Biden and Harris include fantasy of ”small nuclear reactors” in an otherwise progressive climate policy
the Biden-Harris agenda lists small modular reactors under its “game-changing technologies.” In a way, that’s correct. Diverting money
into small modular reactors will be game-changing. It will put us firmly on the road to climate failure.
The good news is that nuclear power does not play much of a role in the Biden-Harris plan. But the bad news is that, when it comes to nuclear power, the Biden camp has indeed chosen fiction over science.
In Promoting New Nuclear Power, Biden-Harris Back Fiction Over Science, https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/11/13/in-promoting-new-nuclear-power-biden-harris-back-fiction-over-science/ BY LINDA PENTZ GUNTER 13 Nov 20, Although possibly a sad comment on his predecessors, incoming U.S. president, Joe Biden, is offering the most progressive climate policy so far of any who have previously held his position.
As Paul Gipe points out in his recent blog, the Biden-Harris climate plan uses the word “revolution” right in the headline — a bit of a departure from the usual cautious rhetoric of the centrist-controlled Democratic Party.
But ‘revolution’ is proceeded by two words which let us know we are still lingering in conservative ‘safe’ territory. They call it a “clean energy revolution”, which Gipe rightly refers to as “focus-group shopped terminology.” He goes on:
”Clean energy is a term forged by Madison Avenue advertising mavens in the crucible of focus groups. It ‘polls well,’ as they say. It means one thing to one interest group, something else to another. So it’s perfect for politics in America.
“To environmentalists, it means wind and solar energy, often only those two forms of renewable energy, and sometimes only solar. It also means good times to the coal and nuclear industry. (Ever hear of ‘clean coal’?)
“So clean energy is one of those misleading words that party leaders and, importantly, fundraisers can use to elicit money from donors of all stripes. Why say renewable energy, when you want to raise money from the coal and nuclear industries?”
The Biden-Harris energy plan hits all the right notes in its opening paragraphs, focusing on a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and emphasizing infrastructure, international collaboration and the protection of poor communities of color, who suffer the most harm from unfettered polluters.
As we know from his public statements, Biden will bring the US straight back into the Paris Agreement on climate and sees the climate crisis as the “number one issue facing humanity”. The Paris Agreement isn’t enough, but the US absence weakens it further.
Still on the right track, the Biden-Harris climate plan looks to the rights and wellbeing of workers and jobs creation. It will adhere to “science, not fiction” and recognizes that energy efficiency has an essential role to play.
And then it goes very badly — if predictably — wrong.
In the section entitled “Biden’s Year One Legislative Agenda on Climate Change,” the document proclaims “We have to get rid of the old way of thinking,” then reverts precisely to that, clinging on to nuclear power as a necessary component of its plan.
So the Biden-Harris agenda lists small modular reactors under its “game-changing technologies.” In a way, that’s correct. Diverting money into small modular reactors will be game-changing. It will put us firmly on the road to climate failure.
The good news is that nuclear power does not play much of a role in the Biden-Harris plan. But the bad news is that, when it comes to nuclear power, the Biden camp has indeed chosen fiction over science.
A bullet point called “Identify the future of nuclear energy” reverts right back to the failed Obama “all of the above” approach to “look at all low- and zero-carbon technologies”, instead of recognizing that nuclear power, a failed 20th century technology, does not have a future.
As Amory Lovins points out, this “low-carbon” approach is a perpetual mistake made by politicians and seized on and influenced by the nuclear industry — to look only at carbon savings, and not at cost and time as well.
“Costly options save less carbon per dollar than cheaper options,” Lovins writes. “Slow options save less carbon per year than faster options. Thus even a low- or no-carbon option that is too costly or too slow will reduce and retard achievable climate protection. Being carbon-free does not establish climate-effectiveness.”
When you look at the precipitating drop in renewable energy costs versus the ever soaring nuclear ones; when you examine how you can reduce more carbon emissions faster and more cheaply with renewables than nuclear; and when you observe the real life examples of countries whose carbon reductions are greater after investing in renewables rather than clinging onto nuclear; then the only reason to include nuclear power in a climate plan is political.
The Biden-Harris platform will likely continue to listen to the old school. After all, it’s who they know. But if they really want that revolution, they should open their eyes to the reality on the ground.
A recent article in the Socialist magazine, Jacobin, pointed to an example in the Netherlands where a decision was made not to expand an existing nuclear power plant and instead build two offshore wind farms. Although the Fukushima disaster slightly influenced the decision, at the end of the day, as the article pointed out, it was all about “the law of value”, in other words, money. “With the declining cost of renewable energy, nuclear power simply does not make economic sense,” it said.
In an important new study out of Sussex University in the UK — Differences in carbon emissions reduction between countries pursuing renewables versus nuclear power — the researchers concluded that choosing nuclear crowds out renewables and vice versa. This means that continuing to use old uneconomical nuclear plants — or investing in new ones — actually hampers renewable energy development, and thereby progress on climate change, and results in smaller carbon reductions and at a much higher cost.
The study notes that, “per dollar invested, the modularity of renewables projects offers quicker emissions reductions than do large-scale, delay-prone nuclear projects,” the same point made by Lovins. And, as the study also says, the more we use renewables, the more improved their performance, exactly the opposite of nuclear which sees “rising costs or reduced performance with the next generation of technology.”
This last is an important point for the Biden-Harris energy team to note. By including so-called new nuclear, they are dooming themselves to wasting both time and money better spent focused on renewables. Small modular reactors will not, as their plan asserts, come in at “half the construction cost of today’s reactors.” They will be far more expensive in relation to the electricity they would eventually produce. And of course they would arrive too late, and in too small a quantity and generate too little — and very expensive — electricity to make any difference to climate change at all.
Biden-Harris must look at empirical data, not listen to spin doctors and establishment cronies who will keep them anchored to the status quo, thus deferring the very energy revolution they claim they will lead. If Biden-Harris remain in favor of action on climate AND for nuclear power, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the editor and curator of BeyondNuclearInternational.org and the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. She can be contacted at linda@beyondnuclear.org.
Biden Transition Announcements largely skirt nuclear power, waste issues
Biden Transition Announcements Largely Skirt Nuclear Power, Waste Issues
BY EXCHANGEMONITOR, 13 Nov 20
President-elect Joe Biden unveiled his transition team this week, and though the landing team bound for the Department of Energy was 20 deep and stacked with nuclear-savvy ex-DOEers, the announcement revealed little about the incoming chief-executive’s thinking… (subscribers only) https://www.exchangemonitor.com/biden-transition-announcements-largely-skirt-nuclear-power-waste-issues/
|
|
Predicting Biden’s attitude and actions on the big nuclear weapons issues
![]() By Sara Z. Kutchesfahani | November 9, 2020, In a statement released over the weekend shortly after news organizations declared he had won, President-elect Joe Biden said, “It’s time for America to unite.” Unite it must, and not just domestically, but also in the realm of global nuclear policy. Because, to put it mildly, Biden will have a lot to do to fix the nuclear mess left by his predecessor. During his one term as president, Donald Trump singlehandedly destroyed decades worth of hard work done by previous US administrations in establishing trust, confidence, and diplomacy—on nuclear and non-nuclear issues—among both friends and foes. In four years, he made the prospect of nuclear proliferation, a new nuclear arms race, and even the use of nuclear weapons more likely. His nuclear legacy will be tainted by a series of failures including, but not limited to: eviscerating decades of trust-building between the United States and Russia, withdrawing from the landmark multilateral deal to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, engaging in a series of handshakes and photo ops with dictators that resulted in naught, and a sheer disregard and contempt for diplomacy, science, expertise, and professionalism. As President-elect Biden wrote in the March/April 2020 edition of Foreign Affairs: “Diplomacy is not just a series of handshakes and photo ops. It is building and tending relationships and working to identify areas of common interest while managing points of conflict. It requires discipline, a coherent policymaking process, and a team of experienced and empowered professionals.” A Biden administration is well equipped to repair the global nuclear damage bestowed upon the world by the inexperienced Trump administration. Moreover, if the United States is to reclaim its credibility and global reputation on nonproliferation and nuclear security, a President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris will have to return to the deals Biden and his former Obama administration colleagues negotiated. And this will mean a revival of negotiations and diplomacy with a team of politically- and technically-savvy experienced professionals. At the top of the list will be the extension of the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). New START is the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, providing an anchor of strategic stability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In short, it limits the number of US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 each. This will be a priority because the treaty is set to expire in February 2021, but it can easily be extended for up to five years. Biden has made his intention to pursue an extension clear, and has stated that he will use it as a foundation for new arms control agreements. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already stated that he, too, is ready to extend, and has yet to rescind the offer, given the news of Biden’s election win. Next should be a revival of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that the Obama-Biden administration negotiated, which blocked Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Trump’s withdrawal from the historic multilateral agreement prompted Iran to abandon the nuclear limits established under the agreement, restart its nuclear program, and engage in even more destabilizing behavior across the Middle East. Biden has said that if Tehran returns to strict compliance with the deal, he would “rejoin the agreement and use our renewed commitment to diplomacy to work with our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against Iran’s other destabilizing activities.” However, reentry might be a complicated affair, given the Trump administration’s plans to continue increasing sanctions on Iran. And, what about North Korea? Trump was the first sitting US president to meet with a North Korean leader, and in his “love letters” to Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un he claimed, “I have no doubt that a great result will be accomplished between our two countries, and that the only two leaders who can do it are you and me.” But the sheer reality is that the Trump administration accomplished nothing of substance. Biden has stated that he will empower US negotiators and jump-start a “sustained, coordinated campaign with our allies and others, including China, to advance our shared objective of a denuclearized North Korea.” Finally, as far as US nuclear weapons are concerned, the Biden administration will likely rekindle the Obama administration’s commitment to reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the US national defense strategy. In 2017, Biden stated that the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal should be deterring—and, if necessary, retaliating against—a nuclear attack. As president, he will put that belief into practice, in consultation with the US military and its allies. In practice, that could mean adopting a no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, something Obama considered but never enacted. These are ambitious goals, and they would require considerable work to accomplish even in the best of times. But with other weighty concerns like the COVID-19 pandemic, economic stagnation, and climate change looming, tackling these issues will be even more difficult. But through openness, trust, science, dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperation, a Biden-Harris administration can succeed. And if anyone from the future Biden administration may be reading this, I would like to offer one simple recommendation: Read John Hersey’s Hiroshima—a timeless, powerful, and compassionate compendium of the memories of Hiroshima survivors. If everyone able to read did read this book, I am quite confident we would be living in a world without nuclear weapons, which would mean many fewer issues for the new administration to resolve. |
|
Kings Bay Plowshares peace activists get lighter sentences than expected
Martha Hennessy, the sixth of the Kings Bay Plowshares defendants to be sentenced, was ordered to serve 10 months incarceration as well as three years supervised probation and restitution. This was a downward departure from the guidelines of 18 to 24 months recommended by the probation department. Conducting the sentencing virtually from the Brunswick, GA… Read More
Carmen and Clare Sentenced Lighter Than Expected
Today two more of the Kings Bay Plowshares 7 were sentenced by video conferencing with Judge Wood in the court in Brunswick, GA. They both received less time than was expected according to the sentencing guidelines prepared by the probation department. Carmen Trotta was sentenced to 14 months in the morning session. This was a… more https://kingsbayplowshares7.org/?link_id=0&can_id=195a0feb9877cdd62aa2d9960e728695&source=email-carmen-and-clare-sentenced-lighter-than-expected-2&email_referrer=email_995104&email_subject=martha-hennessy-sentenced-to-ten-months
Japanese govt rules out new nuclear reactors for 10 years
Here the Asahi Shimbun, generally a neutral and independent news source, appears to buy the myth of nuclear as a climate change cure, and of small nuclear reactors
Cabinet minister rules out new nuclear reactors for 10 years, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, November 12, 2020 Industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama is signaling that the government will not allow for the construction of new nuclear reactors to replace aging ones or to be installed additionally at nuclear plants for the next decade.His position suggests the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which oversees the nuclear industry, is unlikely to discuss the option of building new reactors in the new Basic Energy Plan it has been developing.
The plan has been revised twice since the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Heeding a national sentiment exceedingly anxious of nuclear energy, the government has passed up discussing building new reactors in past revisions of the plan. In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun on Nov. 10, Kajiyama acknowledged it is still premature to discuss the issue now. “Public faith has yet to be restored,” he said of public sentiment toward nuclear energy after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima plant. “How can we proceed (without it) in constructing new reactors to replace aging ones or to make additions? We are simply not at the stage where we can talk about the next move.” Kajiyama said the government’s priority over the next 10 years will be regaining public faith in the nuclear industry, rather than pushing for the construction of new reactors…….. The minister said the number of nuclear reactors that will be reactivated over the coming decade will be a point that the government will take into account as an indication of the public’s acceptance of nuclear energy when it comes to mulling over constructing new reactors. “It is also related to the government’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality in 2050,” he said. His comments suggest the government may begin considering constructing new reactors if more local governments approve restarting nuclear plants that were idled after the Fukushima accident. Currently, only one reactor at the Genkai nuclear plant in Saga Prefecture is operating in Japan after a reactor at the Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture was shut down for maintenance earlier this month. Kajiyama underlined the need to develop small modular reactors, which are smaller than conventional reactors. He said engaging in a modular reactor project would be meaningful when it comes to maintaining the nation’s technology for safeguarding nuclear power and nurturing scientists in the field–not to mention the potential for spinoffs. “It could lead to the development of new materials and other technologies,” he said. Last month, Prime Minster Yoshihide Suga laid out Japan’s plan to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.,,,,,,, http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13924315 |
|
New European Court of Auditors report has concerns about the EU’s nuclear fusion project.
Auditors say EU’s nuclear fusion project still causing concern https://sciencebusiness.net/news/auditors-say-eus-nuclear-fusion-project-still-causing-concern–13 Nov 20, New European Court of Auditors report finds there is a risk of further cost increases and delays to the ITER project. All other Horizon 2020 joint undertakings have ‘healthy’ financial management but some are behind schedule on implementation
By Florin Zubașcu The EU could see its financial contribution to the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project going up at a time when a new report by the European Court of Auditors says there are weaknesses in procurement procedures, the management of its human resources and in project monitoring.
ITER is part of Fusion for Energy (F4E), the 35-year long public-private partnership set up to manage Europe’s contribution to the building of the pilot nuclear fusion reactor in southern France. “F4E’s weaknesses in procurement planning, as well as human resource and project management, place its operational effectiveness at risk,” the auditors say. Nuclear fusion Within the ITER project, the EU is coordinating the contribution of a 35 countries to the construction of the world’s largest tokamak, a magnetic fusion device designed to provide proof of concept that nuclear fusion that powers the sun can be harnessed as a carbon-free source of energy. Europe is paying 45.6 per cent of construction costs, of which 80 per cent is funded from the EU budget and 20 per cent by France as the ITER host country. The remainder is shared equally by China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the US (9.1 percent each). After various delays, in November 2016, the ITER Council approved new timelines, putting the start of the operational phase back to 2025 and the completion of the construction phase to 2035. The previous estimate was that construction would be completed in 2020. The EU’s contribution to the construction phase was revised to €12 billion euros (in 2008 prices), up from the €6.6 billion approved by the EU Council in 2010. However, these figures do not include the contingency of up to 24 months in terms of schedule, and 10-20 per cent in terms of budget, that the commission has recommended the project should have. “While positive steps have been taken to improve the management and control of the JU’s contribution to the project construction phase, there remains a risk of further cost increases and delays in project implementation compared to the current approved baseline,” the auditors say. The future of research partnerships F4E is one a number of joint undertakings the EU established with industry in 2014 to carry out research in fusion energy, bio-based industries, clean air transport, fuel cells and hydrogen, medicines, air traffic management, electronic components and innovative rail solutions. According to the audit, in 2019, the European Commission contributed around €1.9 billion to these research and innovation activities. The private partners include industry, various research groups, and international organisations that provide in-kind contributions. The undertakings are slated to continue in some form alongside new partnerships on driverless cars, space and clean steel under the EU’s next research programme, Horizon Europe. In their report published today, the auditors signed off the 2019 accounts of all joint undertakings. However, the auditors noted that while internal controls on payments were generally effective, several undertakings still had weaknesses in their procurement, grant payments and recruitment procedures. “Our audit for 2019 confirms that their financial management is healthy, although several aspects can be further improved, for instance the management of procurements, grant payments and human resources,” said Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz, the member of the European Court of Auditors responsible for the audit. The auditors also checked how much progress the joint undertakings have made to date. Some undertakings under Horizon 2020 fell short of targets, and on average only 51 per cent of Horizon 2020 and related activities had been implemented so far in the partnerships, which have a life span of 10 years, from 2014 to 2024. |
|
Over one million tons of radioactive water will be discharged into the sea from the Fukushima nuclear power plant
Almost Unnoticed Nuclear Pandemic Is Spreading in Japan, https://www.indepthnews.net/index.php/the-world/asia-pacific/3967-almost-unnoticed-nuclear-pandemic-is-spreading-in-japan By Manlio Dinucci, 13 Nov 20,This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto. It is being republished from Global Research. Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
MONTREAL (IDN) – It was not Covid-19, therefore the news went almost unnoticed: Japan will release over a million tons of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the sea. The catastrophic incident in Fukushima was triggered by the Tsunami that struck the north-eastern coast of Japan on March 11, 2011, submerging the power plant and causing the core of three nuclear reactors to melt. [The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons: Nuclear weapons and nuclear power share several common features. The long list of links includes their histories, similar technologies, skills, health and safety aspects, regulatory issues and radiological research and development The power plant was built on the coast just 4 meters above sea level with five-meter-high breakwater dams, in a tsunami-prone area with waves 10-15 meters high. Furthermore, there had been serious failures by the private company TEPCO (the Tokyo Electric Power Company) managing the plant, in the control of the nuclear plant: the safety devices did not come into operation at the time of the Tsunami. Water has been pumped through the reactors for years to cool the molten fuel. The water became radioactive and was stored inside the plant in over a thousand large tanks, accumulating 1.23 million tons of radioactive water. TEPCO is building other tanks, but they will also be full by mid-2022. TEPCO must continue pumping water into the melted reactors and has decided to discharge, in agreement with the government, the water accumulated so far into the sea after filtering it to make it less radioactive (however, to what extent it is not known) with a process which will last 30 years. There is also radioactive sludge accumulated in the decontamination filters of the plant, stored in thousands of containers, and huge quantities of soil and other radioactive materials. As TEPCO admitted, the melting in reactor 3 is particularly serious because the reactor was loaded with Mox, a much more unstable and radioactive mix of uranium oxides and plutonium. The Mox for this reactor and other Japanese ones was produced in France, using nuclear waste sent from Japan. Greenpeace has denounced the danger deriving from the transport of this plutonium fuel for ten thousand kilometres. Greenpeace also denounced that Mox favours the proliferation of nuclear weapons, since plutonium can be extracted more easily and, in the cycle of uranium exploitation, there is no clear dividing line between civilian and military use of fissile material. Up to now, around 240 tons of plutonium for direct military use and 2,400 tons for civil use (nuclear weapons can however be produced with them), were accumulated in the world (according to 2015 estimates), plus about 1,400 tons of highly enriched uranium for military use. A few hundred kilograms of plutonium would be enough to cause lung cancer to 7.7 billion inhabitants of the planet, and plutonium remains lethal for a period corresponding to almost ten-thousand human generations. A destructive potential has thus accumulated, for the first time in history, capable of making the human species disappear from the face of Earth. The nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; the more than 2,000 experimental nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, at sea and underground; the manufacture of nuclear warheads with a power equivalent to over one million Hiroshima bombs; the numerous accidents involving nuclear weapons and those involving civilian and military nuclear plants, all this has caused radioactive contamination that has affected hundreds of millions of people. A portion of approximately 10 million annual cancer deaths worldwide – documented by WHO – is attributable to the long-term effects of radiation. In ten months, again according to the World Health Organization data, Covid-19 caused about 1.2 million deaths worldwide. This danger should not be underestimated, but it does not justify the fact that mass media, especially television, did not inform that over one million tons of radioactive water will be discharged into the sea from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, with the result that it will further increase cancer deaths upon entering in the food chain. [IDN-InDepthNews – 04 November 2020] |
|
Governor of Miyagi Prefecture approves plan to restart Onagawa nuclear reactor.
Here’s another article that quietly accepts the myth that nuclear power combats climate change.
Japan Could Restart Nuclear Reactor Damaged In 2011 Disaster, Oil Price By Tsvetana Paraskova – Nov 12, 2020, A local governor in Japan has approved plans from utility Tohoku Electric Power to restart one of its nuclear reactors that was damaged in the 2011 earthquake and the following tsunami, the same that caused the reactor meltdown at Fukushima.
Tohoku Electric Power received approval from the governor of Miyagi Prefecture, Yoshihiro Murai, to restart unit 2 at the Onagawa nuclear power plant, a spokesman for the company told Reuters.
In its strategy for the medium and long term, the company said in February this year that “On the premise of secured safety, we will aim for the prompt restart of Onagawa Nuclear Power Unit 2 with the local community’s understanding.”
Last month, Japan pledged to become a net-zero emissions economy by 2050, joining the UK and the European Union (EU) in those commitments. Due to the closure of nuclear reactors after Fukushima, Japan relies on coal for around a third of its electricity generation.
Long-delayed remediation of a nuclear waste site near Pittsburgh
Residents of the area have expressed concern about potential cancer and other health problems caused by exposure to radioactivity on the site, though no one asked questions or expressed those concerns during the meeting.
The site initially was owned by Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp., which operated the nuclear fuel plants.
Ohio Attorney General takes legal action to stop nuclear bailout
“The people of Ohio are about to be shaken down for money they should not pay and will never be able to get back,” reads the lawsuit filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.
and abundant natural gas. “The corrupt enterprise and its billion-dollar payout is no longer a theory, but an admitted fact,” the suit contends. “Recently, two members of the corrupt enterprise entered guilty pleas in federal court. Those actors were Energy Harbor’s H.B. 6 lobbyist,
According to the plea deals, the scheme was to conceal cash received from Energy Harbor’s former parent company,
The scheme then continued to push House Bill 6 over the finish line and subsequently kill a petition effort to convince voters to
November 13 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “Hitting Net Zero Is Not Enough – We Must Restore The Climate” • The climate crisis is here now. No matter how quickly we reach zero emissions, the terrible impacts of the climate crisis will not just go away. They will continue to cause millions to suffer for centuries to come. Just cutting […]
November 13 Energy News — geoharvey
German Court rules that government must review compensation for exit from nuclear power
German Court Demands Gov’t Review Compensation for Nuclear Exit, Courthouse News, November 12, 2020 FRANKFURT , Germany (AFP) — Germany’s highest court said Thursday the government must revise the terms of compensation paid to energy companies forced to switch out of nuclear power, calling current arrangements “unreasonable.”
Ruling on a case brought by Swedish group Vattenfall, the constitutional court took aim at a payout condition set by Berlin in 2018 that would essentially require energy companies to make the change first before knowing how much compensation they would receive.
Judges in Karlsruhe urged the government to “revise the regulation as soon as possible”, saying the 2018 amendment to nuclear energy legislation, which is still not in force, was tainted by irregularities.
Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said the government respects the decision, and that it will “thoroughly analyse the ruling and swiftly initiate a legal regulation that meets the requirements of the court.” https://www.courthousenews.com/german-court-demands-govt-review-compensation-for-nuclear-exit/
Guardians of UK’s precious habitat in Suffolk are fearful of government decision on Sizewell nuclear plan.
East Anglian Daily Times 12th Nov 2020, Guardians of one of Britain’s most precious habitats are waiting to see
how Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s 10-point plan for the environment will
affect their Suffolk site.
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/rspb-minsmere-sizewell-c-damage-1-6926669
-
Archives
- August 2022 (150)
- July 2022 (368)
- June 2022 (277)
- May 2022 (375)
- April 2022 (378)
- March 2022 (405)
- February 2022 (333)
- January 2022 (422)
- December 2021 (299)
- November 2021 (400)
- October 2021 (346)
- September 2021 (291)
-
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
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fuk 2022
- 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
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS