French government ousts head of nuclear power group EDF.
Luc Rémont’s exit comes after months of tension over plans for new reactors and clash over pricing strategies.
France has ousted the chief executive of the
state-owned nuclear power group EDF after months of tensions over strategy
and the risk of cost overruns in the construction of six new reactors.
Luc Rémont, who had been at EDF since November 2022, would be replaced by
Bernard Fontana, the current head of Framatome, a subsidiary of EDF that
builds reactors and components, the Élysée Palace said on Friday.
EDF runs the country’s fleet of 57 nuclear plants that generate roughly 70
per cent of France’s electricity, and commercialises nuclear projects
abroad. Rémont succeeded in the initial challenge of restoring the output
of the fleet of reactors after a period plagued by technical problems, and
was in the early stages of a plan to build new more powerful, yet costly
ones, known as the EPR2.
But his term was marred by continued spats with
the state, which nationalised EDF through buying out the minority
shareholders in 2023. The Elysée decided not to renew Rémont’s
three-year term that was set to expire in June.
A major point of contention
was over Rémont’s plans to revamp how EDF sells electricity to big
industrial companies with energy-intensive activities. In the past, the
company was legally required to sell fixed amounts of electricity to them
at a price approved both by the French government and the European
Commission.
With those rules expiring next year, Rémont had been set to
combine market pricing with the signing of long-term contracts with
customers in energy-intensive industries. But the offers attracted few
companies since the terms and prices were less attractive. In parallel to
long-term contracts, EDF said this month that it would launch a new
auction-like process for other industries, including foreign buyers, in a
move that angered energy-intensive groups in France.
FT 21st March 2025, https://www.ft.com/content/c822f4e4-c15a-4038-aad4-a7151629277d
Macron Ousts EDF CEO as Tension Rises on French Power Costs
The French government said Electricite de France SA Chief Executive Officer Luc Remont is stepping down as the state-owned utility faces increasing complaints from large industrial clients over the cost of electricity.
Author of the article:, Bloomberg News, Francois de Beaupuy, https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/macron-ousts-edf-ceo-as-tension-rises-on-french-power-costs 21 Mar 25
(Bloomberg) — The French government said Electricite de France SA Chief Executive Officer Luc Remont is stepping down as the state-owned utility faces increasing complaints from large industrial clients over the cost of electricity.
President Emmanuel Macron is considering appointing Bernard Fontana, the 64-year-old senior executive vice president in charge of the company’s Industry and Services unit, as the new chairman and CEO, the president’s office said in a statement Friday. Remont, 55, has held the positions since November 2022.Article content
“The choice that the government has long supported is electricity that is abundant, clean and not too expensive, and it’s based on this choice that Bernard Fontana’s nomination has been made,” French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou said on a trip to Bourges, central France. “He’s an industrialist, which means he’s used to running teams and speeding up projects.”
Tensions between the government, EDF and major customers have been mounting over the utility’s electricity offerings. Representatives of power-hungry users, such as chemical makers, have said EDF’s new offers aren’t attractive enough, threatening their competitiveness, while rivals in the US and Asia enjoy cheaper energy. Their concerns have been exacerbated recently by sluggish economic growth, uncertainties over gas prices due to the Ukraine war, and mounting trade tensions between Europe, the US and China.
A French regulation that forces the nuclear behemoth to sell more than a quarter of its atomic output at a steep discount to current wholesale prices expires at year’s end. Meantime, the debt-laden utility said it needs to increase expenditure on nuclear projects and the power grid to help the country’s energy transition.
On Thursday, Benoit Bazin, the CEO of French glass and building materials producer Cie. de Saint-Gobain, said on BFM Business television that his company has delayed investment in France because it cannot predict energy costs from next year. Meantime, it has invested in Norway and Canada to electrify plants, and will soon do the same in Spain.
Bazin said he was “extremely shocked” by Remont’s recent decision to auction long-term power supply contracts to rival producers and suppliers, broadening offers that initially were reserved for its large electricity clients.
“EDF is a national company that has a public service mission on the competitiveness of the French industry,” the Saint-Gobain CEO said. “France won’t keep its industry, nor re-industrialization and decarbonization if we keep walking on our head.”
Shutting Sites
Earlier this week, Marc Schuller, chief operating officer of French chemical maker Arkema SA, said during a parliamentary hearing that talks with EDF over new power contracts were “advancing very slowly.
“If nothing is done, we’ll have to consider shutting down sites and stopping some activities because we wouldn’t be competitive anymore,” Schuller said.
Fontana has held a variety of management positions during his career at steelmakers ArcelorMittal SA and Aperam SA, including CEO of Swiss cement maker Holcim Ltd. Within EDF, he’s been in charge in recent years of Framatome, the unit that makes large equipment for nuclear plants.
Beyond easing tensions with large customers, the future boss of EDF will have to complete complex talks with the French and UK governments over the financing and construction of new reactors, which are key planks of these countries’ net-zero ambitions.
—With assistance from Shelby Knowles.
Idle Lepreau nuclear plant threatens to post worst operational year in 4 decades
Refurbishing only half the nuclear plant was a mistake, utility president admits
Robert Jones · CBC News : Mar 21, 2025
An end-of-the-fiscal-year breakdown at Point Lepreau is worsening what may turn out to be the poorest operational year on record for the 42-year-old plant.
The nuclear generating station was shutdown on Monday after a malfunctioning cooling fan was deemed to need immediate repair. That fix is expected to take almost until the end of the month
“Work is underway to repair an issue with the cooling fan and motor assembly,” D’Arcy Walsh, an N.B. Power spokesperson, said in an email. “We expect the station to return to service by the end of next week.”
A scheduled maintenance shutdown last spring, followed by the discovery of a major issue last summer in Lepreau’s generator, previously had the plant offline from early last April to mid-December. The latest problem is dragging the year’s low productivity further
Not including the years Lepreau was offline between 2008 and 2013 for a $2.5-billion refurbishment, the plant’s least productive year was in 1995, when it underwent work on sagging pressure tubes in its reactor and operated for just over 100 days.
Downtime at Lepreau is expensive for N.B. Power and has been cited as the primary cause for its current financial problems.
In February, N.B. Power president Lori Clark told MLAs the fortunes of the utility are largely dependent on how well, or poorly, the nuclear plant performs…………………….
Since it returned from refurbishment in late 2012, Lepreau has suffered a number of problems and has been taken offline for maintenance and repairs for more than 1,100 days in total.
More than one third of that downtime has occurred just in the last three years.
It has been estimated by the utility to cost between $1 million and $4 million per day when Lepreau is idle, depending on the time of year and the cost of generating or buying replacement power……………………………https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/idle-lepreau-nuclear-plant-threatening-worst-operational-year-nb-1.7490177
Hinkley Point C nuclear will cost at least £75 billion – highly unlikely that Sizewell C will be any cheaper.
KEEPING REEVES SWEET: AXE SIZEWELL C!
Jonathon Porritt, 19 Mar 25
“…………………………… , Ed Miliband’s still a total sucker for the propaganda of both the fossil fuel industry (with the latest research from Fossil Free Parliament reminding us that DESNZ Ministers notched up an unbelievable 104 ministerial meetings with various fossil fuel companies between July and September last year) as well as the nuclear industry.
I’ll return to Ed’s mystifying obsession with the fossil fuel industry’s mega-scam of Carbon Capture and Storage in my next blog. For now, let’s just stick to his nuclear nonsense.
Knowing that he will have to give something big and bold back to the Treasury if he’s going to be able to protect things that really matter in his overall portfolio, the blindingly obvious thing to give up is Sizewell C. He knows the Treasury already despises the nuclear industry, deep down, after literally decades of its over-claiming and under-performing. So give them some red meat. A lot of red meat.
The UK Government has already spent around £3.7 billion on preparing the groundworks for Sizewell C. I saw the consequences of that for myself when I was in the area a couple of weeks ago, and I was genuinely shocked. The devastation is unbelievable – including more than 21,000 trees cut down. And that’s BEFORE a Final Investment Decision (FID) has actually been secured. Prospective investors (even in the Middle East) seem to be a lot less keen on Sizewell C than Ministers keep telling us.
Worse yet, Labour has promised another £2.7 billion in the next financial year – to go on doing exactly the same, again, before an FID is secured. Axing Sizewell C at this point, however painful that might be politically, would be a huge, short-term win for the Treasury.
In fact, this would be a much, much bigger prize for UK taxpayers in the longer term. Sizewell C has been described by EDF as a “Hinkley Point look-alike, with a lot of lessons learned”. There’s mighty little evidence that the UK nuclear industry has ever learned a single lesson from its unparalleled record of failure, but let’s just live with that for the time being.
The latest estimate for the “overnight cost” of Hinkley Point C in Somerset is £46 billion. Please don’t be fooled by that ever-so-opaque terminology: “overnight” simply means the cost of construction. It’s the figure the industry loves to trot out to the UK’s limitlessly gullible media (including the BBC and The Guardian), without acknowledging that it doesn’t include the cost of the capital EDF has had to raise to build this monstrous white elephant in the first place. EDF has indicated in the past that cost of capital can add as much as 60% to the overnight cost.
Yes, that’s right: Hinkley Point C will cost at least £75 billion.
It’s highly unlikely that Sizewell C, on the Suffolk coast, will be any cheaper – indeed, it’s already clear that the engineering challenge at Sizewell C is much greater than at Hinkley Point C.
And who will pay for Sizewell C? Well, it’s either YOU as a taxpayer (depending on the size of the stake that the UK government will eventually have to take in Sizewell C in order to secure that ever-elusive Final Investment Decision), or YOU as an energy consumer, through the chosen mechanism of a Regulated Asset Base. From the moment construction at Sizewell C starts, consumers’ bills will start rising.
Axing Sizewell C will obviously be a huge hit to the nuclear industry. Which means it’s probably too much to kill off the industry’s accompanying fantasies about Small Modular Reactors at the same time. At the moment, subsidising SMRs is relatively small beer for the taxpayer, and it’s got as much to do with keeping Rolls Royce on board as it has with any serious attempt to crack the huge technological challenges associated with these new reactors.
Once free of Sizewell C, DESNZ could then double down on all those parts of its portfolio which will deliver real economic value before the next election: solar and wind, storage (batteries plus a lot more), reconfigured grids, and low-carbon manufacturing………………………………..
https://jonathonporritt.com/poor-old-ed-miliband/
Subsidies attract companies, but not workers, to Fukushima zones
By SUSUMU OKAMOTO/ Staff Writer, Asahi Shimbun March 18, 2025
Billions of yen in government subsidies have attracted businesses and fueled a surge in industrial park development across areas affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
But one big problem remains: Most workers are not returning to these municipalities that were depleted through evacuation orders.
………………………………………………………………………………….Industrial parks developed by local governments are almost entirely funded by the central government.
So far, 21 parks have opened in the region since the disaster, with nine more planned.
The total cost has exceeded 100 billion yen.
While the construction boom has given the impression of an economic revival, actual progress has fallen short of government and local expectations.
WORKERS NOT RETURNING
………………………………….Interviews with local governments and companies show that 89 businesses and organizations employ around 2,500 people in newly developed industrial parks.
Around 1,050 work in six towns and villages with high radiation levels and restricted access―Tomioka, Okuma, Futaba, Namie, Katsurao and Iitate.
But only about 15 percent of them live within those municipalities. Most of the workers commute from Iwaki and other nearby cities.
DEBATE OVER CONTINUING SUBSIDIES
In November, municipalities affected by the nuclear disaster strongly opposed a government review that suggested a possible end to the industry ministry’s subsidy program around 10 years after the lifting of all evacuation orders.
Experts on the review panel argued that the economic impact of the subsidies remains unclear.
But Kawauchi Mayor Yuko Endo, whose entire village was evacuated, warned, “The town won’t survive if the subsidies are cut off.”
Over the eight years through fiscal 2023, the ministry’s program has distributed 95.9 billion yen to 135 companies and organizations.
“Without jobs, people won’t return to nuclear disaster-affected areas,” a ministry official said. “Without people, neither commercial nor medical facilities can come back.”
The government has allocated an additional 11 billion yen for the program in fiscal 2025.
LONG ROAD TO SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
“Young people in Fukushima Prefecture were already leaving for cities before the disaster,” said Toshiyuki Kanai, a professor at the University of Tokyo’s of Faculty of Law. “Creating jobs alone won’t bring people back.”
However, he added: “The government has little choice but to continue support, given its responsibility for the displacement caused by the nuclear disaster. The scale of the damage is irreparable.”………………… https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15656086?fbclid=IwY2xjawJG4llleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHflEUQCKoAUe6O8fzoy952K_909rjqNLcrSehKzuCAKI-j0j72skaYMOlQ_aem_Qo9irxiJmty4KnXYMVu3aA
Sizewell C Nuclear boss challenged on her definition of failure
Nuclear plant boss Julia Pyke (“‘It’s a tough
gig, developing big infrastructure projects in the UK’”, Work &
Careers, March 17) says “I know [some campaigners] want to believe that
it’s all a terrible failure, but truly, it isn’t.”
As one of those campaigners she is trying unsuccessfully to “win over”, I would point
out that all six “EPR” reactors — the type proposed for Sizewell C on
the Suffolk coast — have been significantly late and over budget.
Taishan 1 in China (five years late, double its budget) was offline for almost two
years early in its operational life. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland and Flamanville
3 in France have suffered teething troubles after being 14 and 12 years
late and costing three and four times their budgets, respectively.
Hinkley Point C’s budget has already doubled and the project is four to six years
late, with another four to six years still to go. Given her role, is it not
important to understand how Pyke defines “failure”?
Alison Downes: FT 18th March 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/0625dfba-9867-446d-9a42-a952c04a2e1b
Nuclear power’s global stagnation
There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup.
If you count so-called SMRs that are not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, then there has still been just one each in China and Russia.
Dr Jim Green , 10th March 2025 ,
https://theecologist.org/2025/mar/10/nuclear-powers-global-stagnation
The proponents of nuclear power rely on an excessive optimism which, once again, sits in stark contrast to the reality of the decades-long stagnation the industry worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.
The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations, each of which is a castle built on sand.
First, we have the projected AI-related energy demand. This ignores emerging evidence that such projections are overblown. For example, the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 percent of the energy of competitors. This is a repeat of the claims of the nuclear power proponents of the 1970’s whose projected demand that never eventuated.
Grids
Second, then we see speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. These small reactors are unproven.
Third, finally we note the prospective wish fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours. This is despite the hero countries in a large majority of cases not having reactor approvals and funding in place.
So what is the actual state of nuclear power in 2025? Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of last year. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.
A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).
Ageing reactors
The industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth. As of Wednesday, 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years.
The International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 due simply to the ageing of the reactor fleet ‒ that’s 88 percent of current worldwide capacity.
There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup. If you count so-called SMRs that are not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, then there has still been just one each in China and Russia.
The SMR sector continues to go nowhere, with further setbacks in 2024. The Nuward project in France has been suspended. This followed previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear.
Renewables
In striking contrast to nuclear power’s marginal gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024.
Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power. In China, the ratio was 100:1 last year.
The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 percent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 percent in 2030.
Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 percent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996.
Renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments. A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $US728 billion in 2024, up eight percent on the previous year. This compares with nuclear investment that remains flat at US$34.2 billion.
Renewable costs have fallen sharply, in contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects. Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010‒2015.
From 2009‒2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 percent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 percent; while nuclear costs increased 49 percent.
Newcomer
Claims that between 40 and 50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.
At the start of this year reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors – 93 percent are not.
Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.
The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of having ‘planned’ reactors: those with “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years”.
The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state.
Phase-outs
There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries.
At most there will be a trickle, as has been the historical pattern. There has in fact been just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years, and just three in the current century.
The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors.
It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries will match the number of countries completing phase-outs in 20 to 30 years’ time.
Capital strike
Nuclear power just can’t compete economically. The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike.
Even with generous government and taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors ‒ especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.
Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?
In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project, the 1.6 GW Flamanville EPR, increased seven-fold from €3.3 billion to €23.7 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.
And this problem sits alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the risk of weapons proliferation, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants and the risks from the intractable nuclear waste legacy.
Some of these risks have already come to pass, as with the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine.
Bankruptcy
In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after at least US$9 billion was spent.
Westinghouse declared bankruptcy immediately after the cancellation of the South Carolina project, and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action, including criminal cases.
The only other reactor construction project in the US ‒ the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia ‒ reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost of the Vogtle project was at least US$17 billion per reactor. Completion was about seven years behind schedule.
No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.
Subsidies
The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.
The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018. The estimated completion date has been pushed back to as late as 2031. The latest cost estimate ‒ £23 billion per reactor ‒ is 11.5 times higher than early estimates.
The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to A$60.8 billion and the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”
The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to nearly £40 billion – or £20 billion per reactor – which is twice the cost estimate in 2020.
Securing funding to allow construction to begin at Sizewell is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity bill payers. Securing funding to complete the Hinkley Point project is also proving difficult.
Lessons
France, the US and the UK have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs ‒ President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.
All of the above-mentioned construction projects were or are on existing nuclear sites. All projects were or are long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.
Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are simply not credible.
This Author
Dr Jim Green, national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
A report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website. The report is co-authored by Darrin Durant, associate professor in science and technology studies at the University of Melbourne, Jim Falk, professorial fellow in the school of geography, earth and atmospheric sciences at the University of Melbourne and emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong and Dr Jim Green.
US makes fresh push for World Bank to back nuclear power
New administration wants Washington-based multilateral lender to help the west
compete with China and Russia.
The World Bank is facing renewed calls from
its biggest shareholder to drop a decades-old ban on funding nuclear power
to help the west compete with China and Russia in atomic diplomacy. French
Hill, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has signalled that
the new US administration will continue to support the push to fund nuclear
projects just months ahead of a crucial decision on the contentious ban.
FT 9th March 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/e5e497a3-0c61-46a2-9a50-91757e7f1a61
Coalition’s nuclear plan most expensive option for Australia, former US climate official says
Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, says few countries building nuclear power plants
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, Tue 11 Mar 2025 , https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/11/coalitions-nuclear-plan-most-expensive-option-for-australia-former-us-climate-official-says
A longtime senior US climate official has weighed in on Australia’s energy debate, saying “very, very few people” internationally are building new nuclear power plants and, in most cases, the combination of solar and batteries delivers “higher reliability than gas”.
Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, was in Sydney on Monday to speak at the city’s climate action week. Asked whether nuclear power as proposed by the Coalition was a viable option for Australia, he said “almost all the numbers that I have seen suggest that that’s a more expensive option than other choices”.
“What’s really interesting is the global community’s progress on nuclear with, frankly, a bigger head start than Australia’s had, because the ban here has been in place for a long time,” he told Guardian Australia.
“Very, very few people are building new nuclear.”
Pershing, who is program director at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, said even if Australia was able to overcome two immediate hurdles to nuclear energy – the legislated ban and an historical lack of public support for the technology – it then faced asking taxpayers to pay “holding costs” for 10 to 20 years when it could be building the same amount of generating capacity sooner.
“The cheapest one still globally, and I think here as well, is probably a combination of solar plus batteries – and that’s firm capacity, by the way,” he said. “If we look at the way that’s been analysed, the combination of the two [solar and batteries] gets you higher reliability than you get from gas.
He cited the example of the 40-year-old Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, in California. He said it was not likely to be replaced with a new nuclear generator once it reached the end of its life because of the cost. “They’ll do some life extensions, but they don’t think it is even plausible to imagine building new capacity there,” he said. “It’s just too expensive.”
The Coalition has claimed that its proposal to slow the rollout of renewable energy, extend the life of ageing coal plants, rely more on gas-fired power and later build publicly funded nuclear plants at seven sites, mostly after 2040, would be cheaper and more reliable than Labor’s promise of sourcing 82% of Australia’s electricity from renewable energy by 2030.
Peter Dutton has said the Coalition’s claim is supported by a report by consultants at Frontier Economics. But several other independent energy experts have argued the Coalition’s plan would, in relative terms, be likely to be more expensive for consumers over the next decade, at least, and less reliable and lead to substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Pershing said a another problem for Australia would be training personnel for a nuclear power industry. Technical experts would have to be brought from overseas, which isn’t the case for other types of energy generation, he said.
That expertise could come from Canada, China, France or Russia, adding that in the case of Russia, “I’m not so convinced that that’s where you’d want to go”.
Pershing said the Trump administration’s anti-climate action stance would have an effect “but, I think, less than people might imagine”. He said the change in the US was an opportunity for Australia, “depending on how it chooses to engage”.
“The thing that’s most salient is that the rest of the world has decided that the least-cost solution to provide for more energy, particularly for electricity, is through some combination of renewables technologies plus batteries,” he said, citing International Energy Agency data showing it was the cheapest and faster solution “for about 80% of the world”.
“In much of the world, demand [for energy] is rising and you’re going to have to supply that demand from something. That means transition minerals, and that means technology, and that means investment. Those are places that the Australian economy is well positioned to deliver.”
Based on Trump’s language and early actions, the US was likely to slow the construction of wind and solar power and electric vehicles while increasing its demand for critical minerals, he said. But the US was “not the primary place where things are happening”.
“The place where things are happening is across Asia, broadly, with enormous continued demand from China, demand from India, demand from Indonesia and then actually others around the world who are building on that capacity,” he said.
Regarding fossil fuel exports, Pershing said the question for Australia was how it replaced the economic value of the coal and gas it sells with other exports, and what commitments it has made that were consistent with keeping global heating to less than 2C.
Australia could, for example, build a new mutually beneficial trade relationship with Japan where Australia produced and sold zero carbon steel and other metals. Pershing said Australia would also have to deal with the future of communities, such as in the Hunter Valley and its nearby port of Newcastle, that rely heavily on coal mining and coal exports.
“I think these are difficult questions, and they’re legitimate ones for the whole society to take up,” he said. “[A change] is coming. It’s not that it won’t come, but if we don’t manage it, it’ll have enormously negative consequences for communities, and I think that’s on the collective government, civil society and thought leadership to resolve and to address”.
Why is an ‘ethical’ investor funding arms companies?
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund holds shares in UK weapons firms that arm Israel, despite its ethical guidelines.
ANDREW FEINSTEIN and JACK CINAMON, 5 March 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/why-is-an-ethical-investor-funding-arms-companies/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button
Scandinavian countries are often held up as models for a better society. None more so than Norway, flush with North Sea oil wealth, which it can invest responsibly.
The money is put aside in a sovereign wealth fund, owned by the Norwegian government and managed by the country’s central bank, Norges Bank. It is the largest such fund in the world, worth £1.4 trillion.
Called the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG), or just the Oil Fund, it is supposed to adhere to ethical guidelines by excluding certain companies from its portfolio.
That’s if they are involved in serious violations of human rights – especially in conflicts – gross corruption, the production of nuclear weapons and more.
However, in outright contradiction to these guidelines, the GPFG invests billions of pounds in many of the world’s largest arms companies. In fact, it owns stakes in exactly half of the world’s top 100 arms companies, accumulating at almost £14 billion.
This includes arms companies here in the UK that supply Israel – despite Norway recognising the state of Palestine as recently as May 2024 and excluding companies from the GPFG involved in activities violating international law.
So why is Norwegian money finding its way into Britain’s arms industry, which supplies Israel?
Arming Israel
Among these investments is QinetiQ in which the GPFG holds over £46 million in shares.
The British defence tech firm has collaborated with the Israeli military to develop the Watchkeeper drone system, a joint project with Israel’s Elbit Systems, a company dropped from the fund in 2009 for supplying surveillance systems for the separation barrier in the West Bank.
Following sustained direct action from Palestine Action, Elbit Systems UK lost its largest-ever British arms contract, worth over £2.1bn, after the UK Ministry of Defence scrapped its Watchkeeper drone programme.
QinetiQ subsidiaries, such as QinetiQ Australia, are involved in the F-35 fighter jet program. Israel has used its fleet of these aircraft to pound Gaza.
Then there is the almost £35m invested in Babcock International, another UK company in Norway’s portfolio. It claims to not provide weapons to Israel, but with partnerships involving Israeli defence firms IAI, Elbit, and Rafael Systems, the line between ‘not involved’ and ‘indirectly arming’ becomes quite blurry.
Babcock also sustains the entirety of the UK’s submarine fleet, including by delivering through-life support and life extension of the UK nuclear armed Vanguard class submarine.
Rolls-Royce and Leonardo
Norway’s largest UK arms investment, however, is in British engineering giant Rolls-Royce, where the fund holds around £1.07bn in shares, representing over 2% of the company.
Rolls-Royce is not just about luxury cars, it is a critical supplier on the F-35 program, powering Israeli military operations. Case in point: Rolls-Royce’s German subsidiary, MTU, produces the engines for Israel’s Merkava tanks and most of the Israeli Navy’s vessels.
Divesting from the UK defence sector is far from unlikely, as the Oil Fund previously decided to exclude BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms company, from its portfolio in 2018 for its involvement in nuclear weapons production.
However, few investments in Norway’s portfolio illustrate its ethical blind spots as starkly as its stake in Anglo-Italian arms manufacturer Leonardo. Leonardo’s presence in the UK comes largely from its ownership of Leonardo UK, formerly AugustaWestland.
Leonardo operates from several locations in the UK, and has deep collaborations with the UK MOD, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and MBDA UK, especially with reference to its joint venture program, the Tempest new-generation fighter jet, expected to enter service in 2035.
With around £165m invested; the company has become a focal point for divestment campaigns – and for good reason.
Leonardo supplies weapons to Israel, including naval guns for Sa’ar 6 warships used in the bombardment and siege on Gaza, and it is a key player in the F-35 program.
Ignorance or hypocrisy?
Despite a history of corruption – linked to bribery scandals in Indonesia and India – Leonardo remains on the GPFG portfolio, even managing to convince the Council of Ethics (the body tasked with reviewing investments) “that the risk of gross corruption in the company’s operations no longer is unacceptable” as they occupied an observation list for five years until being revoked from assessment in 2022.
The company has recently been accused of providing the military junta in Myanmar with weapons in violation of a UN arms embargo. The company also contributes to nuclear weapons production through MBDA, a joint venture with BAE Systems and Airbus SE. Leonardo’s role in Israel’s military operations and its corruption scandals demand urgent re-evaluation by the Council on Ethics.
The fund clearly channels billions of pounds into corporations that fuel violence, sustain occupations, and profit from human suffering. These aren’t just financial decisions; they’re moral failings, directly contradicting the fund’s stated ethical guidelines.
How does Norway square these investments with its loud-and-proud commitment to peace and human rights? Is this ignorance or hypocrisy? Norway must divest from UK arms companies, sending a powerful message: that peace and human rights are not negotiable, and profit should never come at the expense of human lives.
To see the full list of investments in the world’s top 100 arms companies click here.
Part of a more detailed blog published by Corruption Tracker
American companies profit from Canada’s radioactive waste
Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada’s contract to clean up itslegacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada’s AtkinsRéalisand Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weaponsfacilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.
Parliament’s payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025.
The consortium operates “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories” (CNL) in a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada’s GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.
When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour. From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for “contractual expenses.” The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.
Canada’s liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.
The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium’s ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”
The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety.
AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.
Commission.
East Lindsey District Council wants to claim costs for nuclear waste site work
By James Turner, Local Democracy Reporter, 07 March 2025
A council is seeking to claim costs incurred while participating in a
process that could see a nuclear waste site built in Lincolnshire.
Following a demonstration outside the East Lindsey District Council offices
in Horncastle, members backed a motion urging leader Craig Leyland
(Conservative) to pursue a claim against Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) for
expenses incurred during the Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) process.
The council’s executive is set to discuss withdrawing from the process on
April 23 after the government agency ruled out the former gas terminal site
in Theddlethorpe, instead considering land between Gayton le Marsh and
Great Carlton, near Louth. Two other sites, in Mid Copeland and South
Copeland in Cumbria, are also under consideration.
Lincs Online 7th March 2025 https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/horncastle/council-wants-to-claim-costs-for-nuclear-waste-site-work-9407507/
EU ‘rearmament’ plan has no funding – Euractiv
Defense spending will be given an “escape clause” from EU budget rules, allowing governments to shift funds “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
The proposal to increase defense spending by $840 billion is based largely on debt, according to the news outlet
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s attempt to increase military spending across the EU is not backed by cash and shifts the financial burden to member states, Euractiv has reported, citing senior EU officials.
The so-called ‘ReArm Europe Plan,’ backed mostly by debt and fiscal adjustments, asks EU nations to spend $840 billion, twice the EU’s 2024 defense budget, to counter “grave security threats.”
The plan “includes close to no fresh money,” leaving member states to secure “the real cash” themselves, Euractiv reported on Wednesday.
The total figure is based more on “hopes and guesses” than concrete reforms addressing the bloc’s production shortages, the report argued.
Von der Leyen has also proposed raising $158 billion through capital markets and offering it to members as loans on condition they buy weapons made in the bloc or its regional allies.
The requirement could involve at least three EU countries or two EU countries plus Ukraine. However, loan approval criteria and the prioritization of EU-made equipment remain undecided, the report pointed out.
Defense spending will be given an “escape clause” from EU budget rules, allowing governments to shift funds “rather than coming up with fresh money,” according to Euractiv.
While increased deficits could generate nearly $700 billion, it’s uncertain if the measure applies to all countries or only those meeting NATO’s 2% GDP target.
Another senior EU official told Euractiv that over time, governments must offset spending by raising taxes or cutting costs.
Von der Leyen’s push for increased defense spending comes amid growing pressure from Washington. US President Donald Trump has distanced himself from supporting Ukraine while urging the EU to take greater responsibility for its defense.
The shift intensified this week, with news agencies’ reports on Monday suggesting that Trump had ordered a pause in military aid to Kiev. The US president has repeatedly accused Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky of refusing to negotiate peace with Russia and exploiting US support for his own gain.
EU leaders will discuss von der Leyen’s proposals at a special summit on Thursday. According to a senior EU official, the measures should work “very fast and very efficiently” and require only a majority vote for adoption.
Some experts, however, warn that increasing military spending could strain national budgets already under pressure.
Nuclear power struggling to maintain current level of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth
Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.
The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike.
Darrin Durant, Jim Falk & Jim Green, Mar 3, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-struggling-to-maintain-current-level-of-stagnation-let-alone-achieve-any-growth/
The current push in Australia to deploy nuclear power reactors once again contrasts an excessive optimism by nuclear proponents against the continuing stagnant situation of nuclear power worldwide. That contrast is the subject of our new report for the EnergyScience Coalition.
The latest nuclear proposals are built on three speculations.
First, projected AI-related energy demand where – as with nuclear power proponents in the 1970’s who projected huge demand that never eventuated – there are already signs demand is overblown. For example the new leading AI entrant DeepSeek requires just 10 per cent of the energy of competitors.
Second, speculative techno-optimism that new technologies such as small modular reactors will resolve industry project management issues. Yet these small reactors are unproven.
Third, prospective wish-fulfilment, where dozens of nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries are offered as saviours, despite not having reactor approvals and funding in place in a large majority of cases.
So what is the state of nuclear power in 2024? A review by the World Nuclear Industry Status Report notes that seven new reactors were connected to grids last year while four reactors were permanently closed. The net increase in operating nuclear capacity was 4.3 gigawatts (GW).
Worldwide nuclear power capacity was 371 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2024. That figure is near-identical to capacity of 368 GW two decades earlier in 2005.
As of 1 January 2025, the mean age of the nuclear power reactor fleet was 32.1 years. In 1990, the mean age was just 11.3 years. Due to the ageing of the reactor fleet, the International Atomic Energy Agency projects the closure of 325 GW of nuclear capacity from 2018 to 2050 – that’s 88 per cent of current worldwide capacity. Thus the industry faces a daunting challenge just to maintain its pattern of stagnation, let alone achieve any growth.
There were no ‘small modular reactor’ (SMR) startups in 2024. Indeed there has never been a single SMR startup unless you count so-called SMRs not built using factory ‘modular’ construction techniques, in which case there is one each in China and Russia.
The SMR sector continues to go nowhere with setbacks in 2024 including the suspension of the Nuward project in France (following previous decisions to abandon four other SMR projects) and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear.
Nuclear growth dwarfed by renewables
In striking contrast to nuclear power’s net gain of 4.3 GW in 2024, the International Energy Agency’s October 2024 ‘Renewables 2024’ report estimates 666 GW of global renewable capacity additions in 2024. Based on the Agency’s estimate, renewables capacity growth was 155 times greater than that of nuclear power.
The International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 per cent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 per cent in 2030.
Conversely, nuclear power’s share of global electricity generation has fallen steadily since the 1990s. As of 1 January 2025, nuclear power accounted for 9.15 per cent of global electricity production, barely half of its peak of 17.5 per cent in 1996.
A Bloomberg analysis finds that renewable energy investments reached $A1.17 trillion in 2024, up 8 per cent on the previous year, whereas nuclear investment was flat at $A55.1 billion. Thus renewable investments were 21 times greater than nuclear investments.
In contrast to massive cost overruns with nuclear projects, renewable costs have fallen sharply.
Lazard investment firm data shows that utility-scale solar and onshore wind became cheaper than nuclear power from 2010-2015. From 2009-2024, the cost of utility-scale solar fell 83 per cent; the cost of onshore wind fell 63 per cent; while nuclear costs increased 49 per cent.
Nuclear newcomer countries
Claims that 40-50 countries are actively considering or planning to introduce nuclear power, in addition to the 32 countries currently operating reactors, do not withstand scrutiny.
As of 1 January 2025, reactors were under construction in just 13 countries, two less than a year earlier. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors; 93 percent are not.
Of the 13 countries building reactors, only three are potential nuclear newcomer countries building their first plant: Egypt, Bangladesh and Turkiye. In those three countries, the nuclear projects are led by Russian nuclear agencies with significant up-front funding from the Russian state.
The World Nuclear Association observes that apart from those three countries, no countries meet its criteria of ‘planned’ reactors, i.e. “approvals, funding or commitment in place, mostly expected to be in operation within the next 15 years.”
The number of potential newcomer countries with approvals and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are funded heavily by the Russian state. That is the underwhelming reality underlying exaggerated claims about 40-50 countries pursuing nuclear power.
There is no evidence of a forthcoming wave of nuclear newcomer countries in the coming years and decades. At most there will be a trickle as has been the historical pattern with just seven newcomer countries over the past 40 years and just three this century.
The number of countries operating power reactors in 1996–1997 reached 32. Since then, nuclear newcomer countries have been matched by countries completing nuclear phase-outs and thus the number is stuck at 32. And less than one-third of those countries are building reactors (10/32).
It is doubtful whether the number of nuclear newcomer countries over the next 20-30 years will match the number of countries completing phase-outs.
Capital strike
Alongside the risk of Fukushima-scale disasters, the weapons proliferation risks, the risk of attacks on nuclear plants (and the reality of attacks on nuclear plants in Ukraine), and the intractable nuclear waste legacy, the reality is that nuclear power just can’t compete economically.
The industry’s greatest problem at the moment is a recognition of this by investors, resulting in a capital strike. Even with generous government/taxpayer subsidies, it has become difficult or impossible to fund new reactors – especially outside the sphere of China and Russia’s projects at home and abroad.
Who would bet tens of billions of dollars on nuclear power projects when the recent history in countries with vast expertise and experience has been disastrous?
In France, the latest cost estimate for the only recent reactor construction project increased seven-fold to A$39.4 billion for just one reactor. Construction took 17 years. No reactors are currently under construction in France.
In the US, one project in South Carolina, comprising two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, was abandoned in 2017 after $A14.3 billion was spent. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy and its debts almost forced its parent company Toshiba into bankruptcy. All that remains is the nukegate scandal: an avalanche of legal action including criminal cases.
The only other reactor construction project in the US – the twin-reactor Vogtle project in the state of Georgia – reached completion at a cost 12 times higher than early estimates. The final cost was at least $A27 billion per reactor. Completion was six to seven years behind schedule.
No power reactors are currently under construction in the US. Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down over the past 15 years.
The situation is just as bleak in the UK where there have been 24 permanent reactor shut-downs since the last reactor startup 30 years ago, in 1995.
The 3.2 GW twin-reactor Hinkley Point project in Somerset was meant to be complete in 2017 but construction didn’t even begin until 2018 and the estimated completion date has been pushed back to 2030-31.
The latest cost estimate – A$46.6 billion per reactor – is 11.5 times higher than early estimates. The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for the Hinkley Point project could amount to $A60.8 billion and the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee said that “consumers are left footing the bill and the poorest consumers will be hit hardest.”
The estimated cost of the planned 3.2 GW twin-reactor Sizewell C project in the UK has jumped to $A81 billion or $A40.5 billion per reactor, twice the cost estimate in 2020. Securing funding to allow construction to begin is proving to be difficult and protracted despite a new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ funding model which foists the enormous risk of enormous cost overruns onto taxpayers and electricity ratepayers.
Lessons for Australia
Those three countries – France, the US and the UK – have vast nuclear expertise and experience. They all enjoy synergies between civil and military nuclear programs – President Macron said in a 2020 speech that without nuclear power in France there would be no nuclear weapons, and vice versa.
All of the above-mentioned construction projects were (or are) on existing nuclear sites. All projects were (or are) long delayed and tens of billions of dollars over-budget.
Claims that potential nuclear newcomer countries such as Australia, without any of those advantages, could build reactors quickly and cheaply are not credible.
Our report expanding on these issues is posted at the EnergyScience Coalition website.
Darrin Durant is Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne. Jim Falk is a Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne and Emeritus Professor at the University of Wollongong. Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
New report details nuclear power’s demise
March 3, 2025 AIMN Editorial, EnergyScience Coalition , https://theaimn.net/new-report-details-nuclear-powers-demise/
A new report by the EnergyScience Coalition corrects false claims by the federal Coalition and others that ‘the world is going nuclear’.
Co-authors Assoc. Prof. Darrin Durant, Prof. Jim Falk and Dr. Jim Green note that:
- The number of operating power reactors worldwide has fallen to 411, which is 27 fewer than the peak of 438 reactors in 2002.
- In 2024 there were 666 gigawatts (GW) of global renewable power additions compared to nuclear growth of 4 gigawatts, a ratio of 155:1. In China the ratio was 100:1.
- Nuclear power’s contribution to global electricity production fell to 9.15 percent last year, barely half of its peak of 17.5 percent in 1996. Conversely, the International Energy Agency expects renewables to jump sharply from 30 percent of global electricity generation in 2023 to 46 percent in 2030.
- Global nuclear power capacity is no greater than it was 20 years ago.
- Of the 32 countries operating power reactors, less than one-third (10) are building new reactors.
- The number of countries building nuclear power reactors fell from 15 to 13 last year. Seven percent of the world’s countries are building reactors; 93 percent are not.
- The number of potential nuclear ‘newcomer’ countries with reactor approvals secured and funding in place, or construction underway, is just three and those projects are all heavily funded by the Russian state.
- The ‘small modular reactor’ sector continues to go nowhere with setbacks in 2024 including the suspension of the Nuward project in France and the bankruptcy of US company Ultra Safe Nuclear.
Report co-author Prof. Jim Falk said: “Reactor construction projects in countries with vast expertise and experience ‒ such as France, the US and the UK ‒ have run literally tens of billions of dollars over-budget and construction schedules have slipped by many years. Since those countries have failed to build reactors on-time and on-budget, it would be naïve to believe that a nuclear ‘newcomer’ country such as Australia could do so.”
Co-author Dr. Jim Green said: “This report provides a factual rebuttal to the pro-nuclear disinformation campaign currently underway in Australia. Simple facts are ignored by the nuclear lobby, such as the fact that there has been zero growth in nuclear power over the past 20 years and the number of countries operating reactors is the same as it was in the late 1990s.”
The report, titled ‘Nuclear Power’s Global Stagnation and Decline’, is co-authored by Assoc. Prof. Darrin Durant (Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at the University of Melbourne), Prof. Jim Falk (Professorial Fellow in the School of Geography, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Melbourne; Emeritus Professor at the University of Wollongong) and Dr. Jim Green (President of Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group).
1 This Month
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- October 2026 (256)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
-
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
