True costs of nuclear-generated electricity hidden for decades
US nuclear industry’s plan thanks to NRC: let taxpayers carry the can for closed power plants, Ecologist Linda Pentz Gunter13th May 2016 “…….Using Vermont Yankee (a relatively small 620 MWe reactor) as an example, the decommissioning cost estimate in 2015 was $1.2 billion and rising. At the same time, Entergy, the plant’s owner, had just $625 million on hand.
In early May, Entergy was reprimanded (but not fined) by the NRC for violating “federal regulations last year when it prematurely took money out of the Vermont Yankee decommissioning trust fund to cover planning expenses associated with the handling of spent nuclear fuel at the closed reactor”, the Times Argus reported.
Another factor in the current struggle to pay for decommissioning is rooted in a decades-long practice by utilities of omitting the costs of decommissioning from electricity bills in order to artificially lower rates and stay competitive in the market.
Rather than preserve decommissioning trust funds for actual decommissioning work, utilities are now asking the NRC to let them raid the funds for activities outside the parameters of the reactor decommissioning process. These activities include the payment of taxes and the protracted management of orphaned nuclear waste left on site.
In addition, while at the same time delaying the start of decommissioning, the utilities have requested and received exemptions from the NRC that allow them to eliminate radiological emergency planning and drastically reduce on-site security around hundreds of tons high-level nuclear waste, all in the name of saving money.
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears to be complicit in this process and is in fact providing a significant hidden subsidy to the nuclear industry when it looks the other way by allowing public trust funds to be raided in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations”, writes Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates in a document submitted to the NRC.
Gundersen, along with other groups including my own – Beyond Nuclear – have filed comments to the NRC as part of an arcane and convoluted process known as an ‘Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning.’ The public comment period closed on March 18, 2016.
A years long Rulemaking is underway because reactor owners are asking to streamline what were site-specific exemptions and have them issued generically instead, and across the board, without any opportunity for public review or comment. This essentially eliminates public transparency in the decommissioning process.
It further seeks to save the corporation from spending any of its electricity production profits on the costs of safety and security oversight the companies claim are no longer needed once the reactor stops power production and is defueled………..http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987679/us_nuclear_industrys_plan_thanks_to_nrc_let_taxpayers_carry_the_can_for_closed_power_plants.html
Russia joins the throng desperate to sell nuclear radioactive trash to Britain
Russia’s state-owned nuclear group keen to break into UK market Rosatom understood to be hoping to revive plans to build reactors in Britain if EDF proposals for Hinkley Point C fail, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 14 May 16, A Russian nuclear group is hoping that the potential meltdown of French plans to build new European pressurised reactors at Hinkley Point could offer an opportunity to break into the British nuclear market.
Deeper concerns about the future of the Somerset scheme were raised by the French energy minister, Ségolène Royal, who warned of the “colossal” cost, which EDF admitted could be £18bn or even £21bn.
Recent talks have been held between state-owned Russian nuclear group Rosatom and the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) despite the chilly political relations between London and Moscow over Ukraine, Moscow sources claimed.
These discussions centred on whether Russia could help Britain with removal of uranium from old reactors – but Rosatom is understood to have a wider agenda of trying to resuscitate earlier plans to build its own reactors in Britain.
“There is still an appetite to enter the UK market,” said a senior Russian nuclear industry source who claimed Rosatom’s London-based representatives still maintained contacts with the Department ofEnergy and Climate Change…….
The Russians accept that sanctions and other political considerations make it difficult for such a plan to progress, but they point out that Rosatom still supplies uranium to UK and US nuclear plants.
The NuDA confirmed that it had held a series of talks with Rosatom. “We have met with them. We are a recognised global authority and we meet with a lot of organisations,” said a spokesman……..
China wants to use Britain as a showcase for its Hualong technology and agreed to take a third share in EDF’s Hinkley scheme in return for being allowed to proceed with Chinese-owned technology at Bradwell……..
Those worries were given extra weight with Royal’s comments in an interview with the Financial Times in which she said: “I am wondering if we should go ahead with the project. The sums involved are colossal.”
And they added to fears about the future of the Somerset project earlier this week when the company’s management was pilloried by shareholders at its annual general meeting and credit agency Moody’s downgraded EDF debt.
John Sauven, Greenpeace’s executive director, said the downgrading was just “a long line of massive red flag warnings” the UK government had received over the Hinkley nuclear project. He added: “Hinkley power station must not become ‘too big to fail’ because of politicians’ egos that are too big to back down.” http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/13/russias-state-owned-nuclear-group-keen-to-break-into-uk-market
Sparks flew at Electricite de France’s AGM: EDF has €37 billion of debt
nuClear News No 85 May 16“…….Sparks were flying at EDF’s Annual General Meeting on 12th May as EDF employees were given a chance to air their views and grill the company’s board, which remains divided on whether to go-ahead with HPC. In the run up to the meeting EDF announced that the contingency needs of HPC could increase the cost by about £3bn to £21bn.Reasons NOT to back Britain’s Hinkley nuclear power project
nuClear News No 85 May 16“…… there is anywhere between 4 and 18 months to develop the argument for an alternative to building HPC.Unexpectedly, California Public Utilities Commission re-opens case of ratepayers funding Dan Onofre nuclear shutdown
Public Utilities Commission reopens San Onofre case, Admits they “undermined public confidence in the agency”, San Diego reader By Don Bauder, May 9, 2016 In a surprise move, the California Public Utilities Commission today (May 9) reopened the 2014 agreement by which ratepayers got stuck with $3.3 billion of costs related to the sudden closing of the San Onofre nuclear plant. It became known as “the rape of the ratepayer” because management errors, such as those causing the San Onofre shutdown, should be charged to shareholders, not ratepayers.
The utilities regulator also banned all ex parte (one-sided) meetings with decision-makers or commissioners. As representatives of ratepayers expressed shock, past secret meetings between brass of Southern California Edison and commissioners came to light, clearly showing that the decision to plunk the burden of paying for San Onofre on ratepayers was reached through a series of clandestine, unreported meetings.
Up to now, ex parte meetings have been permitted as long as they were quickly revealed to all parties. The announcement today referred to the most infamous of those meetings — a Warsaw, Poland, huddle between former CPUC president Michael Peevey and Edison executive Stephen Pickett at which Peevey essentially sketched the strategy for fleecing ratepayers. The secret huddle was in 2013 and Edison did not report it until 2015. The commission in December noted eight such violations by Edison. This clandestine coziness “undermined public confidence in the agency,” said the commission today — a laughably euphemistic way of stating the situation…….http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/may/09/ticker-utilities-commission-reopen-san-onofre-case/#
Governments and individuals can prevent banks from investing in nuclear weapons
Governments are talking about divestment, and it’s something you can do too.
If you have a bank account, find out if your bank invests in nuclear weapon producing companies. You can either look at our website and see if your bank is listed, or you can ask your bank directly. We found that a few people, asking the same bank about questionable investments, was enough to get that bank to adopt a policy preventing them from having any relationship with nuclear weapon producing companies.
Nuclear Weapons Are Scary — But We Can Do Something About Them, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susi-snyder/nuclear-weapons-are-scary_b_9947542.html The World Post, Susi Snyder Nuclear Disarmament Programme Manager for Pax in the Netherlands 05/13/2016 Nuclear weapons are scary. The risk of use by accident, intention or terror. The climate consequences. The fact that they are designed and built to vaporize thousands of people with the push of a button. Scary. Fortunately, there is something we can do.
We know that nuclear weapons are scary, but we must be much louder in defining them as unacceptable, as illegitimate. By following the money, we can cut it off, and while this isn’t the only thing necessary to make nuclear weapons extinct, it will help.
That’s why we made Don’t Bank on the Bomb. Because we want to do something about nuclear weapons. Investments are not neutral. Financing and investing are active choices, based on a clear assessment of a company and its plans. Any financial service delivered to a company by a financial institution or other investor gives a tacit approval of their activities. To make nuclear weapons, you need money. Governments pay for a lot of things, but the companies most heavily involved in producing key components for nuclear warheads need additional investment — from banks, pension funds, and insurance companies — to sustain the working capital they need to maintain and modernize nuclear bombs.
We can steer these companies in a new direction. We can influence their decision making, by making sure our own investments don’t go anywhere near nuclear weapon producing companies. Continue reading
Even the nuclear industry knows that it’s in a desperate fight for survival
NEA head highlights challenges facing nuclear power World Nuclear News 11 May 2016 William D. Magwood, IV, director general of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), highlighted some of the issues hindering the prospects of nuclear power at a two-day conference that started today at the organisation’s headquarters in Paris…….
The IFNEC is a forum of states and organisations that share the common vision of the safe and secure development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide.
The conference has convened leading stakeholders from energy planning authorities, regulators and export credit agencies, as well as vendors, utilities, bankers, rating agencies and insurers, to identify key barriers and develop approaches to address the financing of nuclear projects.
Magwood told them: “I am ready to stand here today and declare that the markets are broken; they don’t work and don’t do what they are supposed to do. The time has come to recognise that we have a situation where large utilities are losing money and are almost on the verge of bankruptcy. When you have a situation in many markets where the only things that can be built are things that are subsidised, then we have a serious problem…….
he “big numbers” given for the cost of nuclear power plant projects often incorporate more than just the cost of building the reactor, he said, and might also include infrastructure costs and transmission assets…….
Cost and budget overruns at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland cannot be described as typical. “……..
A challenge with small modular reactors will be the need to sell “dozens, scores if not hundreds to make it work”, he said. “And if you’re selling them to more than one country, are you going to have to go through the entire regulatory process every time you go to a country. If you do that, you may end up making them uneconomic just by the fact that you have to spend huge amounts of money to get the licence.”……
“In the flux of great change, it can be difficult to finance even modest projects. Nuclear power plants are not modest projects; with total costs ranging from about €6 billion to €12 billion and total project implantation times reaching up to a decade, building a nuclear power plant is one of the most complex of all industrial sector undertakings. Therefore, as one might expect, financing nuclear power plants can often present significant challenges.” http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-NEA-head-highlights-challenges-facing-nuclear-power-110501.html
£21bn the likely cost of ever more expensive Hinkley Point nuclear power station
Hinkley Point nuclear power station costs could rise to £21bn, EDF says, Belfast Telegraph, 12 May 16 Energy giant EDF has said the cost
of building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station could jump to almost £21 billion, about £3 billion more than it said last year.
In a statement ahead of its annual meeting, the French group estimated the cost of building the twin reactor plant at the Somerset site would be £20.7 billion. EDF said it would provide up to £13.8 billion, while Chinese utility CGN will bring £6.9 billion of financing to the project. It said these latest set of figures provided “a contingency margin”.
However, in October EDF said the project would cost £18 billion, with it providing £12 billion and £6 billion from CGN.
EDF said that the building plan for Hinkley would take around 115 months (nine-and-a-half years) “after the final investment decision until commissioning of the first reactor”.
The French firm had said in October that it expected a final investment decision within weeks and first power in 2025, but that decision has now been delayed until September as the company bids to arrange financing.
This now suggests that if the project completes its financing in September, the plant would not be able to pump out power until the first half of 2026.
This is three years behind EDF’s estimate in 2013, that the plant would be operationalin 2023……..http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-costs-could-rise-to-21bn-edf-says-34709042.html
Fort Calhoun nuclear plant no longer makes financial sense – CEO
OPPD CEO: Shut down Fort Calhoun nuclear plant by end of the year , Omaha.com MAY 12, 2016. By Cole Epley
The Omaha Public Power District would permanently shut down its nuclear power plant at the end of the year under a plan its chief executive is presenting to the utility’s board Thursday.
That means engineers at Fort Calhoun Station would split their last atom in 2016.
Omaha Public Power District President and Chief Executive Tim Burke on Thursday morning is telling the utility’s board of directors it no longer makes financial sense to continue operations at Fort Calhoun…..
The plant’s now-rectified regulatory issues aren’t the reason for the recommendation to power down, though, Burke said. It’s simply become too expensive from a cost-benefit perspective to operate the country’s smallest nuclear plant, he said.
The utility spends $250 million each year to produce energy and maintain facilities at Fort Calhoun.
That’s a hurdle, Burke says, when it comes to achieving its goal of taking rates from about 7 percent below the regional average to 20 percent below that average.
And the utility’s revenues have been falling. First, there is lower demand for electricity as customers move toward energy efficiency. Second, the utility is getting less money for the excess power it generates that it sells on the open market.
Recently, an oversupply of natural gas and increased regional wind energy production has made it increasingly difficult for OPPD to make up for revenue shortfalls associated with flat or falling demand for electricity, Burke said…….
If the board follows through on the recommendation, OPPD’s wind and renewable generation will comprise 49 percent of the portfolio by 2020, up from 38 percent that is currently forecast.
OPPD’s relationship with renewables grew in 2014 when the utility approved a long-term generation plan that included the phase-out some of its coal-burning units, conversion of others to natural gas and added 400 megawatts of wind power from a massive wind farm near O’Neill, Nebraska.
Under the plan presented Thursday, those plans remain intact, but Burke said the most economically viable course is one that does not include nuclear power and effectively ends more than 40 years of nuclear generation…….
Burke said he expects the plant to enter a “cold shutdown” in October of this year, should the board proceed with the recommendation. In a cold shutdown, pressure and temperature conditions within the plant’s nuclear reactor are lowered to a level that prevents a nuclear chain reaction from occurring.
From there, the utility will proceed with various regulatory applications required to decommission the plant. That process includes dismantling the facility, decontaminating it and safely disposing of radiated materials.
Burke said radiated fuel rods likely would remain on the site — there is nowhere else to transport them since a proposed radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain in south-central Nevada is still in limbo. For now, radioactive waste from nuclear power plants is stored on-site in concrete casks.
Decommissioning can take 10 years under a process known as Decon, under which the plant is immediately dismantled and contaminated materials are either decontaminated or removed. In a deferred dismantling process known as Safstor, facilities are maintained for a period of up to 60 years and radioactivity decays to a safe level.
OPPD in its 2015 annual report estimated the costs to decommission Fort Calhoun would be about $884 million. The utility has socked away about $373 million for those costs.
The board will take 30 days to consider management’s proposal, during which time it will field concerns and suggestions from stakeholders and ratepayers.
Contact the writer: 402-444-1534, cole.epley@owh.com http://www.omaha.com/money/oppd-ceo-shut-down-fort-calhoun-nuclear-plant-by-end/article_f8b86658-184e-11e6-b852-8f5144170b67.html
Germany’s biggest power utility in financial problem about nuclear wastes costs
Eon warns on capital raise to cover extra €2bn nuclear waste bill Guy Chazan in Berlin Ft.com 12 May 16 Shares in Eon, Germany’s biggest power producer, fell 5 per cent after it said it might have to raise capital to pay its share of the cost of storing Germany’s nuclear waste.
Eon has provisioned €8bn for waste storage, but under a proposal published by a government commission last month it would have to pay an extra €2bn into a special waste storage fund. Altogether, Germany’s four big utilities have been told they have to contribute a total of €23.3bn into the pool.
Michael Sen, Eon’s chief financial officer, said the company could pay the money, but doing so would reduce its equity capital and could hurt its credit rating.
He said Eon would be forced to postpone investments, cut more costs and potentially sell off marginal assets to cover the €10bn. A company presentation also said it could trigger unspecified “capital measures”.
Eon’s share price was trading down nearly 5 per cent at €8.14 on Wednesday……
The nuclear issue is just one of the problems weighing on Eon’s stock. Like its rival, RWE, Eon has been hit by Germany’s radical shift to renewables, which has squeezed electricity from fossil fuels out of the energy market.
It reported its biggest annual loss last year after writing down the value of its coal and gas-fired power plants by €8.8bn.
The company has responded by splitting itself in two: Eon is grouping its conventional power generation assets and energy trading in a new company, Uniper, while the new-look Eon will focus on renewables, networks and customer solutions. ……http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52d0c36e-173d-11e6-b8d5-4c1fcdbe169f.html?siteedition=uk#axzz48VIfeQb0
Nuclear corporation EDF’s Annual General Meeting faces more financial gloom
Nuclear giant EDF Energy reports sales fall as AGM looms, BBC News, 11 May 16 French energy giant EDF says sales fell 7% in the first three months of the year in the face of stiff competition, a mild winter and lower energy prices.
The figures come ahead of Wednesday’s AGM where investors will quiz management over their plans for the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in the UK.
EDF, 85% controlled by the French state, has struggled to find the cash for its 66.5% stake in the project.
In April it pushed a final decision on the £18bn plant back to September.
Chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in April following an internal disagreement over whether to press on with the controversial project.
However, EDF has outlined plans to raise €4bn, with up to €3bn provided by the French government.
Tough markets
Credit rating agencies are due to assess the group in the coming days and their verdict on its finances will determine how easy it will be for the group to raise cash.
Meanwhile, tough market conditions mean EDF is cutting costs and planning to sell €10bn in assets by 2020, including a stake in French power-grid operator RTE……http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36262029
Government -run Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to sell Alabama Nuclear Complex at a big loss
Feds To Sell Alabama Nuclear Complex,Losing 99% Of Investment, The Daily Caller , 6 May 16 ANDREW FOLLETT Energy and Environmental Reporter
The government-run Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted Thursday to sell off the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in Alabama for about $36.4 million — after the agency invested $6 billion in the project that produced no electricity.
“Our analysis of the property and its potential uses, and input from public officials, customers and Valley residents, indicate that offering the property for sale could better serve the public,” Bill Johnson, the TVA’s president, told the Times Free Press…….
For the last 40 years, the TVA has tried to build two new nuclear reactors at Bellefonte, even completing the majority of the work on both of them. The agency invested $6 billion in the site before construction was shut down. The new property appraisal estimates the site and its facilities will sell for a mere $36.4 million.
Other nuclear reactors around America have suffered similar fates. Vermont and Wisconsin both lost nuclear plants due to competition from cheap natural gas and the San Onofre reactor in California was shut down due to safety concerns, as was the Crystal River reactor in Florida. The world’s largest nuclear plant operator, Électricité de France, withdrew from a joint venture in 2013 due to falling power prices after it had invested billions. If the venture had gone through, it would have created three new American nuclear plants………http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/06/feds-to-sell-alabama-nuclear-complex-losing-99-of-investment/
Nuclear station- never completed – now to be sold at big loss
Never-Completed TVA Nuclear Plant That Cost $4B for Sale http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/completed-tva-nuclear-plant-cost-4b-sale-38910893 By TRAVIS LOLLER, ASSOCIATED PRESS NASHVILLE, Tenn. — May 5, 2016 The nation’s largest public utility is selling a never-completed nuclear plant that has cost more than $4 billion dollars over the past four decades.
The Tennessee Valley Authority board voted Thursday to declare the Bellefonte nuclear plant near Hollywood, Alabama, surplus. The site includes two partially finished nuclear reactors, office buildings, warehouses, parking areas, railroad spurs and a helicopter pad.
TVA President and CEO Bill Johnson said after the meeting that the 1,600 acre site has been appraised at $36 million. It will be sold at auction to the highest bidder, but the utility will consider job creation and economic impact when looking at potential buyers. “There will have to be a positive impact for the community for us to qualify you as a bidder,” he said
The decision to sell is the latest blow to the nuclear power industry, which seemed poised for resurgence a decade ago but has been stymied by cheap natural gas, high construction costs and relatively flat demand for power.
TVA recently completed construction of its long mothballed Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Spring City, which was first started in 1979 and then restarted in 2008. The reboot ran about $2 billion over budget and took about three years longer than anticipated.
Board member Eric Satz cited that experience in concluding that completing Bellefonte is not economically viable. He said a lot has changed in the energy market in the past 40 years, including huge improvements in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology.
And he said TVA should allow the Bellefonte site to be developed so the people of Hollywood “don’t live in limbo for the next 40 years.”
A recent TVA study concluded that the utility will not need any new large-scale facilities that can generate electricity 24 hours a day for at least 20 years.
The board met Thursday at Paris Landing State Park in Buchanan.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in jeopardy , leaked documents reveal problems for Europe
TTIP leaked documents could spell the end of controversial trade deal, say campaigners, Independent Documents shed unprecedented light on controversial agreement, which includes provisions to allow US companies to help change European law and weaken consumer protections, Independent, Andrew Griffin @_andrew_griffin 2 May 2016 Hundreds of leaked pages from the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) show that the deal could be about to collapse, according to campaigners.
The huge leak – which gives the first full insight into the negotiations – shows that the relationship between Europe and the US are weaker than had been thought and that major divisions remain on some of the agreement’s most central provisions.
The talks have been held almost entirely in secret, and most information that is known in public has come out from unofficial leaks. But the new pages, leaked by Greenpeace, represent the first major look at how the highly confidential talks are progressing.
The leaks could be enough to destabilise the deal completely, according to campaigners who have claimed that the agreement couldn’t survive the leaks.
- “Now that we can see the actual texts, the EU negotiators have nowhere left to hide,” John Hilary, the executive director of War on Want, told The Independent. “The gloves are off, and they know they are in for a proper fight.”
They indicate that the US is looking strongly to change regulation in Europe to lessen the protections on the environment, consumer rights and other positions that the EU affords to its citizens. Representatives for each side appear to have found that they have run into “irreconcilable” differences that could undermine the signing of the landmark and highly controversial trade deal, campaigners say.
For instance, the papers show that the US is looking to weaken the EU’s “precautionary principle” that governs how potentially harmful products are sold, Greenpeace says. The US has much weaker regulation that aims to minimise rather than avoid risks, and that same less strict regime could come to the UK and Europe under the deal.
- If the EU made further changes to similar regulations, it would have to inform the US and corporations based there, according to the documents. American companies would then be able to have the same input into EU regulation as European ones do.
- There are also notable missing parts of the agreement. None of the texts includes any reference to the global effort to cut CO2 emissions agreed in Paris last year, according to Greenpeace, despite a commitment from the European Commission that it would make environmental sustainability a key part of any deal………http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ttip-leak-could-spell-the-end-of-controversial-trade-deal-say-campaigners-a7009896.html
Exelon nuclear corporation demands tax-payer bailout for its uneconomic power plants
Exelon to Close Two Nuclear Plants if Needs Aren’t Met, WSJ By AUSTEN HUFFORD May 6, 2016 Exelon Corp. said Friday that it would close two nuclear power plants in Illinois if state officials don’t pass legislation that provides funding and support for nuclear and solar power.
The company said it would close its Clinton, Ill., nuclear power plantand its Quad Cities nuclear power plant, which is based nearCordova, Ill., if Illinois doesn’t pass “adequate legislation” by the end of the month.
Electricity producers in several states are asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support to keep costly nuclear power plants in business. If successful, the legislation is likely to increase customers’ power bills……..
Abe Scarr, Director of Illinois PIRG, a public interest advocacy organization that fights against “powerful interests,” said the bill amounted to a nuclear bailout.
“Ratepayers have paid multiple times for these plants over the decades,” Mr. Scarr said. “We should be investing in the energy generation for the future. We should not be doubling down on an energy source of the past that is not competitive.”
According to Exelon, Clinton and Quad Cities have lost more than $800 million over the past six years.
In a release Thursday, Exelon said some nuclear plants are at risk of closing because wholesale energy prices are at a 15-year low……http://www.wsj.com/articles/exelon-to-close-two-nuclear-plants-if-needs-arent-met-1462544157
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (81)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 