President Trump Urges Iran Protests To Continue, Says ‘Help Is on Its Way’
The president also said he cut off contact with Iranian officials
by Dave DeCamp | January 13, 2026 , https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/13/president-trump-urges-iran-protests-to-continue-says-help-is-on-its-way/
President Trump on Tuesday called for the protests in Iran to continue and said “help is on its way,” suggesting he was making another threat of military intervention.
“Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price,” the president wrote on Truth Social.
The president also said he cut off contact with Iranian officials, a comment that came after he suggested he was open to diplomacy with Tehran. “I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY. MIGA!!!” Trump added.
“MIGA” refers to “Make Iran Great Again,” a slogan Trump used during the 12-day US-Israeli war against Iran back in June 2025 when he floated the idea of regime change in the country. He also recently posed with a “Make Iran Great Again Hat” alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has said the president is ready to kill Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Ali Larijani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, responded to Trump’s post, saying the “names of the main killers of the people of Iran” were the US president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Also on Tuesday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) claimed it disrupted “Israeli-linked terror teams” and seized US-made weapons.
Iranian officials have warned that the US would face a severe response to any attack. “Come and see what will happen to American ships and military bases in the region,” the speaker of Iran’s parliament, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said at a pro-government rally over the weekend.
“Come and burn in the fire of the Iranian nation so severely that it becomes a lasting lesson in history for all oppressive US rulers. Come and find out what will happen to you and to the region,” he added.
Militant Zionist Group Ceasing Operations In New York Following Settlement with Attorney General.
The far-right Zionist organization has agreed to a $50,000 suspended fine that it will only be forced to pay if it violates the terms of the agreement, which require it to stop engaging in organized harassment campaigns encouraging violence and making direct threats against its political opponents.
Although branded as a fringe group on the outskirts of the American Zionist establishment, evidence of the political influence of Betar U.S. became increasingly evident following the return of President Donald J. Trump to the White House.
Betar U.S. has deemed it cannot continue to operate if it is unable to engage in terroristic tactics.
blueapples, Jan 15, 2026, https://ddgeopolitics.substack.com/p/militant-zionist-group-ceasing-operations?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1769298&post_id=184510757&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
By virtue of its standing as the global center of the Jewish diaspora, New York City emerged as the main battleground in the United States for the fight between American Zionists and their opponents amid the deterioration of public support for Israel accelerated by its war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. While critics of the State of Israel participating in widespread protests across the city have been branded as Jihadists by their opponents for protesting against the slaughter of innocent Palestinians at the blood-stained hands of the Israel Defense Forces (”IDF”), it is a pro-Israel group that has been exposed for engaging in a campaign of terrorism in the latest fallout from that ideological conflict. Betar U.S., the American chapter of an international militant organization created by the founder of the Zionist paramilitary the Irgun, has chosen to cease its operations in New York following a settlement with the office of the state’s attorney general after an investigation uncovered systemic campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and political violence led by the group.
In the wake of political unrest across the U.S. beginning in 2024 centered around protests against Israel on the campus of Columbia University, Betar U.S. engaged in organized harassment campaigns of pro-Palestinian protesters and activists, culminating in an investigation against them. The investigation into the organization began in March 2025, following a series of formal complaints made against the group. According to a statement from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James announcing its settlement with Betar, “The Office of the Attorney General investigation determined that Betar U.S. engaged in a pattern of violence and harassment driven by explicit hostility toward protected groups.” The investigation also uncovered that despite registering with the Internal Revenue Service as a nonprofit in 2024, Betar U.S. never registered itself with the New York State Charities Bureau, despite soliciting donations while operating in the state.
The far-right Zionist organization has agreed to a $50,000 suspended fine that it will only be forced to pay if it violates the terms of the agreement, which require it to stop engaging in organized harassment campaigns encouraging violence and making direct threats against its political opponents. Betar U.S. will be required to file annual compliance reports for the next three years proving it has not violated the terms of the settlement to avoid paying the suspended fine. As a result of the settlement, Betar U.S. will dissolve its nonprofit status in New York and has told the attorney general’s office that it intends to cease its operations within the state. Despite agreeing to the settlement, a spokesperson from Betar U.S. has denied any wrongdoing.
Although branded as a fringe group on the outskirts of the American Zionist establishment, evidence of the political influence of Betar U.S. became increasingly evident following the return of President Donald J. Trump to the White House. In late January 2025, shortly after Trump was inaugurated, the far-right Zionist group provided his administration with a list of students participating in anti-Israel protests whose identities it uncovered in order to have them deported from the country. Shortly after being sent that list, President Trump signed an executive order creating a task force against antisemitism. In response to continued protests against Israel, Trump signed another executive order to deport college students and other non-permanent U.S. residents in the country on green cards and visas by equating their participation in the demonstrations with support for terrorism. That decision emboldened Betar U.S. to launch what it named Operation Wrath of Zion as a coordinated doxing campaign to leak the personal details of protesters.
Evidence of the harassment campaigns the New York Attorney General’s office found Betar U.S. to have engaged in has been replete across social media since the group was revived in June 2023, just months before the conflict between Israel and Hamas led to full-scale war in the Gaza Strip following the attacks of October 7th, 2023. The group regularly posted threats on X, going as far as to publish videos of its members committing acts of violence against pro-Palestine protesters. Following a Mossad-led operation dubbed Operation Grim Beeper, in which Israeli intelligence targeted Hezbollah officials by detonating thousands of handheld pagers across Lebanon and Syria, leading to thousands of civilian casualties, Betar U.S. posted videos of its members taking to the streets of New York City to hand-deliver beepers to anti-Israel activists as an intimidation tactic. Jewish anti-Zionist activist Norman Finkelstein was one such critic of Israel whom Betar U.S. targeted in this coordinated harassment campaign, calling him a “fucking Holocaust denying piece of shit” when placing a beeper into the front pocket of his jacket.
Although Betar U.S. targeted pro-Palestinian activists with its militant tactics, the extremist ideology of the group also put it at odds with other Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League. The group accused the ADL of being too lenient on opponents of Israel, creating an irreconcilable schism between the two. The animosity it fostered led to the ADL putting Betar U.S. on its database of extremist groups, making it the only Jewish organization to earn that distinction.
In response to the announcement of its settlement with the New York Attorney General, Betar attempted to distance itself from the renewed attention placed on its militant ideology. “Betar is mainstream Zionism, an organization without which the State of Israel would not exist,” a spokesperson told The Times of Israel. Despite this protestation, Betar is impossible to separate from militant Zionist extremism. The organization was originally established by Ze’ev Jabotinsky in Riga, Latvia in 1923 as a fascist youth movement created to advance his ideology of Revisionist Zionism.
The sect of Revisionist Zionism created by Jabotinsky advocated for the reform of the Zionist ideology in opposition to the left-wing Labor Zionism movement led by the eventual first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben-Gurion. In contrast to Labor Zionism, the ideology of Revisionist Zionism centered around the idea that the Jewish people had the right to sovereignty over the whole of what it saw as the Land of Israel, including the entirety of British Mandatory Palestine and Transjordan. Revisionist Zionism has served as the foundation for the right wing of modern Israeli politics, influencing the creation of the Likud party, now led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the Jewish supremacist Kahanism movement, which the Jewish Power party, led by Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, arose out of.
Jabotinsky was also behind the founding of the Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandatory Palestine from 1931 until years after his death in 1940, when it was eventually absorbed into the IDF following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In its years operating as a Zionist paramilitary, the Irgun was responsible for acts of terrorism against Palestinian Arabs and other groups it labeled as opponents of its Zionist worldview, such as the Deir Yassin Massacre and the King David Hotel Bombing committed against the administrative headquarters of the British authorities of Mandatory Palestine in 1946. Betar served as a recruiting pipeline for the Irgun, in a manner like that in which the Hitler Youth was constructed.
It wasn’t until six years after the Zionist paramilitary was founded by Jabotinsky that the U.S. branch of Betar was established in 1929. Throughout its existence, opposition to its radical ideology and militant tactics had fragmented its operations in America. However, following its latest iteration being established in 2023, support from high-ranking Israeli political leaders has allowed it to flourish. During a visit to the U.S. in September to speak before the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with leaders of Betar U.S. in New York City. Yet, even that tacit support from the Israeli government was not enough to overcome the scrutiny the group has faced due to its militant tactics.
In the wake of the announcement of its settlement with the Office of the New York State Attorney General, Betar U.S. returned to its X account to continue to push propaganda framing itself as a victim of antisemitism. Betar U.S. accused New York Attorney General Letitia James of barring it from operating in the state. In reality, all the attorney general’s office has required of Betar U.S. is to stop targeting its opponents with campaigns of harassment, intimidation, and violence, or face paying a paltry $50,000 fine. That requirement alone was enough for Betar U.S. to voluntarily cease its operations. Given that it postures itself as a mainstream pro-Israel organization, the fact that Betar U.S. has deemed that it cannot continue to operate without engaging in those terroristic tactics is a damning distillation of what Zionism truly stands for.
US Surging Military Assets To the Middle East To Prepare for War With Iran After Trump Postpones Attack
Reports claim that Netanyahu asked Trump to delay the attack as Israel wants more time to prepare for counterattacks
by Dave DeCamp | January 15, 2026, https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/15/us-surging-military-assets-to-the-middle-east-to-prepare-for-war-with-iran-after-trump-postpones-attack/
The US military is planning to surge military assets to the Middle East to prepare for a potential war with Iran after President Trump backed down from bombing the country, according to a report from The New York Times.
US officials told the paper that the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and some warships from its strike group were on their way to the Middle East from the South China Sea, a roughly week-long trip. The US is also planning to send an array of warplanes to the Middle East, including fighter jets and refueling aircraft, and additional air defenses.
According to other media reports, the US military’s message to Trump amid his threats to bomb Iran is that there weren’t enough US assets in the region to face a potential counterattack, which could target the many US bases in the region. Trump was also reportedly told that US strikes likely wouldn’t result in regime change and could lead to a prolonged war.
The Times report also said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump to postpone his plans to attack Iran, and Axios reported the same thing later, saying that Netanyahu wants more time to prepare for Iranian retaliation.
If the reports about Netanyahu’s request are true, it’s likely that he also wants more US military assets in the region since Israel relied on US forces to intercept Iranian missiles during the war back in June 2025, and many still got through and struck Israeli territory, which is what led to Israel agreeing to a ceasefire after 12 days.
On the other hand, the leaks and delays could be meant to keep Iran off guard as the US and Israel engaged in a deception campaign before Israel launched the opening salvo of the 12-Day War.
The White House has claimed that Iran has postponed planned executions due to Trump’s threats and warned that if the “killing” in Iran continues, there will be consequences. However, the unrest in Iran is just the latest pretext for war with Iran.
Iran’s nuclear program was the pretext for launching the 12-Day War, and while meeting with Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago back in December, Trump said he would back an Israeli attack on Iran if Tehran “continues” its conventional missile program. There’s no sign that Iran would even consider limiting its ballistic missiles since they are the Islamic Republic’s only form of deterrence.
Big Tech embraces nuclear, but who will pay the price?—The US turns back to nuclear power
The nuclear power sector can’t survive without subsidies and public guarantees. And that’s what the tech industry is counting on, that’s the only reason they’re talking about reviving nuclear energy
AI’s power demands are vast and growing. The Trump administration wants nuclear reactors to meet them. Whether that’s achievable, and whether communities will accept it, is another matter.
World Nuclear Industry Status Report, 9 January 2026
We passed cranes, vacant lots and one data centre after another, many still under construction. ‘Check that one out, it’s really huge!’ said Ann Bennett, an activist with the environmental organisation Sierra Club, as she drove us through Virginia’s Loudoun and Fairfax counties close to Washington DC. She was critical of this building explosion. ‘That right there’s the cloud. Just look at it, it’s hard to describe.’
She was right. The landscape is dystopian: behind newly erected powerlines, vast windowless buildings in grey, cream or blue line the straight roads. Over and over we passed huge electrical transformers and building sites. It was only June but temperatures were already soaring above 35ºC. Residents of Virginia’s affluent cities were speeding along ‘Data Center Alley’ in big, air-conditioned cars, heading for their offices in DC or the nearby airport.
Virginia has become the world’s leading data centre hub due to its proximity to the US capital, affordable land, tax incentives, abundant electricity and access to undersea cables that connect North America to Europe. The state is home to hundreds of these centres, with a total installed capacity of 6.2 gigawatts (GW) in the first half of 2025 [1]. Virginia’s electricity generation capacity is 29GW, almost half of which comes from gas-fired power plants.
‘What we want to do is we want to keep it [AI] in this country,’ Donald Trump declared in January 2025 as he announced the launch of Stargate, a $500bn private investment project that plans to fund a network of new data centres across the US. ‘China is a competitor and others are competitors.’ Trump acknowledged that these centres would need ‘a lot of electricity’, and suggested combining data centres with energy generation: ‘We’ll make it possible for them to get that production done very easily at their own plants if they want.’ The fossil fuel industry, which gave significant financial funding to Trump’s campaign, has sensed an opportunity: the project offers the ideal excuse for boosting production and stealing a march on renewables.
Three Mile Island accident
The civil nuclear energy sector has been in difficulty in the US since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. Undermined by corruption scandals and the collapse of the reactor manufacturer Westinghouse, the industry has been less generous than fossil fuels to the president. But, backed by tech moguls, it is now benefitting from the AI gold rush. Ralph Nader, former Green Party presidential candidate and a longtime opponent of nuclear power, contends that it is ‘unsafe, uninsurable, uncompetitive and unprotectable in terms of national security’.
Data centres accounted for 1.5% of global electricity usage in 2024. They are often criticised for their consumption, but the International Energy Agency (IEA) points out that although their demand for energy will grow significantly over the next five years, it will remain lower than that of industry, electric vehicles or air conditioning [2]. Ultimately, data centres’ energy hunger is a local issue and their proliferation and geographical concentration combine to pose a problem. The US accounts for 45% of global data centre power demand, well ahead of China (25%) and Europe (15%). The effect is especially pronounced in Virginia, where energy demand remained largely stable between the early 2000s and 2020 but has since rocketed due to data centres.
The nuclear power sector can’t survive without subsidies and public guarantees. And that’s what the tech industry is counting on, that’s the only reason they’re talking about reviving nuclear energy
……………………………According to Brent Goldfarb, co-author of a book on speculative booms and busts, ‘what’s happening right now has all the hallmarks of a bubble. But the situation will continue as long as investors still think they can make money with this technology’. [5]
It’s a bubble that’s being further inflated by the federal government. Large-scale data centre construction has the advantage of boosting an economy hit hard by erratic customs tariffs, high interest rates and the end of some of the Biden-era infrastructure subsidies………………………………..
…………………from a military perspective, tech giants and their data centres support governments by storing and using AI to process vast amounts of information from cameras and sensors on the battlefield – this was the case with Israel’s offensive in Palestine. …………………
……………………Data centre energy unknowns
The capacity of data centres is now measured in gigawatts – the power of a nuclear reactor. But their energy demands are passing on the uncertainties surrounding AI’s future to the energy sector.
………………………….There are additional uncertainties about what counts as a data centre. Finally, the greatest unknown of all is that we don’t know what demand will be………..
………………………………….The figures are mind-boggling. PJM Interconnection, the network regulator covering Virginia and much of the northeastern US, is expecting an increase in electricity demand of almost 500 TWh over the next ten years [9], more than Germany’s annual consumption……………………………
We’re the ones who pay’
……………………………‘The financial and environmental costs of speculative overbuild are substantial. Each gigawatt of unnecessary capacity costs between $1 and $2bn to construct.’ Data centres’ increasing energy demands are already driving up electricity prices in the US, and unnecessary infrastructure could increase the burden. Sierra Club activist Ann Bennett concludes, ‘In the end, we’re the ones who pay.’
In the frenzy to generate more energy, tech leaders are drawn to nuclear power. Bill Gates, cofounder and former CEO of Microsoft, is especially keen: ‘If I had to pick the coolest thing I work on, it’s hard to beat harnessing the power of atoms to fuel our world’ [11]. Gates founded and co-financed TerraPower, a nuclear energy company developing a small modular reactor (SMR). The project is awaiting approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build its first model reactor, in Wyoming. Sam Altman, cofounder and CEO of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, is equally enthusiastic. Until spring 2025 he led a startup also aiming to build an SMR; named Oklo Inc, it was funded by the tech sector. Plans for small nuclear power plants are springing up across the US.
………………………………. technical problems and the high cost of the electricity being produced have prevented SMRs – which China and Russia are also interested in – from becoming truly viable. The authors of a 2018 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report on the future of nuclear power write, ‘The main economic question is whether an SMR can be built at a substantially lower unit capital cost … and therefore generate baseload electricity at lower total unit cost’ [13].
MV Ramana, an expert on nuclear power at the University of British Columbia, says, ‘Historically, we used to build smaller plants, but everyone started building bigger and bigger ones simply to achieve economies of scale.’ The recent failure of the NuScale Power Corporation seems to prove him right: after getting NRC approval for its light water reactor design, the Utah-based project eventually fell through. The budget rose from $5bn to more than $9bn, discouraging investors and causing the project to collapse in 2023 [14]. The nuclear industry sees this as a ‘first-of-a-kind’ (FOAK) effect and promises that prices will fall once entire fleets of reactors are built. But the ‘World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2025’ warns that ‘it is unlikely that there will be significant cost savings because reductions in cost through learning depend in large part on numbers of units produced’ [15].
Dependent on nuclear power
While waiting for the SMR equation to come good, tech giants are banking on traditional nuclear power to reduce costs and lead times. In 2024 Amazon entered into a direct purchase agreement with the operator of the Susquehanna nuclear facility in Pennsylvania. Another solution is bringing old power plants back online. The announcement of the restart of the remaining Three Mile Island reactor, also in Pennsylvania, has caused a stir. Two and a half hours drive north of Washington DC and three hours southwest of New York City, the plant became infamous in 1979 when one of its reactors melted down just a few months after it was commissioned. Following the accident, a hydrogen bubble formed above the reactor core. The possibility of a major explosion spread panic throughout the US and led to people fleeing the affected areas. The episode brought the development of civil nuclear power in the US to a halt….
The site’s second reactor was restarted in 1985 but shut down again in 2019 because it was unprofitable – gas is still king in Pennsylvania. But the reactor is now being revived by Microsoft, which has signed a contract to purchase electricity generated at Three Mile Island for 20 years from 2027. Inspections and initial work have already begun. In Middletown, where the plant is located, a few dozen former activists were horrified by the relaunch. ‘A false sense of urgency has been created to make things go as fast as possible,’ said Eric Epstein. I met him at a picnic spot near the plant, the still-shut cooling towers looming behind us. Epstein is a key figure in Three Mile Island Alert, the largest and oldest local anti-nuclear association. He filed a petition with the NRC against the renaming of the site, which has been dubbed the ‘Crane Clean Energy Center’ in honour of industry pioneer Chris Crane. Epstein calls this ‘bad revisionism’.
I was about 30 at the time of the Three Mile Island accident and had four kids. I’ve had another one since. My main worry was always the health of my family. I don’t see this as question of being pro or anti, Democrat or Republican. I see it as a health issue which has been – and still is – almost completely ignored
These concerns didn’t deter Josh Shapiro, Democratic governor of Pennsylvania and presidential hopeful who readily supported the plant’s recommissioning. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
New reactors in trouble
In the early 2010s, 30 years after the accident, four new reactors were supposed to mark the revival of civil nuclear power in the US. They were to join a fleet of some 50 existing power stations and around a hundred reactors. But long delays and huge cost overruns forced Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017, and it has since been bought out twice. Two further reactors in South Carolina were abandoned mid-construction after wasting billions of dollars in a scandal dubbed ‘Nukegate’. In 2023 and 2024 two reactors were commissioned at the Vogtle plant in Georgia – seven years behind schedule and at a cost of over $30bn, more than twice the initial budget.
Ralph Nader argues that ‘the sector can’t survive without subsidies and public guarantees. And that’s what the tech industry is counting on, that’s the only reason they’re talking about reviving nuclear energy.’ The second Trump administration has understood this. Energy secretary Chris Wright, who was previously CEO of the major fracking company Liberty Energy and a board member of Oklo Inc, has promised that Three Mile Island will receive a $1bn loan guaranteed by the federal government. According to the US press, the total cost of the project will be $1.6bn. Three Mile Island Alert put out a leaflet when the plant’s restart was announced: ‘The greatest subsidy the nuclear industry enjoys is the Price-Anderson Act, which absolves nuclear power companies from legal liability for the vast majority of costs resulting from an accident. Should TMI have another accident, guess who pays? We do.’
On 23 May 2025 Trump signed a series of executive orders aiming to ‘usher in a nuclear renaissance’. He has asked the NRC to speed up its licensing procedures. Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the administration is ‘leading the world towards a future fuelled by American nuclear energy. These actions are critical to American energy independence and continued dominance in AI.’ Kratsios was a senior figure at Thiel Capital, the private equity firm founded by Peter Thiel, chairman of Palantir, a company that specialises in analysing large volumes of data, particularly for military purposes.
Trump’s presidential decrees call for an additional 300GW of electricity from nuclear sources by 2050, and aim to have ten new reactors ‘under construction’ by 2030. Tim Judson, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, says that ‘developing nuclear power plants in the US is actually primarily a way to get back into the international race to sell commercial power stations.’………………………………….
Defence also plays a role in the US drive toward nuclear power. Ramana notes that ‘another reason put forward to justify the development of civil nuclear power is that it subsidises the training of a pool of technicians and engineers who can then be recruited to military nuclear programmes.’
The AI race is spurring the redevelopment of nuclear power. But there are open questions around fuel supply, proliferation, waste management and local attitudes towards facilities. Washington’s wealthy suburbs, already reluctant to host data centres, might baulk at accommodating nuclear reactors – however small – and their waste. Finally, it remains to be seen who will bear the cost of big tech’s energy demands, and which other investments will suffer as a result.
(More…)
References …………………………………………………………… https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Big-Tech-embraces-nuclear-but-who-will-pay-the-price-The-US-turns-back-to
Ontario utility wants to double the asking price of nuclear, while US wants reactors on the moon
Giles Parkinson. Jan 14, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/ontario-utility-wants-to-double-the-asking-price-of-nuclear-while-us-wants-reactors-on-the-moon/
The main power utility in the Canadian province of Ontario has put in a request to nearly double the price of payments its receives for nuclear power, in order to cover the cost of maintenance, upgrades and new projects.
Ontario Power Generation has asked the local regulator – the Ontario Energy Board – to increase the payments for nuclear power to $C207 a megawatt hour ($A222/MWh) from January, 2027, nearly double what it received ($C111.61/MWh) in 2025.
Nuclear accounts for more than half of the generation in Ontario, which is often held up by nuclear advocates as a shining light for Australia to follow, but it faces massive expenses in coming years as it refurbishes its ageing nuclear fleet, and embarks on a program to build four small modular reactors.
The first of these SMRS are expected to be delivered in the early 2030s, and the total cost is currently put at more than $C21 billion. But more money, nearly $C27 billion, is to be spent on refurbishing four existing reactors at Pickering, and yet more on other nuclear upkeep costs.
The huge investment in nuclear is raising concerns among environmental groups and also major energy users, which include steel makers and car companies such as Ford and Toyota.
The Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, says its members are facing “skyrocketing” electricity prices, including a 165 per cent rise in the next three years.
AMPCO president Brad Duguid blames the rising cost of nuclear, and also the heavy price of gas generation which is being used to fill the gap caused by the refurbishment of the old nuclear plants, some of which are scheduled to be offline for three years.
“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he told the Globe and Mail.
“We’re talking about increases in the range of 165 per cent for the market rate over the next three years alone. That’s untenable. That’s an absolute threat to the competitiveness of our industrial sector and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.”
Retail customers are also suffering. Residential power prices jumped 29 per cent in October, although they were partially offset by an increase in government rebates.
The cost of those rebates – which are used by the government in Ontario, as they are in nuclear dependent France, to hide the true cost of nuclear – have jumped to $C8.5 billion a year. Other costs are incorporated in general government debt, critics note.
“This application really confirms that these projects are among the most expensive ways to meet our need for electricity,” said the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, which supports renewables and opposes the nuclear expansion.
“We could expand solar, wind and storage at a fraction of the cost and avoid seeing our power bills go through the roof.
“The Premier’s buddies in the nuclear and gas industries may like his plan for an old school electricity system built around eye-wateringly expensive mega projects. But the people of Ontario are now in for some serious sticker shock.
“This is really the tip of a very big iceberg coming straight at your household budget.”
Meanwhile, the Trump administration across the border has doubled down on its plan, first flagged in August last year, to build a series of nuclear power plants on the moon – by 2030 – and to get them ready for Mars, whenever they get there.
The US Department of Energy and NASA announced on Tuesday that they intended to deploy nuclear reactors on the Moon and in orbit, including the development of a lunar surface reactor by 2030.
Russia has also announced plans to deploy nuclear power on the moon, although it is aiming for 2035.
Newly appointed NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman said the US is committed to returning to the Moon, and making “the next giant leap to Mars” and beyond.
“Achieving this future requires harnessing nuclear power. This agreement enables closer collaboration between NASA and the Department of Energy to deliver the capabilities necessary to usher in the Golden Age of space exploration and discovery,” he said in a statement.
Trump names son-in-law, Rubio, Blair to Gaza ‘Board of Peace’
Jessica Gardner, Jan 17, 2026 , https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/trump-names-son-in-law-rubio-blair-to-gaza-board-of-peace-20260117-p5nuqb
Washington | United States President Donald Trump has named Secretary of State Marco Rubio, his Middle East fixer Steve Witkoff, his son-in-law Jared Kushner and private equity baron Marc Rowan to a Board of Peace to oversee the rehabilitation of wartorn Gaza.
The formation of the board, which will be chaired by Trump, was one of the 20-steps in a peace plan that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the terror group Hamas agreed to in September 2025, which led to the longest enduring ceasefire in the two-year conflict.
A White House statement released on Friday afternoon (Saturday AEDT) named the seven-member executive board, which also includes former British prime minister Sir Tony Blair, World Bank president Ajay Banga and US national security adviser Robert Gabriel.
There are no women on the board, nor are there any Palestinian representatives or leaders from Arab nations.
Each board member will “oversee a defined portfolio critical to Gaza’s stabilisation and long-term success,” the White House said. These responsibilities included governance capacity-building, regional relations, reconstruction, investment attraction, large-scale funding, and capital mobilisation.
Trump has also appointed Major General Jasper Jeffers to command an International Stabilisation Force to “establish security, preserve peace, and establish a durable terror-free environment”.
Trump has previously relied on Witkoff and Kushner as on-the-ground sherpas of his unorthodox style of foreign policy. Witkoff, a former real estate developer, has also been heavily involved in negotiations to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
The two men, as well as Blair and Rowan, the chief executive of $US908 billion ($1.4 trillion) investment giant Apollo Global Management, will also join a Gaza Executive Board responsible for supporting governance and service delivery.
Other members of that board include Turkish Foreign Minster Hakan Fidan, Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi, Egyptian intelligence official Hassan Rashad and United Arab Emirates Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al-Hashimy.
Trump earned praise for his role in persuading Netanyahu to end his military campaign in Gaza, which was sparked by the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by the terror group Hamas, which killed 1200 Israelis and took 250 hostages. Israel’s two-year retaliation led to the death of over 70,000 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians.
The ceasefire led to the return of all living hostages and almost all the remains of those hostages who had been killed.
Witkoff said in a post on social media platform X on Wednesday that the White House was moving into the second phase of Trump’s peace plan, which will include establishing a transitional Palestinian governing committee and beginning the complicated tasks of disarming Hamas and reconstruction.
The United Nations has estimated reconstruction will cost over $US50 billion. This process is expected to take years, and little money has been pledged so far.
Trump’s 20-point plan — which was approved by the U.N. Security Council — lays out an ambitious vision for ending Hamas’ rule in Gaza. If successful, it would see the rebuilding of a demilitarized Gaza under international supervision, the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world, and the creation of a possible pathway to Palestinian independence.
But if the deal stalls, Gaza could be trapped in an unstable limbo for years to come, with Hamas remaining in control of parts of the territory, Israel’s army enforcing an open-ended occupation, and its residents stuck homeless, unemployed, unable to travel abroad and dependent on international aid to stay alive.
The ceasefire took effect on October 10, 2025, although Israeli fire has killed more than 450 Palestinians since then, according to Gaza health officials. Palestinian militants, meanwhile, continue to hold the remains of the last hostage — an Israeli police officer killed in the Hamas-led attack that triggered the war.
Gaza’s population of more than 2 million people has struggled to keep cold weather and storms at bay while facing shortages of humanitarian aid and a lack of more substantial temporary housing, which is badly needed during the winter months.
Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions
Maxime Polleri, Assistant Professor, Université Laval, January 16, 2026 , https://theconversation.com/ontarios-proposed-nuclear-waste-repository-poses-millennia-long-ethical-questions-273181
The heat produced by the radioactive waste strikes you when you enter the storage site of Ontario Power Generation at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, near the shore of Lake Huron in Ontario.
Massive white containers encase spent nuclear fuel, protecting me from the deadly radiation that emanates from them. The number of containers is impressive, and my guide explained this waste is stored on an interim basis, as they wait for a more permanent solution.
I visited the site in August 2023 as part of my research into the social acceptability of nuclear waste disposal and governance. The situation in Ontario is not unique, as radioactive waste from nuclear power plants poses management problems worldwide. It’s too dangerous to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in traditional landfills, as its radioactive emissions remain lethal for thousands of years.
To get rid of this waste, organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency believe that spent fuel could be buried in deep geological repositories. The Canadian government has plans for such a repository, and has delegated the task of building one to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) that’s funded by Canadian nuclear energy producers.
In 2024, NWMO selected an area in northwestern Ontario near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as a potential site for a deep geological repository. Now, a federal review has begun bringing the project closer to potential reality.
Such repositories raise complex ethical questions around public safety, particularly given the millennia-long timescales of nuclear waste: How to address intergenerational issues for citizens who did not produce this waste but will inherit it? How to manage the potential dangers of these facilities amid short-term political cycles and changing public expectations?
While NWMO describes the deep geological repository as the safest way to protect the population and the environment, its current management plan does not extend beyond 160 years, a relatively short time frame in comparison with the lifespan of nuclear waste. This gap creates long-term public safety challenges, particularly regarding intergenerational ethics. There are specific issues that should be considered during the federal review.
NWMO argues that the deep geological repository will bring a wide range of benefits to Canadians through job creation and local investment. Based on this narrative, risk is assessed through a cost-benefit calculus that evaluates benefits over potential costs.
Academics working in nuclear contexts have, however, criticized the imbalance of this calculus, as it prioritizes semi-immediate economic benefits, like job creation, over the long-term potential impacts to future generations.
In many official documents, a disproportionate emphasis on short-term economic benefits is present over the potential dangers of long-term burial. When risks are discussed, they’re framed in optimistic language and argue that nuclear waste burial is safe, low risk, technically sound and consistent with best practices accepted around the world.
This doesn’t take into account the fact that the feasibility of a deep geological repository has not been proven empirically. For the federal review, discussions surrounding risks should receive an equal amount of independent coverage as those pertaining to benefits.
Intergenerational responsibilities and risks
After 160 years, the deep geological repository will be decommissioned and NWMO will submit an Abandonment License application, meaning the site will cease being looked after.
Yet nuclear waste can remain dangerous for thousands of years. The long lifespan of nuclear waste complicates social, economic and legal responsibility. While the communities of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation have accepted the potential risks associated with a repository, future generations will not be able to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk.
Social scientists argue that an “acceptable” risk is not something universally shared, but a political process that evolves over time. The reasons communities cite to decide what risks are acceptable will change dramatically as they face new challenges. The same goes for the legal or financial responsibility surrounding the project over the centuries.
In the space of a few decades, northwestern Ontario has undergone significant municipal mergers that altered its governance. Present municipal boundaries might not be guarantees of accountability when millennia-old nuclear waste is buried underground. The very meaning of “responsibility” may also undergo significant changes.
NWMO is highly confident about the technical isolation of nuclear waste, while also stating that there’s a low risk for human intrusion. Scientists that I’ve spoken with supported this point, stating that a deep geological repository should not be located in an area where people might want to dig.
The area proposed for the Ontario repository was considered suitable because it does not contain significant raw materials, such as diamonds or oil. Still, there are many uncertainties regarding the types of resources people will seek in the future. It’s difficult to make plausible assumptions about what people might do centuries from now.
Communicating long-term hazards
When the repository is completed, NWMO anticipates a prolonged monitoring phase and decades of surveillance. But in the post-operation phase, there is no plan for communicating risks to generations of people centuries into the future. The long time frame of nuclear materials complicates the challenges of communicating hazards. To date, several attempts have surrounded the semiotics of nuclear risk; that is, the use of symbols and modes of communication to inform future generations.
For example, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in New Mexico tried to use various messages to communicate the risk of burying nuclear waste. However, the lifespan of nuclear waste vastly exceeds the typical lifespan of any known human languages.
Some scientists even proposed a “ray cat solution.” The project proposed genetically engineering cats that could change color near radiation sources, and creating a culture that taught people to move away from an area if their cat changed colour. Such projects may seem outlandish, but they demonstrate the difficulties of developing pragmatic long-term ways of communicating risk.
Current governing plans around nuclear waste disposal have limited time frames that don’t fully consider intergenerational public safety. As the Canadian federal review for a repository goes forward, we should seriously consider these shortcomings and their potential impacts on our society. It is crucial to foster thinking about the long-term issues posed by highly toxic waste and the way it is stored, be it nuclear or not.
This Nuclear Renaissance Has a Waste Management Problem
12 Jan, 26, https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2026/01/12/this-nuclear-renaissance-has-a-waste-management-problem/
Three sobering facts about nuclear waste in the United States.
Americans are getting re-excited about nuclear power. President Trump has signed four executive orders aiming to speed up nuclear reactor licensing and quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050. Big tech firms ( e.g. Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta) have signed big contracts with nuclear energy producers to fuel their power-hungry data centers. The federal government has signed a deal with Westinghouse to build at least $80 billion of new reactors across the country. Bill Gates has proclaimed that the “future of energy is sub-atomic”.
It’s easy to see the appeal of nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors generate reliable, 24/7 electricity while generating no greenhouse gas emissions or local air pollution. But these reactors also generate some of the most hazardous substances on earth. In the current excitement around an American nuclear renaissance, the formidable challenges around managing long-lived radioactive waste streams are often not mentioned or framed as a solved problem. This problem is not solved. If we are going to usher in a nuclear renaissance in this country, I hope we can keep three sobering facts top-of-mind.
Fact 1: Nuclear fission generates waste that is radioactive for a very long time.
After 4-6 years of hard work in a commercial fission reactor, nuclear fuel can no longer generate energy efficiently and needs to be replaced. When this “spent” fuel comes out of the reactor it is highly radioactive and intensely hot, so it must be carefully transferred into deep pools where it spends a few years cooling off…
Once cooled, this spent fuel is still not something you want to spend time with because direct exposure is lethal. While most of the radioactivity decays after about 1000 years, some will persist for over a million years. U.S. efforts to site and build a permanent repository for nuclear waste have failed (more on this below). After spending time in the pool, spent fuel is stored on sites of operating or retired reactors in steel canisters or vaults.
Across the country, more than 90,000 metric tons of radioactive fuel is sitting in pools or dry storage at over 100 sites in 39 states. These sites are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and regulated by the EPA. They are designed to be safe! But experts agree that this is an unacceptable long-term waste management situation (see, for example, here, here, and here).
Fact 2: The U.S. has no permanent nuclear waste disposal plan
For more than half a century, the United States has tried—and failed—to find a forever-home for its nuclear waste. Early efforts in the 1960s and 1970s went nowhere. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which laid out a comparative siting process that was designed to be technically rigorous and politically fair. But this process was slow, expensive, and politically exhausting.
By 1987, Congress lost patience, scrapped its own framework, and tried to force the issue by designating Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the chosen one. Nevada’s resistance was relentless. After roughly $15 billion in spending on site development, the Yucca Mountain proposal was finally withdrawn in 2010. As I understand it, these siting efforts did not fail because the location was declared unsafe. They failed because nuclear waste storage siting was being forced on an unwilling community.
In the years since, Blue Ribbon panels, expert advisory groups, and national research councils have been convened. All have reached the same conclusion. The U.S. needs to break the impasse over a permanent solution for commercial spent nuclear fuel and this will require a fair, transparent, and consent-based process.
You might be thinking that spent fuel reprocessing, which is also enjoying an American renaissance right now, could eliminate the need for a geological repository. It’s true that reprocessing breaks spent fuel down to be used again. But in that process, new types of radioactive wastes are created that need to be managed in deep repositories or specialized landfills. This creates a potentially more (versus less) challenging mess to clean up (reprocessing leaders like France are pursuing costly geological repositories for these wastes).
Fact 3: We are actively undermining public trust in the nuclear waste management process
Convincing a community to host thousands of tons of radioactive waste for thousands of years is not easy. But it’s not impossible. Efforts in Sweden, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Canada are starting to find some success.
All of these international success stories share one important feature: a sustained commitment to building public trust in both nuclear industry regulation and the nuclear waste storage siting process. Alas, here in the United States, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.
A series of recent developments make it hard to feel hakuna matata about our nuclear waste management protocols:
- In May, an executive order called for a “wholesale revision” of the NRC directing it to accelerate reactor licensing, reconsider radiation standards, and reduce staffing.
- In June, an NRC commissioner was abruptly fired, prompting a letter from concerned career staff .
- The Department of Energy has pledged to “use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite its environmental reviews for authorizations, permits, approvals, leases, and any other activity requested” by nuclear reactor projects under its supervision.
- The Supreme Court recently ruled that Texas lacks legal standing to challenge NRC approval of a privately operated interim nuclear waste facility, raising questions about state’s abilities to challenge nuclear waste siting decisions.
These developments may ultimately succeed in accelerating nuclear deployment across the United States. But they also undermine the public trust and independent governance that are essential inputs into the building of a long-term nuclear waste management strategy.
Weighing our nuclear options
Taking a step back, it is worth asking why nuclear energy is enjoying such a resurgence in this country right now. The growing availability of low-cost renewables and storage, together with an increasingly flexible demand-side, complicates the claim that nuclear power is some kind of moral climate necessity. There are cheaper ways to decarbonize the grid.
The renewed push for nuclear energy is not really about climate necessity. It seems to be driven by anxiety about reliability in a strained power system, industrial policy aimed at rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity, and the commercial interests of firms chasing revenue streams tied to data centers and federal support. This nuclear revival trades off today’s politically urgent reliability concerns for a long-term obligation to manage radioactive waste (along with some low-probability risk of catastrophic failure). If that’s the trade off we want to make, we should understand that a nuclear renaissance without a viable long-term waste management plan saddles future generations with the messy consequences of our policy choices.
Spectral Threats: China, Russia and Trump’s Greenland Rationale
Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort.
“There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,”
“Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
14 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/spectral-threats-china-russia-and-trumps-greenland-rationale/
The Trump administration’s mania about Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, is something to behold. Its untutored thuggery, its brash assertiveness, and the increasingly strident threats to either use force, bully Denmark into a sale of the island, or simply annex the territory, have officials and commentators scrambling for theories and precedents. The Europeans are terrified that the NATO alliance is under threat from another NATO member. The Greenlanders are anxious and confused. But the ground for further action by Washington is being readied by finding threats barely real and hardly plausible.
The concerns about China and Russia seizing Greenland retells the same nonsense President Donald Trump promoted in kidnapping the Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. Looking past the spurious narcoterrorism claims against the former leader, it fell to the issue of who would control the natural resources of the country. If we don’t get Venezuelan oil now and secure it for American companies, the Chinese or the Russians will. he gangster’s rationale is crudely reductionist, seeing all in a similar veinThe obsession with Beijing and Moscow runs like a forced thread through a dotty, insular rationale that repels evidence and cavorts with myth: “We need that [territory],” reasons the President, “because if you take a look outside Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place. We are not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” On Denmark’s military capabilities in holding the island against any potential aggressor, Trump could only snort with macho dismissiveness. “You know what their defence is? Two dog sleds.”
This scratchy logic is unsustainable for one obvious point. Were Russia or China to attempt an occupation of Greenland through military means, Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty would come into play, obliging NATO member states, including the United States, to collectively repel the effort. With delicious perversity, any US effort to forcibly acquire the territory through use of force would be an attack on its own security, given its obligations under the Treaty. In such cases, it becomes sound to assume, as the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen does, that the alliance would cease to exist.
Such matters are utterly missed by the rabidly hawkish Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who declared that, “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” It was up to the US “to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests” in incorporating Greenland. To take territory from a NATO ally was essentially doing it good.
Given that the United States already has a military presence on the island at the Pituffik Space Base, and rights under the 1951 agreement that would permit an increase in the number of bases should circumstances require it, along with the Defence Cooperation Agreement finalised with Copenhagen in June 2025, much of Miller’s airings are not merely farcical but redundant. Yet, Trump has made it clear that signatures and understandings reflected in documents are no substitute for physically taking something, the thrill of possession that, by its act, deprives someone else of it. “I think ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty,” he told the New York Times. “Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
What, then, of these phantom forces from Moscow and Beijing, supposedly lying in wait to seize the frozen prize? “There are no Russian and Chinese ships all over the place around Greenland,” states the very convinced research director of the Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Andreas Østhagen. “Russia and/or China has no capacity to occupy Greenland or to take control over Greenland.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen is similarly inclined. “The image that’s being painted of Russian and Chinese ships right inside the Nuuk fjord and massive Chinese investments being made is not correct.” Senior “Nordic diplomats” quoted in the Financial Times add to that version, even if the paper is not decent enough to mention which Nordic country they come from. “It is simply not true that the Chinese and Russians are there,” said one. “I have seen the intelligence. There are no ships, no submarines.” Vessel tracking data from Marine Traffic and LSEG have so far failed to disclose the presence of Chinese and Russian ships near the island.
Heating engineer Lars Vintner, based in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, wondered where these swarming, spectral Chinese were based. “The only Chinese I see,” he told Associated Press,“ is when I go to the fast food market.” This sparse presence extends to the broader security footprint of China in the Arctic, which remains modest despite a growing collaboration with Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. These have included Arctic and coast guard operations, while the Chinese military uses satellites and icebreakers equipped with deep-sea mini submarines, potentially for mapping the seabed.
However negligible and piffling the imaginary threat, analysts, ever ready with a larding quote or a research brief, are always on hand to show concern with such projects as Beijing’s Polar Silk Road, announced in 2018, which is intended as the Arctic extension of its transnational Belt and Road initiative. The subtext: Trump should not seize Greenland, but he might have a point. “China has clear ambitions to expand its footprint and influence in the region, which it considers… an emerging arena for geopolitical competition.” Or so says Helena Legarda of the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin.
The ludicrous nature of Trump’s claims and acquisitive urges supply fertile material for sarcasm. A prominent political figure from one of the alleged conquerors-to-be made an effort almost verging on satire. “Trump needs to hurry up,” mocked the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former President Dmitry Medvedev. “According to unverified information, within a few days, there could be a sudden referendum where all 55,000 residents of Greenland might vote to join Russia. And that’s it!” With Trump, “that’s it” never quite covers it.
TerraPower and Meta partner on Natrium nuclear plants
The agreement launches early work on two initial units and secures Meta rights to energy from six more, marking the tech giant’s largest investment in advanced nuclear energy to date.
erraPower and Meta have agreed to develop up to eight Natrium nuclear reactor and energy storage system plants in the United States, a move that could supply Meta with up to 2.8 gigawatts of carbon-free baseload energy. With the Natrium system’s built-in energy storage, total output could be increased to as much as 4 gigawatts.
The agreement supports early development of two initial Natrium units and gives Meta rights to energy from up to six additional units. Each reactor provides 345 MW of baseload power and can ramp up to 500 MW for more than five hours. A dual-unit site could deliver up to 690 MW of firm power and as much as 1 GW of dispatchable electricity.
The companies said delivery of the first units could begin as early as 2032. They also plan to identify a site for the initial dual-reactor project in the coming months.
Is a deep geological repository (DGR) for IGNACE a good idea?
I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!
| Frank Greening, 13 Jan 26 |
Questioning the wisdom of NWMO’s plan for a used fuel DGR to be constructed near Ignace in Northern Ontario, in view of the issues presented below:
From the Project description document AMP-REP-05000-0211-R000
11. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT
An estimated 5.9 million bundles of used fuel will be processed in the UFPP over its operational lifetime of approximately 50 years (about 120,000 used fuel bundles per year). On average, per the current conceptual reference design, 10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday, or approximately 2,500 UFCs each year.
To achieve this throughput, the UFPP is likely to incorporate multiple processing lines. Based on annual shipping (receipt) assumptions, the maximum number of certified transportation packages received at the UFPP in any given year is estimated to be approximately 885, holding between 120 and 192 used fuel bundles in each certified transportation package. The UFPP is designed to receive and process up to five certified transportation packages each day.
I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!
Closely related to the issue of shipping costs, is the additional problem of the high probability of inclement weather along Highway 17 from November to March each year. It appears that NWMO’s approach to dealing with this issue is simply to limit used fuel shipments to Ignace to just 9 months per year. However, this is barely adequate, given the common occurrence of snow storms along Highway 17 from as early as October to as late as April each year. Indeed, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment states in reference to winter driving on Highway 17: “Expect snowfall amounts of 10 –15 cm; reduced visibility due to snow and blowing snow; icy and slippery surfaces, and quickly changing and deteriorating travel conditions”.
This clearly shows the severity of the winter weather for the township of Ignace, with heavy snowfall dominating the months from November to March. Interestingly, NWMO has stated – See NWMO Report APM-REP-00440-0209-R001, issued September 2021 – that moving used nuclear fuel by truck to Ignace would mean “two to three shipments a day for approximately nine months of the year”. It is not clear why NWMO stipulates shipments being made for only 9 months per year, but this is presumably to allow for three months of inclement weather.
However, as previously noted, meteorological data for Ignace indicate that heavy snow is possible for this region from November to March, which is five months, not three! In addition, one is left wondering what happens at the DGR site for the three months when there are no used fuel shipments. Indeed, this lack of shipments is inconsistent with NWMO’s assertion, previously noted in this email, that “10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday. I would like someone to explain how this will happen over winter, when NWMO admits there will be no used fuel shipments for at least three months each year, (December, January and February?). What will workers at the used fuel packaging plant do when there are no UFC’s to process?
Highway 17 in Northern Ontario has earned a reputation for frequent accidents, particularly involving heavy trucks. In 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported over 9,100 collisions involving large trucks across the province, with 71 fatalities — many occurring on routes like Highway 17. Addressing the issues plaguing Highway 17 requires more than incremental fixes—it demands a transformative overhaul. Experts and residents alike stress the need for substantial investments to bring this critical corridor up to modern standards. Proposals extend far beyond doubling lanes or adding passing areas, emphasizing winter-specific design improvements, enhanced lane visibility, and the permanent operation of weigh stations with robust enforcement to eliminate unsafe vehicles. Rest stops must be expanded and maintained year-round to provide safe havens for drivers, particularly during extreme weather. Furthermore, the integration of advanced monitoring systems, including traffic cameras and real-time condition updates, is essential for proactive safety management of this Highway. Only through a comprehensive and bold approach can Highway 17 meet the safety, accessibility, and efficiency needs of the communities and industries it serves. Without such improvements to Highway 17, NWMO’s plan to build a DGR near Ignace is both reckless and potentially very dangerous!
NWMO’s nonchalant approach to the selection of a site for a used fuel DGR is deeply concerning. Just because the residents of a small northern Ontario town are willing to host a DGR does NOT make it the best possible option for Canada. And let’s remember that, once the site selection is made, it’s not just for a while, but in perpetuity!
Navajo lands at risk
by beyondnuclearinternational, https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2026/01/11/navajo-lands-at-risk/
New proposal is extraction not remediation, warns the Navajo group, Dooda Disa
More than 500 abandoned uranium mines (AUMs) contaminate the Navajo Nation, and genuine cleanup is urgently needed. But cleanup must be grounded in strict environmental oversight, transparency, and full community consultation. A proposal now being advanced by Navajo Nation EPA (NNEPA) Executive Director Stephen Etsitty, in partnership with DISA Technologies, is being marketed as AUM remediation when DISA’s High-Pressure Slurry Ablation (HPSA) system does not clean up Navajo land—it extracts uranium for commercial sale while leaving radioactive waste behind.
Etsitty told the Albuquerque Journal he was “really excited” that the process could “accelerate the cleanup” and said “the Navajo Nation is investing roughly $3 million” in a commercial-scale test —all of which is misleading. Even calling HPSA “remediation” is whitewashing, because the technology is strictly a uranium-extraction process.
On January 6, 2025, he introduced Resolution ENAC-12-2025-049 at the Eastern Navajo Agency Council (6) that asks the Navajo Nation to enter into a commercial partnership with DISA in order to apply for DOE critical-minerals grants—an extraction initiative, not a cleanup program. It provides no site information, no environmental safeguards, and no cost details, yet seeks approval for a commercial partnership structured around uranium extraction rather than cleanup.
The Truth About DISA and HPSA
In 2023, the EPA commissioned Tetra Tech to test HPSA on waste from three Navajo AUM sites: Old Church Rock Mine (OCRM), Quivira Church Rock-1, and the Cove Transfer Station (CTS-2). Over two weeks, small batches of contaminated waste were run through a pilot-scale HPSA unit. The system blasts rock with high-pressure water to create slurry, then separates it into a coarse fraction and a fines fraction. The fines—about 17% of the material—contain 80–95% of the uranium and radium that DISA intends to ship to the White Mesa Mill and sell to Energy Fuels. The coarse fraction is waste that remains radioactive and may be left onsite, buried, or sent to a disposal site that does not exist.
The results are unequivocal: HPSA did not meet Navajo Nation residential cleanup standards because the coarse waste rock left behind is still too radioactive. At each site, the process removed 80–95% of the uranium and concentrated it into the fines fraction (1), but the remaining coarse material still fails cleanup standards. At OCRM, rock that began at 940 mg/kg uranium—milligrams of uranium per kilogram of soil—was reduced only to 47 mg/kg, still far above the Navajo residential cleanup standard of 3.2 mg/kg. The report notes that meeting Navajo standards would require 99.7% uranium removal, which HPSA never achieved. The study shows that HPSA concentrates uranium for extraction but does not produce coarse waste rock clean enough to meet Navajo residential standards. It documents uranium extraction, not cleanup.
Environmental Review, Licensing, and the FONSI
After the field tests, DISA quickly sought federal licensing. On March 28, 2025, the company applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a multi-site “service provider” license. NRC issued a Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 5, 2025, opened a brief comment period, and finalized both documents by September 25, 2025.
This speed was possible only because Trump-era changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) weakened requirements for thorough environmental review. NRC’s FONSI rests on assumptions—not Navajo-specific data—about water use, dust, trucking, and waste left onsite. HPSA has never been tested at commercial scale. NRC ultimately granted DISA a multi-state, non–site-specific generic license requiring only a pilot program and a Pre-Mobilization Notification (PMN) before work at any site. If the assumptions in the FONSI are not met, the PMN could trigger a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), but this is unlikely given the current administration’s broad weakening of environmental oversight.
Water Use, Energy, Waste, and Trucks
The Tetra Tech study relied on municipal water from Gallup because no Navajo source was available. A scaled-up 50-ton-per-hour HPSA system would use about 200,000 gallons of water per month; a 100-ton-per-hour system, roughly 384,000 gallons—requiring two to four water trucks per day. Each operating campaign ends with 32,000–54,000 gallons of contaminated process water that must be disposed of or transported to another AUM site.
For every 100 tons processed, HPSA generates about 17 tons of fines—the uranium-rich concentrate DISA intends to ship to White Mesa—and roughly 83 tons of coarse waste rock, which remains on the land or must be hauled to a disposal site that does not exist.
Energy demand is also heavy. A 100-TPH system requires two 500-kilowatt diesel generators running continuously, ensuring constant deliveries of diesel fuel and the need for onsite fuel storage—none of which were meaningfully evaluated in the EA, FONSI, or license.
In practice, the project would rely on three continuous streams of truck traffic: water trucks, diesel fuel trucks, and haul trucks carrying uranium-laden fines through Navajo lands to the White Mesa Mill in Utah—transport that is prohibited under the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005.
Who Profits—and Who Bears the Risk
Under federal law, all Navajo trust land is held by the United States, which controls the mineral rights. Once uranium is extracted from AUM waste, it becomes “source material” that DISA—not the Navajo Nation—may own, transport, and sell under its NRC license. Uranium recovered from high-grade AUM sites could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars—benefiting DISA and Energy Fuels, not the families who have lived with contamination for generations.
Whatever commercial partnership Etsitty envisions with DISA is not clear. DISA needs the partnership to obtain Navajo consent to access sites and conduct business, but what does the Navajo Nation receive in return? Why should the Nation take on the risk while giving up control over Navajo land? The reality is that DISA, a startup with limited funding, cannot even afford to conduct the required pilot itself. That is why Etsitty is asking the Navajo Nation to finance the pilot for $3 million—so DISA can prove its own extraction technology while keeping the uranium and the long-term profits.
What Happens Next—and What Navajo Nation Can Still Do
The question is not whether AUMs should be cleaned up—they must be. The real question is whether DISA should be entrusted with that work. Should the Navajo Nation pay to enter into a commercial partnership with a high-risk company using an unproven technology under the false banner of “cleanup”? All available evidence—the Tetra Tech study, DISA’s own descriptions of HPSA, and NRC’s licensing structure—shows the same thing: this is a mining project, not a cleanup program.
The bottom line is that the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005 bans uranium mining and processing on Navajo land. Extracting uranium from AUM waste for commercial sale is mining, whether the feedstock is called “ore” or “waste,” and is therefore prohibited.
Dooda Disa is a community-based grassroots group dedicated to providing accurate information, raising awareness, and protecting Navajo lands and communities from renewed uranium extraction disguised as cleanup.
Bill Gates-backed ‘Cowboy Chernobyl’ nuclear reactor races toward approval in Wyoming
For longtime Wyoming resident Steve Helling, the risks outweigh the promises.
“Wyoming is being used as a guinea pig for this nuclear experiment,”
By Samantha Olander, Jan. 10, 2026
A Bill Gates-backed nuclear reactor dubbed “Cowboy Chernobyl” by critics is barreling toward approval in rural Wyoming, alarming residents and nuclear safety experts as regulators fast-track the project under a Trump-era order.
TerraPower, founded by the Microsoft guru, is seeking federal approval to build the western hemisphere’s first Natrium nuclear reactor in Kemmerer, a coal town of roughly 2,000 people near the Utah border and about two hours north of Salt Lake City.
The plant would use liquid sodium rather than water to cool the reactor, a design pitched as safer and more efficient.
Critics say it introduces new risks while cutting corners on containment.
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission completed its final safety evaluation in December, concluding there were no issues that would block issuance of a construction permit.
The five-member commission is expected to vote on the permit later this month. TerraPower still needs a separate operating license before the reactor can run.
Local residents say the fast pace has left them uneasy.
“We’re probably two hours away from that place when it comes to how long it takes the wind to get here,” Patrick Lawien of Casper told the Daily Mail. “Obviously, if anything goes wrong, it’s headed straight for us.”
TerraPower began building the non-nuclear portion of the 44-acre site in June 2024, near the retired Naughton coal plant, which shut down at the end of 2025.
The company says the reactor will generate 345 megawatts of power, with the ability to reach 500 megawatts during peak demand. It aims to have the plant operating by 2030………………………………………
uclear watchdogs say speed is the problem.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, says TerraPower’s design omits the traditional concrete containment structure used at U.S. nuclear plants.
The company instead proposes “functional containment,” which relies on internal engineered systems to perform containment functions rather than a physical containment building.
“The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl,’” said Edwin Lyman, the group’s director of nuclear power safety.
Lyman warned that if containment proves inadequate later, it would be nearly impossible to add a traditional containment structure once construction begins.
He also criticized the sodium cooling system.
“Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power,” Lyman said….
Concerns intensified after the NRC wrapped up its review months ahead of its original schedule.
The accelerated timeline followed an executive order signed by Donald Trump in May directing federal agencies to fast-track advanced nuclear reactor approvals,
TerraPower applied for its construction permit in March 2024 and received preliminary approval in December, well ahead of its initial August 2026 target.
For longtime Wyoming resident Steve Helling, the risks outweigh the promises.
“Wyoming is being used as a guinea pig for this nuclear experiment,” Helling told the Daily Mail. “Wyoming has everything I could want, beauty, clean air, clean water, wildlife, abundant natural resources.”
He said he worries about the long-term cost of disposing of nuclear waste decades down the road, as the U.S. still lacks a permanent storage solution.
Some states, including California and Connecticut, prohibit new nuclear plant construction unless the federal government establishes a long-term solution for radioactive waste storage.
Ontario Power Generation seeks rate increase for electricity from nuclear plants
Matthew McClearn, 13 Jan, 26 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-ontario-power-generation-rate-increase-application-electricity-nuclear
The Pickering Nuclear Generation Station in January, 2020. In November the Ontario government approved the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at the station.
Ontario Power Generation is seeking a near-doubling of payments it receives for electricity produced by its nuclear power plants, a request that could lead to surging power bills.
In a rate application submitted to the Ontario Energy Board in December, OPG requested payments of nearly $207 dollars per megawatt hour produced by its nuclear power stations beginning Jan. 1, 2027, roughly double what it received as recently as last year. It seeks similar amounts for each year through 2031.
OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly said the sought rates would cause a typical residential customer’s payments to rise by roughly 2.4 per cent annually in each of the next five years.
Ontario has generated roughly half of its power in recent years from its Darlington, Pickering and Bruce nuclear stations. (The latter is operated by private power producer Bruce Power and is not part of OPG’s application.) Energy Minister Stephen Lecce is pursuing an aggressive expansion of the reactor fleet to meet an expected surge in demand for electricity between now and mid-century, which includes plans to build large new multi-reactor stations.
Chelsea McGee, a spokesperson for Mr. Lecce, referred an interview request from The Globe and Mail to the OEB and OPG.
The requested payment increases require the board’s approval. OEB spokesperson Tom Miller said it would be inappropriate to comment on OPG’s application because it is before a panel of commissioners. Mr. Miller said it will be adjudicated later this year.
Made in Canada: Inside an urban Toronto facility making uranium fuel for CANDU reactors
OPG is entering a period of intense capital spending. Last year, it began constructing the first of four new small modular reactors at its Darlington station, with an estimated cost of $20.9-billion. OPG said that project accounts for about one-quarter of the sought payment increases.
Far more consequential, at 60 per cent of the payment increase, is the $26.8-billion refurbishment of four aging reactors at Pickering station. The government approved that overhaul in November; it’s expected to wrap up in the mid-2030s.
OPG is also spending to refurbish many of its hydroelectric stations.
“Every investment in the application has been carefully evaluated, planned prudently and designed to provide long-term value to Ontarians,” Mr. Kelly wrote in a statement.
Mark Winfield, a professor at York University’s environmental faculty, said that because OPG’s projects have been approved by the government, the OEB has little room to disallow the payment increases sought by the utility.
“They can’t really say no to OPG,” he said.
“The system runs by political fiat, and all the agencies are basically mandated to fulfill the minister’s will.”
Ontario to spend $1.5-billion on underwater electricity cable from nuclear plant to Toronto
Ontario’s residential electricity rates previously increased 29 per cent on Nov. 1. The OEB attributed those hikes to “higher-than-expected generation costs” as well as increased spending on conservation programs, but it provided few additional details. Those rate hikes were largely offset by a 23.5-per-cent increase in the Ontario Electricity Rebate, a taxpayer-funded instrument the government uses to provide relief on residential power bills.
The Globe twice requested interviews with OEB officials in December to explore the role rising nuclear costs played in the Nov. 1 rate increases. Mr. Miller denied those requests but agreed to answer questions by e-mail. The Globe sent questions to the OEB on Jan. 5, but had not received responses by late Monday.
A report by Power Advisory LLC, a consultancy that performed work for the OEB related to the Nov. 1 rate increases, attributed them partly to “higher-than-expected nuclear generation.” That report noted payments for OPG’s nuclear generation rose to $123.76 per megawatt hour in 2026, as compared with $111.61 per megawatt hour last year.
The current trajectory for power rates has attracted concern from the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, which represents industrial power users including automakers Ford Motor Co. and Toyota Motor Corp., and steel producers Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco.
AMPCO president Brad Duguid said the province has no choice but to overhaul and expand its nuclear fleet – a decision he argued will preserve the provincial grid’s reliability. But he’s concerned that industrial power rates are already “skyrocketing” for AMPCO’s members – increases he mainly attributed to rising natural gas generation as reactors are taken offline for refurbishment.
“Over the next seven to 10 years, we’re seeing significant increases in the market energy rates to make up that difference,” he said.
“We’re talking about increases in the range of 165 per cent for the market rate over the next three years alone. That’s untenable. That’s an absolute threat to the competitiveness of our industrial sector and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports.”
Ottawa, Ontario pledge combined $3-billion for new nuclear reactors
Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, attributed the hikes directly to the government’s nuclear expansion and predicted the situation will only worsen.
“It’s just absurd to be investing in high-cost nuclear,” he said.
“It’s going to push up rates, make life less affordable for hard-working families and make Ontario’s businesses less competitive.”
York University’s Mr. Winfield said the government has four options to address the upward pressure on electricity rates. First, it can allow them to rise, but that would undermine affordability and could stall electrification of Ontario’s economy.
The government could also further increase subsidies such as the Ontario Energy Rebate. But at a total annual cost “of $8.5-billion per year, this has to be already at or near the limits of fiscal feasibility,” Mr. Winfield wrote in an e-mail.
Another option is to reconsider the province’s electricity plans to focus on lower-cost options. Finally, the government could conceal the additional costs as debt, a choice previous governments pursued.
Electricity rates are also rising sharply in many other jurisdictions across North America, including ones with little or no nuclear generation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, average residential rates across the United States increased 5 per cent for the year ended Oct. 31, reaching nearly 18 US cents per kilowatt hour.
Senate Republicans edging toward War Powers Resolution to curb Trump’s crazed Venezuelan war
Walt Zlotow West Suburban Peace Coalition Glen Ellyn IL, 11 Jan 26
In a rare pushback to one of Trump’s many illegal wars, 5 Senate Republicans joined all 47 Democrats to advance a War Powers Resolution to prevent President Trump from launching another attack on Venezuela without congressional authorization.
The procedural vote allows passage of the Senate resolution next week by simple majority (no filibuster allowed). Once approved it will go to the House where it’s also likely to pass. Alas, it’s unlikely to receive a veto proof majority, meaning it’s sure to be vetoed by war loving Trump who made Venezuela the seventh country he’s bombed in his first year of term two.
However, it might make Trump pause. In 2019 Congress passed a War Powers Resolution against Trump’s support of Saudi Arabia’s war on Yemen. Tho Trump vetoed it, he did cease refueling Saudi bombers shortly thereafter. We can only hope it may give him pause on further Venezuelan military action.
The vote is significant because it reverses the Venezuelan War Powers Resolution that failed last November when only 2 Senate Republicans joined the 47 Democrats voting in favor of returning the war power responsibility to Congress.
Trump howled in protest, clamoring that all 5 Republicans who vote against unilateral presidential war making should never be reelected to Congress.
Let’s hope more Senate and House Republicans will pivot from giving Trump unchecked war making power. Hopefully, they understand that even their MAGA base is not enamored of endless, senseless warfare while the economy remains gloomy for everyone but the billionaire class
1 This Month
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 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- 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 