Robotic arm struggles to take fuel sample from Fukushima plant
By KEITARO FUKUCHI/ Staff Writer, April 28, 2025, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15704793
A narrow, attic-like space lies directly below the No. 5 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, showing the difficult route a robotic arm must take to collect samples of melted fuel debris in a sister reactor.
The robotic arm is 22 meters long, weighs 4.6 tons and has 18 articulatable joints.
It has been developed to retrieve samples from the No. 2 reactor of Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 plant—which was crippled when the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear disaster at the facility.
To this day, an estimated 880 tons of melted fuel debris remain in the No. 1 through No. 3 reactors, and recovering this material is considered the most challenging phase in the long decommissioning process.
After more than six years of development using taxpayer money and undergoing numerous setbacks, the robotic arm may go on its first real debris retrieval mission later this fiscal year—or face being scrapped.
“The latest attempt may prove a failure since numerous trials have produced no successful outcomes so far,” said a nuclear industry insider. “The robot arm might be left to gather dust without ever being used.”
News reporters were given a tour in January of the crippled power plant’s No. 5 reactor, which is the same model and reportedly has the same dimensions as the No. 2 reactor, to see the route the arm must take if it is to succeed.
THE MISSION
To reach the debris, the arm will have to be navigated—by remote control—through the same narrow route at the No. 2 reactor that the reporters traversed at its twin.
The first step will be to carefully insert the arm, which is 40 centimeters tall, through an opening with an inner diameter of just 55 cm.
Once inside the 1.5-meter-tall space directly under the reactor, the approximately 4-meter-long tip of the arm will be slowly rotated and lowered to reach the fuel debris at the bottom of the containment vessel.
“Adjusting the joints’ angles is particularly difficult,” said a TEPCO public relations representative. “Even a single error can cause the device to hit its surroundings.”
TRIAL AND ERROR
The robotic arm has been under development since fall 2018 by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and a British company from the nuclear power industry. As much as 7.8 billion yen ($53.1 million) in taxpayers’ money has been invested in the arm and related projects.
However, the project has faced numerous setbacks.
The government and TEPCO initially planned to debut the arm in a debris retrieval test in 2021, but the device was unable to move with the necessary precision, causing delays.
When the first retrieval test was finally undertaken in November 2024, a simpler device with a solid track record in past applications was used instead. The same device was used in the second retrieval test earlier this month—while revisions on the robotic arm continued.
Because the arm’s weight is supported at its base, the device tends to bend and move unsteadily when extended.
“They are working hard to carry out this difficult procedure under particularly challenging conditions,” said Hajimu Yamana, president of the Nuclear Damage Compensation and Decommissioning Facilitation Corp. (NDF), which serves as an adviser on the decommissioning work.
As the arm’s development dragged on for more than half a decade, new problems arose in and after August 2024.
Disconnection of motor cables that had deteriorated over time was detected, as was a failure in the arm’s obstacle removal mechanism.
In December that year, the robotic arm came into contact with a model of the containment vessel during a test. However, it later safely passed through the opening without encountering any obstructions after its operators fine-tuned the insertion point.
“New issues arise each time a test is conducted,” lamented Yusuke Nakagawa, a TEPCO group manager involved in the project. “We just have to address them one by one again and again.”
TEPCO began dismantling part of the robotic arm in February to examine the deteriorated cable. The inspection is expected to take three to four months, and the arm will likely undergo additional operational tests after that.
THE FUTURE
For now, TEPCO plans to put the robotic arm to practical use at the site in the latter half of fiscal 2025.
“The final decision (on whether to actually use the arm on site) will be made after taking into account the results of the envisioned operational tests,” said Akira Ono, president of TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Decontamination and Decommissioning Engineering Co.
The future of the robotic arm is still unclear given that its official introduction has already been delayed four times.
Officials involved are expressing a growing sense of alarm.
Toyoshi Fuketa, an ex-chairman of the Nuclear Regulation Authority, calls for reviewing the current plan.
“Never changing a plan once it has been decided upon, even if it does not work properly, is a bad habit of Japan,” he noted. “People should have the courage to back down at times (by giving up on the robotic arm).”
Victory for Greenpeace Luxembourg against EDF in court transparency ruling
Thomas Toussaint – Adapted by RTL Today, Update: 28.04.2025 ,
https://today.rtl.lu/news/luxembourg/a/2297912.html
In a landmark decision for nuclear transparency, the Strasbourg administrative court has ordered energy giant EDF to disclose information previously kept under wraps about the Cattenom nuclear power station, marking a major victory for Greenpeace Luxembourg.
Greenpeace went to court to challenge EDF’s refusal to provide information on “the possible use within the Cattenom nuclear centre of parts manufactured by the Italian company Tectubi, their destination and their conformity.”
The parts had previously been inspected by Italy’s Nuclear Safety Authority, which identified shortcomings in their production process.
The suspect parts were alleged to have been used to address the well-known issue of stress corrosion, detected in several nuclear power plants, including Cattenom. Greenpeace therefore requested to be informed of the possible use of these parts at the Moselle power station.
In response, the plant’s management refused, citing trade secrecy under the Code of Public Administration Relations. This left Greenpeace with no alternative but to turn to the administrative court in July 2023.
In a ruling on 24 April 2025, the Strasbourg court confirmed that the documents requested by Greenpeace Luxembourg were not subject to secrecy and ordered the director of Cattenom to provide the information within two months. EDF has also been ordered to pay €1,500 to Greenpeace Luxembourg.
“The decision by the administrative court is an important victory for transparency and nuclear safety,” said Roger Spautz, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace Luxembourg. “EDF cannot continue to conceal crucial information regarding reactor safety, especially when issues such as stress corrosion and cracking are concerned.”
The Great British nuclear expansion is a project bound to fail.
With the government committed to a huge expansion of nuclear power to meet
our energy needs, Andrew Blowers and Stephen Thomas contend that this is an
uneconomic, unachievable and undesirable solution that is doomed to fail.
In 2022, the then Conservative government set a target of having 24GW
(gigawatts) of new nuclear capacity up and running by 2050, despite the
dismal history of cost and time over-runs experienced in developing the
existing plans. If achieved, this would be the equivalent of having eight
more Hinkley Point Cs.
The succeeding Labour government reaffirmed its
commitment to nuclear power in its manifesto, proclaiming that a scale
expansion ‘will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy
security and clean power’ Neither government was prepared to recognise that
the Great British nuclear expansion is a project bound to fail.
TCPA (accessed) 28th April 2025,
https://www.tcpa.org.uk/sample-journal-content/
Scrapping Britain’s nuclear power plans would lead to lower energy bills
Letters, John French, and Dr David Lowry 29 Apr 25, https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/apr/28/scrapping-britains-nuclear-power-plans-would-lead-to-lower-energy-bills
You report that experts have warned that adding levies to electricity bills to support low-carbon projects will make it more difficult for people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (Why the UK’s electricity costs are so high – and what can be done about it, 20 April).
One way to reduce those levies dramatically would be to scrap all planned nuclear power stations. These include the crazily expensive Sizewell C, which has already received nearly 2.5bn in subsidies before it has even started construction and which will cost the bill payer dear, even without the inevitable huge cost overruns that the French-state-owned EDF always incurs (think Flamanville and Hinkley C); and the four, possibly six, new reactors to be built on a flood plain on the River Severn at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.
Scrapping Britain’s nuclear power plans would lead to lower energy bills
New nuclear power stations will cost billions to build and run, and cost taxpayers and energy customers dear, says John French. Plus a letter from Dr David LowryTue 29 Apr 2025 01.52 AESTShare
You report that experts have warned that adding levies to electricity bills to support low-carbon projects will make it more difficult for people to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels (Why the UK’s electricity costs are so high – and what can be done about it, 20 April).
One way to reduce those levies dramatically would be to scrap all planned nuclear power stations. These include the crazily expensive Sizewell C, which has already received nearly 2.5bn in subsidies before it has even started construction and which will cost the bill payer dear, even without the inevitable huge cost overruns that the French-state-owned EDF always incurs (think Flamanville and Hinkley C); and the four, possibly six, new reactors to be built on a flood plain on the River Severn at Oldbury in Gloucestershire.
These latter reactors are still at an early design stage, will have to go through years of safety approval before construction can start, and, being of an uncertain and novel design, will end up costing the bill payer a fortune in subsidies. And then there’s the unquantifiable cost of decommissioning and trying to deal with the highly radioactive waste.
The energy minister, Ed Miliband, has publicly expressed doubts in the past about the wisdom of subsidising nuclear power at the expense of renewables. Now is the time for him to scrap all plans for this unaffordable and dangerous way to boil water, and invest in renewables, including tidal power.
John French
Stand (Severnside Together Against Nuclear Development)
Your report says that “by generating more electricity from renewable energy and nuclear reactors, electricity costs would begin to fall”. All reliable recent studies demonstrate this is so for renewables, but not so for nuclear, if the full costs of uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, radioactive waste management and nuclear facility decommissioning are taken into account.
To illustrate this, a very recent report from the US Department of Energy projects to final clean-up costs of Hanford, the US equivalent of Sellafield, but bigger, is an extraordinary $589bn. These huge sums need to be factored into nuclear power’s costs to give the real price of power from splitting the atom.
Dr David Lowry
Co-author, The International Politics of Nuclear Waste
Situation unstable: IAEA says shots were heard at Zaporizhzhia power plant
Artur Kryzhnyi — Friday, 25 April 2025,
IAEA experts at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant heard loud gunshots on 23 April near the main administrative building where their office is located.
Source: IAEA press service
Details: In addition, the IAEA team has heard explosions and gunshots at different distances from the plant almost every day over the past week.
“What once seemed almost unthinkable – evidence of hostilities near a large nuclear facility – has become an almost daily occurrence and a familiar part of life at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. From a nuclear safety point of view, this is certainly an unstable situation,” said IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi.
Despite the regular sounds of fighting, IAEA experts continue to conduct inspections at the plant to monitor and assess the state of nuclear safety and security…………….
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the proposal for US control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant raises many questions that are difficult to resolve.
Ukrainska Pravda 25th April 2025
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/04/25/7509136/
NUCLEAR STATION = WAR TARGET
26 April 2025 marked the 39th anniversary of the catastrophic nuclear
explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine – which, at the time, was part of the
Soviet Union. It’s worth reminding people of the effects of that horrific
event.
Tens of thousands of children and adolescents developed thyroid
cancer in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Genetic problems have been observed
in the wildlife of the area. The area around the nuclear plant is still
uninhabited. Moreover, the rain that fell in Wales following the explosion
caused radioactive pollution, even though we were 1,600 miles away.
As a result, there has been a serious impact on the agricultural industry, with
upland lamb being banned from entering the food chain until tests show that
the level of Caesium-137 radiation has been adequately reduced. Bans were
issued on 9,800 farms, most of them in Wales and Cumbria. The final bans
were not lifted until 2012 – 26 years after the explosion.
Why mention this now?
Because Chernobyl is in a country that is in the middle of war; a
country that contains other nuclear reactors such as Zaporizhzhia, the
largest nuclear complex in Europe.
Because a shell built over the reactor
at Chernobyl in order to prevent radiation from escaping was hit by a
Russian drone on the 14th of February this year.
Because it is the first war that is being fought on the land of a country where there are active
nuclear reactors.
And because this nightmare could happen to us.
NUCLEAR STATION = WAR TARGET. With all the talk of preparing for war by political
parties in Westminster, the British State’s obsession with nuclear energy
and nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous. Consider that Starmer wants to
see nuclear plants all over the State! All would be a target in war. And
all need to be protected by special police.
All of this is another reason for opposing nuclear, though there are enough already – the radioactive waste without a long-term solution; the fact that waste would be on site
for over a century; the dangers of fire; the fact that it will not be
possible to build enough nuclear to have an impact on climate change; the
diversion of funds and resources from renewable energy; the environmental
mess associated with uranium mining; the threat to the Welsh language by
thousands of workers for a large station; the likelihood that relatively
few workers would be needed for a Modular Reactor (SMR); the extreme cost.
PAWB 25th April 2025
Terrifying report warns UK’s nuclear facilities face rising military threat
RUSI also points to the likelihood of increased targeting as more countries adopt nuclear power.
The use of military force near or against nuclear facilities represents an under-addressed threat to international peace and civilian safety, the report warns.
By Ciaran McGrath, Senior News Reporter,
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2046553/terrifying-report-warns-uks-nuclear
Britain’s nuclear infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to military attack as global tensions rise, a worrying new report has warned. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) study, published on Friday, highlights the growing risk of nuclear power plants being targeted deliberately or incidentally during armed conflict.
While the threat is not new, Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has shown how such facilities can become strategic objectives in modern warfare, with devastating consequences for civilian populations. Written by RUSI research fellow Darya Dolzikova, the report examines the “strategic and operational logic” behind targeting nuclear installations and urges military and political leaders to prepare for scenarios in which nuclear infrastructure comes under direct threat. It further warns that the use of military force near or against nuclear facilities represents an under-addressed threat to international peace and civilian safety.
Key motivations for attacks include disrupting an enemy’s energy supply, generating public fear, denying access to contested territory through radioactive contamination and halting nuclear weapons programmes.
In each case, the consequences for civilian safety, the environment and regional stability are severe.
RUSI also points to the likelihood of increased targeting as more countries adopt nuclear power.
Ms Dolzikova explains: “The expected growth of nuclear power in the global energy mix may increase the likelihood that future armed conflict will see greater targeting of nuclear energy infrastructure.”
The report outlines several recent examples of nuclear facilities being exposed to military activity, with Zaporizhzhia cited as the most significant.
It warns that even where nuclear plants are not the primary objective, they may lie on key axes of advance and become flashpoints by default.
In response, the think tank calls for urgent measures to improve such sites’ physical protection and operational resilience.
Recommendations include reinforcing legal prohibitions on attacks, integrating counter-CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) and air defence capabilities, and decentralising energy systems through smaller, modular reactors.
Crucially, the report highlights the psychological impact of nuclear threats.
t points out: “Such threats may be used as a ‘half-step’ between conventional and nuclear weapons – despite key differences in their normative and operational significance.”
The UK operates several nuclear power stations, including Sizewell B and Hinkley Point B, with new projects under development.
While no specific intelligence suggests they are under imminent threat, the report stresses the need for military planners to take the risks seriously and integrate safeguards into all aspects of defence strategy.
RUSI also urges governments to engage the public, building trust and preparing communities for possible emergencies without causing panic.
The report concludes: “Efforts must prioritise the establishment of trust between the population and authorities, and offer clear information and instructions.”
UK in talks to buy back nuclear sites from French firm EDF
Politico 25th April 2025
“Discussions are continuing” between the two governments on the U.K. acquiring three sites, an official told POLITICO.
LONDON — The U.K. government is in talks with its French counterparts about purchasing back three nuclear sites from state-owned energy giant EDF, as Whitehall looks to take control of the upcoming expansion of nuclear power.
U.K. ministers are discussing buying up Bradwell B, Heysham and Hartlepool, a French government official confirmed to POLITICO.
“There have been discussions. For the moment, no decision has been taken and discussions are continuing,” the official said.
Two senior industry figures based in the U.K., familiar with government planning and granted anonymity to discuss sensitive plans, also said negotiations over the purchase of the three sites were ongoing.
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and French Minister for Industry and Energy Marc Ferracci discussed the negotiations on the margins of the International Energy Agency Summit in London earlier this week, the official added.
The account was disputed by the British government, with a post-publication statement from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero saying: “We categorically do not recognise these claims.”
The next key moment could come in July as part of a proposed French-U.K. summit.
Any move to bring the sites into state ownership would come as the U.K. mulls the most ambitious revival of nuclear power in a generation.
At a conference last December, Miliband insisted nuclear was essential for an an “all of the above approach” to energy security and low-carbon power, and told investors “my door is open” for future nuclear projects, as the U.K. bids to hit its legally-binding target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
………………..The ‘obvious’ sites
All three sites are owned by French firm EDF, a company in which the French state is the sole shareholder, handed over in a deal struck in 2023.
An EDF spokesperson declined to comment on any discussions but said: “EDF would welcome developments that enable ongoing employment opportunities at our sites, once existing stations close.
…………….. The U.K. has not built a new nuclear power plant since Sizewell B was opened in 1995. The much-delayed Hinkley Point C is at risk of not being completed until 2031, and the government is still weighing up a final investment decision for sister plant Sizewell C.
Meanwhile Great British Nuclear (GBN), the arms-length body set up under the last Conservative government, is overseeing the final stages of the late-running competition to build mini-nukes in the U.K., known as small modular reactors (SMRs).
GBN owns two sites — Oldbury and Wylfa — which were brought into state ownership by former Chancellor Jeremy Hunt last year.
A decision on awarding SMR contracts is now expected this summer. If the government goes ahead with its plans to boost nuclear capacity and award SMR contracts to multiple bidding companies, it will need more than two sites to host the work.
“If the government are going to expand gigawatts [capacity] as well as SMRs, they’ll need more sites, and those [three sites] are the obvious ones left over from EN-6 [the U.K.’s shortlist for projects],” a third industry figure said.
Heysham and Hartlepool both include operating nuclear power plants, which are set for decommissioning in stages across 2027 and 2030 respectively.
By contrast, Bradwell B, once earmarked for new nuclear, is a now vacant plot of land. The site is still owned by EDF but is currently being leased by China General Nuclear (CGN) Power, which stopped advancing their mooted project in 2022.
This means any takeover of the site could include a payout to the Chinese state-backed company, in line with £100 million-plus buyout of CGN’s stake in Sizewell C in 2022.
The developments could also pave the way for Wylfa to be reserved for a third gigawatt scale power plant, alongside Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-nuclear-sites-edf-energy-bradwell-b-heysham-hartlepool/
What’s Legally Allowed in War – Gaza a dress rehearsal for U.S. war on China.
The claim that Israel has adhered to the laws of war is extremely contentious.
1977, an international agreement explicitly prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians.
Gaza not only looks like a dress rehearsal for the kind of combat U.S. soldiers may face. It is a test of the American public’s tolerance for the levels of death and destruction that such kinds of warfare entail….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
On Chernobyl Disaster Anniversary, Repairing Damaged Shield Poses ‘Enormous Challenge’
April 26, 2025 ,By RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service, Stuart Greer and Oleh Haliv, https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-anniversary-russia/33397012.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ6SqxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE3RG9aSkhxNzhYNndQMGFFAR4zqGfz15XQZ8lgJtOhc7sSWq1aQn8M_cCUwEQ8_iwc4gjbpLOjfLqY7ftG6g_aem_uTOf_f4ZB8kKArzvpkNfYQ
As Ukraine marks the 39th anniversary of the world’s worst civilian nuclear accident at the Chernobyl power plant, engineers are struggling to find ways to repair the complex’s protective shield more than two months after a Russian drone left a large hole in the structure.
The massive steel dome was designed to protect and confine the radioactive remains of crippled reactor number four that exploded when a routine safety test went wrong on April 26, 1986.
Radiation levels outside the punctured shield have stayed normal since the drone attack, officials say.
But sealing the hole hasn’t been possible because it sits above the crumbling sarcophagus that encases radioactive debris from the reactor.
“How can you fix a roof space where the higher you go up in the building, the higher the radiation levels? They’re so high next to the actual sarcophagus, the reactor unit, that you can’t work above it,” says Shaun Burnie, a nuclear expert with Greenpeace.
Burnie was part of a Greenpeace team invited to Chernobyl to inspect the damage shortly after the February 14 drone strike which Moscow denied it was responsible for.
“It’s a very, very serious, enormous challenge for Ukraine at a time when it’s faced with so many other challenges, and so the international community really needs to step in and support.” says Burnie.
It took emergency crews three weeks to locate and extinguish fires that spread and smoldered through the membrane of the shield’s outer shell.
The new confinement structure was completed in 2019 as part of a $2.2 billion international project involving 45 countries. The temporary rail track used to install it over the reactor has since been dismantled, meaning the massive structure can’t be moved safely to the side for repairs.
The United Nations predicted the shield would “make the reactor complex stable and environmentally safe for the next 100 years.”
But long-term plans to safely dismantle the sarcophagus to allow the removal of radioactive ruins of the reactor are no longer possible following damage to the shield, according to Dmytro Humeniuk, an expert from Ukraine’s State Scientific and Technical Center for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has earmarked $450,000 to assess the drone damage to the confinement structure.
Ukrainian Environment Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk estimates the preliminary results of the analysis should be completed sometime in May.
Repairs to the shield will be costly and Ukraine will need significant funding from international donors, predicts Burnie.
“They have to come up with a longer-term plan, which will be very extensive, very complicated, and potentially horrendously expensive.”
US nuclear giant Westinghouse pulls out of race to build Britain’s first mini-nukes
There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.
There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.
Westinghouse has not submitted its final bid for the UK’s SMR design competition
Matt Oliver, Industry Editor, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/26/us-company-pulls-out-race-build-britains-first-mini-nuke/
US nuclear giant Westinghouse has pulled out of the UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) design competition.
The four companies remaining in the contest were given a deadline of mid-April to make their final bids, but The Telegraph understands that Westinghouse did not submit one following a negotiation process.
It means only three finalists – Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi and Holtec – remain in the running.
Great British Nuclear (GBN), the quango responsible for the SMR programme, was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each.
Westinghouse did not deny it had withdrawn on Friday but declined to give its reasons.
One industry source suggested the company had baulked at the commercial offer made by the Government.
GBN previously advertised contracts worth £20bn in total for SMR “technology partners”, a figure that is understood to be based on the assumption two winners would be chosen.
However, The Telegraph revealed in February that the Government was considering awarding a contract to only one company as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, looks to make savings in her cross-departmental spending review.
The Chancellor is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed “fiscal rules” for borrowing.
SMR supporters claim they could be a breakthrough in nuclear power because they would be made predominantly in factories and then assembled on site, cutting building times from around a decade to a few years. In theory this could cut costs – as would-be builders of SMRS have repeatedly promised..
Many politicians have snapped up that bait. When he opened the latest stage of the SMR competition, Mr Miliband said: “Small modular reactors will support our mission to become a clean energy superpower.”
However, the nuclear industry has a mixed record on bringing in key projects on time and on budget.
The biggest current example is the UK’s Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset which EDF originally said would cost under £20bn and be operating by now. Current costs estimates are for a final price approaching £50bn and a start-up after 2030.
There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.
A spokesman from the UK Energy Department said: “Great British Nuclear is driving forward its SMR competition for UK deployment. It has now received final tenders, which it will evaluate ahead of taking final decisions this spring.”
On Friday, a GBN spokesman declined to comment on Westinghouse’s position as did Westinghouse itself.
Kiev and its backers reject key aspects of Trump’s peace plan – Reuters
25 Apr 25, https://www.rt.com/news/616288-reuters-trump-peace-plan/
The counteroffer is “on the table” of the American president, Vladimir Zelensky has stated
Kiev and its European backers have turned down President Donald Trump’s reported peace plan for the Ukraine conflict in several significant respects, according to a report by Reuters, citing the full texts of the US proposal and the response.
Washington tabled a proposed deal to end hostilities between Kiev and Moscow during a meeting in Paris on Thursday last week. A follow-up meeting took place in London on Wednesday, at which Ukrainian officials and their NATO European counterparts drafted counterproposal.
The London talks were downgraded at the last minute after Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky publicly rejected key American suggestions. He declared on Thursday that the European-backed “strategy” was now “on President Trump’s table.”
Having examined the drafts “in full and explicit detail” on Friday, Reuters identified four critical areas of disagreement.
The US is proposing Washington’s formal recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea — the former Ukrainian region that voted to join Russia following the 2014 Western-backed armed coup in Kiev — and a cessation of hostilities along the current frontline.
Kiev and its European backers are only willing to discuss territorial issues after a ceasefire has been established.
The US document offers a “robust security guarantee” for Ukraine from willing nations, according to Reuters. The Euro-proposal rival proposal insists that no restrictions be placed on Ukraine’s military, including the deployment of foreign troops on its territory, and calls for the US to provide NATO-like protection to Ukraine.
Russia demands Ukraine remains neutral and insists that it will not accept any NATO troop presence, or troops from bloc members as part of a coalition, in the country.
Reuters reported that the US is advocating for the removal of restrictions imposed on Russia since 2014, while Kiev and the Europeans propose a “gradual easing of sanctions after a sustainable peace is achieved,” paired with a threat of snapback measures for non-compliance.
The US framework includes mentions of financial compensation for Ukraine, but lacks specifics. The Kiev-backed counterproposal identifies frozen Russian assets in Western countries as a source for such payments, according to Reuters. Russia has labeled the seizure of its funds illegal and views any use of these assets to support Ukraine as “theft.”
Members of the Trump administration have blasted Zelensky for attempting to negotiate a deal through the media rather than in confidential discussions. The US president has warned that he may withdraw from his mediation efforts altogether if either party stalls progress.
Campaigners tell Government to drop Bradwell nuclear site
27th April, By Sophie England, AI Champion for the South East, https://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/news/25110689.campaigners-tell-government-drop-bradwell-nuclear-site/
A campaign group has told the Government to “drop the Bradwell site” for the development of nuclear energy.
The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG) has urged the Government to end all interest in the Bradwell site for future nuclear power station development.
In their response to the Government’s National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy, BANNG stated: “In the specific case of Bradwell, the site should be removed from further consideration on the grounds that it is unsuitable and unacceptable.”
The Bradwell site was considered “potentially suitable” for nuclear power by Chinese company CGN from 2015.
However, a pre-application for development in 2020 was met with strong opposition from the Blackwater communities and councils.
This led to CGN pausing its investigations and leaving the site.
It has now been confirmed by the Government and industry that they no longer expect planning applications to be submitted.
BANNG claims this confirms the end of the CGN Bradwell project.
Despite this, the site is still considered to have potential for energy transmission and nuclear infrastructure.
However, BANNG argues that the site does not have widespread public support, with “overwhelming opposition from local councils, stakeholders, community groups led by BANNG over many years”.
BANNG also points out the site’s vulnerability due to its exposed and low-lying coastal location.
They argue that this makes it susceptible to “accidental or malevolent interference and to the increasing impacts of climate change, sea level rise, inundation and storm surges capable of ultimately overwhelming the power station and its long-term highly active waste stores.”
BANNG also criticises the idea of using the site for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), stating that these are “not small and do not yet exist”.
In their consultation response, BANNG urges the Government “to provide a more balanced, less hysterical, account of the virtues and failings of nuclear energy”.
Kursk Region fully liberated from Ukrainians – Putin
Rt.com, 26 Apr, 2025
Kiev’s gamble to invade Russia has ended up in an unmitigated disaster, the president has said.
The Russian military has completely liberated the border Kursk Region from Ukrainian forces, President Vladimir Putin has said after being briefed on the battlefield situation by General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov.
In a video address shared by the Kremlin on Saturday, Putin thanked Russian service members “who took part in defeating the neo-Nazi groups” that invaded the region last summer.
“The Kiev regime’s adventure has completely failed, and the huge losses suffered by the enemy, including among the most combat-ready, trained and equipped, including by Western models of equipment… will certainly be reflected along the entire line of combat contact,” he said.
According to Putin, the Russian success sets the stage for further advances in other areas of the front, bringing final victory in the conflict closer……………….
…………….Ukraine launched its incursion into Kursk Region last August, initially gaining some ground and capturing numerous settlements before their advance was checked by Russian forces.
Putin has characterized the incursion as an attempt by Kiev to divert attention from Moscow’s offensive in Donbass, adding that this ploy has failed. Ukrainian officials described the operation as a way to gain leverage in potential peace talks with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/616355-kursk-region-fully-liberated/
Smash it, then claim it
Trump is trying to rebuild the Iran nuclear deal he destroyed, then declare personal triumph, writes Linda Pentz Gunter
There is deep irony in the current efforts by the Trump administration to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, given it was the previous Trump administration that broke a fully functioning agreement already in place to ensure Iran did not develop nuclear weapons.
The JCPOA — or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — also known colloquially as the Iran nuclear deal — was agreed in Vienna in June 2015 between Iran and China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. It involved significant monitoring and verification of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities to ensure it remained within the confines of commercial grade. It also lifted UN Security Council sanctions on Iran as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to its nuclear program.
But under the first Donald Trump presidency, the White House effectively tore up the agreement, rendering it worthless when the US withdrew in May 2018. In his classically hyperbolic style, Trump labeled the JCPOA “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.”
In recent weeks, the new Trump administration has been feverishly negotiating, most recently in Oman, to establish an Iran nuclear deal that could turn out to be remarkably similar to the JCPOA. But this, of course, is the Trump modus operandi: Destroy something perfectly effective, then rebuild it almost in the exact image and declare it his own invention.
So far, the administration has wavered between demanding that Tehran dismantle its entire nuclear program, backtracking to allow Iran to enrich uranium to within commercial grade, then reversing again, with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff telling Iran it must “stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment” before the US would sign a deal.
Whether any of this will work remains uncertain, but it certainly wasn’t helped by the recent ravings of New Jersey Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat and former Bernie Sanders supporter whose politics — and especially rhetoric — on Israel and immigration, have become indistinguishable from many of the more extreme Republicans.
Of the current Iran talks, Fetterman pronounced: “The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,” referring to the Israeli Defence Forces. …………………………………..
what would the health and environmental impacts be of a major bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? Such an act could release clouds of radioactive dust into the atmosphere, contaminating land and water downwind. Contamination of surface and ground water would result in prolonged harmful consequences through ingestion by exposed populations.
Protracted exposure to enriched uranium dust by inhalation and ingestion can cause bone toxicity and reproductive toxicity and lead to renal failure. Uranium is also neurotoxic to the brain.
Tehran had been keeping its uranium enrichment well within the 3.67% limit, even after Trump withdrew the US from JCPOA. But in 2021, an act of sabotage against Natanz, Iran’s largest uranium enrichment facility, which Iran blamed on Israel, blacked out the plant and damaged centrifuges. The attack prompted Iran, unfettered by the shattered nuclear deal, to begin enriching its uranium to as high as 60% U-235 — some sources assert it has even reached 85% — either way a level that is considered weapons usable. Uranium enriched to 90% is considered weapons grade.
Iran’s nuclear facilities have been targeted on several occasions. In 2010, a powerful computer worm known as Stuxnet, designed by US and Israeli intelligence, was used to disable a key part of the Iranian nuclear program. Last year, a strike by the Israeli Air Force hit Iran’s Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center for uranium conversion and fuel production.
As negotiations began with Iran this spring, Trump also used threatening rhetoric at first, warning in late March that if the country did not dismantle its nuclear program, “there will be bombing. It will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.” He made similar threats during the last gasps of his first presidency, when he weighed an attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear center but never followed through.
If Iran does indeed agree to end all its nuclear activities, the question remains about what to do with its stockpile of already enriched uranium. One idea apparently mooted by the White House is to allow Russia to store it, with a clause that would let Russia return the stockpile to Iran should the US breach any deal made in the coming weeks.
What all of this points to, of course, is the blurry line between commercial and military nuclear programs. Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, can claim to be abiding by the terms laid out in Article IV which gives countries who agree not to develop nuclear weapons “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The trouble is, no one believes them, exposing the weakness in — and wrongheadedness of — the treaty clause that leaves the back door perpetually open to the production of nuclear weapons.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. Views are her own. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/04/27/smash-it-then-claim-it/
1 This Month
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- October 2026 (58)
- September 2026 (339)
- 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)
-
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
