nuclear-news

OUR NUCLEAR WORLD: PICK YOUR TARGET

Why use your own nuclear weapons (with all the risks of escalation that this entails) when you can just take out your enemy’s nuclear power stations or nuclear waste facilities?

 Jonathon Porritt 27th Aug 2025

I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that the only way the nuclear industry’s hype-machine is going to be stopped in its tracks is a Russian cyber-attack on the nine nuclear reactors still operating here in the UK, causing them all to close down and leading to the grid temporarily collapsing. That should do it.

I jest – sort of. But nothing else has worked. In just the last few weeks:

1 The Treasury’s financial modelling for the new power station at Sizewell C (seen by the Financial Times) gives a range of roughly £80 billion to £100 billion, far higher than the official estimate of £47 billion from the Department of Net Zero and Energy Security – which in itself was already nearly double the original cost of £20 billion!

2 The Treasury recently described the Government’s proposals for a new Geological Disposal Facility to deal with the 700,000 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel as ‘unachievable’. This is a truly extraordinary development – confirming that the UK still has NO idea what to do about its legacy nuclear waste, let alone the waste that will be produced by any new reactors. Yet this got hardly a mention in the media.

3 The Government confirmed that it will be splurging a further £17 billion of taxpayers’ money between now  and 2030 on Sizewell C, Small Modular Reactors and fusion energy – even as it continues to ignore the scourge of chronic poverty here in the UK, with 4.5 million children living in poverty – the highest number ever recorded.

On top of which, the industry’s hype-machine is now being turbocharged by the even more powerful hype-machine of AI. Never forget that the nuclear industry is supremely well-equipped to leap onto any and every boondoggle coming down the track – the Bitcoin/Crypto boom a decade ago (which never quite happened), and then green hydrogen. With every hard-to-abate sector queueing up for its share of vanishingly small volumes of green hydrogen, the Knights of Nuclear were up into their saddles just as fast as enough hobby horses could be corralled together to claim that it is only nuclear power that can provide the electricity required.

And now it’s AI. We’ve all read the growth projections for AI-enabled markets – from billions of dollars today to trillions tomorrow. I won’t weary you with the extrapolated increases in electricity consumption for all the new data centres that this entails – but it’s going to be a lot. On a par with the electricity consumption of small countries. New data centres are being built right now, ever bigger, already gobbling up more and more electricity. Nor will I invite you to ask why this AI boom must not – ever, on any terms – be subjected to much deeper scrutiny as to the balance of costs and benefits that will emerge. AI represents the apogee of latter-day technological determinism: if it can be done, then it must and will be done. So suck it up.

I’m not making light of this. The AI-driven nuclear boom in the USA is for real. Donald Trump is getting rid of most regulatory oversight of the nuclear industry, to speed things up, and stock prices of all the publicly traded nuclear companies are up by huge percentages. And it doesn’t seem to matter what kind of nuclear we’re talking about: 40-year-old decommissioned reactors to be given a new lease of life; plans for new big reactors, even in blue states like New York, being fast-tracked; Big Tech applying for construction permits for Small Modular Reactors that are still on the drawing board; and more than $500 billion apparently raised for new fusion reactors – seriously!

It’s not (yet) quite so insane here in the UK, but the signals are worrying. Strenuous efforts are being made by Ministers to force the Office for Nuclear Regulation to fast track any old nuclear proposal. Sweetheart deals with the private sector are being sorted out – regardless of the costs to taxpayers. Rational, evidence-based decision-making is a long-gone memory.

What exactly lies behind this mania? In the timeless words of Sherlock Holmes: ”once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”.

So, let’s try that out for size in the context of nuclear power. It would surely be completely impossible for any responsible government pursuing a Net Zero energy strategy to prioritise nuclear power over all other options, given that:

1. Large-scale nuclear reactors are now by far the most expensive option (on a Levelised Cost of Energy basis). UK Government figures in July this year showed new nuclear at £109 per MWh, offshore wind at £44MWh, large-scale solar at £41MWh and onshore wind at £38MWh.
2. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) don’t yet exist, but all experts agree their electricity will be even more expensive than that of large reactors – precisely because they can’t achieve the same economies of scale.
3. The contribution of both big and small new reactors to a Net Zero electricity system in the UK will be literally ZERO before 2035 at the very earliest.
4. Both big and small reactors will continue to produce significant levels of nuclear waste, adding to a waste crisis to which (as already mentioned) we have no long-term solution.
5. ALL nuclear facilities pose a significant security risk, both from the point of view of cybersecurity (more later) and the very real possibility of physical attacks through ‘hostile third parties’.

Which brings us to the extraordinarily improbable truth of it: these days, nuclear power has little to do with electricity generation, and a whole lot more to do with the maintenance of the UK’s nuclear weapons capability……………………………………………………………………

It took a while for the UK Government to catch up, but in its latest Nuclear Roadmap it no longer beats around the bush. There are multiple references to the synergies between nuclear power and nuclear weapons: “this Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises….it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise”, and so on.

Big corporations are loving the fact that this is now out in the open. Bechtel, Babcock and Wilcox, AECOM, Rolls Royce – they’ve all spent decades feeding at the trough of either overt or hidden cross-subsidies between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Rolls-Royce has been one of the most outspoken advocates for Small Modular Reactors, arguing their importance back in 2017 “to relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of retaining the skills and capability”………………………………………………………………….

 As nuclear nations double down on nuclear power, it’s blindingly obvious that they are ramping up serious threats to national security. Nowhere is this clearer than with the drive to develop SMRs. Most designs currently on the drawing board (that are not light water reactors) will be using as their fuel high-assay, low-enriched uranium – or HALEU, to use the jargon. When it’s first extracted from the earth, uranium concentrations are usually around 1% of the total volume of the ore. HALEU fuel has to be enriched up to around 19% – just below the 20% threshold for the kind of highly-enriched uranium judged to be viable for the manufacture of nuclear bombs. And almost all HALEU fuel comes from Russia!

Beyond that, every nuclear facility (old and new) becomes a target for hostile third parties. Welcome back to the inconceivably scary world of nuclear cyberwarfare. Despite the highest grade of propaganda promoted by the Ministry of Defence – that all nuclear facilities are ‘bomb-proof’ (I kid you not!) – most cyber-experts grudgingly acknowledge that this is just bullshit when it comes to cyber-defence.

And we have no finer example of that than Sellafield, one of the most hazardous nuclear waste and decommissioning sites in the world, sprawling across 2 square miles on the Cumbrian coast. Back in December 2023, a Guardian exclusive revealed that Sellafield had been hacked into ‘by cyber groups closely linked to Russia and China’ since 2015 – despite years of cover-ups by senior staff.  “The full extent of any data loss and any continuing risks to systems was made harder to quantify by Sellafield’s failure to alert nuclear regulators for several years”. The denials didn’t last long. The Guardian’s painstaking research over 18 months had got Sellafield bang to rights. In October 2024, it was fined £400,000 by the Office For Nuclear Regulation after it pleaded guilty to criminal charges over years of cyber-security breaches. Astonishingly, the ONR also found that 75% of its computer servers were vulnerable to cyber-attack.

…………………..Why use your own nuclear weapons (with all the risks of escalation that this entails) when you can just take out your enemy’s nuclear power stations or nuclear waste facilities?

…………………… https://jonathonporritt.com/uk-nuclear-policy-risks/

August 30, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Call for investigation into serious nuclear leak at Faslane

By James Walker, Political Reporter

 THE SNP have demanded urgent answers in a letter to the Ministry of
Defence (MoD) after the UK Government confirmed a serious nuclear incident
took place at Faslane earlier this year. Figures released to The Herald
last week revealed that a Category A event – the most serious category
– took place between January 1 and April 22 this year.

The MoD have since
claimed it posed no risk to the public. It came a week after it was also
forced to admit that Loch Long, which is next to the UK’s nuclear bomb
store at Coulport, is now contaminated with radioactive tritium following
years of infrastructure decay. Bill Kidd, a longtime campaigner against
nuclear weapons and SNP MSP (below), has condemned these revelations as a
“damning indictment of Westminster’s disregard for Scotland’s safety
and environment” and said it was proof that nuclear weapons are
“dangerous, immoral, and completely incompatible with the values of the
people of Scotland”.

 The National 18th Aug 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/25397459.call-investigation-serious-nuclear-leak-faslane/

August 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Dumbing down: UK Taskforce charged with pushing nuclear deregulation .

The ‘reset’ is clearly driven by the frenzied demands of nuclear operators, developers, lobbyists, industry trades unions, politicians and sections of the media who are all interested at securing new nuclear with minimal red tape.

18th August 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/dumbing-down-taskforce-charged-with-pushing-nuclear-deregulation/

Despite conceding that the UK has a ‘strong track record in safety, delivered within a well-respected regulatory system’, the Government-appointed Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has just published an interim report proposing deregulation of Britain’s civil and military nuclear sectors.

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities are gravely concerned that this agenda amounts to the dumbing down of regulation in order to reduce the associated costs and administrative burden on nuclear operators, and that this will inevitably compromise safety, environmental and public protection, transparency and accountability.

Deregulation in the civil nuclear sector was a direct contributory factor in the Three Mile Island accident in the United States, and the latest pivot towards nuclear deregulation in the UK worryingly mirrors the direction taken by the Trump Administration, with the President having recently dismissed the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Although the remit of the NRT is supposedly to support ‘energy security and national security’ it is based upon several falsehoods.

It is assumed that civil nuclear power is necessary to meet Britain’s future energy needs and that nuclear weapons are necessary for her defence:

‘Nuclear technology is critical to the UK’s future, both for low carbon energy and for our national security’.

And it is assumed that nuclear regulation is excessive, and therefore to facilitate the expansion of nuclear power and Britain’s nuclear arsenal there is need for reform:

Such sentiments have sadly been echoed by senior politicians. The Prime Minister has called for the nuclear sector to be freed to ‘Build, Baby, Build’, and Ministers have publicly stated their desire to railroad new nuclear projects past legitimate community objections with activists opposed to Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C having been dismissively branded ‘Nimbies’. Government intends to change the law to limit the ability of campaigners to challenge project approvals through the courts and is introducing new policies that grant considerable autonomy to developers in siting new nuclear projects.

Now the Taskforce proposes measures that represent a ‘radical reset’ and a ‘once in a generation’ transformation of the regulatory landscape.

This despite that fact that the report concedes that ‘The UK nuclear sector has a strong safety record overseen by expert and independent regulators’ with many consultees emphasising ‘the high level of credibility and trust in UK regulators’, which begs the question of if it ain’ t broken, why fix it?

It is assumed that civil nuclear power is necessary to meet Britain’s future energy needs and that nuclear weapons are necessary for her defence:

‘Nuclear technology is critical to the UK’s future, both for low carbon energy and for our national security’.

And it is assumed that nuclear regulation is excessive, and therefore to facilitate the expansion of nuclear power and Britain’s nuclear arsenal there is need for reform:

‘Over time, the regulation of civil and defence nuclear programmes has become increasingly complex and bureaucratic, leading to huge delays and ballooning costs, often for marginal benefit. With the UK’s ambitious civil and defence programmes set to expand to meet energy security, net zero, and deterrent demands, a reset is needed’.

The ‘reset’ is clearly driven by the frenzied demands of nuclear operators, developers, lobbyists, industry trades unions, politicians and sections of the media who are all interested at securing new nuclear with minimal red tape.

In response to the NRT’s Call for Evidence earlier this year, these parties clearly responded by bewailing the current ‘system’ as ‘unnecessarily slow, inefficient, and costly’.

Such sentiments have sadly been echoed by senior politicians. The Prime Minister has called for the nuclear sector to be freed to ‘Build, Baby, Build’, and Ministers have publicly stated their desire to railroad new nuclear projects past legitimate community objections with activists opposed to Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C having been dismissively branded ‘Nimbies’. Government intends to change the law to limit the ability of campaigners to challenge project approvals through the courts and is introducing new policies that grant considerable autonomy to developers in siting new nuclear projects.

Now the Taskforce proposes measures that represent a ‘radical reset’ and a ‘once in a generation’ transformation of the regulatory landscape.

This despite that fact that the report concedes that ‘The UK nuclear sector has a strong safety record overseen by expert and independent regulators’ with many consultees emphasising ‘the high level of credibility and trust in UK regulators’, which begs the question of if it ain’ t broken, why fix it?

The Taskforce has said that it ‘will continue to gather evidence and views [on its initial proposals] over the Summer and will publish final recommendations in Autumn 2025.’

The interim report can be found at:  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce/nuclear-regulatory-taskforce-interim-report

‘Concise and evidence based’ responses to the report are invited by email to nuclearregulatorytaskforce@energysecurity.gov.uk by 8 September.

For its part, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities wish to see no watering down of Britain’s current arrangements and will be robustly outlining our objections to any changes which favour expediency and profit over safety, public health and environmental protection. We urge all those with a similar mindset to do the same.

For the NFLAs, the only points of consolation to be found in the interim report are that nuclear fusion is excluded from the NRT’s remit and that the Taskforce cannot ‘make recommendations for devolved governments in devolved areas’..For more information, please contact the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

August 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment