nuclear-news

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

Fire at Windscale piles

   Does Britain Really Ned Nuclear Power?  by Ian Fairlea,  beyondnuclearinternational

“…………………………………………………………….In 1957, a major fire occurred at Windscale nuclear site (what is now known as Sellafield). The effects of the Windscale fire were hushed up at the time but it is now recognised as one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents. An official statement in 1957 said: ‘There was not a large amount of radiation released. The amount was not hazardous and in fact it was carried out to sea by the wind.’ The truth, kept hidden for over thirty years, was that a large quantity of hazardous radioactivity was blown east and south east, across most of England.

After years of accidents and leaks, several of them serious, and regular cover-up attempts by both the management and government, it was decided to change the plant’s name in 1981 to Sellafield, presumably in the hope that the public would forget about Windscale and the accident.

When, in 1983, Greenpeace divers discovered highly radioactive waste being discharged into the sea through a pipeline at Sellafield and tried to block it, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), who then operated the site, repeatedly took Greenpeace to the High Court to try to stop them and to sequestrate its assets. The first generation of British Magnox nuclear power stations were all secretly designed with the dual purpose of plutonium and electricity production in mind.

Some people think that because plutonium is no longer needed by the UK to make weapons as it already has huge stocks of weapons grade plutonium, there no longer is any connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. This is incorrect: they remain inextricably linked. For example:

  • All the processes at the front of the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e. uranium ore mining, uranium ore milling, uranium ore refining, and U-235 enrichment are still used for both power and military purposes.
  • The UK factory at Capenhurst that makes nuclear fuel for reactors also makes nuclear fuel for nuclear (Trident and hunter-killer) submarines.
  • Nuclear reactors are used to create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen) necessary for nuclear weapons.

………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/

December 17, 2025 Posted by | incidents, Reference, UK | Leave a comment

The worrying new detail in UK plans for nuclear-capable jets

 Bill Kidd MSP: Thanks to the publication of a new Nuclear Education Trust report, Stepping Back From The Brink: The Myths Of Tactical Nuclear Weapons And Limited Nuclear War, we have additional detail on how the Ministry of Defence is to spend billions reintroducing tactical nuclear weapons into
the RAF.

We also know that these are weapons the RAF will not own or control. Re-nuclearising the RAF requires much more than the purchase of an additional squadron of F-35A jets at around £1 billion. Creating the logistical and command and control infrastructure will be 10 times the cost of just the aircraft. What additional cuts to our already stretched public
services will that presage?

Going back on his word is, of course, how Starmer was elected. He conned the public with his slogan of change, when he really meant more of the same.

 The National 13th Dec 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25695116.worrying-new-detail-uk-plans-nuclear-capable-jets/

December 16, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

  High Court challenge to Sizewell C ‘cannot be right’, court told.

Lawyers representing the developers and government suggest the challenge could set a precedent for major infrastructure.

A High Court will decide on Friday whether to grant a judicial review of safety changes to nuclear project Sizewell C that could force developers to reapply for consent. The
project’s defence team claimed in court on Tuesday that the judgment will have an impact on how large-scale infrastructure adaptations are challenged in future. “It simply cannot be right for major infrastructure projects like this to face challenge every time it becomes possible that some
additional adaptation measure might be needed at some point into the distant future,” a defence lawyer on the side of developers and government said during a court hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing was held atthe Royal Courts of Justice to determine whether the nuclear plant, scheduled to be developed in Suffolk, can go ahead without a proper review
of two new overland flood barriers. Campaigners previously argued that the project lacked proper sea defences, and at the behest of the UK’s nuclear regulator, French developer EDF has since included plans for two new overland flood barriers, without releasing the details for public review through a formal assessment. At stake is whether the development consent
order would need to be revisited to accommodate the changes.

 Energy Voice 12th Dec 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/586858/high-court-challenge-to-sizewell-c-cannot-be-right-court-told/

December 16, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

What to do with Britain’s radioactive waste?

    by Ian Fairlea,  beyondnuclearinternational .

“………………………………………………………………………………… Radioactive nuclear waste is produced by all nuclear activities. For example, uranium mining produces a great deal of waste in the form of ore spoil like all mining. Since uranium is radioactive, so are its ore wastes. So also are all the processes of refining the ore, enriching the uranium, turning it into fuel for reactors, transportation, burning it in nuclear power stations, processing the used fuel, and its handling and storage. They all create more nuclear waste.

The reason is that everything that comes into contact with radioactive materials, including the containers in which they are stored or moved and even the buildings in which they are handled, become contaminated with radioactivity or are activated by radiation

All radioactive waste is dangerous to human life as exposure to it can cause leukaemia and other cancers. It is usually categorised as low, intermediate or high-level waste. As the radioactivity level increases, so does the danger. Extremely high levels of radioactivity can kill anyone coming into contact with it – or just getting too close to it – within a matter of days or weeks.

Radioactive materials slowly lose their radioactivity and so can become in theory safe to handle but in most cases this is a very slow process. Plutonium-239, for instance, has a half-life of over 24,000 years which means it will remain lethal for over 240,000 years. Other radio-isotopes remain radioactive for millions or even billions of years.

The safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that is reaching crisis point for both the civil nuclear industry and for the military.

During the Cold War years of the 1950s and 1960s, the development of the British atomic bomb was seen as a matter of urgency. Dealing with the mess caused by the production, operating and even testing of nuclear weapons was something to be worried about later, if at all.

For example, the Ministry of Defence does not really have a proper solution for dealing with the highly radioactive hulls of decommissioned nuclear submarines, apart from storing them for many decades. As a result, 19 nuclear-powered retired submarines are still waiting to be dismantled, with more expected each year. Yet Britain goes on building these submarines.

This callous disregard for the future has spilled over to the nuclear power industry. For example, at Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, nuclear waste and scrap from the experimental reactor and reprocessing plants were simply tipped down a disused shaft for over 20 years. No proper records of what was dumped were kept and eventually, in 1977, an explosion showered the area with radioactive debris. In April 1998, it was finally announced that excavation and safe removal of the debris had cost £355 million.

The problems of long term, secure storage of nuclear waste are unsolved and growing more acute year by year. Earlier attempts by the nuclear industry to get rid of it by dumping it in the sea were stopped by environmental direct action, trades union protests and now by law.

All details concerning military nuclear waste are regarded as official secrets. However, large and growing quantities of radioactive waste exist at the Rosyth and Devonport dockyards and in particular at the Aldermaston and Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishments.

One feature of Aldermaston and Sellafield in particular is that they are old sites, and have grown up in an unplanned, haphazard way. New buildings are fitted in between old, sometimes abandoned, buildings. Some areas and buildings are sealed off and polluted by radioactivity. Local streams, and in the case of Sellafield the sea shore, are polluted. The demolition of old radioactive buildings is a delicate, slow and dangerous process. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the amount of nuclear waste can only be estimated.

Civil intermediate level solid waste is mainly stored at Sellafield awaiting a decision on a national storage facility.

Military intermediate level solid waste is stored where it is created: dockyards, AWE plants etc. Both civil and military high level solid waste is generally moved to Sellafield for temporary storage.

The major problems are with the long-term storage of intermediate and in particular high-level wastes. Since these are very dangerous and very long-lived, any storage facility has to be very secure (i.e. well-guarded) and safer over a longer period – some tens of thousands of years – than anything yet designed and built by humanity.

Because of this very long time scale, it can never be sealed up and forgotten. Containers corrode with time. There are earth movements. Water seeps through rocks. The waste will have to be stored in such a form that it cannot be stolen and misused and in such a way that it can be inspected and if necessary retrieved and moved.

Plans to dig a trial deep storage facility under the Sellafield site were thrown out in 1997. Geological evidence suggested that the local rock is too fissured and liable to be affected by water seepage.

This threw all the nuclear industry’s plans into confusion. Instead of having a storage site ready by 2010, the date has been put back more or less indefinitely. No alternative site has even been identified.

Apart from the technical, geological problems, few communities seek a huge, long-term nuclear waste storage site in their neighbourhood. Indeed the original choice of Sellafield was as much political as technical. With most local jobs depending on nuclear industry already, there would have been less local opposition than elsewhere.

Nuclear waste is a problem that the nuclear industry has failed to consider seriously for over sixty years but one that can no longer be put off for future generations to cope with.

The effects of any nuclear accidents, such as those at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, are also very long-lasting and will affect future generations. The problems of nuclear waste are nowhere near solution. The history of the nuclear industry does not inspire confidence………………………………………………………. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | Reference, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Sizewell C — the last of its kind

Policy Brief,

The deal to build the Sizewell C, two reactors using the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design, using the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) finance model was inevitably a bad one for the UK public. It gives guaranteed profits to investors by placing the risks on consumers while the EPR has an unenviable record of huge cost and time overruns. It requires consumers to pay the finance charges in the construction period – of the same order as the construction cost – as a surcharge on their bills. However, the additional subsidies and risk removal that were necessary to persuade private investors to take stakes are shocking.

The new finance deal for Sizewell C

RAB financing deal, developed from 2018, was announced in 2021 and legislated for in 2021-2022 when Kwasi Kwarteng was Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and completed under Ed Miliband at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) in July 2025. The Regulated Asset Base (RAB) finance model for nuclear power plants was sold to the public on the basis that it would provide cheaper power than using the fixed power price financial model under which the Hinkley Point C reactors1 are being built.

It was claimed the model would bring in new sources of investment, particularly institutional investors such as pension funds. The power price reduction would be achieved if the public shared the economic risks with the investors and offered limited subsidies and guarantees. Reducing the risk borne by investors would reduce the cost of capital, a major element in the cost of power from a nuclear power plant, and hence the price of electricity. The subsidies were portrayed not so much as paying costs that would be expected to have been borne by investors, as is normal for subsidies, but as giving the investors guarantees they were not at risk from the consequences of low-probability, high-consequence events and from volatile wholesale electricity market prices.

After five years of effort by government to complete the deal, a Final Investment Decision (FID) for Sizewell C was finally taken on July 22, 2025. The contracts were finalised on November 4, 20252. The largest investor is the UK government (44.9%). The other investors are the Canadian pension fund, La Caisse (20%), Centrica (15%), EDF (12.5%) and Amber Infrastructure (7.6%). Amber Infrastructure is acting on behalf of the UK’s Nuclear Liabilities Fund, NLF, (4.6%), arguably public funds, and International Public Partnerships Limited 3.0%. So only 23% of the investment will come from institutional investors, 27.5% from energy companies and about half (if we include the NLF) from public sources.

An analysis of the Sizewell C deal shows that balance of risks is one-sided with the risks falling almost entirely on taxpayers and consumers, with minimal penalties and generous incentives offered to investors. The subsidies offered are far more extensive than those acknowledged by government and represent large amounts of public money being given to the private investors for no public return. The price of power from Sizewell C is unknown and will vary unpredictably from year to year, but there can be little confidence the RAB model will produce a lower power price than Hinkley Point C even if the cost of the subsidies is not factored in. The incentives required to bring in private investors are so expensive and risky to consumers that the model should not be repeated, and, like the Hinkley Point C deal, it ought to be a one-off, not a door-opener for new nuclear investments.

The Risk/Reward balance

The plan to use the Hinkley Point C finance model for Sizewell C was abandoned by EDF in 2018. This was because it was not willing to accept the financial risks it had signed up to for Hinkley by agreeing a fixed power purchase price with all construction cost and time risks falling on itself. Costs have escalated dramatically at Hinkley since the deal was signed in 2016, by up to 90% but cannot be passed through to the power purchase price: and this commitment led to EDF writing off €12.9bn of its investment in Hinkley Point C in 20233.

The investors in the Sizewell project frequently talk about the project being ‘derisked’4 by which they mean not that the risk has been reduced, but that it falls on others………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Subsidies…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… “The acknowledgement that ‘Difference’ payments will be substantial demonstrates that it is expected that consumers will be forced to buy power from Sizewell C that will cost more than alternatives in the market.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. Will the power be cheaper than for Hinkley?……………………………………………………………………….

Is the Sizewell deal repeatable?………………………………………………………………………………. If the deal proves not to be repeatable, the huge amount of government time and cost that has gone into completing the deal will, as with Hinkley Point C, have been a costly diversion of more than a decade from pursuing the cheaper, quicker and more reliable ways of meeting the government’s promises of net zero…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Is Sizewell the last large reactor for the UK?…………………………………………………………………………………

Endnotes -……… [copious] https://policybrief.org/briefs/sizewell-c-the-last-of-its-kind/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Could armed robots be the future of nuclear site security?

experiments to test the military potential of near-identical quadrupeds being carried out by the US armed forces, with Spot’s cousin converted into an armed platform by the addition of an artificial intelligence-enabled gun turret

16th October 2024, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/spot-to-robocop-could-armed-robots-be-the-future-of-nuclear-site-security/

Robots are becoming increasingly employed in decommissioning operations at Sellafield and Dounreay. Whilst the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome their use in hazardous environments which are too radioactive and otherwise contaminated for human operators, we have concerns that in the long-term their use might expand into on-site security.

The Atomic Energy Authority Special Constable Act 1976 first permitted the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to raise an armed private police force. In 2005, the UKAEA Constabulary was replaced by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. CNC officers are routinely armed with sub machine guns and authorised to use deadly force – in extremis – whilst guarding nuclear facilities, but also whilst engaged in hot pursuit outside.

However last month, seemingly to counter possible threats from sabotage or terrorism and the greater incidence of climate change protests, the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband instructed the CNC to redeploy officers from their traditional duties to protecting coastal gas plants with effect from April 2025[i]. It is likely that this role may further expand to cover oil depots.

In 2021, the NFLAs objected to planned legislation to widen the CNC’s remit to guarding non-nuclear sites. In our response to a consultation, we said that the ‘CNC’s role should continue to be explicitly confined to policing nuclear sites and facilities’ and that ‘protection of critical national infrastructure should be carried out by an adequately funded democratically controlled local police force’ rather than an unaccountable paramilitary police force.

If CNC numbers at nuclear sites are diluted, there could be pressure to employ robots on security duties in their stead, and in the long-term it is not inconceivable that they may even become armed and autonomous.

The ‘poster child’ of the robots is the quadruped first developed by Boston Dynamics in the United States, affectionately known as Spot the Dog. This variant is now routinely used in decommissioning operations in environments that are unsafe for human operators. The robot uses a specialist scanning system to create a 3D moveable image of its environment, allowing engineers to carry out remote inspections in support of clean-up operations[ii].

Spot can though operate entirely autonomously. Last month, it was reported that such a robot had completed a 35-day autonomous operation to inspect the UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Joint European Torus (JET) facility. Tasks successfully completed included ‘mapping the facility, taking sensor readings, avoiding obstacles and personnel involved in the decommissioning process, and collecting essential data on JET’s environment and overall status twice a day. The robot also knew when to dock and undock with its charging station, to ensure it could complete the task without humans having to intervene’.[iii]

So far, so benign, but a disturbing report appeared around the same time about experiments to test the military potential of near-identical quadrupeds being carried out by the US armed forces, with Spot’s cousin converted into an armed platform by the addition of an artificial intelligence-enabled gun turret to participate in exercises in Saudi Arabia. The flexible turret enabled ground fire, but also aerial fire against drones, which are also an increasing threat to civil nuclear facilities. The article in Military.Com records that robot dogs have already been engaged by the US Defence Department in several roles, including ‘boosting perimeter security at sensitive installations’, a task in which they excel as they can ‘patrol’ ‘without need to rest’.[iv]

The NFLAs cannot help thinking that in a dystopian nuclear future, in which the CNC increasingly overstretched and renamed the Civil Infrastructure Constabulary to reflect its ever-expanded role in providing armed protection to a wide range of critical sites, security forces might engage a force of armed Robocops to supplement the dwindling number of armed human officers, each charged with patrolling the perimeters of civil nuclear facilities, and granted autonomous decision-making to engage trespassers, protestors, and drones with deadly force.

The concept of Spot the Dog becoming SWAT the Dog, however unlikely, is truly terrifying.

Concerns about so-called killer robots animated the world community late last year. The Stop Killer Robots campaign, founded in October 2012, continues to work for a new international law to regulate autonomy in weapons systems. The coalition of over 250 civil society organisations in 70 countries successfully lobbied states to adopt the first ever resolution on autonomous weapons at the United Nations on December 22, 2023. 152 countries supported General Assembly Resolution 78/241 which acknowledged the ‘serious challenges and concerns’ raised by ‘new technological applications in the military domain, including those related to artificial intelligence and autonomy in weapons systems.’

Stop Killer Robots was recently awarded Archivio Disarmo’s Golden Dove for Peace Award at a ceremony in Rome on Saturday, 12 October. The award is given to an international figure or organisation which has made ‘a significant contribution to the cause of peace’.

More details of the campaign can be found at https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | employment, safety, UK | Leave a comment

Submarines in for repairs at Rosyth could contain nuclear weapons

Dunfermline Press, 11th December, By Clare Buchanan, Local Democracy Reporter – Clackmannanshire and Fife

The Ministry of Defence says it will not reveal if nuclear weapons will be aboard submarines being repaired at Rosyth in future, and confirmed residents would be given potassium iodate tablets to block radiation in the event of an emergency.

The revelations came as members of Fife Council’s South and West Fife area committee were given an update on plans for Rosyth to be the temporary repair base for the UK’s new fleet of nuclear deterrent submarines.

While it was explained that “non-nuclear” repairs would be carried out from the dockyard when required, some vessels at the Fife yard could be carrying nuclear weapons – but an MoD spokesperson told councillors that they would not reveal whether or not they were.

Rosyth has been earmarked as a temporary contingent for the UK Government’s Dreadnought class of submarines – the first of which is expected to launch towards the end of the decade.

The proposals also include setting up an emergency planning zone, which could stretch more than a kilometre and includes a residential area…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….When probed, Mr Brown also told councillors that policy would mean there would be no confirmation of if nuclear weapons were on board.

“My position is we do not comment on the condition of the boat whether it is armed or not,” he added…………………………………

Rosyth councillor Andrew Verrachia welcomed the plans…………………….“I don’t want to think about the public being frightened. If any more communication can be put out to the wider public because the last thing anyone wants is frightened, worried members of the public. This should be a good news story.”

Committee convener David Barratt was less pleased with the plans.

“Morally, and as a CND member, I find the existence of nuclear weapons abhorrent,” he said………… https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25689904.submarines-repairs-rosyth-contain-nuclear-weapons/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Revelation that UK’s Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) could be robotic prompts question over employment.

11 Dec 25 https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/revelation-that-gdf-could-be-robotic-prompts-question-over-employment/

Where are the jobs? A question surely prompted by the revelation by New CivilEngineeri that NWS chief technical officer John Corderoy recently claimed that the organisation might build a future Geological Disposal Facility operated solely by an army of robots.

Due to become operational by the late 2050s, but this is a moveable feast, the GDF will be the final repository for Britain’s high-level legacy and future radioactive waste. Three Areas of
Focus in West Cumbria are currently being examined by Nuclear Waste Services as prospective locations for an approximately 1km2 surface facility to receive waste shipments prior to their being taken below ground and out through tunnels to engineered vaults deep under the Irish Sea bed.

Advocates for the GDF have raised as an economic benefit the generational employment that the facility might provide for local people over its (possibly) 150-year lifespan, but in his speech to the Nuclear Industry Association annual conference last week, Mr Corderoy conceded that with the advancement in robotics it might be possible to build a facility ‘that’s fully automated and run by robots on the ground’.

This also makes the NFLAs wonder if that would include dispensing with a human armed police force to patrol the perimeter and check entrants in favour of an AI version, as we presaged in our article of 16 October 2024:

Although, as Mr Corderoy rightly indicated, such a plan would mean ‘we don’t have to put humans in harm’s way deep underground’, for Nuclear Waste Services it would also mean a
workforce which toils without payment and without any expectation of a workplace pension, and which does not require catering, medical or welfare facilities, carparking, protective clothing, lit or heated workspaces, holidays, maternity or paternity leave, or time off for
sickness (aside from an occasional recharge, oil or parts change, or annual MOT). All representing significant cost savings for NWS.

Nor would robots be discovered leaving work
early or engaging in toxic workplace behaviour, nor would they become embroiled in an industrial dispute with their employer; things that cannot be said about some of the human
workforce at Sellafield in recent years.

The industry trades unions will also be horrified; for not only would it mean that their members, facing redundancy after the closure of storage facilities at Sellafield, would not be
able to access alternate operational jobs at the GDF site, but it would mean a loss of income to help sustain the salaries of officials as robots do not pay union subs.

December 14, 2025 Posted by | employment, UK | Leave a comment

Disappointing news from the High Court, to Together Against Sizewell C (TASC)

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) are extremely disappointed to advise of today’s decision by the judge, to refuse permission for a judicial review in relation to Sizewell C’s secret additional sea defences. In TASC’s view, it is immoral to proceed with Sizewell C in the knowledge that the project, as approved in the development consent order, is not resilient to an extreme sea level rise scenario. This will result in future generations having to pick up the pieces from ill-thought out decisions made today.
Future generations need government to move forward with sustainable development, not questionable climate change solutions, such as Sizewell C, which come with hidden risks that have been denied public scrutiny, assessment and full consideration of alternatives.

 TASC 12th Dec 2025, https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/sizewell-c-legal-challenge/

December 14, 2025 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Fire safety failings hit Hinkley Point.

Nuclear Engineering International 10th Dec 2025

Improvements must be in place by June 2026, ahead of bulk installation of mechanical and electrical systems at unit 1.

The UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has served a fire enforcement notice on Bylor JV (a joint venture of Laing O’Rourke and Bouygues Travaux Publics) after identifying significant fire safety shortfalls at the Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear construction site in Somerset.

ONR inspectors identified that Bylor had failed to implement appropriate arrangements for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventive and protective measures following a focused fire safety intervention.

Bylor is delivering HPC’s main civil engineering works. ONR said many of the Bylor buildings on the site are currently at an advanced stage of construction and these shortfalls resulted in inadequate general fire precautions, including a lack of an adequate emergency lighting system………………….https://www.neimagazine.com/news/fire-safety-failings-hit-hinkley-point/?cf-view

December 14, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Free Local Authorities Policy Briefing 330: NFLA Progress Report, October – December 2025.

NFLA, Richard Outram, NFLA / Mayors for Peace Secretary 11 December 2025

Key Developments:
UK Government: EN-7
The UK Government’s revised National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation (EN-7) was
finalised and published in November 2025 introducing a developer led, criteria-based approach for siting new fission gigawatt, SMR and AMR nuclear plants (but not fusion – this will be covered by EN-8 in development). The previous policy EN-6 was Government led, with a strategic assessment leading to the listing of specific sites for redevelopment.

The NFLAs have been critical of this approach as it provides for new nuclear power stations to be built at sites that have not previously hosted such infrastructure, raising the prospect of a market led free-for-all. Energy Minister Michael Shanks described the new policy as ‘agile’ meaning there is
much not to like as very few criteria in the new policy explicitly rule out development; the emphasis is more upon facilitation with the caveat that there shall be a ‘mitigation of impacts on the host community’.

Two silver linings are that the Government has:

1. (For now) Retained the Semi-Urban Population Density Criterion (SUPDC), much to the chagrin of developers, meaning that reactors cannot be built near populated areas; developers, claiming their unproven, unbuilt reactor designs, are safer would much prefer this be lifted as it would permit them to co-locate new plants near to large industrial consumers.

2. Placed a focus upon developments being designed to be resilient to climate change. These are both issues the NGO community, and NFLAs, have made representations to Government upon.

Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce
John Fingleton’s Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce , mostly comprising nuclear industry representatives, has just published its final report (unsurprisingly) calling for a radical reset of the ‘overly complex’ nuclear regulatory system. The report makes 47 recommendations to speed up nuclear projects at a lower cost. It says the UK has become the “most expensive place in the world” to build nuclear plants.

Shockingly, contrary to the commitment in EN-7, the NRT recommended that nuclear plants should be built closer to urban areas and should be allowed to harm the local environment.

This confirms the fears of the NFLAs and NGO community that the Taskforce was charged with dispensing with regulation in the industry to make it cheaper and quicker for developers to build new nuclear plants with the risk that safety and environmental and human protection will be compromised. (A similar approach contributed to the accident at Three Mile Island)………………….

The Office for Nuclear Regulation has previously rigorously contested the claims of EDF and others like Britain Remade that over regulation led to a significant increase in costs at the Hinkley Point C development. And Nuclear Consult Chair, Dr Paul Dorfman, writing in The National said the report
does not provide any evidence that regulation is responsible for huge delays and ballooning costs, rather these can be attributed to the incompetence of the builders and the issues with designs.

However, at the recent ONR NGO Forum we were informed that the government intends to establish one overarching regulatory commission with the ultimate power to make determinations upon nuclear projects. At its head will be the Chief Nuclear Inspector as Chair of this prestigious new body. In response to the report, the ONR issued a statement casting its former criticism to the winds and instead warmly welcoming the recommendations; coincidence, surely?

Worryingly, the report also recommends limiting legal challenges to a ‘single bite of the cherry’ and talks of ‘indemnifying’ nuclear developers from ‘damages’ incurred because of judicial reviews.

And, in another move by the Labour Government to curtail the rights of lawful protestors, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has ordered courts to open hearings on judicial review processes which could threaten to block critical infrastructure projects within four months of an application being made.

Nuclear can access green finance
The Treasury has published an updated Green Financing Framework which adds nuclear energy-related expenditures to the list of Eligible Green Expenditures.
Worryingly it permits the employment of public money invested from November 2025 in the Government’s Green Bonds scheme into nuclear power; this is something we need to raise public awareness of…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/briefings/nfla-policy-briefing-330-nfla-progress-report-october-december-2025/

December 13, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Rosyth earmarked as temporary repair base for new fleet of UK submarines

Herald, 11th December

Work is underway to design an emergency planning zone as plans progress for Rosyth to be the temporary repair base for the UK’s new fleet of nuclear deterrent submarines.

Rosyth has been earmarked as a temporary contingent for the UK Government’s Dreadnought class of submarines – the first of which is expected to launch towards the end of the decade.

Members of Fife Council’s South and West Fife area committee were given an update on the proposals at their meeting on Wednesday where it was explained that “non-nuclear” repairs would be carried out from the dockyard when required.

Grant Reekie, head of radioactive waste and health physics at Babcock International in Rosyth, told councillors: “The next generation of submarines is going to be launched from Barrow towards the end of this decade.

“The intention is these will be maintained at the HM Naval base Clyde however the Clyde facilities will not be available until mid 2030s.

“We have been asked to provide a contingent facility by the MoD to bridge a gap of submarines coming into service in late 2020s from 2029 through to mid 2030s when they will no longer be required as it will be done in Faslane.

“Rosyth is the only location in the UK where this can be done due to the facilities, the expertise and the availability of the dock in Rosyth.”……………………..

Mr Reekie said the next step would be defining a “detailed emergency planning zone” which would then be sent to Fife Council.

“As soon as we have done the consequence assessment, which we are looking at the middle of next year, we need to go to the local authority and need to offer engagement to the local authority,” he said………………….

Rosyth councillor Brian Goodall questioned why there was no public consultation.

“For something as significant as this, something that would lead to a significant percentage of the population of Rosyth being told there will be Potassium iodate tablets available in the event of an emergency, why is there no public consultation on this?”………………………….

When probed, Ian Brown, from the MoD, also told councillors that policy would mean there would be no confirmation of if nuclear weapons were on board.

“My position is we do not comment on the condition of the boat whether it is armed or not,” he added.

………………….. Committee convener David Barratt was less pleased with the plans.

“Morally, and as a CND member, I find the existence of nuclear weapons abhorrent,” he said.

“I was going to ask if there is anything in the powers of council to frustrate, delay or in any way stop nuclear weapon activities and I take it from the answers the answer to that is an absolute no.

“Yes this will create jobs but war tends to do that. I don’t think we would advocate for war and job creation doesn’t lead me to advocate for nuclear weapons.” https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25689769.rosyth-earmarked-temporary-repair-base-new-fleet-submarines/

December 13, 2025 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

As the UK looks to invest in nuclear, here’s what it could mean for Britain’s environment

In this week’s newsletter:​ The government’s bid to speed up nuclear construction could usher in sweeping deregulation, with experts warning of profound consequences for nature.

Helena Horton, Guardian, 12 Dec 25

When UK prime minister Keir Starmer announced last week that he was “implementing the Fingleton review”, you can forgive the pulse of most Britons for failing to quicken.

But behind the uninspiring statement lies potentially the biggest deregulation for decades, posing peril for endangered species, if wildlife experts are to be believed, and a likely huge row with the EU.

Earlier this year, John Fingleton, a lively, intelligent Irish economist, was commissioned by the government to lead a “taskforce” with a mission to come up with a way to build nuclear power faster and cheaper. It’s accepted by experts that we need more nuclear if we are to meet net zero, and that Britain is the most expensive place in the world to build it. In the end, Fingleton turned in a review with 47 recommendations aimed at speeding up the process. So far, so snoozeworthy.

However, his recommendations, if adopted, could well lead to the biggest divergence from retained EU habitat and environment law since Brexit. Changes could be made to the habitats directive, which Britain helped write when we were in the EU, and which protect rare species and the places they live. The government could also make it more costly for individuals and charities to take judicial reviews against infrastructure projects……………

Legal advice is that removing these rules for nuclear power will inevitably lead for other infrastructure projects to be subject to the same, weaker regulatory system. Expert planning lawyer Alexa Culver said: “It’s a clever move to sneak broadbrush environmental deregulation, as the government can point to ‘net zero’ as being the ultimate driver. In reality, though, if you don’t protect ecosystems while reducing emissions, you’ve lost the battle. We’re gone anyway.”

It’s not surprising Starmer is clinging to anything which might increase economic growth……..  OBR has predicted an anticipated average GDP growth of 1.5% over the next five years. This is despite the controversial Planning and Infrastructure Bill which Starmer introduced in order to “get Britain building” and experts say it will weaken environmental protections.

Nature also continues to decline. The recently released biodiversity indicators show species numbers continue to decrease in the UK, which is extremely concerning when you consider just how much wildlife has dropped off since the 1970s. Some species, including one-fifth of mammals, are facing extinction, and recent figures show wild bird numbers are in freefall.

Of the review, Georgia Dent, CEO of Somerset Wildlife Trust said: “The government seems to have adopted a simple, reductive narrative that nature regulations are blocking development, and this is simply wrong. Nature in the UK is now in steep decline and the government has legally binding targets for nature’s recovery, and is failing massively in this at the moment. To reduce the hard-won protections that are allowing small, vulnerable populations of species to cling on for dear life is absolutely the wrong direction to take.”

…………………………. the UK is negotiating an energy deal with the EU. There are competition and non-regression clauses in the newest free trade agreement, which prevent either side from weakening environmental law. Government sources tell me their legal advice has been that implementing the Fingleton review could put the free trade agreement at risk……………

………..When MPs, environmental experts and the EU look past the boring title and read the detail, Starmer may have a fight on his hands. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/down-to-earth

December 13, 2025 Posted by | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Delays in constructing Hinkley C nuclear power station highlighted by protestors

 ANTI-nuclear campaigners have staged an annual Christmas
protest outside the Hinkley Point C (HPC) construction site to highlightthe years-long delay in completing it. Members of the campaign group Stop Hinkley took a giant stuffed turkey and set up a traditional Christmas dinner complete with sprouts on a table outside the site. They unveiled a banner reading ‘It is now 2025, where is the lecce for the HPC Turkey’,
‘lecce’ being local slang for electricity.

The stunt, which started eight years ago, was prompted by a claim made in 2007 by then-EDF Energy plc chief executive Vincent de Rivas that by 2017 people would be eating their turkeys cooked with electricity provided by Hinkley C.

West Somerset Free Press 11th Dec 2025, https://www.wsfp.co.uk/news/delays-in-constructing-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-station-highlighted-by-protestors-860631

December 13, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Search for UK fusion plant engineering partner to restart in 1-2 years after failed first attempt

09 Dec, 2025 By Thomas Johnson

The procurement for an engineering partner to construct the UK’s Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (Step) fusion power plant will resume “in a year or two” after a failed first attempt, but the choice of a construction partner is imminent.

……………………..
The government launched a competition to select engineering and construction partners for the prototype fusion energy plant in Nottinghamshire in May last year, with the contracts rumoured to be worth close to £10bn. Then in January, the shortlist for both partners was revealed.

The shortlisted organisations for Step’s engineering partner were:

  • Celestial JV: consisting of Eni UK Limited as the lead member and AtkinsRéalis, Jacobs Clean Energy (now Amentum), Westinghouse and Tokamak Energy as other members.
  • Phoenix Fusion Limited: consisting of Cavendish Nuclear as the lead member, KBR and Assystem Energy and Infrastructure as other members.

Engineering procurement hits the wall

Despite announcing the two-consortia shortlist, the project recently divulged that the process of selecting the engineering partner had broken down, with the approach being taken as being deemed “not suitable”…………………………………………………………..

Speaking at the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) annual conference on 4 December, UKIFS chief executive Paul Methven stated procurement for the engineering partner would resume “in a year or two”……………………………………………………………… https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/search-for-uk-fusion-plant-engineering-partner-to-restart-in-1-2-years-after-failed-first-attempt-09-12-2025/

December 12, 2025 Posted by | technology, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »