EDF desperate for business? trying to quickly sell 6 nuclear reactors to India
EDF to propose deal for six nuclear reactors in India by year-end By Reuters | 12 May, 2016 PARIS: EDF will deliver a proposal to theIndian government by year’s end to build six nuclear reactors, an executive at the French utility said on Thursday, in what could be the world’s biggest nuclear deal.
“Hinkley Point will help us continue our activities and preserve our skills base and jobs,” he said. ……..
Chief Executive Jean-Bernard Levy told shareholders that EDF needs growth in international markets because European power markets are stagnant. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52240726.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
China General Nuclear Power Corporation denies plan to take over Hinkley nuclear project build
China nuclear company will not build Hinkley alone if EDF drops out CGN, which is helping French energy company with Hinkley Point C scheme, denies it will build reactors independently, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 13 May 16, The Chinese company helping EDF with plans to build new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset has flatly dismissed the idea it would go it alone if the largely state-owned French company dropped out.
“As a partner to EDF supporting the Hinkley Point project, CGN [China General Nuclear Power Corporation] has no independent plans to build reactors at Hinkley Point C,” it said in a statement.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change reiterated the message with its own statement, which said: “There is no proposal for the Chinese to build a reactor at Hinkley.”
The denials come after George Osborne’s father-in-law, Lord Howell, told the House of Lords that the Chinese were working on a “plan B” to step in if, as some expect, EDF abandons the controversial scheme…….https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/13/hinkley-point-cgn-china-general-nuclear-power-corporation-edf-energy
Chinese govt – secret plans to take over the UK’s Hinkley nuclear project?
Secret Chinese plans to take over nuclear power station Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor | Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor May 13 2016, The Times, China is drawing up secret plans to build two nuclear reactors on the site of Hinkley Point in Somerset if the existing £21 billion deal collapses.
The Chinese government has a “plan B” to bypass EDF, the French energy giant responsible for the project. China believes that it can build its own reactors on a faster timetable than the project run by EDF, in which they have made an investment, according to Lord Howell of Guildford, the former energy secretary and father-in-law of George Osborne.
His statement will raise the pressure on the beleaguered Hinkley C project, which intends to…. (subscribers only) http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/secret-china-plans-to-take-over-nuclear-power-station-z7qjn0cqk
£21bn the likely cost of ever more expensive Hinkley Point nuclear power station
Hinkley Point nuclear power station costs could rise to £21bn, EDF says, Belfast Telegraph, 12 May 16 Energy giant EDF has said the cost
of building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station could jump to almost £21 billion, about £3 billion more than it said last year.
In a statement ahead of its annual meeting, the French group estimated the cost of building the twin reactor plant at the Somerset site would be £20.7 billion. EDF said it would provide up to £13.8 billion, while Chinese utility CGN will bring £6.9 billion of financing to the project. It said these latest set of figures provided “a contingency margin”.
However, in October EDF said the project would cost £18 billion, with it providing £12 billion and £6 billion from CGN.
EDF said that the building plan for Hinkley would take around 115 months (nine-and-a-half years) “after the final investment decision until commissioning of the first reactor”.
The French firm had said in October that it expected a final investment decision within weeks and first power in 2025, but that decision has now been delayed until September as the company bids to arrange financing.
This now suggests that if the project completes its financing in September, the plant would not be able to pump out power until the first half of 2026.
This is three years behind EDF’s estimate in 2013, that the plant would be operationalin 2023……..http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-station-costs-could-rise-to-21bn-edf-says-34709042.html
Citizens’ Juries (IF FAIR AND TRANSPARENT) could help solve South Australia’s nuclear waste dilemma
The role of Citizens’ Juries in decision-making on nuclear waste importation, Online opinion, By Noel Wauchope 13 May 2016 On May 10th South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill announced the process by which the state will decide whether or not to host a global nuclear waste import industry, as recommended by the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission.
The first step will be to set up a “Citizens’ Jury” of 50 participants randomly selected from 25,000 invitees statewide, to be followed later by another one of 350 participants.
I think that Weatherill might have mistaken his terms here, as a Citizens’ Jury, by definition, means a group of 10 to 12 participants. The Weatherill plan sounds more like a “Deliberative Poll”, which involves a much larger group.
A properly constituted Citizens’ Jury can be a valuable process in participatory democracy. The group of 10 or 12 people serves as microcosm of the public. …… The process depends on having the oversight of a neutral but well informed advisory panel. Questions need to be framed in a way that does not risk influencing the response. Transparency is important, and complete audio or video recordings of all jury hearings should be publicly available, although the actual jury room deliberations should be private.
The citizen jury process can be an empowering one for the participants, and, as long as it is perceived to be fair and transparent, can be a valuable democratic option for assessing public opinion. It also has the advantage of being cost-effective.
The “Deliberative Poll” method is potentially another very useful form of participatory democracy. It is a lot more expensive, and more complicated. The biggest disadvantage of the Deliberative Poll method is probably its cost. Wikipedia notes:
“Imagine how much money is needed to pay for the trips, the hotel and the food for each participant, hiring the research crew and moderators, booking a venue, etc. Additional costs can include paying for participants’ compensation so that people that are randomly selected can put aside their duties to attend the events (i.e. hiring someone to milk a participant’s cow and providing child care”
Some critics insist that funding for either of these processes should not come from on single body.
“Multiple sources of funding help to ensure that the jury’s organisers are not seen as having a financial interest in producing a verdict that supports the interests of a single funding body. To maximise the scrutiny they provide, the two or more funders should have somewhat opposing interests regarding the subject likely to be under discussion.”……
In Japan, in 2012, a Deliberative Poll formed the guide to government decision-making. The Japanese government used the Center for Deliberative Democracy’s Deliberative Polling method to both inform participants and allow them to influence policymakers about the public’s will with regard to energy production issues. As a direct result of the deliberative polling process, Japan’s national government pledged to have zero percent dependency on nuclear energy after 2030. (This decision was overturned by a later government).
The South Australian government’s decision to start with a participatory democracy process is a welcome one, provided that it is done fairly and properly. Neither a Citizens Jury nor a Deliberative Poll can be a substitute for a fully democratic process like a referendum, but either could be a valuable contributor to a wider process of decision making. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18230
Nuclear corporation EDF’s Annual General Meeting faces more financial gloom
Nuclear giant EDF Energy reports sales fall as AGM looms, BBC News, 11 May 16 French energy giant EDF says sales fell 7% in the first three months of the year in the face of stiff competition, a mild winter and lower energy prices.
The figures come ahead of Wednesday’s AGM where investors will quiz management over their plans for the Hinkley Point nuclear plant in the UK.
EDF, 85% controlled by the French state, has struggled to find the cash for its 66.5% stake in the project.
In April it pushed a final decision on the £18bn plant back to September.
Chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigned in April following an internal disagreement over whether to press on with the controversial project.
However, EDF has outlined plans to raise €4bn, with up to €3bn provided by the French government.
Tough markets
Credit rating agencies are due to assess the group in the coming days and their verdict on its finances will determine how easy it will be for the group to raise cash.
Meanwhile, tough market conditions mean EDF is cutting costs and planning to sell €10bn in assets by 2020, including a stake in French power-grid operator RTE……http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36262029
South Africa Dept of Energy to press on woth nuclear power despite huge costs
Department of energy presses ahead with nuclear, Business Day Live, BY BEKEZELA PHAKATHI, 10 MAY 2016 THE Department of Energy said on Monday it was still confident of conducting a successful nuclear-procurement process.
SA is aiming to install 9,600MW of nuclear power within the next 15 years to tackle the electricity shortages. However, the cost of the project, estimated at about $100bn, continues to be a major budgetary headache for government.
Earlier this year, the Treasury put brakes on nuclear spend, putting more emphasis on gas and smaller coal-fired power stations to attend to the electricity crisis. It said in its budget review that the nuclear energy newbuild programme would proceed after a “thorough and transparent tender process”.
There have been reports that the Treasury’s reluctance to sanction the procurement of the new nuclear power stations was one of the major reasons behind the sacking of Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister in December.
The National Nuclear Regulator expects to finalise a decision by 2018 on Eskom’s two new site licence applications. ……http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2016/05/10/department-of-energy-presses-ahead-with-nuclear
Government -run Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to sell Alabama Nuclear Complex at a big loss
Feds To Sell Alabama Nuclear Complex,Losing 99% Of Investment, The Daily Caller , 6 May 16 ANDREW FOLLETT Energy and Environmental Reporter
The government-run Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted Thursday to sell off the Bellefonte nuclear power plant in Alabama for about $36.4 million — after the agency invested $6 billion in the project that produced no electricity.
“Our analysis of the property and its potential uses, and input from public officials, customers and Valley residents, indicate that offering the property for sale could better serve the public,” Bill Johnson, the TVA’s president, told the Times Free Press…….
For the last 40 years, the TVA has tried to build two new nuclear reactors at Bellefonte, even completing the majority of the work on both of them. The agency invested $6 billion in the site before construction was shut down. The new property appraisal estimates the site and its facilities will sell for a mere $36.4 million.
Other nuclear reactors around America have suffered similar fates. Vermont and Wisconsin both lost nuclear plants due to competition from cheap natural gas and the San Onofre reactor in California was shut down due to safety concerns, as was the Crystal River reactor in Florida. The world’s largest nuclear plant operator, Électricité de France, withdrew from a joint venture in 2013 due to falling power prices after it had invested billions. If the venture had gone through, it would have created three new American nuclear plants………http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/06/feds-to-sell-alabama-nuclear-complex-losing-99-of-investment/
Sanders and Clinton split on future of Indian Point nuclear station
New York nuclear plant’s future further divides Sanders and Clinton Sanders says Indian Point facility is ‘a catastrophe waiting to happen’, but former New York senator says he’s late to the issue and site simply needs more oversight, Guardian, Alan Yuhas 8 Apr 16, The Indian Point Energy Center, a controversial and ageing nuclear plant near New York City, has split the Democratic presidential candidates .
As campaigning continued before the New York primary on 19 April, Bernie Sanders called the facility “a catastrophe waiting to happen”. Hillary Clinton said only that it needed more oversight.
A senior member of the Union of Concerned Scientists told the Guardian “the whole New York metropolitan area is potentially imperiled by an accident at Indian Point”.
Last week, the company that runs Indian Point revealed that 227 bolts holding the interior of a nuclear reactor at the site have “degraded” or gone missing. In February, the plant reported that a radioactive material, tritium, had leaked into groundwater.
The plant, about 40 miles north of midtown Manhattan on the eastern bank of the Hudson river, has a 40-year history of accidents, fires and complaints. Governor Andrew Cuomo ordered an investigation into February’s “unacceptable” leak. He has called for the plant to close.
“In my view, we cannot sit idly by and hope that the unthinkable will never happen,” Sanders said in a statement. “It makes no sense to me to continue to operate a decaying nuclear reactor within 25 miles of New York City where nearly 10 million people live.”
The Vermont senator elaborated on his stance, calling for the US to phase out nuclear plants along with more polluting resources such as fossil fuels.
“Nuclear power is and always has been a dangerous idea because there is no good way to store nuclear waste,” he said…….
The disagreement between Sanders and Clinton mirrors their stances on fracking for natural gas. The senator has called for a ban, citinggrowing evidence that drilling causes earthquakes. The former secretary of state has called for intense regulation of the industry.
“I want the federal government to regulate much more toughly than we have in the past,” she said on Monday.
In 2014 Cuomo signed a law that banned fracking in New York. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-indian-point-nuclear-plant
In USA’s Presidential campaign – Republican climate denialism is at fever pitch
Dahr Jamail | As Climate Disruption Advances, UN Warns: “The Future Is Happening Now” TruthOut, , 02 May 2016 By Dahr Jamail, Truthout “……… Report Denial and Reality
The ongoing Republican presidential campaigning means that anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) denial is reaching a fever pitch.
Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and front-runner Donald Trump both vowed to undo several Obama administration policy efforts aimed at mitigating ACD impacts.
Meanwhile, former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claimed that ACD was “bogus” and a myth that scientists and policy makers “are peddling” in order to advance political agendas.
Also on the denial front, the group Media Matters cataloged the questions asked during both the Republican and Democratic presidential debates, and found that of the 1,477 questions asked by the various networks to the candidates, only 22 of them (approximately 1.5 percent) were about ACD. Of all the networks that hosted debates, the one that asked the most ACD-related questions was the Spanish-language network (Univision, which is US-based).
Back to reality, recent polling shows that the vast majority of Americans now believe that ACD is real and ongoing, and that the US government needs to do something about it.
Meanwhile, scientists in a global coalition known as Climate Feedback have begun working together with the aim of sorting fact from fiction in US media ACD coverage.
According to Michael Levitin, the group’s communications coordinator, the new group will use a web platform to verify facts and annotate online articles and include their comments on top of the original story. They will then use a rating system so readers are able to judge the stories’ scientific credibility.
“Recognized by NASA, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and California Gov. Jerry Brown, among others, Climate Feedback is already improving journalistic standards by flagging misreported climate science in mainstream outlets,” Levitin said…….http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35860-as-climate-disruption-advances-un-warns-the-future-is-happening-now
Hinkley nuclear project for UK and France political reasons: let’s stop pretending otherwise
The real point of this story is that nuclear power is not commercially viable but has become a state-sponsored technology. There is nothing wrong with state supported technology. But we could save a lot of time and money by not pretending that it is something else.
Lets Stop Pretending Nuclear Power Is Commercially Viable http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Lets-Stop-Pretending-Nuclear-Power-Is-Commercially-Viable.html By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles
Sat, 30 April 2016, First its new president, Jean-Bernard Levy, said French state utility EDF would delay a decision on its joint French-Chinese nuclear project in the UK, Hinkley Point. That was over a year ago. Then the CFO of EDF, Thomas Piquemal, quit reportedly because he opposed the project on fi-nancial grounds. That was a short time ago. Then after a leaked memos, the French gov-ernment just announced that EDF would be raising more money and the Hinkley decision would now come in September.
Now for the finances. These British nuclear units will cost roughly £18 billion ($27 billion). EDF has already sold a 35 percent share to the Chinese state nuclear company. However EDF still has to find more outside investors and get its ownership of the plant below 50 percent or it will have to consolidate Hinkley Point on its books and show all of the project’s debt on its own balance sheet.
If we were gamblers we would not wager that EDF will take the obvious first step towards restor-ing its financial health and cancels the Hinkley project. Of course, if David Cameron loses the Brexit vote (a referendum to take the UK out of the European Union) and is ejected from Number Ten Downing Street, a new Prime Minister might take a more skeptical view of Hinkley Point.
The real point of this story is that nuclear power is not commercially viable but has become a state-sponsored technology. There is nothing wrong with state supported technology. But we could save a lot of time and money by not pretending that it is something else.
Australia’s nuclear submarine boondoggle – a crippling waste of tax-payers’ money
4. BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE So we spend $2,000 each. That just gets us the big lumps of steel. If you actually want to use them, you’re paying more. It could be another $2,000 to $4,000 per Australian….
OPTIONS The great thing about the way the acquisition will work is there should be the opportunity to cut back from 12 when the inevitable delays and cost blowouts happen. From here we can’t save the whole $2000 but maybe we can save some, for better uses.
Sub standard: why the $2,000 we are each spending on submarines will probably be a terrible waste http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/sub-standard-why-the-2000-we-are-each-spending-on-submarines-will-probably-be-a-terrible-waste/news-story/6922de6f6a72657c669fdc1a1248916f APRIL 30, 2016, Jason Murphy news.com.au@jasemurphy AUSTRALIA is spending $50 billion to buy submarines. The biggest whack of money we’ve ever spent on a Defence project. It comes out at $2000 per person. And it’s probably a shocking idea.
1. STRATEGY The strategic rationale for submarines is that an island needs trade lanes to stay open. Yep, we do. But the kind of war where a country lays siege to another whole country — think German U-Boats blockading Britain — is no longer likely at all.
Our non-nuclear submarines would have been handy in the past. And the generals are always “fighting the last war” strategically. Which is fine. But it would be better if we didn’t have to give them $2000 to do so.
2. AVAILABILITY We are buying 12 boats. Except — here’s the thing — you can’t use them all at once. Subs need a lot of maintenance. Take the Collins Class submarines, of which we have six. Best-case scenario — if things are going splendidly — is they spend half the time in the water, half in maintenance. But those subs have big problems. Some recent years we’ve managed to have basically just one in the water on average.
3. COST BLOWOUTS The Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program, which we bought into, is now many billions of dollars over Budget. Possibly hundreds of billions (reports vary). And it is hardly alone.
We consistently underestimate how complex defence equipment is because we, naturally, compare it to a vehicle. But not only is our new submarine custom-made (unlike my station wagon) it is also cutting edge technology.
It has to do many things perfectly. A submarine is a fortress, an IT hub, a weapons system, a vehicle and a temporary home all in one. Making all the things fit in together is hard. (Recently Spanish submarine builders had to send their sub back to the drawing board after they accidentally made it 75 tons too heavy and it was going to sink.)
When you face the inevitable problems you can either compromise or just spend that bit more to make it work. And if you cut corners on Defence equipment, you risk losing personnel and very expensive equipment… So of course you spend a bit more. And that’s how such laughably enormous cost blowouts happen.
4. BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE So we spend $2,000 each. That just gets us the big lumps of steel. If you actually want to use them, you’re paying more. It could be another $2,000 to $4,000 per Australian over the next 45 years. All that maintenance is expensive. And so are the crews.
The Navy has had enormous problems actually finding and training crew for submarines. A cook on a submarine can be paid an amazing $200,000 per year. Other personnel get more. Living in a big steel tube for 80 days with only other men for company is rubbish, apparently.
5. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Australia is the 52nd biggest country in the world by population, 13th by size of economy, and sixth by land area. We spend 13th most on defence. And we are ramping up by $26 billion per year over the next 10 years.
It is a lot, given we have no land borders, the natural advantage of being surrounded by a giant moat, and are strategically not on the way to anywhere much (sorry NZ).
The main reason anyone would attack us is in the context of a global or regional conflict is we have a large military they might fear.
Our spending has an effect on our neighbours. Indonesia is not a rich country, but they have indicated they are also thinking about expanding their submarine fleet. Would limiting our spending help forestall a local arms race?
OPTIONS The great thing about the way the acquisition will work is there should be the opportunity to cut back from 12 when the inevitable delays and cost blowouts happen. From here we can’t save the whole $2000 but maybe we can save some, for better uses.
USA Republicans – half of them accept the science of climate change
Half of U.S. Conservatives Say Climate Change Is Real, Bloomberg, Trump and Cruz reject global warming, while more Republicans see it as a threat.Eric Roston eroston
The new survey results, “Politics & Global Warming 2016,” suggest a growing gap between what most registered Republican voters understand to be true and what the party leadership says it believes, particularly on the presidential campaign trail this year.
Liberal-to-moderate Republicans say climate change is real in much higher numbers than the party’s right wing does. More than 70 percent of GOP moderates say they know the world is warming, up 10 percentage points from two years ago. But only half of these Republicans, and just 26 percent of conservative Republicans, identify the problem as caused mostly by human activities (PDF)…….
The survey confirms that while only liberal Democrats put climate change near the top of their agenda, it remains a litmus test for credibility among many registered voters. Respondents were more likely to pick a candidate who strongly supports fighting climate change, 43 percent to 14 percent. They also reported feeling less likely to vote for an opponent to climate policy.
The issue is generational as well as partisan, according to Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll. Younger Americans are much likelier to understand climate change—but that doesn’t mean they’ll vote…..
Climate change is also the most divisive of the 23 issues—a fact the researchers will look at in more detail next week, when it reports on what each presidential candidates’ supporters think about the issue. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/half-of-u-s-conservatives-say-climate-change-is-real
Vattenhall nuclear corporation in financial trouble, opposes nuclear risk premium, seeks to abolish Swedish tax
Vattenfall CEO says Germany’s proposed nuclear risk premium ‘too high’ Stockholm (Platts)–28 Apr 2016
* Plan ‘disproportionate’ to utilities’ economic strength
* Nuclear, hydro taxes in Sweden should be abolished
The CEO of Swedish utility Vattenfall, which has large stakes in Germany’s Brunsbuttel and Krummel nuclear plants, said the additional amount German nuclear power producers would have to pay for decommissioning and spent fuel storage under a proposed plan is “disproportionate to the economic strength of the utilities.”
The German Commission on the Review of the Financing of the Nuclear Phaseout, or KFK, recommended to the German government that nuclear utilities pay a so-called risk premium of Eur23.3 billion ($26.4 billion) into a fund for decommissioning reactors and final storage of spent fuel, which would be administered by the state.
That payment would be on top of the almost Eur40 billion in provisions that utilities have set aside to finance decommissioning and storage.
……NUCLEAR TAX Turning to its Swedish nuclear operations, Hall again called on the government to abolish the capacity tax on nuclear power. The tax is based on the amount of electricity reactors can generate, not on actual generation.
Hall and other Swedish nuclear utility executives have said that the tax, coupled with low electricity prices, is making nuclear power unprofitable. As a result, Vattenfall plans to shut two reactors ahead of the end of their technical lifetimes………http://www.platts.com/latest-news/electric-power/stockholm/vattenfall-ceo-says-germanys-proposed-nuclear-26430524
So-called “charity” nuclear front group lobbies UK govt to fund Small Nuclear Reactors
UK think tank urges nuclear innovation, World Nuclear News, 28 April 2016 A think tank [Alvin Weinberg Foundation] has urged the British government to spend money earmarked for nuclear R&D on ensuring that at least three advanced reactors including at least one small modular reactor (SMR) and a Generation IV design have completed regulatory assessment by the early 2020s.
Weinberg Next Nuclear’s report, Next Steps for Nuclear Innovation in the UK….. The latest study follows a report by the same foundation, The Need for Nuclear Innovation, published in November 2015. Later that month, the UK government announced plans to invest £250 million ($377 million) over five years in a nuclear R&D program to include a competition to identify the best value SMR for the country. The initial phase of the competition was launched in March, with a call for initial expressions of interest.
The first phase of the competition, which will also lead to the development of an SMR Roadmap to set out the policy framework and assess the potential for possible pathways for SMRs in the UK, will run until late 2016. Individual reactor designs will not be assessed at this stage……
At least one of the reactors supported should be a Generation IV design that could use fuel made from previously used reactor fuel and from the UK’s plutonium stocks. It suggests that SMRs and “micro-reactors” – reactors of less than 20 MWe capacity – will be cheaper to construct than large reactors….
Finally, the report proposes that UK regulators cooperate with their peers in other countries, citing US and Canadian regulatory practices where proposed reactor designs are discussed with developers before the formal regulatory process begins. It calls for a three-way collaboration to be established with the aim of establishing international standards for the safety of advanced reactors……
Weinberg Next Nuclear is part of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation. The report was prepared with the sponsorship of Terrestrial Energy, Urenco and Moltex Energy, with Weinberg Next Nuclear retaining sole editorial control.http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-UK-think-tank-urges-nuclear-innovation-2804167.html
1 This Month
22 June – Virtual Event –Climate Change: New Data, New Debate
Monday, June 22, 2026 2:30 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. CT
YouTube. Register here
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 (193)
- 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 