Most Japan fishing groups hit by China import ban in Fukushima row
A Kyodo News survey has found that 80.6% of prefectural fisheries cooperative associations were affected by the discharge of treated radioactive water from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant into the sea, with many feeling the impact through China’s import ban on Japanese marine products. The survey, released Friday, found that 29 out of 36respondents among the members of the National Federation of FisheriesCooperative Associations said they “had felt” or “had somewhat felt”negative effects, including financial damage due to the water release,overwhelmingly due to the subsequent import ban by China
. Japan Times 24th Feb 2024 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/02/24/japan/japan-fishing-groups-china-fukushima-ban/
Ukraine: how nuclear weapons continue to increase the risks, two years on
nuclear weapons industry has profited shamelessly off the world’s concerns over nuclear war. Since the conflict in Ukraine and the increased nuclear tensions that followed, profits for the companies that produce nuclear weapons drove up, with an $15.7 billion increase in share and bond holding and $57.1 billion increase in loans and underwriting.
https://www.icanw.org/ukraine_two_years_how_nuclear_weapons_increase_the_risks— 24 Feb 24
Two years after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the risk of nuclear weapons use continues to escalate, while the looming threat of their use protracts this conflict with a high civilian cost. Nuclear-armed states and their allies waver between condemning nuclear threats and engaging in irresponsible practices such as nuclear sharing and championing their own nuclear deterrent. But the rest of the world is pushing back, condemning these behaviors and demanding the total elimination of these weapons of mass destruction through the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Melissa Parke, Executive Director of ICAN, said: “This terrible war with its use of nuclear blackmail and overt threats to use nuclear weapons is a wake up call that the world needs to heed – as long as the nuclear-armed states hang on to their arsenals and cling to the misguided doctrine of deterrence, we face the likelihood these weapons will be used sooner or later. Nuclear weapons should be abolished before it is too late.”
The escalating nuclear risk
Following Vladimir Putin’s initial explicit threats to use nuclear weapons, we have seen nuclear-armed states and their allies continue to erode the decades-long nuclear taboo over the past two years. The escalation in nuclear rhetoric has not just been seen in Russia (Medvedev made explicit threats just this last weekend) but also in Israel and North Korea, and in recent calls by Polish and German politicians and NATO leaders for a European nuclear weapon. Nuclear threats heighten tensions in an already dangerous environment, reduce the threshold for use of nuclear weapons, and greatly increase the risk of nuclear conflict and global catastrophe.
The risk is also increased by the irresponsible practice of nuclear sharing, or stationing nuclear weapons, which seems to be on the rise. In June 2023, Vladimir Putin said Russia delivered its first tactical weapons to Belarus, though it is unclear how many nuclear weapons were transferred. This is a reckless and dangerous escalation that was widely condemned. But for NATO states, and particularly the five states that host US nuclear weapons, simply condemning Russia’s nuclear sharing without taking any action is insufficient and hypocritical. Particularly as the US and the UK also seemingly explore the return of US nuclear weapons to Lakenheath. Any nuclear sharing complicates decision making and increases the risk of miscalculation, miscommunication and potentially catastrophic accidents. It is time to end this practice that threatens peace and security and puts us all at risk.
Deterrence theory and nuclear weapons profiteers at the heart of the problem
The use of nuclear blackmail by Russia in the context of the Ukraine war has demonstrated the flawed nature of nuclear deterrence which, instead of ensuring stability, gave Russia the cover to commense its brutal and devastating invasion. Yet Russia’s nuclear threats have failed to deter the US and European countries from supplying Ukraine with weapons and money to fight Russia.
With current conflicts directly involving two nuclear-armed states, it is clear that nuclear deterrence doesn’t keep the peace. NATO states are playing into Putin’s hands by insisting nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent. It only strengthens Putin’s position to promote his own “deterrent” now, whereas rejecting deterrence and reinforcing the nuclear taboo would limit his options.
Meanwhile, the conflict has also accelerated the global nuclear arms race, with the nine nuclear-armed states increasing spending to $82.9 billion in 2022. As a result, the nuclear weapons industry has profited shamelessly off the world’s concerns over nuclear war. Since the conflict in Ukraine and the increased nuclear tensions that followed, profits for the companies that produce nuclear weapons drove up, with an $15.7 billion increase in share and bond holding and $57.1 billion increase in loans and underwriting.
The global response to nuclear risk: the TPNW
The way to respond to the heightened risk of nuclear war is not to increase nuclear arsenals or threaten nuclear retaliation. The answer is for all countries to condemn nuclear threats, end their reliance on nuclear deterrence and join the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The TPNW specifically outlaws the threat to use nuclear weapons, as well as the irresponsible practice of nuclear sharing.
All nuclear-armed states need to take urgent steps to de-escalate tensions and to break free from the dangerous doctrine of nuclear deterrence, and nuclear disarmament must be an essential element of a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine. Multilateral nuclear disarmament is the only guarantee to prevent other nuclear-armed countries from following Russia’s lead and using their nuclear weapons as a shield to commit war crimes and terrorize civilian populations. Joining the TPNW is a crucial step to delegitimize nuclear deterrence and eliminate nuclear weapons.
Over the past two years, the states parties of the TPNW have been central in pushing back against any and all nuclear threats and challenging the false narrative of nuclear deterrence. At the First Meeting of States Parties in 2021, they condemned unequivocally “any and all nuclear threats, whether they be explicit or implicit and irrespective of the circumstances.” At the second meeting in New York,they agreed “to challenge the security paradigm based on nuclear deterrence by highlighting and promoting new scientific evidence about the humanitarian consequences and risks of nuclear weapons and juxtaposing this with the risks and assumptions that are inherent innnuclear deterrence.” It is time for all responsible states to join the TPNW.
Utility EdF Writes Down $14B Loss on Delayed UK Nuclear Megaproject
By Peter Reina, February 20, 2024, https://www.enr.com/articles/58180-utility-edf-writes-down-14b-loss-on-delayed-uk-nuclear-megaproject
Following recent news of additional delays and cost hikes on the U.K.’s 3,260-MW Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant, the project company has reported an impairment of $14 billion on its assets.
French state controlled utiilty firm Electricité de France (EdF), which controls project financing and construction, last month updated Hinkley Point C’s forecast completion to between 2029 and 2031, with costs rising to a range of $39-43 billion. The previous completion target set in May 2022 was June 2027. EdF is currently financing all project construction costs.
Announcing its 2023 annual report, the utility also set this March as the expected target date for fuel loading at its 1,650-MW Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant on the north French coast. When work started in 2007, fuel loading was forecast for 2011.
Citizens Advice says Sizewell C costs should not be paid with energy bill hikes
Independent advice provider calls for clarity on funding and says project may offer ‘poor value for money’
Guardian, Alex Lawson 19 Feb 24
Ministers have been urged by Citizens Advice to protect consumers from a hike in household energy bills to pay for the proposed Sizewell C power station, amid international tensions over the rising costs of nuclear projects.
The UK’s largest independent advice provider has raised concerns that the project in Suffolk may offer “poor value for money” and called for greater clarity on its funding, in a letter to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Estimates of the cost of Sizewell C vary wildy – from £20bn to £44bn – and a process to find international investors to join the UK government and France’s EDF is ongoing.
Last month, the owner of Sizewell C’s sister project, EDF’s Hinkley Point C in Somerset, said it would be delayed to 2031 and cost up to £35bn, blaming inflation, Covid and Brexit. This could reach £47.9bn under its worst-case scenario. On Friday, EDF said it had taken a €12.9bn hit on the project.
EDF, which is wholly owned by the French government, is on the hook for cost overruns at Hinkley. French officials have lobbied the UK government to share the burden of the extra costs after its Chinese partner, CGN, was removed from the Sizewell C project over security fears.
However, Sizewell C has a different funding structure to Hinkley, exposing households to potential overruns.
Sizewell C Ltd, the entity behind the project, updated its electricity licence to allow a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model to be implemented.
RAB financing models, which have been used in the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel and Heathrow Terminal 5, are designed to encourage investment by offering a guaranteed income for investors during the construction phase of a large project and bring down financing costs, with the cost added to bills.
In a response to the consultation on the licence update, Citizens Advice chief energy economist Richard Hall said: “By providing investors with a relatively guaranteed income stream, and one that commences during the construction phase, it can be convincingly argued that applying the RAB model to new nuclear projects could reduce the cost of capital that consumers have to pay.
“Our concern has been, and remains, that consumers are not simply exposed to the cost of capital, but also the volume of capital that needs to be employed. If the volume of capital required balloons, the project may offer consumers poor value for money even if it is cheaply financed.”
He added: “Looking at new nuclear projects in general, and the type envisaged at Sizewell C in particular, the scope for material cost and time overruns is very significant. Consumers need to be protected from those risks. They have no way to manage them, and are reliant on the [energy] department to take steps to ensure that they are not on the hook for cost or time overruns.”
Hall also raised concerns over proposals for advertising and publicity costs included in the licence consultation. “Billpayers should not be paying for the Sizewell C sales pitch,” he said.
The latest estimates of the cost of Sizewell C, conducted by University of Greenwich Business School and seen by the Guardian, forecast that it would cost £38.4bn and be complete in 2039. Its analysis suggests that the consumer surcharge to fund it would rise from £4.07 a year in the first year of the project, to £27.82 in year 15, costing households an extra £239.21 in total during its construction.
Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign said: “The government emphasise that Hinkley Point C is EDF’s risk and responsibility, but when Sizewell C overspends and overruns – as it inevitably will – future ministers will have to explain why it was considered acceptable to put its construction risk on to consumers and taxpayers. Why has the Hinkley fiasco not taught the government that a RAB-funded Sizewell is a bad idea?”…………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/19/citizens-advice-says-sizewell-c-costs-should-not-be-paid-with-energy-bill-hikes
The UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump faces an inquiry by the National Audit Office (NAO) over its soaring costs and safety record.
The public spending watchdog has said it wants to examine whether Sellafield in
Cumbria is “managing and prioritising the risks and hazards of the site
effectively in the short and long term”.
It follows growing concern over
the costs of managing the site’s nuclear legacy. An NAO statement said:
“Cleaning up the site is a long-term endeavour, likely to last well into
the next century. It is expected to cost £84bn (in discounted prices),
though this cost estimate is highly uncertain.”
Sellafield stores and
treats nuclear waste from weapons programmes and power generation. The site
comprises more than 1,000 buildings and has about 81,000 tonnes of
radioactive waste in storage. This is expected to rise to 3.3m tonnes over
the coming years.
About 2,000 tonnes comprise high level waste – the most
toxic – including around 140 tonnes of plutonium in what is the world’s
largest stockpile. The site employs about 11,000 people and cost the
taxpayer around £2.5bn last year. Scrutiny of its budget and safety record
come after a series of critical reports in the Guardian, with allegations
ranging from lax cyber security to a poor work culture. The Government,
which ultimately controls Sellafield, has defended the site’s operations,
insisting there is “no elevated risk to public safety as result of the
issues reported”.
Telegraph 15th Feb 2024
“Unbelievable” U.S. government bailouts fund zombie nuclear projects
Unbelievable” bailouts fund zombie nuke nightmares, February 13, 2024, https://beyondnuclear.org/unbelievable-bailouts-fund-zombie-nuke-nightmares
In Stateline on February 12, 2024, Alex Brown published an article entitled “Federal money could supercharge state efforts to preserve nuclear power: A plant in Michigan might become the first to reopen after closing.”
The massive level of federal and state subsidization being handed over to the nuclear power industry is reflected in the giddiness of the head of the nuclear engineering department at the University of Michigan:
“You’re starting to see a lot of states transition to a position where they’re supportive of nuclear,” said Todd Allen, chair of the Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences department at the University of Michigan. “And compared to 30 years ago, the amount of federal support for nuclear is unbelievable.” (Emphasis added)
It is unbelievable, in a shocking and horrifying way. An analysis by NIRS shows the unwitting federal taxpayer largesse benefitting the nuclear power industry included in a single law, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
The Stateline article focuses on the unprecedented, outrageously expensive, and extremely high risk Palisades zombie reactor restart scheme in Michigan. Beyond Nuclear has co-led grassroots environmental resistance to this restart, as well as to Holtec’s so-called “Small Modular Reactor” (SMR) new builds scheme on the same site.
We have posted about the $3.3 billion (yes, with a B!) in federal and state bailouts for the Palisades restart, another $7.4 billion for Holtec’s SMR new builds (including at Palisades, and at its sibling, decommissioned — although still radioactively contaminated, with on-site highly radioactive waste storage — reactor site in northern Michigan, Big Rock Point), as well as more recently announced federal taxpayer and ratepayer bailouts associated with the Palisades restart, a long list still growing with time! The requested restart bailout total alone is now at around $4.5 billion, and counting! Added to the SMR new builds bailout, nearly $12 billion, or more, in federal and state taxpayer, as well as ratepayer, bailouts could be sunk, just at the Palisades site alone!
The Stateline article quoted Beyond Nuclear’s radioactive waste specialist, Kevin Kamps, at length:
…While some environmental groups have embraced the nuclear investments, others have pointed to long-standing concerns about safety issues, citing infamous accidents such as those at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Opponents also note the long-term issue of radioactive waste storage, and in some cases assert that nuclear can stall the growth of renewables such as wind and solar.
“With the amount of money that’s gone into this [Palisades] restart scheme already, you could develop brand-new renewable energy proposals that would be online in the same time frame producing more electricity,” said Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, an environmental nonprofit that opposes nuclear energy…
Opponents of nuclear point to the canceled projects, delays and cost overruns as proof that nuclear isn’t viable.
“This is just throwing good money after bad,” said Kamps, the anti-nuclear advocate. “We stand horrified at the actions being taken by Congress and certain state governments.”
Kamps also cited previous nuclear disasters and warned of the risks of extending aging plants…
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 mentioned above is the law under which Holtec hopes to receive a $1.5 billion nuclear loan guarantee — $500 million more than it had talked about the past few years — which is interest-free and risk-free, in that it actually need not be paid back, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) of 2021 is the law under which Holtec hopes to obtain $2 billion in Civil Nuclear Credits. President Joe Biden signed both bills into law.
His Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm, a former governor and attorney general of Michigan, is in charge of deciding where the various bailouts get dispensed. This even includes the $7.4 billion for SMR development, even though that particular funding stream was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as December 23, 2007 appropriations passed by Congress (both of which were enacted with President George W. Bush’s signature). Thus, we are horrified at the actions being taken by the Biden administration, as well.
Spending watchdog launches investigation into Sellafield
National Audit Office to examine risks and costs at nuclear waste site in Cumbria
Anna Isaac and Alex Lawson, 16 Feb 24 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/15/spending-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-sellafield—
Britain’s public spending watchdog has launched an investigation into risks and costs at Sellafield, the UK’s biggest nuclear waste dump.
The National Audit Office (NAO), which scrutinises the use of public funds, has announced it will examine whether the Cumbria site is managing and prioritising the risks and hazards of the site effectively as well as deploying resources appropriately and continuing to improve its project management.
The findings of its investigation are expected to be published this autumn.
Sellafield is Europe’s most toxic nuclear site and also one of the UK’s most expensive infrastructure projects, with the NAO estimating it could cost £84bn to maintain the site into the next century.
Last year, Nuclear Leaks, a Guardian investigation into activities at Sellafield, revealed problems with cybersecurity, a radioactive leak and a “toxic” workplace culture at the waste dump.
Predictions of the ultimate bill for the site, which holds about 85% of the UK’s nuclear waste, vary. It cost £2.5bn to run the site last year, and the government estimates it could ultimately take £263bn to manage the country’s ageing nuclear sites, of which Sellafield accounts for the largest portion.
The site employs about 11,000 people and is the world’s largest store of plutonium. It comprises more than 1,000 buildings, many of which were not created with the intention of becoming long-term storage facilities for radioactive material.
Sellafield is so expensive that the Office for Budget Responsibility, which monitors threats to the UK government’s finances, has warned that it and other legacy sites pose a “material source of fiscal risk” to the country.
The NAO previously examined activities at Sellafield in 2018. It found some aspects of project management had improved but that more needed to be done to get a grip on vast costs and risks.
Amyas Morse, the head of the NAO at that time, found that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which is tasked with management of Sellafield, needed to improve its explanation of its progress so that parliament could hold it to account.
This challenge was underlined when the Guardian uncovered how a worsening leak from a huge silo of radioactive waste at Sellafield could pose a risk to the public.
The leak, from one of the “highest nuclear hazards in the UK” – a decaying building known as the Magnox swarf storage silo – is expected to continue for at least a further 30 years. This could have “potentially significant consequences” if it gathers pace, risking the contamination of groundwater, according to an official document.
This was just one of a catalogue of safety risks arising from ageing infrastructure at the site. A document sent to members of the Sellafield board in November 2022, and seen by the Guardian, raised widespread concerns about a degradation of safety across the site, warning of the “cumulative risk” from failings ranging from nuclear safety to asbestos and fire standards.
Responding to the issues late last year, a Sellafield spokesperson said: “The nature of our site means that until we complete our mission, our highest hazard facilities will always pose a risk.”
Sellafield is owned by the NDA, a quango sponsored and funded by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero that is tasked with cleaning 17 sites across the UK.
The NDA said it had a “responsibility to deliver for the public, including on value for money”.
“We welcome this continued scrutiny and look forward to working with the NAO,” a spokesperson said.
EDF’s setbacks weigh down the relaunch of nuclear power in Europe
Montel. EDF’s recent setbacks in its project to build two new generation EPR reactors in the United Kingdom darken the prospects for the revival of nuclear power in Europe, experts told Montel.
Montel) EDF's recent setbacks in its project to build two new generation EPR reactors in the United Kingdom darken the prospects for the revival of nuclear power in Europe, experts told Montel.
By: Muriel Boselli, 8 Feb 2024, https://montelnews.com/fr/news/1537158/les-revers-dedf-plombent-la-relance-du-nuclaire-en-europe-
A dispute between Paris and London over who should pay GBP 6-8 billion (in 2015 values) for new additional costs for the Hinkley Point C (HPC) project is tarnishing the image of the nuclear industry, at a time when nations European pro-nuclear companies seek to promote atomic energy in the fight against climate change, according to several experts.
Commissioning of the HPC project could be delayed by up to four years and completion costs are now expected to be between GBP31bn and £34bn, according to EDF announcements last month.
Hinkley's problems underline the "slow descent into hell" of the French nuclear industry, Jean-François Raux, former director of EDF and general delegate of the French Electricity Union (UFE), told Montel.
“I have fierce doubts about EDF's ability to build more reactors,” he said, highlighting the delays and additional costs of new construction in France, Finland and the United Kingdom.
Indeed, the start-up of the Flamanville EPR by mid-2024 was “very tense”, with EDF still having to submit compliance documents, the director of the Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) declared last week. The project is already twelve years late.
According to a source close to the matter at EDF, the company could even withdraw from HPC, although this scenario is not the most likely. “The board of directors did not sign a blank check for Hinkley, it barely committed to financing the project for 2024,” he assures.
Threat to the relaunch of nuclear power
The French nuclear recovery program provides for the construction of six EPR2s in France at an estimated cost of EUR 52 billion. A first pair of reactors is planned at Penly, in the northwest of the country by 2035-2037.
However, these ambitions are threatened by difficulties encountered at the Hinkley site, experts said.
“The problem is that we will have to launch construction work on two European pressurized reactors at Penly, while we continue to inject billions into HPC,” estimated the source at EDF. “There will inevitably be plasters to wipe and skills to find,” he added, noting that the Penly EPRs will “inevitably encounter difficulties”.
Florence de Bonnafos, campaign manager at Greenpeace, agrees with these comments, believing that EDF's nuclear revival project is unrealistic given the latest cost estimates for the two HPC reactors.
“It’s still a bit complicated to make us believe that we will be able to build six reactors for the same budget as two reactors in Great Britain,” she said.
The schedule slip on the HPC project follows reports that EDF's Chinese partner CGN has pulled out of financing the project, leaving a gap of GBP1bn per year.
The issue could impact funding for the UK's other planned flagship nuclear project at Sizewell C, a joint venture between the UK government and CGN. EDF, in debt to the tune of EUR 65 billion, is expected to make a final investment decision next summer.
Political decisions
The subject of financing is at the heart of a standoff between the French and British governments, with Paris partly accusing the United Kingdom of having frozen its diplomatic relations with China.
Elsewhere, in the Czech Republic, where EDF has submitted a bid to build four reactors, officials could be tempted to choose Korean competitor KHNP, analysts said.
“The main problem is that the decisions taken are more political than industrial,” said the EDF source. “No one thought that we would do HPC and Flamanville in the given time. It was custard. »
In addition, Mr. Raux notes a lack of accountability within EDF. “In other sectors, when things go wrong, leaders are replaced,” he said.
This is the first part of a two-part article devoted to the prospects for nuclear development in the EU.
France’s first 6 EPR2 nuclear reactors will cost much more than the planned 52 billion euros.
Why the first six EPR2s will cost much more than the 52 billion euros
initially planned by EDF. During a hearing in the Senate, the executive
director of EDF’s new nuclear projects, Xavier Ursat, indicated that the
first six EPR2s will cost more than the 52 billion euros announced in 2021.
A first slippage in costs including the new estimate is promised for the
end of 2024.
Why the first six EPR2s will cost much more than the 52
billion euros initially planned by EDF. EDF does not brag about it. But in
the Senate commission of inquiry into the price of electricity, Xavier
Ursat, its executive director in charge of the engineering department and
new nuclear projects, was obliged to talk about it.
As predicted by an expert report in 2021, the construction of the first six EPR2s will indeed
cost more than the 51.7 billion euros, rounded to 52 billion by the State,
calculated by EDF at the time Emmanuel Macron had to decide on the relaunch
of a new nuclear program in France. A relaunch confirmed in his speech on
Belfort’s energy strategy on February 10, 2022. “We are carrying out a
new economic assessment. It led to a figure higher than 52 billion,”
Xavier Ursat declared to the senators. Which, for him, “is not very
surprising”.
L’Usine Nouvelle 12th Feb 2024
Small nuclear reactors (SMRs) still have plenty to prove.
Britain’s MPs are not paid to be polite. So it must have been with some restraint that the members of the environmental audit committee described the government’s nuclear strategy this week as “lacking clarity”, not least over small modular reactors.
Lacking clarity? You can think of better ways to describe the financially
radioactive shambles, complete with Rishi Sunak’s fantasy “road map”.
He’s glibly promising 24 gigawatts of capacity by 2050 — either another
seven Hinkley Point Cs or a mix of them and SMRs.
Surely he’s spotted what’s going on with that Somerset nuke? Costs up from £18 billion to as
much £35 billion in 2015 prices, or £46 billion in today’s money, with
its start-up likely to be delayed six years to 2031.
Maybe he hasn’t, because he’s planning a lookalike for Sizewell C in Suffolk, built by the
same French-backed EDF. Only this time it won’t be EDF but consumers and
the taxpayer on the hook for the construction cost overruns. As the
committee chairman Philip Dunne noted: “The UK has the opportunity to be
a genuine world leader in the manufacture of SMR nuclear capability with
great export potential.” But despite the taxpayer lobbing in £215
million to support their development, MPs are right to see a deficit on the
“clarity” front.
As Professor Steve Thomas from the University of
Greenwich says: “SMRs are up to a decade behind large reactors in terms
of their commercial development and their economics are speculative and
untested.” Rolls’s are 470 megawatts, one seventh of the 3.2GW Hinkley.
But who knows if it really can build them for £2.5 billion a pop? Or
whether it’ll prove feasible to cram several on a single site. In
November Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems canned a project to build
six 77MW NuScale SMRs at a site in Idaho. And even if they’d be far
smaller than Hinkley, they’d still need to be just as safe. Will safety
issues drive up costs? Also, who’s paying for them? Consumers, the
taxpayer, the private sector? And what’s the cost versus alternative
energy technologies?
Times 15th Feb 2024
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shameful-shambles-over-mega-nukes-d6wzvp33v
Energy company Centrica boss says it could fund Suffolk nuclear plant Sizewell C
Energy company Centrica is considering pumping cash into the construction
of the Sizewell C nuclear power plant on the Suffolk coast, its chief
executive has revealed. Chris O’Shea said the Suffolk site was a
“possible future investment” as the government tries to secure funding
for the project. Ministers are bidding to raise hundreds of millions of
pounds from private companies to help build the plant, near Leiston.
East Anglia Daily Times 15th Feb 2024
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24122986.centrica-boss-says-fund-suffolk-plant-sizewell-c
Mirror 15th Feb 2024
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/british-gas-owner-centrica-considers-32134974
Evening Standard 15th Feb 2024
Proactive Investor 15th Feb 2024
Bloomberg 15th Feb 2024
France: EDF Faces Unprecedented Nuclear Workload in France
Energy Intelligence Group, Fri, Feb 9, 2024, Grace Symes, London
As France faces two major nuclear efforts — the refurbishment and life extension of EDF’s domestic operating fleet and a major nuclear newbuild program — there are already signs that the country’s nuclear workforce is struggling to keep up. With 10-year safety reviews, or decennial visits (DVs), of EDF’s 56 domestic reactors growing ever more complex and time-consuming, EDF anticipates flatlined nuclear output from 2025 to 2026, and beyond that France will need to ramp up an industrial effort not seen in generations if it hopes to successfully launch simultaneous large newbuilds (related).
Energy Intelligence 9th Feb 2024
https://www.energyintel.com/0000018d-7944-d1ef-a5cd-fd647d920000
Citing World Court, Japan Firm Cuts Ties With Israel Arms Maker
The ICJ’s ruling on Israel potentially committing genocide in Gaza is already showing substantive consequences for Israel’s arm industry.
By Ali Abunimah / The Electronic Infitada, 10 Feb 24
Amajor Japanese industrial conglomerate is cutting ties with Israeli arms maker Elbit, citing the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel may be committing genocide in Gaza.
Itochu Corporation said its aviation division would terminate its partnership with Elbit by the end of February.
Tsuyoshi Hachimura, Itochu’s chief financial officer, said that his company’s partnership with Elbit was “based on a request from the Japan’s defense ministry for the purpose of importing defense equipment for the Self-Defense Forces necessary for Japan’s security, and is not in any way related to the current conflict between Israel and Palestine.”
But the decision to end the relationship clearly is.
“Taking into consideration the International Court of Justice’s order on 26 January, and that the Japanese government supports the role of the Court, we have already suspended new activities related to the MOU [memorandum of understanding], and plan to end the MOU by the end of February,” Hachimura added.
The deal signed less than a year ago was hailed at the time by Israel’s ambassador in Tokyo as evidence of the “deepening relations between Israel and Japan, relations that are based on mutual interests and shared values.”
Action against Israel in Belgium, Spain and Switzerland
This is one of the first signs that the ICJ decision is already prompting companies and governments to cut ties with Israel – perhaps fearing that they too could become legally implicated in genocide.
This week the government of Wallonia, one of Belgium’s three federal regions, suspended arms export licenses to Israel, also citing the ICJ decision…………………………………………………
And on Tuesday, Spanish foreign minister José Manuel Albares told Al Jazeera that Madrid had suspended all arms exports to Israel since 7 October.
Albares said that the events of that day “made us realize the importance of a just and lasting solution to the issue of the Palestinian people.”
US arms genocide
While these steps are important and necessary, the reality remains that Israel’s chief arms supplier, the United States, shows no signs of slowing down its airlift of the bombs and other weapons Tel Aviv is using to methodically exterminate Palestinians in Gaza.
Last week, US President Joe Biden said he held Iran responsible for the deaths of three American soldiers in a drone attack on a base in Jordan because, he alleged, “they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.”
Biden has also previously acknowledged that Israel has engaged in “indiscriminate bombing” of Gaza – a war crime.
By his own standards, therefore, Biden is effectively confessing to his own guilt for war crimes that a growing number of companies and governments around the world refuse to support. https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/citing-world-court-japan-firm-cuts-ties-israel-arms-maker
EDF’s nuclear struggles dampen EU nuclear prospects – the industry “on a slow descent to hell”.
MURIEL BOSELLI, Paris, France, 08 Feb 2024 19:48
(Montel) The latest setbacks at the UK’s new Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant have cast a shadow over Europe’s nuclear revival, experts told Montel, with one former EDF executive saying France’s nuclear industry was “on a slow descent to hell”.
A feud between Paris and London over who should fork out an extra EUR 6-8bn for Hinkley Point C’s (HPC) cost overruns was tarnishing the nuclear industry’s image as pro-nuclear nations try to promote atomic power in the battle against climate change, experts said.
HPC faces a new four-year delay and may not be commissioned until 2031, with completion costs now forecast at between GBP 31-34bn,… (Subscribers only)
Montel 8th Feb 2024
https://www.montelnews.com/news/1537139/edfs-nuclear-struggles-dampen-eu-nuclear-prospects
Nuclear expert Mycle Schneider on the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear energy production: ‘Trumpism enters energy policy’.
The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have………………… Climate change emergency contains the notion of urgency. And so we are talking about something where the time factor needs to kick in………………….. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.
Now, we’re talking of tens of $billions that are going into subsidizing nuclear energy, especially as I said existing nuclear power plants.
The pledge was worded as a commitment “to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050″………… “This pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic.”…………………….“It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy.”
The Bulletin, By François Diaz-Maurin | December 18, 2023
Last week, a group of independent energy consultants and analysts released the much-anticipated 2023 edition of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023 (WNISR). In over 500 pages, the report provides a detailed assessment of the status and trends of the international nuclear industry, covering more than 40 countries. Now in its 18th edition, the report is known for its fact-based approach providing details on operation, construction, and decommissioning of the world’s nuclear reactors. Although it regularly points out failings of the nuclear industry, it has become a landmark study, widely read within the industry. Its release last week was covered by major energy and business news media, including Reuters (twice) and Bloomberg.
On December 2, the United States and 21 other countries pledged to triple the global nuclear energy capacity by 2050. The declaration, made during the UN climate summit of the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, sought to recognize “the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions-carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5-degree Celsius limit on temperature rise within reach.” The pledge was worded as a commitment “to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.” It was aspirational—and ambitious.
To discuss this pledge against the nuclear industry’s current trends and status, I sat down with Mycle Schneider, lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report.
………… Diaz-Maurin: It’s undoubtedly a landmark report. With over 500 pages, it’s also massive. In a nutshell, what should our readers know about the main developments in the world nuclear industry over the past year?
Schneider: It really depends on from which angle you approach the issue. I think, overall, the mind-boggling fact is that the statistical outcome of this analysis is dramatically different from the perception that you can get when you open the newspapers or any kind of media reporting on nuclear power. Everybody gets the impression that this is kind of a blooming industry and people get the idea that there are nuclear power plants popping up all over the world.
But what we’ve seen is that some of the key indicators are showing a dramatic decline. In fact, the share of nuclear power in the world commercial electricity mix has been dropping by almost half since the middle of the 1990s. And the drop in 2022 was by 0.6 percentage points, which is the largest drop in a decade, since the post-Fukushima year 2012.
We have seen a four percent drop in electricity generation by nuclear power in 2022, which, if you take into account that China increased by three percent and if you look at the world, means that the drop was five percent outside China. So it’s significantly different from the perception you can get, and we can dig into some of the additional indicators. For example, constructions [of new reactors] give you an idea what the trends are and what the dynamic is in the industry. And so, when you look at constructions you realize that, since the construction start of Hinkley Point C in the United Kingdom in late 2019 until the middle of 2023, there were 28 construction starts of nuclear reactors in the world. Of these, 17 were in China and all 11 others were carried out by the Russian nuclear industry in various countries. There was no other construction start worldwide.
………………………………………………………………………………..The point is that we have had actually an increasing capacity that generates less. And, for obvious reasons, the most dramatic drop was in France. The French reactor performance has been in decline since 2015. That is, to me, one of the really remarkable outcomes in recent years. If you compare the year 2010 to 2022, in France, the drop [in electricity generated] was 129 terawatt hours. What happened is basically that, from 2015 onward, the trend line was toward a reducing electricity generation due to an accumulation of events, which are important to understand.
It’s not so much the stress corrosion cracking [in reactor vessels] that everybody has been talking about or another technical phenomenon that hit the French nuclear power plants worst, although it’s true it had a significant impact and was totally unexpected. So, it’s not an aging effect, although you do have aging effects on top of it because a lot of reactors are reaching 40 years and need to pass inspections and require refurbishment, etc. But you had climate effects in France too. And strikes also hit nuclear power plants. You don’t have that in other countries. So, it’s the accumulation of effects that explain the decline in electricity generation. This unplanned and chaotic drop in nuclear power generation in France compares with the loss of nuclear generation in Germany of 106 terawatt hours between 2010 and 2022, but in this case due to a planned and coordinated nuclear phaseout.
Diaz-Maurin: That is an interesting way to look at the data. What is the biggest risk of keeping existing reactors operating up to 80 years, as some suggest, or even more?
Schneider: Well, nobody knows. This has never been done. It’s like: “What’s the risk of keeping a car on the street for 50 years?” I don’t know. It’s not the way you do things, usually. First, I should say that we’re not looking at risk in that Status Report. This is not the subject of the report. But the lifetime extension of reactors raises the questions of nuclear safety—and security, which has always been a topic for the Bulletin.
If you have a reactor that has been designed in the 1970s, at the time nobody was talking or even thinking about drones or hacking, for example. People think of drones in general as a means to attack a nuclear power plant by X Y, Z. But in fact, what we’ve seen in the past are numerous drone flights over nuclear facilities. And so, there is the danger of sucking up information during those overflights. This raises security risks in another way. So, this idea of modernizing nuclear facilities continuously is obviously only possible to some degree. You can replace everything in a car, except for the body of the car. At some point, it’s not the same facility anymore. But you can’t do that with a nuclear power plant.
Diaz-Maurin: Talking about old facilities, Holtec International—the US-based company that specializes in nuclear waste management—say they want to restart the shutdown Palisades generating station in Michigan. Is it good news?
Schneider: To my knowledge, the only time that a closed nuclear power plant has been restarted was in Armenia, after the two units had been closed [in 1989] after a massive earthquake. We don’t have precise knowledge of the conditions of that restart, so I’m not so sure that this would be a good reference case. One has to understand that when a nuclear reactor is closed, it’s for some reason. It is not closed because [the utility] doesn’t like to do this anymore. In general, the most prominent reason [for closing reactors] over the past few years was poor economics.
This is, by the way, one of the key issues we’ve been looking at in the 2023 report: These entirely new massive subsidy programs in the US in particular didn’t exist [a year ago]. There were some limited programs on state level. Now these state support programs have been increased significantly and they are coupled in with federal programs, because the reactors are not competitive. So we’re talking really about a mechanism to keep these reactors online. That Palisades would restart is unique, in Western countries at least. For a plant that has been set to be decommissioned to restart, this has never been done. And, by the way, Holtec is not a nuclear operator. It is a firm that has specialized in nuclear decommissioning.
Now, that companies like Holtec can actually buy closed nuclear power plants and access their decommissioning funds with the promise to dismantle faster than would have been done otherwise, this is an entirely recent approach with absolutely no guarantee that it works. Under this scheme, there is no precedent where this has been done from A to Z. And obviously, there is the risk of financial default. For instance, it is unclear what happens if Holtec exhausts the funds before the decommissioning work is complete. Holtec’s level of liability is unclear to me prior to the taxpayer picking up the bill.
Diaz-Maurin: At Palisades, Holtec’s plan is to build two small modular reactors.
Schneider: Holtec is not a company that has any experience in operating—even less constructing—a nuclear power plant. So having no experience is not a good sign to begin with. Now, when it comes to SMRs—I call them “small miraculous reactors”—they are not existing in the Western world. One must be very clear about that. There are, worldwide, four [SMR] units that are in operation: two in China and two in Russia. And the actual construction history [for these reactors] is exactly the opposite to what was promised. The idea of small modular reactors was essentially to say: “We can build those fast. They are easy to build. They are cheap. It’s a modular production. They will be basically built in a factory and then assembled on site like Lego bricks.” That was the promise.
For the Russian project, the plant was planned for 3.7 years of construction. The reality was 12.7 years. In China, it took 10 years instead of five. And it’s not even only about delays. If you look at the load factors that were published by the Russian industry on the Power Reactor Information System (PRIS) of the IAEA, these SMRs have ridiculously low load factors, and we don’t understand the reasons why they don’t produce much. We know nothing about the Chinese operational record.
Diaz-Maurin: Last month, NuScale, the US-based company that develops America’s flagship SMR, lost its only customer, the Utah Associated Municipal Power System, a conglomerate of municipalities and utilities. This happened allegedly after a financial advisory firm reported on NuScale’s problems of financial viability. Have you followed this demise?
Schneider: Yes, of course. What happened there is that NuScale had promised in 2008 that it would start generating power by 2015. We are now in 2023 and they haven’t started construction of a single reactor. They have not even actually a certification license for the model that they’ve been promoting in the Utah municipal conglomerate. That’s because they have increased [the capacity of each module] from originally 40 megawatts to 77 megawatts.
Diaz-Maurin: Why is that? Is it a matter of economy of scale?
Schneider: Yes, of course. You need to build many modules if you want to get into economies of scale by number, if you don’t get into it by size. This is actually the entire history of nuclear power. So NuScale sought to increase the unit size in Utah. But then the deal with the municipalities collapsed after the new cost assessment in early 2023 showed that the six-module facility NuScale had planned would cost $9.3 billion, a huge increase over earlier estimates. It’s about $20,000 per kilowatt installed—almost twice as expensive as the most expensive [large-scale] EPR reactors in Europe.
Diaz-Maurin: Is it the same with the waste generated? Some analysts looking at the waste streams of SMRs conclude that smaller reactors will produce more radioactive materials per unit of kilowatt hour generated compared to larger reactors.
Schneider: That’s the MacFarlane and colleagues’ paper, which is pretty logical if you think about it. If you have a small quantity of nuclear material that irradiates other materials, then it’s proportionally more per installed megawatt than for a large reactor in which there is a larger core.
,………………Schneider: many technologies have been supported under the Inflation Reduction Act and many others will continue to receive significant support. But the problem here is different. The entire logic that has been built up for small modular reactors is with the background of climate change emergency. That’s the big problem we have.
Diaz-Maurin: Can you explain this?
Schneider: Climate change emergency contains the notion of urgency. And so we are talking about something where the time factor needs to kick in. If we look at how other reactor technologies have been introduced, a lot of them were supported by government funding, like the EPR in Europe or Westinghouse’s AP-1000 in the United States. Comparatively, the current status of SMR development—whether it’s NuScale, which is the most advanced, or others—corresponds to that of the middle of the 1990s [of the large light-water reactors]. The first EPR started electricity generation in 2022 and commercial operation only in 2023. And it’s the same with the AP-1000. By the way, both reactor types are not operating smoothly; they are still having some issues. So, considering the status of development, we’re not going to see any SMR generating power before the 2030s. It’s very clear: none. And if we are talking about SMRs picking up any kind of substantial amounts of generating capacity in the current market, if ever, we’re talking about the 2040s at the very earliest.
Diaz-Maurin: And that’s exactly where I want to turn the discussion now: nuclear and climate. At the COP28 last week in Dubai, 22 countries pledged to triple the global nuclear energy capacity of 2020 by 2050. What do these countries have in common when it comes to nuclear energy? In other words, why these 22 countries and not others?
Schneider: Most of them are countries that are already operating nuclear power plants and have their own interest in trying to drag money support, most of which by the way would go into their current fleets. Take EDF [France’s state-owned utility company], for example. Through the French government, EDF is lobbying like mad to get support from the European Union—European taxpayers’ money—for its current fleet. It’s not even for new construction, because the French know that they won’t do much until 2040 anyway. There is also another aspect that is related and that illustrates how this pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic.
The pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity is not to be discussed first in terms of pros or cons, but from the point of view of feasibility. And from this point of view, just looking at the numbers, it’s impossible. We are talking about a target date of 2050, which is 27 years from now. In terms of nuclear development, that’s tomorrow morning. If we look at what happened in the industry over the past 20 years since 2003, there have been 103 new nuclear reactors starting operation. But there have been also 110 that closed operation up until mid 2023. Overall, it’s a slightly negative balance. It’s not even positive. Now if you consider the fact that 50 of those new reactors that were connected to the grid were in China alone and that China closed none, the world outside China experienced a negative balance of 57 reactors over the past 20 years.
………………………………………….Now, if we look forward 27 years, if all the reactors that have lifetime extension licenses (or have other schemes that define longer operation) were to operate until the end of their license, 270 reactors will still be closed by 2050. This is very unlikely anyway because, empirically, reactors close much earlier: The average closing age over the past five years is approximately 43 years, and hardly any reactor reached the end of its license period. But even if they did, it would be 270 reactors closed in 27 years.
You don’t have to do math studies to know that it’s 10 per year. At some point it’s over. Just to replace those closing reactors, you’d have to start building, operating, grid connecting 10 reactors per year, starting next year. In the past two decades, the construction rate has been of five per year on average. So, you would need to double that construction rate only to maintain the status quo. Now, tripling again that rate, excuse me, there is just no sign there. I am not forecasting the future, but what the industry has been demonstrating yesterday and what is it is demonstrating today shows that it’s simply impossible, from an industrial point of view, to put this pledge into reality. To me, this pledge is very close to absurd, compared to what the industry has shown.
Diaz-Maurin: Based on your report, just to replace the closures, the nuclear industry would need to build and start operating one new reactor of an average size of 700-megawatt per month. And tripling the global capacity would require an additional 2.5 new reactors per month.
Schneider: Exactly; it’s a little less if you talk in terms of capacity. The capacity to be replaced by 2050 of those 270 units would be 230 gigawatts. Now, if small modular reactors were to be a significant contributor to this pledge, hundreds or even thousands of these things would need to be built to come anywhere near that objective. It’s impossible. We should come back to reality and discuss what’s actually feasible. Only then can we discuss what would be the pros and cons of a pledge.
But there was another pledge at the COP28, which is to triple the output of renewable energies by 2030. That’s seven years from now. To me, this pledge on renewable energy, if implemented, is the final nail in the coffin of the pledge on nuclear energy. It is very ambitious. Don’t underestimate that. Tripling renewables in seven years is phenomenally ambitious.
Diaz-Maurin: Is it feasible?
Schneider: Very difficult to say. But one important thing is that it’s not 22 countries. It’s over 100 countries that have already pledged their commitment to this objective. Also, a key player—if not the key player—is China. An important finding of our Status Report is that China generated for the first time in 2022 more power with solar energy than with nuclear energy. And this happened despite China being the only country to have been building [nuclear capacity] massively over the past 20 years. But still, the country is now generating more power with solar than with nuclear. The good news for the [renewable] pledge is that China is more or less on track with that tripling target. The rest of the world would have to speed up on renewables in a dramatic way to achieve this pledge. But at least China’s example shows that it’s feasible. That’s the interesting part. Because, on the contrary, there is no country—not even China—demonstrating that the nuclear pledge is possible.
Diaz-Maurin: If it’s not feasible, does the nuclear pledge impede other climate actions that are urgently needed then?
Schneider: That’s a good question. I think it’s a terrible signal, indeed. It’s like Trumpism enters energy policy: It’s a pledge that has nothing to do with reality, and it doesn’t matter. It is giving you the impression that it is feasible, that it is possible. And all that completely dilutes the attention and capital that are urgently needed to put schemes into place that work. And it doesn’t start with renewables, that’s very important to stress. It starts with sufficiency, efficiency, storage, and demand response. Only later comes renewable energy.
But these options are all on the table. They’re all demonstrated to be economic and competitive. That’s not the case with nuclear energy. It’s a pledge that has no realistic foundation that is taking away significant funding and focus. It used to be negligible funding. Up until a few years back, we were talking at most tens of millions of dollars. Now, we’re talking of tens of billions that are going into subsidizing nuclear energy, especially as I said existing nuclear power plants………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Schneider: What really has motivated most of my work over the past decades is that I can’t stand what you would call today “fake news.” All my work since the 1980s has been actually driven by the attempt to increase the level of information in—and having some kind of impact on—the decision-making process. To offer a service to civil society so it can take decisions based on facts, not beliefs. When I see what happens in terms of misinformation around nuclear power, it’s scary.
I think, today, the Status Report is probably more important than ever. Because there’s such an unbelievable amount of hype out there. It’s almost becoming an issue for psychologists. It has less and less to do with rationality because the numbers are clear. They are utterly clear: The cost figures are clear; the development is clear; the trend analysis is clear. So it is clear, but it doesn’t matter. It’s like the claim of stolen elections of Trump supporters. All court cases have shown that this was not the case. But, for half of the US population, it doesn’t matter. And I find this absolutely scary. When it comes to issues like nuclear power, it’s fundamental that decisions are made on the basis of facts.
Diaz-Maurin: Why is that?
Schneider: Because the stakes are incredibly high. First because of the capital involved. Researchers studying corruption cases know that the size of large projects’ contracts is a key driver for corruption. And the nuclear industry has been struggling with all kinds of mechanisms that are fraud yields. Financial corruption is only one issue.
Another is falsification. For a long time, we thought Japan Steel Works [JSW] was the absolute exemplary industry. Japanese factories used to build high quality and highly reliable key forged parts for nuclear power plants. It turns out, they have been falsifying quality-control documentation in hundreds of cases for decades. Corruption and falsification are two of the issues affecting the nuclear industry.
And, of course, the Bulletin has had a long focus on military issues related to nuclear energy. When we are talking about issues like SMRs, the key issue is not whether they are going to be safer or not, because there are not going to be many around anyway. So, safety is not the primary issue. But once you start signing cooperation agreements, it opens the valves to the proliferation of nuclear knowledge. And that is a big problem, because this knowledge can always be used in two ways: One is military for nuclear explosives, and the other is civilian for nuclear electricity and medical applications. Opening these valves on the basis of hype or false promise is a disaster. And the ones most actively opening these valves are the Russians. They are educating thousands of people from all around the world in nuclear materials and nuclear technology. In the United States, part of the thinking appears to say: “Oh, for God’s sake, better we train these people.” https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=MondayNewsletter12182023&utm_content=NuclearRisk_TripleNuclear_11182023
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (138)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 