UK govt prioritising nuclear, gas, oil, but removing support for renewables
Government U-turn on renewables shows gas, oil and nuclear are still favourites

Now is not the time to pull the plug on supporting renewable energy. A few years of vital subsidies cannot make up for a century of support for fossil fuels. Guardian, Alasdair Cameron, 20 Dec 15
The entire global energy system is undergoing a clean revolution. The old certainties of centralised power and fossil fuels are falling apart before our eyes. In Paris last week world leaders set legally binding targets to decarbonise their economies in order to keep temperature rises at a maximum of 2C. The future is almost here.
It’s a future that is necessary and one that presents the economic opportunity of the century. Bloomberg NEFs New Energy Outlook for 2015 estimates that renewables alone will see more than $8tn of investment in the coming years with $3.7tn in solar alone.
Until recently the UK seemed to understand this, however imperfectly. In the second quarter of this year, the UK got 25% of its electricity from renewables and is aiming for 30% by 2020. The last two governments deserve credit for that.
Costs have fallen, with the latest ground-mounted solar and onshore wind now cheaper than new nuclear , and offshore wind – where the UK is a world leader – is not far behind.
The government’s line is that it’s time to pull the plug on supporting renewable energy – as if a few years of vital subsidies can make up for a century of economic and infrastructural support for fossil fuels. Renewable energy, like most industries, needs some government support to get going, and to realise the best results. Think of the tax breaksand research grants still given to oil and gas, the direct subsidies for nuclear, the publicly-funded roads that facilitate cars, or the national space programmes that eventually brought us the mobile phone.
The argument that this U-turn is about protecting consumers’ bills simply does not hold. Cuts to rooftop solar announced on Thursday will save just 0.9% off a yearly bill, by 2020.
Many of the alternatives the government is turning to are actually more expensive than renewables – Hinkley Point C would cost consumers twice the current wholesale price of electricity. And the single best thing that would cut bills – insulating homes – has seen just about all public support scrapped.
Endless delays – that’s the system for Hanford nuclear waste clean-up
Will Hanford’s Big Clean-Up Ever Begin? Fifteen years past its originally scheduled start-up date, the nuclear facility’s glassification plant is way over budget and no one seems able to nail down a deadline. At fault, say critics, are mismanagement, frequent turnover in the top brass, and a culture that doesn’t take kindly to criticism. Seattle News Weekly, By John Stang , Dec 15 2015 “……….The story of Tamosaitis’ unheralded warnings is not the exception in the ongoing struggle to contain Hanford’s waste. Rather, this episode is just the latest in a litany of setbacks that has put the project over budget and off schedule again and again.
Officially, the reasons are that this is a first-of-its-kind project with difficult-to-perfect new technology.
In reality, the glassification project—like most of Hanford—resembles a giant Dilbert comic book. The culture is the culprit. There are immense corporate and social pressures to look good now and hope someone else is in charge when things go wrong later. These pressures include high turnover in upper management, bonuses to corporations, individual career advancement, and retaliation against those who rock the boat at inconvenient times. Continue reading
Donald Trump shows abysmal ignorance about USA’s nuclear weapons
TRUMP’S NUCLEAR HOWLER, Powerline, DECEMBER 15, 2015 BY PAUL MIRENGOFFTonight, Donald Trump delivered the biggest howler of the presidential campaign (at least on the GOP side). But don’t worry, the topic was a trivial one — nuclear weapons.
Hugh Hewitt asked Trump which part of our aging triad would be his priority as president. Trump answered, the nuclear side. But the triad, as Marco Rubio explained, is entirely nuclear. It consists of ships that can deliver nukes, planes that can deliver nukes, and silos from which nukes can be launched. In effect, then, Trump answered a question about which part of our nuclear triad is most important by saying the nuclear part.
Tom Elliott provides the text of this exchange at NRO’s Corner. Jonah Goldberg reminds us that Hugh asked Trump about the nuclear triad at great length in August, and he couldn’t answer it then, either. In the August exchange, Hugh told Trump that the “triad” is a nuclear triad. I guess Trump forgot.
The “triad” wasn’t Trump’s only bad moment. He defended his plan to kill the families of terrorists on the grounds that family members know about attacks in advance and that, though terrorists may not care about their own lives, they care about the lives of family members.
Put aside how outrageous Trump’s retaliatory murder idea is; it also displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the kinds of people we’re dealing with…….. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/trumps-nuclear-howler.php
South Africa’s govt quietly confirms nuclear power deal

Cabinet quietly endorses nuclear deal http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2015/12/15/cabinet-quietly-endorses-nuclear-deal BY NATASHA MARRIAN, 15 DECEMBER 2015, FINANCE MINISTER PRAVIN GORDHAN CONFIRMED ON MONDAY THAT A DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE CABINET IN ITS MEETING LAST WEEK TO START THE NUCLEAR PROCUREMENT PROGRAMME.
This opens the path for the Department of Energy to call for proposals to provide 9.6GW of nuclear power without first doing a cost-benefit analysis. But Mr Gordhan was adamant on Monday the procurement would go head only if it was “affordable”. Mr Gordhan confirmed that the decision had been made, yet in a post-Cabinet statement and a media briefing last week, no mention was made of the procurement decision.
On Monday, Business Day reported on the decision and that was the first time it was mentioned in public.
Acting Cabinet spokeswoman Nebo Legoabe said on Monday she did not know why the information was not contained in the Cabinet statement. She had not been in the Cabinet meeting and was unaware of what was discussed.
Mr Gordhan said he was not in the Cabinet meeting either last week as he had been unwell, but confirmed the decision.
“There is, I think, a decision on Wednesday that we are going to move in that direction. Part of that decision … is that there will be a formal procurement process in accordance with South African law.’’
He reiterated that the Treasury would only proceed with plans that were affordable. We can’t spend money that we don’t have and we can’t make commitments when we know we are not going to get the money that is required to be spent in this particular regard,” the minister said.
Mr Gordhan added, however, that this did not mean it would never happen, just that it may have to wait.
Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene has said repeatedly that nuclear energy would not be procured if SA could not afford it. The African National Congress has also expressed caution, passing a resolution at its national general council in October, calling for ‘‘a full, transparent and thorough cost-benefit analysis of nuclear power’’.
With Carol Paton
Unpalatable news for nuclear industry: reprocessing may be found to be ‘wasteful spending’
Japan may review spending on plutonium fuel cycle http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/japan-may-review-spending-on-plutonium-fuel-cycle By Aaron Sheldrick and Linda Sieg DEC. 11, 2015 TOKYO —
Japan may review spending on reprocessing plutonium for use in nuclear reactors, a minister appointed to identify wasteful spending told Reuters, following years of government outlays on the controversial program that has yielded no results.
The minister’s comments come after the operator of Japan’s fast breeder reactor, designed to use plutonium extracted from spent reactor fuel, was declared unfit following decades of accidents, missteps and falsification of documents.
Costs for the Monju breeder reactor have ballooned to about 1 trillion yen ($8 billion) while Japan’s public debt is the highest among industrialized nations. Taro Kono, a ruling Liberal Democratic Party member who is a critic of the Monju facility and the nuclear industry in general, was appointed to examine government spending in a recent cabinet reshuffle by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
While Kono emphasized he cannot overturn government policy, he can review public projects and said Abe had told the cabinet that wasteful spending had to be taken “out of the budget.”
He has been reviewing part of the government budget request of 102 trillion yen for the fiscal year starting March, including a little-used ship carrying nuclear fuel and subsidies to towns that host nuclear power plants. “In my portfolio, I can ask them if the money is spent wisely and that’s what I have been doing and the nuclear fuel cycle is no exception,” the U.S.-educated Kono said.
He said next year’s review could be widened to include all government spending on nuclear projects, something that might resonate with voters after the Fukushima disaster in 2011 turned the public against atomic power. “If they are not doing a good job, the review next year will be all nuclear, maybe,” Kono said.
His comments could have implications for another costly nuclear project that is mostly in private hands but has strong government support and receives some public funds. The Rokkasho plutonium reprocessing facility in northern Japan is meant to provide fuel for Monju and some of Japan’s nuclear reactors, but completion was delayed for a 23rd time last month.
The plant has been beset with problems since the first concrete was laid in 1993 and costs have ballooned to 2.2 trillion yen ($18 billion) from 760 billion yen.
Meanwhile, Japan’s plutonium stockpile has expanded to nearly 50 tons, with stocks held in Britain and France as well as in Japan. Recently, a group of 31 scientists wrote to Abe urging him to abandon reprocessing.
With all but two of Japan’s reactors shut down in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and no immediate use for the plutonium, there is little meaning to the costly exercise of extracting more from spent fuel, critics say.
“The PM’s directive is very clear. If we point out any items that are not spent well it has to be out of the budget,” Kono said. “That’s why a few ministers are not speaking to me right now,” he added, with a laugh.
The push for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors goes on in Idaho
E. Idaho eyed as site for small commercial nuclear reactors, Idaho Statesman, BY KEITH RIDLER Associated Press BOISE, IDAHO , 11 Dec 15
U.S. Department of Energy officials and an energy cooperative with members in eight states are negotiating a plan that could lead to the construction of small commercial nuclear reactors at an eastern Idaho federal nuclear site.
Officials with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems said the 890-square-mile site containing the Idaho National Laboratory is their preferred choice for what are called small modular reactors…….
The Energy Department on Wednesday confirmed that the area is being considered but offered no details. The agency contracts with Battelle Energy Alliance to run the Idaho National Laboratory….
Oregon-based NuScale Power would build the reactors……. NuScale Chief Commercial Officer Mike McGough said said the company is in the process of completing an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the reactors. He described the application as a 12,000-page book that will undergo a 40-month review. If everything advances, work on the modules could begin before 2020…..
Cost is a big concern for Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, said LaVarr Webb, company spokesman, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems , noting that the group is relatively small compared to larger power suppliers in the region…..http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article48867830.html
Tax-payer funding to go to Britain’s small nuclear reactor companies!
In pursuit of partners: the UK doubles down on small modular reactors, Power Technology 9 December 2015 At the end of November, the UK Treasury announced a doubling of nuclear funding alongside a design competition to “revive the UK’s nuclear expertise and position the UK as a global leader in innovative nuclear technologies”. With small modular reactors a particular focus, Taylor Heyman profiles the companies that will be looking to throw their hat in the ring.
In the run-up to the 2015 Paris climate talks, UK chancellor George Osborne announced funding of £250m over five years to put the UK at the forefront of world research and development of small nuclear reactors (SMRs)….
The autumn statement also included details of a design competition to be launched in early 2016 to find the “best value small modular reactor design for the UK”, the Treasury said in the spending review policy paper. The competition is the beginning of a government strategy to complete an SMR sometime in the 2020s…
UK SMR: the contenders
There are bound to be a number of big players clamouring for the opportunity to work with the UK government in developing the UK’s first SMRs. Last December, the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), in conjunction with a range of research organisations and companies, released a feasibility study focusing on SMRs in the UK, commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The review found four financially and techically viable options for SMR designs, by China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), B&W and Bechtel, Westinghouse and NuScale.
CNNC’s ACP100 design is a 310MWt pressurised water reactor designed to produce between 100 and 150MWe. The IAEA began a safety review of the design in July 2015, assessing the reactor’s safety, environmental impact and other elements of the design.
The BWXT mPower™ from B&W and Bechtel is an integral 530MWt pressurised water reactor which will produce around 180MWe. The team won the first round of funding from the cost-sharing funding initiative with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Bechtel, but decided to scale back their funding in April 2014. This considerably slowed the pace and scale of development.
Westinghouse, a company well-established and employing over 1,000 people in the UK has already presented the British Government with its proposal to partner in deploying SMR technology throughout the UK. The Westinghouse SMR design is a 225MWe integral pressurized water reactor with all primary components located inside the reactor vessel.
The NuScale offering is a 160MWt reactor which operates using the principles of natural circulation rather than traditional pumps. It can produce 50MWA. The idea behind the smaller design is scalability; reactor units can be added or taken away depending on demand. NuScale Power won the second round of DOE funding in 2013, receiving $217m over five years in cost-share funds to develop, license and commercialise its SMR technology. The first is projected for 2024 in Idaho, US.
No doubt other contenders for the partnership will come to the fore once details of the January competition are released by DECC. Whichever company is chosen, NNL hopes to play a role in the development of SMRs for the UK. “We have a strong capability in reactor design, including SMRs,” says NNL’s director of external relations Adrian Bull. “So we feel we would be well-placed to carry out significant scope within the overall programme.” http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurein-pursuit-of-partners-the-uk-doubles-down-on-small-modular-reactors-4749180/
Nuclear proponent Ernest Moniz in Paris touts Small Reactors
Mini-reactors could crack nuclear industry’s financing problem: Moniz, Reuters, PARIS | BY GEERT DE CLERCQ 11 Dec 15 Mini-versions of current-generation nuclear reactors could be the solution for the industry’s problems in finding financing for new atomic power stations, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said on Wednesday.
The construction of new reactors in developed countries has virtually ground to a halt in recent years…..
shttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-nuclear-moniz-idUSKBN0TS2GO20151209#3xYYrAagmvgYXt8L.99
Bill in Wisconsin to lift the State’s moratorium on new nuclear power stations

Panel OKs bill lifting nuclear moratorium http://www.postcrescent.com/story/news/2015/12/09/panel-oks-bill-lifting-nuclear-moratorium/77052324/ MADISON – A legislative committee has approved a bill that would lift Wisconsin’s moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
Under current law, state regulators can’t approve a new nuclear power plant unless a federal storage facility for waste from nuclear plants nationwide exists and the plant wouldn’t burden ratepayers. No centralized federal repository exists. Nuclear plants have been storing waste on-site.
Republican Rep. Kevin Peterson’s bill would erase the storage facility and ratepayer language from state law, in effect clearing the way for new plants.
The Assembly’s energy committee approved the bill unanimously without discussion during a hearing Wednesday. A spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says the full chamber will take up the measure next month.
Wisconsin is currently home to only one operational nuclear plant.
Japan should move nuclear power into terminal phase
The electric utilities would doubtless resist any plan to scrap the remaining reactors and reduce the nation’s dependence on nuclear power to zero, but they could probably be induced to go along if the authorities simultaneously drew up measures to cushion the financial blow. The government will also need to compensate localities for the loss of jobs and subsidies associated with the nuclear power plants by funding programs to foster the growth of other industries. Now is the time to plan for a shift from long-term nursing to end-of-life care for Japan’s unsustainable nuclear power industry.- |The resumption of commercial operations at a nuclear power plant in Kagoshima Prefecture last September might seem to bode well for the comeback of nuclear energy in Japan after the nationwide shutdown precipitated by the 2011 Fukushima meltdown. But the author argues that the government’s policy of “long-term nursing care” for an unsustainable industry is merely delaying the inevitable while exposing the nation to unacceptable risks.

Dim Prospects and a Growing Burden
The obstacles to the industry’s revival will scarcely disappear after 2015. Fukushima Prefecture is lobbying to have all its remaining nuclear plants scrapped, and local opposition to resumption of operations predominates in Niigata Prefecture, Shizuoka Prefecture, and the village of Tōkai in Ibaraki Prefecture. Between them, these four locales account for 15 (about a third) of the nation’s nuclear reactors. Four other units (one at Japan Atomic Power’s Tsuruga plant, two at Hokuriku Electric’s Shika plant, and one at Tōhoku Electric’s Higashidōri facility) are facing likely decommissioning owing to earthquake hazards. Kansai Electric is appealing a May 2014 court order against restart of two reactors at its Ōi facility, and more unfavorable rulings are possible in the months ahead.
The electric utilities themselves are expected to scrap a number of older units in consideration of cost factors. Reactors are licensed to operate for no more than 40 years, and the upgrades required to win an extension under the new regulations would be prohibitively expensive in many cases. Five older reactors were officially retired for this reason last April (Kansai Electric’s Mihama-1 and Mihama-2, Japan Atomic Power’s Tsuruga-1, Chūgoku Electric’s Shimane-1, and Kyūshū Electric’s Genkai-1).
Even those facilities that make it back online face a tough road ahead. The Fukushima disaster has drastically altered the Japanese public’s perception of nuclear energy’s risks. Henceforth, every accident, issue, or natural disaster has the potential to cause an extended or permanent shutdown at any given plant. And the construction of new reactors is virtually out of the question.
The goal of returning to pre-Fukushima levels of nuclear power generation is quite simply out of reach. Japan currently has 43 operable nuclear reactors (excluding the five already decommissioned). Realistically, no more than half of these can be expected back online before 2020, and they will be under intense scrutiny as each new problem—both in Japan and overseas—calls their safety and viability into question once again.
Nuclear power imposes heavy cost burdens that can only grow in the years ahead. Thus far the government has borne the brunt of the costs and risks, nurturing the industry with subsidies to the host communities and prefectures, funding for research and development, and guaranteed assistance with compensation and cleanup costs in the event of an accident, while allowing the electric utilities to pass the costs of the nuclear fuel cycle to their customers. In today’s climate, this amounts to long-term nursing care for a terminally ill industry. An end to these lavish supports is the electric power industry’s worst nightmare……….
As noted above, the electric utilities cannot hope to restart more than about 20 of its reactors by 2020 under the best of conditions. It will not be difficult to shut down those 20 reactors by 2030.
The electric utilities would doubtless resist any plan to scrap the remaining reactors and reduce the nation’s dependence on nuclear power to zero, but they could probably be induced to go along if the authorities simultaneously drew up measures to cushion the financial blow. The government will also need to compensate localities for the loss of jobs and subsidies associated with the nuclear power plants by funding programs to foster the growth of other industries. Now is the time to plan for a shift from long-term nursing to end-of-life care for Japan’s unsustainable nuclear power industry. http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00200/
China’s nuclear programme is fraught with problems

Mixed Fortunes for Nuclear Power NYT, DEC. 7, 2015 In July 2013, hundreds of people took to the streets in the southern Chinese city of Jiangmen to protest the proposed construction of a uranium processing plant in the region.
The $6 billion plant would have supplied fuel for the country’s rapidly expanding nuclear power industry. But the plan was dropped in the face of public opposition, the first case of its kind in China, said Keith Florig, a risk-management researcher at the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business.
The protest, and its fallout, are important events in a country that has 22 nuclear power reactors under construction and more planned, as well as a growing international business selling nuclear energy technology to countries including Argentina, Britain and Pakistan. Mr. Florig said that this “rate of development hasn’t happened since the late 1960s and early 1970s in the U.S. and Soviet Union.”
At the same time, Mr. Florig characterized China as being underprepared for dealing with the public opinion issues that have plagued nuclear energy in developed countries.
He said that about 15 years ago he had interviewed Chinese energy officials to find out what they knew about nuclear energy development in the West. He found that they were uniformly focused on the technical challenges of controlling nuclear fission and using the heat it produced to boil water, create steam and power electric turbines. No one seemed to be aware of the social, political and economic challenges….
Vietnam postpones construction of Russian -funded nuclear plant
Vietnam delays first nuclear power plant until 2020 Thanh Nien NewsNINH THUAN – Tuesday, December 08, 2015 Vietnam will delay the construction of its first nuclear power plant until 2020 to further assess the project’s environmental effects, an official has said.
The estimated cost of the project is US$8-10 billion, with funding set to come from Russia…….http://www.thanhniennews.com/tech/vietnam-delays-first-nuclear-power-plant-until-2020-55653.html
Indian Parliament may fast-track nuclear projects in Winter Session
Bill for fast-tracking nuclear power projects likely in Winter Session http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-bill-for-fast-tracking-nuclear-power-projects-likely-in-winter-session-2152574 Sunday, 6 December 2015 A bill seeking to fast-track nuclear power projects is likely to be introduced in the Winter Session of Parliament, while another legislation for according greater autonomy to the atomic energy regulator may not be brought this time.
The Union Cabinet had last month approved amendments to the Atomic Energy Act to enable Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) to enter into join ventures with other public sector undertakings (PSUs). The move will help secure funds for big ticket projects.
Concern over lack of financial resources has been raised by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) frequently. The amendment will enable NPCIL, which is one of the PSUs under the DAE, to enter into joint ventures with other government undertakings.
However, sources said, the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill may not be presented before Parliament even in this session. The NSRA Bill will seek to create a more independent authority, replacing the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)—the atomic energy sector watchdog.
The Bill, first introduced in the Lok Sabha in 2011, has lapsed and will have to be reintroduced.
Ontario’s Energy Minister announces yet another sweetheart nuclear deal

Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Jack Gibbons, Dec 3 This morning Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli, announced that the Government of Ontario is signing a contract with Bruce Power to pay for the re-building of six of its aging, outdated nuclear reactors.
According to Minister Chiarelli’s preliminary estimate, the project will cost $13 billion. However, according to the actual wording of the Government’s contract with Bruce Power, the final capital cost and price of electricity from the re-built reactors of the project is still to be determined.
In other words, this deal continues the long tradition of leaving ratepayers on the hook for capital cost overruns, whether it is through absorbing debt or paying a fat premium for power or both.
Every nuclear project in Ontario’s history has been approved by politicians on the basis of low preliminary cost estimates. But these estimates, and promises that “this time it will be different,” are just pie in the sky. Every Ontario nuclear project has gone massively over-budget – on average by 2.5 times. And the cost overruns have inevitably been passed on to Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers. Minister Chiarelli’s announcement is déjà vu all over again.
Meanwhile, the Government of Ontario has signed more than 21,000 contracts with renewable and natural gas-fired power producers. All of these contracts are fixed price contracts that do not allow the renewable and gas-fired generators to increase their prices if their final capital costs are greater than their preliminary cost estimates. Minister Chiarelli should subject Bruce Power to the same market discipline.
Minister Chiarelli has provided no evidence to demonstrate that re-building the Bruce reactors can keep our lights on at a lower cost than by importing water power from Quebec and investing in energy efficiency and cost-effective Made-in-Ontario green energy. And he has not demonstrated why, at a time when electricity demand is steadily dropping and renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper, we would want to lock in inflexible nuclear power until 2060.
This is a 1950s electricity solution that will fit our evolving electricity needs and our changing system like a square peg in a round hole.
The only way we can accurately assess the government’s deal with Bruce Power is to send it to the Ontario Energy Board for a full public review.
Simple assurances that a contract with “fill in the blanks” for costs and prices is good value just don’t cut it any more.
Please contact Premier Wynne and ask her to send the Bruce Power contract to the Ontario Energy Board for a full public reviewto determine if we should remain dependent on high-cost nuclear power for another generation.
UK Government’s Nuclear Plans – Will they work?

NU CLearNews Dec 15 Last month we asked why the Government is persevering with the world’s most expensive power plant ever at the same time slashing support for renewable energy. (1) Renewable energy is going from strength to strength. Solar photovoltaics could provide the same amount of electricity as Hinkley Point C for half the subsidy cost (2) and we could have six times the power-generation capacity for the same money by investing in wind turbines instead of Hinkley. (3) Although the Government’s motivation is still a bit of a mystery – either it thinks we still need baseload; it wants to sustain a national nuclear industrial capability sufficient to maintain the UK’s nuclear-armed status; or it is prepared to pay over the odds to the nuclear industry to avoid democratising the energy industry.
-
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






