last year that radioactive
material had been accidentally released at Dounreay between July 2023 and
August 2024 and that Scotland’s environmental watchdog, SEPA, found the
operator had breached its permit.

But now, a new internal investigation
report, released to the Sunday National under freedom of information, goes
further: it warns that other underground structures with “unrevealed
hazards” may still be waiting to be found. The original leak source was a
disused underground carbon bed filter – essentially a concrete bunker –
built in the early 1960s as part of a ventilation system for one of
Dounreay’s facilities. It was taken out of normal use decades ago and
left as a legacy structure to be dealt with during decommissioning.

The report notes that it “was never designed to retain water”, yet by 2017,
it was known to contain thousands of litres of radioactive liquor and had
already been identified as a possible source of contamination at one of the
site’s outfalls.

A spokesperson for the Scottish Environment Protection
Agency (SEPA) said: “In June 2024, Nuclear Restoration Services Ltd (NRS)
notified SEPA of a potential leak of radioactively contaminated water from
a carbon bed filter on the Dounreay site. It was subsequently established
that there was a small leak from the carbon bed filter. Monitoring by the
operator has not detected any increase in radioactivity in groundwater
downstream.

“SEPA’s investigation concluded that the operator had
breached conditions of its Environmental Authorisations (Scotland)
Regulations 2018 (EASR) authorisation. To secure compliance, we have issued
a Regulatory Notice requiring NRS to take specified steps, including
reviewing groundwater monitoring arrangements and undertaking
characterisation to establish the extent of contamination which has arisen
from the leak from the carbon bed filter.”

The National 15th Feb 2026, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25854472.major-leak-highland-nuclear-site-triggers-hunt-mystery-bunkers/

February 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Rot at the Top: The Elite’s Darkest Secrets Spill Out

February 12, 2026, by Joshua Scheer, https://scheerpost.com/2026/02/12/rot-at-the-top-the-elites-darkest-secrets-spill-out/

In a political moment defined by secrecy, impunity, and the open decay of democratic institutions, few conversations cut as sharply as this one. Chris Hedges — Pulitzer Prize–winning former New York Times Middle East bureau chief — joins George Galloway to dissect the explosive Epstein files and the global elite they expose. What emerges is not a scandal at the margins, but a portrait of a ruling class so insulated, so depraved, and so unaccountable that its corruption has become a structural feature of Western power.

From the redactions shielding Trump and Netanyahu, to the British political meltdown engulfing Starmer’s inner circle, to the bipartisan rot in Washington, Hedges argues that the Epstein revelations are not an aberration but a window into a collapsing order. As he puts it, the files reveal “a depraved corrupt ruling global elite that has created a club that has locked the rest of us out,” one now reaching for authoritarian tools as its legitimacy crumbles.

This is a conversation about the Epstein affair — but also about the death spiral of American democracy, the rise of police‑state tactics, and the dangerous volatility of a declining empire whose leaders are losing their grip on reality. And with the Persian Gulf once again on the brink, Hedges warns that the same unaccountable forces exposed in the Epstein files are steering the world toward catastrophe.

If you want to understand the moment we’re living through — the corruption, the cover‑ups, the authoritarian drift, and the geopolitical brinkmanship — this exchange is essential.

Key Highlights

1. The Epstein Files as a Window Into Elite Rot

Hedges calls the documents “a depraved corrupt ruling global elite that has created a club that has locked the rest of us out.”
He argues the files expose not just individuals but the structure of unaccountable power across the US, UK, Israel, and Europe.

2. Trump’s Deep Exposure in the Files

Mentioned “38,000 times” in emails, according to Hedges.
Hedges says the redactions were designed “to protect Trump and Netanyahu.”
The Republican Party’s resistance to releasing the files “crumbled,” forcing Trump’s hand.

3. UK Political Meltdown

Galloway details cascading scandals around Starmer’s appointments — from Mandelson to a newly exposed associate tied to a convicted pedophile.
British media saturation contrasts sharply with US silence, which Hedges says reflects “the breakdown of democratic institutions.”

4. Bipartisan Complicity in the US

Hedges names Clinton, George Mitchell, and even Noam Chomsky as figures caught in the web.
He stresses that both parties are implicated, making accountability structurally impossible.

5. The Missing Videos & Intelligence Links

Epstein’s mansion contained a “closet‑sized safe” filled with recorded material.
Hedges: “It’s a question to what extent Epstein was working for the Mossad.”
Clear ties to Ehud Barak and Israeli intelligence raise the specter of kompromat.

6. Trump’s Cognitive Decline

Hedges cites Trump claiming he imposed tariffs on Switzerland because of its “prime minister” — a position that doesn’t exist.
He warns that a mentally deteriorating commander‑in‑chief is dangerous amid multiple potential war fronts.

7. The Rise of American Death‑Squad Policing

Hedges describes ICE and federal agents as “death squads… killing with impunity,” ignoring court orders.
He frames this as the defining feature of a police state.

8. Will Trump Attack Iran?

Pentagon opposition remains strong.
Netanyahu’s repeated visits suggest he’s not getting the commitment he wants.
Hedges: Trump is impulsive enough that “he could wake up tomorrow” and reverse course.

9. Epstein as a Global Operator, Not a Lone Predator

Epstein involved in Ukraine, Somaliland, even “a potential coup against Putin.”
Hedges emphasizes his inexplicable rise: “He can barely write English… that is the enigma.”

10. The Authoritarian Turn as Self‑Protection

As elites are exposed, Hedges argues they are “rapidly imposing authoritarian states” to maintain control.
He cites both US and UK crackdowns on dissent as evidence.

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, UK, USA | Leave a comment

EDF makes distorted claims about Hinkley C fish deterrent.

Tuesday 10 February 2026, https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/edf-makes-distorted-claims-about-hinkley-c-fish-deterrent

The developers of Hinkley C continue to misrepresent the impact that the nuclear plant will have on nature

Today EDF has published a press release which misrepresents the cost of its acoustic fish deterrent and the impact that the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant will have on wildlife.

It comes as England’s leading nature groups and over 60 MPs publish a letter calling on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Milliband, to reject the three recommendations of the Nuclear Regulatory Review which threaten to undermine protections for nature.

Matt Browne, head of public affairs at The Wildlife Trusts, says:

“The developers of Hinkley C continue to misrepresent the impact that the nuclear plant will have on nature. Today’s press release claims that a number of plant safety measures are fish protection measures. This is highly misleading and allows EDF to pretend that £700 million is being spent to protect nature, when the real figure is closer to £50m. It also misrepresents the number of fish affected by the proposed plant – they spotlight the suggestion that just two salmon will be killed per year when Environment Agency experts warn that 4.6 million fish will die every year – including critically endangered species such as European eel.

“It’s shocking that these claims were accepted without interrogation by the Nuclear Regulatory Review. On the basis of these false claims, the Government is now considering progressing recommendations which will lead to nature protections being severely compromised.

“The leaders of England’s largest nature groups and over 60 MPs have written to the Government today to express concerns about errors in the Review, and the damage its recommendations would cause to wildlife that is already on the brink.”

The Wildlife Trusts recently published ‘Why the Nuclear Regulatory Review is flawed – and how it could turn the nature crisis into a catastrophe’ which exposed the faulty evidence behind recommendations to cut environmental protections made in the Government’s review of nuclear delivery.

It revealed that:

The review claimed that fish protection measures at Hinkley C nuclear power station will cost £700 million. The actual cost of the fish deterrent system is £50 million. This £50 million is in the context of an overall project cost of £46 billion, up from an original £18 billion due to ballooning costs that are nothing to do with the environment.  
The review claimed that that fish protection measures at Hinkley C will protect just 0.08 salmon, 0.02 trout and 6 lamprey per year. The actual numbers from research carried out by Environment Agency suggest that 4.6 million adult fish per year could be killed per year without protection measures, a scale of wildlife destruction which would have significant consequences for ecosystems across the internationally important Severn Estuary. Many of these fish are already rare or endangered.

Natural England wrote yesterday: “The Severn Estuary has the highest recorded number of fish species in the UK and is the nursery ground for many of the young fish that our fishing industry depends on. The estuary also plays a crucial role in the lifecycle of a range of endangered migratory fish species including Atlantic Salmon. It is for these reasons that the estuary and some of its species are protected by law.”

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Dounreay workers among 200 allowed to leave Nuclear Restoration Services’ UK in early exit scheme

By Iain Grant, John O’Groat Journal 10th Feb 2026

About 30 workers at Dounreay are believed to have been offered early leaving terms in a scheme designed to trim the size of Nuclear Restoration Services’ UK-wide workforce.

Many others at the Caithness site who applied for the mutually agreed voluntary exit (MAVE) initiative were unsuccessful.

The scheme, which has raised the hackles of unions, offers one month of salary per year of service, capped at 21 months of pay or £95,000.

No numbers for Dounreay have been made available but about 500 applied at NRS’s 14 sites throughout the country. Of those, about 200 have been made offers.

It is part of a wider Treasury drive to cut the public sector payroll following its growth during the pandemic.

About 1200 are employed by NRS at Dounreay though that will increase by more than 300 when plans to put NRS in charge of the neighbouring MoD plant at Vulcan come to pass.

Dounreay provide £128k over 3 years for STEM activities for Caithness and Sutherland primary pupils

The MAVE scheme is opposed by Prospect, which along with GMB and Unite, is running a What a Waste campaign, to highlight the loss of scarce, skilled specialists in the nuclear sector.

They claim the job cuts will cost the government more in the long term as it will put a spoke in the programme to decommission redundant nuclear sites and mean it has to fork out to rebuild the workforce in the future……………………..

In addition to Dounreay, NRS runs nuclear sites at Berkley, Bradwell, Chapelcross, Dungeness, Harwell, Hinkley Point, Hunterston, Oldbury, Sizewell, Trawsfynydd, Winfrith and Wyfla and the Maentwrog hydro-electric plant. https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/dounreay-workers-among-200-allowed-to-leave-nrs-in-early-exi-426869/

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, UK | Leave a comment

REVEALED: Labour said Scottish nuclear study could be seen as ‘waste of money’

by Tom Pashby, The Canary 11th Feb 2026

The UK government has admitted that a study into the suitability of Scottish sites for new nuclear power projects could have been “a waste” of money. The government commissioned Great British Energy-Nuclear (GBE-N), a public body, to carry out the study.

The revelation came after Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) secretary of state Ed Miliband told Scottish journalists in October 2025 that:

given the growing interest in nuclear in Scotland, I’m asking GBE-N to assess Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations, including at Torness and Hunterston.

This is going to be a very, very big issue in the Scottish election campaign. We are saying yes to new nuclear in Scotland.

Labour hoping to end SNP ban on new nuclear in Scotland

Scotland is due to go to the polls to elect a new Scottish parliament and Scottish government in May 2026. Labour is hoping to wrest back control from the Scottish National Party (SNP).

In an article about the same interview published in October 2025, the Scotsman newspaper reported that a “senior UK government source” had said they were considering submitting planning applications for new nuclear developments at Torness and Hunterston because they expected a Scottish Labour victory at the Holyrood election.

The UK Labour Party and Scottish Labour support nuclear power and nuclear weapons. This position is coming under pressure as the Green Party of England and Wales, which vehemently opposes all nuclear, increasingly challenges Labour in public opinion polls.

Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, the government released documents to the Canary about Miliband’s request to GBE-N. These included a Q&A document prepared by DESNZ officials. It revealed that officials knew there would be concerns about new nuclear proposals in Scotland.

No new nuclear can be built in Scotland because planning policy is a devolved matter, and the ruling SNP opposes nuclear power. The rebuttal in the DESNZ Q&A was that there is “cross-party interest in new nuclear” in Scotland.

Energy department officials contradict each other on responsibility for study

The documents released under FOI also revealed that a DESNZ official, whose name was redacted, had sought to reassure GBE-N colleagues that DESNZ was not “behind the briefing” in an email sent on 22 October 2025 at 4:02pm.

That position was contradicted by an email in a separate earlier conversation where, on 21 October 2025 at 6:46pm, John Staples, DESNZ director for new nuclear strategy and fusion energy, said:

our SpAds [special advisors] want SoS [secretary of state] to be able to say the below to Scottish journalists.

‘Below’ in the email were lines drafted for Miliband which included:

I will ask Great British Energy – Nuclear to begin assessing Scotland’s capability for new nuclear power stations.

The internally prepared Q&A included a question which asked:

Isn’t this study a waste of money?

The DESNZ answer said:

New nuclear projects can deliver millions of pounds of investment and thousands of high-quality jobs to a region – UK ministers want to understand the potential for new projects right across Great Britain.

The Canary approached the Labour Party for comment, which deferred to DESNZ. DESNZ did not respond to a request for comment.

‘Obvious’ that study would be ‘waste of money’ – Scottish CND

A Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) spokesperson told the Canary:

It is obvious that an assessment of the viability of new nuclear sites in Scotland would be a waste of money, since the foremost issue is not the viability of sites but Scottish government policy.

Energy policy is devolved to Holyrood and the Scottish government very sensibly opposes new nuclear plants in Scotland.

There are a whole host of reasons why new nuclear plants in Scotland would be a terrible idea, including the absolutely exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction, the reliance on destructive and unjust international uranium supply chains, and the enormous and cross-generational burden of decommissioning nuclear plants, which in the case of Dounreay is expected to take hundreds of years.

In particular, the notion that Scotland, which is a net energy exporter and has the potential to become an international renewables powerhouse, should pivot to costly nuclear projects at this stage is somewhat absurd.

Investing the same sums invested in nuclear power plants – scores of billions and climbing for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C – into the grid, home insulation and the renewables sector across Scotland would be an immeasurably better investment.

For Scottish CND, another concerning element of the renewed push for nuclear power is the deep imbrication [overlapping] of the ‘civil’ and military nuclear industries, as openly promoted in the 2025 Industrial Strategy.

From this perspective, investment in new nuclear power plants can be seen as defence spending by stealth and a means of shoring up the UK nuclear weapons industry – something which is of no benefit to Scotland and indeed causes major risks and harms in Scottish communities.

New nuclear would be incredibly expensive – Scottish government minister………………………………………………….

SNP criticises ‘Westminster obsession with nuclear’………………………………………………

‘New nuclear would waste time, money and political attention’ – Scottish Greens……………………………………… https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/02/11/scottish-nuclear-study/

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Power – A White Elephant in the Energy Debate

By Pete Roche, David Hume Institute 12th Feb 2026,
https://davidhumeinstitute.org/latest-news/2026/2/12/nuclear-power-a-white-elephant-in-the-energy-debate

As Scotland prepares for elections, pro‑nuclear lobbyists are urging the Scottish Government to lift its ban on new nuclear developments.Yet the evidence shows that building new nuclear power stations would be an expensive white elephant — too slow, too costly, and ultimately unnecessary for tackling climate change.

Investing in nuclear now risks diverting resources from cheaper, faster, and safer renewable alternatives that are ready to deploy and without the risk of hazardous waste.

Nuclear makes us more vulnerable

Recent events in Europe underline nuclear’s vulnerabilities in a warming world. In summer 2025, prolonged heatwaves forced several French nuclear plants to reduce output or shut down entirely because the rivers and coastal waters used for cooling became too warm to operate safely. At sites including Golfech and Blayais operators had to curtail production, while the Gravelines plant faced additional disruption when swarms of jellyfish clogged its cooling systems. These incidents show how our changing climate can turn nuclear plants into operational white elephants at precisely the time electricity demand is high as people try to cool homes and buildings.

All energy sources produce carbon emissions over their lifecycle, but nuclear power stations typically emit more CO₂ per kilowatt-hour than wind or solar when construction, uranium mining, and waste management are included. For example, Sizewell C, currently under construction in Suffolk, is not expected to offset the emissions generated during its build phase until the late 2030s — well after the UK should have largely eliminated fossil fuels from electricity generation. Renewables, by contrast, deliver low-carbon power from day one.

Nuclear increases risk

Nuclear also carries long-term environmental and security risks. Coastal and riverside sites face rising sea levels and heatwave-induced water shortages, creating further potential for nuclear plants to become white elephants. They produce long-lived radioactive waste with no permanent disposal solution, are vulnerable to terrorism or armed conflict, and uranium mining causes serious ecological damage.

Advocates argue nuclear is needed for “baseload” power because wind and solar are variable. But baseload is an outdated concept.

Modern grid operators emphasise flexibility — blending renewables, storage, and demand management — rather than relying on inflexible generators. Large nuclear plants cannot easily ramp output to match demand and risk creating the same mismatch that critics cite for renewable variability. Proposed small modular reactors (SMRs) are similarly problematic: only two operate commercially worldwide, they are unproven at scale, and early evidence suggests they may be even more expensive per unit of electricity while producing more toxic waste — another potential white elephant.

Voters need real solutions, not white elephants

Meeting Scotland’s energy needs with renewables is feasible and cost-effective. Analyses suggest a renewable-first strategy could save the UK hundreds of billions compared to nuclear-centric plans, making the most of Scotland’s wind, solar, and engineering expertise. In contrast, costly nuclear projects risk becoming long-term white elephants — expensive, slow, and unsafe — at a time when voters need solutions that work now, not in a far distant future.

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK | Leave a comment

Whitehaven’s Polluted Harbour is “Riviera of the North” NuSpeak Lives

FEB 10, 2026, Lakes Against Nuclear Dump

This months Cumbria Life has a gushing “People and Places” article “A Day Out in Whitehaven” with the strap line “Cornwall and Cannes eat your heart out- Discover a popular seaside town on the Cumbrian Coast” Words and Photos by Geneve Bartholomew – Brand.

The article makes much of the Sellafield funded Beacon Museum and Edge water sports centre along with the also Sellafield funded new gaming centre called LEVELS “a new digital and gaming hub located at the Grade 11 listed former Whittles building in the heart of the town.” The gaming hub will no doubt be a recruitment source for the next generation of AI robotics operators at Sellafield.

The heart of the town is being bought up by Sellafield with a pithy letter in the 4th February Whitehaven News from former councillor Tim Knowles saying “I was recently concerned that Whitehaven had experienced some kind of emergency. The town seemed full of people wandering around in high visibility clothing but with no apparent purpose. I was later told that this is the latest in Sellafield outfitting…..is the Hi Vis -uniform becoming a rather “in your face” badge of relative wealth around town.” The letter goes on to remark about “the number of sheds and fences painted in the famous “BNFL blue” all around West Cumbria.” (takeaways still happen)

Many £Millions of pounds of taxpayers money are being poured into Whitehaven filtered through the big brother hands of Sellafield. That is not all that is being poured into Whitehaven.

What the “Riviera of the North” article in Cumbria Life fails to mention is the outrageous state of the harbour with water that can no longer be called water in the docks. The ongoing pollution event started in 2022 and has continued ever since with the acid mine pollution from historic mines which includes the sulphur producing Anhydrite Mine at the old Marchon site (now scandalously approved for housing) . The ‘water’ only ran clear for a short time last September when Silt Buster machines were in operation in the rail tunnel which drains to the culvert in Queen’s Dock.

We recently released FOI answers to the authorities and the press. BBC online did cover this albeit not telling the whole story but with much more openness that that previously aired and certainly without the rose tinted specs of the Cumbria Life article. If this ongoing pollution event was happening in Cornwall or Cannes there would be banner headlines worldwide. But here in Whitehaven there are vested interests in keeping schtum about the impacts of deep mining because guess who wants to mine out the biggest void ever on the Lake District coast – yep our generous benefactor Sellafield.

The BBC online article can be read in full here extract below [on original] https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/02/10/whitehavens-polluted-harbour-is-riviera-of-the-north-nuspeak-lives/?page_id=1772

February 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear weapons workers vote for strike action

David Gilyeat, South of England, BBC 10th Feb 2026

Workers that build and maintain the UK’s nuclear weapons have voted to strike over a planned restructuring of the organisation.

Prospect said the Atomic Weapons Establishment’s (AWE) staff were being “pushed to the brink by the repeated errors” of its leadership, affecting sites including Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire.

The union said in November 500 jobs were at risk, with another 750 posts recruited for. Last month it said potential redundancies had increased to 800.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said it was “disappointed” by the result but was looking for a “constructive resolution”.

Prospect said 95% of staff who voted were in favour of action short of a strike, with 81% in favour of strike action.

The union has warned action could cost AWE millions of pounds at a time when the government has said it will invest £15bn in a new nuclear programme.

“This crucial investment risks being derailed if this restructure continues to cause internal chaos,” Prospect said.

But it said a “failed reorganisation could have much greater consequences for the future of the organisation”.

Prospect also accused AWE of “drip-feeding” information over weeks so full consultation with its scientists and engineers was “impossible”.

The union said the nature and timing of the industrial action would be “announced in due course”……………………….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c743l4rr4g1o

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Sizewell C opponents to appeal High Court decision.

Mariam Issimdar, BBC. Suffolk, 8 Feb 26

Opponents of Sizewell C nuclear power station have submitted an appeal against the High Court’s decision to refuse an application for a judicial review of the plant’s flood defences.

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) launched an action in June on the basis the power station could add extra coastal defences which were not outlined in the original planning application, and they would “disrupt nearby protected areas of wildlife”.

The group appealed for the judicial review, but it was refused by a High Court judge in December.

At the time, Sizewell C said it was pleased the legal claims had been dismissed.

In a statement on Monday, the pressure group said: “TASC is determined to use every avenue open to us to ensure public scrutiny and environmental assessment of the two additional huge sea defences that Sizewell C have committed to install in an extreme sea level rise scenario.”

Development consent for the new plant near Leiston was granted in July 2022 before the government committed £14.2bn towards it last June.

In the approved plans, Sizewell C said the power station would be built on a platform 7m above the current sea level and protected by a “sea defence structure which will be more than 14m above mean sea level”.

Chris Wilson, of TASC, said: “It is a scandal if it is deemed legal that a developer, in this case Sizewell C, is allowed to pick and choose which parts of a project it wants to include in its development consent order application.”

He added that the developer, EDF Energy, knew “as far back as 2015 that two additional huge sea defences would be needed to keep the site and its 3,900 tonnes of spent fuel safe from flooding in an extreme sea level rise scenario, yet chose not to include them in their 2020 planning application – a classic example of ‘salami-slicing’.”

Sizewell C said its “sea defence will be adaptable and could be raised in future if sea level rise turns out to be greater than current predictions”.

TASC claimed the power station wanted to build two more flood barriers, 9m and 10m high, further inland.

Sizewell C previously declined to comment on the extra details of how the flood defences could be changed.

TASC argued there should be a consultation on the defences, and it approached Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, asking him to revoke or change the development consent order.

That was not accepted, so the group opted for a judicial review and argued that Miliband had breached his obligations and duties…………………. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98q5z1jez5o

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

£700m plan with ‘fish disco’ could save 90% of marine life, says Hinkley Point C study

Scientists find underwater acoustic project to stop fish being sucked into cooling systems could save 44 tonnes a year

Jillian Ambrose , Guardian, 10 Feb 26

Scientists have found that plans that include a “fish disco” to deter migratory marine life from the nearby Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor could help save 90% of fish from the power plant’s water intake pipes – but the measures are set to cost its developer £700m.

EDF Energy, which is building the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, said research it commissioned from scientists at Swansea University had found that using an acoustic deterrent system helped to ward off the “vast majority” of fish it tagged for the experiment.

The part of the costly system that is informally referred to as a “fish disco”, is designed to use more than 300 underwater speakers to emit sound pulses to repel fish from the water intake pipes, which will suck in water from the River Severn to help cool Hinkley’s reactors.

EDF said it expected to spend about £700m on the full solution, or 1.5% of the total cost of building the £46bn project, which would give Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation “more fish protection than any other power station in the world”.

This should help to save about 44 tonnes of fish a year – equivalent to the annual catch of a small fishing vessel. The company declined to speculate on the total cost per fish saved over the 25-year life of the reactor’s subsidy contract.

EDF has argued against the requirement to fit an acoustic deterrent in the past, instead suggesting that it could construct salt marshes to help protect marine life.

Under EDF’s subsidy contract it will earn a set return for the electricity generated by Hinkley, meaning it will need to absorb the extra cost of the fish disco rather than add it on to household bills.

The full system is expected to include special mouths fitted to the intake pipes to slow the water suction and allow fish to escape from as close as 2 metres away, and a fish recovery system which returns fish sucked into the pipes.

The scientists found that only one of its tagged twaite shad fish came within 30 metres of the test intake pipes when the speakers were turned on, compared with the 14 seen in the same area without the system turned on………………………………………….

The results of the research will be submitted for regulatory consideration and approval by the Marine Management Organisation later this year. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/10/hinkley-point-c-plan-could-save-fish-being-sucked-into-pipes-study-finds

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Is the UK keeping up with the nuclear revival?

Steve Thomas: Since the Starmer government came to power in 2024, it has
made a series of announcements that have placed the UK at the forefront of
the so-called Nuclear Renaissance. The government talks about a “Golden Age
of Nuclear Power” in the country. However, a closer look shows that these
announcements primarily concern what the government hopes to do and what it
hopes to achieve, in the absence of new projects in the pipeline.

Currently, the burden of submitting proposals falls on the private sector.
Regarding current nuclear projects, there is one under construction,
Hinkley Point C; another, Sizewell C, for which an investment decision has
been made and construction could begin in two to three years; and a project
for three Rolls-Royce small modular reactors (SMRs) for the Wylfa site,
where an investment decision is hoped for 2029.

The Hinkley Point C project
for two French European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs, 3.2 GW) is seven years
behind schedule, is 90% over budget, and requires at least six years to
complete. The Sizewell C project is expected to be built along the lines of
the Hinkley design and was supposed to be built approximately two years
after Hinkley, so that the workforce could seamlessly transfer from Hinkley
to Sizewell.

This means it is at least nine years behind schedule. Even if
the government’s estimated completion date is met, Sizewell will not begin
generating power until 2039. The estimated cost of this plant, £40.5
billion (2024 funding), is 70% higher than the actual estimated cost of the
Hinkley Point project at the time of the Final Investment Decision.

This ridicules claims that Sizewell would be cheaper than Hinkley due to the
“expertise” built at Hinkley Point. If it goes ahead, the Wylfa project
will not begin generating power until 2035. If there are no further delays
to these projects, it will be 2040 before the UK’s nuclear capacity returns
to 2015 levels, or approximately 9 GW. In 2022, Boris Johnson’s government
set a target of “up to 24 GW” of new nuclear capacity, in addition to the
Hinkley project, to be achieved by 2050. The “up to” specification left
room for vagueness, and in fact the Starmer government has clearly not
adopted this target.

So why is it so difficult and takes so long to build
nuclear capacity? And has the UK not performed well in this regard?
Research commissioned by the UK government found that, on average,
globally, the construction of a nuclear power plant, from the investment
decision to first start-up, takes 13-17 years. Add to this the time
required to reach the final investment decision. This includes: choosing
the supplier and technology; project assessment by the national safety
regulator; identifying and verifying the suitability of the chosen site;
and defining a financial model to provide the capital, own the plant, and
purchase the energy.

This process is unlikely to take less than five years;
in fact, it could take longer. Therefore, the construction time for a
nuclear project is likely at least 20 years.

Rienergie 12th Feb 2026, https://rienergia.staffettaonline.com/articolo/35901/UK+sta+al+passo+con++la+rinascita+nucleare++++/Steve

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

‘Green laws hold up nuclear plans — but we can’t say where’

Despite calling for a reduction in planning protections for the landscapes,
the energy department admits it can’t identify any where regulations are
a problem.

The energy department, run by Ed Miliband, has admitted that it
cannot name a single national park where regulations are holding up nuclear
projects, despite a review urging that protections for the landscapes be
reduced.

The recommendation also relied on a blogpost written by a member
of the reviewing panel, it has emerged.

Weakening or scrapping the
protected landscapes duty, which means that councils must further the
conservation aims of parks when making planning decisions, was one of the
calls of the government’s nuclear regulatory task force last year. Sir
Keir Starmer said he “fully accepted” the suggested reforms. However, a
Freedom of Information request has shown that the government holds “no
due diligence or impact assessment” about changing the protected
landscapes duty.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero conceded
that it had no list of specific national parks or national landscapes
(formerly AONBs) where a conflict exists between the duty and nuclear
development. The department also said one of the pieces of evidence
underpinning the recommendation was a blogpost written by a lawyer. That
lawyer, Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, also sits on the task force.

In an email to
John Fingleton, the economist who led the review, Latif-Aramesh appeared
unclear what the precise financial cost of the rules was to nuclear
companies. “It’s costing developers millions if not tens of
millions,” he wrote just weeks before the final report was published.
Rose O’Neill, the chief executive of the Campaign for National Parks, a
charity, said:

“This lays bare the fact that the prime minister is
considering scrapping national parks law on a recommendation that’s built
on nothing but hot air. The real shock is that the recommendation is
largely based on a single blog article written by one taskforce member.”

Barry Gardiner, a Labour MP and chair of the all-party parliamentary group
for national parks and national landscapes, said: “Any suggestion that
the government might dilute its duty to protect these landscapes is not
just alarming, it represents a betrayal of Labour’s legacy in
safeguarding our countryside for the public good.”

Chris Hinchcliff, the
Labour MP who only recently had the whip restored after his rebellions on
welfare reform, said: “Our biodiversity is at breaking point. This is the
time for a rescue plan, not more backwards steps that are harmful to
nature, deeply unpopular, bad for our long-term future and will ultimately
put our national security at risk.”

Times 10th Feb 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/ed-miliband-national-parks-nuclear-energy-2bcznpkzd

February 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

UK ignores corruption scandals when awarding major military contracts.

Freedom of Information requests reveal Britain’s trade department collected “no information” about fines issued to UK military suppliers for corruption.

JOHN McEVOY, 4 February 2026, https://www.declassifieduk.org/uk-ignores-corruption-scandals-when-awarding-major-military-contracts/

The Ministry of Defence is reportedly set to award a £2 billion contract to a consortium led by Raytheon UK despite major corruption and fraud violations recently levelled against its American parent company RTX.

The contract, which aims to modernise the army’s training infrastructure using “advanced simulation”, will be awarded through a competitive process in which Raytheon UK seeks to displace a rival bid led by Israel’s Elbit Systems UK.

RTX is already a major supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence, having completed integration trials for the Paveway precision-guided missile on the Typhoon aircraft in 2025.

The company says it has a “decades-long partnership with the British army”, and holds licences to export F-35 fighter jet components which are used by Israel.

Yet in 2024, RTX faced significant legal sanctions in the US relating to alleged bribery of foreign officials, defective pricing, and export control violations.

The company settled several federal investigations with overall penalties exceeding $950 million.

Crucially, Freedom of Information requests suggest that UK export-licensing authorities have taken no action in response to these developments.

The Department for Business and Trade and the Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) said in October 2025 they hold no internal correspondence, briefs, or risk assessments relating to the RTX enforcement actions.

This is despite the UK’s own guidelines for military export licences explicitly requiring ongoing assessment of risk of diversion, misuse, and breach of international humanitarian law.

The guidelines also direct authorities to consider exporter conduct and compliance history.

In response to further FOI requests, the Ministry of Defence also refused to clarify whether RTX’s enforcement actions abroad were internally discussed when deliberating the award of major contracts to the company.

This apparent inaction raises fundamental questions about whether systemic reassessment of exporter behaviour takes place when serious misconduct comes to light.

It also comes as the UK’s National Audit Office has found in a new report released last week that the defence ministry could “make significant savings” if it better managed losses from economic crimes, including procurement fraud.

The business and trade department and defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment about whether they consider foreign corruption scandals when awarding export licences or training contracts to firms.

Raytheon has been the subject of past enforcement controversies in Britain, with the company refusing to explain its activities to the government’s committees on arms export control in 2019 while arming Saudi Arabia’s brutal war on Yemen.

Its competitor for the army training contract, Elbit Systems, is also facing accusations of breaching business appointment rules while continuing to hold export licences granted by the ECJU.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) spokesperson Emily Apple told Declassified: “Time and again successive governments have lied, repeatedly telling us the UK has one of the most robust arms export control systems in the world. Nothing could be further from the truth”.

The business and trade department said: “The UK operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world.

“All export licensing decisions are made in line with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, and our assessments take all information relevant to the risk of diversion or misuse into account”.

Moog

The issue is not unique to RTX.

Another defence contractor, Moog Inc., resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) administrative order in October 2024 involving bribery by its Indian subsidiary.

The FCPA is a US federal law which makes it illegal for US persons or companies to bribe foreign government officials to gain a business advantage.

However, the ECJU also holds “no information” about any discussions relating to that FCPA order, according to the FOI documents seen by Declassified.

Together, the RTX and Moog cases represent the only publicly reported defence industry FCPA-related enforcement actions in 2024.

Moog currently holds UK licenses to export components for trainer aircraft used by the Israeli air force, and contributes to the global F-35 programme.

Public information raises further questions about how Moog’s compliance oversight function was structured during the period in which these violations allegedly occurred.

According to a LinkedIn profile, Moog’s compliance manager has had oversight of both Moog UK and Moog India since before 2020 — the period during which the company’s Indian subsidiary was later found by US authorities to have engaged in bribery of state officials.

“While the existence of a group-level compliance function does not itself imply wrongdoing, it underscores that Moog’s UK operations were not operating in isolation from wider corporate compliance arrangements at the time, and raises legitimate questions about how compliance risks were identified, escalated, and addressed across the group”, said Emily Apple from CAAT.

Despite these questions, Moog Wolverhampton has not been subject to an ECJU compliance visit since 2022, according to further FOI requests issued in November.

This is notable given that the site was inspected twice within a two-month period that year, a pattern potentially associated with follow-up or remedial reviews.

Yet the company’s sites in Britain have apparently not been revisited in the three years since, including after Moog’s US parent company agreed a major FCPA settlement in 2024.

Emily Apple added: “Whether it’s ignoring corruption scandals, or trampling over international law, it appears there are no limits to the steps the government is prepared to take to prioritise arms dealers’ profits. This is a system beyond reform. It is out of control, devoid of ethics and operating beyond the law”.

Moog and RTX did not respond to requests for comment.

February 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »