Europe’s heatwave strains nuclear output

To date, six NPPs across Europe are closed or facing power reductions due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels, as operators respond to environmental and cooling water constraints.
July 31, 2026, https://www.power-technology.com/news/europes-heatwave-strains-nuclear-output/?cf-view
t least ten nuclear reactors have been temporarily shut down or had their power output curtailed across Europe due to severe heatwaves and critically low river levels during June and July.
While no plants have been directly closed by wildfires, the Sizewell B nuclear power station in the UK has been placed on “high alert” due to a major 100-acre wildfire burning just four miles away.
The vast majority of disruptions have occurred in France, where state-owned EDF is legally bound to close reactors or reduce power to prevent discharged cooling water from pushing river temperatures past environmental thresholds. A record-breaking drought has caused the Danube River to drop to historic lows, affecting nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Switzerland’s Beznau NPP has also been impacted.
As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.
In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.
As of 30–31 July 2026, there are six NPPs across Europe that are closed or facing power reductions, affecting around 15 reactors. In France, unit two at the Golfech NPP was fully shut down on 30 July 2026 as Garonne River temperatures surged. Units 3.4 and five at the Bugey NPP are under forced output curbs. EDF has ramped down both reactors at the Nogent-sur-Seine NPP to prevent overheating the Seine. Saint Alban units one and two (Rhône River) and Blayais units one and three (Gironde Estuary) have faced rolling curtailments over the past two weeks.
In Hungary, unit three at the Paks NPP is completely offline, unit one is heavily throttled and the entire 2GW-electrical plant is in a 72-hour countdown to a complete shutdown because the Danube has dropped below intake pump levels. In Romania, unit one at the Cernavoda NPP has been completely disconnected from the grid, and unit two is fluctuating under critical, hour-by-hour output restrictions.
Bulgaria has classified the current crisis as a force majeure event, noting that the river is continuing to drop by up to 2cms every day. In response, the Kozloduy plant has deployed emergency “special measures”, including riverbed dredging and the preparation of secondary pumps to try and keep the intake channels clear enough to avert an immediate blackout.
Switzerland’s Beznau NPP on the Aare River has been heavily disrupted, cycling between full emergency shutdowns and massive 50% power cuts over the past month. Both reactors were taken completely off the grid on 26 June when the Aare River first spiked to the 25°C threshold, and remained offline for several weeks. They are currently capped at roughly 50% of normal generation capacity to limit environmental thermal pollution.
Grid operators are replacing the missing nuclear electricity using a mix of fossil fuel generation, rapid energy imports, solar surges and mandated demand-reduction tactics.
A Kansas Town Is Split Over Plans to Bury a Nuclear Reactor a Mile Underground.

“This is a nuclear experiment,” Reynolds said. She questions how the company will perform maintenance so far underground, why drillers are operating under oil-and-gas regulations rather than nuclear-specific rules, and what happens to the site if Deep Fission goes out of business.
026-07-30, https://finance.biggo.com/news/1fb78f6c-786f-4381-be62-937bfa684157
Deep Fission, a California startup, plans to operate the first commercial nuclear reactor a mile underground in Parsons, Kansas, by 2027 or 2028. The project has raised $150 million and is part of a DOE pilot program to fast-track advanced reactors amid surging AI-driven electricity demand. The company says deep burial eliminates the need for costly containment buildings, with each 15-megawatt reactor powering 12,000 homes. However, the plan has sharply divided the town of 9,600. Opponents, including local group Prairie Dog Alliance and watchdog Beyond Nuclear, warn of environmental risks and insufficient oversight, while supporters view it as a vital economic spark for the struggling rural community. The project faces regulatory hurdles and broader questions about nuclear waste storage underground.
An ambitious plan to bury a commercial nuclear reactor a mile beneath a small Kansas town is pitting residents who see a coming economic renaissance against those who fear their community is being turned into a testing ground for an unproven experiment. The project, spearheaded by a California startup founded by a father-daughter team, would be the first time a commercial reactor has ever been operated so far underground.
Deep Fission, the company behind the so-called Gravity Reactor, has already drilled one test hole on the outskirts of Parsons—a rural community of 9,600 people roughly midway between Kansas City and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The firm, founded by Chief Executive Liz Muller and her father Richard Muller, an emeritus professor of physics at University of California, Berkeley, has raised roughly $150 million in the past year, with $40 million of that earmarked for the Parsons work. The startup plans to send a canister loaded with nuclear fuel into a third borehole to heat water deep underground and generate electricity on the surface as early as 2027 or 2028, a timeline that is remarkably short by industry standards.
“It’s allowing us to develop a first reactor within a time frame that had been unthinkable previously,” Liz Muller told The Wall Street Journal.
The reactor design relies on well-established pressurized water technology, but its innovation lies in its location. By operating a mile underground, Deep Fission argues it can eliminate some of the most expensive components of conventional nuclear plants. The immense pressure from rock and water at that depth would replace costly safety structures like massive containment buildings and complex cooling systems. Each reactor would generate 15 megawatts of electricity from inside a 30-inch borehole, enough to power roughly 12,000 homes. However, Muller’s long-term vision is far larger: an array of 100 or more reactors providing over a gigawatt of power, enough to supply a major data center.
Federal push meets local pushback
The Parsons project is one of 11 in a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) pilot program designed to accelerate the development and testing of small, advanced reactors. Participating companies can fast-track environmental review procedures and construct reactors outside of traditional national laboratory settings. The initiative is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to spur a “nuclear renaissance,” aiming to quadruple America’s nuclear-power generation by 2050 amid skyrocketing electricity demand driven largely by data centers for artificial intelligence.
But the expedited process has drawn sharp criticism from nuclear watchdogs and local advocacy groups. Earlier this year, a coalition of state attorneys general challenged the DOE’s new categorical exclusion for advanced nuclear reactors, arguing it bypasses rigorous environmental review and weakens public safety protections.
“It’s simply unacceptable to even consider exempting Deep Fission from a peer-reviewed environmental impact statement on the generation of high-level nuclear waste under Parsons,” said Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear, a group that opposes nuclear power and weapons.
The Energy Department has stated that the administration remains focused on safety and security.
In Parsons, the divide is stark. When Deep Fission broke ground in December at the Great Plains Industrial Park, a decommissioned U.S. Army ammunition base, many residents were caught off guard by the lack of public discussion. Marjorie Reynolds, a pediatric nurse and seventh-generation Kansan, quickly formed a nonprofit called the Prairie Dog Alliance to oppose the project. Its logo features a prairie dog inside a black-and-yellow nuclear symbol.
“This is a nuclear experiment,” Reynolds said. She questions how the company will perform maintenance so far underground, why drillers are operating under oil-and-gas regulations rather than nuclear-specific rules, and what happens to the site if Deep Fission goes out of business.
Jerel Johnson, an IT professional who had planned to retire in Parsons, voiced a similar frustration. “I put $125,000 into my house, and now a nuclear reactor is coming to town. I can’t think of a worse idea.”
Liz Muller has pushed back against the environmental concerns, stating that the reactor is far too deep to affect underground aquifers and that the company will follow all nuclear and oil-and-gas regulations. Because the reactors are expected to last six to seven years with few moving parts, she added, the likelihood of requiring maintenance is low. “We have simplified our reactor quite extensively,” she said. The company also plans to open a local office where residents can ask questions, emphasizing that the project “needs to be done in partnership with the community.”
Economic hopes in a struggling farm town
For others in Parsons, a 19th-century boomtown that has long sought a new economic spark, the potential payoff is worth the risk. The town was once home to one of the largest rail yards west of the Mississippi, but recent victories have been small—attracting a Taco Bell or saving a local furniture store.
Verlyn Bolinger, an insurance agent and city commissioner whose great-great-grandfather also served on the commission, captured the conflicted mood. “Any time you’re putting a nuclear reactor in a hole, it’s kind of scary,” he said. “It’s great that it’s here. It’s kind of bad that we’re the guinea pigs.”
Robert Spinks, Parsons’ police chief, is more optimistic. He views the reactor as a potential catalyst that could draw manufacturers and data centers to the region. “It’s a proven technology, just in a new application,” Spinks said. “And if that is a trigger which draws in other manufacturing and brings in living-wage jobs, I think that’s a win.”
Wayne Gilmore, an optometrist who owns the local radio station, echoed that sentiment, arguing that rural communities cannot build their futures by rejecting new technology before it is fully evaluated.
Deep Fission’s plan to store spent nuclear fuel underground is also drawing scrutiny. The company says it could eventually seal the waste in place or move it to another site. Liz Muller and her father previously founded Deep Isolation, a firm that designs underground disposal systems for nuclear waste. Still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will need to approve any commercial licensing before electricity from the reactor can be sold. Dozens of companies are designing smaller reactors, but none yet operate commercially in the United States, and Deep Fission must still prove it can meet its aggressive timelines and contain costs in an industry notorious for overruns.
No more sheltering or iodine tablets: Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan?

Worst-case scenario ‘very unlikely’, says Department of Climate, Energy and Environment
Caroline O’Doherty, Wed Jul 29 2026, https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2026/07/30/no-more-sheltering-or-iodine-tablets-government-reviews-nuclear-emergency-response/
Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan?
Technically speaking, it’s not new but an update of the National Plan on Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Exposures.
The Department of Climate, Energy and Environment says it’s a routine review carried out every so often. This is the fourth.
So it’s not prompted by, say, the heatwaves and droughts in Europe putting the vital cooling of nuclear power plants at risk?
The department says no.
And not by Russia’s fondness for exploding things in the vicinity of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant?
Apparently not.
Not even because of the excitement bubbling globally over the prospect of companies developing small modular reactors to provide their own power needs?
Not specifically, although such reviews do heed emerging technologies and new sites where they may be located.
Where are the existing sites?
Scattered around the world. There are 410 “operable” nuclear reactors and 71 new ones under construction.
Which are closest to Ireland?
Heysham nuclear power plant on Britain’s west coast, 200km from Ireland, and Flamanville on France’s northern coast, 400km away.
Isn’t Sellafield closer?
Sellafield no longer generates nuclear power, although it is handling nuclear fuel and waste.
What kind of emergency might arise?
The plan considers four “reasonable worst case” scenarios: a release of radioactivity from a nuclear power plant near Ireland; a release from one on mainland Europe; an incident involving the transport of nuclear materials by sea; and an incident involving the transport of radioactive materials by road.
Why does it not include worst-case scenarios such as nuclear war or an attack on Ireland?
That kind of incident is “out of scope” for this plan. If that happened the Department of Justice would take the lead.
What kind of risks do “reasonable worst-case” scenarios present to Ireland?
Not very significant. The plan says the chances of such incidents are “very unlikely” – around one in 5,000 over 100 years. It concludes, however, that “a nuclear accident abroad may have the potential to result in widespread but low-level contamination in Ireland”.
How low is low?
It says exposure to a radioactive plume from the nearest plants would only deliver a radiation dose equivalent to that received during a return flight from Dublin to London.
But would we still have to shelter indoors, close the windows and try to find the iodine tablets issued in the early 2000s?
No, the “Go In, Stay In, Tune In” message has been removed from the updated plan.
Do we even need a plan if the risk is so low?
We do. It sets out which departments and agencies will monitor what. They will need to keep in contact with European and international partners; repeatedly test food, water, air and soil; potentially restrict food imports, and closely track weather patterns in case winds might move a plume in an unexpected direction.
“There are no scenarios envisaged whereby evacuation or a shelter in place order will be required for the public in Ireland,” it says.
“Consumption of iodine thyroid-blocking tablets would not be necessary.”
But it adds: “Throughout the emergency phase the need for protective actions should be assessed continually.”
What if Ireland was to build its own nuclear power plant?
An entirely new plan would be needed with far more detail about safe and unsafe zones, evacuation procedures and health service preparedness.
However, the department says despite some politicians pushing to lift the ban on nuclear power generation in Ireland, nuclear does not feature as an energy option in any official plans covering the next few decades.
Danube drought curbs 0.9 GW nuclear output in Balkans

(Montel) Drought conditions affecting the river Danube have led to the shutdown of nearly 1 GW of nuclear power generation in Romania and Hungary, with record low water levels affecting cooling.
Montel 28th July 2026,
https://montelnews.com/news/ed02ab5d-cf33-4c82-b7cb-41bd4554a90e
This startup just raised nearly $500 million to build nuclear reactors for the US military.

By Rahim Amir, 30 July 26, https://www.techradar.com/pro/this-startup-just-raised-nearly-usd500-million-to-build-nuclear-reactors-for-the-us-military
Antares lookt to supply small reactors by 2028
- Antares closes $470 million Series C, $370 million in equity and $100 million in debt, co-led by Paradigm and Caffeinated Capital
- The move follows the Mark-0 reaching criticality at Idaho National Laboratory and helps fund an electricity-producing Mark-1 in 2027 and military deployments in 2028
- Antares’ military-first strategy targets a price-insensitive customer bound by an executive order requiring a reactor on a US base September 30 2028
Nuclear fission startup Antares has announced it has raised a total of $470 million in funding as it looks to supply a single client with a looming deadline: the US Military.
The Torrance, California company closed a Series C co-led by Paradigm and Caffeinated Capital, with Point72 Ventures, Shine Capital and Industrious Ventures among the participants, according to TechCrunch‘s look at its PitchBook data.
Antares’ raise comes seven weeks after its Mark-0 microreactor reached criticality at Idaho National Laboratory under the Department of Energy’s authorization in a demonstration run with the DOE, the lab, and BWX Technologies, with the US Army observing.
A direct beneficiary of the White House
Antares calls it the “first privately developed non-light-water reactor to achieve criticality in the United States in more than four decades,” underscoring how important the test was for both Antares and the US military.
The US military’s presence is not by chance; It is mandated by an executive order (“Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security”) signed by US President Donald Trump to ensure that it has an operating army-regulated nuclear reactor on a domestic military site by September 30, 2028
Antares happens to be one of three finalists in the Pentagon’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program that aims to test-deploy a small module reactor (SMR) on two different air force bases.
With Antares being the first private company to go through that gate under the DOE’s Reactor Pilot Program, it plans to build an electricity-producing Mark-1 reactor in 2027, followed by initial deployments to defense customers by 2028.
UK’s £8.4bn nuclear submarine investment

£8.4bn nuclear submarine investment “breathes new life into Barrow’s
historic traditions”. The £8.4bn investment into next generation nuclear
deterrent submarines “breathes new life into Barrow’s historic traditions”,
the UK Government has said.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham, accompanied by
defence secretary Wes Streeting, visited BAE Systems (BAES) shipyard in
Barrow following the announcement that funding has been committed to begin
the fourth major production phase of the UK’s Dreadnought Class submarine
programme.
A contract worth £5.9bn has been agreed by the government and
BAES, the Defence Nuclear Enterprise (DNE) industry partner responsible for
submarine production from its shipyard in Barrow, the home of UK submarine
building.
Further investments are set to be committed to Rolls-Royce
Submarines in Derby and the wider supply chain across the UK. The DNE
supports more than 6,000 UK companies in the supply chain and backs about
47,000 UK jobs.
Insider Media 31st July 2026 , https://www.insidermedia.com/news/north-west/8.4bn-nuclear-submarine-investment-breathes-new-life-into-barrows-historic-traditions
Firefighters in ‘better position’ as they tackle Suffolk wildfire near Sizewell nuclear site, for third day
The fire is a few miles away from Sizewell B and the construction site for the new Sizewell C.
Standard 31st July 2026
Fire crews battling a large wildfire near Britain’s biggest nuclear power station have said the blaze is “stabilising”, as firefighting efforts enter their third day.
Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service said late on Thursday night that they were in a “better position” than they were a few hours earlier, although they warned that the blaze near Sizewell B was still a “dynamic incident”.
An update early on Friday morning said that “crews and officers remained at the incident overnight” and that they “maintained a watching brief during darkness”.
Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Friday morning, deputy chief fire officer for Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Henry Griffin said an investigation had been launched into the cause of the fire and that the blaze had “stabilised”………………………………… https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/suffolk-andy-burnham-london-fire-brigade-zack-polanski-edf-b1291911.html
UK Needs Urgent Guidance On Preferred Reactor Concepts, (for small nuclear reactors) Says Fission Materials Roadmap

The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.
By David Dalton, 30 July 2026, https://www.nucnet.org/news/uk-needs-urgent-guidance-on-preferred-reactor-concepts-says-fission-materials-roadmap-7-4-2026
Interim report lays out priorities on shaping next generation of nuclear plants
The UK urgently needs guidance on preferred reactor concepts and operating environments so it can prioritise materials research as it strives to shape the next generation of nuclear reactors which will power the country’s nuclear future, a report has said.
The UK Fission Materials Roadmap Interim Report, published by the United Kingdom National Nuclear Laboratory (UKNNL) and the Henry Royce Institute, said a decision is needed within one to two years on whether the UK should build a domestic materials test reactor.
Within five years the government needs to establish a national materials archive to preserve irreplaceable irradiated material samples
The report also called for long-term funding commitments of at least five years to support sustained research programmes.
Four major technical themes are set out in the report: structural materials, fuels and cladding, disposability of materials and irradiation damage. These sit alongside six separate priorities: skills, infrastructure, funding, qualification, modelling and policy. Together, they form the foundation of a full roadmap planned for publication in late 2026.
Gareth Headdock, chief science and technology officer and deputy chief executive officer of UKNNL, said the interim report is the product of genuine collaboration across the UK nuclear sector.
“From structural steels to advanced fuels and waste disposability, we have identified the priorities that matter most and the decisions that cannot wait.
“The decisions ahead – on reactor concepts, materials test infrastructure and long-term funding – are consequential ones, and it is vital that we get them right.”
David Knowles, chief executive officer of the Henry Royce Institute, the UK’s national institute for advanced materials research and innovation, said the momentum behind the UK nuclear sector is clear.
He said recent agreements between Rolls-Royce SMR, UKNNL and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies demonstrate the growing international confidence in UK nuclear capability.
“At the same time, the continued progress of Rolls-Royce SMR in securing commercial opportunities and advancing deployment highlights the strength of UK nuclear engineering and the scale of the opportunity ahead,” he said.
Rolls-Royce SMR, a subsidiary of blue chip engineering giant Rolls-Royce, and Czech state power company ČEZ are working on plans to deploy up to 3 GW of SMR capacity in the Czech Republic.
The company, a Rolls-Royce subsidiary, is also deploying three units in the UK with the potential for six, with a launch programme of three units in Sweden .
Ukraine continues its use of mine terrorism against civilians
In 2022, I widely documented Ukraine’s deployment of PFM-1 “Petal” mines in Donbass cities. Ukraine has been since also using boobytrapped explosives and now a new version of a”Petal” mine.
Eva Karene Bartlett, Jul 31, 2026, https://evakarenebartlett.substack.com/p/ukraine-continues-its-use-of-mine?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=3046064&post_id=209116807&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
When Ukraine fired missiles containing insidious, difficult to see, and dangerous mines dubbed “Petal” mines onto Donetsk and nearby cities in July 2022, I was in Donetsk and went on to document the mines in city streets, parks, apartment courtyards and even an orphanage in nearby Makeevka.
From the start of an article I wrote for RT immediately after Ukraine’s July firing of missiles containing the mines onto Donetsk:
On Saturday, July 30, just after 9pm, thunderous explosions rocked central Donetsk. Shortly after, there were announcements that air defense had shot down Ukrainian-fired missiles containing ‘petal‘ mines. Given that over 300 of these explosives are packed into each of the Ukrainian-fired rockets, central Donetsk could literally become a minefield if they successfully landed.
Social media and Telegram warnings urged residents to stay inside and wait for Emergency Services to clear the streets and sidewalks – which they began doing during the night. But come daylight, untold numbers of these tiny devices still remained. More warnings were issued to stay at home – better to be late for work than lose a leg. Residents that absolutely have to go out are advised to keep their eyes down to watch where they step, avoid grassy areas, and walk extremely carefully.
…According to DPR Emergency services, Ukraine is using Hurricane MLRS-fired rockets to spread the mines. Each contains 12 cluster munitions, each cluster has 26 mines inside. So each bomb has 312. The cluster explodes in the air, disseminating them widely, scattering in different directions. Their butterfly-like design enables them to glide and land without exploding, usually. Then they lie in wait for someone with bad luck to step on them.
Some of these anti-personnel mines have a self-destruct timer. Others, including the ones Ukraine is firing, have a years-long shelf life. They do pretty much no damage to military vehicles, and therefore their use in Donbass is insidious – deliberately targeting civilians, to leave them maimed….”
[Article continues, more photos on my blog]
US Navy’s nuclear battleship plan raises questions for carriers, submarines and AUKUS
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit
Navy Lookout 30 July 26, https://www.navylookout.com/us-navys-nuclear-battleship-plan-raises-questions-for-carriers-submarines-and-aukus/
The US Navy has confirmed that its planned Trump-class guided-missile battleship, whose lead ship would be USS Defiant, will be nuclear-powered. The propulsion decision could have consequences extending beyond the BB(X) programme (now redesignated BBGN), placing additional pressure on US aircraft-carrier construction and the naval nuclear industrial base, with potential second-order implications for AUKUS and the submarine programmes of Australia and Britain.
Going nuclear
When BBG(X) was unveiled at the end of 2025, the Navy’s initial concept depicted conventional integrated electric propulsion using gas turbines and diesel generators. The FY2027 thirty-year shipbuilding plan subsequently confirmed that the battleship would be nuclear-powered, while Navy officials told Congress that it was expected to use the A1B reactor type fitted to the Ford-class carriers.
There is an operational logic to the decision. A large combatant intended to carry extensive missile batteries, high-output lasers, powerful sensors, electronic-warfare equipment and future energy-intensive weapons will require considerable generating capacity. Nuclear power also removes the fuel constraint that would otherwise limit a ship expected to operate across the distances of the Indo-Pacific, and it would make the Defiant-class the first American nuclear-powered surface combatant since the last of the Virginia-class cruisers paid off in the 1990s.
Industrial chokepoint
The difficulty is not the nuclear technology itself, which is proven in service and is a design that could be adapted for the battleships. The issue is the increased pressure on the supply chain. Nuclear-powered surface ship construction in the United States is dependent on one yard, HII Newport News. This facility is already experiencing delays and cost growth delivering the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. The most significant industrial bottleneck is the naval reactor supply chain centred on BWX Technologies, the sole supplier of US naval reactor cores and key reactor components. BWX are simultaneously supplying the CVN programme (each ship has 2 reactors) as well as two major submarine programmes. Adding the nuclear requirement to the battleship programme when there is no spare industrial capacity to draw upon means it must compete directly for nuclear-certified labour, drydock time and reactor components already committed years ahead.
The House Armed Services Committee has backed a requirement for the Navy to explain how the programme would avoid disrupting Ford-class carrier construction and the wider naval nuclear industrial base. The concern is grounded in the sequencing of the work, since naval reactors are ordered two to three years before the hulls they power, so any diversion of components or skilled staff is felt long before a battleship takes shape. The Columbia-class SSBN programme, which replaces the sea-based leg of the American nuclear deterrent, is already running late, while Virginia-class SSN construction is below the rate the fleet requires. Adding a third demand to that base without expanding it invites exactly the outcome Congress is trying to avoid.
The AUKUS dimension
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit. Nuclear surface ship construction is concentrated at HII Newport News alone. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. Reactor components come from a single supplier, BWX Technologies, that is also supplying the Columbia and Virginia submarine lines. The clearest direct risk is to the Ford-class carrier programme, but submarine output would probably be indirectly impacted, through competition for reactor components, nuclear-qualified personnel and investment across the wider supplier base.
For UK reactor production, the exposure is less significant. British naval reactors are designed and manufactured through the UK Defence Nuclear Enterprise, centred on Rolls-Royce Submarines at Raynesway. Reactors for the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS boats are made in Britain and complement rather than compete with US capacity. What the UK relies on from the States is the design pedigree of the PWR3, which, to an unknown extent, is modelled on the S9G reactor that powers the Virginia-class and was developed with USN engineering support.
The last public figure put the UK’s Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile at 21.86 tonnes in 2002, but its present size, composition and availability for future naval fuel are not publicly known. Over half of that stockpile was of US origin and none of it is immediately replenishable since domestic weapons-grade enrichment ended in 1962. It is unclear if there is enough for the 4 Dreadnoughts, up to 12 RN SSN-As planned in the medium-term. (Provision of HEU for the 8 Australian SSN-As also has to be considered, although the source for this has not been publicly established). The genuinely usable reserve is smaller than the headline figure once spent cores, warhead reservation and material form are accounted for, and the stock must also serve every future class indefinitely. Building sovereign enrichment capability takes 15-20 years; the UK has committed £1.7bn to a Nuclear Fuels Programme to explore re-establishing a domestic enrichment to reduce dependence on the US in the long run.
Political and industrial reality
The propulsion decision has also exposed the BBGN programme to an even greater extent politically. Before the decision was finalised, then-Navy Secretary John Phelan said the service was still examining the trade-offs. Admiral Daryl Caudle had earlier warned that nuclear propulsion would add a construction ‘tail’ that could push the ship beyond the timeframe of the operational requirement, although he subsequently endorsed the nuclear design. The ambition for 15 battleships sits awkwardly against a fleet that the same plan does not expect to reach 355 ships until FY2040, and then only if industry achieves a dramatic improvement in delivery performance.
There are plenty who believe that BBGN is essentially a vanity project that will be axed as soon as Trump leaves office. Congress has strongly supported the USN’s continued development of the large, but less demanding, conventionally-powered DDG(X) project, although this is officially a replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers an
Is it safe to extend the life of a nuclear power station?

BBC, Pamela Tickell, North East and Cumbria
When Hartlepool’s nuclear power station came online in 1983, it had an initial lifespan of 25 years. Now in its 43rd year, its operator has announced another extension. While the news has been welcomed by hundreds of employees, is it safe to keep doing so?
“Yeah, absolutely,” is the short answer from Mark Wenman, professor of nuclear materials at Imperial College London.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), which Wenman describes as a “very stringent regulator”, would not grant a licence unless they were sure it was safe to do so, he said.
Hartlepool is one of five sites, including Heysham 1 and Sizewell B, which have had their lifespans extended multiple times.
Even when French energy firm EDF took over all of the UK’s working nuclear power stations in 2009, Hartlepool was due to stop generating electricity in 2014.
On Friday, it extended the lifespan again until 2030……………………………………………..
However, opponents argue that while the technology might be clean and safe, it is not completely clean, or completely safe.
Nuclear power produces radioactive waste and disposing of it can be costly and comes with environmental risks, which Friends of the Earth says there is “no answer for”.
The UK government is currently looking for a site to build an underground storage facility for its radioactive waste, some of which would have to be buried for thousands of years before its safe.
Why is the lifespan limited anyway?
The radioactivity permanently degrades the nuclear reactor’s core over time.
At about 10 metres (33ft) high, uranium fuel is channelled through the core.
The graphite bricks, which make it up, break down due to cracking and weight loss and cannot be replaced.
“Once they [the core graphite bricks] reach the end of their life, that is the end of the life of the reactor,” Wenman said.
Can they be brought back online?
You would not get another one in the exact same spot because it takes a long time to decommission a reactor, Wenman said.
“Remember, everything in there is radioactive,” he said.
Equipment may be left to sit there for many years so it can lose its radioactivity over time.
“It will be quite a slow process, so where the actual AGR is built right now, they’ll probably leave it there for quite a few years,” Wenman said……….. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp87y14r11do
UK Nuclear output sinks to 40-year low
Lastest stats from DESNZ show the pressures of the transition in terms of generation, demand and fuel mix
Energy Live News 30th July 2026
UK nuclear generation fell to its lowest level since the 1980s last year, forcing greater reliance on gas even as renewable output reached another record.
Official DESNZ figures show nuclear generation dropped 12% in 2025 to 35.9TWh because of refuelling, planned maintenance and unplanned outages across the ageing fleet. The decline helped push the low-carbon share of electricity generation down slightly to 64.3%.
The fall comes at a difficult time for Britain’s power system.
Electricity demand increased 1.2% to 323TWh while the Government is preparing for much sharper growth from electric heating, transport, industrial electrification and data centres.
New nuclear projects are not expected to arrive quickly enough to replace all the output lost as older stations close. That creates a growing gap between the existing fleet and future projects including Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and planned small modular reactors………………………………………………………
Renewable generation rose 5.9% to a record 153TWh and supplied 52.1% of UK electricity. It was only the second year in the published series that renewables provided more than half of generation………………………………………
Data centres are becoming an increasingly important part of that picture. DESNZ estimates they consumed 4.5TWh of grid electricity in 2024, up from 1.3TWh in 2020.
That represents an increase of 246% in four years and helps explain Ofgem’s concern in the surge in speculative data centre connection applications………………………………………………https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/07/30/nuclear-output-sinks-to-40-year-low-as-power-demand-rises/
Diplomacy Without De-Escalation: The Manila Talks and Ukraine’s Escalation Strategy

While Washington and Moscow were attempting to preserve diplomatic channels in Manila, Ukraine expanded strikes against infrastructure with high political and economic visibility inside Russia
The central question is whether this approach will actually improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, or whether it will make a political settlement increasingly difficult to achieve.
Adrian Korczyński, July 29, 2026, https://journal-neo.su/2026/07/29/diplomacy-without-de-escalation-the-manila-talks-and-ukraine%e2%80%99s-escalation-strategy/
On July 23, 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Manila on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit.
The meeting lasted thirty-seven minutes, making it the fourth bilateral encounter between the two since September 2025. The United States initiated the contact, and both sides acknowledged the need to end the war in Ukraine. On paper, this was a diplomatic gesture. In practice, it exposed a growing contradiction within the Western approach to the war: diplomatic channels remain open, while military strategies based on continued pressure and escalation are increasingly narrowing the space for compromise.
What Was Discussed
Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s position: further arms deliveries to Kyiv are “unacceptable.” He also criticised what he called the destabilising policy of European states aimed at inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia. At the same time, he confirmed Russia’s readiness for a political and diplomatic settlement, reaffirming the proposals put forward by the U.S. side during the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska last August. Rubio, for his part, said Washington remained willing to play a constructive role in ending the conflict, but noted that the war had “impeded the ability of Russia and the United States to find areas of agreement on other topics.”
No breakthrough was announced. No new proposals emerged. The talks confirmed that the fundamental positions of both sides remain unchanged. Russia continues to insist that any settlement must address what it defines as its security concerns and the territorial realities created by the conflict, while Washington continues to support Kyiv and simultaneously seeks a diplomatic outcome that does not amount to a strategic defeat for the West.
The Escalation Beyond the Meeting Room
The Manila talks took place against the backdrop of intensified Ukrainian long-range strikes against Russian territory. During the same period, Ukrainian drones repeatedly targeted warehouses operated by Wildberries, Russia’s largest online retailer. The company, which processes roughly 20 million orders daily, has seen four of its logistics centres hit. At least nine people have been killed. Ukrainian authorities have claimed that these facilities store components for Russian military drones, a claim the Kremlin has denied. Regardless of the competing claims surrounding the facilities’ military role, the strikes represent a broader expansion of Ukraine’s target set beyond conventional military infrastructure.
Simultaneously, Ukraine has continued its campaign against Russian energy infrastructure, striking refineries and fuel depots. The cumulative effect has added further pressure to Russia’s domestic fuel distribution network. Russia, despite being one of the world’s largest oil producers, has faced growing strain on its domestic fuel market, with reports of regional shortages, higher prices and distribution problems. Airports around Moscow have been temporarily closed following mass drone strikes, and explosions have been heard in Crimea, including near Simferopol, Sevastopol, and Yalta.
A Strategy of Escalation
The timing of these strikes is significant. While Washington and Moscow were attempting to preserve diplomatic channels in Manila, Ukraine expanded strikes against infrastructure with high political and economic visibility inside Russia. The choice of targets and the timing of the attacks indicate that the objective extends beyond immediate military effects. Such actions also increase the political costs associated with any future compromise. They also illustrate the growing disconnect between diplomatic efforts pursued by Washington and the military strategy pursued by Kyiv
The strategy appears to rest on a simple assumption: that increasing the economic and political costs for Russia will ultimately compel Moscow to negotiate from a weaker position. Whether such an approach is strategically sound remains highly uncertain. The more politically visible these attacks become, the less room the Kremlin has for compromise without appearing to retreat under pressure. Such strikes reinforce the perception that military pressure, rather than compromise, remains Kyiv’s preferred instrument. This makes any diplomatic opening politically harder to justify.
What This Means
The Manila meeting was a diplomatic gesture, not a turning point. The United States wants to find a way out of a conflict that is draining its resources and attention. Russia wants a settlement that recognises its security concerns and territorial realities created by the conflict. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to escalate, calculating that increased pressure on Moscow can improve its negotiating position.
Whether such an approach accelerates negotiations or instead hardens Russian resolve remains one of the central strategic questions. The strikes on Wildberries, the attacks on refineries, and the drone operations targeting Moscow’s airports reflect a deliberate strategy of sustained escalation designed to increase the costs of continuing the war for Russia. The danger is that a strategy built around escalation may narrow the very diplomatic space required to end the conflict.
The central question is whether this approach will actually improve Ukraine’s negotiating position, or whether it will make a political settlement increasingly difficult to achieve. Escalation can alter the military balance, but it does not automatically create the political conditions required for a negotiated settlement. The Manila talks produced no breakthrough, because the gap between diplomatic engagement and battlefield escalation remains unresolved. Western policy now appears to operate on two increasingly divergent tracks: diplomatic engagement with Moscow and continued support for Kyiv’s strategy of military escalation. The wider the gap between them becomes, the more difficult it will be to sustain a coherent long-term strategy.
Is It Just About AIPAC’s Money, or Does the US-Israel Rot Run Far Deeper?
The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.
By Ramzy BaroudJuly 24, 2026, https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/is-it-just-about-aipacs-money-or-does-the-us-israel-rot-run-far-deeper/
Two major stories regarding the United States and Israel in recent days represent profound watershed moments in the history of the relationship between both countries.
The first incident occurred on July 8 when US Congressman Ro Khanna (D-CA) and his delegation were detained by armed, illegal Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.
“These hoodlums come in with machine guns—an M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us,” Khanna in a stunning statement. “They block off the road. And then they call the IDF, and the IDF is on their side, not on the side of the Americans.”
Equally shocking to the congressman’s direct encounter with the raw, lawless reality of the occupation was the response of US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. Rather than defending an elected American lawmaker, Huckabee dismissed Khanna’s harrowing experience as a mere “stunt.”
This defiance of old taboos, however, is not confined to progressive factions. In an even more unprecedented development on July 15, US Vice President JD Vance used an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience to deliver some of the sharpest criticism of Israel ever uttered by a sitting, top-tier US official.
Addressing a reported Israeli government-funded online influence campaign aimed at sabotaging the administration’s diplomatic efforts, a furious Vance “certain elements within the Israeli government” of actively trying to derail peace negotiations and manipulate American public opinion. He went so far as to target the operators behind the foreign-backed campaign, telling them directly to “go to hell.”
Yet, even as fierce criticism of Israel reaches the very apex of American politics, a profound, schizophrenic rupture divides Washington. While the American public, influential media personalities, and top-tier politicians are openly turning against Israel’s unbridled violence, the traditional power structures continue to toe the line.
This is explicitly evident in Congress, where establishment politicians remain busy acting as defense contractors for Tel Aviv. Lawmakers are quietly pushing forward with Section 219 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2027. Far from distancing the US from the ongoing regional bloodbath, this legislation aims to permanently integrate and synchronize the US and Israeli militaries under a joint “Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.”
This institutional blind spot is why the entire alliance is beginning to look utterly ridiculous.
Traditional foreign policy theory views Israel as an American ‘vessel’ or ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ in the Middle East, policing the region on behalf of Western hegemony. Whether that was ever true is highly debatable. Today, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the relentless war on Iran, and the escalating aggressions against Lebanon and Syria have yielded zero strategic value to the American people. Instead, the United States has paid a massive financial and moral largesse to fund bloody regional wars that disrupt the global economy and make Washington a direct, complicit partner in the destruction of the Palestinian people.
Yet, the American administration continues to offer unquestioning support, with the exception of occasionally leaked, manufactured of ‘tense’ phone calls between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. No matter the physical, economic, or reputational damage inflicted on the US, Washington continues to march blindly toward the precipice.
To believe this subservience is a recent phenomenon is to misunderstand history. For many, the physical detention of Congressman Khanna by Israeli forces evokes the memory of Rachel Corrie—the 23-year-old American peace activist who was brutally crushed to death by an Israeli military bulldozer in Rafah on March 16, 2003, while peacefully shielding a Palestinian family home from demolition. In both cases, the message from Tel Aviv was clear: American status offers no protection.
Yet, this dependency runs deeper, rooted in the 1967 USS Liberty incident. During the Six-Day War, Israeli forces launched a relentless two-hour attack on an unarmed US intelligence ship, killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171. Instead of demanding accountability, the Johnson administration accepted Israel’s excuse of a “mistake” and covered up the truth to protect its ally. This established a decades-long precedent: Washington would act as a political and military shield for Israeli actions, even at the cost of American lives.
It is often argued that Israel’s stranglehold on American policy stems entirely from the financial power of its lobby in Washington, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Conventional wisdom holds that AIPAC’s true dominance as the ultimate kingmaker began in 1981, when it waged a historic, ferocious battle to block President Ronald Reagan’s proposed sale of AWACS early-warning surveillance aircraft to Saudi Arabia.
But the USS Liberty incident occurred long before the lobby wielded such immense power. The truth is that the US government has simply lost control of the very creature it has nurtured and shielded for decades. Blaming this dependency solely on campaign contributions no longer suffices; the rot is far deeper. It is driven by a deep-seated fear and trepidation among American politicians who have spent their entire careers learning that political survival requires absolute obedience to Tel Aviv.
This is precisely why JD Vance’s recent remarks are so critical. It proves that the armor of absolute impunity is cracking, and the language of genuine, systemic criticism of Israel has officially been normalized in mainstream political discourse.
Russia’s Starlink killers showcase new era of electronic battlefield warfare.
from
| Lisa Savage, 30 July 26 |
Russia has ramped-up EW use to detect and jam Elon Musk’s Starlink terminals and satellites, Ukrainian media reports.
Volna Kupol Garant
Russia’s latest electronic warfare system reportedly uses a directed high-frequency radio beam to disrupt Starlink operations. Rather than damaging satellites orbiting roughly 500 kilometers above Earth, the system blinds them – cutting their ability to connect with ground terminals while they remain under attack.
According to reports, Volna is a mobile system built around six trailers. Each carries a pair of steerable satellite dishes mounted on rotating platforms. A single battery is reportedly capable of denying Starlink coverage across an area of up to 20 sq km. Some analysts say the system was previously referenced under the designation Peresvet-M, although this has not been independently confirmed.
Ukrainian sources claim Volna was first deployed during Russia’s offensive in the Kharkov region in 2024. They also say its use has increased significantly in recent months.Tobol
The secretive Russian EW complex is reportedly used to disrupt signals from NATO-linked satellite networks, including GPS, Galileo, and Starlink. Reports claim that Tobol attacks satellite communications on both ends of the link – jamming downlinks from satellites to ground receivers and uplinks from Earth to orbit. Its power and range also allegedly allow it to create an electromagnetic “umbrella.”
Kalinka
The system is designed to hunt down satellite communications signals, including those transmitted by Starlink terminals at distances of up to 15 km. It can reportedly track and lock onto even Starshield – SpaceX’s hardened military variant of Starlink. Western media warns that while Tobol disrupts GPS signals on a broad scale, the Kalinka’s precision-targeting capabilities could pose a more direct threat to specific military operations.
Krasukha
The Krasukha-S4 is designed to neutralize reconnaissance satellites, ground-based radar installations, and airborne surveillance systems. It does so by emitting powerful electronic jamming signals that disrupt key radar bands and other radio-frequency emissions. A standard Krasukha-S4 battery consists of two vehicles and has an operational range exceeding 300 kilometers.
Borshchevik
The light mobile system is designed to detect and geolocate Starlink terminals within a 180-degree sector at ranges of up to 10 km, with a reported accuracy of five meters. Using direction-finding and biangulation algorithms, it can locate a target in less than three minutes at a single scanning position. The Borshchevik-2 airborne system hunts Starlink signals from the sky, with reported accuracy down to 0.4 m.
-
Archives
- September 2026 (194)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
