Lucky Dip: Drone companies await spending bonanza as UK’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) to be revealed.
Plans already announced to ‘reconnect society with the military’ include the expansion of youth cadet forces, education work in schools to develop understanding among young people of the armed forces, and broader public outreach events to outline the threats and the need for greater military spending despite increased social challenges.
, Chris Cole, https://dronewars.net/2025/11/18/lucky-dip-drone-companies-await-spending-bonanza-as-defence-investment-plan-dip-to-be-revealed/
Following the government’s commitment to increase military spending and the publication of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in early June, the military industry has been keenly awaiting the release of the government’s Defence Investment Plan (DIP) which will layout military spending plans and other details for the rest of this parliament. Numerous reports have indicated that many planned projects are ‘on hold’ until the plan is finalised and published.
Defence minister Luke Pollard told MPs in June that the DIP will “cover the full scope of the defence programme, from people and operations to equipment and infrastructure”. Time and again ministers have promised that the plan will be unveiled in the autumn and so this now seems likely to be soon after the Budget of 26 November (although such promises are of course routinely broken).
How much?!
UK military spending was £60.2bn in 24/25 (around 2.4% of GDP), up from £42.4bn in 2020/21. In February 2025, the Starmer government committed to further increase military spending raising the budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 (estimated at around an extra £6bn per year – roughly the amount cut from the UK’s Aid budget) with ‘an ambition’ to reach 3% by the next parliament. At the NATO summit in June 2025, however, Starmer upped the ante, with a pledge to reach a ‘goal’ of 5% (3.5% on ‘core defence’ (estimated to be an extra £30bn per year) with 1.5% (around £40bn per year) on ‘defence-related areas such as resilience and security’) by 2029. Subsequently the government said it “expected to reach at least 4.1% of GDP in 2027”.
‘Whole of Society’
Importantly, alongside the increase in military spending, the Strategic Defence Review argued that ‘defence’ is now to be seen as a ‘whole of society’ effort and this may well be re-emphasised when DIP is published.
The plan is being billed as enabling the UK to be at ‘warfighting readiness’ and alongside equipment and weapons programmes, the public is being urged to be ”prepared for conflict and ready to volunteer, support the military, and endure challenges”.
Plans already announced to ‘reconnect society with the military’ include the expansion of youth cadet forces, education work in schools to develop understanding among young people of the armed forces, and broader public outreach events to outline the threats and the need for greater military spending despite increased social challenges.
And to top this off, the government is deploying the hoary old chestnut that military spending is good for the economy (despite such claims being persistently and thoroughly debunked).
Trailed Plans
While specific spending details remain under wraps, government announcements since the publication of the SDR have indicated some of the broad areas which will receive more funding:
Drones, Drones, Drones. In the Spring Statement, Chancellor Rachel Reeves stated that “a minimum of 10% of the MoD’s equipment budget is to be spent on novel technologies including drones and AI enabled technology.” Defence Minister Alistair Cairns indicated in July that there would be around £4bn spending on uncrewed systems – ‘Drones, drones and drones‘ as he put it on twitter.
To the ever-expanding list of UK drone development programmes, many of which are seeking funding decisions as part of the DIP, we can add Project Nyx which seeks to pair a new drone with the British Army’s Apache Helicopter.
Perhaps most significantly in this area, publication of the Defence Investment Plan may illuminate UK plans for a ‘loyal wingman’ type drone – now described by the MoD as an Autonomous Collaborative Platform (ACP) – to accompany the UK’s planned new fighter aircraft, Tempest. While some funding has already been allocated to develop smaller Tier 1 and 2 ACP’s, plans for the more strategic and no doubt costlier level Tier 3 drone have been placed on the back burner pending funding decisions. Will the UK go it alone and build a new armed drone (as no doubt BAE Systems hopes) or will it buy Australia’s Ghost Bat or one of the two drones currently competing for the US contract?
Integrated targeting web. Alongside new drones, the UK is developing a ‘digital targeting web’ to link, as MoD-speak puts it, ‘sensors’, ‘deciders’ and ‘effectors’. In other words commanders supported by AI will be networked with ‘next generation’ drones, satellites and other systems to identify targets to be destroyed by a variety of novel and traditional military systems. The aim is to rapidly speed up the time between target identification and attack. As Drone Wars has reported, several tests of various elements of this system (such as ASGARD) have been tested and it is likely that further funding for this programme will be part of the DIP.
Alongside this, there is also a desire to persuade some of the newer drone companies to open factories here in the UK. While Tekever has announced it will open a new site in Swindon, Anduril and Helsing seem to be keeping their power dry while awaiting news that they have secured government contracts before committing to setting up premises. Both companies have, however, set up UK subsidiaries and have launched PR campaigns to persuade ministers and officials of the efficacy of their products.
While drones are key for these companies, a huge increase in UK spending on military AI systems is also in their sights.
An AI ‘Manhattan Project’ endeavour. Despite continued and significant concerns about the military use of AI, particularly in ‘the kill chain’, ministers, officials and commanders seem convinced that a rapid integration of AI into all areas of the armed forces is urgent and vital. Just before stepping down as Chief of the Defence Staff in September, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin put his weight behind calls from Helsing co-founder Gundbert Scherf for a “Manhattan-Project for AI defence”. Arguing such a plan “would not cost the earth” (but putting it at around $90bn!) Scherf suggested four areas to concentrate on: a) masses of AI-enabled defensive drones deployed on NATO’s eastern flank; b) deploying AI-enabled combat drones to dominate airspace; c) large scale deployment of ai-enabled underwater drones/sensors; and finally, d) replacing Europe’s ageing satellites with (you guessed it) ai-enabled surveillance and targeting satellites.
Anduril is also not shy of lobbying in its own interests. Anduril UK CEO Richard Drake told The House, Parliament’s in-house magazine, that Anduril US was “very much happy with the direction [the SDR is] taking” but went on to publicly push to reduce regulation on the use of drones in UK airspace:
“For UK PLC to get better and better and better in drones and autonomous systems, they have to always look at their regulatory rules as well. Companies like ours and other UK companies can design and build these really cool things, but if we can’t test them well enough in the UK, that’s going to be a problem.”
Winners and Losers
While wholesale adoption of Helsing’s plan seems unlikely, there seems little doubt that the new AI-focused military companies will be among the various military companies who will be the lucky beneficiaries of the UK’s DIP. Meanwhile, the rest of us seem assured of spending cuts and tax rises.
First Minister John Swinney absolutely rules out changing SNP’s no nuclear stance
the proposal to develop new nuclear energy was both “economic and environmental folly” that would lead to more expensive bills.
First Minister John Swinney absolutely rules out changing SNP’s no nuclear stance saying ‘there is no way on this planet that I am going to change that policy’
By Scott Maclennan, John O’Groat Journal 20th Nov 2025
First Minister John Swinney has absolutely ruled out any change to the SNP’s position against nuclear energy saying: “There is no way on this planet that I am going to change that policy.”
He was speaking at the weekend at the adoption night for the party’s candidate for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch Eilidh Munro in Dingwall alongside Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes.
The First Minister reiterated the position after it was revealed that Anglesey in North Wales – which has many objective similarities with Caithness – is about to receive a £2.5 billion nuclear boost.
That sparked Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross MP Jamie Stone to reignite his argument that it is not too late for Dounreay – but the SNP must lift its ban on new nuclear power.
“This is an important announcement which demonstrates two things,” he said. “Firstly, that the UK government is serious about establishing ‘a network of small modular reactors across the UK’ – as the Energy Secretary put it.
‘It’s brilliant for a small town like Wick’ – local opticians celebrate award win
“The second point, which will be of enormous interest to the far north, is the specific reference from the UK government to ‘sites across the United Kingdom, including Scotland’.”
But Mr Swinney rebuffed all of those points arguing instead that the proposal to develop new nuclear energy was both “economic and environmental folly” that would lead to more expensive bills.
“I don’t think the position on nuclear power is exactly a surprise,” he said. “We have been around for a long time when we have won Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and there’s absolutely no way on the planet that I’m going to change that policy because I think it’s economic and environmental folly.
“These nuclear stations are hyper-expensive so if people are going to get nuclear power stations put onto their bills then they ain’t seen nothing yet because these projects always go way over budget.
“So we’ve got the opportunity for low cost renewable energy in Scotland in abundance and we should seize that opportunity to do the right thing, fiscally and environmentally and the nuclear argument will just saddle people with exorbitant fuel costs for the years to come.”…………………… https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/first-minister-john-swinney-absolutely-rules-out-changing-sn-419801/
Wylfagasm! What does it tell us about Cymru?
18 Nov 2025, https://nation.cymru/opinion/wylfagasm-what-does-it-tell-us-about-cymru/
Some of the most unpopular politicians in the UK and Cymru, led by Starmer, rolled up to Ynys Môn on 13th November to announce that three Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s), to be designed by Rolls-Royce SMR are to be built at Wylfa by publicly owned Great British Nuclear, backed by £2.5 billion of public money.
Following the deferred gratification as the Hitachi project collapsed in 2019, the consequent media ballyhoo was euphoric, with the announcement being seen as at last confirming that nuclear is back on Ynys Môn, with up to 3,000 jobs expected during construction, and up to 900 jobs required to run the plant. The politicians of the UK, Cymru and Ynys Môn of almost all political colours welcomed the news. Starmer also announced that Cymru was to be an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) zone, with 3,500 jobs to be created.
What’s not to like about nuclear at Wylfa?
A great deal, as I know from too many years of campaigning with PAWB (People Against Wylfa B)! Let’s be brief, though several volumes are needed to do justice to the objections.
The main argument used to justify nuclear by local politicians can be summarised in one word: JOBS! Jobs for Ynys Môn, which has haemorrhaged jobs for years, thus giving youngsters an opportunity to stay on the Island. Yes, Ynys Môn, like other economically bereft areas of Cymru, needs jobs to retain youngsters who have been drifting away in search of opportunities. But this has been a running sore for decades, and the chief focus on Ynys Môn has been to concentrate on the economic silver bullet of Wylfa since Blair’s Energy Review in 2006. So our youngsters have been let down for two decades, during which time a reliable job creation strategy could have been devised and implemented. The result is that jobs of any sort are accepted with very little robust questioning.
Poverty induces gratitude for a poisoned chalice.
Why is the chalice poisoned? The arguments against nuclear have been listed so many times that it is frankly staggering that mainstream politicians largely ignore them.
- No solution to the problem of radioactive waste which must be safe for millennia.
- Spiralling costs of every nuclear project, at the taxpayer’s expense.
- Too little, too late to mitigate climate change.
- The myth that nuclear is low carbon and safe.
- Huge long term environmental damage where uranium is mined.
- Risk of catastrophe as at Chernobyl, Fukushima, Windscale, Three Mile Island.
- Risk of malicious attacks by cyberwarfare or direct military attack in a dangerous world.
- Risk of nuclear proliferation
- Intrinsic link to military nuclear – the first Wylfa was built to produce plutonium.
Other issues can be added.
Continue readingLancaster University to create £2m nuclear power station control room simulator.
r. Funded through a £2 million grant as part of an £88.5 million
capital investment by the Office for Students (OfS) into Universities and
colleges across England, Lancaster University will address a critical gap
by developing a nationally-unique educational facility designed to train
future professionals in nuclear engineering, cyber security and related
disciplines.
Lancaster Guardian 18th Nov 2025.
https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/news/national/lancaster-university-to-create-ps2m-nuclear-power-station-control-room-simulator-5407049
Nuclear levy will increase UK energy bills from December
SMEs need to factor in a boost in their energy costs as the nuclear levy – a mandatory charge for both homes and businesses – is brought in by the Government.
.From next month, all energy bills will include the “nuclear levy”, a charge used by the Government to fund nuclear infrastructure. It is expected to add up to around £100 a year for small businesses, but this will vary with their energy usage.
Start-Ups 19th Nov 2025, https://startups.co.uk/news/nuclear-levy/
Campaigners come together to challenge Britain’s disastrous nuclear expansion.
CND 17th Nov 2025
- Political leaders, MPs, Trade Union leaders and faith communities urge Prime Minister to reverse decision to purchase US nuclear-capable fighter jets
- Purchase breaches international law, heightens nuclear risks and ties Britain closer to the Trump administration
- Call comes as report show chaos and spiralling costs of fighter jet programme
On Monday, 17 November, MPs, trade unionists and civil society figures handed in a letter to Downing Street calling on the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to rethink his decision to purchase 12 nuclear-capable F-35A jets, to be stationed at RAF Marham. The jets have been designed to launch deadly US nuclear bombs, now very likely deployed across Europe and in Britain.
This comes amidst increasing nuclear threats and breaches of international disarmament treaties. In the letter, signatories argue, “[f]ar from protecting the British population, your decision to buy US nuclear capable fighter jets, that can launch US B61-12 nuclear bombs, ties Britain even closer to the dangerous leadership of US President Donald Trump” and “increases the risk of such weapons being used in war.”
It goes on to state, “[w]e see this nuclear expansion as part of the war drive which is draining public funds away from essential public services and making the population poorer.”
The letter hand-in follows a report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that has exposed the chaos and spiralling costs already associated with government’s decision to buy nuclear-capable fighter jets from the Trump administration. The Committee’s report reveals that the Ministry of Defence had little understanding of the technical and financial implications of Britain joining NATO’s nuclear mission when Starmer announced the purchase at the NATO summit in June. PAC Chair described the MoD’s spending forecasts as “unrealistic.” The National Audit Office now calculates the full programme of 138 fighter jets could cost at least £71 billion, with even more – as yet unknown – costs involved in joining NATO’s nuclear missions.
The letter states, “[g]iven the grave consequences of this expansion, including Britain’s breach of international law, it is also deeply concerning that no opportunity was given for parliament to debate or vote on this decision before it was announced.”
The letter concludes by urging that “[i]nstead of pouring hundreds of billions into lethal weapons, action needs to be focused on tackling the underlying causes threatening our human security. This means reversing the devastating poverty, deprivation and crumbling public services that mark our communities, investing in sustainable homes, rebuilding our health and education systems, and funding a just transition through green jobs, skills and infrastructure.”
CND will be bringing together a powerful alliance of campaigners, trade unionists, student activists, environmentalists, and more this Saturday, 22 November, to discuss the next steps for the campaign to halt this disastrous nuclear expansionism. For an agenda and how to register, click here. ………………………………………………………………………………… https://cnduk.org/campaigners-come-together-to-challenge-britains-disastrous-nuclear-expansion/
UK’s New nuclear siting policy criticised by industry as ‘missed opportunity’
The highly anticipated National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy
Generation EN-7, which will dictate where new nuclear reactors can be
deployed, has been published by the government, but it has been criticised
by the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) as a “missed opportunity”.
New Civil Engineer 14th Nov 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-nuclear-siting-policy-criticised-by-industry-as-missed-opportunity-14-11-2025/
BBC News Has a Long Record of Disinformation. But This Time It Chose the Wrong Target.
We are now in a death loop in which the BBC becomes ever more craven to the billionaires, thereby shifting the political centre of gravity ever further rightwards. Much of the British public have been convinced by the billionaire-owned media that the BBC is actually “leftwing”. And as a result, the right grows ever more confident in advancing the billionaires’ self-interested agenda, knowing there will be no pushback.
British politics, as Keir Starmer illustrates only too keenly, is in exactly the same death loop. The billionaires are in charge, whoever leads. The main political battle is over image-laundering: where to direct the hate.
SCHEERPOST, November 15, 2025 , By Jonathan Cook / Jonathan Cook Blog
The BBC is in turmoil, its director-general and head of news forced to resign after a memo leaked to the Daily Telegraph highlighted editorial malpractice at the state broadcaster’s flagship news programme Panorama. The documentary had spliced together two separate clips of Donald Trump speaking on 6 January 2021, shortly before a riot at the Capitol building in Washington. The speech’s sentiments that day may not have been much misrepresented, but its contents technically were.
But Panorama, and the BBC more generally, have been exposed peddling far worse misinformation. In those cases, there have been precisely no consequences for such out-in-the-open journalistic abuses.
The reason heads have rolled at the BBC this time are not because it made a journalistic blunder – it makes them all the time. It is because the corporation foolishly offered an open goal to the billionaire right and its media outlets. This is just the latest, particularly damaging skirmish in a years-long battle by the right to bring down the BBC – while, in the meantime, ensuring that the corporation turns even more pliant than it already is in promoting the right’s interests.
We are now in a death loop in which the BBC becomes ever more craven to the billionaires, thereby shifting the political centre of gravity ever further rightwards. Much of the British public have been convinced by the billionaire-owned media that the BBC is actually “leftwing”. And as a result, the right grows ever more confident in advancing the billionaires’ self-interested agenda, knowing there will be no pushback.
British politics, as Keir Starmer illustrates only too keenly, is in exactly the same death loop. The billionaires are in charge, whoever leads. The main political battle is over image-laundering: where to direct the hate.
Open-for-business, austerity-affirming Starmer wants us hating chiefly on those who criticise him from the left, such as opponents of his support for Israel’s genocide. Open-for-business, austerity-affirming Nigel Farage wants us hating chiefly on the immigrants. But, of course, both hate the left and immigrants.
If anyone is falling for the manufactured “furore” over Panorama’s latest journalistic gaffe, there are examples of far graver malpractice by Panorama – especially on issues related to Israel and Palestine. These editorial crimes have barely caused a ripple, even after they were exposed.
Why? Because the billionaires love Israel and hate its critics. Israel is their vision of the future: the model of a fortress state in which they believe they can protect themselves from the people whose lives they are destroying around the globe.
Israel is also the laboratory where they can test and refine the surveillance technology, the weapons and the policing methods they will need if they are to keep their own publics controlled and subdued as austerity bites ever deeper. Gaza may be coming to street near you soon.
Here are two examples of crimes against journalism from Panorama that illustrate what you can get away with as long as you keep the billionaires happy.
The first gave Israel cover for the crimes it committed against peace activists trying to bring aid to Gaza in 2010 – thereby setting the tone for subsequent coverage that would ultimately lead to, and justify, the Gaza genocide.
The second marshalled disinformation to cement Jeremy Corbyn’s reputation as a supposed “antisemite” in the immediate run-up to 2019 general election. Starmer would go on to use the confected antisemitism row to seize control of Labour, oust Corbyn, approve as opposition leader of Israel’s starvation of Gaza’s population, and back Israel’s genocide as prime minister.
Death in the Med (2010)
In 2010 reporter Jane Corbin fronted Panorama’s “Death in the Med”, about an Israeli commando raid a few months earlier on the lead aid ship, the Mavi Marmara, in a humanitarian flotilla that was trying to reach Gaza, despite an illegal Israeli blockade.
(The programme now serves as an unwelcome reminder that the “conflict” between Israel and Hamas did not begin on 7 October 2023, as the western media would have us believe. For the proceeding 17 years, Israel had been trapping the people of Gaza inside the tiny enclave while blocking food and medicine from reaching them – what Israel referred to as “putting them on a diet”.)
The commandos attacked the ship in international waters and killed nine activists on board, several with close-range shots to the head. The illegality of invading a ship in international waters was not mentioned by Panorama, nor were the execution-style killings. Instead the programme featured “exclusive” interviews with some of the commandos, largely presenting them as the victims………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
By the time Panorama aired “Death in the Med” three months later, the Israeli-imposed fog had lifted further. Israel had been forced to make a “correction”, admitting that it had doctored the incendiary “Auschwitz” recording and that it had no idea who had made the comment. The voice was from someone with a strong southern US accent, but none of the people on the Marmara with access to the radio were American.
It was quite extraordinary that the programme posed as the central question whether this was a case of “self-defence or excessive force” by Israel. Israel had no right to “defend” itself in international waters from unarmed peace activists. But the question was even more preposterous given all the critically important evidence that emerged subsequently but that Panorama chose to ignore……………………………………………………………………..
Panorama was effectively helping Israel to justify an act of piracy on the high seas, the siege of Gaza, and the murder of nine humanitarian activists.
Is Labour Antisemitic? (2019)
In the run-up to the 2019 election, Panorama broadcast a special, hour-long episode on the state of the Labour party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn. For the programme-makers, the question mark in the title was entirely redundant. Panorama was bent on proving that Labour was indeed antisemitic, whatever the evidence.
Corbyn, the first leader of a major British political party to place the right of Palestinians to be free of Israel’s illegal occupation ahead of Israel’s supposed “right” to continuing its illegal occupation, had been the target of relentless criticism since he was elected leader in 2015. The media accused him of overseeing – and encouraging – a supposed “plague of antisemitism” among party members……………
But the malicious purpose of the antisemitism smears should be far clearer by now. Millions of Britons who have gone out to protest against the Gaza genocide have been defamed as antisemites. As have students setting up encampments to stop their universities from colluding with the genocide. As have Jews who oppose Israel’s genocide. As have the West Midlands police for trying to stop Israeli football hooligans, many of them likely to be Israeli soldiers who have helped carry out the genocide, from bringing their brand of racist violence to the UK’s streets. We could go on.
The Panorama programme on Corbyn made its case through serial misrepresentations – too many to document here. But the case against the Panorama episode is dealt with fully in this documentary here.
Those deceptions included a series of interviews with unidentified “party members” who claimed to have faced antisemitism in Labour. What Panorama did not tell viewers was that these talking heads belonged to an aggressively pro-Israel lobby group inside Labour called the Jewish Labour Movement………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Proper checks weren’t done in the case of “Death in the Med” or “Is Labour Antisemitic?” because Panorama editors knew that no one in power would care. Defaming peace activists trying to bring aid to a besieged population; smearing a socialist standing to be prime minister. No one would hold the BBC to account.
Why? Because those weren’t errors by the BBC. That’s its job. That is what it is there to do. It is there to uphold narratives that support the interests of the British establishment, as its founder, Lord Reith, explained in the 1920s. “They [the government] know they can trust us not to be really impartial.”
The fact that the BBC is now in hot water for editing a Trump speech – altering its contents without altering its sentiments – is a sign that its senior staff have been misreading the political climate. The establishment itself is now at war – over strategy. Between the traditional right, desperately trying to enforce a crumbling popular, liberal consensus, and the MAGA far-right trying to exploit the crumbling consensus to their own advantage.
It is a sign that the far right is now too far in the ascendant to be given even a small taste of the treatment regularly faced by the left or Israel’s critics. The far right – backed by, and serving, the billionaires – is winning. Time for the BBC to catch up, and bow even lower. https://scheerpost.com/2025/11/15/bbc-news-has-a-long-record-of-disinformation-but-this-time-it-chose-the-wrong-target/
Could Small Modular Nuclear Reactors add supply-side grid flexibility?
It would make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following only if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed,
13 Nov, 2025 By Tom Pashby New Civil Engineer
Small modular reactors (SMRs) could have the capability of providing the British electricity grid with flexible supplies, the government has said.
Supply-side grid flexibility is the ability of electricity sources to
adjust their output to match fluctuations in power demand in real-time. The
statement came in response to a question from an MP about whether SMRs
could be used as “load-following energy sources”.
Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero Pippa Heylings MP asked what assessment the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) “has made of the potential merits of small modular reactors being made as load-following energy sources”.
Responding, DESNZ minister of state
Michael Shanks said: “The next generation of nuclear, including SMRs,
offers new possibilities, including faster deployment, lower capital costs
and greater flexibility. “Whilst nuclear energy has a unique role to play
in delivering stable, low-carbon baseload energy, SMRs may be able to serve the electricity grid more flexibly than traditional nuclear, as well as
unlock a range of additional applications in energy sectors beyond grid
electricity.”
It would only make sense in the UK for SMRs to be load
following if there were vast numbers of SMRs deployed, representing a
significant proportion of the electricity generation capacity on the
national electricity transmission system of Great Britain, for them to be
load-following.
University of Sussex professor of science and technology
policy Andy Stirling told NCE: “This parliamentary answer repeats a
longstanding malaise in UK energy policy. “For far too long,
eccentrically strong official nuclear attachments have been dominated by
reference to claimed ‘new possibilities’, to what nuclear ‘may be
able’ to do, and to an unsubstantiated ‘unique role’. “
Whichever side of these debates one is on, it is clear that what is needed most is what used to be routine – but has been lacking for more than a decade.
“Questions over cost, security or flexibility claims can only be settled
by detailed comparative analysis that includes balanced attention to
non-nuclear strategies as well as nuclear ‘possibilities’. “
When such a picture is looked at in a fair way, current trends are making it
impossible even for formerly nuclear-enthusiastic bodies (like the Royal
Society) to conclude – even when looking at UK Government data –
anything other than that there is no rational need for any nuclear
contribution.”
New Civil Engineer 13th Nov 2025,
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/could-smrs-add-supply-side-grid-flexibility-13-11-2025/
Why should Scotland pay billions for nuclear when renewables exist?
Dr Ian Fairlie: Why should Scotland pay billions for nuclear when
renewables exist?
Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar this week
made further statements in support of more nuclear power in Scotland.
Scottish CND believe their claims about a “golden age of nuclear” are
pie in the sky and should be treated with a pinch (or more) of salt
A proper assessment of our energy situation requires us to look at what is
happening in the rest of the world. Last year, a record 582GW of renewable
energy generation capacity was added to the world’s supplies – but
there was almost no new nuclear. Indeed, each year, new renewables add
about 200 times more global electricity than new nuclear does.
Powerful economic arguments exist for renewables over nuclear. The main one is that the marginal (ie fuel) costs of renewable energy are next to zero, whereas nuclear fuel is extremely expensive. Nuclear costs – for both
construction and generation – are very high and rising, plus long delays
are the norm.
For example, the proposed Sizewell C nuclear station in
England is now predicted to cost £47 billion, with the UK Government and
independent experts acknowledging even this estimate may rise
significantly. And just this week, the Hinkley C station still under
construction in England added yet more costs to its anticipated huge bill.
Must Scotland follow these poor English examples? The reality is that new
nuclear power in Scotland would mean massive costs, a poisoned legacy to future generation and yet more radioactive pollution of our air and seas.
Given these manifest disadvantages, many independent commentators have questioned the UK Government’s seeming obsession with nuclear power.
The National 15th Nov 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25624042.scotland-pay-billions-nuclear-renewables-exist/
Nuclear for Wylfa the wrong way to go
Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 13th November 2025
Responding to today’s news that the UK Government intends to impose several so called ‘small modular reactors’ upon Wylfa, the Welsh NFLAs believe that this is the wrong way to go.
The money would be better spent on insulating Welsh homes to make them warmer and cheaper to run or used to develop more capacity in renewable technologies that can generate electricity cheaper and far quicker. And Ynys Mon can play a big part in that by becoming a centre of excellence for renewable technologies and so truly Wales’ ‘green energy’ island.
The Government’s nuclear delivery agency, Great British Energy – Nuclear recently concluded a ‘competition’ amongst SMR developers to select a preferred design. Unsurprisingly Rolls-Royce, which had already received a Government hand-out of £210 million during an earlier development stage and a Government hand-up by being fast-tracked onto the Generic Design Assessment process, won the competition. This was the equivalent of running a race with superior sports footwear, and starting the race much earlier, than the other participants. The company will now be awarded a further £2.5 billion of hard-pressed taxpayers money to build three pilot SMRs.
13th November 2025
Nuclear for Wylfa the wrong way to go
Responding to today’s news that the UK Government intends to impose several so called ‘small modular reactors’ upon Wylfa, the Welsh NFLAs believe that this is the wrong way to go.
The money would be better spent on insulating Welsh homes to make them warmer and cheaper to run or used to develop more capacity in renewable technologies that can generate electricity cheaper and far quicker. And Ynys Mon can play a big part in that by becoming a centre of excellence for renewable technologies and so truly Wales’ ‘green energy’ island.
The Government’s nuclear delivery agency, Great British Energy – Nuclear recently concluded a ‘competition’ amongst SMR developers to select a preferred design. Unsurprisingly Rolls-Royce, which had already received a Government hand-out of £210 million during an earlier development stage and a Government hand-up by being fast-tracked onto the Generic Design Assessment process, won the competition. This was the equivalent of running a race with superior sports footwear, and starting the race much earlier, than the other participants. The company will now be awarded a further £2.5 billion of hard-pressed taxpayers money to build three pilot SMRs.
Great British Energy – Nuclear also purchased the Wylfa and Oldbury sites off Horizon for £160 million for reuse as locations for these new SMRs, almost certainly at nil or minimal cost to the developer, and GNE – N recently advertised for a site manager with proficiency in the Welsh language letting slip that Wylfa was the preferred site.
The Government’s announcement refers to Wylfa becoming Britain’s first SMR ‘power plant’ with reactors plural, suggesting that the three initial reactors will all be co-located on the island. SMRs are an uncertain and unproven nuclear technology. The Rolls-Royce SMR design has yet to secure all the required regulatory approvals, no Rolls-Royce SMR have yet been built, let alone operated, and there is no experience of SMR modular assembly. Any reactor will not even come on stream until the 2030’s and even then will only deliver electricity for customers that is vastly more expensive than that generated by renewables. Nor has any permanent solution to the intractible problem of managing high-level radioactive waste been found, but there has been some academic research which indicates that many SMR designs create more waste per kilowatt generated than traditional gigawatt plants. And as Ukraine has demonstrated, nuclear power plants are obvious targets in any future conflict.
Wylfa is a particularly problematic location. The Horizon bid was rejected in part because of the damage it would cause to nature and the beautiful environment of Ynys Mon and its impact on the island’s linguistic heritage. But the bid failed largely because the developer felt they were not receiving enough financial support from the taxpayer. How will this be different? The price tag for a single SMR is likely to be at least £4 billion. Will a public subsidy of £2.5 billion be deemed sufficient to Rolls Royce to incentivise them to proceed with buiding three? How will electricity be transmitted across and out of the island? It is very likely that we shall see a sea of new pylons spring up across the green fields of Ynys Mon and beyond. If parts for a modular reactor are made off-site, how will they be transported onto the island? And with ‘First of a Kind’ experimental SMRs at Wylfa, and a military neighbour at RAF Valley, surely the UK Government is making Ynys Mons an even higher-priority target for terrorists or a hostile power in time of war. How will islanders be evacuated quickly and safely should there be an attack or an accident?
The promised thousands of jobs ‘for the local community’ must also be questionable. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Welsh NFLAs would rather see the £2.5 billion dedicated to SMR development at Wylfa redirected by the UK Government to reduce the energy bills of Welsh citizens and move closer to making Wales a wholly renewable electricity nation. How? By funding an emergency programme of retrofitting insulation to Welsh homes and into supporting renewable energy projects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nuclear-for-wylfa-the-wrong-way-to-go/
Atom is prematurely split in the ‘golden age’ transatlantic partnership
Nils Pratley, 14 Nov 25 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/nov/13/atom-split-us-uk-golden-age-partnership-wylfe-smr
Britain was always going to prefer homegrown technology for the SMR reactors at Wylfe. The US would have done the same.
It had all been so harmonious two months ago. “Together with the US, we’re building a golden age of nuclear that puts both countries at the forefront of global innovation and investment,” purred the prime minister about the new “landmark” UK-US nuclear partnership.
Now there’s an atomic split over the first significant decision. The UK has allocated Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, to host three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by the British developer Rolls-Royce SMR. The US ambassador, Warren Stephens, says his country is “extremely disappointed”: he wanted Westinghouse, a US company, to get the gig for a large-scale reactor.
This quarrel is easy to adjudicate. The US ambassador is living in dreamland if he seriously thought the UK wouldn’t show home bias at Wylfa. This is the coveted site for new nuclear power in the UK because the land is owned by the government, which ought to make the planning process easier and quicker, and the site hosted a Magnox reactor until 2015, so the locals are used to nuclear plants. Since Rolls-Royce’s kit is the best national hope of reviving the UK’s industry with homegrown technology, of course there was going to be preferential treatment.
None of which is to say the SMR experiment will definitely succeed in the sense of demonstrating cheapness (a relative measure in nuclear-land) versus mega-plants, such as Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C or the Westinghouse design. Rolls-Royce oozes confidence about the cost-saving advantages of prefabrication in factories, but these have yet to be demonstrated on the ground. The point, though, is that the only way to find out is to get on and build. Rolls-Royce SMR’s only other order currently is from the Czech Republic for six units.
Indeed, the criticism from some quarters is that the UK government has been too timid in ordering only three. If the batch-production is supposed to be the gamechanger on costs, goes the argument, then commit to a decent-sized batch at the outset.
The choice of Wylfa may help on that score in time, though. The site is reckoned to be big enough to hold an additional five SMR units eventually, on the top of the first three. Since each SMR is 470 megawatts, a full build-out would equate to more megawatts in total than the 3,200 from each of Hinkley and Sizewell.
The sop to the US is that Westinghouse gets to compete for future large-scale reactor projects in the UK. It would probably have been a good idea to tell the ambassador in advance before he blew a fuse. Reserving Wylfa for Rolls-Royce SMRs was the only sensible decision here.
Hopes that SMR technology will become a major export-earner for the UK eventually are best treated with extreme caution at this stage. The first electricity from Wylfa won’t be generated until the mid-2030s, and the demonstration of falling costs with each additional unit can only come after that. There is a long way to go. But a good way to maximise your chance of success is to give the top site to your pet project. The US would have done exactly the same.
Wales Green Party responds to new nuclear power plans
by Green Party, https://greenparty.org.uk/2025/11/13/wales-green-party-responds-to-new-nuclear-power-plans/
Responding to the announcement of plans for new nuclear power generation on Ynys Môn, leader of Wales Green Party Anthony Slaughter, said:
“It’s Groundhog Day yet again. Gordon Brown declared a bold future for nuclear power back in 2009, showing us nuclear is of no help in fighting the climate crisis.
“New nuclear power at Wylfa would be nothing but an expensive distraction from the clean, fast and cheap renewables already available to us. We need to cut emissions fast, but even the most optimistic backers admit it’ll take a decade for new nuclear to be up and running.
“And there is still no answer to the safe disposal of nuclear waste.
“What Wales needs is a fast, ambitious roll-out of solar, wind and wave energy that will create jobs and cut energy bills.”
Sizewell C. Taxpayers likely to see ‘no return’ on £6.4bn public funds put in as equity
taxpayers are getting no return whatsoever on the £6.4bn they are putting in as equity, so from a taxpayer point of view it is dreadful.
10 Nov, 2025, By Tom Pashby, New Civil Engineer
Taxpayers will see “no return whatsoever” on the £6.4bn that the government is committing in equity to Sizewell C, according to an energy policy expert.
Earlier in November 2025, Sizewell C reached financial close with a £5bn funding injection from 13 banks paving the way for full-scale construction.
The deal secures around £5.5bn of new financing consisting of a £5bn export credit-backed facility arranged by Bpifrance Assurance‑Export (BpifranceAE) with support from Sfil, and a separate £500M working capital facility.
These facilities sit alongside a term loan provided by the UK’s National Wealth Fund and the equity that was raised earlier this year following the Final Investment Decision (FID) for the Suffolk nuclear power plant in July.
In April 2025, the government announced that a further £2.7bn of taxpayer cash had been made available for Sizewell C, bringing the total to £6.4bn ahead of the FID on the nuclear power station.
The agreements on private investment to build the new nuclear power station have been reached through the government agreeing to use the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. RAB works by having consumers pay a surcharge on their bills during the construction phase, which helps lower the cost of capital and reduces the financial risk for investors. This surcharge will be added to bills through the construction and for the first three years of operation. It goes towards paying back the private entities for their investment and, according to the government, will mean lower bills for consumers over the long term. Ofgem, as the regulator, sets the allowed revenue to ensure costs are incurred efficiently and consumers get value for money.
However, University of Greenwich emeritus professor of energy policy Steve Thomas is scptical about this, given that the current official estimate of £38bn to build Sizewell C is at the lower end of the range of likely costs and this is in 2024 prices, with inflation pushing it up all the time.
Additionally, there is no official timeline for construction completion. As has been seen with Hinkley Point C, cost and schedule overruns come with the territory.
He told NCE: “From 1 December 2025, consumers will start to pay a surcharge on the electricity bills to pay for the return being paid to investors (10.8% real) on their equity contribution (35% of the costs) and the interest payments on the loans, expected to be 4.5% (real).
“A bit of arithmetic suggests the surcharge will be split 44% interest payments and 56% rate of return on equity.
“The Low Carbon Contracts Company has said the surcharge in the period up to the end of March 2027 will be £3.54/MWh.”
He added that the £3.54/MWh figure would subsequently be updated annually based on the latest cost calculations.
“Ofgem says the average domestic consumer uses 2,700kWh per year so that amounts to about £9.56 per consumer in the first year,” he said. He believes this could rise to £62.70 per year by the end of the surcharge period.
“The government has said it will recycle its income from the surcharge back to electricity consumers, but we don’t know and nor does the government how it will do this and what proportion of the surcharge it receives will go back to consumers.
“Recycling the income means the government is giving consumers the interest that is paid to the National Wealth Fund on borrowing of £11.8bn and taxpayers are getting no return whatsoever on the £6.4bn they are putting in as equity, so from a taxpayer point of view it is dreadful.
Sizewell C ‘fails miserably’ on transparency – campaigner
Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “If Sizewell C can publicly state it expects the project to cost £38bn, why won’t they tell us when we can expect to see first power?
“Given that the British public is largely paying for Sizewell C through our taxes and energy bills, don’t we have the right to know how long it will take?
“Cynically this sounds like a ‘learning’ from Hinkley Point C – don’t tell people when it will be finished so you can’t be criticised for missing your deadlines. As an exercise in transparency, it fails miserably.”………………. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/sizewell-c-consumers-like-to-see-no-return-on-6-4bn-public-funds-put-in-as-equity-10-11-2025/
US ‘disappointed’ that Rolls-Royce will build UK’s first small modular reactors.
Guardian, 13 Nov 25
As Keir Starmer announces SMRs to be built in Wales, US ambassador says Britain should choose ‘a different path.
Keir Starmer has announced that the UK’s first small modular nuclear reactors will be built in north Wales – but immediately faced a backlash from Donald Trump’s administration after it pushed for a US manufacturer to be chosen.
Wylfa on the island of Anglesey, or Ynys Môn, will be home to three small modular reactors (SMRs) to be built by British manufacturer Rolls-Royce SMR. The government said it will invest £2.5bn.
SMRs are a new – and untested – technology aiming to produce nuclear power stations in factories to drive down costs and speed up installation. Rolls-Royce plans to build reactors, each capable of generating 470 megawatts of power, mainly in Derby.
The government also said that its Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) will report on potential sites for further larger reactors. They would follow the 3.2GW reactors under construction by French state-owned EDF at Hinkley Point C in Somerset and Sizewell C in Suffolk.
The Labour government under Starmer has embraced nuclear energy in the hope that it can generate electricity without carbon dioxide emissions, while also providing the opportunity for a large new export industry in SMRs.
However, it faced the prospect of a row with the US, piqued that its ally had overlooked the US’s Westinghouse Electric Company when choosing the manufacturer for the Wylfa reactors.
Ahead of the publication of the UK announcement, US ambassador Warren Stephens published a statement saying Britain should choose “a different path” in Wales.
“We are extremely disappointed by this decision, not least because there are cheaper, faster and already-approved options to provide clean, safe energy at this same location,” he said.
The Trump administration last month signed an $80bn (£61bn) deal with Westinghouse, which had been struggling financially, to build several of the same larger reactors proposed at Wylfa. Under the terms of that deal, the Trump administration could end up taking a stake in the company……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/13/us-disappointed-that-rolls-royce-will-build-uks-first-small-modular-reactors
1 This Month
29 Jan. Thursday 7-8 p.m. Webinar – World’s Largest Nuclear Station in Port Hope, ON?
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (283)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 