Two ageing nuclear power stations will stay operational until 2030
EDF said on Wednesday it had decided to extend
the life of the Hartlepool and Heysham 1 plants for an extra two years
after safety inspections of their cores
Hartlepool and Heysham 1 are two of four advanced gas-cooled reactors
(AGRs) that have been generating since the 1980s. The others, Heysham 2 and
Torness, also had their lifespans extended until March 2030 last year. EDF
said those dates remain “under review” and will be subject to further
safety extensions, leaving open the possibility that the plants could run
for even longer.
However, the country still potentially faces a “nuclear
gap” from 2030 if the AGRs come offline. That would leave Sizewell B, in
Suffolk, as the sole remaining plant, before Hinkley Point C in Somerset
and Sizewell C come online later in the 2030s.
How long the remaining four
will continue depends on the condition of their graphite reactor cores, EDF
has previously said. Hairline cracks can occur in the graphite over time,
potentially impeding control rods which must be dropped to lower output –
or shut the reactor down in emergencies. To continue operating, EDF must
prove to regulators that this will not happen and that it could still shut
down the reactors during a “one in 10,000 years” earthquake, much
larger than any the UK has ever experienced.
Telegraph 23rd July 2026 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/23/ageing-nuclear-plants-to-be-kept-running-to-keep-lights-on/
Alarm over bid to keep cracked reactors running by cutting nuclear safety margins
“The bottom line is that continuing to operate these reactors with cracks in the reactor core is gambling with public safety.”
The company that runs Scotland’s ageing nuclear power station wants to weaken safety standards to keep it running for at least four more years. But the nuclear safety watchdog has its doubts.
Rob Edwards, July 23 2026
Moves to keep Scotland’s increasingly cracked reactors at Torness in East Lothian generating electricity until 2030 or 2032 have prompted formal action from the UK government’s nuclear safety watchdog, according to internal files obtained by The Ferret.
The station’s operator, EDF Energy, has been pressing for safety margins to be relaxed so reactors can keep running for as long as possible with hundreds of cracks spreading through their highly radioactive cores.
But the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has “concerns” and has demanded that the company justify its understanding of the safety implications. ONR inspectors lacked confidence in some of the company’s measurements, and accused EDF of a “trend of under-predicting cracking”.
ONR has also revealed that the estimated number of cracks in one of the reactors at Torness leapt by more than a third from 585 to 782 in just six months. A further 62 cracks have been found in the second reactor at the site, which only started cracking in May 2025.
Campaigners urged ONR not to be “bullied” by EDF into allowing safety margins to slip. The cracks were “extremely worrying” and keeping Torness running was “gambling with public safety”, they said.
ONR told The Ferret that its inspectors made “independent and proportionate challenges” to EDF’s claims. It stressed that the current number of cracks at Torness did not breach safety margins.
EDF said that “robust challenge” by regulators was essential to a strong nuclear safety culture that prevented accidents. The company’s ambition was to generate electricity from the station “for as long as it is safe and commercially viable to do so.”
Torness nuclear power station, near Dunbar, is 37 years old, having been officially opened in May 1989 by the then Conservative prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. The site had been the target of anti-nuclear protests since 1978.
In 2016 the planned life of the station was extended from 2023 to 2030. In 2021 EDF backtracked on that, saying that Torness would be closing two years earlier in 2028 because of expected cracking.
But in 2024 EDF again changed its mind, and announced that Torness would keep generating electricity until March 2030. According to ONR, EDF had decided to extend the lifetime of the station “to 2030 plus or minus two years”, suggesting that operating to 2032 was also being considered.
Meanwhile, Scotland’s other nuclear power station at Hunterston in North Ayrshire was closed down in January 2022, more than a year earlier than planned. This followed the discovery of an estimated 586 cracks in its two reactors.
The graphite bricks that surround the uranium fuel in reactors, such as those at Torness and Hunterston, crack after being bombarded by radiation for decades. The danger is that this could distort reactor cores, making them more difficult to manage.
ONR previously said that spreading cracks could result in debris inhibiting the cooling of the hot fuel. In some scenarios, this could lead to a reactor meltdown, which could result in the escape of radioactivity to the environment.
In response to a freedom of information request by The Ferret, ONR has released 11 heavily redacted files about its latest moves to regulate cracking at Torness. They reveal that between April 2025 and April 2026 ONR held 23 meetings with EDF, and formally demanded action on safety issues.
There have been prolonged and gritty tussles between ONR and EDF over how to understand the way in which cracks were impacting safety. Some of the technical issues at stake are difficult to understand because key words and phrases have been blacked out.
But it is clear there have been a series of disagreements between the regulator and the company. EDF has been arguing to cut safety margins to allow Torness to operate for longer, while ONR has been challenging EDF’s assumptions, methodologies and conclusions.
ONR raised a formal “regulatory issue” because of potential shortfalls in EDF’s understanding of how cracks are spreading. ONR said it had “concerns over EDF’s ability adequately to predict the number of cracked bricks within the graphite core”.
ONR disputed EDF moves to relax the so-called “damage tolerance boundary”, which limits the operation of Torness. According to one account from ONR, after a series of meetings in 2025 consensus “has not been reached.”
ONR pursued a second regulatory issue in 2025 because it lacked confidence in EDF’s measurements of the width of cracks and resulting fragments. The company accepted that “a number of errors and incorrect assumptions” had been made, but rectified them and the issue was resolved.
“Safety margins cannot be something to be negotiated simply to keep an ageing reactor running.” – Kristopher Leask MSP
After an inspection in September 2025, ONR’s expert graphite panel commented that there was “reason to pause and think”. They said that EDF forecasts “suggested a continuation of the trend of under-predicting cracking”.
One meeting between ONR and EDF in 2025 was about the risk of vital safety systems shutting down because of “snags” caused by cracking. EDF was said to be proposing to increase the number of permissible snags from one to five
The Ferret also used freedom of information law to ask for an update on the number of cracks in the two reactors at Torness. We previously reported that there were an estimated 585 cracks in reactor one in March 2025, and the first crack had been found in reactor two in May 2025.
ONR has now told us that “reactor one was inspected in August 2025 where it was estimated the number of cracked bricks were 782.” It added that after an inspection of reactor two in February 2026 “it was estimated that 62 bricks were cracked”.
The Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace (SCRAM) highlighted recent moves by the UK government to relax regulation to make building new nuclear power stations easier. The Ferret reported in May that this had prompted “serious concerns” from the Scottish Government.
“This is an extremely worrying situation,” said SCRAM’s Pete Roche. “There is bound to be huge public concern that the ONR will be bullied by EDF and the UK Government into allowing safety margins to slip.”
He added: “The bottom line is that continuing to operate these reactors with cracks in the reactor core is gambling with public safety.”
Labour mayor candidate vows to push new nuclear with Burnham
News & Star, The Cumberland News, 21st July, By Gareth Cavanagh, Data Reporter
LABOUR’S mayoral candidate has pledged to work with new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham on delivering new nuclear in West Cumbria.
Speaking today, David Allen welcomed the appointment of Mr Burnham, as his party’s leader and Prime Minister.
Mr Allen, Police Fire and Crime Commissioner and a candidate in the Mayor of Cumbria election race, said that he was “delighted” to see Mr Burnham in 10 Downing Street.
Mr Allen said: “Andy has already signalled strong support for nuclear, so I’ll be working with him to help deliver new nuclear at Pioneer Park alongside Josh MacAlister MP.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/26298408.labour-mayor-candidate-vows-push-new-nuclear-burnham/
UK’s old nuclear reactors to be kept going as we wait for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Two nuclear power stations will continue to generate electricity for two
more years than previously announced. In the latest of multiple extensions,
operator EDF said Hartlepool Power Station and Heysham 1 in Lancashire
would run until March 2030, two years longer than a previous estimate of
2028.
EDF said it took the decision after a “detailed review” of the
condition of the boilers and the graphite cores as well as supply chain
resilience. Chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, Tom
Greatrex, said: “The significance of this cannot be understated, given the
UK’s exposure to volatile gas prices and the need to protect households by
providing baseload power.”
The company also gave an update on hopes to
install the UK’s first Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs) in Hartlepool,
which developers said would provide a “similar” amount of electricity to
the current plant’s power output. It said an application to enter the
generic design assessment had been submitted in June, describing it as the
“first critical step in the UK licensing progress”.
BBC 22nd July 2026,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyvng9vl66o
Uncertainty over West Cumbria nuclear waste plan continues
22nd July, By Gareth Cavanagh, Data Reporter
CLARITY on the future of nuclear waste currently stored at Sellafield is eagerly awaited from West Cumbria to Westminster.
The cost of the Geological Disposal
Facility could soar to £54bn and the timeline for depositing legacy waste
into the GDF could be 2150. The UK’s grand ambition to deploy fleets of
SMRs is critically undermined by the uncertainty over disposal of nuclear
waste.
Carlisle News & Star 22nd July 2026, https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/26289564.uncertainty-west-cumbria-nuclear-waste-plan-continues/
Fatal fallout
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/07/21/fatal-fallout/
What a secret report reveals about British nuclear weapons tests – veterans claimed they were harmed by the fallout, report Christopher R. Hill and Jonathan Hogg for The Conversation
“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”
McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.
McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.
For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.
Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.
In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.
It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.
The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.
The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.
‘Factually inaccurate’
Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.
However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.
Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”
In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”
A Contract for Difference for nuclear lifetime extension for Sizewell B – a nice save for the nuclear industry?
Jérôme à Paris, Jul 22, 2026
A few days ago, the British government announced the extension of the production life of the 1.2 GW Sizewell B nuclear power plant for 20 years, from 2035, and that included the fact that the electricity produced will be sold under a CfD at a price of 70.50 GBP/MWh (in 2025 prices, to be indexed). ……….
it is proper that the power also be sold to ratepayers at a fixed price. The existence of the CfD will also allow the owners to achieve a lower cost of capital (possibly through limited-recourse financing, but in any case through more favorable corporate funding as such a revenue line underpins their balance sheet), ensuring that the price achieved could be more competitive….
Secondly, this puts the production cost risk on the operator (EDF in this case, with Centrica having a 20% stake), as they will have to deliver power at a fixed price, irrespective of what they need to spend to keep the plant running (I have not checked if they can wiggle out of the contract by stopping production earlier in case it becomes too costly to run, but I see that this would have other likely consequences, including reputational, for the operator in any case).
The third point is that this puts a very visible price tag to nuclear plant lifetime extension. There’s often the blithe assumption that existing plants can continue to run at a very low cost. This reminds everybody that it is not the case, and existing plants definitely have ongoing operating costs – and older plants have significant heavy maintenance, refurbishment and safety costs to manage. The price level proposed here can be seen as attractive for baseload decarbonated power, but it’s certainly not low or the most competitive available these days.
The big question is whether the price is actually the right one. There can only be rather limited competition for nuclear lifetime extension CfDs, so one must consider the temptation for the operator to pad its costs and ask for a price that ensures as profitable an operation as possible (I presume that the price level was negotiated on the basis of detailed cost assumptions provided by the operator and checked by the regulator and experts). There is also the risk that the operator could ask later on for relaxation of safety or other standards in order to lower its ongoing costs (including possibly via the direct or indirect threat to stop operations.
Against that is the fact that the nuclear industry cannot afford to show that it is materially less competitive than alternatives, in particular than offshore wind, the renewable sector with the most similar characteristic as nuclear (large capacity plants, higher capacity factor). If the ask price for extension is barely competitive against new-build offshore wind, what would that say about new-build nuclear? Hinckley Point negotiated a CfD a decade ago, which EDF is not very happy with, even though it is already quite a bit higher (it was 89.5 GBP/MWh for 35 years (rather than 20), indexed from 2012, which means its current level is 131 GBP/MWh, and we’re still some years before operations), given all the cost overruns experienced in the meantime……………………………….. https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/a-cfd-for-nuclear-lifetime-extension
Jacobs to assist in planning of UK SMR projects
In May, the company (Jacobs) was selected by GBE-N to provide
environmental services for potential SMR nuclear development at its Oldbury
site. Jacobs said that its work, with a multidisciplinary team including
AtkinsRéalis and AECOM, would cover terrestrial and marine environments,
environmental assessments, Habitats Regulations Assessment and “associated
activities to inform future potential planning, design and permitting
decisions”.
World Nuclear News 21st July 2026 https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/jacobs-to-assist-in-planning-of-uk-smr-projects
Crunch time for the nuclear lobby’s biggest lie (Small Modular Nuclear Reactors)?
22 July 2026, https://theaimn.net/crunch-time-for-the-nuclear-lobbys-biggest-lie-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/
There could be a big drama now, about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors sort of not really going to happen in the UK. But I don’t think so. The nuclear lobby is adept at twisting a negative outlook into a sorta positive one. And I’m sorry to say, but I think that Andy Burnham might just co-operate in this process.
At the moment, the UK, and the world, are waiting for the UK’s new progressive poster boy, Andy Burnham, to declare his policies on all sorts of things. His general theme is “left of centre”, socially progressive, with the emphasis on economic reform – “business-friendly socialism”. Most likely, Burnham’s approach to the big issues of climate and nuclear will be a cautious “business-as usual.” Those who are deeply concerned about climate and nuclear issues can hardly blame him. Unfortunately, the reality is that Burnham could never have got where he is now, if he bucked the prevailing system, with Labour now a kind of weaker Tory party.
At the moment, the UK, and the world, are waiting for the UK’s new progressive poster boy, Andy Burnham, to declare his policies on all sorts of things. His general theme is “left of centre”, socially progressive, with the emphasis on economic reform – “business-friendly socialism”. Most likely, Burnham’s approach to the big issues of climate and nuclear will be a cautious “business-as usual.” Those who are deeply concerned about climate and nuclear issues can hardly blame him. Unfortunately, the reality is that Burnham could never have got where he is now, if he bucked the prevailing system, with Labour now a kind of weaker Tory party.
What has this got to do with Small Modular Nuclear Reactors?
Well, as I have written before, the global nuclear lobby now depends on the UK to kick off the new nuclear renaissance, with a fleet of small nuclear reactors in the UK, as promised by the previous Prime Minister with his Great British Energy – Nuclear. The stated purpose is to provide the UK soon, with cheap, plentiful, clean, climate-friendly, proven technology, safe, community-welcomed, waste-free, peaceful electricity. In that statement there are already 10 lies. Of all those lies, I would say that “soon” is the biggest whopper of them all.
SOON
The most “exciting” SMR plan, that of Poland-based SGE (Synthos Green Energy), promises 14 SMRs in operation by 2034. That would provide about the same amount of electricity as one large nuclear reactor. However, SMRs that each provide 300 MW would provide very much more – but then they would have to be larger, and no longer qualify as “small”. Either way, that would be only a beginning – many, many more SMRs would be needed to meet the UK’s electricity needs. And, let’s not forget – the coming wave of data farms for artificial intelligence is going to probably double that need.
So, even in the most optimistic scenario, SMRs are not going to cut the mustard for showing the world that soon Small Modular Nuclear Reactors will power a nation. Of course the promise of “soon” also relates to the claim that SMRs are needed for action on climate change. Clearly, they are going to be irrelevant, too late for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas we have renewable energy right now. And of course, but rarely mentioned – energy efficiency, energy conservation – the really effective way to reduce greenhouse emissions.
CHEAP
The next biggest whopper about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors is the statement that they would be cheap. Here we get into the minefield of deliberate obfuscation about the financial facts. The cost of building SMRs is likely to be astronomic, and the only practicable way is to build them en masse. That would mean that the company building them would need to have big orders, not just for one or two reactors. Big orders bring with them a heap of problems. Like an IKEA cupboard, these “modular” items are all the same – if you buy a whole lot of them they’d better all work out perfectly – no chance really to just try out one. Buyers are reluctant, and so are investors.
Of course, the argument will be that SMRs will provide cheap electricity. Well that absolutely would necessitate economies of scale. That was the reason that the idea of small reactors was abandoned in the past. Simply, a large reactor producing a huge amount of electricity has got to produce it more efficiently and cheaply. The proponents of SMRs never talk about the accompanying costs – insurance, the security staff required, the transport and disposal of toxic long-lasting wastes. The truth is, those proponents absolutely know that their product is in fact very expensive. And that is why the subservient corporate media consistently baffle us with convoluted arguments that minimise the cost to tax-payers. They know damn well that the only way that SMRs could possibly be developed is by government funding. Keir Starmer backed a Rolls Royce plan that would be blatantly funded by the tax-payer. The SGE plan purports to be privately funded, but it’s tangled up with various government-funded schemes.
These were 2 lies – but there are 8 more to go.
Plentiful? – well, apart from Russia and China’s 2 duds – SMR’s don’t actually exist – quite the reverse of plentiful.
Clean? They are still part of a dirty production system, starting from uranium mining, with its workers exposed to radiation, and its piles of radioactive tailings.
Climate-friendly? There is a whole chain of steps from mining through to waste disposal that involve fossil fuel energy.
Proven technology? Well, they don’t even exist.
Safe? SMRs can’t melt down in the same way as big reactors, but still contain radioactive material, a target for theft, terrorists or military attacks Can still have accidents releasing radiation.
Community-welcomed? This really is a big one, with a lack of proper consultation on plans – There’s strong resistance from some local groups, such as Radiation Free Lakeland.
Peaceful? The hidden military pressures behind the new push for small nuclear reactors.
Wastes? Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste.
Now that Starmer, with his big promises, has gone, it’s probably no longer up to the UK’s Prime Minister to lead the global charge on small nuclear reactors. Andy Burnham has to negotiate the whole troubled energy scene, try to be progressive, placate the fossil fuel lobbies, and the nuclear lobby. He has been very quiet on nuclear policy, but he is committed to the existing defence and AUKUS nuclear agreements. So for “peaceful” nuclear, he’s most likely to go for a compromise – SMRs, supporting just a few, rather than the much-touted “fleets” of them.
So, no doubt the USA will take up the torch – One Year After Executive Orders, U.S. Nuclear Energy Renaissance is in Full Swing.
The media is awash with the wonder of new nuclear reactors, in concert with the AI data farm boom. The few voices who call for restraint, and point out the problems, are drowned out by the cacophony of handouts from the companies promising SMRs, handouts faithfully regurgitated by the corporate media, and by those universities which have bought into the propaganda.
There are the many good, decent people, whose living depends on their work within the uranium-nuclear-defence industries. And communities that are caught up in the nuclear industry, and its associated government bonuses. And many professionals, especially journalists, who, if they paused to look at the whole picture, might see the folly and the danger and the lies, of this so much touted technology. And of course, politicians who would be out of a job if they opposed the sacred cows of new energy and nuclear defence. So the whole SMR juggernaut moves on, bit by bit, and has itself become one big lie.
Ceases to be a nuclear power’: The high-stakes deal the new UK PM inherits
SBS News, 21 July 2026 By Yasmine Alwakal
Andy Burnham has inherited a major AUKUS commitment with Australia. Whether Britain can deliver it is another question
IN BRIEF
- On Monday, former Manchester mayor Andy Burnham succeeded Keir Starmer as the United Kingdom’s prime minister.
- Experts say the change in leadership could impact the UK’s investment in defence but is unlikely to impact AUKUS.
Labour leader Andy Burnham has become the United Kingdom’s seventh prime minister in a decade — but experts say it remains unclear how the former mayor of Greater Manchester will approach the country’s most important strategic partnership with Australia.
Newly departed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer suffered a high-profile split with his defence secretary, John Healey, over a perceived failure to properly fund the department.
Burnham now inherits Starmer’s £298bn ($573b) defence spending commitment over the next four years, £4.7b ($9b) of which is unfunded and will need to make up part of Burnham’s first budget.
Experts have said that, while Burnham is unlikely to renegotiate the AUKUS agreement, defence is likely to play a central position in the new UK leader’s job description, given the growing threat of Russia to NATO members.
Jennifer Parker, a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute, told SBS News that policymakers in Australia will be watching Burnham’s approach to foreign affairs closely.
“I think there are broader questions about the implications of Andy Burnham’s views on defence and the defence investment plan in the UK … [but] in many ways, AUKUS is critical for the UK,” Parker told SBS News.
The UK, alongside Australia and the United States, entered into trilateral AUKUS security agreement in 2021.
The deal is divided into two key pillars: Australia’s acquisition of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine capability and the development and delivery of advanced capabilities such as underwater drones.
In July 2025, Australia also entered into a bilateral agreement with the UK dubbed the Geelong Treaty. The 50-year agreement enables the cooperative design, building, operation, sustainment, and disposal of nuclear-powered submarines known as SSN.
Will Burnham deliver on the UK’s AUKUS commitments?
Since 1968, the UK has been a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is recognised as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
Parker said since the end of the Cold War the UK has operated ballistic missile submarines called SSBNs:
“Now, you need to have SSN’s — attack submarines — to be able to protect your ballistic missile submarines. AUKUS, for the UK makes designing, building and operating SSN’s cheaper. So, it makes it easier.”
That’s why she believes the UK, whether led by current UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer or the incoming Burnham, will continue to uphold its AUKUS commitments.
“If the UK can’t achieve AUKUS … the long-term impact is quite significant in terms of the UK ceases to be a nuclear weapons power. Which really changes its global status.”
According to the Australian government, the UK will deliver its first SSN’s by the late 2030s. Defence Minister Richard Marles said the first class of Australian-built submarines is intended to enter service by the early 2040s…………………………………………………………………..
Parker from the Lowy Institute also believes the Australian government will watch to see if the UK takes “strides” to address what she described as capability constraints facing UK submarine industrial bases………….
“As much as I’m confident they’ll make it [AUKUS] work, whether they’ll make it work within the stated time frames is genuinely an open question.”
The UK’s defence committee has launched an inquiry into its military resilience and preparedness. It follows a July report by its defence ministry, which found that 47 out of 49 major defence projects in the UK were delayed or over budget.
In a statement, Dan Jarvis, the newly appointed defence secretary, said:
“Many projects had been announced with insufficient or no funding at all. The consequences were profound: limited availability of warships and aircraft, an army facing a recruitment crisis, morale weakened and renewal of our nuclear deterrent delayed.” https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/andy-burnham-aukus-submarine-deal-australia/j38e9qzzf
UK’s nuclear plants face risks of AI-powered cyber-attacks and insider threats
17 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/uks-nuclear-plants-face-risks-of-ai-powered-cyber-attacks-and-insider-threats-17-07-2026/
Civil nuclear power plants in the UK now face cyber-attacks enhanced by artificial intelligence (AI) and insider threats, according to the government’s National Risk Register 2026.
The National Risk Register (NRR) is the annual, public-facing version of the government’s National Security Risk Assessment, it “includes a summary of all but the most sensitive, classified risks,” according to Cabinet Office minister of state Darren Jones.
Jones informed parliament and the public of the publication of the 2026 edition of the NRR in a written ministerial statement on 14 July.
The NRR attracts attention because it explains the government’s assessment of the likelihood and severity of a broad range of risks, including terrorism, cyber threats, geopolitical and diplomatic risks, accidents and systems failures.
The 2026 edition covers 95 risks. Of relevance to the civil engineering and infrastructure sector, “cyber-attack water infrastructure” was added as a new risk to reflect learning “from reported cyber-attacks targeting the water sector,” the NRR said.
It also added, “accidental damage on the National Gas Transmission Network – to explore damage to the gas transmission network as a result of agricultural digging.”
In her foreword to the 2026 NRR, Cabinet Office security minister Angela Eagle said: “This government is committed to sharing risk information as openly as possible, to support all those working to build the UK’s resilience with their planning, preparation and response activity.
“Greater transparency also means that people can scrutinise our assessments, and challenge us to do things differently when needed.”
She added: “A whole of society approach is required to increase resilience; therefore, I encourage all risk and resilience professionals to consider the risks in this publication, and join our collective endeavour to make the UK more prosperous and secure.”
While the 2025 edition included “conventional attack” and “cyber-attack” against civil nuclear as two distinct risks, the 2026 edition removed the cyber-attack risk profile and instead covered cyber risks facing civil nuclear into “malicious attack: civil nuclear”, in its “state threats” grouping.
Within the new malicious attack: civil nuclear profile, the NRR 2026 said: “AI can automate the process of launching cyber-attacks, making them faster, more efficient and lower the barrier for entry.”
Reacting to the 2026 NRR, cybersecurity firm e2e-assure CEO Rob Demain told NCE: “Nuclear plants have always planned for physical threats and human error. What’s new is the assumption that the attacker may already have a way in, that someone with legitimate access can do real damage without ever needing to break down a fence.
“AI is exacerbating the threat. The National Risk Register itself says AI can automate attacks, making them faster, cheaper and easier to attempt without much skill.
“Elsewhere it goes further, describing how AI makes fake messages harder to spot and helps attackers find weaknesses faster. That’s a very different risk to plan for, than a lone bad actor.”
Demain added: “For the people who design, build and maintain this infrastructure, the message is simple: security can no longer be something bolted on afterwards, or left entirely to IT.
“It has to be built into how these sites operate, day to day, alongside the safety systems engineers already take for granted.”
Also responding to the “malicious attack: civil nuclear” risk profile, an EDF spokesperson told NCE: “As the risk from cyber-attack on UK critical national infrastructure continues to evolve, EDF continues to further refine its defences, with horizon scanning for developing threats and a constant series of system improvements to make it harder for those attempting to damage our systems.
We note that the National Risk Register does not propose a scenario of a safety risk but one that ‘results in a disruption to normal operations until investigations have demonstrated nuclear safety and security critical systems remain unaffected’, and that ‘the disruption is not a direct result of the attack’.”
Demain told NCE earlier in July that critical national infrastructure assets are now more at risk of cyber-attacks due to the deployment of newer, more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools like Anthropic’s Mythos.
New energy policy for Burnham?
The soon to be UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, is being portrayed as a ‘new broom’ that could, or might, adopt better polices in all areas. Well, what about the energy sector? It’s in a mess, economically, driven by high fossil gas prices, with retail electricity prices at an all-time high, despite renewable energy doing well (65 GW so far) with its wholesale price mostly being low. It’s in a mess technologically, at risk of undermining the crucial next stage of its important renewables programme by diverting cash to support major high-cost nuclear and fossil carbon capture and storage projects.
Both of these programme involve multi-billion funding. The much delayed Hinkley Point nuclear plant may end up costing £40-50bn, inflation adjusted, when it finally gets completed, probably in 2030. Its follow-on project, Sizewell C, may not do much better, despite promises about learning from Hinkley, and despite the investment risks being met by a consumer levy. There are already construction issues. A late 2030s start up at best? By then we might also be seeing some outcomes from the very speculative funding for small modular reactors and even maybe some results from the even more speculative fusion funding, with £2.5bn set aside for it.
Is any of that good value for money? Will it deliver anything useful on time? On past performance, it’s very uncertain. Same for the £21.7 bn Carbon Capture and Storage programme, the full cost of which has been put at possibly up to £264bn by 2050. CCS is basically an attempt to allow us to keep burning fossil fuel. Is that sensible? Or for that matter the controversial Drax wood pellet combustion plant– it got £1bn in subsidies last year. Burning imported wood from forests does not seem to be a very sustainable option…
There are arguably so many more worthy projects, for example in green hydrogen production and storage, a vital new area for expansion. Heat storage linked to local heat networks too. To be fair, some of these ideas are now getting a bit of funding. For example, pioneering green hydrogen producer ITM Power has received £86.5 m from Great British Energy and DESNZ. It will be used to expand ITM’s electrolyser production at its Sheffield plant to 1GW p.a. But we need more like that for the rapid expansion of short and long duration storage. Freed from drain of endless nuclear and carbon capture diversions, we could also accelerate the newer renewables, like tidal stream turbines, via expansion of the Contacts for Difference (CfD) system. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What next? Hinkley Point C is about half-built, so a lot of capital has already been sunk in it, but there are yet more billions scheduled to be spent on it. Burnham is unlikely to be willing to halt it (he is, it seems, pro-nuclear) but he might be persuaded to ditch Sizewell C, work on which has hardly started.
And the big proposed CCS programme too, so as to release further billions. To soften the change of policy, he could keep some small projects going (an SMR perhaps, or a CCSU project) as ‘insurance’ options, much as some renewables were treated in the past (including, at one stage, offshore wind) when nuclear was seen as the main new UK energy option.
More or less everyone, except some deadhead Reform supporters, now see renewables as that. The only debate seems to be on what backup might be needed. Large inflexible nuclear plants are not much use at that, nor are costly CCS fossil gas plants, while SMRs are as yet uncertain in terms of cost and viability.
But we don’t need any of this to deal with variable renewables. Storage, large and small scale, is part of the answer, along with improved transmission and flexible demand management plus smart grid systems, so as to balance local variable demand and variable supply efficiently.
We have to build a new system and that will inevitably be costly, although, arguably, not as much as trying to keep the old system going with dubious supply choices and carbon fixes. For example, on the basis of its latest LCOE data, Lazard says ‘Despite rising and inflationary cost pressures across all generation technologies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new-build generation on an unsubsidised basis’.
And economic cost is not the only issue. For example, if built, Sizewell C will produce around 40,000 kg of plutonium in its spent fuel over its 60-year lifespan. Plutonium has a half-life of around 25,000 years, with SMRs, if they ever work, also adding to the pile. Is that what we want to bequeath our far-off descendants? Along with other long-lived nuclear wastes?
That’s a big challenge. Andy Burnham has made some commitments on energy and climate, but only so far mostly in a limited and cautious way. Will he now come up with something more radical? We will have to wait to see. Meanwhile, the latest data show that over 70% of DESNEZ expenditure is now nuclear related…
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/new-energy-policy-for-burnham.html?m=1
Witness- A visit to Donald Morrison, a chief witness in the case of Willie McRae
I took a trip to Benbecula to visit Donald Morrison, a chief witness in
the case of Willie McRae, a prominent Scottish lawyer who was found dying
of a bullet wound in a car that had gone off the road in 1985. Donald was
the last person to see Willie McRae alive and whenever I have spoken to him
on the phone about this, he has always urged me to visit. The case has been
bugging me and so eventually I decided to take him up on the invitation.
McRae was an SNP politician, activist-lawyer and anti-nuclear campaigner.
On a misty April night 41 years ago, his car went off a quiet road – it
must have been going at speed – and came to rest 90 feet away. It was
spotted by an eagle-eyed accident investigator and his wife the next
morning at ten am. They glimpsed the car, which was partially hidden by a
gully, turned back to check on it and found Willie unconscious but still
breathing.
Neither they nor the other passers-by they flagged down, who
included a doctor, nor the paramedics, nor the nurses who received McRae at
the hospital noticed a bullet wound. However, an MRI scan after McRae was
transferred to Raigmore revealed that he had been shot. The authorities
later said that McRae had committed suicide by shooting himself in the
temple. But it seems unbelievable that all of the professionals who cared
for him would have failed to wash the blood away and see a bullet wound if
it was in his temple. A nurse who treated McRae came forward later and said
that there was a small entry wound under the hairline at the back of his
neck.
This is much more consistent with an attempted covert murder than
suicide. Donald was a beat policeman who walked the streets of the centre
of Glasgow, sometimes chatting in Gaelic to other Highland cops. He had
frequent interactions back then with McRae, because of a series of
break-ins at his office
Jackie Kemp 18th July 2026, https://substack.com/home/post/p-207141868
Ministry of Defence (MoD) finally admits ‘extensive’ human radiation experiments on nuclear test veterans
“There’s no truth, no justice. We were labrats in a government experiment which they didn’t bother to keep the paperwork for. But worse is the cover-up which continues.”
Susie Boniface Reporter, 16 Jul 2026, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nuclear-test-veterans-ministry-defence-37439854
The Ministry of Defence has finally admitted it ran an “extensive” programme of human radiation experiments on troops.
A two-year review has confirmed ministers and officials falsely denied that medical data was collected from servicemen and civilians at nuclear weapons tests for more than a decade. Worse, the MoD says it has been unable to locate the results – leaving veterans continuing to suffer after 70 years without answers.
The results were published online, with a host of other last-minute announcements, a few hours before kick off in England’s semi-final match against Argentina. John Morris, who has waited a lifetime to find out why his son Steven died in his cot aged four months, and why he he’s had cancer and a blood condition, said: “This is vindication, but there’s no relief.
“There’s no truth, no justice. We were labrats in a government experiment which they didn’t bother to keep the paperwork for. But worse is the cover-up which continues.
“They lied, hid it all behind national security, and have come clean now only because we forced them. People should go to jail for this.”
- The review, ordered after the Mirror exposed the Nuked Blood Scandal in 2022, has found:
- A secret hoard of 50,000 files that include nuclear veteran records but have not been examined
- More than 5,000 nuclear test veterans deliberately excluded from government health studies
- Veterans who applied for a war pension had their medical records permanently stripped, denying them proper diagnosis and treatment
- Thousands of medical records were unlawfully destroyed, some as recently as last year
Prime Minister-in-waiting Andy Burnham has privately told staff to begin work on reparations, compensation and commemoration for the nuclear test programme, including setting up a special tribunal to determine the extent of government lies.
Criminal allegations of perjury, perverting the course of justice, fraud by false representation and misconduct in public office are being considered in a major crime review by Thames Valley Police. Officers have asked the Atomic Weapons Establishment to provide details of emails from 2014 which we reported this week, discussing a whistleblower report about fallout on inhabited areas, which was also covered up.
The review has not looked into how thousands of records were classified, why courts were told monitoring never happened, or why in 2018 Parliament was told by a minister that the MoD was “unable to locate any information” about blood testing. As recently as 2023, ministers said “only one blood test” existed.
It has also failed to look into the records of civilians, indigenous people, merchant navy crews and RAF units monitoring foreign nuclear weapons tests, who were all similarly monitored.
Lord Tom Watson, who as deputy Labour leader asked the first questions about the blood tests, said: “I am sure this report will deeply concern the new Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that veterans’ medical records were lost or destroyed, affecting their health and compensation claims. We now need to establish who knew what, when, and why nobody acted sooner.”
Climate Change – It’s only a matter of time…
At the same time, nuclear energy is being consecrated as the answer to climate change and energy self-sufficiency. But, its high cost and long time scales, let alone the wastes and risks it brings, make it no solution at all. And in France closing nuclear power stations during a heatwave has become a routine response.
13 July 2026 Andrew Blowers, Chair of B Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG),
https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/climate-change-a-matter-of-time/
“…………………………………. we seem woefully unprepared for what is becoming the new normal. Serious adaptation is required as the UK’s ‘infrastructure is built for a climate that no longer exists’.
As various ‘tipping points’ are passed the impacts on people and environments will become irreversible. Sea-level rise is already unstoppable and will irrevocably change environments. Here, in the Blackwater estuary there will be destruction of saltmarshes, widespread flooding and inundation of agricultural and urban areas beyond.
Until recently there was a broad political consensus on the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Now, the strenuous efforts by successive governments to achieve net zero by 2050 are being undermined by short-term political gestures such as opening up North Sea oilfields which does nothing for either energy or environmental security.
At the same time, nuclear energy is being consecrated as the answer to climate change and energy self-sufficiency. But, its high cost and long time scales, let alone the wastes and risks it brings, make it no solution at all. And in France closing nuclear power stations during a heatwave has become a routine response.
What drilling in the North Sea and building a few nuclear power stations does do is divert attention and resources from the pressing and fundamental need to press ahead with the energy transition as fast as we can.
Meanwhile it is only a matter of time before impacts will become intolerable. We shall have to ensure we can adapt and survive.
1 This Month
of the week – Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition – Working together for the abolition of n\nuclear weapons – https://www.hiroshimadaycoalition.ca/
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- August 2026 (102)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
- September 2025 (257)
-
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 