UK « nuclear-news

Reservations over a dash for nuclear- UK’s “Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce”.

Earlier this year Sir Keir Starmer set up an “independent” five-person Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, comprising three nuclear industry proponents, an economist and a lawyer.

Perhaps unfortunately, the announcement of its role
pre-empted its findings, with the headline to the press release saying:
“Government rips up rules to fire-up nuclear power.” Hence, the
possibility that regulation takes as long as it does because that was how
long it took to do the job to the required standard was discounted.

The Taskforce has just made 47 recommendations “to speed up building new nuclear projects at a lower cost and on time, to unleash a golden era of nuclear technology and innovation” — including the proposal that new
nuclear reactors should be built closer to urban areas and should be
allowed to harm the local environment (“Ministers urged to allow new
nuclear plants in urban areas”, Nov 24).

Nuclear is a high-risk
technology. Blaming nuclear regulators for vast cost over-runs and huge
delays has always been a fallback position for the nuclear industry. This
is not the fault of safety and planning regulation, rather it is the nature
of the technology. De facto nuclear deregulation is a poor short-term
choice of the worst kind.

Dr Paul Dorfman, Times 26th Nov 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/comment/letters-to-editor/article/times-letters-ending-culture-free-gifts-mps-zg28h25s8

November 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will add £1bn a year to energy bills.

Electricity project will be UK’s most expensive source with consumers footing the cost.

Jonathan Leake, Energy Editor, 28 Nov 25

The troubled Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will add £1bn annually to UK energy bills as soon as it’s switched on, official figures show.

The money will be taken from consumers and handed to the French owner EDF to subsidise operations, making it one of the UK’s most expensive sources of electricity.

A further £1bn will be added to bills by a separate
nuclear levy, supporting construction of the Sizewell C nuclear power
station in Suffolk, also led by EDF. Campaigners branded it a “nuclear
tax on households”.

Details were revealed in documents released by the
Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility in the wake of Rachel
Reeves’s Budget. They describe how EDF will be entitled to claim the
money under the “Contracts for Difference” subsidy system as soon as
Hinkley C begins operations, probably in 2030.

The documents state: “In
2030-31, Contracts for Difference (CfDs) are expected to generate £4.6bn
in government receipts, including £1bn to fund subsidy payments to the
Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant for its first year of expected
generation.” The impact on bills is linked to a 2013 agreement reached
between EDF and Sir Ed Davey, the then energy secretary.

He guaranteed that
EDF could charge £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) of power once Hinkley
Point C came online. With inflation, this equates to £133 today and is
expected to reach about £150 in 2030. If the wholesale cost of electricity
remains at its current level of about £80/MWh, then EDF can claim an extra
£70 from consumers and businesses via CfDs.

From January, energy bills
will also be hit by an entirely separate levy designed to support the
construction of another nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. The
Regulated Asset Base levy will add £10 a year to power bills from 2026,
raising £700m, but will roughly double by 2030, when it will need to raise
£1.4bn a year for Sizewell.

Telegraph 28th Nov 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/28/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-add-1bn-a-year-bills/

November 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | 1 Comment

We must embrace reality with cheap green energy

Critics will say we can’t afford to transition away from fossil fuels.
When you come face to face with the impacts, it’s reasonable to argue
that we can’t afford not to. But something interesting is starting to
happen. Around four or five years ago, it became cheaper to generate
electricity from the sun and wind than it is by setting things on fire.

Renewable energy has been getting so plentiful, to the point that some
governments are literally giving it away. In Australia, where almost 40% of
homes have solar panels on their roof, the government announced that they
have so much solar energy that from January next year, Australians will get
three free hours of electricity every single day. Whether you have a solar
panel or not, for those three hours, you can charge your car, run the
washing machine or even store up your home battery and run the house for
free all night.

At a time when it was announced that the energy price cap
is set to rise slightly here in the UK, and when the average cost of
heating and running a home is close to £1800, it’s hard not to feel
jealous of those Australians who can look forward to free power for three
hours a day.

Even more astonishingly it’s China which is driving this
change towards cleaner energy. When I lived in China back in the early
2000s, we had toxic smog so thick you couldn’t see the apartment block
across the road. Chinese cities used to dominate the top 10 most-polluted
cities in the world, today they barely feature in that most grubby of
lists.

In May of this year, China installed new solar and wind energy
systems that generated as much electricity as Poland generates all-year
round, from all available sources, and while they continue to construct
more coal-fired power stations, those stations run at most at 50% capacity,
and the country’s carbon emissions are thought to have peaked.

These power stations are used almost as back-up power, because they’re more
expensive to run than solar or wind farms, and once the next breakthrough
comes in the form of battery storage, experts argue that dirty power
stations will grow obsolete. China has figured out that clean energy and
renewables are the way forward, because they will ultimately prove to be
cheaper and more profitable.

They’ve made more money exporting green tech
in the past 18 months than the US has made in exporting oil and gas in that
same period. While America is betting the house on AI being the future,
China has gambled on renewable energy and clean tech being the way forward.

In Europe, people are nipping down to their equivalent of B&Q to pick up
plug-in solar panels they can hang off their balconies. These cheap and
cheerful solutions can provide up to 25% of an apartment’s energy usage,
and are as easy to use as plugging in a toaster. It’s such an innovative
– and useful – development that the UK Government has launched a study
to see if it could be rolled out here.

Regulations would need to be
reformed, but if this could be achieved, we could soon access the kind of
cheap and convenient solution that close to 1.5 million Germans enjoy.
It’s easy to feel overwhelmed when faced with the challenge of a warming
planet, and dither and delay from those in power. But ultimately we’ve
got more power than we think. Environmentalist Bill McKibben argues that
economics dictate that in 30 years’ time we’ll be running this planet
on solar and wind energy anyway. It’s up to us to determine how long we
want to wait to embrace reality, and cheaper energy bills.

The National 26th Nov 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25650532.must-embrace-reality-lower-bills-cheap-green-energy/

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | renewable, UK | Leave a comment

Navy made legal threats to try and keep nuclear pollution secret

Emails reveal that naval chiefs piled pressure on environment watchdog to hide details of radioactive contamination on the Clyde.

Rob Edwards, November 23 2025, https://www.theferret.scot/navy-try-keep-nuclear-pollution-secret/

The Royal Navy threatened legal action as part of a fierce, high-level, behind-the-scenes battle to block publication of information about radioactive pollution at the Coulport nuclear bomb base on the Clyde.

Files released to The Ferret reveal that over nine days in July and August the navy sent 130 emails, held five meetings and made numerous phone calls urging the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) to keep details of the pollution secret.

Naval officials repeatedly warned of legal action, spoke of the need to “calm some nerves” and said they were “deeply uncomfortable” with information proposed for release. One was anxious to avoid “another crazy Friday”, while another complained of becoming a “zombie” after a long week.

Top naval commanders also had an online meeting with the Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, late one evening to try and persuade him to reverse his decision to reject most of their pleas for secrecy.

But all these eleventh-hour efforts failed. As The Ferret reported on 9 August, Sepa released 33 files revealing that Coulport had polluted Loch Long on the Clyde with radioactive waste after old water pipes burst and caused a flood in 2019.

Campaigners accused the navy of “harassing” Sepa, and praised Hamilton for refusing to be “intimidated”. Politicians demanded less secrecy from the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The MoD said it had to “balance” the public’s right to know with releasing information which would compromise national security. Sepa insisted it was firmly committed to transparency.

Naval commanders ‘getting concerned’

The Ferret first made a freedom of information request for files on radioactive problems at Coulport and Faslane in 2019, and then again in 2023 and 2024. But despite multiple reviews, most files were kept secret for national security reasons, after Sepa consulted the MoD.

The secrecy was overturned, however, after we appealed to Hamilton. In June 2025 he ordered Sepa to release most of the files by 28 July, saying they threatened “reputations” not national security.

But the release was delayed to 4 August after the MoD pleaded for more time to assess “additional national security considerations”. Sepa eventually released the 33 files to The Ferret late on 5 August.

Now emails released by Sepa and Hamilton in response to further freedom of information requests from The Ferret have disclosed what was happening behind the scenes.

On working days between 24 July and 5 August the Royal Navy sent an average of more than 14 emails a day to Sepa, to try and limit the amount of information released. Naval officials also frequently phoned and met with Sepa.

On 30 July the MoD proposed a series of redactions to the documents that were scheduled to be released. They “represent the minimal changes which are required in order to protect national security,” it argued.

The MoD tried to add to their shameful history of nuclear cover-ups by harassing officials with false claims of national security, hoping we’d never know radioactivity was negligently leaked from Coulport.

Early on 31 July a naval official asked Sepa to forward the MoD’s proposed redactions to Hamilton, apologising for failing to make that clearer earlier. “It’s been a long week and I resemble a zombie!” the official wrote.

Sepa assured the MoD it had included “all MoD redactions” in a submission to Hamilton.

But then an email from a naval official later on 31 July said the “chain of command are getting concerned” about “timelines” if Hamilton rejected the redactions. The official warned of legal action, adding: “Grateful for your advice to calm some nerves.”

The kind of legal action the navy was considering is unclear, as key text has been redacted. But the only way of challenging Hamilton’s decisions is by appealing to the Court of Session in Edinburgh on a point of law.

Another email on 1 August again warned Sepa that the MoD was “likely to challenge” the release of information that “adversely prejudiced” national security. It asked Sepa to “withhold release of the relevant documents while we follow due process”.

On 4 August Hamilton rejected the majority of the MoD’s proposed redactions. The MoD again told Sepa that it was considering action “to prevent disclosure of the documents”, and asked Sepa not to release them “until this decision has been made”.

But Sepa responded saying that it was planning to release the information as ordered by Hamilton. It was not “tenable” to further delay the release “from a reputational risk perspective”, Sepa said.

MoD meetings with Hamilton

The MoD also requested an “urgent” meeting with Hamilton and his staff on 25 July to consider MoD “concerns”. Another meeting was requested by the MoD on Thursday 31 July, with one official keen to “prevent another crazy Friday”.

On 1 August the navy’s director of submarines, Rear Admiral Andy Perks, told Hamilton that he had spoken directly to Sepa’s chief executive, Nicole Paterson, to try and find “a pragmatic way forward”. He stressed the need to “maintain national security backstops throughout”.

Perks praised Hamilton’s “continued support and pragmatism”, adding that it had been “greatly appreciated” by the First Sea Lord, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins.

On 4 August, after learning that Hamilton had rejected most of the MoD proposed redactions, Perks emailed again asking for another meeting that evening “to find a pragmatic way forward”.

In reply Hamilton said he was legally not allowed to discuss the case with third parties. “Much of the information that the Royal Navy would like to withhold is already in the public domain,” he said.

“As a courtesy I am happy to speak later tonight but with the understanding that I can’t discuss the case in detail.” A meeting took place just after 8pm that evening, after Hamilton had returned from a karate class.

After Sepa released files to The Ferret on 5 August, Hamilton pointed out that a few details had been wrongly redacted. Sepa then had to re-release the files with those redactions removed.

When this was flagged to the MoD on 8 August, it said it was “deeply uncomfortable”. But it added: “We have objections but we won’t appeal further.”

Aggressive manoeuvres

The Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland was pleased that Hamilton “refused to be intimidated” by the MoD’s “aggressive manoeuvres”. The public interest had finally been served by disclosure, said campaign director, Carole Ewart.

She thought the MoD might have “overlooked” the fact that Scotland’s environmental information law is tougher than that south of the border. Details can only be kept secret in Scotland if they “prejudice substantially” national security, but UK law says they can remain hidden if they just “adversely affect” national security.

The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament thanked Hamilton for acting “without fear or favour” in the public interest. “The MoD tried to add to their shameful history of nuclear cover-ups by harassing officials with false claims of national security, hoping we’d never know radioactivity was negligently leaked from Coulport,” said campaign chair, Lynn Jamieson.

The SNP MSP and chair of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, Bill Kidd, said that the Scottish Parliament’s net zero and energy committee would be investigating transparency over pollution at Coulport and the neighbouring Faslane nuclear submarine base.

There were “worrying undercurrents of MoD behaviour in relation to secrecy over radioactive pollution” that needed to be investigated, he added.

The former Scottish Green leader, Patrick Harvie MSP, accused the MoD of making a “totally inappropriate intervention” in an attempt “to cover up and distract from what were very serious failures.”

We must balance the public’s right to know with releasing information which would compromise national security into the possession of our adversaries.

The MoD defended its intervention as “legitimate”, pointing out that it was “voluntarily” regulated by Sepa and welcomed the scrutiny. “We must balance the public’s right to know with releasing information which would compromise national security into the possession of our adversaries,” said an MoD spokesperson.

“We explored in a professional way a range of options to ensure we struck the right balance while maintaining the security of the British people which is imperative. The redaction of certain information highlights the importance of consulting us to ensure the protection of national security-sensitive information.”

Sepa stressed that it was “firmly committed” to transparency. “Our approach is always that publication is the default and withholding information is the exception, only when it is necessary, proportionate and legally justified,” said the agency’s chief officer, Kirsty-Louise Campbell.

“This includes careful consideration of national security and public safety – particularly for sites handling radioactive substances, whether military or civilian.”

The Scottish Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, pointed out it was Sepa’s responsibility to make representations to him on The Ferret’s FoI appeal. “In the unusual circumstances of this case, however, and, as a responsible regulator, I also spoke with Royal Navy commanders to ensure I was fully aware of any relevant national security issues,” he said.

“After these discussions, I advised Sepa that I was agreeable to a small number of minor redactions in the interests of national security. I should note that, throughout this process, I felt under no pressure to review my decision or make redactions – all of which were founded in Scotland’s environmental transparency laws.”

The 109 files released by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency can be accessed on its disclosure log by searching for F0199867. The 13 files released by the Scottish Information Commissioner are available here.

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Oldbury nuclear reactor plans spark safety concerns at Lydney meeting.

Residents gathered at a public meeting in Lydney to discuss the safety implications of proposed Small Modular Reactors at Oldbury, highlighting flooding risks and renewable energy alternatives.

STAND (Severnside Together against Nuclear Development) held a public meeting in Lydney on October 17th to look at the prospect of Small Modular (nuclear) Reactors (SMRs) being built at Oldbury. There were four speakers including two fromSTAND, Sue Haverly and John French. who have been sharing information about the two nuclear installations at Oldbury and Berkeley since the 1980s and monitoring safety since the two stations were decommissioned.

The other speakers were former Friends of the Earth director Sir Jonathan Porritt and renewable energy expert Dr David Toke.

The Forester 25th Nov 2025, https://www.theforester.co.uk/news/oldbury-nuclear-reactor-plans-spark-safety-concerns-at-lydney-meeting-854643

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

British military trained in Israel amid Gaza genocide

Armed forces personnel have ‘studied on educational staff courses’ since October 2023, Ministry of Defence discloses

JOHN McEVOY, DECLASSIFIED UK, 26 November 2025

British military personnel trained in Israel amid the Gaza genocide, Declassified can reveal.

The information comes in response to a parliamentary question tabled by Zarah Sultana MP.

On 18 November, Sultana asked the Ministry of Defence “whether any British armed forces officers have studied or trained at Israeli military colleges since October 2023”.

Defence minister Al Carns responded earlier today, saying: “Fewer than five British Armed Forces personnel have studied on educational staff courses in Israel since October 2023”.

It remains unclear where the troops studied or which branches of the military they came from.

But the revelation exposes a new layer of British military collaboration with Israel amid what the UN commission of inquiry has described as a genocide.

Charlie Herbert, a retired British army general, told Declassified: “It is absolutely extraordinary to think that UK military personnel have been undertaking military education or training courses in Israel over the past two years.

“Given the credible allegations of war crimes against the political and military leadership of the IDF, all such exchanges should have immediately ceased.

“It does our armed forces a huge disservice to be associated with the IDF, given the conduct of the IDF in Gaza since late 2023 and to think that we are training in Israel only adds to the accusations of UK complicity in this genocide”…………………….

Military training

The disclosure about British military officers training in Israel comes after Declassified revealed how Israeli soldiers have trained in Britain over the past two years…………………………………………………………………….. https://www.declassifieduk.org/british-military-trained-in-israel-amid-gaza-genocide/

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Israel, secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

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

“However, it is absolutely critical that we do not pursue cost reduction at the expense of health and safety standards”

The UK has become the “most expensive” nation in the world to
construct new nuclear projects and an overhaul to planning is needed to
remedy this, according to a new report published by the Nuclear Regulatory
Taskforce.

Examples of the delays and cost overruns are apparent in the
UK’s current nuclear construction projects, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell
C. Namely, the construction of Hinkley Point C has faced several issues
including health and safety concerns, structural faults, as well as
significant cost overruns and delays.

Financially, the project’s
estimated costs have risen to between £31bn and £34bn, up from an initial
£25bn to £26bn in 2015 prices. These cost increases are attributed to
civil engineering price hikes and delays in the electromechanical phase.
Consequently, the operational date for Unit 1 has been pushed back, with
scenarios suggesting completion between 2029 and 2031, partly due to
slower-than-anticipated civil construction, inflation, labour, and material
shortages, as well as disruptions from Covid-19 and Brexit.

The government’s Office for Value for Money (OVfM) noted that these cost
overruns and delays at Hinkley Point C complicated the development of the
Sizewell C project. While the huge costs involved with nuclear projects in
the UK are apparent, law firm Browne Jacobson has argued that, with time
and efficiencies being realised in their construction, costs will start to
go down. Browne Jacobson partner Zoe Stollard said: “Whilst the current
costs of nuclear power station construction in the UK may appear
substantial, it’s important to recognise that these figures will likely
decrease as efficiencies are realised in future projects.

“However, it is absolutely critical that we do not pursue cost reduction at the expense of health and safety standards. Maintaining the highest levels of nuclear safety, security, and safety culture are imperative. “Investing wisely in these projects now is essential to reduce the potential for significant
incidents further down the line. The upfront investment in robust safety
measures and regulatory compliance is not merely a cost, it is a necessary
safeguard for public welfare and long-term operational success.”

New Civil Engineer 25th Nov 2025

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Officials make alarming discovery outside of shutdown nuclear facility: ‘Significant’

“A legacy of industrial practices.”

by Veronica Booth, November 26, 2025

A dangerous fragment of radioactive debris was found outside of a
decommissioned nuclear facility in Scotland. The BBC reported that a
radioactive fragment categorized as “significant” was discovered around the Dounreay nuclear facility on April 7.

Radioactive particles can be
classified as minor, relevant, or significant. This is the first
“significant” particle found near Thurso since March 2022. The Dounreay
facility was an experimental nuclear site until particles of irradiated
nuclear fuel contaminated the drainage system. Now, the shores and seabed around Dounreay are heavily contaminated. According to the BBC, the decontamination of the site is expected to be complete by 2333.

The significant fragment serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of responsible radioactive waste management. According to the BBC, these
radioactive particles and fragments around Dounreay are not a threat to
people. Highly contaminated areas are not used by the public. Nearby public beaches have not contained any significant or large particles that would cause concern for people. In this instance, the U.K. government’s Nuclear Restoration Services and other entities are taking proper action to
decontaminate the site.

TCD 26th Nov 2025, https://www.thecooldown.com/green-business/dounreay-nuclear-facility-scotland-radioactive-waste/

November 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Sir Keir Starmer to create commission with power to overrule environmental regulators through environmental red tape.

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor, 24 November 2025

Environmental quangos that object to nuclear power stations could have
their concerns overruled under Sir Keir Starmer’s plans to unleash a golden
age of nuclear. Under new proposals submitted to the Prime Minister, a new
commission would be created with the power to reconsider “novel or
contentious decisions” – overruling individual regulators if necessary.

In the report, the nuclear regulatory taskforce accused Natural England and
the Environment Agency of adding “disproportionate” costs to projects
by demanding design changes aimed at protecting nature.

Instead of addressing individual environmental concerns, developers could also be allowed to pay a large sum of money into a nature restoration fund. It comes after Sir Keir pledged to usher in a “golden age” of nuclear power following a major agreement between Britain and the US during Donald Trump’s state visit in September.

Telegraph 24th Nov 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/24/nuclear-power-boom-forced-through-environmental-red-tape/

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Does ‘fish disco’ show we’re dancing to the wrong tune on regulations?

“confected outrage about a fish disco”.

Hinkley Point C’s fish protections have been criticised as a
waste of money but environmental charities said the outrage was
manufactured.

For the twaite shad of the Bristol Channel, it has been a
strange few months. Ordinarily, few people bother with shad. Smallish,
silverish, a little like a less charismatic herring, generally they are
left alone. Not this year. Starting in May they have been tracked. They
have been chipped. They have been played some really odd sounds. And now, as they somewhat bemusedly navigate what has become known as the Hinkley Point C fish disco, they have been presented to the prime minister as an exemplar of all that is wrong with our nuclear regulations.

The Fingleton report on nuclear regulation is long and considered. Its 162 pages take in capital financing, nuclear risks and decommissioning obligations. But it was just a few paragraphs about fish that ended up catching the headlines.

“Hinkley Point C will have more fish protection measures than any other
power station in the world,” wrote John Fingleton, commissioned by the
government to find ways to make nuclear cheaper. “It has spent £700
million on their design and implementation,” he said. The outcome on
protected fish? “These measures would save 0.083 salmon per year, along
with 0.028 sea trout, 6 river lamprey, 18 allis shad, and 528 twaite
shad.”

“The government’s propaganda machine is working overtime to
perpetuate the false narrative that nature blocks development,” Joan
Edwards, from the Wildlife Trusts, said. It is, she said, “confected
outrage about a fish disco”. Every second it is running, Hinkley Point C,
which is still under construction, will suck in 134 cubic metres of
seawater. From three kilometres out, in the murky estuary, the water will
rush along pipes towards the reactor. There, the cold waters of the Bristol
Channel will meet the superheated waters of a steam turbine………………………………………………………………………………………….

Times 25th Nov 2025, https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/does-fish-disco-show-were-dancing-to-the-wrong-tune-on-regulations-99v2tsnvs

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, UK | Leave a comment

Britain will have to obey US orders on nuclear jets, CND conference hears.

23 November 2025, https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/britain-will-have-obey-us-orders-nuclear-jets-cnd-conference-hears

BRITAIN would need permission from the United States in order to use its nuclear deterrent, experts say, as the government goes forward with a £71 billion purchase of nuke-carrying US jets.

And increasing Britain’s nuclear arms stock will tie the country to President Donald Trump’s foreign policy goals, which disarmament campaigners say could bring us closer to the brink of disaster.

Speaking at an event organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in London on Saturday, experts, campaigners, and politicians condemned Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s pledge to buy at least 12 F15-A jets.

The planes, capable of carrying so-called tactical nuclear bombs, were not “properly costed” when the government first laid out the deal, only later revealing that their price was some £71 billion, CND general secretary Sophie Bolt said.

Describing Sir Keir’s “mad scramble” to increase spending after Mr Trump requested Nato members increase arms expenditure to 5 per cent of their GDP, Ms Bolt said: “There is a blank-cheque approach to nuclear weapons.

“There was no real proper costing for how much this would be. The health sector is constantly having to save here, save there. Whereas the [Ministry of Defence] will later just say: ‘Oh sorry, we’ve overspent.’

“This will not make us safer. They are US fighter jets. All the money is going to the US. And the planes launch US nuclear bombs, so that means they are basically under Nato command, meaning they are under the US nuclear umbrella of Nato.

“It’s the US that decides when and where these bombs will be dropped. And we are concerned that Trump is going to be gung-ho for these bombs.”

Discussing the planes’ so-called tactical nuclear bombs, she said: “They make the threat of nuclear war being made much more likely and the British government is totally at the heart of this.”

Okopi Ajonye, a researcher at Nuclear Information Service (NIS), agreed that there were many issues with the F35-A deal, saying the government “rushed into the decision” to buy the jets.

He said: “Acquiring these aircrafts was to show that the UK is contributing to NATO. That’s actually what drove this decision.”

Outlining the link between the genocide in Gaza and the campaign against nukes, Palestine Solidarity Campaign director Ben Jamal said the British public should “resist the process to renormalise Israel” after the October ceasefire.

And Your Party co-leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “The new nuclear weapons being promoted and proposed by the UK are intrinsically dangerous: the more weapons there are, the more danger there is that they will be used.

“Instead we should invest the funds into housing, health and education — and increasing, not cutting overseas spending.”

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Navy’s legal threats in bid to keep nuclear pollution secret.

THE Royal Navy threatened legal action as part of a fierce, high-level,
behind-the-scenes battle to block publication of information about
radioactive pollution at the Coulport nuclear bomb base on the Clyde.

Files released to The Ferret reveal that over nine days in July and August, the navy sent 130 emails, held five meetings and made numerous phone calls urging the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) to keep details of the pollution secret. Naval officials repeatedly warned of legal action, spoke of the need to “calm some nerves” and said they were “deeply uncomfortable” with information proposed for release.

The National 23rd Nov 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25642969.navys-legal-threats-bid-keep-nuclear-pollution-secret/

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK | Leave a comment

Rise in nuclear incidents that could leak radioactivity

Rob Edwards, May 25 2025, https://www.theferret.scot/nuclear-incidents-radioactivity-faslane/#:~:text=The%20last%20category%20A%20incident,dropped%20from%20101%20to%2039

There have been 12 nuclear incidents that could have leaked radioactivity at the Faslane naval base since 2023, The Ferret can reveal.

According to the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the incidents at the Clyde nuclear submarine base had “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment”.

But the MoD has refused to say what actually happened in any of the incidents, or exactly when they occurred. There were five in 2023, four in 2024 and three in the first four months of 2025 – the highest for 17 years.

Campaigners warned that a “catastrophic” accident at Faslane could put lives at risk. The Trident submarines based there were a “chronic national security threat to Scotland” because they were “decrepit” and over-worked, they claimed.

New figures also revealed that the total number of nuclear incidents categorised by the MoD at Faslane, and the neighbouring nuclear bomb store at Coulport, more than doubled from 57 in 2019 to 136 in 2024. That includes incidents deemed less serious by the MoD.

The Scottish National Party (SNP) described the rising number of incidents as “deeply concerning”. It branded the secrecy surrounding the incidents as “unacceptable”.

The MoD, however, insisted that it took safety incidents “very seriously”. The incidents could include “equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcomings or near-misses”, it said.

The latest figures on “nuclear site event reports” at Faslane and Coulport were disclosed in a parliamentary answer to the SNP’s defence spokesperson, Dave Doogan MP. They show that a rising trend of more serious events – first reported by The Ferret in April 2024 – is continuing.

There was one incident at Faslane between 1 January and 22 April 2025 given the MoD’s worst risk rating of “category A”. There was another category A incident at Faslane in 2023.

The MoD has defined category A incidents as having an “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” in breach of safety limits.

The last category A incident reported by the MoD was in 2008, when radioactive waste leaked from a barge at Faslane into the Clyde. There were spillages from nuclear submarines at the base in 2007 and 2006.

There were also four “category B” incidents at Faslane in 2023, another four in 2024 and two in the first four months of 2025. The last time that many category B incidents were reported in a year was 2006, when there were five.

According to the MoD, category B meant “actual or high potential for a contained release within building or submarine”, or “actual or high potential for radioactive release to the environment” below safety limits.

The MoD also categorised nuclear site events as “C” and “D”. C meant there was “moderate potential for future release to the environment”, or an “actual radioactive release to the environment” too low to detect. D meant there was “low potential for release but may contribute towards an adverse trend”.

The number of reported C incidents at Faslane and Coulport increased from six in 2019 to 38 in 2024, while the number of D incidents rose from 50 to 94.

At the same time the number of incidents described by the MoD as “below scale” and “of safety interest or concern” dropped from 101 to 39.

The SNP’s Dave Doogan MP, criticised the MoD in the House of Commons for the “veil of secrecy” which covered nuclear incidents. Previous governments had outlined what happened where there were “severe safety breaches”, he told The Ferret.

“The increased number of safety incidents at Coulport and Faslane is deeply concerning, especially so in an era of increased secrecy around nuclear weapons and skyrocketing costs,” Doogan added.

“As a bare minimum the Labour Government should be transparent about the nature of safety incidents at nuclear weapons facilities in Scotland, and the status of their nuclear weapons projects. That the Scottish Government, and the Scottish people, are kept in the dark about these events is unacceptable.”

Doogan highlighted that the government’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority had judged many of the MoD’s nuclear projects to have “significant issues”, as reported in February by The Ferret. The MoD nuclear programmes would cost an “eye-watering” £117.8bn over the next ten years, he claimed.

He said: “If the UK cannot afford to store nuclear weapons safely, then it cannot afford nuclear weapons.”

Anti-nuclear campaigners argued that the four Trident-armed Vanguard submarines based at Faslane were ageing and increasingly unreliable. They required more maintenance and their patrols were getting longer to ensure that there was always one at sea.

“The Vanguard-class submarines are already years past their shelf-life and undergoing record-length assignments in the Atlantic due to increased problems with the maintenance of replacement vessels,” said Samuel Rafanell-Williams, from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

“There is a crisis-level urgency to decommission the nuclear-capable submarines lurking in the Clyde. They constitute a chronic national security threat to Scotland, especially now given their worsening state of disrepair.”

He added: “The UK government is placing the people of Scotland at risk by continuing to operate these decrepit nuclear vessels until their replacements are built, which will likely take a decade or more.

“The Vanguards must be scrapped and the Trident replacement programme abandoned in favour of a proper industrial policy that could genuinely revitalise the Scottish economy and underpin our future security and prosperity.”

Nuclear accident could ‘kill our own’

Dr David Lowry, a veteran nuclear consultant and adviser, said: “Ministers tell us the purpose of Britain’s nuclear weapons is to keep us safe.

“But with this series of accidents involving nuclear weapons-carrying submarines, we are in danger of actually killing our own, if one of these accidents proves to be catastrophic.”

According to Janet Fenton from the campaign group, Secure Scotland, successive governments had hidden information about behaviour that “puts us in harm’s way” while preventing spending on health and welfare.

She said: “Doubling the number of incidents while not telling us the nature of them is making us all hostages to warmongers and the arms trade, while we pay for it.

The secretary of state for defence, John Healey, told the House of Commons that he rejected “any accusation of a veil of secrecy”. He promised the SNP MP, Dave Doogan, that he would look into the allegations and write to him.

When pressed by The Ferret, the MoD declined to outline what had happened in the three category A and B incidents at Faslane in 2025. It has also refused to give details of earlier incidents in response to a freedom of information request.

An MoD spokesperson said: “We have robust safety measures in place at all MoD nuclear sites and we take safety incidents very seriously. Our nuclear programmes are subject to regular independent scrutiny and reviews.

“In line with industry good practice and in common with other defence and civil nuclear sites, His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde has a well-established system for raising nuclear site event reports.

“They are raised to foster a robust safety culture that learns from experience, whether that is of equipment failures, human error, procedural failings, documentation shortcomings or near-misses.”

In 2024 The Ferret revealed earlier MoD figures showing that the number of safety incidents that could have leaked radiation at Faslane had risen to the highest in 15 years. We have also reported on the risks of Trident-armed submarines being on patrol at sea for increasingly long periods.

November 27, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | incidents, UK | Leave a comment

The promise, peril and pragmatism of Britain’s nuclear “renaissance”

LSE Shefali Khanna, Stephen Jarvis, November 21 2025

Nuclear energy’s capacity to help Britain meet its net-zero targets makes it a potentially attractive part of the energy mix. But do the high cost and complicated logistics of building new plants, as well as the emergence of renewable alternatives, make the government’s plans unviable? Shefali Khanna and Stephen Jarvis analyse whether ambition can be realised through delivery.

After decades of stagnation, nuclear energy is staging a comeback. The British government has called its plans for nuclear power a “renaissance”, with a goal to quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050. Projects like Hinkley Point C, under construction in Somerset, and the proposed Sizewell C, in Suffolk, dominate headlines, while small modular reactors (SMRs) promise to make nuclear energy cheaper, faster to deploy and safer. But Britain’s nuclear revival raises questions about how old technologies fit into a rapidly changing energy landscape.

From decline to revival

Britain was a nuclear pioneer. Its first commercial reactor, Calder Hall, opened in 1956 and symbolised postwar scientific ambition. Yet by the 1990s, nuclear energy had lost political and public support………………………………

The nuclear policy push

The British Energy Security Strategy , published in 2022, set an ambitious target of up to 24 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2050, meeting roughly a quarter of projected electricity demand. To deliver this the government created Great British Nuclear, a body tasked with accelerating nuclear project approvals and supporting innovative technologies……………Much of the optimism centres on small modular reactors, nuclear units with capacities typically under 500 megawatts, compared with the large gigawatt scale reactors at traditional plants. SMRs can be factory built, reducing on site construction delays and costs that have plagued conventional reactors. In November 2025 a domestic firm, Rolls-Royce SMR, was chosen to build three SMRs in Wylfa, in Wales. And several foreign developers, including NuScale and GE Hitachi, based in America, are vying for contracts. If successful, Britain could become a global exporter of modular nuclear technology, a rare case of industrial strategy aligning with energy policy.

SMRs are still unproven at scale, however. While prototypes exist, none have yet achieved commercial operation in a liberalised electricity market. Cost estimates remain speculative and nuclear waste management challenges persist. The modular approach may simplify construction but not necessarily long-term decommissioning or waste storage.

Economics and financing are the biggest barrier

Despite renewed enthusiasm, nuclear power remains expensive. The cost of Hinkley Point C has risen from £18 billion ($23.6 billion) to over £35 billion ($45.9 billion), with completion delayed from 2025 until as late as 2031. Financing such large projects in a deregulated market is daunting, especially when renewables and battery-storage technologies have seen such rapid cost declines.

Britain is experimenting with a Regulated Asset Base model, which allows developers to recover some costs from consumers during construction, reducing investor risk but increasing public exposure. This approach could make projects like Sizewell C more viable, yet it effectively shifts financial risk from corporations to consumers, reigniting debates about fairness and affordability.

Safety, waste and trust

Nuclear energy’s social licence remains fragile. Surveys show rising support for nuclear power as part of Britain’s low carbon mix, but opposition can intensify when communities face the prospect of new plants or local waste storage. The government’s search for a geological disposal facility for radioactive waste has struggled. Transparent governance, community benefit schemes and clear communication about risks are vital.

A deeper question is how nuclear fits into a net-zero electricity system increasingly dominated by renewables. Wind and solar costs have fallen dramatically, making them the backbone of Britain’s decarbonisation strategy. But their intermittency creates a need for flexible backup and firm supplies, particularly during dark, still winter days. Here nuclear advocates see an opportunity. Yet the future grid may evolve differently. Advances in battery storage, demand flexibility and even low-carbon thermal sources (such as hydrogen or gas with carbon capture) could provide reliability without the inflexibility and long lead times of nuclear projects. From a systems perspective, nuclear’s value depends on whether it complements or crowds out other low-carbon sources of power.

A combination of offshore wind, interconnectors with Europe and demand-side management could offer cheaper resilience than large scale nuclear expansion. National Grid ESO’s Future Energy Scenarios suggest multiple credible pathways to reliability that do not rely heavily on new nuclear power.

The global dimension

……………………………… Britain wants energy sovereignty but depends on foreign partners for both capital and technology. Balancing national security with project viability will require deft diplomacy and strategic clarity.

From renaissance to realism

Nuclear energy could play a valuable role in Britain’s net-zero transition, but not at any cost. Policymakers must avoid treating it as a silver bullet or a national vanity project. Nuclear should be evaluated within a whole systems framework that considers economic efficiency, environmental impact and technological diversity. A pragmatic approach would prioritise completing current projects (such as Hinkley and Sizewell) efficiently before scaling new builds; rigorous cost transparency in SMR development; integrated planning with renewables and storage; and public engagement to rebuild trust through co-benefits, not just compensation.

The rhetoric of a “nuclear renaissance” is powerful, evoking a return to industrial confidence and scientific progress. But the real test lies in delivery. If Britain can demonstrate that modern nuclear projects are on time, on budget and publicly legitimate, it could indeed reclaim some global leadership. If not, this revival may join a long list of grand plans that stumbled on the realities of cost, complexity and public trust. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2025/11/21/the-promise-peril-and-pragmatism-of-britains-nuclear-renaissance/

November 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Torness nuclear power station was opposed at every stage

Torness power station was opposed at every stage, according to the East
Lothian Courier on 14th November 1975. An alternative was put forward by an Edinburgh University professor. Calling for an end to the madness which
Torness represents, Professor Arnold Hendry of the Civil Engineering
Department claimed the proposals were unnecessary, a waster of money and dangerous. More than 60 members of the newly formed Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace marched to the proposed site.

East Lothian Courier 13th Nov 2025
https://www.eastlothiancourier.com/

November 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »