nuclear-news

The False Promise of Nuclear Power: Why Scotland Doesn’t Need New Nuclear.

 Just before the 40th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster,
Scottish CND host 3 excellent guests to discuss the risks, false promises
and opportunity costs of nuclear power.

Linda Pentz-Gunter is an
environmental campaigner who founded the advocacy organisation “Beyond
Nuclear” in 2007. In her advocacy, she is primarily concerned with the
environmental costs of nuclear power and its false promise as a climate
change solution. She also campaigns for nuclear weapons abolition. As the
international specialist at Beyond Nuclear, she edits and curates the
Beyond Nuclear International website, an essential resource for information
and updates on world nuclear news.

Pete Roche is also an environmental
campaigner who has recently revived the civic campaign SCRAM (Scottish
Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace), which organised extensive
demonstrations against the construction of Torness nuclear plant in the
1980s. Pete is also a professional energy consultant and proprietor of the
website No2NuclearPower, another key resource for information and updates
on nuclear power in the UK.

Dylan Morgan is spokesperson for the People
Against Wylfa B campaign, and is strongly involved in the
recently-relaunched Welsh Anti-Nuclear Alliance, also originally launched
in the 1980s and is composed of several important civic organisations in
Wales including CND Cymru.

 Scottish CND 28th May 2026 –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfLQs9LRo50

May 30, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

A troubled nuclear future

May 23, 2026, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2026/05/a-troubled-nuclear-future.html

The National Energy System Operator estimates that up to 4.1GW of nuclear will be needed to deliver a clean power system in the UK by 2030, with scope for further capacity to be delivered if new small modular reactor (SMR) technology can be developed. Overall, the government’s aim seems to be to ramp up nuclear capacity to 24GW by 2050 – though that is still to be confirmed, with new ‘roadmap’ review underway. 

It certainly would be hard. And expensive. But the money seems to be there for things like this. For example, Rolls Royce’s Small Modular Reactor design has been backed by up to £599m from the National Wealth Fund in a partnership deal with Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N). This, it is said, will enable work to begin on the delivery of the UK’s first SMR on Anglesey in North Wales, with £2.5bn having been allocated to SMR development. And over £14bn has been provided for the next large reactor at Sizewell. With, presumably, more to come

However, major projects like this do tax the UKs technology development capacity and there are moves to integrate civil & military nuclear expertise infrastructure to share the load and get more value by joint funding.  In a new report, the right of centre Policy Exchange notes that  ‘civil and defence nuclear are two distinct yet related aspects of the UK state and draw on many of the same national assets’. So it calls for ‘a more disciplined nuclear state,’ presumably with both aspects strengthened. But not everyone wants both or either to be strengthened. Most greens especially. Though, in these troubled times globally, it may be hard to be ‘anti deterrent.’ CND however has no problem with opposing both. 

It is undeniable that there are links between civil and military nuclear. So, arguably it’s hard to back/or oppose one but not the other, with, for example, some nuclear technologies being suited to dual use. That can open up some big political issues, although some see it a bit differently: ‘Civil & military nuclear can enmesh’ says Paul Dorfman, but ‘one must ask whether one inevitably leads to the other…It’s not that nuclear military interests are the sole drivers of support for civil nuclear power, but for some states dual-use technology may comprise a significant complementary factor.’

Be that as it may, the UK state does keep going with both, and is now also pushing fusion, with another £2.5bn allocation. And, despite the long history of false hopes, dating back to ZETA at Harwell in the late 1950s, there is even talk of a prototype in the mid 2030s. Although more likely the 2040s, in the case of the STEP project planned for Nottinghamshire. 

Some see all of this nuclear pushing as vital or at least unstoppable. But not all. For example, in a powerful new book Linda Pentz Gunter says that amongst its many problems, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too integrally connected to the nuclear weapons complex, to serve as a rational energy choice. And US energy guru Amory Lovins agrees: ‘A kilowatt of nuclear power capacity produces several times the annual output of a kilowatt of solar or wind capacity, but at many times higher cost per kilowatt-hour. Capital markets therefore shun nuclear investments but invest one or two orders of magnitude more in solar & wind power. Those renewables therefore add two orders of magnitude more net capacity per year than nuclear, which remains a less-than-one-percent contributor to global electricity growth.’

It is sometimes argued that nuclear is needed to balance variable renewables, but large costly inflexible nuclear plants are not able to vary their output quickly and safely to meet rapid supply and demand variations. Some new SMR technology may make them more flexible. But do you like the sound of molten-flouride salt heat reservoirs? Apart from the risks, adding capacity like that is likely to make the system more expensive and, since they would only need to work part time, overall less economically efficient. Why bother when renewables are accelerating ahead, with load factors rising and costs mostly falling? They will need balancing, but newly emerging low-cost storage and smart grid systems can help balance supply and demand, so we can meet our energy needs reliably: see my last post on IRENA’s new study.   

While some countries do still see civil as well as military nuclear technology as vital, they are in a minority. Out of the 195 countries in the world, only 9 have nuclear weapons and only 31 have nuclear power plants. Some middle-eastern countries may see it differently, with weapons possibilities always being an option. But interestingly, in non-nuclear (bomb and power) Norway, a Government advisory committee looking at its energy options, recently said nuclear power would not be economic, and in any case it would ‘not come in time to help achieve the Paris Agreement’s 2050 goals’, unlike ‘upgrading hydropower plants and expanding wind and solar power’. Crucially, ‘the prospect of realising a Norwegian nuclear power programme with production starting in the mid 2040’s may crowd out other power plant investments that can be realised more quickly’. So, although nuclear might be looked at again as an option in the future, ‘offshore wind offers the greatest potential for new power generation in the long term’. 

That does seem to be sensible. As other independent studies have also argued, the economic case for nuclear is poor – there are better options for decarbonisation, with no radioactive wastes left to deal with, or melt-down or local leakage risks and offering no terrorist or enemy targets for attack. Sadly, for now, in the UK, we will have to make do with the government’s view that all is well with its nuclear plans, policies and procedures. For example, on safety, it has adopted all the reforms to the nuclear regulation system proposed by the independent Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce led by John Fingleton. He had found it an ‘overly complex’ and ‘bureaucratic’ system that had held back the industry. So the aim is to speed up nuclear regulation and cut costs, with ‘safe, cost effective & rapid delivery’ across the entire civil and defence nuclear enterprise. The new streamlined system should be in place by 2027. What could possibly go wrong? 

Next? The National Audit Office has just come out with an assessment of the funding arrangements for Sizewell C, the next big new UK project. It says maintaining ‘investor financial returns will cost consumers over £4 billion, but will be justified if they help the project to cut construction costs and speed up delivery times’. Phew! 

May 28, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment