Confusing that Republicans support uneconomic thorium nuclear reactors
Why GOP support for subsidized nuclear energy is confounding Bangor Daily News, By Peter Bradford, July 11, 2015,
Two unusual bills promoting nuclear power were introduced in the Maine Legislature this session. One, from Sen. Eric Brakey, R-Auburn, would have fast tracked Maine’s path to a reactor using thorium to create a uranium isotope different from those that fuel nearly all of today’s power reactors. The other, from the office of Gov. Paul LePage, would have exempted “small modular reactors” from the referendum process Maine requires for other nuclear power plants.
Neither bill passed as proposed.
Still, what on earth is going on here? No license applications for these designs have ever been filed at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No one knows what they would cost or how reliably they would operate.
New, conventional reactors being built at customer expense in South Carolina and Georgia will have to charge well over twice the prevailing and projected market price of electricity in New England. No private company wants to build or finance a reactor under anything resembling New England power market rules. Large subsidies will be essential to the development of new reactors, including thorium and small modular reactors.
When it comes to much smaller subsidies for solar energy, LePage has vetoed legislation that would have added a surcharge amounting to less than one-tenth of a percent to Maine electric bills. He asserted that the legislation “unilaterally selects solar above other solutions that have proven to be more cost effective.” He is equally dismissive of support for wind energy or energy efficiency.
What is it about taxpayer subsidy and big government cronyism that pose such an irresistible attraction for conservatives only when directed to nuclear power? Like a reverend preaching temperance from a barstool, LePage vetoes and disparages government support for proven technologies while embracing an unproven and subsidy-addicted reactor technology as a solution to Maine’s electricity needs.
Subsidies for today’s reactors pale beside past nuclear largesse. Reactors — including thorium reactors — and nuclear fuel enrichment facilities were invented in government laboratories and given to private industry in combination with massive incentives to build power plants. The federal government made unique commitments to own and dispose of the waste fuel while limiting liability for serious accidents. States were preempted from any safety judgements about nuclear power. When electric industry restructuring threatened nuclear profitability in the 1990s, a multibillion-dollar surcharge was added to customer electric bills to cushion the impact on investors. A Congressional Research Service Report estimates that half of all federal energy expenditures on energy research and development have gone to nuclear power………….
given Maine’s experience with past nuclear mirages, the state should not anoint any single technology without an even-handed evaluation of the alternatives.
Peter Bradford chaired the Maine and New York utility regulatory commissions and was a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. He is an adjunct professor at Vermont Law School. http://bangordailynews.com/2015/07/11/the-point/why-gop-support-for-subsidized-nuclear-energy-is-confounding/
EPA’s Clean POwer plan is still being lobbied by the nuclear industry
The nuclear industry is still lobbying for a bailout in EPA’s Clean Power Plan. Maybe you should be lobbying too. GreenWorld, Michael Mariotte, 14 July 15
The final language of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) is supposed to be released next month, which means most of the text (and more importantly, the concepts behind it) is already completed.And, more specifically, it isn’t stopping the nuclear power industry from pushing for changes that would benefit new reactors in particular, although it still holds out some fading hope for help for its older, uneconomic and obsolete reactors as well.*Edison Electric Institute and utility CEOs and representatives from American Electric Power Co. Inc., DTE Energy, Berkshire Hathaway Energy and Duke Energy Corp.That’s a lot of heavyweight nuclear utilities right there. A bunch of other industry groups got to make their case as well……….
- *MJ Bradley & Associates and electric utilities that are members of its Clean Power Plan Initiative, including the CEOs or senior executives of Dominion, National Grid, NextEra, Exelon, PSEG, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Calpine Corp.
- As evidence, E&E Publishing Friday published a story headlined White House opens doors to eleventh-hour pleas on Clean Power Plan. Among the bevy of recent visitors pleading their cases were:
- But that isn’t stopping industry, and the occasional environmental group, from continuing to press their cases for changes from the draft proposal.
- Oh, and NEI thinks power uprates at existing reactors should be considered “new” as well.We, however, are expecting something quite different, and you should be too: if the CPP is meant to be the nation’s first climate change roadmap, then it should be pointing the path to a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy future, not figuring out how to do more of the same failed policies of the past……….
- Fertel and NEI’s ultimate goal is to make sure the U.S. nuclear fleet doesn’t continue its recent downward trend. “He noted that currently nuclear is about 20 percent of the electricity mix in the U.S. ‘Our goal is that it never drop below 20, that it pick up and maybe be more than that, but that it’s in the 20 to 20+ range as we go forward. So that’s what we are expecting.’”
- While the public comment period ended December 1, 2014, and since unlike giant utilities and the occasional big green group the public doesn’t get access to EPA officials or the White House, we thought we’d give the public another chance to comment anyway. You can send your e-mail to President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy here, and let them know that we expect the final version of the Clean Power Plan to contain no help for nuclear whatsoever……… http://safeenergy.org/2015/07/13/the-nuclear-industry-is-still-lobbying/
South Africa’s Democratic Alliance refutes government denials over a nuclear deal.
DA slams nuclear deal July 10 2015 IOL By ANA The DA refutes government denials over a nuclear deal.
Cape Town – South Africa’s inking of two memoranda of understanding with Russia’s state nuclear energy company Rosatom made it clear a deal for a new reactor was already in the pipeline despite government’s denials, the Democratic Alliance said on Friday.
DA energy spokesman Gordon Mackay said he had written to Energy minister Tina Joemat-Petterson following Thursday’s announcement of the agreement on the sidelines of the Brics summit in the southern Russian city of Ufa to demand that she release further details of it.
“That these MOUs reportedly speak of cooperation in order to provide training for five categories of specialists for the South African nuclear industry is the clearest indication yet that Rosatom is the preferred bidder,” Mackay said
“Signing MOUs of this nature, while a competitive bid process is underway, smacks of gross impropriety on behalf of Minister Joemat-Pettersson and can be seen as nothing more than a crude attempt by the Zuma administration to bolster Rosatom’s bid over potential rivals.”
Government on Thursday denied Russia was the preferred bidder for a deal that would increase South Africa’s nuclear power capacity………http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/da-slams-nuclear-deal-1.1883599#.VaBBpF-qpHw
USA Regulators to decide on future of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility
California law forbids building more nuclear plants in the state until the federal government comes up with a long-term solution for dealing with the radioactive waste.
The commission has called two hearings in San Luis Obispo on Aug. 5 to take public comments on issues that should be covered in an environmental impact study on the license renewal project. A draft of the study will likely take a year to complete, according to a schedule the commission sent PG&E in April. A final decision on the license renewal likely won’t arrive before mid-2017, according to the schedule.
Feds to decide whether state’s last nuclear plant stays or goes, SF Gate, By David R. Baker, July 8, 2015 Federal regulators have restarted the process of deciding whether California’s last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, will remain open for decades. And like most everything else in Diablo’s long, contentious history, the move is sure to provoke a fight.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reported that it would once again begin processing a request from plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to renew Diablo’s operating licenses, set to expire in 2024 and 2025. That request has been on hold since shortly after Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster rekindled fears of nuclear danger.
PG&E applied in 2009 to renew Diablo’s licenses for 20 years, arguing that California would need the plant near San Luis Obispo to combat climate change. The commission’s license extension process takes years to complete — hence, PG&E’s early application……….
The license renewal process, which will include public hearings and testimony, will also give the plant’s vocal opponents another chance to make their case.
Spying an opening Activists who never wanted Diablo in the first place have been pushing hard to close it, particularly after California’s only other commercial nuclear plant — San Onofre, north of San Diego — shut down in 2012.
They argue that PG&E has consistently underestimated earthquake threats to the plant, and that PG&E has a long record of snafus at Diablo, such as replacing the steam generators and vessel heads without first conducting a necessary seismic test. PG&E, in contrast, says the plant boasts a solid safety record.
“Our point is, this is a pattern with them,” said Jane Swanson, with Mothers for Peace. “They keep screwing up — and this is a nuclear plant.” Continue reading
Russia’s nuclear industry to “educate” South Africans
Nuclear deal – 200 South Africans to be “educated” during excursions to Russia http://www.biznews.com/briefs/2015/07/09/nuclear-deal-200-south-africans-to-be-educated-during-excursions-to-russia/ ALEC HOGG JULY 9, 2015 Cape Town – The Department of Energy announced in a statement on Thursday that it has signed two memoranda of understanding with Russian state nuclear energy corporation Rosatom at the 7th summit of the Brics (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries in the Russian city of Ufa.
According to the first document, Russia and South Africa aim to implement several joint projects for education in the nuclear power industry.
The countries will cooperate to provide training for five categories of specialists for the South African nuclear industry: nuclear power plant personnel, engineers and construction workers, staff for operations not related to the power industry, personnel for nuclear infrastructure, students and teachers.
There will also be education programmes for 200 South African candidates at Russian universities and educational organisations. This memorandum stipulates the development of educational materials and scientific literature on nuclear power, student exchange programmes for students of various levels of training, organisation of internships and summer courses, student competitions and teacher training.
The second memorandum signed in Ufa stipulates joint efforts of the parties to promote nuclear power in South Africa, increasing the awareness of local residents of modern nuclear technologies used in the power industry and in other industries, and ensuring public acceptance of nuclear power.
In particular, the parties have agreed to work out a plan for the implementation of a joint communication programme to be launched in South Africa. This will involve the organisation of round tables and other events aimed at promoting nuclear power and modern nuclear technologies.
A nuclear energy information centre in South Africa is also under consideration. “The parties seek to exchange information and best practices in the nuclear industry by organising working visits and international conferences and exhibitions,” said the Department of Energy. Source: http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Rosatom-seeks-to-educate-SA-on-nuclear-power-20150709
Game Over for UK’s Hinkley Point Nuclear power project?
The UK Government is now said to be deeply concerned about the future of the Hinkley project following revelations about problems at the similar reactor being built at Flamanville
Nuclear needs a blank cheque Now that it is plain that nuclear power has failed miserably to compete with renewable energy even on the somewhat skewed playing field represented by the (proposed) Hinkley C deal, nuclear supporters are trying to engineer a ‘blank cheque’ to be given to nuclear developers
nuClear News, July 15 http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo75.pdf There is a growing chorus of critics calling for Hinkley Point C to be scrapped altogether, according to the Sunday Times.
It would be one of the most expensive man-made objects ever built in the world. At a cost of £24.5bn it would tie British households into paying for astonishingly expensive electricity subsidies until 2060. The world has changed since 2010 when Hinkley was first named as a site for new reactors. The price of renewables has plummeted.
Washington State Senate passes Bill on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – calls them “clean”
Small modular reactor bill passes state Senate BY ANNETTE CARY Tri-City HeraldJune 30, 2015 A bill to support the manufacturing of small modular reactors in Washington state passed the state Senate 31-12 on Tuesday as the Legislature wrapped up its work.
As of 8 p.m. Tuesday, however, the House had yet to consider it…………….
There is interest in the Tri-Cities for positioning the community as a center for assembling or manufacturing the small nuclear plants to be shipped around the world, including to Asia. The reactors are proposed to be manufactured in modules and then shipped to where they will be used, with additional modules added as demand for electricity production increases…….
Added to the bill is a requirement that the state Department of Commerce and the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction prepare a joint report to the Legislature by Dec. 1 with recommendations for a clean-energy education program.
The program would be required to include grants both for clean-energy ambassadors and for professional development for teachers.
The clean-energy ambassadors would visit classrooms to introduce students to clean energy science and technology. They could cover solar and wind power, small modular reactors and opportunities for nuclear waste cleanup technology careers…….
Certified science teachers could receive grants to help them pursue professional development opportunities in clean-energy science and broaden their exposure to the field.
“One way to ensure that young people understand nuclear energy is to introduce them to our many great scientists, engineers and others who work in the nuclear field,” Brown said. “It’s also one of the best ways to guarantee that the next-generation of Washington job-seekers is prepared for opportunities in emerging nuclear and other clean-energy fields.”…….http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2015/06/30/3632808_small-modular-reactor-bill-passes.html?rh=1
Nuclear industry keen to save US government’s Export-Import Bank
Why the US nuclear industry is eager to save this obscure, government-run bank The US nuclear industry has looked abroad for business as demand in the US has fallen. But without the Export-Import Bank’s backing, some say it would be harder for US companies to seal nuclear deals abroad.Christian Science Monitor, By Jared Gilmour, Staff writer JULY 2, 2015 WASHINGTON — Tucked away in an unassuming building two blocks from the White House is a government-run bank. It helps US companies sell products abroad,……..
Until recently, the bank was relatively low-profile……the Export-Import Bank’s loans and loan guarantees are critical for another domestic industry that has fallen on hard times: US nuclear power. If the bank’s charter isn’t reauthorized, the industry and a host of other business interests say the effects could be devastating for US companies’ overseas prospects……..
Nuclear looks abroad For years, the US nuclear industry has struggled domestically. Cheap natural gas and coal have largely crowded the low-carbon power source out of the market. The recession also put a damper on demand for new US power generation. Safety concerns have made matters worse for US nuclear, and those worries flared up anew after Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy/2015/0702/Why-the-US-nuclear-industry-is-eager-to-save-this-obscure-government-run-bank
In France, nuclear power has lost its glow
France Loses Enthusiasm for Nuclear Power, Scientific American, Nuclear’s share of electricty will drop from 75 percent to 50 percent by 2025 due to loss of know-how and requirements for more renewable sources By Umair Irfan and ClimateWire | June 29, 2015“……..
A ‘once formidable institution’ declines….nuclear plants, by their nature, are big bets and take years to build. Laponche explained that the French nuclear industry anticipated 1,000 TWh of demand, but domestic needs have yet to top 600 TWh, leaving an oversupply. With the economic downturn and increasing energy efficiency, French electricity demand has remained level or declined in some instances.
Now, some of France’s reactors are showing wrinkles—France’s oldest reactor, Fessenheim 1, started operations in 1977—and officials need to decide whether to invest in costly safety upgrades to keep them operating or to decommission them, another expensive prospect that leaves open the possibility that fossil fuels may rise to meet the shortfall.
New reactors also are struggling. Areva’s third-generation nuclear reactor, EPR, is now under construction at four sites: two in China, one in France and one in Finland. All four are behind schedule, and the French and Finnish reactors have seen their costs more than double, suffering from quality control and management problems.
“The cost of construction of new nuclear is extraordinarily expensive,” said Antony Frogatt, a senior research fellow at Chatham House, an international affairs think tank. He observed that there are ways to extend the lives of existing reactors, but upgrades get progressively more expensive, and certain components, like reactor pressure vessels, cannot be replaced, so renewed operating licenses are only prolonging the inevitable.
And while France has reduced nuclear waste, it hasn’t eliminated the need to dispose of it. No country with nuclear power has a viable underground repository for waste, and proposed sites in France face public opposition, despite more widespread support for nuclear power.
On the other hand, France is the second largest renewable energy producer and consumer in Europe. Wavering solar and wind power don’t play well with baseload nuclear plants that prefer to run at full blast, so the French must find a way to cope with this imbalance if they are to meet the European Union’s directive to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020…….
To sum up, it’s a shrinking client base [for nuclear power] and a competitive market,” said Mycle Schneider, an independent international energy consultant. “The financial and economic situation is devastatingly bad.”
The New York Times reported that Areva hasn’t been profitable since 2010, accrued €4.8 billion in losses in 2014 and may lay off up to 6,000 workers. EDF may take over parts of Areva’s business…….
Future of Britain’s Hinkley Point Nuclear Facility is increasingly uncertain
there is growing talk in the U.K. of whether the government should cut and run from nuclear.
In a speech to the House of Commons last week, Labour MP Paul Flynn questioned whether Whitehall would have made the same decision if it knew what it knows now about the cost of nuclear.
“Nuclear power was promised as an energy source that would be too cheap to meter. It is now too expensive to generate,”
While the European public has largely turned against nuclear since the Fukushima accident in Japan in 2011, the British have been shielded by a “skilled public relations operation,”
Trouble ahead for UK’s nuclear hopes Britain’s push for new reactors is coming under fire. Politico Sara Stefanini 25/6/15, The next generation of reactors in the U.K. has been in the works for a decade, but now a looming challenge in the European Court of Justice attacking nuclear subsidies, growing technical problems and cost overruns are casting doubt on the idea of using nuclear to meet emissions reduction targets……..
the future of Hinkley Point C looks increasingly uncertain, as the first EPR projects in France and Finland have been hampered by delays, cost overruns and safety concerns, and as the Austrian government prepares to challenge the European Commission on its approval of the U.K.’s state aid. Continue reading
$1.8B in tax-payer loans for USA nuclear plant – as its costs soar
Energy Department guarantees $1.8B in loans for GA nuclear plant, The Hill, By Devin Henry – 06/24/15 The Department of Energy (DOE) will guarantee $1.8 billion in loans for the operators of two new nuclear reactors under construction at a power plant in Georgia, the department announced on Wednesday.
The government had previously provided $6.5 billion in loan guarantees for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant project, the country’s first new nuclear facility to be licensed and begin construction in more than 30 years. Wednesday’s step, officials said, will allow the project to be fully-financed………….
Construction at the Vogtle plant has been plagued by delays, and the Associated Press reportedWednesday that cost overruns have threatened the $2.7 billion in savings project executives have said they would secure since state regulators approved construction in 2009. Operators expect to spend at least $7.5 billion on the project. …http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/245975-energy-department-guarantees-18b-in-loans-for-ga-nuclear-plant
Clearly, South Africa can’t afford nuclear power
The South African government has said it will not go ahead with nuclear power if the expected construction cost is more than $6500/kW, equivalent to about R130bn per reactor. However, the latest cost estimates are about 25% higher than this. This means that if the South African government sticks to its promise, the tender will fail.
Why South Africa should steer clear of nuclear, By Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at University of Greenwich Business Tech By The Conversation June
21, 2015 It would be sensible to acknowledge that a nuclear programme is not viable for resolving South Africa’s energy crisis. Rather, the country should be focusing its attention on how to end electricity blackouts and speed up energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes.
Building new nuclear energy capability will cost the country billions of US dollars. It is doubtful that South Africa can afford this.
In addition, nuclear power entails a different but also serious set of risks to climate change. These include the risk of reactor accidents, the danger of weapons proliferation and the hazards of radioactive waste……
Price of nuclear
UK’s energy policy in a shambles as govt seeks China funding for new nuclear reactors
Nuclear adviser attacks ‘perverse’ idea of Chinese building UK reactors Prof Dieter Helm also identifies security pitfalls as unions accuse government of sacrificing safety for free-market ideology over Hinkley Point C plant, Guardian, Terry Macalister, 19 June 15, A leading energy academic and government adviser has called on ministers to take an equity stake in the planned new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in Somerset, saying it would not make sense to prefer Chinese money.
The comments from Dieter Helm, professor of energy policy at Oxford University, came as trade union leaders accused the government of letting political beliefs override practical and safety issues in the nuclear sector. In a paper entitled British Energy policy – What Happens Next? , Helm said the British government should issue debt or specific nuclear guaranteed bonds, that could cut the cost of capital from 10% to 2%.
“It is a no-brainer,” said Helm. “Add in the military and security issues of letting Chinese state-owned companies into the heart of the British nuclear industry, and it seems positively perverse to prefer Chinese government money to British government money in so sensitive a national project.”
Helm usually champions free-market methods and is on the economic advisory committee at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Meanwhile the attack on government nuclear policy from the GMB union came after comments from Amber Rudd, the energy and climate change secretary, left the door open to Chinese state companies building and operating a new plant at Bradwell, in Essex.
Gary Smith, the union’s national secretary for energy, said the Conservatives seemed ready to allow Beijing to use its own equipment and supply chain in return for funding the new stations at Bradwell and Hinkley Point.
“Energy policy is a shambles because the government is driven by ideology. It will do anything to bring in private or Chinese state money to build British energy infrastructure rather than have it (debt) on George Osborne’s balance sheet,” he said.
This would extend to the Chinese being allowed to ship over large amounts of equipment from Chinese factories, potentially affecting British nuclear safety and as well as hitting UK jobs, he said. Smith noted that an eminent Chinese nuclear scientist, He Zuoxiu, had raised concerns about the safety of his country’s atomic equipment………….http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/18/nuclear-adviser-attacks-chinese-uk-reactors-dieter-helm-hinkley
It’s time that UK civil servants spoke out on the poor prospects for new nuclear power
The public has been ‘protected’ from the truth of Fukushima Many people are gravely disturbed by the prospect of new nuclear power. That is particularly so among Treasury civil servants. We are in an extraordinary situation, where there is still public support in spite of Fukushima.
One of the main reasons for that is that the British public were ‘protected’ by a skilled public relations operation from knowing the terrible cost of Fukushima – between $100 billion and $250 billion.
Civil servants must speak out: ‘the time has gone for nuclear power’, Ecologist, Paul Flynn MP 18th June 2015 Despite the PR spin the truth about nuclear power is clear, says Paul Flynn. Current projects are plagued with technical failures, cost escalations and long delays – while renewables power ahead. As tin-eared ministers refuse to get the message, it’s time for civil servants to speak out direct to the public.
Nuclear power was promised as an energy source that would be too cheap to meter. It is now too expensive to generate.
If we were planning a nuclear policy from scratch, would we choose to do a deal with two French companies, one of which is bankrupt, while the other, Électricité de France, has a debt of €33 billion?
Would we also collaborate with a country with a dreadful human rights record – China, whose national investment department is coming into the arrangement – and with Saudi Arabia, with its atrocious record on human rights, where people are executed on the street? Continue reading
It is really in the interest of Republicans to act against climate change
As climate change unfolds around the globe, climate disasters will give undemocratic forces the justification they seek to commandeer resources, declare martial law, interfere with the market economy, and suspend democratic processes. This means that Americans who care about political freedom shouldn’t hold back when it comes to supporting climate scientists and acting to prevent the threats they have so clearly and fulsomely documented.
To do otherwise can only increase the chances that authoritarian forms of governance will come out ahead in a future in which our children and grandchildren, including those of the climate deniers, will all be the losers, as will our planet and so many of the other species on it. Recognizing and emphasizing this aspect of the climate equation may offer some hope of enabling more moderate Republicans to step back from the brinkmanship of denial.
Climate Deniers Are Quickly Bringing About Their Own Worst Nightmare How climate denial became second nature to the new Republican Party, The Nation Naomi Oreskes June 16, 2015 “……As unlikely as it might seem today, in the first half of the 20th century the Republicans were the party that most strongly supported scientific work, as they recognized the diverse ways in which it could undergird economic activity and national security. The Democrats were more dubious, tending to see science as elitist and worrying that new federal agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health would concentrate resources in elite East Coast universities.
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
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
1st July – Webinar Waste of Space: The Environmental Harm of Military and Civil Space Activity st July, 7 pm
Report Launch Online: We are seeing an increasing exploitation of space for military and commercial purposes. This must change.
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
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 (221)
- 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 