France’s government demands that EDF fix Flamanville nuclear reactor within one month
EDF given a month to draw up a fix for Flamanville’s nuclear woes French energy group under pressure to address faults highlighted in a new report. https://www.ft.com/content/877eedae-f987-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d9b6 David Keohane in Paris, 28 Oct 19.
The reprehensible pro nuclear campaign for bailing out nuclear power in Ohio
Melting Ice, Crumbling Nukes, Cecile Pineta Newsletter Sunday, October 27, 2019 For anyone following or attempting to follow nuclear energy news in the United States, what’s been going on in the State of Ohio is a solid indicator of just where we stand, technologically, and from a style of government standpoint.
Without going into stupefying background detail, I’ll try to sum up the Ohio situation with help from the summary published Oct. 26 by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman who have been birddogging this issue for decades now. And I quote:
- In July, the gerrymandered Ohio Legislature passed HB6, a massive
[1 billion-dollar] bailout to keep the two dying nukes operating on Lake Erie, [Davis-Besse, and Perry].
- Akron-based First Energy is bankrupt…[demanding] a promised $1 billion bailout.
- Signature gatherers were offered as much as $2,500 to turn over their signed petitions. [Contrast this with receiving only $.25 cents a signature.]
While disrupting legitimate [signature] gatherers, pro-nuke thugs aggressively collected multiple duplicate signatures for a fake non-binding petition.
Deep Pockets
- First Energy then claimed it had gathered more than 800,000 “pro-nuke’ signatures.
- First Energy accompanied [thug] assaults with a massive radio/TV/mailer campaign [with the ridiculous claim that] “Chinese Communists” were buying Ohio’s grid.
- OACB’s court filing showed that state regulations imposed on certification have vastly reduced the number of referenda Ohioans can vote on.
- Wednesday last, Oct. 26, a federal judge rejected OACB’s request for more time to gather signatures, and sent the case to the Ohio GOP-dominated Supreme Court.
- OACB is rumored to have about 225,000 signatures on hand, 40,000 short of the threshold. Far more will be needed to overcome a [Republican] Secretary of State certain to disallow as many as [possible].
- [And here’s the kicker:] Polls show Ohioans [who will be the rate-payers] vehemently opposed to the bailout. [That’s why] most observers believe if it [got] on the ballot, the referendum would pass by a large margin.
- [But] should Federal appeals fail, and the Ohio Supreme Court refuse the request for more time, the referendum process will have suffered a potential death blow nationwide. It will mean Fascist thugs will be free to assault legitimate signature gatherers at will.
This last point is the main take-away. First Energy mounted this campaign in major Ohio cities: Youngstown, Akron, Toledo, and Columbus among them. It underwrote its million-dollar-plus cost-of-doing business in flyers, TV/radio/mailer announcements. It paid thousands of goon-disrupters to do their thuggish business on the streets.
At play is a $1 billion bailout. A million-dollar cost-of-doing business is a mere investment, a drop in the corporate bucket. At issue is that its cost will be passed directly to ratepayers.
Core tests conducted at Davis Besse show that its containment vessel is critically embrittled. Should there be an accident (like Three-Mile Island for example} Lake Erie is at serious risk of nuclear contamination. First Energy’s ratepayers draw their water from Lake Erie, the fourth largest of the Great Lakes and source of fresh water for Canadians and Americans living in the area.
Already in 2011, following the nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima, I covered the issue of Davis Besse’s critical embrittlement in Devil’s Tango: How I Learned the Fukushima Step by Step.
That was 8 years ago….. https://devilstangobook.blogspot.com/2019/10/melting-ice-crumbling-nukes.html?showComment=1572237519303#c7332297197888828316
Over 300 financial institutions put $748 billion in to nuclear weapons companies
Of the 325 investors, eight are Japanese lenders with a total investment of $25.5 billion, says the Netherlands-based PAX. The eight include Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc., Mizuho Financial Group Inc. and Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group Inc.
The 18 recipients, which PAX calls “the top 18 nuclear weapon producing companies,” include Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. a U.S. defense giant involved in the manufacturing of the long-range nuclear Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile.
The total investment was up 42 percent from the tally in the previous report, which covered 20 companies in a period between January 2014 and October 2017, according to Susi Snyder, a PAX member who is the main author of the new report.
She attributed the increase to a 192 percent jump by Boeing and a 300 percent surge by French defense company Thales SA.
Snyder, however, said the number of investors “continues to drop” amid rising criticism against investment in inhumane weapons such as nuclear bombs.
She cited a provision in the nuclear weapons ban treaty banning “to assist” developing nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devises. The treaty was adopted in 2017 at the U.N. General Assembly.
Snyder praised Resona Holdings Inc. for not providing loans to borrowers that are involved in the development of nuclear weapons.
Such a policy is “a really positive step” toward reducing — and eventually eliminating — nuclear weapons, she said.
Of the eight Japanese lenders listed in the report, Fuyo General Lease Co. said it has not invested in nuclear weapon producing companies, although a company that had business dealings with a Fuyo subsidiary in the United States was acquired by a nuclear weapons-related company.
Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Holdings Inc. said it invests in the given companies through some index funds handled by a group company.
Six other lenders — Mitsubishi UFJ, Mizuho, Sumitomo Mitsui, Orix Corp., Nomura Holdings Inc. and the Development Bank of Japan — said they do not comment on individual dealings.
PAX focused on all financial institutions involved in underwritings of share and bond issuances for one or more of the 18 companies since January 2017 and own at least 0.5 percent of the outstanding shares or bonds of at least one of the companies based on the latest data available through June last year.
For the climate’s sake, the $multibillion nuclear industry bailouts must stop
|
Nuclear Industry’s $23 Billion Bailout Request Shows Why It Should Have ‘No Role to Play’ in Solving Climate Crisis: Study “For the sake of taxpayers, electricity consumers and the climate, Congress must stop this endless nuclear boondoggle.” by Eoin Higgins, staff writer A proposed bailout of the U.S. nuclear power industry that could cost taxpayers $23 billion over the next 10 years is a perfect example of why the climate crisis needs solutions that focus on renewable resources, green advocacy group Friends of the Earth said Thursday.”The dying nuclear industry wants a massive bailout at the expense of taxpayers and the climate,” the group’s senior policy analyst Lukas Ross said in a statement. Friends of the Earth commissioned a study (pdf) on the Nuclear Powers America Act of 2019, a nuclear industry-backed bill making its way through Congress that would continue subsidies for the industry for decades. Vermont Law School fellow Mark Cooper, who authored the study, wrote that the consequences of continuing tax credits for the industry would have the effect of making other potential technologies unviable for reducing emissions. “Subsidizing nuclear keeps reactors on-line and crowds out the alternatives,” said Cooper. “It slows the transition to an electrical grid based on low-carbon distributed resources.” While renewables are a major part of the push from climate activists and advocates to solve the climate crisis, using nuclear power to reduce emissions has been floated as a potential piece of the Green New Deal. The technology was notably left out of the legislation by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a decision that Popular Mechanics writer Avery Thompson hailed in February as a “great idea.” “Reactors are gigantic beasts, and sustaining a nuclear reaction while drawing power from it requires an absurd level of engineering,” wrote Thompson. “Reactors are expensive, bulky, and complicated, to say nothing of the waste products they produce or the fear of a catastrophe like Chernobyl or Fukushima.” The proposed nuclear industry bailout, warns Cooper in the new report, is an attempt to reverse economic trends that have never been favorable to nuclear power standing by itself. The industry, Cooper said, hasn’t earned the right to be considered as a realistic solution to the climate crisis or U.S. energy needs. “Nuclear has failed for over 50 years to control its costs, even with help from massive subsidies, and alternatives are available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a much lower cost,” wrote Cooper. Time is of the essence, said Friends of the Earth’s Ross. “With just a decade left to prevent the worst of the climate crisis, we shouldn’t dump more money into ancient nuclear reactors at the expense of cleaner and much cheaper renewables,” he said. |
|
Uninsurable – and for good reason – nuclear power
|
Nuclear energy is too costly and risky; better alternatives exist https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/columnists/common_ground/nuclear-energy-is-too-costly-and-risky-better-alternatives-exist/article_71a11439-581d-572f-87c7-88dad34ddf74.html Common Ground / By Paul W. Hansen , 23 Oct 19 In last week’s Guest Shot the director of the Idaho National Lab (INL) Mark Peters wrote to open a dialogue with News&Guide readers about nuclear energy. I want to take him up on his offer. First, what we agree on. Nuclear energy produces about 20% of the nation’s electricity, which is about 8% of our total energy use. Overall, we need to produce and use energy that minimizes greenhouse gases. Looking at the troubled history, poor economics, attendant risk and unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal, I think there are much better alternatives for producing carbon free energy. Today, there are 97 nuclear reactors in 29 states that produce electricity. Thirty-four reactors have been shut down. More orders for nuclear plants have been canceled than plants have been built. Only one plant has come online in the last 25 years. Early claims that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter” proved false. Despite extensive public subsidies, nuclear plants across America have faced significant cost overruns. For example, the Washington Public Power Supply System defaulted on $2.25 billion in municipal bonds when cost overruns on two units caused the cancellation of two other units. The Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island was completed in 1985, but never operated when an evacuation plan could not be implemented. The plant was decommissioned. The $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to Long Island residents. Attempts to build new nuclear plants have been even more challenging. During the 1980s, the cost of Plant Vogtle’s first two nuclear units near Augusta, Georgia, jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion. Regardless, 20 years later Georgia Power wanted to build the “next generation” of nuclear power plants. In August 2008, it was estimated that Plant Vogtle reactors 3 and 4 would cost $14.3 billion and begin operations in 2017. Today, updated estimates put the cost at $28 billion with an operation date of November 2022. The project is projected to be $14 billion over budget and more than 5 years behind schedule. The builder of the reactors, Westinghouse, has declared bankruptcy. In 2017, a similar two-unit plant in South Carolina, the V.C. Summer plant, was abandoned — costing about $5 billion. Concerns over the transportation and storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel have prevented any nuclear waste repositories from being developed in the U.S. Spent fuel rods are stored onsite at nuclear plants. When uranium fuel is used up, usually after about 18 months, the spent rods are generally moved to deep pools of circulating water to cool down for about 10 years. The radioactive material is then transferred to metal casks. The waste remains dangerously radioactive for about 10,000 years. There is no plan for permanent disposal of this waste. This brings me to my biggest concern — the fact that those in our society whose business it is to determine risk will not insure nuclear power. If you own a home, look at your homeowner’s insurance policy. You are not covered in the event of a nuclear accident. No one is. The nuclear industry exists only due to the liability limitations granted by Congress in the Price Anderson Act. Price Anderson requires the nuclear industry to fund an account of $12.6 billion. Any liability above that is supposed to be covered by taxpayers. Then there are the issues of long-term decommissioning costs, nuclear accidents or terrorists. In Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear accidents have left large areas uninhabitable. What if the 9/11 terrorists had managed to crash those planes into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant north of New York City? While the reactor containment vessel might have survived the impact, the spent fuel rod pools may not have, leaving much of the New York metropolitan area uninhabitable. Nuclear energy has not worked out as planned. Far more carbon-free power can be generated at far less cost and risk by renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. |
|
US Energy Secretary Perry turns New Nuclear Salesman to Europe
|
Messianic Perry preaches nuclear to sceptical Europeans, By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com 21 Oct 19, Small nuclear reactors can help “vulnerable nations take control of their destinies,” the US energy secretary said in Brussels today (21 October), claiming that small off-grid nuclear plants can bring electricity to poor nations and “disperse the darkness” around the globe.
Countries with nuclear power “can’t be controlled by other countries wielding energy as a geopolitical weapon”, US Secretary of State Rick Perry said in Brussels as he addressed a forum of policymakers and industry representatives from both sides of the Atlantic. Nuclear power helps “vulnerable nations take control of their destinies,” Perry claimed, arguing that “energy security also bolsters national security”. Perry attended the first EU-US high-level forum on small modular reactors. His remarks on energy independence were chiefly aimed at Eastern European countries, which have repeatedly complained about Russian interference in national politics, using gas as a lever. Nuclear is a divise topic in Europe. While countries like France opted for it decades ago, others like Germany and Austria are strongly opposed. “Nuclear energy is neither safe and sustainable nor cost-effective,” said German State Secretary for Energy, Andreas Feicht, during a recent meeting of EU energy ministers, firmly rejecting suggestions that EU money might be used to extend the lifetime of existing nuclear plants. But Perry’s message was broader, and was also addressed at developing nations whom he said could benefit from small off-grid nuclear plants………. |
|
Nuclear shill Rick Perry switching from DOE Secretary to Small Nuclear Reactor Salesman
Perry to Resign as DOE Secretary, With Nuclear Weapon Programs on 
Autopilot, OCTOBER 18, 2019, BY DAN LEONE,Rick Perry on Thursday announced his resignation as the Donald Trump administration’s first secretary of energy after more than two-and-a-half years on the job. In a published letter to President Donald Trump, Perry said he would resign “later this year”…(subscribers only) https://www.exchangemonitor.com/perry-resign-doe-secretary-nuclear-weapon-programs-autopilot/
Energy Wire 17th Oct 2019, Energy Secretary Rick Perry will head back to Europe next week as part of an effort to boost the U.S. advanced nuclear industry’s ability to export its technologies across the globe.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/10/17/stories/1061299145
Trump grants extension for nuclear fuel recommendations
The Nuclear Fuel Working Group had been expected to deliver recommendations to President Donald Trump last week. But the Commerce Department says Trump granted a 30-day extension.
Uranium mining interests say the global market for uranium ore is vulnerable to political turmoil.
They want Trump to boost U.S. demand to help domestic suppliers. But the president rejected a requested quota during the summer and gave the task force 90 days to come up with other ideas….. https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/us/article/Trump-grants-extension-for-nuclear-fuel-14541894.php
Soaring costs of France’s Flamanville project casts a blight on the global nuclear industry
EDF said that its European pressurised reactor in Flamanville was now expected to cost €12.4 billion. This is €1.5 billion more than the previous estimate.
Initially it was supposed to cost €3.3 billion and the reactor was supposed to come on stream in 2012. The company says that under the revised plan it hopes to load fuel at Flamanville at the end of 2022, a decade late.
EDF is an electrity business with interests worldwide, including operating 58 nuclear reactors in its home country. It is majority-owned by the French state, which holds an 83.7 per cent stake…(subscribers only) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/edf-admits-flamanville-reactor-will-cost-four-times-original-estimate-k55qjn9b5?fbclid=IwAR0-APtlBA77Q8ixdA4VPMl3YCO24A_ivA0dL9Xf_Hyo0mwKn4w0898zmjY
35,454 Petitioners call for scrapping of UK’s “regulated asset base” (RAB) funding for Sizewell nuclear project
Sizewell.
TASC 11th Oct 2019, Just one major problem with the Sizewell C plans is that nuclear new build projects have been largely a financial disaster. Almost every major nuclear project in the West has been plagued by delays and cost overruns: Some delays are in the order decades. Likewise, the cost overruns are of epic proportions.
Some new-build projects have had cost overruns that run into billions. Changing the funding method for the planned Sizewell C to a
regulated asset base model would shift the risk of rising costs from EDF to consumers, and could lead to even worse project planning because the existing RAB model would offer little incentive for EDF to build on-time and on-budget. EDFs investment is safe regardless, and we wind up footing the bill no matter how incompetently EDF proceeds.
TASC 11th Oct 2019,Today, campaigners from Sizewell, Hinkley Point and Bradwell nuclear sites and consumer group SumOfUs will visit the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to deliver a 35,454-signature petition protesting the government’s proposal to subsidise new nuclear power plants by hiking energy bills.
The petition calls on the government to scrap plans to subsidise the nuclear industry through a “regulated asset base” (RAB) funding model, under which consumers would be forced to pay a surcharge on their energy bills for new nuclear power projects such as Sizewell C in Suffolk and Bradwell B in Essex.
Flamanville nuclear reactor repairs will cost $13.6 billion
EDF Cost Overrun at French Plant Piles Pressure on Nuclear Giant, by- Repairs at Flamanville reactor will lift cost to $13.6 billion
- Plant won’t load nuclear fuel until end of 2022 at earliest
The latest budget hike at the Flamanville-3 reactor is yet another blow to the French state-controlled utility, which raised its cost estimate for two similar reactors it’s building in the U.K. just weeks ago. It also fuels doubts about nuclear’s future in France, where the government has been reluctant to approve new projects before Flamanville-3 is online….. (subscribers only) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/edf-lifts-cost-of-french-nuclear-reactor-by-14-to-13-6-billion
French nuclear company EDF rules out any interest in UK’s Wylfa nuclear plan
New Civil Engineer 10th Oct 2019, EDF Energy has ruled out taking an interest in the new Wylfa nuclear site in Wales despite claiming it is the ‘best site in the UK’ for nuclear
power. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edf-rules-out-wylfa-bid-despite-naming-it-best-site-in-uk-10-10-2019/
Ex-generals aim to shift conservative resiliency dialogue away from coal, nuclear subsidies
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ex-generals-aim-to-shift-conservative-resiliency-dialogue-away-from-coal-n/564815/ The project aims to educate stakeholders on the possibilities of competitive contracts to promote resilience. “There’s an element within the country that says we can’t reveal” engineering improvements for the critical substations and nodes “for causes classified…and so there’s no competition in the pricing of those repairs,” Handy told reporters on Thursday.
“What we’re suggesting, from a national security standpoint is … companies know how to compete in a classified area or a confidential area, and not just about the grid, about anything,” Hagee said. “These competitive forces can in fact be brought to bear even when you have information that is sensitive.”
by Iulia Gheorghiu Oct. 11, 2019
Dive Brief:
- Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) launched a project this month to direct conservative discussions on energy and national security toward market-based approaches, leveraging the knowledge and experience of three former U.S. generals.
- The Grid Security Project will focus on federal-level policy, as well as Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, where state subsidy efforts are underway to aid power plants that SAFE has deemed unnecessary for reliability or security, based on a technical analysis from grid operator PJM Interconnection.
-
On Thursday, General Michael Hagee and General John Handy, two leaders of the Grid Security Project, met with energy and defense committees on Capitol Hill to discuss infrastructure legislation, the defense authorization bill and transportation electrification.
Dive Insight:
The new group aims to shift “the narrative in the conservative community away from subsidizing coal and nuclear plants toward one that emphasizes real grid security and resilience,” following proposals from several states and the Trump administration to subsidize power plants with baseload capacity, according to SAFE’s statement.
The Grid Security Project’s fuel-neutral message would target Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania, with education efforts extending to legislators, public utility commissioners and other thought leaders.
n Ohio, coal and nuclear subsidy legislation could go into effect in mid-October. The Grid Security Project is publishing information and working to oppose the subsidies because, according to SAFE, state legislators and First Energy Solutions have contradicted PJM’s assessment by maintaining certain coal and nuclear plants were important to reliability and national security.
On a national level, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is pursuing a docket on resilience, and the Grid Security Project wants to help steer discussions toward market-based approaches.
“We want a reliable, resilient and affordable grid,” Hagee said. “The best way to get to that… [is] with our ingenuity and our competitiveness.”
The project aims to educate stakeholders on the possibilities of competitive contracts to promote resilience. “There’s an element within the country that says we can’t reveal” engineering improvements for the critical substations and nodes “for causes classified…and so there’s no competition in the pricing of those repairs,” Handy told reporters on Thursday.
“What we’re suggesting, from a national security standpoint is … companies know how to compete in a classified area or a confidential area, and not just about the grid, about anything,” Hagee said. “These competitive forces can in fact be brought to bear even when you have information that is sensitive.”
Russia’s manipulations in supplying Bangladesh with nuclear technology
Derek Abbott Nuclear Fuel Cycle Watch Australia,7 Oct 19
I’m at an engineering meeting and got to meet an engineer working on the nuclear program in Bangladesh.
I asked him if Bangladesh had renewables. He said they have a lot.
I then made the point that nuclear is therefore not a good investment as his grid is now in greater need of sources that turn on and off quickly. As nuclear can’t do that, nuclear is not cost effective.
He agreed and said for that reason the Bangladeshi govt would actually never pay upfront for a nuclear station on an economic basis.
He said the nuclear program was a result of a political deal with the Russians.
He said that Pakistan and India have nuclear in the region, so the idea of Bangladesh having a nuclear station is a show of “arm flexing.”
The Russians were pushy and made a deal too hard to resist: The Russians will only charge 1% of the cost per annum for the first 30 years of operation and have agreed to remove all waste and ship it back to Russia.
I said that deal does seem too hard to resist.
I then naively asked why on earth the Russians would go to such lengths at an apparent economic loss to them.
His answer was that Bangladesh is seen as an economically strategic region. Labour costs are lower than India, and it has a very capable workforce with a GDP that is over 5 times (per head) higher than India!
I hadn’t realised that and asked how they are making money. He said that India is no longer the power house of the clothing industry. Due to lower wages, clothes are now made in Bangladesh. All your designer labels you might be wearing come from there and have been rebranded.
There are very strong trade deals between China and Bangladesh, and it his belief that Russia’s “bargain basement” nuclear deal is way of getting a foothold in the region themselves. It is a geopolitical maneuver.
What the Russians giveth with one hand, they’ll probably find a way to taketh with another.
Scrutiny on Britain’s nuclear plans: small modular reactors uncompetitive
UK nuclear: a Golden Egg or Poisoned Chalice? UK nuclear power isunder 
intense scrutiny as costs balloon on the controversial Hinkley Point C station in southwest England
1 This Month
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (230)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- 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)
-
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 