Will soaring electricity rates kill Ontario’s nuclear expansion?

At $20.9-billion, the Darlington SMRs are expected to cost nearly as much as larger reactors that would have generated far more power. The government is betting that the economic benefits will be worth it: by building the first-ever BWRX-300 reactor, it hopes to win export opportunities for Ontario-based nuclear suppliers.

Future plans include what would be two of the largest nuclear plants on Earth, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. And while the IESO holds competitive procurements for other forms of generation including natural gas, wind and solar, nuclear plants are exempted from that requirement………… “There’s no real competition and there’s no real incentive for them to deliver that power at the cheapest cost “

Matthew McClearn, The Globe and Mail, Feb 5, 2026

The Ontario government’s plans to more than double the capacity of the province’s fleet of nuclear power reactors is sprawling in its ambition – and has a price tag to match.

Last May, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce stood alongside Premier Doug Ford to announce that the government would spend $20.9-billion to build four new small modular reactors in Clarington, Ont. In November, they approved a $26.8-billion overhaul of four old reactors at Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, just east of Toronto.

Ontario’s electricity rates shot up 29 per cent in November, driven in part by rising nuclear generation costs. Further hikes are virtually certain: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) recently filed a rate application before the Ontario Energy Board, which it says will lay the foundation for the province’s energy supply over the next quarter century. The utility seeks roughly a doubling of the payments it receives for the electricity generated by its nuclear power plants. If granted, monthly bills would increase by an average of $3.50 each year for the next five years.

What comes next, though, promises to be even more expensive.

The Ford government asserts that Ontario will need roughly 18,000 additional megawatts of nuclear capacity by mid-century. (Ontario’s existing Darlington, Bruce and Pickering stations represent about 12,000 megawatts.) They’re ready to embark on what they describe as “the largest expansion of nuclear energy on the continent,” which includes plans for two of the largest nuclear plants on Earth. They could easily cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

This aspect of Ontario’s nuclear ambitions – the cost, and how residents and businesses will pay – is rarely discussed by provincial officials, and then only in vague terms. But the Ford government has long insisted that it can do it all while keeping electricity costs down. Critics – particularly those favoring renewable generation – have warned for years that this nuclear-focused approach would eventually lead to steep rate hikes.

“Ontario is on a track to more expensive energy in the future,” said David Pickup, manager of electricity at the Pembina Institute, an energy thinktank.

In a presentation in late January, Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said Mr. Ford’s plans would see 75 per cent of Ontario’s electricity produced by nuclear power by 2050.

“If his nuclear projects proceed, our electricity rates will rise dramatically,” he predicted.

The Ford government came to power in 2018 riding a wave of dissatisfaction with the energy policies of its Liberal predecessors, which also led to surging power bills. Have Mr. Lecce and Mr. Ford similarly miscalculated?

Surging rates

Ontario’s Nov. 1 rate hike of 29 per cent was likely the largest on the continent last year. In the past year, Maine and New Jersey experienced increases of 25.5 per cent and 21 per cent, respectively, according to data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. national average was just 6.6 per cent.

OEB spokesperson Tom Miller attributed Ontario’s rate increase partly to unexpectedly high nuclear generation last year, including from a refurbished reactor at Darlington that returned to service five months earlier than expected.

The November hike was almost entirely offset by an accompanying increase in the Ontario Energy Rebate, a provincial subsidy the government uses to lower residential electricity bills. But those subsidies will cost taxpayers billions of dollars each year, competing with other priorities.

For now, Ontarians’ rates still compare favorably to some provinces, including Nova Scotia, and also U.S. states around the Great Lakes. But the higher payments sought by OPG, if approved, would endure for years.

Traditionally, OPG recovered its costs for projects once they began generating electricity – a common practice worldwide. But nuclear plants can take a decade or two to construct and therefore tend to rack up sizeable interest charges, adding to their final tab.

Last year the government amended the Ontario Energy Board Act to allow OPG to immediately begin recouping some costs associated with building the small modular reactors (SMRs) and refurbishing Pickering.

“The intended effect is to smooth out the cost over time, rather than massive jumps from one year to the next,” explained Brendan Frank, who heads policy development and analysis at Clean Prosperity, a clean energy thinktank.

The Association of Major Power Consumers of Ontario, which represents major industrial electricity users, accepts the charges.

“It’s a legitimate ask from the generators,” said Brad Duguid, the organization’s president. “They have preliminary costs that they’re incurring, and they need to have a way to pay for that.”

Nonetheless, similar regulatory changes elsewhere in North America led to misfortune. In the U.S., a practice known as Construction Work in Progress was introduced in South Carolina and Georgia, which obligated ratepayers in those states to pay up front for the only new nuclear plants built in the U.S. since the 1980s. The South Carolina plant was never finished, and the Georgia plant came in well over budget and many years late, contributing to major rate increases in both states.

Another factor driving up rates in Ontario are refurbished reactors returning to service. Including Pickering, Ontario has decided to refurbish 14 reactors, at a cost of several billions of dollars each. OPG is wrapping up an overhaul of its Darlington plant while Bruce Power’s is scheduled to run until 2033.

Refurbishments enjoy broad political support. One reason is that Ontario’s nuclear industry employs tens of thousands of people. At a press conference held in November to announce the Pickering refurbishment, Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy turned to the unionized workers behind him and assured them: “You folks are gonna be working for a long time. By the way, you’ve got job security…I can guarantee you that we’ll have the nuclear industry’s back all the way through for the next 50 years.”

Local economic benefits are central to Mr. Lecce’s enthusiasm for nuclear, as is energy security.

“The alternative is either a dirty source of power,” he said, “or it is leveraging procurements or materials that are often made in China.

“When I think about President Trump’s attack on the country and his ongoing antagonistic approach to allies and historic friends of the U.S. like Canada, it only reaffirms to me that we are on the right path.”

An expensive future

How much of a premium are Ontarians prepared to pay?

Nuclear plants worldwide have routinely suffered serious delays and cost overruns during construction, and one in nine is never completed. Mr. Lecce exudes confidence that OPG can repeat its performance with the Darlington refurbishment.

Mr. Lecce emphasized that his government is pursuing an “all-of-the-above” approach. The province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has awarded contracts to natural gas and battery storage projects, which are to come online in 2028. But the slogan obscures the fact that the government’s plans would see Ontario lean even more heavily on reactors than it has in the past.

And while the IESO holds competitive procurements for other forms of generation including natural gas, wind and solar, nuclear plants are exempted from that requirement.

Said Mr. Pickup: “There’s no real competition and there’s no real incentive for them to deliver that power at the cheapest cost – unlike these competitive procurements, where if they don’t come in at low cost, they won’t win and they won’t get built.”

The Ford government supports Bruce Power’s proposal to build four large new reactors at its plant in Kincardine, Ont., adding up to 4,800 megawatts to what is often described as the world’s largest nuclear power plant. Known as Bruce C, it could be Canada’s first large-scale nuclear build in more than 30 years. The government has agreed to pay for most of the impact assessment, a benefit few other private power producers enjoy.

Simultaneously, OPG has begun planning an even larger plant at Wesleyville, the site of a partly-constructed oil-fired facility near Port Hope. Wesleyville’s capacity could be as high as 10,000 megawatts, enough to seize the Bruce’s crown as the world’s largest nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants take at least a decade, often two or more, to plan and build. This long lead time, accompanied by their huge output of electricity, requires governments to make big bets about future demand.

Mr. Lecce has placed his. He expects 21 million people will live in Ontario by mid-century, up from 16 million currently. He anticipates mass-adoption of electric vehicles, new data centres and massive investment in Ontario’s industry, including electrification of steel mills.

“We need 65 per cent more power at least, 90 per cent at the high,” Mr. Lecce said. “The province is going to be investing in energy generation, one way or another.”

But many EV projects announced in the past few years have stalled or been cancelled outright. U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to curtail automotive imports into his country has led automakers to lower production in Ontario, and the future of other power-intensive industries such as steel are similarly unclear.

The path not taken

The Ford government’s nuclear expansion plots the opposite course to that taken by most other jurisdictions globally.

According to the International Energy Agency, renewables (particularly solar) are growing faster than any other major energy source, and will continue to do so in all scenarios it has presented – even accounting for continuing hostility from the Trump administration.

“Renewables and storage have come down massively” in cost over the last 15 years, Mr. Pickup said. “Cost reductions have been 80 to 90 per cent, so renewables aren’t just competitive, they’re much cheaper.”

Mr. Ford resolutely opposed wind generation when he first assumed office; his government sought to halt construction of two partly-constructed wind farms, much as Mr. Trump now attacks offshore wind projects.

Mr. Ford’s antipathy toward renewables appears to have softened since then. Nonetheless, the IESO expects renewables will supply roughly the same proportion of Ontario’s electricity 25 years from now as they do today.

Mr. Pickup said the Pembina Institute doesn’t think Ontario should throw out its nuclear plans entirely, only that it should moderate its ambitions considerably in favor of alternatives, particularly renewables and energy storage.

“Nuclear comes in as expensive today,” he said. “It’s going to be relatively more expensive tomorrow.”

Mr. Gibbons, of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, asserted that the cost of new nuclear capacity is between two and eight times more expensive than wind and solar generation.

“If we build new nuclear stations, our electricity rates will rise. If we actually want to lower our electricity bills, we need to invest in the lower cost options.”

But renewables have their own shortcomings and hidden costs. Unlike nuclear plants, wind and solar facilities provide electricity only intermittently, the amount of which is largely determined by environmental conditions like wind speed and daylight. And they require additional transmission infrastructure to connect to the grid, not to mention lots of land.

February 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Europe feels the impact of weeks of wet weather and freezing cold.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been evacuated in Spain, Portugal and
Morocco after Storm Leonardo caused widespread flooding. Emergency services
and the military have been helping rescue people from their homes with
residents who remain warned to leave immediately. The Portuguese government
have extended a state of emergency due to what it describes as the
“devastating crisis” caused by a wave of storms. Saturday will see the
arrival of Storm Marta which will bring more rain to the region.

BBC 6th Feb 2026, https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/cwy8450qkwwo

February 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Ontario’s Nuclear Rate Shock Reveals a Deeper Affordability Problem

Michael Barnard, Clean Technica, 4 Feb 26

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has asked the Ontario Energy Board to approve a sharp increase in regulated nuclear payment amounts, including a year over year jump of more than 40% in 2027. The weighted average regulated payment amount rises from about $78/MWh in 2026 to roughly $110/MWh in 2027, driven by the nuclear payment amount increasing from around $111/MWh to about $207/MWh, almost doubling. For a typical household, this does not mean a 40% increase in the electricity bill. OPG’s own consumer impact analysis shows an increase of roughly $8 per month on a typical bill of about $142, or around 5.6%, mostly because a lot fewer MWh are being delivered at the much higher price. The difference between those two figures is the starting point for understanding what is happening and why it matters for affordability and system design.

An electricity bill is a bundle of charges layered together. Generation is only one part of what households pay. Transmission, local distribution, system operations, and regulatory charges make up a large share of the total. Nuclear sits inside the generation portion, and OPG’s regulated nuclear sits inside nuclear. When the regulated payment amount for OPG’s nuclear fleet rises sharply, the overall bill moves much less because the other layers do not change at the same rate. This does not make the nuclear increase less real. It means the effect is diluted across a broader bill structure.

Importantly, the more Ontario is electrified with good demand management and batteries smoothing peaks, the more that the additional costs of transmission, local distribution, system operations, and regulatory charges are spread across more units of electricity, lowering their portion of the final bill. Expensive nuclear begins to dominate bills in that scenario causing higher rates than necessary, just as inexpensive renewables would lower rates.

Ontario’s nuclear system also has an important institutional split that needs to be clear early.
There are two major nuclear operators. OPG is publicly owned and regulated on a cost of
service basis. The other, Bruce Power, is privately owned and operates under a long term
contractual structure with more exposure to performance and market discipline. The current
rate application applies only to the public operator’s regulated nuclear fleet. System wide
visuals and energy flows, however, reflect the combined output of both operators. Keeping that
distinction clear avoids confusion when comparing rate case numbers to province wide
generation totals.

What is increasing in this application is not spending that OPG failed to anticipate. It is the
amount the regulator allows OPG to recover in a given year under cost of service regulation.
The revenue requirement includes operating and maintenance costs, depreciation of capital
already spent, return of capital, return on capital, taxes, and nuclear liability accruals. These
costs were planned, forecast, and approved years ago. The regulatory question is not whether
OPG expected them, but how and when they are recovered from ratepayers. A large increase in
a payment amount can occur even when nothing unexpected has happened on the ground.

The key mechanical driver of the 2027 spike is a drop in output from OPG’s nuclear fleet, not a
sudden surge in total nuclear spending. OPG’s filing shows production from its regulated
nuclear facilities falling to roughly 18.7TWh in 2027, compared with values in the high 20s or
low 30s TWh in surrounding years. This reflects planned refurbishment outages at Darlington
combined with conservative assumptions about Pickering availability as those units operate
under life extension conditions. Nuclear plants are expensive to own and relatively inexpensive
to operate, while still having costs of operations above the cost of new wind and solar. When
nuclear reactors are offline, most costs continue while output falls. Fixed costs are spread over
fewer kWh under the regulatory structure, and the $/MWh figure rises quickly.

This is why outages matter so much in a nuclear heavy system. A large portion of Ontario’s
electricity comes from a small number of very large units. When one or more of those units is
offline, there are limited alternatives ready to scale up at the same cost. Gas generation can fill
gaps, but that introduces fuel price exposure and emissions. Imports can help at the margin,
but intertie capacity is finite. The result is that nuclear outages show up as price volatility even
when total system costs remain within expected ranges…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The decision to pursue small modular reactors adds another layer to this picture. The SMRs at
Darlington are being developed by the publicly owned utility, OPG, under a cost of service
framework. Development and early construction costs are already flowing into the nuclear
revenue requirement, even though the units won’t be producing electricity for years, likely
many more years than the current schedule projection. Ratepayers are paying financing and
development costs today, with much larger construction and depreciation costs to come later
in the decade.

The contrast with the private nuclear operator, Bruce Power, is instructive. The private
operator has chosen to focus on refurbishing existing large reactors rather than building SMRs.
That choice reflects exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risk. First of a kind nuclear
projects have long lead times, uncertain costs, and limited flexibility. In addition to first of a
kind risks, the SMR reactor designs, operations and fuel cycle are completely unfamiliar to
Ontario’s nuclear operators. Ontario has no nuclear reactor construction experience left, as the
last reactor was turned on a generation ago, so there are no master builders and experienced
teams. Ontario knows how to run existing nuclear and occasionally refurbish the CANDU fleet,
but that’s it. Without guaranteed cost recovery, private capital won’t proceed under those
realities. In Ontario, the reason SMRs are moving forward is that risk can be socialized to
Ontarians through regulation and the current Administration refuses to accept the global
lessons on renewables, not that SMRs are the lowest cost or most flexible option.

This distinction matters for rates. When SMR costs rise above current projections, and they will,
those overruns will flow into rate base if deemed “prudent” by the regulators. That increases
depreciation, return of capital, and return on capital for decades, and Ontario ratepayers or
taxpayers will be paying those costs. Overruns also raise financing costs during construction,
which affects rates before any electricity is delivered. If delays accompany overruns, fixed costs
are spread over fewer kWh for longer, worsening the same denominator problem seen in the
2027 refurbishment year, but stretched across many years.
It’s worth pointing out that Ontario still carries the legacy financial burden of the massive
nuclear build-out undertaken by Ontario Hydro in the 1970s and 1980s, and that burden has
persisted for decades. When Ontario Hydro was reorganized in 1999, its assets were valued at
roughly $39.6 billion while its long-term debt was about $26.2 billion, with a large portion of
that debt tied directly to nuclear construction, cost overruns, and related liabilities.

Much of that stranded debt was transferred to the Ontario Electrical Financial Corporation to
manage and service, rather than being absorbed by investors, and it has been paid down only
gradually over the years. As of 2024, that successor entity still carried about $12.1 billion in
debt originally associated with the old nuclear program, and it was paying roughly $626 million
in interest charges in that year alone. That debt does not mature until 2050, which means
Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers will continue servicing obligations from past nuclear build
projects well into the middle of this century. Current discussions about new, expensive and

untried SMRs should be occurring in context of that still very high debt that Ontario taxpayers
and ratepayers are funding.

It is also important to separate refurbishment from new nuclear. Refurbishment creates short
term price volatility because of outages, but the assets already exist and return to service,
assuming refurbishment goes well. New nuclear creates long term cost commitments. In OPG’s
own filings, the Darlington New Nuclear Program already accounts for hundreds of millions of
dollars per year in revenue requirement. By the end of the decade, new nuclear is likely to
represent roughly one quarter to one third of the incremental increase in nuclear costs. These
commitments are locked in early and recovered over decades. Extending the life of nuclear
reactors instead of more aggressively ramping up wind and solar is a trade off, and at present
Ontario is making the decision to refurbish very old reactors, with the intent of running them to
ages no nuclear reactor in the world has ever seen. This doesn’t mean geriatric nuclear reactors
will necessarily be unsafe, but they get increasingly expensive to maintain, operate and
refurbish………………………………………………………………https://cleantechnica.com/2026/02/02/ontarios-nuclear-rate-shock-reveals-a-deeper-affordability-problem/#google_vignette

February 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs | Leave a comment

Decommissioning of Gentilly 1

Ken Collier, 7 Feb 26

As in many industrial projects, many of the hazards come to be known only after the project is well under way or, very often, completed and discontinued. Gentilly 1 is one of those projects. Like others, the Gentilly 1 detritus presents grave dangers to living things as the building, equipment and supplies are taken apart. Complete public review of the decommissioning of Gentilly 1 is required, in my view. It should not be skipped or sidestepped in any way.

Notice of the project was posted on the website of the federal impact assessment agency, but it bears scant resemblance to formal and complete impact assessments, and the public is instructed to send comments to the private consortium, rather than to the federal authorities responsible for making the decision.

To cite Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR): “Heavily contaminated radioactive concrete and steel would be trucked over public roads and bridges, through many Quebec and Ontario communities, to the Chalk River site just across the Ottawa River from Quebec.”

February 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

How Flexibility, Not Nuclear, Can Secure Ontario’s Electricity Future

Michael Barnard, Clean Technica, 6 Feb 26

Ontario is moving forward with planning for an entirely new nuclear generation site in Port Hope, 100 km east of Toronto, at a moment when its electricity system is already one of the most nuclear-heavy in the world. Nuclear power today provides roughly 55% of Ontario’s electricity, with hydro adding another 25%. Wind, solar, batteries, and demand-side resources together account for a much smaller share, having been cut off at the knees in 2018 when the provincial conservative party took power and summarily cut 758 contracts for renewable generation. Advancing a new site signals how the province understands its future electricity challenge. It reflects an expectation that Ontario will require another large block of firm, always-available capacity to remain reliable as demand grows, particularly during the most constrained hours of the year.

Ontario’s electricity planners, primarily through the Independent Electricity System Operator, frame the case for new nuclear around long-term reliability rather than annual energy supply. Their planning outlook projects electricity demand rising by about 65–75% by 2050—a low energy value not aligned with actual climate or competitiveness goals—with a projected winter peak reaching roughly 36–37 GW. Summer peaks are also expected to rise, but they remain slightly lower, in the range of about 35–36 GW by mid-century. The winter peak, not the summer peak, is treated as the binding constraint, and it is that single cold, dark evening hour that underpins the justification for new nuclear capacity.

This framing matters because of how nuclear is treated in planning models. Nuclear plants supply energy year-round, but the decision to build new nuclear capacity is driven mainly by how much firm capacity planners believe is needed to meet future peak demand. Nuclear units are counted as fully available during peak hours, even though they operate continuously, do not follow demand and are not available when down for maintenance, refueling or refurbishment for months or years. From a reliability perspective, this approach is understandable. System operators are rewarded for avoiding shortages and penalized heavily for blackouts, while overbuilding capacity carries fewer immediate consequences………………………….

The distinction between energy growth and peak growth is critical here. Energy demand, measured in TWh, reflects how much electricity the system produces over a year. Peak demand, measured in GW, reflects the single hardest hour the system must meet. Nuclear plants are not built to follow peaks, but they are sized to peaks. If peaks remain sharp and high, nuclear looks attractive in planning models. If peaks flatten or decline due to significant system component flexiblity, the value of adding large, inflexible, always-on generation falls quickly, even if total energy demand continues to rise.

Electrification without flexibility is genuinely concerning, and planners are right to worry about it……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Ontario does not lack clean electricity. It lacks a planning framework that fully reflects how electricity systems are changing, why winter peaks appear hard only under outdated assumptions, and how firm capacity is actually used in a flexible, digitized grid. The choice facing the province is not between reliability and decarbonization, but between building infrastructure sized for a winter peak that no longer needs to exist and building a system designed to avoid creating that peak in the first place. https://cleantechnica.com/2026/02/06/how-flexibility-not-nuclear-can-secure-ontarios-electricity-future/

February 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, ENERGY | Leave a comment

Britain courts private cash to fund ‘golden age’ of nuclear-powered AI.

SMR trials are on the horizon, but commercial viability is not expected until the 2030s.

Things get a little hazy over the question of any financial support.

Framework aims to lure investors into powering the compute boom

Dan Robinson, Thu 5 Feb 2026,
https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/05/uk_private_finance_smr/

The British government today launched the Advanced Nuclear Framework to attract private investment in next-generation nuclear technology for factories and datacenters.

The framework aims to accelerate development of advanced modular reactors to power the AI infrastructure boom and provide [?]clean energy for economic growth.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) will create a “pipeline” of projects meeting readiness criteria, offering a “concierge-style” service to help the developers navigate UK planning, regulations, and secure private investment.

DESNZ says emerging nuclear technologies like small modular reactors (SMRs) can be prefabricated in factories, enabling faster, cheaper assembly using skilled jobs across multiple regions. These reactors can provide [?] clean energy to the grid or directly to industrial users, it claims. SMRs, as Reg readers likely know, are newfangled designs with a power capacity of up to about 300 MW per unit, about a third of the generating capacity of traditional atomic reactors.

However, the novelty of these designs means they probably won’t be pumping out the megawatts any time soon. As Omdia principal analyst Alan Howard told us last year, SMR trials are on the horizon, but commercial viability is not expected until the 2030s.

Howard was commenting on the announcement of the UK’s first SMR plant last November, which being built at Wylfa on Anglesey, an island off the coast of Wales.

DESNZ also points to plans for X-Energy and Centrica to build 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool, while Holtec, EDF, and Tritax aim to build SMRs at a former coal-fired power station site at Cottam in Nottinghamshire.

Lord Patrick Vallance, Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, claimed advanced nuclear technology could revolutionize the power and AI datacenter industries, delivering [?]clean energy and more jobs.

“We are seizing the opportunity to become a frontrunner in this space as part of our golden age of nuclear, creating the conditions for the industry to flourish,” he said.

The British government today launched the Advanced Nuclear Framework to attract private investment in next-generation nuclear technology for factories and datacenters.

The framework aims to accelerate development of advanced modular reactors to power the AI infrastructure boom and provide clean energy for economic growth.

SMRs, as Reg readers likely know, are newfangled designs with a power capacity of up to about 300 MW per unit, about a third of the generating capacity of traditional atomic reactors.

Howard was commenting on the announcement of the UK’s first SMR plant last November, which being built at Wylfa on Anglesey, an island off the coast of Wales.

“We are seizing the opportunity to become a frontrunner in this space as part of our golden age of nuclear, creating the conditions for the industry to flourish,” he said.

The AI datacenter focus reflects the government’s ambitions for UK AI leadership. It is encouraging a rash of datacenter projects to house AI infrastructure, which is notoriously hot and hungry. One of many reports published last year estimated that global datacenter electricity use is set to more than double by 2030 thanks to AI.

Interested parties will be able to use the Advanced Nuclear Framework to submit proposals to join the pipeline from March. These will then be assessed by Great British Energy-Nuclear, the government-owned atomic energy company.

Things get a little hazy over the question of any financial support. Successful applicants get government endorsement “in principle,” and while they will be expected to secure private finance, the government says it is open to discussions on what may be needed to help get projects off the ground.

Developers will also be able to approach the National Wealth Fund, which can act as a “catalytic investor” for projects that meet their criteria.

The UK isn’t alone in looking to revitalize nuclear power. The US is also encouraging new builds and the development of advanced technologies, and it appears the Trump administration is prepared to overlook safety precautions to speed things along.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

US and Russia negotiating New START deal – Axios.

The issue was reportedly discussed on the sidelines of the Ukraine peace talks in Abu Dhabi

5 Feb, 2026 , https://www.rt.com/news/632065-us-russia-negotiate-new-start/

Moscow and Washington are working on a deal to continue the New START nuclear reduction treaty, Axios reported on Thursday, citing three sources familiar with the issue. The strategic arms control agreement officially expired on February 5.

Signed in 2010, the treaty put caps on the number of strategic nuclear warheads and launchers that can be deployed and establishes monitoring mechanisms for both Russian and American arsenals. It was initially set to expire in 2021 but was extended for five years at the time.

According to Axios, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff discussed the issue with the Russian delegation on the sidelines of the Ukraine peace talks in Abu Dhabi. “We agreed with Russia to operate in good faith and to start a discussion about ways it could be updated,” a US official told the media outlet. Another source claimed that the sides had agreed to observe the treaty’s terms for at least six months as the talks on a potential new deal would be ongoing.

Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow suggested sticking to the treaty’s provisions for another year but its initiative “remained unanswered.” Russia will “keep its responsible attentive approach in the field of strategic stability [and] nuclear weapons” but will be always “primarily guided by its national interests,” he said.

The UN also called the treaty expiration “a grave moment for international peace and security.” Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that “the risk of a nuclear weapon being used is the highest in decades” as he urged Moscow and Washington to negotiate a successor framework.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had earlier proposed to his US counterpart Donald Trump a one-year extension of the treaty but the American president said that he wanted a “better” agreement that includes China.

On Thursday, Peskov said that China considers joining the talks on a new treaty “pointless” since its nuclear arsenal is incompatible with that of Russia and the US. “We respect this position,” the Kremlin spokesman said.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, USA | Leave a comment

Looking to Blame Anyone But Israel for Youth’s Anti-Israel Turn

Ari Paul, February 5, 2026, https://fair.org/home/looking-to-blame-anyone-but-israel-for-youths-anti-israel-turn/

Younger Americans are turning against Israel. “On both the left and the right, young Americans are growing more skeptical of offering unconditional US support to Israel,” Politico (9/29/25) reported. Brookings (8/6/25) ran the headline “Support for Israel Continues to Deteriorate, Especially Among Democrats and Young People.” According to the Forward (11/21/25), “Younger Jews are more than twice as likely to identify as anti-Zionist than the overall population.

Pro-Israel media are looking for blame. It’s often easy to paint youth opinion that is out of sync with official state policy as emotionally driven social justice warriorism, the result of hearts not yet hardened by life’s cold realities. The Zionist media narrative is looking for the culprits who have apparently miseducated our youth, turning them not just into Israel critics, but Jew haters.

‘Panicked’ by young people

At the Atlantic (12/15/25), Yair Rosenberg wrote a piece headlined “The More I’m Around Young People, the More Panicked I Am,’” with the subhead, “Anti-Jewish prejudice isn’t a partisan divide—it’s a generational one.” To his credit, Rosenberg starts off reporting on very real instances of antisemitism, but then watch carefully what he does in the middle:

Young people also tend to be more critical of Israel than their elders, leading a minority to excuse or even perpetuate anti-Jewish acts in America in the name of Palestine. These critics are likely to consume anti-Israel content on their social-media apps of choice. The platforms then funnel some of those users toward antisemitic material—a sort of algorithmic escalator that ends up radicalizing a percentage of them.

In the first sentence, the only evidence Rosenberg cites is a link to his own article (Atlantic, 5/22/25) about how “Elias Rodriguez allegedly shot and killed two people as they were exiting an event at the Capital Jewish Museum,” with the headline “A Dangerous Disguise for Antisemitism.” Rosenberg said the “assailant used the Palestinian struggle as a pretext to harm Jews.”

But as I have previously written (FAIR.org, 5/29/25), much of the media framed this attack as antisemitic without any factual basis. While there was plenty of evidence that the act was political, with Rodiguez’s manifesto denouncing Israel as a “genocidal apartheid state,” there wasn’t any evidence that the attacker held antisemitic views, or targeted the event because of the faith of the victims. If someone obsessed with Saudi Arabia’s aggression in Yemen killed two Muslim workers at the Saudi embassy, that would certainly be anti-Saudi political violence, but not necessarily anti-Muslim terror.

‘Sewer of filth and lies’

Rosenberg doesn’t quite say that today’s young critics of Israel are necessarily antisemites, but argues that by putting anti-Israel content on social media, they’re helping to drive traffic to actual antisemitism. This is a framing that lets Elon Musk—who famously gave a Nazi salute at Donald Trump’s second inauguration—off the hook for overseeing the rise of this antisemitic content on X (CNN, 9/29/25).

Politico: An Entire Generation of Americans Is Turning on Israel

Politico (9/29/25) cites Israel’s “latest moves to launch a ground offensive in Gaza City…and deny evidence of widespread famine” as reasons for the country’s loss of support among young people.

‘Panicked’ by young people

Atlantic: ‘The More I’m Around Young People, the More Panicked I Am’

“Younger Americans…are likely to trust and get their news from lightly moderated social-media platforms,” writes Yair Rosenberg (Atlantic, 12/15/25), “which often advantage the extreme opinions, conspiracy theories, and conflict-stoking content that drive engagement.”

Young people also tend to be more critical of Israel than their elders, leading a minority to excuse or even perpetuate anti-Jewish acts in America in the name of Palestine. These critics are likely to consume anti-Israel content on their social-media apps of choice. The platforms then funnel some of those users toward antisemitic material—a sort of algorithmic escalator that ends up radicalizing a percentage of them.

‘Sewer of filth and lies’

Elon Musk giving a stiff-armed Nazi-style salute at Trump's inauguration (from a New York Times video)

The root of the antisemitism problem at X is not criticism of Israeli war crimes (FAIR.org, 1/23/25).

Nor does he recognize that Meta is aggressively policing against criticism of Israel, even as it ends efforts to proactively screen out hate speech like antisemitism (Washington Post, 2/25/25). Last year, Meta announced “that it will expand its policies to classify the misuse of the term ‘Zionist’ as a proxy for ‘Jews’ as antisemitic and Tier 1 hate speech” (World Jewish Congress, 6/9/24). Al Jazeera (10/24/24) also reported on “testimonies of routine deletion of Palestine-related posts and a deep-seated pro-Israel bias” at Meta.

Rosenberg is rightly concerned that there are too many far-right extremists promoting white nationalism and antisemitism on social media networks (Wired, 5/2/24; PBS, 8/13/24), and these corporate regimes are too tolerant of such activity on their sites. But Rosenberg manages to twist this into an argument that young people need to shut up about Gaza.

Of course, many people are upset about anti-Israel content on social media not because it leads to antisemitism, but because it’s anti-Israel: The reason for the shift in youth opinion isn’t Israel’s behavior, the argument goes, but social media’s influence. Hillary Clinton blames youth criticism of Israel on TikTok (Hollywood Reporter, 12/2/25). The Australian (12/12/25) wrote: “Young people live now on social media. And social media is an unregulated sewer of lies and filth.” The Israeli government has reportedly recruited social media personalities and public relations firms to tell its version of the story (Jerusalem Post, 10/3/25; Al Jazeera, 10/30/25).

‘Brainwashed’ into opposing sex pests

The issue of this generational divide is the center of a piece at Free Press (12/17/25) by Olivia Reingold, called “The Jewish Parents Who Raised Mamdani Voters.” For the unacquainted, Free Press was bought by Paramount (10/6/25), now controlled by oligarch David Ellison, thus turning the once-marginal publication into the closest thing the right has to the New Yorker. (The acquisition also elevated Free Press co-founder Bari Weiss, noted right-wing pundit, to CBS News editor-in-chief.)

Free Press quoted one parent in particular, Sagra Maceira de Rosen, whose bio describes her as “chair of SIO Global, an investment and advisory firm working with private equity and investment.” She said she was “horrified” that Mamdani won the election. What’s worse for her was that her grown child campaigned for him. “I fear that kids I care for—my children—are brainwashed.”

Parents looked for answers. Reingold reported:

They wondered if they should have parented differently. Did their children get enough Jewish education? Were they brainwashed by their elite private schools? Where did they go wrong?

“Maybe I failed in the sense that the kids didn’t go to Israel enough,” a 63-year-old physician in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, told me. He said his daughter, a civil rights attorney, holds anti-Zionist views and refused to vote for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo due to his alleged sexual harassment. “It would’ve been better if they went more, just to see the lies they’re being told.”

It’s not clear if the doctor or Reingold knows what they’re saying here. Jewish kids need to 1) go to Israel to get indoctrinated and 2) stop being appalled by sexual harassment. These issues are more connected than one might think, as a Jewish Currents (4/18/18) investigation by Lilith executive editor Sarah Seltzer found widespread problems of sexual violence within Birthright, the program offering young Jews free guided trips to Israel.

Lacking ‘a capacity for critical thinking’

Another parent, Lisa Fields Lewis, lamented that her grown children liked Mamdani:

Lewis was raised by an Israeli mother; her father survived Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. She said the rise of Mamdani awakened a “generational trauma” in her. Now, she can’t shake the feeling that history is repeating itself. And kids don’t seem to realize just how dangerous Mamdani’s views are, Lewis said.

With Mamdani set to be sworn in just after midnight on January 1, Lewis doesn’t know if their relationship can return to normal any time soon. “I feel sad,” Lewis said. “I feel envious of my friends whose kids are proud Zionists, or at least have the capacity for critical thinking.”

It’s not FAIR’s job to comment on others’ parenting skills, but Lewis just told the world she thinks her children don’t have a “capacity for critical thinking”; the tension in this household might have to do with a lack of respect, rather than just differing politics. What’s really dangerous here is that the author doesn’t challenge the absurd suggestion that “Mamdani’s promise of providing free buses and righting the city’s widening income gap” is the first step in sending the Jews to the camps.

By what measure does the Free Press think Mamdani is dangerous for Jews? It pointed out that he “has consistently denied Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state,” saying instead that “Israel should exist ‘with equal rights for all’—a bar the nation already meets.”

Reingold can’t decide what she wants here: a Jewish state or a state that doesn’t discriminate. Maintaining the former requires preventing the latter, as Palestinians that have been under Israeli control for nearly 60 years need to be denied the right to vote in Israeli elections. Jews from anywhere in the world have a “right to return” to Israel, but non-Jewish refugees from pre-1948 Palestine do not. A number of human rights groups, including an Israeli one, have found that the legal separation of peoples in Israel proper and the Occupied Territories amounts to apartheid (B’Tselem, 1/12/21; Human Rights Watch, 4/27/21).

Reingold went on, “More recently, the mayor-elect has caught flack for his controversial appointments to his transition committees, which include fringe anti-Zionist rabbis.” Again, there’s nothing here that represents antisemitism–instead, there’s inclusion of Jews. The problem is that Mamdani is close to clergy whose politics don’t align with the Weiss editorial regime. To put things into perspective, Mamdani won a third of the city’s Jewish vote (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 11/5/25)—not a majority, but not exactly a “fringe” either.

‘A problem of disobedient children’

These pieces spend a lot of ink displaying anxiety for this generational divide, but never really ask why it exists. If they did that, they might find out that while many in the older generation could indulge the fantasy that a pre-Netanyahu Israel was engaged in a peace process, when mainstream Israeli leaders paid lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, younger Jews only know a place of extreme bellicosity.

Any voter in their 20s doesn’t remember the Oslo Accords or Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands with Yasser Arafat (Conversation, 9/12/23). Instead, what they know is a country that has mostly been under the control of the right-wing Likud party and its extremist allies, an anti-democratic slide into authoritarianism (Haaretz, 10/30/25; Committee to Protect Journalists, 12/11/25), government corruption (New York Times, 11/30/25), settlement expansion (UN News, 9/29/25), alliances with the European far right (CNN, 3/26/25; Foreign Policy, 5/9/25) and several lopsided wars against Gaza.

But neither the Atlantic nor the Free Press can say this. The answer can’t be that Israel’s actions against Palestinians and its decaying political system are turning people off. No, the problem is that young people are led astray by social media and distance from real education.

“While Israel’s actions have always been structured by apartheid and ethnic cleansing, the scale and the visibility of its structural violence has been placed at the center of American political discourse,” said Benjamin Balthaser, author of Citizens of the Whole World: Anti-Zionism and the Cultures of the American Jewish Left. “Americans, not just Jews, are compelled to respond.”

He added, “That the Free Press sees this as a problem of disobedient children or a lack of Torah school is not unlike Hillary Clinton blaming outrage at Israel on TikTok videos and social media.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster | Leave a comment

ISIS vs IDF. Selective justice and the fall of Australian law

by Andrew Brown | Feb 4, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/isis-vs-idf-selective-justice-and-the-collapse-of-australian-law/

Australians who went to fight for ISIS were prosecuted, their families vilified, while former IDF soldiers fighting for Israel walk freely among us. Andrew Brown reports on the double standards.

Australians like to believe our justice system is governed by principle, and crimes judged by what was done, not by who did them. We like a comforting story about ourselves. That justice is served, and accountability painful but even-handed. We tell it often. We believe it when it suits us.

That story collapses the moment it is tested.

After the Brereton Report, Australia demonstrated what accountability looks like when it chooses to take law seriously. Entire Australian Defence Force platoons were investigated. Whole units placed under suspicion. Soldiers interrogated repeatedly. Careers frozen. Medals questioned. Command structures dismantled. Hundreds of millions of public dollars spent. One soldier charged. Many others left suspended indefinitely, their lives stalled in legal limbo.

This pursuit of accountability was not timid or symbolic. It did not flinch at rank, reputation, or heroism. Australia went after its returning heroes, including Victoria Cross recipients, and some of the most decorated units in its military history. It did so publicly and without fear or favour.

“No medal or mythology placed anyone beyond scrutiny.”

Australia wanted the world to see that it would investigate its own forces, not just individuals but units and chains of command, even when it was humiliating and politically costly.

Soldiers going overseas

When Australians travelled to join ISIS, the response was faster and harsher. Passports cancelled. Homes raided. Surveillance expanded. Citizenship stripping powers deployed. Wives treated as accomplices. Children framed as future threats. Suspicion alone was often enough to trigger punishment. Due process became optional.

If Australians fought for Russia against Ukraine, arrests would follow. Prosecutions under foreign incursion and war crimes laws. Media outrage before the luggage carousel stopped turning. The word traitor would appear instantly.

That is the standard Australia claims to uphold.

Gaza

Now consider Gaza. What is occurring is not chaotic warfare. It is a civilian catastrophe with a measurable pattern. Credible casualty analyses based on hospital records, death registries, and independent verification show that approximately 84% of those killed are civilians and around 33% are children. Not combatants miscounted. Not teenagers caught in crossfire. Children.

By comparison, in Ukraine, children account for around 0.3% of casualties. That is a difference of more than one hundredfold.This is not incidental harm. It is demographic concentration.

The destruction follows the same logic. Entire residential districts have been levelled. Homes, schools, universities, bakeries, water infrastructure, and sewage systems have been systematically destroyed. This is not damage caused by fighting around civilians.

“It is the removal of the conditions required for civilian life to continue.”

Hospitals have been a central target. Gaza’s major medical complexes were besieged, raided, and rendered inoperable. Electricity was cut. Fuel was denied. Oxygen supplies ran out. Patients died untreated on floors. Premature infants were left in incubators without power. Medical staff were detained directly from wards and operating theatres, taken without charge, many remaining in detention months later.

This is not collateral damage. It is the dismantling of a healthcare system in real time.

Human rights atrocity

Mass detention has accompanied the physical destruction. Thousands of Palestinians have been taken without charge or access to legal counsel. Human rights organisations have documented beatings, starvation, stress positions, and sexual abuse in detention. Medical professionals and journalists were not spared. They were targeted.

Journalists have been killed at a rate unmatched in any modern conflict. Aid workers have been killed despite operating in clearly marked vehicles and facilities. Among them was Australian humanitarian Zomi Frankcom, killed during a coordinated strike on an aid convoy.

And then there is Hind Rajab.

A six-year-old girl was trapped in a car after her family was shot dead. She called emergency services. Her voice was recorded. An ambulance was dispatched to rescue her. The ambulance was destroyed. Hind was later found dead alongside the paramedics sent to save her.

There was no firefight. No exchange of fire. No ambiguity.

Doctors from Australia, the United States, and Canada who worked in Gaza later testified publicly to treating repeated waves of children with gunshot wounds consistent with sniper fire. Identical entry wounds to heads and chests. These were not anecdotes.

They were clinical observations recorded by trained professionals.

The crime scene

This is why the language of genocide is no longer rhetorical. It is legal. The International Court of Justice has found a plausible risk of genocide and ordered provisional measures. The International Criminal Court is pursuing accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from Israeli actions.

What is unfolding in Gaza is not a tragedy without authorship.

It is a crime scene.

Australia has chosen silence.

That silence is no longer ignorance. At the National Press Club, senior human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti warned that Australians who served in Gaza may face criminal liability if genocide or war crimes are established. He was explicit. Genocide does not require pulling a trigger. Assistance, facilitation, or knowing contribution can be enough.

“The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.”

The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.

No Australian Federal Police task force. No examination of units or command chains. No transparency. No framework for investigating potential complicity in genocide or war crimes under Australian law.

Instead, indulgence.

An estimated 1,000 former or current Israeli Defence Force soldiers now live freely in Australia. They stroll through Caulfield, Bondi, Dover Heights, and Double Bay. They drink lattes in Sydney cafes. They enjoy suburban normality without scrutiny, while Gaza remains a ledger of rubble, amputations, mass graves, and dead children.And the indulgence does not stop at inaction. It now edges toward empowerment.

NSW Premier Chris Minns has publicly canvassed expanding armed community protection roles, including the involvement of current or former Israeli soldiers in guarding Jewish institutions in Australia. The stated aim is protection against antisemitism. That aim is legitimate. The implications are not.

Policing and the authorised use of force are public functions. They exist because weapons in civilian life require training, oversight, accountability, and law. When governments contemplate arming individuals with recent service in a foreign military now under investigation for genocide, the issue becomes immediate and domestic.

Run the test honestly.

ISIS vs IDF

If ISIS returnees sought to bear arms in public under the guise of community protection, the state would answer with handcuffs and prison, not consent. The request itself would be treated as evidence of danger.

That this proposal can be entertained for one category of foreign fighter while unthinkable for another exposes the fiction at the heart of Australia’s claim to equal justice. The law has not changed. Only who it is prepared to protect has.

“This is not neutrality. It’s policy.”

Australia destroyed careers investigating its own soldiers. It went after its most decorated units without fear or favour. It acted ruthlessly against ISIS recruits. It would move instantly if Australians fought for Russia.

When Australians fight in Gaza under the Israeli flag, amid credible allegations of genocide now before international courts, the state looks away.

“That is not restraint, but complicity.”

History will remember this as the moment Australia blinded its own law, allowing returning IDF soldiers to pass unexamined and exposing fairness before the law as a deliberate lie.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, Legal | Leave a comment

Impact Assessment of the Planned Dismantling of the Core of the Gentilly-1 reactor.

To: The Honourable Julie Aviva Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change

From: The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)

Re: Impact assessment of the final dismantling of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor

Date: July 5 2026

Reference Number 90092

Cc Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories \

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The final dismantling of the most radioactive portions of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor, proposed by the licensee Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), will mark the first time that a CANDU power reactor has ever been fully decommissioned – that is, demolished.

This project is not designated for a full panel review under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) but you, Minister Dabrusin, have the power to so designate it under the terms of the Act.

The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility urges you to do so for the reasons stated below.

(1) When it comes to post-fission radioactivity (human made), the long-lived radioactive decommissioning waste from the core area of a nuclear reactor is second only in radiotoxicity and longevity to the high-level radioactive waste (irradiated nuclear fuel) that has already been designated for a full panel review under IAA at the initiative of NWMO, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The deadline for initial comments on the NWMO Deep Geological Repository project (DGR) for used nuclear fuel was yesterday, February 4, 2026. [Our comments: www.ccnr.org/GE_IAAC_NWMO_comments_2026.pdf ]

(2) Fully dismantling a nuclear reactor core is a demanding and hazardous undertaking, resulting in voluminous intermediate level radioactive wastes. The highly radioactive steel and concrete structures – fuel channels, calandria tubes, tube sheet, thermal shield, calandria vessel, biological shield, reactor vault, and more – need to be carefully disassembled, using robotic equipment and perhaps underwater cutting techniques with plasma torches. Such methods are described in a 1984 article published by the Canadian Nuclear Society and linked below, on the detailed advanced methods required for dismantling Gentilly-1.

Gentilly-1 Reactor Dismantling Proposal, by Hubert S. Vogt

Reactor and Fuel Handling Engineering Department

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited – CANDU Operation

Published by the Canadian Nuclear Society in the

Proceedings of the 5^th Annual Congress

www.ccnr.org/CNS_G-1_1984.pdf

(3) Dismantling the reactor core will create large amounts of radioactive dust and debris some of which will almost certainly be disseminated into the atmosphere, or flushed into the nearby St. Lawrence River, or added to the existing contamination of the soil and subsoil (including groundwater) at the Gentilly site. It is worth noting that, during the Bruce refurbishment operations in 2009, over 500 workers – local tradesmen, mainly – suffered bodily contamination by inhaling radioactive airborne dust containing plutonium and other alpha emitters (i.e. americium) for a period of more than two weeks. The workers were told that respirators were not required. The radioactivity in the air went undetected for two and a half weeks because neither Bruce managers nor CNSC officers on site took the precaution to have the air sampled and tested.

(4) Once disassembled, the bulky and highly radioactive structural components of Gentilly-1 will have to be reduced in volume by cutting, grinding or blasting. Radioactive dust control and radioactive runoff prevention may be only partially effective. Then the multitudinous radioactive fragments must be packaged, and either (a) stored on site or (b) removed and transported over public roads and bridges, probably to Chalk River. The Chalk River site is already overburdened with high-level, intermediate-level, and low-level radioactive wastes of almost all imaginable varieties. Toxic waste dumping at Chalk River is contrary to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the federal government’s “duty to consult”, since Keboawek First Nation and other Indigenous rights-holders in the area have not given their free, prior, informed consent to either the storage or disposal of these toxic wastes on their unceded territory. A panel review could weigh the options of temporary on-site storage versus immediate relocation. Since there is as yet no final destination for intermediate level wastes, moving those wastes two or three times rather than once (when a final destination exists) will be costlier and riskier. Hence on-site storage is attractive.

(5) The decommissioning waste must be isolated from the environment of living things for thousands of years. The metallic fragments contain such long-lived radioactive species as nickel-59, with a 76,000 year half-life, and niobium-94, with a 20,000 year half-life. The concrete fragments also contain long-lived radioactive species like chlorine-36, with a 301,000 year half-life. Such radioactive waste materials are created during the fission process; they were never found in nature before 1940. NWMO has recommended that such intermediate-level decommissioning waste requires a Deep Underground Repository (DGR) not unlike that proposed for used nuclear fuel. CCNR believes that it is only logical and entirely responsible to call for a panel review of this, the first full decommissioning project for a nuclear power reactor in Canada. The lessons learned will have important ramifications for all of Canada’s power reactors as they will all have to be dismantled at some time. This is not “business as usual”.

(6) Demolition of buildings is often a messy business, but demolition of a nuclear reactor core is further complicated by the fact that everything is so highly radioactive, therefore posing a long-term threat to the health and safety of humans and the environment. A panel review by the Assessment Agency is surely the least we can do in the pubic interest.

(7) To the best of our understanding, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is a private contractor managed by an American-led consortium of multinational corporations, whose work is paid for by Canadian taxpayers through the transfer of billions of dollars to CNL from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation wholly owned by the Canadian government. As CNL is a contractor, paid to do a job by AECL, CCNR does not feel assured that the best interests of Quebec or of Canada will automatically be fully served by CNL, as it is not accountable to the electorate. When the job involves demolishing, segmenting, fragmenting, packaging and transporting dangerous radioactive materials, involving persistent radiological toxins, we feel that a thorough public review by means of a comprehensive impact assessment, coupled with the involvement and oversight of accountable federal and provincial public agencies is required to ensure that the radioactive inventory is verified and documented, that no corners are cut and no presumptions go unchallenged. The International Atomic Energy Agency strongly advises that before any reactor decommissioning work is done, there has to be a very precise and accurate characterisation of the radioactive inventory –

all radionuclides accounted for, all becquerel counts recorded, and all relevant physical/chemical/biological properties carefully noted. We have seen no such documentation, but we believe it is essential to make such documentation publicly available before final decommissioning work begins, and to preserve such records for future generations so that they can inform themselves about the radioactive legacy we are leaving them. A panel review could help to ensure that we do not bequeath a radioactive legacy that is devoid of useful information, a perfect recipe for amnesia.

(8) The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) is federally incorporated as a not-for-profit organization, whose official name in French is le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire (RSN). CCNR/RSN is a member of le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROEÉ). The ROEÈ has also filed comments on this dossier, linked below, with 10 recommendations. We endorse the ROEÉ submission and all of its recommendations. The ROEÉ submission is en français www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_2026.pdf and here is a link to an English translation

www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_e_2026.pdf .

Yours very truly,

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President,

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

‘Significant’ fire risks at nuclear plant site

Maisie Lillywhite, West of England, 4 Feb 26, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgqexej138jo

‘Significant’ fire risks have been uncovered at the first nuclear plant to be built in Britain for 30 years, including flammable materials left on emergency exit stairs.

Inspectors from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said they found significant fire safety shortfalls at Hinkley Point C, EDF’s twin-reactor nuclear power station in Somerset.

The ONR has served enforcement action notices on five organisations which are overseeing mechanical, electrical and heating (MEH) and ventilation and air conditioning work (HVAC) at the site.

Bosses of the five organisations will need to address the shortfalls ahead of the next inspection.

A spokesperson for Hinkley Point C said they are working closely with contract partners to ensure that the appropriate enhancements are made.

“Safety is our overriding priority, and we are already acting to oversee improvements,” they added.

Mahtab Khan, ONR’s head of regulation, said fire safety is not optional and it is a legal requirement that protects lives.

“We will not hesitate to take enforcement action where safety standards fall short, and we expect all dutyholders to treat fire safety with the urgency it demands.

“Working alongside the principal contractor and MEH alliance, we have made good progress in understanding the root causes of these shortfalls to ensure they are addressed,” Khan added.

The Hinkley Point C contractors given fire enforcement notices are Altrad Babcock, Altrad Services, Balfour Beatty Kilpatrick Ltd, Cavendish Nuclear, and NG Bailey.

The combustible material, found during an inspection in December, was discovered in the staircase and was waste typical of construction activities, the ONR said.

It added although the waste did not block the fire exit, it could have compromised access to the building in the event of a fire.

Inspectors found the construction site did not have an adequate fire risk assessment.

There were also insufficient means of escape exits for the number of people working in the building.

The ONR said the shortfalls had no direct impact on the likelihood of a fire, but that the enforcement means adequate routes should be available to workers in the event of a fire.

It comes after inspectors found there was a “risk of serious injury” due to “inadequate fire controls” being used by civil engineering firm Bylor JV, which is run by both Laing O’Rourke and Bouygues Travaux Publics.

In December, the company was served with a fire safety notice and was told it had until June to implement changes.

The estimated cost of Hinkley Point C has risen to £46bn from the £18bn predicted in 2017, and it is expected to open in 2031.

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Trump’s $1.5 Trillion “Dream Military”

Or What National Nightmares Are Made Of

By William J. Astore. Tomgram, February 5, 2026

What constitutes national security and how is it best achieved? Does massive military spending really make a country more secure, and what perils to democracy and liberty are posed by vast military establishments? Questions like those are rarely addressed in honest ways these days in America. Instead, the Trump administration favors preparations for war and more war, fueled by potentially enormous increases in military spending that are dishonestly framed as “recapitalizations” of America’s security and safety.

Such framing makes Pete Hegseth, America’s self-styled “secretary of war,” seem almost refreshing in his embrace of a warrior ethos. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is another “warrior” who cheers for conflict, whether with Venezuela, Iran, or even — yes! — Russia. Such macho men revel in what they believe is this country’s divine mission to dominate the world. Tragically, at the moment, unapologetic warmongers like Hegseth and Graham are winning the political and cultural battle here in America.

Of course, U.S. warmongering is anything but new, as is a belief in global dominance through high military spending. Way back in 1983, as a college student, I worked on a project that critiqued President Ronald Reagan’s “defense” buildup and his embrace of pie-in-the-sky concepts like the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), better known as “Star Wars.” Never did I imagine that, more than 40 years later, another Republican president would again come to embrace SDI (freshly rebranded as “Golden Dome”) and ever-more massive military spending, especially since the Soviet Union, America’s superpower rival in Reagan’s time, ceased to exist 35 years ago. Amazingly, Trump even wants to bring back naval battleships, as Reagan briefly did (though he didn’t have the temerity to call for a new class of ships to be named after himself). It’ll be a “golden fleet,” says Trump. What gives?………………………………………………

In America, nothing — and I mean nothing! — seems capable of reversing massive military spending and incessant warfare. President Ronald Reagan, readers of a certain (advanced) age may recall, was nicknamed the “Teflon president” because scandals just didn’t seem to stick to him (at least until the Iran-Contra affair proved tough to shed). Yet history’s best candidate for Teflon “no-stick” status was never Reagan or any other president. It was and remains the U.S. warfare state, headquartered on the Potomac River in Washington, D.C. And give the sclerotic bureaucracy of that warfare state full credit. Even as the Pentagon has moved from failure to failure in warfighting, its war budgets have continued to soar and then soar some more………………………………….

The Shameless Embrace of Forever War and Its Spoils

………………………………………….In case you’ve forgotten them (or never read them), here are Ike’s words from that televised address in January 1961, when he put the phrase “the military-industrial complex” in our language:

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”…………………………..

Those were the prescient words of the most senior military man of his era, a true citizen-soldier and president, and more than six decades later, we should and must act on them if we have any hope left of preserving “our liberties and democratic processes.”

………………………………..More, More, More!

Not only is such colossal military spending bad for this country, but it’s also bad for the military itself, which, after all, didn’t ask for Trump’s proposed $500 billion raise. America’s prodigal son was relatively content with a trillion dollars in yearly spending. In fact, the president’s suggested increase in the Pentagon budget isn’t just reckless; it may well wreck not just what’s left of our democracy, but the military, too………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Americans, we must act to cut the war budget, shrink the empire, embrace diplomacy, and work for peace. Sadly, however, the blob has seemingly become our master, a well-nigh unstoppable force. Aren’t you tired yet of being its slave?

On the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, which was predicated on resistance to empire and military rule, it should be considered deeply tragic that this country has met the enemy — and he is indeed us. Here the words of Ike provide another teachable moment. Only Americans can truly hurt America, he once said. To which I’d add this corollary: Only Americans can truly save America.

As we celebrate our nation’s birthday this July 4th, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could save this deeply disturbed country by putting war and empire firmly in the rearview mirror? A tall task for sure, but so, too, was declaring independence from the mighty British Empire in 1776. https://tomdispatch.com/trumps-1-5-trillion-dream-military/

February 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Precarious Invitations: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog’s Visit to Australia

4 February 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/precarious-invitations-israels-president-isaac-herzogs-visit-to-australia/

Things are getting rather ropey on the invitation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to visit Australia on February 8. It came amidst the anguish following the Bondi Beach attacks of December 14, 2025 on attendees of a Hanukkah event by two gunmen, leaving 15 dead. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese obviously thought it a sensible measure at the time. For months, his government has been snarled at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for providing succour to antisemitism. The wretched thesis: that Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian State at September’s UN General Assembly meeting somehow stirred it.

Albanese had thought dealing with the gargoyle of antisemitism and engendering good will could be achieved by inviting Herzog. “We need to build social cohesion in this country,” he insists. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) also thought the invitation sound, sending “a powerful message of solidarity and support… following the tragic events at Bondi and the surge of antisemitism across the country.”These claims of fluffy approval ignore the serious and blindingly obvious prospect that legal grounds might arise regarding Herzog’s visit, not to mention the public protest and agitation it will cause. Australia, being a party both to the UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute which establishes the International Criminal Court, must always be wary about the injunctions of membership. A determined opposition, armed with legal arguments and indignation, has shown itself keen on foiling the visit.

On January 30, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), announced that a joint legal complaint to have Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia had been sent to the Australian Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). As Netanyahu would be unlikely to visit Australia without discomfort, given an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, the complaint asserted that as “the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate.”

The complaint implores the Australian authorities to do any of three things: refuse or cancel any visa held by Herzog under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which covers character and public interest grounds; refer him to the AFP for investigation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth) and Australian hate crime legislation; and ensure Australia’s compliance with international obligations to investigate and prosecute who enter the country who are reasonably suspected of committing serious international crimes.

In their body of evidence, the group cites the President’s “Entire Nation” declaration of October 2023 claiming that no civilians in Gaza were “uninvolved” in that month’s attack on Israel by Hamas; the grotesque denials of famine in August 2025, suggesting that images of chronic starvation featuring Palestinian children had been “staged”; and the broader endorsement of military operations entailing the commission of war crimes. Reference in the complaint is made to a December 2023 visit by Herzog to the Nahal Oz military base where he provided encouragement to troops two days before their “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the town of Khuza’a in Khan Yunis.

The complaint also rejects any application of Head of State immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law as removing that shield when it comes to the commission of such grave offences as genocide and war crimes.

The complaint is certainly accurate in drawing attention to Herzog’s incitements to collectively punish an apparently complicit populace in Gaza. South Africa’s filing of proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging acts of genocide in Gaza cites his remarks from October 12, 2023: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true… and we will fight until we break their backbone.” The submission also notes a social media post by Herzog showing him addressing reservists and writing messages on bombs destined to be used on Palestinians.

The September 2025 analysis by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which found Israel’s conduct in Gaza after October 7, 2023 to be genocidal in nature, also references Herzog’s October 12, 2023 remark, further adding those words of blame that Gazans “could have risen up.” In the Commission’s view, the President had damned Palestinians to equal responsibility for the attacks on Israel on October 7 that year. Such a statement, along with those of similar kidney made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, constituted “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” under the Genocide Convention.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has also been reminded in a submission by the Australian Centre for International Justice, along with two Palestinian non-government human rights organisations, the West Bank-based Al-Haq and the Gaza-based Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, that Australia has obligations to investigate “credible allegations of serious international crimes” and has domestic laws permitting “the initiation of an investigation” into their commission. Even if immunity was enlivened for the Israeli President, it would not prevent the AFP “from undertaking preliminary investigative steps, including seeking a voluntary interview with Herzog upon his arrival to Australia.”

The AFP states that Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act grants the Commonwealth “jurisdiction to investigate core international crimes that occur offshore. However, it is not usually practical for the AFP to do so.” With something of a shrug, the AFP would rather that the country where such alleged offences had taken place pursue the matter. (What a rosy convenience that would be.) Investigating such crimes would also pose problems, among them evidentiary matters regarding location, identifying and locating witnesses, the occurrence of crimes in an ongoing conflict, the unwillingness of foreign governments to assist.

Australian lawmakers have also shown themselves reluctant to block the visit. The waters were tested in an attempt by the Greens Senator David Shoebridge on February 3 to suspend standing orders to move a motion seeking the government’s rescinding of Herzog’s invitation. “When someone is accused by the United Nations of inciting genocide, you don’t invite them for tea, you don’t give them a platform, and you certainly don’t welcome them as a guest of honour.”

His effort was thwarted by a large Senate majority. At this point, Herzog’s five-day visit, with all its combustible precariousness and legal freight, is scheduled to take place. A citizen’s arrest might be in order.

February 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Growing stockpiles of radioactive waste beside the Ottawa River upstream of Parliament Hill causing widespread concern.

hendricksonjones on February 3, 2026, https://concernedcitizens.net/2026/02/03/growing-stockpiles-of-radioactive-waste-beside-the-ottawa-river-upstream-of-parliament-hill-causing-widespread-concern/#like-4244

The Ottawa River flows through an ancient rift valley that extends from near North Bay through Ottawa toward Montreal. The area is seismically active, and experiences dozens of minor earthquakes each year. Stronger earthquakes also occur such as the magnitude 5 quake in June 2010 that caused shaking, evacuations and damage in Ottawa including shattered windows in Ottawa City Hall and power outages in the downtown area.

February 3, 2026The Ottawa River flows through an ancient rift valley that extends from near North Bay through Ottawa toward Montreal. The area is seismically active, and experiences dozens of minor earthquakes each year. Stronger earthquakes also occur such as the magnitude 5 quake in June 2010 that caused shaking, evacuations and damage in Ottawa including shattered windows in Ottawa City Hall and power outages in the downtown area.Experts say Ottawa is at risk for a big earthquake.The Government of Canada is currently in the process of shoring up and earthquake-proofing the buildings on Parliament Hill. The project will take 13 years and cost billions of dollars.Incredibly, at the same time as billions are being spent to earthquake-proof Canada’s Parliament Buildings, the Government of Canada is paying billions of dollars to a US-based consortium that is importing large quantities of radioactive waste to the Ottawa Valley.

Soon after it took control of Canada’s nuclear laboratories and radioactive waste in 2015, the consortium, through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), announced its intention to consolidate all federally-owned radioactive waste at Chalk River Laboratories, alongside the Ottawa River, 180 km upstream of the Nation’s Capital. There was no consultation or approval from the Algonquin Nation in whose unceded territory the Chalk River Laboratories is located, nor any consultation with residents of the Ottawa Valley about the plan.

CNL is importing nuclear waste from federal nuclear facilities in Manitoba, southern Ontario and Quebec. The imports comprise thousands of shipments and thousands of tonnes of radioactive debris from reactor decommissioning, and dozens of tonnes of high level waste nuclear fuel, the most deadly kind of radioactive waste that can deliver a lethal dose of radiation to an unprotected bystander within seconds of exposure.

High level waste shipments from Becancour, Quebec have already been completed. They involved “dozens of trucks” and convoys operating secretly over several months, from December 2024 through July 2025, under police escort, to move 60 tons of used fuel bundles to Chalk River. Tons of high level waste from Manitoba will follow soon.

Since there is no long-term facility for high level waste at Chalk River, nor is there any such facility anywhere in Canada at present, CNL built silos (shown in the photo below) to hold the waste at a cost of 15 million dollars. This high level radioactive waste is ostensibly in storage at Chalk River, but there is no guarantee it will ever be moved.

CNL plans to put the less deadly waste into a giant, above-ground radioactive waste mound called the Near Surface Disposal Facility, a controversial project currently mired in legal challenges. The dump would hold one million tons of radioactive waste in a facility designed to last about 500 years. Many of the materials destined for disposal in the dump, such as plutonium, will remain radioactive for far longer than that. According to CNL’s own studies, the facility would leak during operation and disintegrate after a few hundred years, releasing its contents to the surrounding environment and Ottawa River less than a kilometer away.

Shipping containers filled with radioactive waste are piling up at Waste Management Area H on the Chalk River Laboratories property, awaiting a time when they can be driven or emptied into the NSDF. At last count there were 1500 shipping containers there, shown in the photo below. [on original] Source photo is at https://concernedcitizens.net/2025/12/13/cnl-environmental-remediation-management-update-june-2025/

It would be hard to choose a less suitable place to consolidate all federal radioactive waste than in a seismically-active zone beside the Ottawa River that provides drinking water for millions of Canadians in communities downstream including Ottawa, Gatineau and Montreal.

Concerns about imports of radioactive waste to the Ottawa Valley are widespread and growing.

In 2021, Ottawa City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling for radioactive waste imports to the Ottawa Valley to stop. Ottawa Riverkeeper recently called for transportation of radioactive waste to the Chalk River Laboratories to stop until a clear, long-term plan for the waste is available. A December 2025 letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney from Bloc Québécois and Green Party MPs along with First Nations and many civil society groups requested a moratorium on shipments of Canadian radioactive waste to Chalk River.

Action is urgently needed to halt the imports of radioactive waste to the earthquake-prone Ottawa Valley.

February 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

One year on, the Green party continues to voice concerns about the Last Energy Nuclear Power plant in the Llynfi Valley

However, Green Party policy is clear. We are against the development of nuclear power and nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Wales has the capacity for energy self-sufficiency in solar, wind and tidal power. Moreover, it is quicker, safer, cheaper and has proven technology to develop renewable energy.

The Nuclear industry is not welcome in Wales. We can and should focus on solar, wind and tidal power.

We are not alone in our concerns. Local people and environmental organisations are also increasingly asking questions about why the Llynfi Valley has been chosen as a potential site for four nuclear reactors.

February 3, 2026 Editor Bridgend, Energy, News , https://bridgend-local.co.uk/2026/02/03/one-year-on-the-green-party-continues-to-voice-concerns-about-the-last-energy-nuclear-power-plant-in-the-llynfi-valley/

Last Energy Nuclear Power is an American company funded by venture capitalists, with no previous experience of building, operating or managing nuclear power stations. It is a very ambitious company, and is also involved in talks with NATO. The Welsh Government will not have to fund the initial costs of this development. So why does the Green Party think this is such a betrayal of people in the Valleys?

At the first meeting I attended, in Pencoed College, the skills, knowledge and understanding of the presenters representing Last Energy were questionable. Their PowerPoint Presentation computer indicated that it had low power and the panicked presenters rushed around fiddling with various wires. Eventually they ascertained that they had not switched on the plug point at the wall. Last Energy were proud to announce that they would fund food banks as part of their contribution to the local community. When I pointed out to them that what locals needed was a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, without having to rely on food banks, this appeared to surprise them.

Over the following months in 2025 I attended many of the Last Energy consultation meetings, held throughout Bridgend County Borough. They were very poorly attended, and I questioned how they had informed local people that they were having these consultation meetings. At first Last Energy were adamant that every household had a leaflet inviting them to a meeting. It transpired that there were leaflets being delivered, frequently too late for locals to know about the meetings, and definitely not to every household. Many locals never had a leaflet. At one meeting a man described a leaflet he received as akin to a takeaway menu, beige and uninteresting in design. He almost threw the leaflet in the bin before noticing the word nuclear, in very small print.

Eventually Last Energy admitted that they had not delivered the leaflets door to door in a timely fashion, nor approached the local schools and parents to discuss how a nuclear power plant may affect their children. Last Energy agreed to run the consultation meetings again, starting in September 2025, this time inviting the public to attend. No such meetings have been widely advertised, and it is now February 2026.

I question whether Last Energy has been advised to cease communications with the public, in order to wait for the results of the Senedd Election. Locals have written to Senedd and Westminster representatives. Responses by Labour representatives are generally in favour of the nuclear development. Plaid Cymru has yet to reveal its policy on nuclear plant development.However, Green Party policy is clear. We are against the development of nuclear power and nuclear weapons under any circumstances. Wales has the capacity for energy self-sufficiency in solar, wind and tidal power. Moreover, it is quicker, safer, cheaper and has proven technology to develop renewable energy.

Locals are particularly concerned that the proposed build is on a flood plain and next to the River Llynfi. Natural Resources Wales has said that ‘The PWR-20s will be constructed, operated and decommissioned in groundwater and therefore introduce a significant risk to the environment’. Otters, bats, dormice and great crested newts are all known to live within a few kilometres of the site.

The Last Energy site would be accessed via the only road from Bridgend to Maesteg, a road known to have daily heavy traffic. Safe access to Maesteg and the Garw Valley from Bridgend and back is already an issue for those needing emergency transfer to a hospital. It is hard to fathom why this site has been chosen.

There is a grid connection on the site, which could be brought back into use by establishing an energy battery storage station, supplied by renewable energy. This would address a real need for the

Valleys as it would improve energy supply resilience. Bettws lost power for days after the December 2024 storm. We need to strengthen our resilience by improving our grid system and this is an obvious opportunity that should not be sidelined due to the next government’s failure to prioritise the needs of the local communities over men in smart suits with smiling eyes. The novel ‘The Rape of the Fair Country’ by Alexander Cordell will resonate once more with our Valleys communities. History must not be allowed to repeat itself.

Essentially, if the planning application is granted, a private, profit focused company known as Last Energy will supply soon to be built data centres with energy by direct wire transfer. Private companies are investing in nuclear power in order to make a profit during the years of electricity production. Private companies are building data centres, known for their high energy and water consumption. Both businesses will employ very few local people. These businesses would be owned by people outside of Wales, and any profits made will not be spent in our communities.

We need developments that bring long term skilled jobs to our communities. This can be accomplished if we pay attention to what we want, and demand that our government is of the people, for the people and by the people.

Planning permission has not yet been granted for the nuclear power plant. If enough people voice their concerns then Welsh Government must listen.

The people of the Llynfi Valley deserve a just transition to renewable energy. Insulating buildings and retrofitting homes with the correct materials can bring safe and healthy jobs, housing security and even prosperity back to our valleys.

None of the benefits of this development will be for local people. The power is mostly going to be sold to big businesses. Any profits will stay in the hands of private companies’ owners. Bridgend has been declared to be a AI growth zone by the UK government. Many decisions directly impacting on Bridgend’s future generations are being made outside Wales. However, the planning application will either be accepted or rejected by Welsh Government.

The real risks – if this nuclear factory goes ahead – will be taken by the local people and future generations. Will our children thank us for allowing this development to go ahead? Imagine how the children will feel in the local schools when in addition to practicing fire evacuation drills they will have to learn the emergency drill if there is a nuclear incident. Schools and families within a 30 kilometre radius of a nuclear power station should typically have supplies of iodine tablets, according to Dr Ian Fairlie, who gave evidence to the UK parliamentary committee. This minimises the risks of thyroid cancer to which children are typically more prone after a radiation incident.

Some argue that nuclear power is a low carbon fuel. This is only true for the initial generation stage. Nuclear power has long term risks for radioactive waste. We do not have safe storage for nuclear waste anywhere in the UK, and an underground safe storage site is at least decades from being constructed. Last Energy expects to produce fuel for 42 years, followed by an 8 year cooling off period, then decommissioning will take 10 years. The burden of clearing the site is highly likely to fall on the tax payers of the future.

The Last Energy nuclear power plant is considered to be a development of National Significance. Planning Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW) is the “planning authority” The final decision will be made by the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Energy. In order to comply with due process the planning application has to be submitted by February, 2026, since this is the date listed on the PEDW website as the deadline for the submission of the application. There are mechanisms in place for extending the deadline of the application, which may be triggered in order to take account of the next Senedd Election. Consultation will be open for a minimum of 5 weeks.

When the application is assessed they must focus on public interest, local impacts on communities and public health. They must also take into account national government plans and policy statements.

Where does nuclear power sit in Welsh policy?

Welsh government has committed to meeting 100% of our energy demand by renewable energy by 2035. Planning Policy Wales (PPW12) makes no reference to nuclear power. Importantly, Wales has passed the Future Generations Act in 2015.

Bridgend’s Local Development Plan.

There is a presumption against industrial development in the countryside. Proposals for development other than for wind energy within the countryside will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that they would not unacceptably prejudice the renewable energy potential. The special landscape area of Western Uplands is very close to the site. Importantly, Bridgend County Borough Council is a signatory and member of Nuclear Free Local Authorities.

Coalition of Opposition Local Authorities (COLA)

Mid Glamorgan County Council is the precursor of Bridgend County Council. It is a member of COLA, it opposed Hinkley Point C in the 1980’s and submitted lots of evidence to the Hinkley Point C enquiry. Bridgend has a long history of objecting to, and voicing concerns regarding nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

Locals continue to organise local meetings throughout the Bridgend County Borough Council area. There was a stall in Bridgend during the Christmas Lights 2025 switch on.

Locals are encouraged to access more information about Last Energy. Volunteers knocked 700 doors in the immediate area of the planned nuclear power site to share information with locals.

Locals who know about these developments have been organising consultation meetings, to share the plans with their local communities. Still many more are unaware of the potential of a nuclear power plant being built in their community. True consultation does require sharing the plans in ways that actually can be seen and heard by the local community.

Bridgend Green Party

Our message is clear and unequivocal. We do not support the development of Nuclear power and Nuclear weapons. We would not support them even if the nuclear power plants were publicly owned or freely gifted to the people of the Llynfi Valley, or indeed in any part of Wales.

The Nuclear industry is not welcome in Wales. We can and should focus on solar, wind and tidal power.

February 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »