nuclear-news

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

What would happen if the UK’s Faslane nuclear weapons base was hit in a nuclear strike?

As the UK’s only nuclear weapons base, Faslane and the adjacent Coulport warhead storage
depot are among the highest-value military targets in Europe in the case of
a nuclear exchange targeting military facilities.

While many strategic
military facilities are located in highly remote areas to avoid civilian
casualties in the case of an attack, these bases are only roughly 40
kilometres from Glasgow and surrounded by other population centres such as
Greenock and Helensburgh.

In an effort to add to the existing literature
illustrating the risks posed by nuclear weapons facilities, I decided to
draw from my background in aerodynamics research to study the humanitarian
cost that would be incurred by an attack on the nuclear weapons bases in
Scotland. This research uses modelling techniques pioneered by Professor
Sébastien Philippe of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and software
developed by Ivan Stepanov to simulate both the blast and radiological
effects of a nuclear strike on the base.

Both the effect of the initial
blast and the fallout dispersed from two 100-kiloton ground-burst strikes
on Coulport’s storage bunkers were simulated across 100 historical weather
conditions. Both the long and short-term effects were mapped onto
population density data to assess both the immediate casualties in the
blast radius and the long-term casualties due to radiation induced cancers.
A protection factor was also applied to account for those sheltering
indoors.

The total predicted fatalities ranged from 1603 to 138,827 people,
with an average of 22,798 people. This wide variation is due to the strong
influence of wind on the dispersion of fallout. For instance, winds blowing
to the west or north result in far fewer casualties, due to the much
sparser populations in these directions. By contrast, winds blowing to the
east or southeast were found to disperse significant fallout over major
population centres such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The National 25th July 2026,
https://www.thenational.scot/news/26409093.happen-faslane-hit-nuclear-strike/

July 30, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

A mad for nuclear world?

July 25, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/07/a-mad-for-nuclear-world.html

While renewables are being supported in the UK by private sector investment, most recently via the Contracts for Difference market system, with no direct government cash input, over 70% of the UK Department of Energy Security and Net Zero expenditure is now nuclear related. DESNZ’s annual report and accounts says that ‘Great British Energy – Nuclear has remained a key component of the Government’s approach to energy security and decarbonisation, with work continuing to support the delivery of new nuclear projects, providing greater certainty for industry and investors, supporting highly skilled jobs across the supply chain, and contributing to a resilient, low carbon energy mix’. 

It notes that through the Spending Review the department secured a capital settlement of £62.8bn from 2025-26 to 2029-30 and a resource settlement of £5.8bn from 2026-27 to 2028-29, including £8.3bn for GBE/GBE-Nuclear including SMRs and £14.2bn for the new Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor.

However, the theory is that this government support will attract private sector investment, for example for new Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). The government has put aside £2.5 bn for its SMR programme, to be led by Rolls Royce, but  there are signs of entrepreneurial interests, with SGE, a consortium led by Polish billionaire industrialist Michał Sołowow talking about a £35bn plan to build 14 GE/Hitachi Boiling Water SMRs, on three sites across the UK, possibly including on the former Olbury nuclear plant site. 

There have also been some UK government backed moves by US developers for SMR projects in the UK, including from X Energy, Holtec and TerraPower, but not everyone is convinced that any of them will be successful, certainly not soon, or sees the wider UK nuclear programme, including the big Sizewell project, as value for money, especially given that there are security risks. Will anyone want SMRs near them given the safety and security issues? The UK government has been revamping the planning system to make it easier for projects like this to go ahead, but local opposition is still likely.   In particular, Labour ministers in London have been slammed for identifying sites in Scotland for nuclear power plants despite the devolved Scottish Government’s ongoing opposition to new nuclear developments. Very provocative, especially given that Scotland often produces more green power than it needs and exports the rest south…

However, the big UK push to nuclear continues, with some odd twists. For example, enriched uranium is to be produced by UK based Urenco for use by Ukraine in its nuclear plants. This at a time when the US is making strenuous efforts to stop Iran from developing and using uranium enrichment technology. But then consistency is often not very apparent in nuclear policy around the world. For example the US is, it seems, keen to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium.  Meanwhile the UK is still importing enriched fuel for Sizewell B derived from Russia.  While its claimed  that this is only a temporary aberration (the UK is to build its own new specialist enrichment plant), some contrarian outliers see Russia as the EU’s best supplier!  

Will any of this help us deal with climate change? Not everyone is convinced that it will -based on past experience, we may need to be wary of nuclear hype.  It is interesting then to look at what is happening in China. An Australian review noted that China has been installing ‘record amounts of solar and wind, while scaling back once-ambitious plans for nuclear’. Based on 2024 data, it said that China had installed the wind & solar equivalent of 5 large nuclear plants per week, although, in output terms, that was more like 1 nuclear power equivalent, given the different capacity factors.  But the disparity in outputs has grown since 2024, with renewables roaring ahead as the favoured new energy option. 

By comparison, the USA is stalling on renewables and trying to push nuclear ahead as fast as possible, with US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm calling for ‘hundreds’ of new large plants by 2050. Not everyone is convinced that this is possible, even with the new US loan scheme, but the Trump government is obviously keen and is pushing for reduced worker and public radiation exposure standards to help, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) seemingly being compliant on this and other related issues. Clearly some see NRC reg. changes as being vital for the success of multiple SMRs. And, following a court ruling,  it seems that NRC may no longer need to take account of climate issues in plant licensing decisions.  This at a time when nuclear plants in Europe are having to be shut down due to heat waves… 

So, with shifts like that underway, how is it likely to go in the USA? It’s not clear if any big new projects will go ahead, but there are a lot of new SMR players entering the game, and some progress has been made, for example with a go ahead on some micro SMR safety test programmes. However, it is very early days with SMRs and big technical and economic uncertainties remain. That’s true for new nuclear generally, a view that seems to be shared quite widely, as was summed up well in a recent letter in Lancet, which ended by calling for the focus to be on renewables instead. Quite so, along with storage and smart demand management…But then there are evidently people who think differently, for example in Germany and Japan, in relation to reactor restarts, although that risks  opening up old issues, not least, where to put the active wastes. Do we really need to face all that again? 

* Back in the UK, there has been no word yet on the nuclear issue from the new Labour Cabinet. Andy Burham has been supportive of nuclear in the past. Miatta Fahnbulleh, his new secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, is seen as likely to be a strong supporter of Labours clean energy and decarbonisation strategy. But she was chair of the New Economics Foundation which has been consistently anti-nuclear.  So things may yet change.  As I argued in my last post, there is certainly a strong case for a rethink on new nuclear. 

July 29, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

As Trump boosts nuclear power, regulators seek to eliminate a longstanding radiation safety practice

Count On News 2. by: JENNIFER McDERMOTT, Associated Press, Jul 26, 2026 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to eliminate a foundational safety principle that has for 50 years minimized the radiation people in the United States are exposed to and that has been adopted around the world.

Currently, facilities such as nuclear plants, hospitals or academic institutions that use radioactive materials must ensure radiation exposures are kept “as low as reasonably achievable” — the ALARA principle. The NRC proposal would abandon that philosophy while keeping a separate standard on maximum radiation exposure.

The two standards have worked together in radiation safety. Dose limits set the maximum amount of radiation the public and radiation workers can be exposed to, while ALARA kept radiation exposure as low as practical under those limits. Research shows radiation exposure increases a person’s chance of getting cancer, a risk that increases as the dose increases.

The dose limits are not changing. But the NRC, which regulates civilian nuclear energy technologies and radioactive materials, now wants to replace ALARA with a “graded approach” that includes several actions facilities must take depending on the potential dose of radiation to workers. More rigorous radiation protection measures would be required when approaching dose limits to ensure they aren’t exceeded.

This comes as President Donald Trump attempts to quadruple domestic nuclear energy production because of surging electricity demand amid a data center and artificial intelligence boom. Reforming the NRC is one way Trump is trying to speed up nuclear reactor development. He instructed the federal agency in an executive order last year to “ adopt science-based radiation limits.”

The Energy Department, which oversees national energy policies, has already stopped using ALARA. The NRC expects to finalize its radiation protection regulations in the coming months………………………………………………………………………………………….

Without ALARA, could radiation doses creep closer to the limits?…………………………………………………………….

Some experts question the wisdom of eliminating ALARA

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, cautions that some parts of the NRC proposal could raise permissible radiation doses in certain cases, while still staying below the cap. Lyman highlighted a proposed revision to radionuclide emissions standards, in particular.

Radiation exposure to the general public is limited to 100 millirem per year. A typical dose of radiation from a chest X-ray is 10 millirem.

The NRC wants to increase its radionuclide emissions standards from a conservative 10 millirem per year dose to 25 millirem per year, based on a hypothetical person living in a house at the property line for a nuclear plant.

The NRC should improve, rather than eliminate, ALARA, Lyman said, to protect the public and workers. ALARA has become a political target because some people mistakenly believe radiation exposures have to be as low as possible no matter the cost, Lyman said. In reality, it allows tradeoffs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.counton2.com/news/national-news/ap-as-trump-boosts-nuclear-power-regulators-seek-to-eliminate-a-longstanding-radiation-safety-rule/

July 29, 2026 Posted by | radiation, UK | Leave a comment

An Iranian missile attack on the UK is no longer far-fetched. 

It is unsurprising that Iran considers the UK bases used by US bombers to attack
the country – RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and Diego Garcia in the
Indian Ocean – to be “legitimate targets”.

Such threats might have been
dismissed in the past as unrealistic bombast, but in a year when warfare in
the Gulf and Ukraine has been dominated by drones, along with cruise and
ballistic missiles, nations that once believed themselves safe have
suddenly become vulnerable. Iran fired two missiles at Diego Garcia in
March which failed in flight or were shot down, but the Iranians clearly
believed they had the range to reach the island. Diego Garcia is 2,350
miles from Tehran, while London is 2,750 miles away.

iNews 25th July 2026, https://inews.co.uk/opinion/iranian-missile-attack-uk-no-longer-far-fetched-4660624

July 29, 2026 Posted by | Iran, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The hidden expansion of Britain’s nuclear strategy

 24 July 2026, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/hidden-expansion-britains-nuclear-strategy

“CAN our nuclear subs fire missiles from under the Arctic ice?” This was a question posed jokingly at a meeting of the House of Commons defence committee earlier this summer.  

It did not need an answer. The intent was to validate Britain’s adoption of an additional airborne system for its nuclear strike force. It is with such levity that some of our legislators seem to frame the most deadly shifts in policy.

The July edition of the Bulletin of the Nuclear Scientists has outlined the background to this decision to finance a new and supplementary delivery system for Britain’s nuclear bomb. It was a decision only announced publicly in the very last week of the Starmer government and was closely linked to the fracas over the additional £15 billion for military hardware in the Defence Investment Plan.  

But why, anyway, should Britain be wanting to fire missiles from “under the Arctic ice.”


This again is linked to policy developments that have largely escaped public scrutiny. It concerns Britain’s leadership role within the Joint Expeditionary Force. Set up in 2014 this sounded like a fairly harmless left-over from some earlier war.

It is not. This “Force” is legally independent of Nato and not bound by any requirements for unanimity in the use of nuclear weapons. It is composed of the Baltic and Scandinavian states plus the Netherlands and Britain. Its territorial remit, within the current Nato division of responsibilities, is the “High North,” effectively Russia’s icebound Arctic frontiers. Hence the need for airborne nukes.  

We don’t yet know too much about the logistical implications of this decision. But earlier meetings of the Commons defence committee and also of the Scottish affairs committee give some strong indications. In terms of the deployment of supporting army, navy and air force units Scotland is seen to be the focus. Arbroath and Lossiemouth are cited. For the airborne nukes Lakenheath seems to be at least the interim base. But the nukes may also, for obvious logistical reasons, go north.


Are there deadlines for the implementation of these war preparations? Again the Commons defence committee minutes give some indications: 2030 onwards.  

And this brings us to the wider context. Britain has no particular economic interests in the “High North.” As one of Europe’s two nuclear powers, it is taking part in a wider division of labour whereby nuclear-armed France teams up with Germany to cover central Europe. And this again is within a still wider division of labour that allows the US to focus its full military might on China.  

Our media have built up “Russia” as the aggressor that threatens us all. But the bigger picture makes it quite clear that China is the overall strategic target.  

The current vacillations by Andy Burnham and some members of his Cabinet over the 3 per cent GDP target on arms by 2030 may indicate some awareness of the wider dangers implicit in this decision — as well as its dire consequences for the funding of any progressive social policies.  

The current issue of the US journal Foreign Affairs carries an article from Ely Ratner, formerly Joe Biden’s assistant secretary defence Asia-Pacific, making a clear bid for a more senior position in a future Democrat administration from 2030. His article is about how to hobble and, if necessary, militarily defeat a resurgent China.  


As we approach one further anniversary of Hiroshima, the trade union and labour movement need to mobilise alongside our working-class communities. The costs of potentially devastating warfare are being posed against what is needed for welfare — and for a war that ultimately serves a dying imperialist superpower. Decisions will be made over the next few weeks.

July 28, 2026 Posted by | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Plan to Bring Failed Japanese Fast Breeder Reactor’s Contaminated Sodium to Workington

Marianne Birkby, Jul 24, 2026, https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/plan-to-bring-failed-japanese-fast

Japan is looking to get shot of nuclear waste from its failed experimental “fast breeder” Monju reactor and Workington’s MP along with Cumberland Council is only too happy to help. “Subject to the necessary planning and regulatory permissions, Cavendish Nuclear, together with its delivery partner Amentum, will be constructing a new facility at the port. This development is part of their wider project to support the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) with decommissioning of the Monju Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR), in Fukui Prefecture, Japan.”

Monju Fast Breeder Reactor was a failed £7.2bn experiment in creating a nuclear plant that would burn its own spent fuel (this is what George Monbiot and others have been advocating in their much vaunted nuclear enthusiasm).

It was only operational for 250 days before it was decommissioned. Japan has long since pulled the plug on Monju, an experimental fast breeder nuclear reactor that was plagued by accidents, cover-ups and cost overruns.

Now our nuclear obsessed Cumberland Council and MP are fizzingly saying that Japan’s failure will be Workington’s gain as they scramble to accept the unacceptable, radioactively contaminated sodium coolant aka nuclear waste from yet another failed nuclear experiment and this time its not even our own. Have they stopped to ask why Japan does not want to have the wonderful opportunity of cleaning up this radioactive mess? It has been sitting around long enough as construction started on Monju in 1986 with the reactor achieving criticality in April 1994. The reactor has been inoperative for most of the time since it was originally built. The main product – an expensive toxic mess.

Below is a description of just one of the accidents at Monju in its short operating life

On December 8, 1995, a prototype fast breeder reactor, Monju, located in Tsuruga City, 350km west of Tokyo, was operating at 40% power Refer to JNC’s detailed technical explanation in English of Monju and the accident at http://www.jnc.go.jp/zmonju/mjweb/index.htm.. The Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corp (PNC), a government controlled organization, operated this reactor. At 19:47 high temperature liquid sodium coolant at one of the three secondary heat exchangers started leaking through a broken thermometer sheath (designed by IH Company, OD: 10mm, ID: 4mm, Length: 150mm) on the piping and it ignited on contact with air. As shown in Fig. 1, the primary heat exchangers are designed to take heat out of the core of the reactor to the secondary heat exchangers, which then transfer the heat to steam generators for power. Because of this design, it was a simple fire caused by the leakage of chemically reactive but non-radioactive sodium coolant. But due to the delay in shutting down of the reactor, 640kg of the sodium leaked in 3 hours and caused some unexpected damage by the fire and chemical reactions to the surrounding structure

Here on original – excellent diagrams and explanation of the accident

The PNC had been always asked by neighbors as well as anti-nuclear organizations whether their nuclear reactors are absolutely safe. They felt constrained to reply “yes” under the circumstances. Under these conditions, the initial cover up of hiding the videotapes taken at the site and of showing them after editing and the PNC’s delay (of about one hour) in informing the neighboring community agencies of the accident ignited a fierce protest by the public.

This example teaches the students following lessons:


Influence of quality of engineering works

The small design errors in the cheap component which may come from lack of competence and care of designers in the IH Company and JNC as the user, caused the accident.


The cover up of the video tapes and delay in informing others of the accident

The cover up decision was made by managers including ex-engineers. When I asked our students in the class if they do the same under the situations, one-third of them said they might although they think it is a very stupid act. The delay of informing the accidents is mainly due to lack of the system oversight and to the bureaucracy within the JNC organization. These caused loss of public trust in general and have delayed the several tens of billion dollar project at least 6 years, although the government wants to resume the project as soon as possible.

Importance of professional work in accidents

The manuals to handle this kind of the accident were not made although they had some for other types of sodium coolant leakage. Manuals are necessary and useful especially in simple operation. But in accidents like this, which no one had expected and which are generally much more complex than those anticipated in manuals, professional judgments are much more important and necessary. In this case, the air conditioners, which had not been shut down, continued to supply fresh air to the fire.

Learning from past experience
The earlier experimental fast breeder reactor, Joyo, which was designed based on practical experiences by the engineers of previous generation, had not had any serious sodium leak accident for 18 years since its start of the operation in 1977. Most of these engineers, however, were retired or moved to other job as time passed. New generation of engineers might have thought it easy to handle. This is the problem of transferring and learning engineering experience and skills between generations.

Responsibility of managers (ex-engineers) to the public

Engineers know “nothing is absolutely safe”. But sometimes political pressure forces managers to say yes to the public on the absolute safety question. But the more realistic question form the public is that the engineers make a maximum professional effort to eliminate the safety hazard. Engineers should have realized the responsibility of clarifying the situation. After a long discussion on the safety including the following two accidents, the Committee of the Nuclear Safety Commission in Japan formally declared in “The White Paper 2000 on Safety of Nuclear Energy (in Japanese)” approved on March 27, 2001 that “none can say nuclear energy is absolutely safe”.

July 28, 2026 Posted by | Japan, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

UK’s New Defence Minister Called Israel ‘Rogue State’

 July 24, 2026, Dania Akkad Declassified UK, https://scheerpost.com/2026/07/24/uks-new-defence-minister-called-israel-rogue-state/

Late last July, as a famine unfolded in Gaza and Israeli settler attacks intensified in the West Bank, Wes Streeting texted a friend shortly before midnight.

“Israel is committing war crimes before our eyes,” the then health secretary told Peter Mandelson over WhatsApp.

“Their government talks the languages of ethnic cleansing and I have met with our own medics out there who describe the most chilling and distressing scenes of calculated brutality against women and children.”

In messages that Streeting released earlier this year, he went on to tell Peter Mandelson, then U.K. ambassador to the U.S., that Israel was exhibiting “rogue state behaviour” in the West Bank where it was pushing ahead with annexation.

“Let them pay the price as pariahs with sanctions applied to the state, not just a few ministers,” he said.

A year later, Streeting, appointed this week as defence secretary in Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s cabinet, is now in a position to act — or at least, a better one than when, as health secretary, he says he was “hitting up against a brick wall” behind the scenes, demanding “moral urgency” in Gaza.

Relatives of Palestinians killed by Israeli airstrikes gathering around the bodies taken from the morgue of Al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital in Deir el-Balah, Gaza, Nov. 6, 2023. (Ashraf Amra / UNRWA /Wikimedia Commons/ CC BY-SA 3.0 igo)

But will he? Less than 24 hours in, the question was already being asked.

Columnist Owen Jones wrote on Tuesday:

“He must now be asked whether he stands by that judgement — and whether he will abide by the legal obligations that logically follow from it.”

Green MP Ellie Chowns wrote to Streeting, demanding answers about how he planned “to end the U.K.’s complicity in the genocide in Gaza”.

“We now have a Secretary of State in the UK Government who has made public their view that the Israeli government has committed war crimes during the genocide in Gaza.” 

Zena Agha, interim director of the British Palestinian Committee, told Declassified that Streeting had “said the quiet part out loud” and now the question is what he will do about it. 

“Will the doublespeak of the status quo require him to disavow what he knows to be true — as other ministers have before him?” Agha asked. 

“Or will he respect international law and hold the perpetrators of war crimes to account?”

Burning Issues 

Two major questions will face Streeting with regard to Israel.

—First is the U.K.-Israel military cooperation agreement and whether he plans to suspend it. 

The agreement, signed in December 2020 without any publicity from the U.K. government, is said to incorporate a range of defence engagement activity between the two countries. 

It has not been made public, with officials saying it is under wraps because it is being kept at a high level security classification. 

But a Freedom of Information request showed that, as of last October, the agreement had been in place throughout the Gaza genocide without any modifications. 

As the war on Gaza has continued, the agreement has come under sustained attack from MPs calling for it to be suspended. When asked about its status, ministers have repeatedly said the agreement is being reviewed, but as recently as April, it was “extant.” 

—The second question is whether Streeting will release RAF surveillance footage captured over Gaza.

Since December 2023, the RAF and, more recently, an American company Sierra Nevada Corporation, contracted by the MoD, have flown hundreds of spy flights over the enclave.

Surveillance aircraft were operating above Gaza during the World Central Kitchen convoy attack in April 2024 that killed three British nationals.

Their families have repeatedly asked for the release of the footage, but the government has refused. 

World Central Kitchen car after IDF strike, April 3, 2024. (Tasnim News Agency/ Wikimedia Commons /CC BY 4.0)

Asked what he planned to do, Streeting’s office directed Declassified UK to the Ministry of Defence which did not respond. 

Despite his recent openness about his private positions on Israel, Streeting acknowledged in the WhatsApps to Mandelson that he has also “never been a shrinking violent [sic]” about the country.

“I’ve supported [Labour Friends of Israel] for over 20 years,” Streeting texted.

Agha called on Streeting, as an immediate first step, to release RAF footage after a massacre of 15 Palestinian aid workers in southern Gaza on March 23, 2025.

“This is just one case of blatant war crimes committed by Israeli forces – countless others that have yet to be told,” Agha said.

She added:

“His actions at the start of his tenure will set the tone for what is to come and offer decisive proof that this new administration will not repeat the mistakes of its predecessor.”

July 28, 2026 Posted by | Israel, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

“the chances of Sizewell C being delivered on schedule are slim to none, and the new prime minister and energy secretary would be better off cancelling it now.”

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/innovative-geotechnical-sub-alliance-formed-for-sizewell-c-construction-22-07-2026/

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.


In an announcement on 17 July, Sizewell C said the GSA “is thought to be the first geotechnical sub-alliance of its kind in the UK” and will “deliver a range of specialist ground engineering solutions – including piling, soil mixing, diaphragm walls and plastic cut-off walls”.

The GSA was “created to maximise operational safety, capability, quality, and delivery”, and it “will create a stable and watertight platform capable of supporting the immense loads associated with the construction of the new nuclear power station”, Sizewell C said.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.

In an announcement on 17 July, Sizewell C said the GSA “is thought to be the first geotechnical sub-alliance of its kind in the UK” and will “deliver a range of specialist ground engineering solutions – including piling, soil mixing, diaphragm walls and plastic cut-off walls”.

The GSA was “created to maximise operational safety, capability, quality, and delivery”, and it “will create a stable and watertight platform capable of supporting the immense loads associated with the construction of the new nuclear power station”, Sizewell C said.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

“Together and as part of the CWA at Sizewell C, we are creating the foundations to power our future, excited to be contributing to the build and completion of this vital investment in new infrastructure for Britain.”

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering managing director Jane Towse-Laval said: “Sizewell C represents one of the most significant infrastructure projects in the UK, and we are proud to bring our specialist geotechnical expertise to this pioneering sub-alliance.

“By working collaboratively, we will combine innovation, technical excellence and our collective expertise, laying the essential foundations for the safe and efficient delivery of this nationally significant energy asset.”

Sizewell C CEO Nigel Cann said: “This unique alliance reflects what our project is all about – true partnerships bringing together world-leading expertise, delivering big gains in innovation and productivity.”

Separately, Sizewell C’s latest annual report has provided further insight into the project. Published on 6 July, it is titled Sizewell C: Annual Report & Accounts FY25/26.

On 15 July, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister of state Michael Shanks issued a written statement about Sizewell C.

“The [report] provides a comprehensive account of the company’s activities during 2025-26, recording a year of major milestones for the project, including the expansion of construction activity on site, growth in the workforce, and continued development of the project’s delivery arrangements.

Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction

22 Jul, 2026 By Tom Pashby

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering (BBGE), VSL Systems (UK) Ltd (VSL), and Bachy Soletanche (BSL) have formed the Geotechnical Sub-Alliance (GSA) at Sizewell C, believed to be the first of its kind.

The three firms have come together to form the GSA which sits within the wider Civil Works Alliance (CWA), which includes Sizewell C, Balfour Beatty, Laing O’Rourke, and Bouygues Travaux.

The alliance is responsible for delivering the project’s main civil engineering works.

In an announcement on 17 July, Sizewell C said the GSA “is thought to be the first geotechnical sub-alliance of its kind in the UK” and will “deliver a range of specialist ground engineering solutions – including piling, soil mixing, diaphragm walls and plastic cut-off walls”.

The GSA was “created to maximise operational safety, capability, quality, and delivery”, and it “will create a stable and watertight platform capable of supporting the immense loads associated with the construction of the new nuclear power station”, Sizewell C said.

GSA alliance manager Vincent Leblois said: “We bring together a wealth of global capability, sector expertise and experience to the Sizewell C project.

“We are working very much as one team delivering one outcome on a ‘best for project’ basis through joint decision-making, strong delivery and using the best people for the job.

Related questions you can explore with Ask NCE, our new AI search engine.

If you would like to ask your own question you just need to login, register or subscribe.

“Together and as part of the CWA at Sizewell C, we are creating the foundations to power our future, excited to be contributing to the build and completion of this vital investment in new infrastructure for Britain.”

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering managing director Jane Towse-Laval said: “Sizewell C represents one of the most significant infrastructure projects in the UK, and we are proud to bring our specialist geotechnical expertise to this pioneering sub-alliance.

“By working collaboratively, we will combine innovation, technical excellence and our collective expertise, laying the essential foundations for the safe and efficient delivery of this nationally significant energy asset.”

Related Articles

Why and how the Civil Works Alliance changed Sizewell C tunnel designs from Hinkley Point C

UK ‘most expensive’ in the world for nuclear projects due to complex regulation, taskforce finds

Sizewell C challenged on cost overruns transparency and provides infrastructure update

Sizewell C reaches financial close by securing £5bn loan and signs power contract

Sizewell C has awarded almost £1bn in local contracts at two-year mark of construction

Sizewell C’s financing places more risks on public purse ‘than other electricity projects’

Sizewell C CEO Nigel Cann said: “This unique alliance reflects what our project is all about – true partnerships bringing together world-leading expertise, delivering big gains in innovation and productivity.”

Separately, Sizewell C’s latest annual report has provided further insight into the project. Published on 6 July, it is titled Sizewell C: Annual Report & Accounts FY25/26.

On 15 July, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) minister of state Michael Shanks issued a written statement about Sizewell C.

“The [report] provides a comprehensive account of the company’s activities during 2025-26, recording a year of major milestones for the project, including the expansion of construction activity on site, growth in the workforce, and continued development of the project’s delivery arrangements.

“It also provides updates on the project’s strategic priorities looking ahead, project finances, governance arrangements, and its approach to managing delivery risks and opportunities.”

The also report includes a diagram showing “key milestones in the Sizewell C power station life”, which says the project is currently between “financial Close and Revenue Commencement – Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model and financing arrangements in place”, which happened in November 2025, and in future “main earthworks” which includes site preparation, excavation and groundworks, scheduled to take approximately three years.

The report does not specify when the main earthworks will begin.

After reviewing the report, a Stop Sizewell C spokesperson told NCE: “Sizewell C’s Annual Report broadly complies with Ministers’ obdurate refusal to give any useful information about how long Sizewell C will take to build, which, considering that taxpayers and householders are stumping up vast quantities of cash, is unjustifiable and disrespectful to struggling local communities.

“The only reveal is that “J-zero” is expected sometime in 2029. Given the complex site de-watering, cut-off wall construction and platform raising, it is little wonder that it will be at least five years since works formally began, in January 2024, before Sizewell C can even begin above-ground construction.

“We maintain that the chances of Sizewell C being delivered on schedule are slim to none, and the new prime minister and energy secretary would be better off cancelling it now.”

University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy and Energy Policy editor-in-chief Steve Thomas told NCE that the construction timeline in the report shows “how hollow all the Fingleton nonsense was, that it takes five  years of site prep to get to construction start. Not because of regulation or planning.”

The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 in November 2025, which was also called the Fingleton Review. It found that regulations including the planning system were to blame for the delays and cost overruns faced by nuclear projects.

July 27, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

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/

July 26, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

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.”

July 26, 2026 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

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/

July 26, 2026 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

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

July 26, 2026 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

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/

July 26, 2026 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

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.”

July 25, 2026 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

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

July 24, 2026 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »