Clinton and Trump both dance to the nuclear lobby’s tune
Energy issues divide presidential candidates, Dayton Daily News, 25 Sept 16 “…….Nuclear
Neither candidate has focused much on nuclear energy during the campaign.
Although Clinton mentions “advanced reactors” in her clean energy plans, the Nuclear Energy Institute took aim at the proposals, saying they fall short of “recognizing that the current and future workhorse of carbon reduction in the nation’s power generation is nuclear power.”
On her campaign website, Clinton does say those who want to “rapidly shut down our nation’s nuclear power fleet put ideology ahead of science,” making it harder and more costly to build a clean energy future.
Trump has vowed to pursue “all forms of energy.” In his North Dakota speech he said that would include nuclear, wind and solar energy – “but not to the exclusion of other energy.
“The government should not pick winners and losers,” he said. “Instead, it should remove obstacles to exploration.”…..http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/energy-issues-divide-presidential-candidates/nsfFg/
Jill Stein’s political views on nuclear energy
Why is the American political system so impossible? This candidate makes sense, not Trump and Clinton
Jill Stein’s political views on nuclear energy http://www.jill2016.com/platform
- End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines.
- Halt any investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, including natural gas, and phase out all fossil fuel power plants.
- Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.
- End all subsidies for fossil fuels and impose a greenhouse gas fee / tax to charge polluters for the damage they have created.
South Africa’s Eskom wildly underestimates the cost of planned nuclear build
‘Eskom’s nuclear build cost and running projections are overheated’ – Analyst SUNDAY TIMES BUSINESS BY ASHA SPECKMAN, 2016-09-25 The price at which Eskom is projecting it will deliver nuclear energy as part of the proposed nuclear build has been rubbished by energy analysts who say South Africa could end up paying much more.
The power utility is targeting R1 per kilowatt-hour for nuclear energy – and this week Eskom’s head of generation, Matshela Koko, said the state-owned company expected to be able to fund the nuclear build programme from its own cash resources.
But energy analysts have scoffed at this, saying cost studies and examples from other projects show the bill to be massive. At the rate proposed, the project would not be viable.
Frank Spencer, an independent analyst, said: “If it comes in at R2/kWh or even R1.50/kWh, it would make absolutely no sense to pursue from a commercial perspective.”
The government and private sector’s expectations of the costs are miles apart.
Eskom spokesman Khulu Phasiwe said projections that the power utility had done put the cost of additional nuclear power at R500-billion. But Spencer estimated the cost would be about R1-trillion……..
He said decommissioning costs associated with dismantling nuclear power stations in future were often omitted from modelling, which eventually inflated the cost of the project.
“I think the expectations are based on what we’re seeing in the UK – [but] the cost of energy let alone the cost of the build programme, and finally what the levellised cost of energy works out to once all of those costs are taken into account, will be significantly higher than that.”…….
Eberhard said: “Nuclear vendors promise low prices but inevitably there are significant cost and time overruns. If these prices are not fixed in a contract then consumers end up with very expensive electricity.”
He cited the Hinkley C facility, where a 35-year contract for the equivalent of R1.65/kWh has been signed, as an example of a contract secured at a low rate……..
Last week, Moody’s placed Eskom’s credit rating on review for downgrade, saying that future tariffs may be affected due to the ongoing growth of independent power producers and a regulator that is hostile to Eskom’s tariff increase requests.
The agency also noted that institutional investors were beginning to display risk aversion to funding state-owned companies…….speckmana@sundaytimes.co.za http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/businesstimes/2016/09/25/Eskoms-nuclear-build-cost-and-running-projections-are-overheated—Analyst
Hillary Clinton, evasive, contradictory on nuclear power, changed policy 9 times
Hillary Just Flip-Flopped On Nuclear Power For The 9th Time http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/hillary-just-flip-flopped-on-nuclear-power-for-the-9th-time/ ANDREW FOLLETT Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton told Scientific American the U.S. needed to explore using more nuclear power, marking the ninth time the former secretary of state has flip-flopped on nuclear energy.
Clinton’s position changed from totally ignoring nuclear power in her 2016 platform to a tepid embrace of the technology.
Clinton’s newfound position on nuclear power puts her at odds with the anti-nuclear environmental movement, including The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, 350.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Environmentalists have backed Clinton because of green energy and climate policies.
The nuclear industry, on the other hand, was happy about Clinton’s embrace of nuclear power.
“We absolutely appreciate that from the Hillary camp,” Baker Elmore, director of federal programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “When she was Senator, she had a very controversial plant at Indian Point in her state of New York. She was never really overly critical of it which was a big plus. We really appreciate the new statement.”
Clinton previously opposed nuclear power in her Senate campaigns, but supported it once she actually got into office. She changed positions on nuclear energy eight times, according to an analysis of her public statements and policy positions by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Clinton’s campaign did not return requests for comment to TheDCNF in time for publication.
e flip-flops began when Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination in 2008, however, she started off from a pro-nuclear power position, saying, “I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution,” in February 2007. “We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country,” Clinton continued. “Other countries like France get much much more, so we have to look at it because it doesn’t put greenhouse gas emissions into the air.”
Clinton transitioned from this initial pro-nuclear stance during the early race to a neutral stance later on, as her primary race with then-candidate Sen. Barack Obama tightened.
“I’m agnostic about nuclear power,” Clinton said in July 2007 during a YouTube Democratic primary debate. “Until we figure out what we’re going to do with the waste and the cost, it’s very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that’s where American technology comes in. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do about the waste and cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.”
As her 2008 race with Obama got closer, Hillary migrated to an even more vehemently anti-nuclear position, explicitly excluding the industry from her platform.”I don’t include nuclear power in my energy policy, which I think is an appropriate approach given the problems we have with it,” Clinton told SentinelSource.com during an interview in late 2007.
After Clinton lost the Iowa caucus, she said that, “I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power,” in a January 2008 debate in Las Vegas.
When she lost the race for the Democratic nomination in 2008, Clinton’s views regarding nuclear power shifted radically. She began representing American nuclear companies to other countries as Obama’s secretary of state. Clinton used her position to support American nuclear companies in bids to construct and operate reactors in other countries, and helped American nuclear companies get contracts in countries like Japan, the Czech Republic and India.
“I think that nuclear power will remain a component of the energy supply globally, currently the United States, last time I looked, got 20 percent of our energy from nuclear plants,” Clinton said in October of 2012.
When Clinton again ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016, she rarely directly discussed nuclear energy, though one of her campaign fact sheet claims she favors “advanced nuclear,” which requires, “expand[ing] successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results.”
By the time Clinton pulled ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in March, her policy director told a local Idaho news source that, “nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future.”
After locking down the Democratic nomination, Clinton shifted back to opposing nuclear power.
Clinton’s platform for 2016 calls for having the nation run “entirely on clean energy by midcentury,” with a goal of “getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” The platform never defines clean energy, but other sections clearly indicate that it excludes nuclear, even though a single nuclear reactor can prevent 3.1 million tons of carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions annually. The phrases “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power” never appear in Clinton’s platform.
Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/24/hillary-just-flip-flopped-on-nuclear-power-for-the-9th-time/#ixzz4LIxitxDa
Hillary Clinton did not cut Russia’s nuclear arms, as claimed in ads
CNN fact-check: No, Hillary Clinton did not cut Russia’s nuclear arms http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/24/cnn-fact-checks-claim-hillary-clinton-cut-russias-nuclear-arms/ BY JOHN SEXTON Yesterday, Jake Tapper fact-checked a claim about Russian nuclear arms made in two different Hillary Clinton campaign ads this year. One of the ads, which was aired thousands of times in Colorado and Virginia back in April, claims Hillary secured “a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.” FactCheck.org looked at that claim at the time and concluded, “the record doesn’t show that Clinton was responsible for ‘securing a massive reduction in nuclear weapons.’”
A new Clinton ad, which is airing in seven states this month, echoed the previous claim saying Hillary “got the treaty cutting Russia’s nuclear arms.”
But as Jake Tapper points out nearly all of this is false. It’s true that there is a treaty called New START which sets limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons Russia can deploy. However that treaty doesn’t say anything about short range nukes or the number of total nuclear weapons Russia can have. It doesn’t require a single nuclear weapon be destroyed.
Even more striking, Tapper notes that Russia was already under the agreed limit when the treaty was signed in 2011. Russia has since increased the number of strategic nuclear arms by nearly 200, from 1,537 to 1,735. “Not only did it not cut the number of nuclear weapons,” Tapper says, “there’s actually been an increase.” Here’s a chart [on original] created by FactCheck.org back in April showing the number of strategic nuclear arms held by the U.S. and Russia. Note that the number of warheads held by Russia is up:
Tapper and FactCheck.org both grant that the treaty has value but the claims Clinton is making about the treaty reducing the number of Russian arms is false. Here’s the full fact-check: (youtube)
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: policies on climate change
Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand on climate change, Business Insider, REBECCA HARRINGTON SEP 26, 2016 “……..The candidates’ positions on environmental issues are very different.
While Hillary Clinton lists “Protecting animals and wildlife” and “Climate change” as two major topics on her campaign website, Trump doesn’t include anything about the environment.
We’ve rounded up their statements publicly and on their websites to find out how the two stack up on environmental issues.
On her campaign site, Clinton calls climate change an “urgent threat” to “our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures.” She wants to uphold the Paris Agreement that sets targets to reverse the worst effects of global warming, which nearly 200 countries agreed to last December.
“When it comes to climate change, the science is crystal clear,” Clinton said on ScienceDebate. “That’s why as President, I will work both domestically and internationally to ensure that we build on recent progress and continue to slash greenhouse gas pollution over the coming years as the science clearly tells us we must.”
Clinton has proposed investing in clean energy and more efficient vehicles, cutting energy waste by implementing more robust efficiency and pollution standards, and cutting subsidies on oil and gas as ways of dealing with climate change.
Trump doesn’t accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and wants to dismantle the Paris Agreement.
In response to a question about his views on climate change on ScienceDebate, Trump implied that the US shouldn’t waste “financial resources” on climate change and should instead use them to ensure the world has clean water, eliminate diseases like malaria, increase food production, or develop alternative energy sources.
“There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change,’” he said. “We must decide on how best to proceed so that we can make lives better, safer and more prosperous.”……..http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-trump-environment-policies-plans-climate-change-platforms-2016-9?platform=hootsuite?r=US&IR=T
Oh Hillary, did you have to sell out to the nuclear lobby?
Hillary Takes the Nuclear-Energy Option, National Review, by ROBERT BRYCE September 22, 2016 She recognizes that public perceptions about nuclear power are becoming more positive. Amid the avalanche of criticism aimed at Hillary Clinton in recent weeks about Pneumonia-gate, the Clinton Foundation, and her never-ending e-mail troubles, the Democratic nominee actually made an important policy statement, one that puts her directly at odds with America’s biggest environmental groups as well as her own party’s platform. What did Clinton do?
USA House committee voted to remove a 2020 deadline for a nuclear power plant tax credit
House committee votes to lift 2020 deadline on nuclear power tax credit http://www.utilitydive.com/news/house-committee-votes-to-lift-2020-deadline-on-nuclear-power-tax-credit/426850/ By Peter Maloney | September 23, 2016
Dive Brief:
- The House Ways and Means Committee has voted 23-9 on a bill to remove a 2020 deadline for a nuclear power plant tax credit, The Hill reports.
- The credit, enacted in 2005, will likely benefit the Vogtle nuclear reactors being built by Southern Co. in Georgia and the Summer reactors being built by SCANA in South Carolina.
- The bill would not change the 6,000-MW cap on the tax credit. Nuclear opponents called the bill a bailout for plant owners who have failed to deliver new reactor projects on time.
Dive Insight:
Nuclear plants are expensive to build — so expensive that until recently a nuclear plant had not entered construction for nearly 30 years. Notably the nuclear plants now under construction are all being done by regulated utilities, and they benefit from federal loans and tax credits.
That federal support is a key component for the financing of the projects, even if they are otherwise supported, ultimately, by ratepayers.
Both the Vogtle and Summer projects have been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The Vogtle units were originally due online in 2016 and 2017 and are now looking at a 2020 online date. The Summer reactors were originally due online in 2017 and are now slated for operation in 2019 and 2020.
If the revised timelines slip and the 2020 deadline on the tax credits remains, it could prove costly for the plant owners. The bill lifting the tax credit deadline would remove that risk.
“When Congress passed the 2005 act, it could not have contemplated the effort it would take to get a nuclear plant designed and licensed,” Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) told The Hill.
China wants its nuclear industry to grow dauntingly fast
The Economist Sep 24th 2016 | LIANYUNGANG UPON learning (via a terse government statement) that their bustling port city in eastern China had been tipped as the likely site of a plant to recycle used nuclear fuel, residents of Lianyungang took to the streets last month in their thousands. Police, whose warnings against demonstrations were ignored, deployed with riot gear in large numbers but only scuffled with the protesters, who rallied, chanted and waved banners in the city centre for several days. “No one consulted us about this,” says one woman who participated in the protests. “We love our city. We have very little pollution and we don’t want a nuclear-fuel plant anywhere near us. The government says it is totally safe, but how can they be sure? How can we believe them?” she asks.Such scepticism is shared by many in Lianyungang, which already hosts a nuclear-power plant , and elsewhere in China, where the government plans to expand nuclear power massively. ……
UK Liberal Democrats oppose Hinkley nuclear plan – ‘very poor value for money’
Lib Dems vote to oppose Hinkley nuclear plant in emergency conference motion, Left Foot Forward,
Adam Barnett 19 September, 2016 Project is ‘very poor value for money’ and we should use renewable energy instead, say members Liberal Democrats voted to oppose a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C today in an emergency policy motion at party conference.
The party agreed this morning that the new £18 billion plant in Somerset was ‘very poor value for money’ for consumers and proposed renewable energy instead.
The motion also noted that similar nuclear plants in France and Finland are both ‘years behind schedule and significantly over budget’.
It concludes:
‘Conference believes that construction of a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point is both entirely dependent on public subsidy and represents very poor value for money for UK consumers, and that therefore it should be opposed.
Conference calls for a UK energy strategy resting on investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, storage and interconnection with European grids, thereby providing energy security, an end to fuel poverty and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as creating jobs, exports and prosperity.’……..https://leftfootforward.org/2016/09/lib-dems-vote-to-oppose-hinkley-nuclear-plant-in-emergency-conference-motion/
Further nuclear power development in China will need local public consent
China nuclear developers must seek public consent: draft rules, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-nuclear-safety-idUSKCN11Q18K (Reporting by David Stanway; editing by Jason Neely), 20 Sept 16 China’s nuclear developers must seek the consent of local stakeholders before going ahead with new projects, according to draft rules published by the country’s cabinet on Monday.
Developers will need to assess the impact a nuclear project will have on social stability and solicit public opinion through hearings or announcements, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council said.
China is in the middle of a rapid nuclear reactor building program and aims to have 58 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in full commercial operation by the end of 2020, up from 30.7 GW at the end of July.
But despite a strong safety record at existing plants, the government has struggled to convince the public about the safety of nuclear power.
Protests in the eastern coastal city of Lianyungang last month led to the cancellation of a proposed $15 billion nuclear waste processing plant.
“Japan’s Fukushima accident once again created doubt about the safety of nuclear power among the public, and also caused feelings of fear and opposition to occur from time to time,” the Legislative Affairs Office said in a statement.
It said the new draft rules would improve information disclosure and allow the public to participate more actively in the construction and supervision of nuclear projects.
The Legislative Affairs Office has made the draft guidelines available to the public and will accept suggestions until Oct. 19, it said in a notice posted on its website (www.chinalaw.gov.cn).
A team of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency said this month that China’s “unparalleled” nuclear expansion would pose challenges for its regulators, and more work needed to be done in areas such as waste management and the handling of ageing reactors.
South Africa’s Energy Minister is asked to release all nuclear-bid information
Minister will have to release all nuclear-bid information’, IOL News, 21 September 2016, Craig Dodds Cape Town – The chairman of Parliament’s energy oversight committee is to write to Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson to request all documents related to nuclear procurement by October 11, after she refused to release them on the basis that they were “sensitive”.
This comes after a legal opinion sought by another parliamentary committee confirmed that it had the right in terms of the National Assembly rules to “summon any person to produce any document it requires in carrying out its functions”………
In a written reply to a request from Mackay earlier this month, Joemat-Pettersson refused to provide a number of key documents related to nuclear procurement.
Majola said the National Assembly rules provided a mechanism for the committee to deal with confidential documents, which gave the chairperson of the committee, and not the minister, the authority to determine what should be kept from public view, and how.
“We will have to ask for the documents. We will go through legal advice to see which of the documents can be dealt with by the committee differently, not which of the documents will not be seen by the committee,” Majola said.
He committed to write to Joemat-Pettersson immediately, requesting that the department furnish the committee with all the documents.http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/minister-will-have-to-release-all-nuclear-bid-information-2070774
Wisconsin nuclear plant: licensee wants license to be terminated
Decommissioning Debate Continues At Former Nuclear Power Plant Near La Crosse
New License-Holder Wants Some Land Released From License Requirements Wisconsin Public Radio, September 20, 2016, By Chuck Quirmbach. The next step in decommissioning the former nuclear power plant in Genoa, Wisconsin, will be the subject of a public meeting Tuesday night.
The session will focus on the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, which was shut down in 1987.
La Crosse Solutions, the decommissioning firm that took over the license from Dairyland Power Cooperative this year, is seeking federal approval of its plan to officially close the books on the nuclear facility. Known as a license termination plan, it includes radiological information, decommissioning steps that need to be taken and plans for future radiation surveys of the site……..http://www.wpr.org/decommissioning-debate-continues-former-nuclear-power-plant-near-la-crosse
Donald Trump, geopolitics, Brexit, and climate catastrophe
Why a Donald Trump Victory Could Make Climate Catastrophe Inevitable, Michael Klare on the forces moving us toward an uninhabitable planet. Mother Jones, MICHAEL KLARE, SEP. 17, 2016 “……., the fate of the planet rests on the questionable willingness of each of those countries to abide by that obligation, however sour or bellicose its relations with other signatories may be. As it happens, that part of the agreement has already been buffeted by geopolitical headwinds and is likely to face increasing turbulence in the years to come.
That geopolitics will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of the Paris Agreement has become self-evident in the short time since its promulgation. While some progress has been made toward its formal adoption—the agreement will enter into force only after no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified it—it has also encountered unexpected political hurdles, signaling trouble to come…….
Great Britain’s astonishing Brexit vote has complicated the task of ensuring the European Union’s approval of the agreement, as European solidarity on the climate issue—a major factor in the success of the Paris negotiations—can no longer be assured. “There is a risk that this could kick EU ratification of the Paris Agreement into the long grass,” suggests Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The Brexit campaign itself was spearheaded by politicians who were also major critics of climate science and strong opponents of efforts to promote a transition from carbon-based fuels to green sources of energy. For example, the chair of the Vote Leave campaign, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, is also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank devoted to sabotaging government efforts to speed the transition to green energy. Many other top Leave campaigners, including former Conservative ministers John Redwood and Owen Paterson, were also vigorous climate deniers.
In explaining the strong link between these two camps, analysts at the Economistnoted that both oppose British submission to international laws and norms: “Brexiteers dislike EU regulations and know that any effective action to tackle climate change will require some kind of global cooperation: carbon taxes or binding targets on emissions. The latter would be the EU writ large and Britain would have even less say in any global agreement, involving some 200 nations, than in an EU regime involving 28.”……..
In his first major speech on energy, delivered in May, Trump—who has called global warming a Chinese hoax—pledged to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” and scrap the various measures announced by President Obama to ensure US compliance with its provisions. Echoing the views of his Brexit counterparts, hecomplained that “this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.” He also vowed to revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast), to reverse any climate-friendly Obama administration acts, and to promote the coal industry. “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones—how stupid is that?” he said, mockingly……..
nationalistic exceptionalism could become something of the norm if Donald Trump wins in November, or other nations join those already eager to put the needs of a fossil-fuel-based domestic growth agenda ahead of global climate commitments. With that in mind, consider the assessment of future energy trends that the Norwegian energy giant Statoil recently produced. In it is a chilling scenario focused on just this sort of dystopian future………
Indeed, the future pace of climate change will be determined as much by geopolitical factors as technological developments in the energy sector. While it is evident that immense progress is being made in bringing down the price of wind and solar power in particular—far more so than all but a few analysts anticipated until recently—the political will to turn such developments into meaningful global change and so bring carbon emissions to heel before the planet is unalterably transformed may, as the Statoil authors suggest, be dematerializing before our eyes. If so, make no mistake about it: We will be condemning Earth’s future inhabitants, our own children and grandchildren, to unmitigated disaster…….
To avoid an Eaarth (as both Bill McKibben and the Statoil authors imagine it) and preserve the welcoming planet in which humanity grew and thrived, climate activists will have to devote at least as much of their energy and attention to the international political arena as to the technology sector. At this point, electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil-fueled ultranationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/donald-trump-brexit-paris-accord-climate-change
Nuclear weapons cuts for USA? Obama tries, but has limited options
Obama to decide on cuts to US nuclear arsenal in October Limited politically feasible options on table for president to cement a disarmer legacy, most far-reaching of which is a one-third cut to deployed strategic arsenal, Guardian, Julian Borger, 17 Sep 16, Barack Obama is expected to make a final decision next month on possible cuts to the US nuclear arsenal, in an attempt to consolidate his legacy as a disarmer before leaving office.
Options on the table include reducing the number of deployed strategic warheads, slimming down the reserve stockpile, cutting military stores of fissile material available for making new warheads, and putting off some modernisation plans, including the a controversial air force programme for developing an air-launched cruise missile.
The president is due to consult his principal national security officials in October on which, if any, of the options are still feasible in the time left before he leaves office.
Some more radical options, like changing the US nuclear posture to rule out first use of nuclear arms in a conflict and taking some of the nation’s intercontinental ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, have faced such strong opposition from allies abroad and the Pentagon that they are no longer being seriously considered………https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/17/obama-nuclear-arsenal-disarmament-russia-congress
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (138)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 