Constant cheap renewable power to Britain – the Sahara wind and solar cables
Within five years, the world’s longest undersea cable will link Devon to
a vast territory of solar panels in the Sahara Desert, supplying
electricity directly into Britain’s grid at a fraction of today’s power
prices. A second cable will land two years later in 2029.
Together they will provide 3.6 gigawatts (GW) of constant baseload power, equivalent to
two Hinkley-sized nuclear reactors. The difference is that we will be able
to afford it.
That, at least, is the plan. The £16bn Xlinks Morocco-UK
Power Project – chaired by former Tesco chief Sir Dave Lewis – has an
elegant feature. It combines wind and solar in perfect geographic
circumstances to make near-constant power for 20 hours a day.
Trade winds on the coast of North Africa raise the average “capacity factor” of
onshore wind turbines to 54pc. A desert convection effect creates a regular
wind current in the early evenings and smooths the handover from solar to
wind. “It picks up every afternoon just as the sun is setting,” said
Simon Morrish, the project’s chief executive.
This overcomes the curse of intermittency, with lithium batteries in the desert to cover the remaining
gaps. Xlinks will be a park of 580 square miles at Guelmim Oued Noun on the
28th parallel south of Agadir, picked because it is at the top of the
global horizontal irradiance index. The yield is three times higher than in
the UK. The sun shines for 10 hours a day in winter. “The space is
unlimited. We could in theory put up 500 of these projects in Morocco,”
he said. The consortium is already planning a second hub to power Benelux.
It could multiply the scale several times over for the UK, constrained only
by the safe limits of energy security.
Telegraph 20th April 2022
Once Rocked by Nuclear Disaster, Fukushima Is Now a Renewables Hub
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/once-rocked-by-nuclear-disaster-fukushima-is-now-a-renewables-hub, 15 Apr 22,
More than a decade after a major nuclear power plant disaster, Fukushima, Japan is seeing extensive renewable energy development on abandoned lands, as satellite imagery from NASA shows.
When an earthquake and resulting tsunami hit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, damaged reactors released radioactive material into the surrounding area, rendering large swaths of farmland unusable. Today, some of those fields are home to sprawling solar arrays.
The Fukushima prefecture has set a goal of 100 percent renewable power by 2040. Around 40 precent of its power currently comes from renewables, with plans underway to spend $2.75 billion on the development of 11 solar farms and 10 wind farms on contaminated or abandoned lands.
“A strong desire to never see a repeat of such an accident was the most important starting point” for Fukushima’s renewable push, Noriaki Saito, energy director at the prefecture’s planning department, told AFP.
UK’s energy strategy ”cowardly and incoherent” – solar and onshore wind are the practical options
Michael Grubb: The writer is professor of energy and climate change at
University College London and was former senior adviser to energy regulator
Ofgem.
The UK energy strategy is both cowardly and incoherent. The defining
feature of the UK energy strategy is its incoherence. It does not know what
problem it is trying to solve – and thus it does not solve any. By
failing to boost energy efficiency and kicking the only possible short-term
supply option – that of cheap onshore wind – into the long grass, it
most certainly will not help those struggling with energy bills in the
coming winters.
Offshore wind is the great success story of the past decade
and capacity has grown sharply in recent years. The strategy increases the
offshore target for 2030 from 40GW to 50GW. That’s very ambitious but
possible. But offshore wind involves big and complex kit from only a few
suppliers, it usually takes three to five years from bid to completion, and
the pace of expansion could stress supply chains and drive up costs. If it
were all concentrated in the North Sea, there would be immense challenges
for the grid – both in transmission and in managing the peaks and
troughs. Wind is best when distributed more widely.
The most cowardly failure concerns onshore wind. It is not only our cheapest energy resource
– it typically costs about a third to a quarter of what people will soon
be paying for their electricity – but it is, with solar, the only one
that could make a dent in the short term. The strategy outlines a plan for
nuclear to 2050, kicked off with one new plant to be funded before the next
general election. If it takes an energy crisis to actually make a decision,
so be it, but it will not help solve the crisis.
Nuclear is not only slow
and expensive, it would need to be flexible to ramp up and down with the
swings of demand, wind and solar. This further undermines the economics.
Launching a 30-year plan for nuclear also raises the question – why
can’t the government set out even a coherent 30-month plan for energy
efficiency?
FT 10th April 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/3fe73617-5f8f-4b70-8856-ca53e2ec92b3
UK government incoherent and inconsistent on energy crisis, and has no solution to the accumulating nuclear wastes
| Does the new government energy strategy tackle the immediate energy crisis? This is the third document in six months that the government has produced, and all that has happened is that they have become less coherent, and less and less connected to what actually matters to most people. What the Prime Minister seems to believe is that we want expensive nuclear ‘jam’ tomorrow, and that we are not that bothered about cheap energy efficiency ‘bread’ today. I think that this is rather like the Chancellors recent Spring Budget, in that it is simply not hearing, or paying attention, to what is actually happening in the country, and what matters to people who have got to live with the immediate crisis of their energy bills. And the way that the government can deal with that right now is to start spending money on energy efficiency, money by the way that the government promised in its manifesto and hasn’t actually delivered. In 2012, we were insulating about 2.5 million houses per year, now we are down to about 20 thousand. If we had carried on at that rate, we would be saving people money right now as this crisis has occurred. So, this is a real failure of the government to be consistent in doing the things that really matter to most people. Why would we want to use nuclear when there are much better options already available? This is the third big government announcement on energy policy in 6 months, and all you have got is if you were an investor why would you invest in whatever the current flavour of the month is for the government? You would wait to see what happens when things settle down. Government incoherence and inconsistency is really slowing down out whole response. The endless announcements, with no real delivery, is really slowing down our ability to deal with climate change. People are right to be terrified by the conclusions of the IPCCC report, they really are very scary indeed. There is a future bill for nuclear waste, which grows. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is responsiblefor dealing with nuclear waste in this country, it now spends several billions per year of public money in order to deal with the waste that we have already got. So, it is quite right to question why the government is even thinking about piling on more nuclear waste to be dealt with, when we can’t even deal with the waste that we already have now. We don’t know what to do with the high-level waste, that is the most dangerous waste, not because of its volume but because of its radioactivity. We don’t have a solution for that yet, despite 50 years of trying to find one. Tom Burke 7th April 202 2http://tomburke.co.uk/2022/04/07/does-the-new-government-energy-strategy-tackle-the-immediate-energy-crisis/ |
In the UK’s energy plan, the nation has been sold a dud
Jim Watson, director, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources: Britain was
promised a bold and visionary energy plan. But we’ve been sold a dud.
Does it deliver what it says on the tin?
The answer is straightforward. It fails. At the heart of most definitions of energy security is reliability
of supplies for households and businesses. This is usually complemented by
a focus on affordability.
The new strategy does very little to deal with the immediate impacts of high fossil fuel prices.
While the government has announced some help for households via loans and a
council tax reduction, this is simply not enough. The energy price cap has
already risen to almost £2,000 a year and a further rise is due in the
autumn.
This comes on top of a wider cost of living crisis and high levels
of inflation.is available, but the price is too high for businesses to
function or households to keep warm. While more money to help people pay
their bills is needed, this must be accompanied by action to prevent these
acute impacts in future. This means making homes more efficient and
switching away from fossil fuels for heating. It is nearly a decade since
effective policies for home energy efficiency were cancelled and replaced
with new approaches, such as the green deal, which have failed
spectacularly.
As a result, the steady improvements in efficiency and
financial benefits to households have virtually stopped. A new programme of
home upgrades is urgently needed. This would not only reduce our dependence
on gas, but would also cut bills and carbon emissions.
According to many headlines, nuclear power is the “centrepiece” of the strategy. The
government’s plans are ambitious, but delivery will be difficult. New
nuclear plants will not have an impact for many years. The Treasury’s
fingerprints are visible in the careful caveats in the strategy, including
an insistence that new projects are “subject to a value for money and
relevant approvals”.
This reflects the long history of rising costs
within the nuclear sector, and the financial risks that consumers or
taxpayers will be exposed to.
In short, the government has pulled its
punches and avoided measures that would have a more immediate impact on
energy security – mainly by reducing the amount of energy we need to use.
Instead, it has produced a mixed bag of energy supply proposals. While some
are credible, a large nuclear power programme will require huge amounts of
political and financial capital. History suggests that this will be very
difficult to deliver.
Guardian 9th April 2022
UK government got its energy strategy so wrong
‘Major misjudgment’: how the Tories got their energy strategy so wrong. Analysis: betting big on nuclear, hydrogen, oil and gas while passing over energy saving measures, Johnson’s plan is a huge missed
opportunity.
Government industrial strategies are often derided as attempts to pick winners. The UK’s Conservative government has taken a different approach with its new energy strategy. In terms of dealing with the energybill and climate crises, it’s picking losers.
Nuclear power is the only major energy technology that has increased in cost in the last decade and
routinely suffers from massive time and budget overruns. Even Kwarteng acknowledges that France’s large nuclear fleet “cost a fortune”. The gamble Johnson is making, with taxpayers’ money, is that nuclear power is a more reliable wager to secure clean future power than renewables and fast-developing energy storage technologies. It’s a long shot.
Renewables and storage will develop much faster and get much cheaper due to the rapid learning that comes with small-scale technologies, unlike colossal projects
like nuclear.
Guardian 6th April 2022
Expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
Energy strategy: expensive nuclear power push ignores chance to cut costs of UK’s electricity system
The Conversation, Furong LiReader in Electrical Systems, University of Bath, Nigel TurveyVisiting Senior Industrial Fellow in Electrical Engineering, University of Bath, 8 Apr 22,
”……………………… apart from a promised five-fold increase in solar power generation by 2035, the strategy sets no target for generating electricity from some of the country’s cheapest sources, like onshore wind.
The government may defend its decision to ramp up the production of nuclear power as support for a home-grown and reliable source of energy. But some of that hefty investment would be unnecessary if Britain reorganised its energy system to make the most of the nation’s abundant renewable electricity instead.
When the price of a commodity like a soft drink goes up, production can be ramped up fairly rapidly to respond to spot market conditions, which quickly lowers prices again. Building a new nuclear power plant or offshore wind farm is quite different, requiring major investment and the certainty that there will be a reasonable return on upfront investment from selling energy over 30 to 40 years.
In the UK, governments can intervene in the capacity market to ensure a secure electricity supply by paying for reliable sources, which provides the long-term certainty necessary to build sufficient generating capacity. Financial backing changes to reflect the state’s priorities, and the drive for eight new nuclear reactors is reported to cost the public £13 billion.
Building wind farms and nuclear plants is just the first step though. The speed at which they be can integrated into electrical networks and operated to be in tune with power, transport and heat demand is what will actually decide when energy prices stabilise………………..
How to get inflexible, low-carbon energy to homes and businesses reliably and cheaply is as important as building new, reliable sources. And on that count, making more effective use of renewable sources – and reducing energy demand overall – would mean the country could afford to build less nuclear power, which is one of the few low-carbon sources which hasn’t become substantially cheaper.
New technologies
One way to increase customer demand for renewable and low-carbon energy when it’s abundant and reduce it when generation is tight is to incentivise storage technologies.
For example, if electric vehicles are charged up when there is plenty of wind and solar power being generated, 40GW of offshore renewable energy would be enough to power the country’s entire vehicle fleet without any of it going to waste.
To help harmonise Britain’s energy demand with periods when renewable output is high, the government could invest in digital technologies such as smart meters and set up new tariffs which can send price signals to EV chargers. It could also invest in improving the short-term forecasting of solar and wind output. These changes would make distributors aware of customer needs and help customers alleviate stress on the system.
While electric vehicle batteries can manage the variability of renewable output, Britain’s energy system also needs fixed storage – like grid-scale batteries which, unlike the government’s favoured solution of hydrogen fuel, are capable of very fast response times to manage sudden changes……………………… https://theconversation.com/energy-strategy-expensive-nuclear-power-push-ignores-chance-to-cut-costs-of-uks-electricity-system-180365
Britain’s ”underwhelming” energy plan – ‘Great British Nuclear, with no policies on saving energy, nor energy efficiency
The government announced that a new body called Great British Nuclear will also
be launched to bolster the UK’s nuclear capacity, with the hope that by
2050 up to 24 GW of electricity will come from that source – 25% of the
projected electricity demand.
It has said the focus on nuclear will deliver
up to eight reactors overall, with one being approved each year until 2030.
It also confirmed advanced plans to approve two new reactors at Sizewell in
Suffolk during this parliament. Wylfa in Anglesey and Oldbury in Cumbria
(sic) have also been named as candidates to host either large-scale plants,
smaller modular nuclear reactors, or possibly both.
Environmentalists and many energy experts have reacted with disbelief and anger at some of the
measures in the strategy. They cannot believe the government has offered no
new policies on saving energy by insulating buildings. They say energy
efficiency would immediately lower bills and emissions, and is the cheapest
way to improve energy security.
A Downing Street source said the strategy
was now being see as an energy supply strategy. Campaigners are also
furious that ministers have committed to seeking more oil and gas in the
North Sea, even though humans have already found enough fossil fuels to
wreck the climate. There is a strong welcome, though, for the promise of
more energy from wind offshore with speedier planning consent.
The same
boost has not been offered to onshore wind. Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow
climate change and net-zero secretary, said: “The government’s energy
relaunch is in disarray. “Boris Johnson has completely caved to his own
backbenchers and now, ludicrously, his own energy strategy has failed on
the sprint we needed on onshore wind and solar, the cheapest, cleanest
forms of homegrown power.
“This relaunch will do nothing for the millions
of families now facing an energy bills crisis,” he added. Liberal Democrat
leader Sir Ed Davey also described the plans as “utterly hopeless”, while
the SNP’s Stephen Flynn called it a “missed opportunity”. Dr Simon
Cran-McGreehin, head of analysis at the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit,
told the BBC that he also felt “underwhelmed” following the announcement.
BBC 6th April 2022
” Renewable Energy Foundation (REF)” – strongly linked to anti-wind power lobby
Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again. While the
name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity
dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of
its time campaigning against onshore wind.
When it was founded in 2004,
with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was
clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for
onshore renewable energy in the UK. It styles itself on its website as “a
registered charity promoting sustainable development for the benefit of the
public by means of energy conservation and the use of renewable energy”.
However, many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of
anti-wind lobbyists. In 2008, the REF had what it described as a
“dialogue” with the Charity Commission over whether it was violating
its charitable status by being too political in its campaigning. The
Charity Commission said it assessed the complaint relating to the REF’s
campaigning activities and determined there was no evidence that it was not
charitable, but also provided guidance about how to achieve its objectives
as an organisation.
The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate
science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the
former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.
Prof Michael Kelly, a trustee of the REF also has a position on the board
of the GWPF. John Constable, an adviser to the GWPF, has been quoted as an
REF spokesperson and was previously its director of policy and research.
Constable answered the Guardian’s questions for this article on behalf of
the REF.
While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing
pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy
crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again. In recent weeks,
the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and
Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s
Today programme to oppose onshore wind. Constable added that the REF had
“no blanket policy” on renewables – but that the charity did not see
them as a large part of the net zero strategy. He added: “Each proposal
must be judged on its own merits, and providing that local environmental
concerns offer no obstacle, niche applications may be suitable, as they may
be for all renewables.”
Guardian 5th April 2022
Portugal to speed up switch to renewable power in wake of Ukraine war
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/portugal-speed-up-switch-renewable-power-wake-ukraine-war-2022-04-01/?fbclid= By Sergio Goncalves,
LISBON, April 1 (Reuters) – Portugal aims to accelerate its energy transition and increase the proportion of renewable sources by 20 percentage points to 80% of its electricity output by 2026, four years earlier than previously planned, the government said on Friday.
As part of a global shift away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels, countries are betting on renewable energies such as wind and solar, a transition that is being accelerated in Europe after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The new Socialist government that was sworn in on Wednesday, said in its overall programme released on Friday that the energy plans should mobilize more than 25 billion euros of investment in the next 10 years, involving public and private players, incentives and financing.
“Portugal has already taken very significant measures in the energy transition, but the evolution and duration of the war in Ukraine must necessarily imply new measures,” Cabinet Minister Mariana Vieira da Silva told a news conference.
The country, committed to become carbon neutral by 2050, currently gets 60% of its electricity from renewable sources – one of the largest proportions of green energy use in Europe.
Unlike central European countries, Portugal does not depend on Russian natural gas pipelines, as it mainly imports liquefied natural gas from Nigeria and the United States, and has not imported Russian crude since 2020.
The government also wants to “more than double the installed capacity of renewable sources in the next decade”.
Portugal, which closed its two coal-fired power plants last year, has 7.3 GW of hydroelectric capacity and 5.6 GW of onshore wind parks, which together represent 83% of its total installed capacity. Reporting by Sergio Goncalves Editing by Andrei Khalip and Frances Kerry
Nuclear is not the key to energy independence
Nuclear is not ‘key to energy independence’, https://www.centralmaine.com/2022/04/03/nuclear-is-not-key-to-energy-independence/ Jim Perkins The headline on the opinion piece by conservative activist Jim Fossel (March 20) extolled nuclear power as “key to energy independence.” In his text, Fossel dealt only with rosy promises that go back to the days of Walt Disney’s “Our Friend the Atom.”
Fossel did not mention any of the challenges nuclear power faces: not the environmental concerns, not the economic realities, not safety experience highlighted in this country by one stuck valve rendering a brand-new billion-dollar plant in Pennsylvania a smoldering heap nor major catastrophes in Ukraine and Japan. He did not address short and long-lived contamination by nuclear wastes, from mining, then milling, through to the unresolved issues of site contamination and eventual (maybe) ultimate disposal of high-level “spent” fuel.
He didn’t address nuclear proliferation concerns: see North Korea, Israel, South Africa and Iran for examples of blurring the civilian/military distinction.
He brought up support by governments of the world for some renewable energy projects, but ignored totally the government roles underpinning every nuclear program in the world.
Centrally, Fossel was holding out “energy independence” as a goal for all. A Google search might have shown him where he could find the world’s large reserves and significant production of uranium. As with petroleum, the U.S. has some of its own, but leading the pack are these five: Kazakhstan; France (with production operations in Canada, Africa, the U.S. and Kazakhstan); a nominally “Canadian” company called Uranium One which is owned and controlled by Rosatom, the Russian state corporation; China; and Uzbekistan.
Trading dependence on one unstable and dangerous resource for another is hardly progress. A conservative perspective should make that obvious.
To wean UK off Russian gas – the key is energy efficiency + wind projects – not nuclear power, says new research.
Fixing energy-leaking homes and funding wind projects – not nuclear power stations – is key to weaning the UK off Russian gas, a new studysays, amid cabinet clashes over policy.
Boris Johnson is pushing to get 25 per cent of the UK’s electricity from nuclear power – requiring up to
six new power stations – at a cost that is alarming Rishi Sunak, the
chancellor.
Meanwhile, cabinet rows over relaxing planning rules to lift
the block on onshore wind turbines are also holding up a new energy
strategy, prompted by the Ukraine crisis. Now an analysis by the climate
change think tank E3G says a strategy that “starts at home” is the
route to reducing reliance on Vladimir Putin’s gas supplies.
Dramatically improving the energy efficiency of the UK’s buildings “could secure an
80 per cent cut in the amount of gas we import from Russia this year”, it
is arguing. If combined with government funding for solar and onshore wind
projects already in the planning pipeline, “the UK could cut the amount
of gas we get from Russia by 100 per cent within a year”.
“Energy security starts at home,” said Ed Matthew, E3G’s campaigns director,
ahead of the expected release of the “energy independence plan” this
week. “By ramping up the energy efficiency of UK buildings and
accelerating renewables deployment, the government can take an axe to UK
gas demand.
Independent 3rd April 2022
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/energy-russia-gas-wind-turbines-b2049677.html
Sizewell new nuclear will not solve the government’s energy problems, but will punish the poorest.
| Nick Butler: Spending £4bn on a new nuclear station at Sizewell will not solve the government’s energy problems. Instead of sensible short-term measures to help those facing energy poverty, the government is focusing on a technology with a track record of failure. In the face of surging energy prices and the prospect of more problems as Europe turns off Russian gas supplies, the UK government is struggling to find a coherent energy policy. The latest move, a £4bn investment in the proposed new nuclear station at Sizewell, is both a mistake and an irrelevance. Private investors who are being asked to stump up the majority of the £20bn total cost should politely decline the offer. The current energy challenge—driven first by the surging post-Covid economy around the world, and now by fears of a fight for supplies as Europe reduces its use of Russian gas by two-thirds by 2023—is not the fault of the British government. The UK is not dependent on Russian supplies, which account for less than 5 per cent of British consumption. We do, however, import half our gas, and are therefore vulnerable to whatever happens on the world market. The government is responsible for the response to a crisis which will raise retail bills in April, and again in the autumn. The burden of these sudden increases will hit the poorest hardest, adding to cost of living pressures already evident. The Bank of England talks of inflation of 8 per cent by the end of the year. Many commentators think 10 per cent is more likely. The answer to the challenge has to begin with welfare support for those who cannot cope. A temporary removal of some of the taxes on energy supply, including VAT, would also offer some relief. The £2bn being given to the developers of Sizewell would have made a material difference to those facing energy poverty. The choice of EDF’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) technology is the worst from any perspective. In the face of an energy crisis and soaring bills, the government needs solutions which are practical and affordable. There is no way of insulating the UK from developments in the world market. The poorest can and should be protected but the rest of us will undoubtedly have to pay more. What matters now is that the short-, medium- and longer-term solutions to limit that exposure are deliverable and affordable. Sizewell is neither. Prospect 30th March 2022 https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/spending-4bn-on-a-new-nuclear-station-at-sizewell-will-not-solve-the-governments-energy-problems |
Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear power is not justified by the facts, as Britain’s electricity demand continues to fall.
| Letter Andrew Warren, Chairman, British Energy Efficiency Federation: In declaring that Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear is a threat to British energy supply, Simon Nixon (Mar 31) draws attention to the fallacious belief by the Department for Business (if not at the National Grid) that demand for electricity is expected to expand enormously, apparently even double, over future years. Strangely enough, precisely the same justification was used in 2006, when the Labour government first committed itself (as Nixon observes) to a “family” of further nuclear power stations. Based on the official forecasts issued in 2006, we should by now be consuming at least 15 per cent more electricity than we were then. But we are not. In fact UK electricity consumption has gone down by more than 15 per cent since 2006. In other words, all that “expectation of demand growth” used then to justify new nukes was grossly exaggerated, by well over 30 per cent. In the interim, no new nuclear power stations have been added to the system. It hasn’t collapsed, and is far less carbon intensive. Surely, we should not be fooled again by the same spurious rhetoric about endless consumption growth? In that immortal phrase of the 1970s: “Save it. You know it makes sense.” Times 1st April 2022https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-letters-lessons-of-the-shropshire-maternity-scandal-7vs5xwfw3 |
War in Ukraine has produced a new energy crisis. Energy efficiency is the fastest way to address this.
| Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine is good reason to “crank with wartime urgency” the mass insulation of buildings and deployment of renewables, energy conservation pioneer Amory Lovins declares in an interview with the Guardian. “We have a new energy crisis, and efficiency is the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest, and fastest way to address it,” said Lovins, chair emeritus of the Snowmass, Colorado-based Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) and adjunct professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. While new renewable technology usually gets more attention, he added, the time has come to focus on the energy efficiency measures that Lovins and others have been advocating for the last 50 years. Lovins also happens to be the grandchild of 20th century Jewish immigrants. from small villages in Ukraine. Most of his Ukrainian ancestors were murdered by the Nazis in the infamous 1941 massacre of Tarashcha, which resulted in the deaths of 14,000 Jewish Ukrainians. Eighty years later, fossil fuels are underwriting further vicious loss of life. But in the first two weeks of the war, western countries paid out €8 billion for oil and gas purchases from Russia, he told the Guardian. The Energy Mix 27th March 2022 https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/03/27/shift-to-energy-efficiency-could-pressure-putin-says-conservation-pioneer-lovins/ |
1 This Month
23-25 October – on Zoom – World BEYOND War’s annual global conferenc
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 (247)
- 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
