Resistance to Resilience: ISO/RTO Response to DOE’s NOPR
…Fukushima illustrates the folly of nuclear resiliency in the face of earthquakes and tsunamis. Cyberattacks are similarly agnostic as to fuel type, having targeted both coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. as well as abroad. Therefore, the premise that baseload units with on-site fuel supply contributes to resiliency is fundamentally flawed…. … … Stripping away the ill-defined concept of resiliency, it is clear that the DOE NOPR simply represents a desire to provide out-of-market support to uneconomic coal and nuclear plants. The ISOs/RTOs have responded accordingly, laying out the arguments required to protect the competitive electricity markets they operate and set the stage for future legal action to protect state rights. It will be a short wait to see whether they make any progress in this first round….
Department of Energy, 18CFR Part 35, Docket No. RM17-3-000
At the end of September, the Department of Energy issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) that would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to incorporate the value of resiliency into wholesale electricity prices under its authority to ensure “just and reasonable rates.” Comments were submitted within four weeks and FERC is expected to act on the proposal by December 11. While coal and nuclear plant owners generally are supportive, submissions by independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission operators (RTOs) reflect a consensus that the proposal should be rejected. Their reasoning is summarized below.
Variance in Resilience
The ISOs/RTOs unanimously agree that there is no single definition of resilience that can be applied to all regions. Nearly all criticized DOE’s attempt at a definition—that is, “the ability to reduce the magnitude or duration of a disruptive event”—as being amorphous, vague and unworkable. This lack of a fundamental definitional starting point creates a quandary for FERC which will either have to: (1) refine the definition to include a level of detail that can be enforced; or (2) assign the task of definition, measurement and timing to market participants.
If FERC attempts to create a single definition, it will find that the “one-size fits all” approach is untenable given regional differences. As highlighted in the comments, distinctions extend beyond an evolving generation mix that varies by market to variation in the types of “disruptive event” that can occur; California has fires while New England has ice. Many of the ISOs/RTOs posit that they should decide which resources are necessary and incentivize for reliability and resiliency given the characteristics of their region.
Insignificance of Resilience
Every ISO/RTO claimed that increased planning efforts and investments in transmission and distributed resources are more beneficial to ensuring grid resilience compared to fuel assurance. For example, the polar vortex in New England and PJM resulted in frozen coal piles, making the resiliency value of a 90-day fuel supply worthless. Similarly, California’s forest fires and Texas hurricane flooding disable generating units in their path regardless of the fuel type. Fukushima illustrates the folly of nuclear resiliency in the face of earthquakes and tsunamis. Cyberattacks are similarly agnostic as to fuel type, having targeted both coal and nuclear power plants in the U.S. as well as abroad. Therefore, the premise that baseload units with on-site fuel supply contributes to resiliency is fundamentally flawed.
Resiliency Redundancy
Many noted that current market designs already value resources for their reliability and resiliency attributes, augmenting revenues through transmission planning, performance pay programs, long-term capacity markets, and reliability evaluations. Baseload generators already are compensated for their reliability and availability under FERC-approved market rules. Furthermore, additional price formation initiatives already are underway given anticipated changes in economics, policy and generation mix.
Inefficient or Resilient
Nearly all ISOs/RTOs argue that the NOPR will negatively affect wholesale market design and price formation. Compensation for cost-of-service will need to take place outside of the market, without impacting real-time or day-ahead prices—a task easier said than done as many ISOs/RTOs already are navigating the impact of state policies on competitive markets. In addition, cost-of-service payments fail to create performance incentives or place any obligations on baseload generators, creating an inherent inconsistency with resiliency goals. Compliance with DOE’s proposal also could conflict with regional and state environmental goals.
No Urgency for Resiliency
The NOPR requires a rulemaking within 60 days of posting and would require competitive wholesale markets to be in compliance within thirty days after FERC’s ruling. The ISOs/RTOs unanimously agreed that the proposed timeline is unreasonable and may lead to unintended consequences. More pointedly, the NOPR fails to show any evidence that the hastened timeline will help with resilience. The DOE report notes that there currently is not a problem, but that it could become an issue over the longer term. With plenty of time to engage in the formal stakeholder processes required by the market rules, the ISO/RTO comments unanimously request that the deadlines listed in the DOE’s NOPR be postponed.
Stripping away the ill-defined concept of resiliency, it is clear that the DOE NOPR simply represents a desire to provide out-of-market support to uneconomic coal and nuclear plants. The ISOs/RTOs have responded accordingly, laying out the arguments required to protect the competitive electricity markets they operate and set the stage for future legal action to protect state rights. It will be a short wait to see whether they make any progress in this first round.
About the author: Tanya Bodell is the Executive Director of Energyzt, a global collaboration of energy experts who create value for investors in energy through actionable insights
THE MOST EXPENSIVE BOMB EVER – USA’s new B61 nuclear hydrogen bomb
Special Report: In modernizing nuclear arsenal, U.S. stokes new arms race, Scot Paltrow, WASHINGTON (Reuters), 21 Nov 17 “………..One example of an old weapon transformed into a more dangerous new one is America’s main hydrogen bomb. The Air Force has deployed the B61 bomb on heavy bombers since the mid-1960s. Until recently, the B61 was an old-fashioned gravity bomb, dropped by a plane and free-falling to its target.
THE MOST EXPENSIVE BOMB EVER
Now, the Air Force has transformed it into a controllable smart bomb. The new model has adjustable tail fins and a guidance system which lets bomber crews direct it to its target. Recent models of the bomb had already incorporated a unique “dial-down capacity”: The Air Force can adjust the explosion. The bomb can be set to use against enemy troops, with a 0.3 kiloton detonation, a tiny fraction of the Hiroshima bomb, or it can level cities with a 340-kiloton blast with 23 times the force of Hiroshima’s. Similar controls are planned for new cruise missiles.
The new B61 is the most expensive bomb ever built. At $20.8 million per bomb, each costs nearly one-third more than its weight in 24 karat gold. The estimated price of the planned total of 480 bombs is almost $10 billion.
……… RUSSIA‘S DIRTY DRONE
Russia, too, is hard at work making deadlier strategic weapons. Ploughshares estimates that both sides are working on at least two dozen new or enhanced strategic weapons.
……… A Russian military official in 2015 disclosed a sort of doomsday weapon, taking the idea of a “dirty bomb” to a new level. Many U.S. analysts believe the disclosure was a bluff; others say they believe the weapon has been deployed.
The purported device is an unmanned submarine drone, able to cruise at a fast 56 knots and travel 6,200 miles. The concept of a dirty bomb, never used to date, is that terrorists would spread harmful radioactive material by detonating a conventional explosive such as dynamite. In the case of the Russian drone, a big amount of deadly radioactive material would be dispersed by a nuclear bomb.
The bomb would be heavily “salted” with radioactive cobalt, which emits deadly gamma rays for years. The explosion and wind would spread the cobalt for hundreds of miles, making much of the U.S. East Coast uninhabitable.
A documentary shown on Russian state TV said the drone is meant to create “areas of wide radioactive contamination that would be unsuitable for military, economic, or other activity for long periods of time.”
Reif of the Arms Control Association says that even if the concept is only on the drawing board, the device represents “really outlandish thinking” by the Russian government. “It makes no sense strategically,” he said, “and reflects a really egregiously twisted conception about what’s necessary for nuclear deterrence.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-modernize-specialreport/special-report-in-modernizing-nuclear-arsenal-u-s-stokes-new-arms-race-idUSKBN1DL1AH
Radioactive waste data removed from Tennessee state website
http://www.sunherald.com/news/business/article185800093.html
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation has removed data from its website about the amount of low-level radioactive waste going into landfills.
The information had been open to the public for years before the department said it is confidential, The Tennessean reports .
A 2007 state law cites the Atomic Energy Act and an agreement with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission on what information to keep confidential, department spokesman Eric Ward said. However, commission spokesman David McIntyre said he knows of no law or rule that makes confidential the location and quantity of waste.
Ward said in a Friday email the department “is working toward a solution,” and it intends “to have the authority to soon begin providing that information again.”
Low-level radioactive waste includes contaminated materials from commercial reactors, such as lab supplies, machine parts, power plant equipment and debris from decommissioned nuclear plants.
Tennessee has more radioactive waste processors than any other state in the nation, according the department. The processors can treat radioactive waste before it is disposed in landfills as low-level waste.
The waste deposited in landfills does not pose a danger to public health or the environment, according to the department.
More than 5 million pounds (2 million kilograms) of low-level radioactive waste has been released into state landfills between 2014 and 2016, according to information the department no longer publishes but was accessed through cached versions of its website.
“The transparency is not there and the public is being left in the dark,” Tennessee Environmental Council board member Don Safer said. “Low level does not mean low risk.”
San Onofre Utility regulators used private lawyers to challenge probe
A report says California Public Utilities Commission lawyers sought to suppress court-approved search warrants after utility regulators promised they would cooperate with a state criminal investigation.
The San Diego Union-Tribune cites court documents unsealed Monday that show commission lawyers opposed providing records to investigators as required by three different warrants approved in 2015 and 2016.
The warrants were issued after judges found probable cause that ratepayers were illegally hit with billions of dollars in costs related to the San Onofre nuclear plant failure six years ago.
The newspaper says commission lawyers argued that prosecutors failed to properly serve the warrants — even though they agreed to the process in advance.
November 21, 2017 11:25 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article185825503.html
California Public Utilities Commission lawyers sought to suppress court-approved search warrants after utility regulators promised they would cooperate with a state criminal investigation, according to a newspaper report.
The San Diego Union-Tribune cited court documents unsealed Monday that show commission lawyers opposed providing records to investigators as required by three different search warrants approved in 2015 and 2016.
The warrants were issued after judges found probable cause that ratepayers were illegally hit with billions of dollars in costs related to the San Onofre nuclear plant failure six years ago.
UK made ‘grave strategic errors’ in Hinkley Point nuclear project
MPs say consumers were ‘dealt a bad hand’ and warn against more nuclear power stations
“No part of government was really championing the consumer interest.”
More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/cd7227ca-cec5-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
an hour ago Andrew Ward, Energy Editor
British MPs have urged the UK government to rethink the economic case for new nuclear power stations after making “grave strategic errors” in the Hinkley Point project. In a report published on Wednesday, the Commons public accounts committee accused the government of neglecting consumer interests and failing to push for a better deal with the French and Chinese investors who are building the £20bn nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The committee said consumers had been “dealt a bad hand” by the government’s agreement to lock UK households into buying expensive electricity from Hinkley for 35 years. “Its blinkered determination to agree the Hinkley deal, regardless of changing circumstances, means that for years to come energy consumers will face costs running to many times the original estimate,” said Meg Hillier, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, which is often called parliament’s spending watchdog. Hinkley is intended to be the first in a series of new nuclear plants in the UK, as part of efforts to replace large amount of old generating capacity due to be decommissioned in coming years. However, the cross-party public accounts committee urged the government to “re-evaluate and publish its strategic case for supporting nuclear power before agreeing any further deals”.
The Equatorial Pacific is Going Through its Variable Cool Phase, But 2017 is 94 Percent Likely to be the Second Hottest Year Ever Recorded
During late 2016, the Pacific Ocean started to cool off along its Equatorial region after experiencing one of the strongest warming events for that zone ever recorded. But despite this late cooling phase, the year ended up being the hottest ever recorded in the 137 year climate record — topping out at around 1.22 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures. A longer term warming trend that has been directly driven by human burning of fossil fuels and related greenhouse gas emissions.
This year, the periodic Equatorial cooling known as La Nina is again taking place in the Pacific during fall following a very mild warming during winter and spring. But despite the appearance of a second such periodic cooling event, according…
View original post 343 more words
World Bank to fund nuclear power in South Africa?
The South African government has been driving its nuclear power plans forward over the last few months. There have long been concerns, as recently expressed by President Zuma’s Minister of Finance, Malusi Gigaba, that South Africa cannot afford nuclear power. There has been speculation that the World Bank might be a source of funds to allow the project to go ahead. However, there are several reasons that make this is extremely unlikely, to say the least.
View original post 966 more words
Rise of cheap renewables disrupts EU energy plans for 2030
By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com
The rapid fall in costs of wind and solar power, combined with flexible demand technology, could replace “more than half” of coal and gas-powered electricity in Europe by 2030, according to new research published on Tuesday (21 November).
A report from consultants Artelys, to be unveiled in Brussels today, updates the cost projections that form the basis of the European Commission’s modelling for the EU’s energy and climate change goals up to 2030.
According to the analysis, the EU could confidently opt for a 61% share of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2030, instead of the 49% currently foreseen in EU projections.
This would translate into an additional 265 million tonnes of avoided CO2 emissions, and savings of €600 million per year in energy system costs, the research found.
In fact, the falling costs of wind and solar power, combined with demand flexibility, means that it’s actually cheaper to go for 61% renewables and to decrease today’s level of gas generation by around 50%, the report found.
“The drop in the cost of clean technology has gone far beyond all expectations,” said Laurence Tubiana, the CEO of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), which commissioned the research. “The economics are now decisively tipping in favour of clean energy, making an even stronger case for higher EU ambition for 2030,” she added.
Tubiana’s words were echoed by Francesco Starace, the CEO of Italian power utility Enel, who recently took over the presidency of Eurelectric, the European power industry association.
In a recent interview with EURACTIV, Starace said progress in renewable energy technology had been “faster and deeper than expected” when Eurelectric last made projections for 2050.
“Today, [renewables] are clearly the winner of the cost per kilowatt hour battle,” said Starace, adding that carbon neutrality in the power sector was now achievable “certainly earlier than 2050”.
Clean energy package outdated before it is adopted
The report comes as EU lawmakers discuss proposals for a 2030 package of clean energy laws, which contain a 27% target for renewables in overall energy consumption and a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions.
But according to the research, these goals look outdated before they are formally adopted, and could even slow down the transition to a cleaner energy system. Current EU assumptions indeed foresee a carbon price of €27 per tonne of CO2 for 2030, a level considered insufficient to trigger a decisive shift away from coal generation.
“The European Commission seems to chronically underestimate just how great a positive impact sustainable renewable energy can have,” said Imke Luebbeke at the WWF European Policy Office.
“As this report shows, we can and must pull the plug on coal and crank up renewables way beyond the proposed 2030 target levels for the sake of Europeans’ health, taxpayers’ wallets and our shared climate,” she said.
Contacted by EURACTIV, the European Commission acknowledged the relevance of the report’s findings but declined to comment on the implications on the EU’s 2030 goals. Maroš Šefčovič, the EU Commission Vice-President in charge of the Energy Union, is expected to deliver a speech today at an event in Brussels where the report will be officially presented.
Displacing “more than half” of coal and gas
One of the report’s most striking findings is that cheap renewables and flexible demand could replace more than half of European coal and gas generation by 2030. As a consequence, power sector emissions could be be reduced almost twice as fast – from -30% to -55% in 2030 compared to 2015 levels.
And even with large shares of coal retiring, gas generation could still be cut in half by 2030, from 514 TWh today to 259 TWh, according to the research. This is because upgraded electricity grids and flexible demand solutions are expected to provide for more system balancing capacity at lower cost, decreasing the “bridging role” of natural gas in the transition to a carbon neutral power sector.
“Cheap renewables push out gas as well as coal,” said Jonathan Gaventa, director at E3G, a climate change think tank. “European countries should feel confident that they can phase out coal power without increasing energy security risks or new dependence on imported gas,” he said.
“Cost-effective renewable power, demand-side flexibility and electricity grids can pick up the slack. Infrastructure planners need to get to grips with this new reality, or they risk wasting money on utterly unnecessary gas pipelines and LNG terminals,” Gaventa said.
The massive potential of power grids to reduce CO2 emissions was confirmed by ENTSO-E, the European association of transmission network operators. According to ENTSO-E’s 10-year network development plan, published in 2016, grids can deliver a reduction of CO2 emissions in the range of 50 to 80%, depending on the vision, notably due to increased sharing of resources across borders.
This means a corresponding decrease in the “need for extra, often polluting generation plants” that are needed for back up electricity generation when the wind is not blowing or the sun not shining, said Claire Camus, head of communication at ENTSO-E.
Structural overcapacity
On the whole, the rise of cheap renewables, combined with greater end-use efficiency and better grids, is confronting Europe with a structural overcapacity in power generation, the report warned, calling on policymakers to adopt policies for an orderly phase out of coal.
“Phasing out depreciated, high-carbon generation assets is critical to making space for investments in renewable electricity and moving to a cleaner, smarter and cheaper energy system,” the report said. It did however warn of “a high likelihood” that decision-makers will continue to rely on “out-of-date understanding of power market economics when deciding on EU and national energy policies”.
This was confirmed by Francesco Starace of Eurelectric in his earlier interview. “I think the industry has lost some time in trying to resist what happened in technology, in denying what happened in the environment, so we had to catch up.
“We now see it clearly,” he said.
Whitehouse Remarks in EPW Subcommittee on Clean Air & Nuclear Safety (Cost/benefit issue)
Senator Whitehouse questions Davis Henry of Henry Brick Company, Christopher J. Kersting of Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), Paul Williams of the United States Stove Company, Emily Hammond of the George Washington University Law School, and John Walke of Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Nuclear Prisoners” by Hisao
Lyrics: (in Japanese and English)
ウランから
プルトニウムへ
核実験
広島
人体実験
長崎へ
福一の プルサーマル 三号機
最初の
寿命二十年
いつの間に
四十年
人工地震
三一一
風評で 被曝体験 尚も且つ
Nuclear test
from uranium
to plutonium
Hiroshima
human experiments
to Nagasaki
Hukuichi’s pluthermal unit 3
First life
20 years
ago
40 years?
Artificial quake
311
Exposure experience still in reputational
東京と
京都除外の
原爆は
起爆なら
空襲警報
鳴らぬ筈
金儲け 壊す目的 再稼働
The Atomic-bombs
excluding Tokyo n’
Kyoto
Air raid alarms
shouldn’t ring if
detonated!
Money making purpose reactivated to break
ウランから
プルトニウムへ
核実験
First Nations and Allies Unite for a Non-Nuclear Ontario
On Nov. 8 – 9, 2017, First Nations and allies united to call for a phase-out of Ontario’s nuclear stations and a move to a 100% renewable future. They called on Premier Wynne to make a deal with Quebec to purchase its suplus renewable water power at a fraction of the cost of extending the Pickering or rebuilding the Darlington Nuclear Stations. Please sign the petitions: http://www.BuyQuebecPower.ca and http://www.ClosePickering.ca
Climate Without Borders: Meet a Meteorologist Who Dares to Say “Climate Change” in Weather Reports
As Democracy Now! broadcasts from the UN climate summit in Bonn, we look at how climate-related Hurricanes have devastated parts of the United States, but weather presenters still rarely utter the words: “climate change.” We speak with Jill Peeters, a weather presenter in Belgium who is also the founder of Climate Without Borders.
The consensus is clear: there is no upside to a nuclear Brexit Clare Moody
Source: https://www.environmentguru.com/pages/elements/element.aspx?id=5769869
© EnvironmentGuru.com [PAYWALL]
McClaughry: A global renewable energy power play
by John McClaughry Here’s an interesting insight into the arcane world of global renewable energy politics, based on the October 30 column in Forbes by widely-read energy blogger Rod Adams. Last week the annual “Conference of Parties” (COP23), the consultative body for the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, convened in Bonn, Germany. For the past eight years a business-oriented Sustainable Innovation Forum (SIF) has been held alongside the COP, cosponsored by the U.S.-led advocacy group Climate Action and the UN Environment Program (UNEP).
This year the Forum accepted the World Nuclear Association as a Gold Sponsor. But then UNEP demanded that the Forum reject any participation by the nuclear trade association. Its spokesman said “we prioritise the renewables revolution, such as wind and solar energy…Our work on the nuclear sector is limited.”
It’s limited all right – to zero.
Adams reports that among the gold-level sponsors that SIF accepted were BMW and Toyota, whose profits come from fossil fuel burning engines, and Orstead, a utility that operates coal-fired power stations. Why did UNEP not veto those?
The answer seems to be that the auto manufacturers and utility acknowledge that their use of petroleum and coal is destroying the planet – UNEP’s mantra – and they’re seeking absolution for their guilt. And nuclear? The nuclear industry is proud that it emits virtually no carbon dioxide – no guilt, and no absolution needed.
Beneath this theological level, UNEP (along with the American climate change organizations) is passionately anti-nuclear. Why? Because the prospect of clean, safe, cheap 21st century nuclear electricity not only threatens to displace coal and petroleum, which is fine with the activists, but it also threatens to put an end to the subsidy-driven wind and solar carnival, which is not.
Adams quotes Kirsty Gogan, global director of Energy for Humanity, as saying “by blocking nuclear from the conversation, and insisting on a conditional, renewables-only, response to climate change, UNEP have displayed a dangerous ideological agenda that undermines its own credibility.”
But there are some climate change warriors who urge greater reliance on nuclear power. The most prominent is renowned climatologist Dr. James Hansen, the now-retired head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is the man who made “global warming”, later rechristened “climate change”, a global issue, in his 1988 testimony before a Senate Committee including his soon-to-be most ardent disciple, Al Gore.
Hansen is so passionate a believer in fossil-fuel-caused climate change that he has been arrested in protests against mountaintop coal mining and the Keystone pipeline. But he understands that attempting to maintain an acceptable level of civilization by relying on activist-approved renewables is, to use his term, “crazy”.
In 2013 Hansen co-authored an open letter to policy makers, which stated that “continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change.” In a Scientific American report (12/4/15) Hansen said “Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change .The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won’t use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy.”
Seven years prior to that, on a website titled “Tell the Truth to Obama”, Hansen said “The [$25 billion Federal nuclear waste disposal] fund should be used to develop fast reactors that eat nuclear waste and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste… Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.”
Here are three takeaways:
First, intermittent, diffuse, and non-dispatchable wind and solar electricity can be valuable in certain remote locations, and even for homesteads, but it simply can’t be relied upon to power a modern electric grid – and in fact, it’s already causing serious grid stability problems. Nuclear stations deliver steady, safe, reliable dispatchable baseload power to the grid, accompanied by almost no greenhouse gas emissions (mainly from trucks and equipment used in mining uranium ore.)
Second, we are long overdue to knock down the daunting regulatory barriers to licensing and building the Generation 4 nuclear plants that James Hansen urgently recommends.
Third, climate change activists who irrationally oppose even the discussion of anything nuclear deserve to be disregarded.
In addition, the Trump administration should reduce the U.S. contribution to the UN Environment Program, and let the renewable-industrial complex pick up the slack.
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen institute (www.ethanallen.org (link is external)).
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/november/21/mcclaughry-global-renewable-energy-power-play
1 This Month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (126)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 