Rolls-Royce, mini-nuke sector left in dark as Great British Nuclear launch delayed
Proactive Investors, Josh Lamb, 13 Jul 2023
The government delayed the event over “unforeseen circumstances”
Mini nuclear reactor developers including Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.) have been left in the dark after the official launch of Great British Nuclear was delayed on Thursday.
Net zero secretary Grant Shapps had been due to unveil the new public body at London’s science museum before the event was cancelled over “unforeseen circumstances”.
Great British Nuclear, originally announced in the chancellor’s spring budget, will be an arms-length body set up to support the roll-out of small modular reactors (SMRs) in the UK……………..
Rolls-Royce and General Electric (NYSE:GE) had been among those due to attend the event, having both proposed designs for prospective use in the UK.
Rolls is currently the only company which has an SMR design currently passing through regulatory assessments though, carried out by the Office for Nuclear Regulation, Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales.
Shapps was expected to update on the latest round of the government’s SMR competition meanwhile, which will determine which designs are granted public funding. https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1020628/rolls-royce-mini-nuke-sector-left-in-dark-as-great-british-nuclear-launch-delayed-1020628.html
Security concerns for Britain as China might be controlling its nuclear power stations
Britain faces ‘nightmare scenario’ of China controlling its nuclear power
stations, universities and technology, warn MPs. The report, compiled with
the assistance of MI5 and MI6, suggested that a desperation to acquire
Chinese investment had led to security concerns being dismissed. Its
authors warned:
‘Without swift action, we are on a trajectory for the
nightmare scenario where China steals blueprints, sets standards and builds
products, exerting political and economic influence at every step. This has
the potential to pose an existential threat to democratic systems.’ They
added: ‘China has been seeking to control or influence the UK’s industry
and energy sectors.
Chinese money was readily accepted with few questions
asked. ‘It is unacceptable for the Government to still be considering
Chinese involvement in critical national infrastructure.’ In 2021, it was
reported China owns £143billion in UK assets, from nuclear power to
schools. Nearly 200 UK companies are controlled by groups or individuals
based in China or count them as minority shareholders.
Daily Mail 14th July 2023
Protests stopped nuclear waste dumping at Bradwell, and now will likely do so again
Bradwell Revisited – echoes of 1980s as Government looks for somewhere
to dump radioactive waste. Andrew Blowers records how protests stopped
nuclear dumping at Bradwell and would likely do so again in the June 2023. BANNG column for Regional Life.
Older readers will recollect the battle
that raged as mass protests saw off Government plans for a nuclear dump at
Bradwell in the 1980s. The Government is again looking at existing nuclear
sites in which to bury some of the nation’s nuclear wastes.
Bradwell may be in its sights but is wholly unsuitable and any attempt to develop a dump
here will once again be seen off by massive local protest and opposition.
In February, 1986, Bradwell, along with three other sites, in Humberside,
Lincolnshire and Bedfordshire, was identified by the Government’s agency,
Nirex, as a possible site for a shallow disposal facility to take the
nation’s short-lived intermediate level radioactive wastes (ILW). Over
the next two years there ensued what was dubbed the Four Site Saga, as the
communities, backed by their County Councils, worked together in opposition
to the whole project.
BANNG 8th June 2023
UK delays ‘Great British Nuclear’ launch
Energy Secretary Grant Shapps was due to give a speech at London’s Science Museum.
Politico, BY CHARLIE COOPER, JULY 12, 2023
The U.K. government has delayed the official launch of a major arms-length body intended to support the country’s nuclear industry.
Energy Secretary Grant Shapps had been due to give a heavily-trailed speech at London’s Science Museum on Thursday, setting out his plans for Great British Nuclear and its role helping the U.K. hit its net zero goals.
But in an email to attendees, seen by POLITICO, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) confirmed the event was being rescheduled “due to unforeseen circumstances.”
Shapps was expected to use his speech to outline the next phase of a planned competition for manufacturing firms — including Rolls Royce and GE Hitachi — vying to develop small modular reactors (SMRs). The government hopes the new technology will provide cheaper, more flexible atomic power to help the U.K. hit its target of 24 gigawatts of nuclear generation by 2050.
The reasons for the cancellation were not immediately clear………………… https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-delays-great-british-nuclear-launch/
Exposing the lying claims of pro nuclear shill Zion Lights
2 Response to a July 2023 article by Zion Lights: https://nuclear.foe.org.au/zion-lights/
In Australia, for the same investment we can get three times more firmed renewable power (generation, not capacity) in one-third of the time compared to nuclear. The cost difference between nuclear and renewables is so vast that renewables are still cheaper even when transmission and storage are costed in. Perhaps the comparison is more nuclear-friendly in the UK, but I strongly suspect renewables+storage+transmission is still cheaper given the obscene costs of Hinkley Point (approx. A$50 billion for two reactors).
Specifically in Light’s latest article:
* Lights’ claims about the IPCC supporting nuclear power are dishonest, the IPCC maps out countless scenarios (including scenarios with nuclear reducing to zero) and its ‘analysis’ of pros and cons is generally reduced to dot-points.
* Lights’ claims about a “scientific consensus” in support of nuclear power are dishonest, e.g. the Climate Council, comprising Australia’s leading climate scientists, states that nuclear power reactors “are not appropriate for Australia and probably never will be”.
* Ignores profound impacts of catastrophic accidents.
* Ignores the repeatedly-demonstrated connections between nuclear power and weapons (in the UK and elsewhere).
* Light’s ‘millions of lives saved’ meme is dishonest because it assumes nuclear displaces nothing other than coal.
* Nonsense about warm water around nuclear plants providing a haven for sea-life is dishonest, she surely knows that water intake pipes kill fish by the thousands. (And she should know something about Irish opposition to radioactive discharges from Sellafield.)
* Glib, ignorant and/or dishonest claims about high-level nuclear waste: “spent fuel can be easily transported to another location, and even recycled”. The UK has given up on reprocessing (a polluting, multi-billion-dollar disaster) and has made near-zero progress on a deep underground repository and has wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in the process. The only operating deep underground repository in the world – WIPP in the US ‒ was disastrously mismanaged and under-regulated resulting in a chemical explosion in 2014.
* The UAE project came in under budget? Either Lights is ignorant or lying. The UAE project was years behind schedule and many billions of dollars over-budget.
And in other articles/interviews, even more unhinged nonsense, e.g.
* Lights saying climate change ‘could be solved overnight’ with nuclear. Seriously?
* Lights lying about her role in Extinction Rebellion.
* Lights getting sucked in by, and collaborating with, lunatic MAGA liar Michael Shellenberger.
Update: Lights deleted the above comments from the comments thread below her article, failed to address any of the substantive energy issues and failed to respond to the accusations of deceit.
Sizewell C faces fresh legal action in fall out over water supply
Campaigners opposed to the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk have
launched fresh legal action following concerns about the water supply for
the plant.
In July 2022, then business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng granted
permission for the 3.2 gigawatt power station being developed by French
energy provider EDF to be built alongside the existing Sizewell B nuclear
plant, in the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Natural Beauty (AONB).
This was despite the Planning Inspectorate noting that NNB Nuclear Generation, a
subsidiary company created by EDF, was unable to identify a permanent water
supply for the project, without which it said it “could not be licensed
and could not operate”.
In August 2022, campaign group Together Against
Sizewell C (TASC), represented by law firm Leigh Day, brought a judicial
review against the decision on the grounds that Kwarteng had failed to
assess the implications of the project as a whole by ignoring the issue of
whether a permanent water supply could be secured – the group argued it
is clear a new desalination plant will be required to guarantee supply.
Last month this challenge was dismissed by High Court judge Justice Holgate
who found the approach to the water supply was lawful, and that Kwarteng
did not need to take into account the impact of the water supply. However,
TASC has now announced that it is appealing this ruling. Specifically, the
group has said that the judge was “wrong” to say that NNB Generation
Company Limited was “unable to identify a permanent supply of potable
water”.
ENDS 11th July 2023
https://www.endsreport.com/article/1829565/sizewell-c-faces-fresh-legal-action-fall-water-supply
UK discusses sale of Wylfa nuclear site
1The government has confirmed ongoing discussions about the potential sale
of the Wylfa nuclear site in response to a report by the Welsh Affairs
Committee. The Wylfa nuclear site, located in Anglesey, North Wales, has
long been a subject of interest for nuclear energy development. Previous
plans for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa were scrapped in 2019 due to
financial and commercial challenges. Since then, the government has been
actively seeking alternative arrangements for the site.
Energy Live News 10th July 2023
Suffolk campaigners vow to continue fighting Sizewell C
Campaigners have vowed to continue their fight against the “monstrous”
Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast despite losing a
legal challenge against the plans. The High Court announced on Thursday
that the judicial review brought by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) had
been rejected as being ‘totally without merit’. TASC had launched the
review over the environmental impact of the project, particularly the
disposal of nuclear waste and the provision of a water supply to the
station.
East Anglian Daily Times 23rd June 2023
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/23608074.suffolk-campaigners-vow-continue-fighting-sizewell-c/
Community energy for the UK
At the close of Community Energy Fortnight (10-23 June), the Nuclear Free
Local Authorities have written to a minister asking the government to hold
onto parts of the Energy Bill that will be vital if the community energy
sector is to continue to grow.
In his letter to Nuclear and Networks
Minister Andrew Bowie, who is leading on the legislation for the
government, NFLA Steering Committee Councillor Lawrence O’Neill has asked
for Clauses 272 and 273 to be retained in the bill.
These clauses, backed by the campaign group Power for People, would allow small community owned projects generating renewable energy to supply electricity to the National
Grid or to the communities that they serve on a fairer basis, and they
would also guarantee these suppliers a set income. Disappointingly, the
government is believed to be looking at dropping these clauses from the
bill, without suggesting any alternate provision.
NFLA 23rd June 2023
Legal challenge against Sizewell C nuclear power plant rejected
High court judge rules in favour of government decision to let EDF build plant on the Suffolk coast.
Rob Davies, 23 June 23, Guardian
A legal challenge against the government’s decision to build the Sizewell C nuclear power plant has been rejected.
The campaign group Together Against Sizewell C (Tasc) had launched a judicial review against the government’s decision to give the green light to the 3.2 gigawatt plant on the Suffolk coast, which is being built by French energy company EDF.
The group said the government had failed to consider alternatives to nuclear power to meet its emissions targets when approving the project. It cited the threat to water supplies in an area officially designated as seriously water-stressed, the threats to coastal areas from the climate crisis, and environmental damage.
Mr Justice Holgate rejected the group’s challenge against the secretary of state for energy security and net zero in a written ruling at the high court on Thursday. Holgate ruled the government’s decision was in keeping with energy policy intended to achieve “diversity of methods of generation and security of supply”…………
Tasc said it would continue its campaign and was examining options for how to do so…………………………… more https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/22/legal-challenge-against-sizewell-c-nuclear-power-plant-rejected
Big enlistment bonuses offered to UK sailors entering the nuclear field
By Diana Stancy Correll. Navy Times
The Navy is offering up to $75,000 in enlistment bonuses for those entering the nuclear field — up from the $50,000 it previously offered and the maximum offered to all other ratings.
The bonus announcement coincides with recruiting challenges across the services, which military leaders attribute to more thorough medical screenings, fewer Americans eligible to serve, and low civilian unemployment.
Sailors may couple the bonus with the maximum student loan repayment under the Enlisted Loan Repayment Program, in which the Navy covers college tuition loans — such as Stafford Student Loans — that were taken out prior to the sailor enlisting for active duty……………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2023/06/23/big-enlistment-bonuses-offered-to-sailors-entering-the-nuclear-field/1
£485m clean-up operation for UK’s 10 nuclear reactors
A team featuring Keltbray and Costain is one of several firms to win spots
on a £485m framework to carry out demolition and asbestos removal work
across all of the UK’s 10 nuclear reactors. The pair and a second team
called Celadon Alliance, comprising Altrad Support Services, KDC Veolia
Decommissioning Services and NSG Environmental, have been awarded framework
contracts for both Lots 1 and 2.
In addition, Kaefer UK & Ireland has been
awarded a framework contract for Lot 1 and a team featuring Nuvia, Rainham
Industrial Services and Hughes and Salvidge has been awarded a framework
contract for Lot 2. Called the Decommissioning and Asbestos Removal
framework, work includes jobs at all 10 reactor sites, two research sites
and one hydro-electric plant, which are all operated by Magnox on behalf of
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
The framework is initially for four
years with an option to extend up to a further two years. Jobs will include
demolition and deplanting, turbine hall cleaning, removal and treatment of
radioactively contaminated plant, including cooling ponds and water
treatment facilities.
Building 22nd June 2023
Assessing investability of new nuclear projects like Sizewell C
The crucial issue here is that the regulated company is permitted to start charging customers immediately after the project begins, and can continue to do so throughout the construction phase.
The downside for customers or ratepayers is that they end up bearing most of the risk, whether that is delays, cost increases, or even complete cancellations.
it is transferring a lot of the risk straight onto the customer and the customer can end up paying through the nose for nothing if you have serious problems in terms of timescales.”
NS Energy, By James Varley 19 Jun 2023
The UK is grappling with the problem of inviting the private sector to invest in new nuclear without interest driving up the price. Its solution cuts costs – but transfers the risk to consumers
UK Chancellor Jeremy Hunt confirmed recently that the UK would back the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power plant with an investment of £679m. The funding had initially been announced by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It is a mark of the large investment involved in a new nuclear unit that, despite UK plans to see one new nuclear plant reach Final Investment Decision (FID) in this parliament (ie before the end of 2024) and two achieve FID in the next (before 2029), two incoming Prime Ministers (Teresa May and Rishi Sunak) have announced reviews of Sizewell C. But Sunak’s chancellor Jeremy Hunt reaffirmed both the project and the funding, saying: “Our £700m investment is the first state backing for a nuclear project in over 30 years and represents the biggest step in our journey to energy independence.”
Of perhaps more interest to investors is the UK government’s decision to take a 50% stake in Sizewell C, with co-investor EDF. But neither of the two envisages holding those large stakes for very long. Once the project – which now has planning permission – reaches FID, both hope that it will attract new investors, so that the UK and EDF can reduce their stake to around the 20% level.
It is hoped that the project can bring in private capital because investors will gain confidence in the continued presence in the project of the UK and EDF but also because it will be built under a different financing model.
It is hoped Sizewell C will look less like a state-owned plant where funding comes from the government and it (in effect taxpayers) bears the risk of cost and schedule overruns. Instead, the government hopes it will resemble other types of power plant development cycles, in which different investors buy and dispose of stakes as the project moves from development, to permitted and ‘shovel-ready’, to construction and operation. With each step the project rises in value while the risk falls, so eventually it becomes investable for groups like pension funds which will accept low returns in exchange for long-term stability, while early investors will take their profit and reinvest in other projects where returns are higher.
At £20bn (in 2015 money) even 60% of the project will be too large for any single bank or other investors, which are more likely to join at the £1bn level. But the UK hopes that post-FID (aimed to be at the end of 2024) the project will attract enough investors that they will be in competition on the initial return on investment required. In the future, the level of allowed return will be set by the UK’s energy regulatory authority, Ofgem
Moving to a RAB model
Co-investing with the government is not currently enough to make Sizewell C an attractive investment though. The key to that, the UK government believes, is the Regulated Asset Base model (RAB).
The Department for Business, Energy and International Strategy (BEIS) set out its view on the RAB model and compared it with other funding models in an Impact Assessment in 2021 – required because the RAB model required primary legislation (which has now been passed).
Comparing RAB with relying on existing funding models, such as Contracts for Difference (CfD) BEIS said it “believes there are few, if any, strategic investors in the market with the risk appetite to finance a new nuclear power plant using a CfD mechanism.” In fact, BEIS also considered that the RAB on its own “would not achieve the goal of delivering new projects at a lower cost”. It added new Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP) legislation and the new Special Administration Regime.
What is the Regulated Asset Base model? It aims to manage nuclear’s biggest problem: huge capital costs and the long gap (as much as 15 years) between investing and starting to earn a return when power is produced.
The UK’s RAB approach aims to address this. It has commonalities with US models that add nuclear to a utility’s ‘rate base’, but the UK version would ring-fence the project activities in a special purpose vehicle (SPV). The SPV is awarded a licence to own and operate the project for a defined period. It is permitted to recover the costs of construction and operation, and also to make an ‘allowed return’ on the asset for the lifetime of the licence.
The crucial issue here is that the regulated company is permitted to start charging customers immediately after the project begins, and can continue to do so throughout the construction phase.
……………………..The downside for customers or ratepayers is that they end up bearing most of the risk, whether that is delays, cost increases, or even complete cancellations.
……………………….There is no shortage of experience in the energy sector of different financing models. Some have salutary lessons………………………………
The burden lies less heavily on wind and solar projects because they can be built relatively quickly and the project can be built in phases. As a result, income from part of the project starts early, while construction lessons can be learned from in early phases so delivery risk in the later phases is lower. Nuclear does not have that opportunity.
Prices set in advance look very different in the rearview mirror. Once the plant is operating the risks accepted by the developer before and during construction are forgotten…………………..
With the RAB model, a nuclear plant will still face price and volume risk once operating, as its power will have to be sold into a volatile market where nuclear can be pushed out of the merit order by cheap renewables and prices can fall to zero at times (a contrast to TTT, whose customer Thames Water has no choice but to use the service and no alternative supplier).
Despite the fact that it may reduce costs, consumer advocates are very wary of the RAB model. Alan Whitehead, Labour’s shadow energy minister and a longstanding observer of the industry, has previously complained that the RAB model “effectively puts costs on the consumer well before you have any idea when a particular plant will come onstream. If there is any slippage in the process the consumer just continues to pay out. …it is transferring a lot of the risk straight onto the customer and the customer can end up paying through the nose for nothing if you have serious problems in terms of timescales.”
He referred to consumers in the USA who were left paying the cost for decades when nuclear projects were cancelled……………….. https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/assessing-investability-of-new-nuclear-projects-like-sizewell-c/
‘Truly shocking’: UK has enough plutonium to make almost 20,000 nukes
A study published by a university in Nagasaki has revealed that the UK has enough stockpiled plutonium to make almost 20,000 atomic warheads with the same power as the bomb which totally-destroyed that Japanese city in August 1945.
The 2023 Fissile Material Directory[i] is published in June each year by the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (RECNA)[ii], based at Nagasaki University. RECNA has been established for over twenty years as an educational and research institute at a university that has a medical faculty with a first-hand experience of the horror of nuclear weapons. Its primary goal is achieving a world free from nuclear weapons.
In January, the institute was visited by UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities Secretary Richard Outram, where he met Vice-Director Professor Tatsujiro Suzuki.
The study lists the UK as holding 119.7 tons of plutonium, the second highest stockpile in the world after Russia with 191.5 tons, and 22.6 tons of Highly Enriched Uranium. The plutonium stockpile is said to be sufficient to arm 19,947 atom bombs, like the ‘Fat Man’ bomb dropped on Nagasaki on 9 August 1945, whilst the uranium stockpile has the potential to be turned into a further 355 devices comparable to the ‘Little Boy’ bomb dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier.
The Nagasaki bomb is estimated to have killed 35,000 – 40,000 people on the day and the Hiroshima bomb about twice that many.
The UK Government and nuclear industry has conceded in the 2022 UK Radioactive Material Inventory that 113 tons of UK-owned plutonium are currently managed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, whilst a further 4 tons are in semi-assembled MOX or other fuel components. An additional 24 tons of foreign-owned plutonium are also held, a further legacy of the costly failure of the UK’s experiment with reprocessing[iii].
Across the world, RECNA estimates that 552 tons of plutonium and 1,260 tons of HEU are held, much of the latter in military hands. These are all deemed to be fissile materials and together could arm 92,000 plutonium bombs like the one used at Nagasaki and almost 20,000 uranium devices like that deployed at Hiroshima.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are gravely concerned about the future use of Britain’s plutonium stockpile. In recent weeks, the UK Government and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have published plans suggesting that some of this material should be used as fuel for a new generation of nuclear reactors.
The NFLA fears that burning plutonium as fuel will simply lead to the creation of more nuclear waste, that such material could be a target for terrorists or hostile state actors, especially in transit, and that these actions could lead to nuclear weapon proliferation. In its response to the government and industry plan the NFLA called for fissile material to be put ‘beyond use’ for all time[iv].
Responding to the RECNA report, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, said:
“The data published by RECNA is both astonishing and truly shocking. If only a tiny fraction of Britain’s stockpile of fissile materials ended up in the wrong hands for use by terrorists or in military action then the consequences could be too awful to contemplate. In the UK, and elsewhere in the world, anti-nuclear campaigners need to continue to work together to lobby our respective governments to make these stockpiles safe and beyond use, and the time to do that is now.”
Judge Who Ruled Against Assange Built Career as Barrister Defending UK Government
“absurd that a single judge can issue a three-page decision that could land Julian Assange in prison for the rest of his life and permanently impact the climate for journalism around the world.”
Jonathan Swift, the High Court judge who has just rejected Julian Assange’s attempt to halt his extradition to the US, is the government’s former top lawyer and previously defended the Defence and Home Secretaries.
SCHEERPOST, By Mark Curtis / Declassified UK, 19 June 23
- Swift was entrusted to act for the Defence and Home Secretaries in at least nine legal cases
- His “favourite clients were the security and intelligence agencies” while representing the government
onathan Swift, the High Court judge who has rejected Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition to the US, has a long history of working for the government departments that are now persecuting the WikiLeaks founder.
Swift, who ruled against Assange on 6 June, was formerly the government’s favourite barrister.
He worked as ‘First Treasury Counsel’ – the government’s top lawyer – from 2006 to 2014, a position in which he advised and represented the government in major litigation.
Swift acted for the Defence and Home Secretaries in at least nine cases, Declassified has found.
…………………….. It was reported in 2013 that Swift had been paid nearly a million pounds – £975,075 – over the previous three years for representing the government.
Swift now presides over Assange’s extradition case being fought by the Home Office for whom he previously worked.
As with previous judges who have ruled against Assange, the case raises serious concerns about institutional conflicts of interests at the heart of the UK legal system…………………………………………
Ruling
In his rejection of the appeal by Assange’s lawyers, Swift curtly dismissed all eight grounds to their arguments as “no more than an attempt to re-run the extensive arguments made to and rejected by the District Judge”, who previously ruled on the case.
Media freedom group Reporters Sans Frontieres said Swift’s ruling brought Assange “dangerously close to extradition”.
It added it was “absurd that a single judge can issue a three-page decision that could land Julian Assange in prison for the rest of his life and permanently impact the climate for journalism around the world.”
The US government seeks to extradite Assange in order to try him in connection with WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked classified documents that informed public interest reporting around the world.
Assange faces a possible 175 years in prison and would be the first publisher prosecuted under the US Espionage Act. https://scheerpost.com/2023/06/19/judge-who-ruled-against-assange-built-career-as-barrister-defending-uk-government/
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (291)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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
