69 safety incidents and “near misses” on UK nuclear submarines
Reactor incidents on new nuclear subs double in one year, Herald Scotland, 21 Feb 16 The Royal Navy’s new nuclear-powered submarines have been plagued by 69 safety incidents and “near misses” over the last four years.
The Astute class of submarines based at Faslane on the Clyde has seen reported reactor incidents at sea or on shore almost double from 12 in 2014 to 21 in 2015. Though the MoD insists that the incidents are all minor, critics warn that they undermine the boats’ reliability and safety………
According to the independent nuclear engineer John Large, the submarines were suffering serious problems. “This continuing experience of the Astute class reactor problems not only imperils the boats when at sea but is likely to result in cutbacks to the number of patrols, voyage durations and the extent of roaming of the high seas,” he said.
John Ainslie, coordinator of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, pointed out that Astute submarines had been involved in a series of mishaps, including running aground on the Isle of Skye. “It is only a matter of time before one of these incidents results in a serious nuclear accident,” he said……..http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14291467.Reactor_incidents_on_new_nuclear_subs_double_in_one_year/
Britain’s nuclear project Hinkley Point C staggers again
U.K.’s Nuclear Project Falters Again http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/uks_nuclear_project_falters_again_20160219 Feb 19, 2016 By Paul Brown / Climate News Network This Creative Commons-licensed piece first appeared at Climate News Network.
LONDON—The future of the nuclear industry in Europe took another blow this week when the French state-owned power company EDF again postponed a final decision on whether to build two large nuclear power stations in the UK. Construction will now not start before 2019, the company said.
This is the eighth time a “final investment decision” on building two European Pressurised Water Reactors (EPRs) has been postponed because the company has still to secure enough backing to finance the £18 billion (€23.26 bn) project.
The excuse this time was that the Chinese New Year celebrations had held up negotiations with the Chinese backers, who have agreed to put up one-third of the money.
Preparation of the site at Hinkley Point in the west of England was stopped last year while EDF sought partners for the project. Each time there has been a postponement the company has issued a statement saying it remains “fully committed” to building two 1,650 MW reactors (1 MW is enough to power 750-1,000 average US homes).
Decision close
This week was no different. “We have the intention to proceed rapidly with the investment decision for Hinkley Point,” EDF’s chief executive Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters. Adding that EDF had not yet finalised talks with its Chinese partners, he said: “Today we estimate this final decision is very close.”
Levy said it would take about three years, possibly a bit more, of study and work with sub-contractors before EDF will begin building the first permanent structures on the Hinkley Point C site, though it will do preparatory work between now and then.
“Definitive construction of what will be built on the site, what we call the first concrete, is on the horizon for 2019,” Levy said.
This date is a year after the reactors were originally due to be completed. The timetable has gradually slipped backwards. Last year the date for power to start being generated was put back to 2025, but this new date for pouring concrete makes 2030 more likely—if the reactors are built at all.
Problematic record
The new proposed start date of 2019 is very significant for reasons the company dare not spell out. This is because there is no evidence yet that these so-called Evolutionary Power Reactors will operate effectively. Four are under construction, but are years behind schedule, and costs have tripled. In Europe their earliest proposed start date is 2018—so it looks as though EDF is being careful not to begin building another one until it can prove the design actually works.
The EPRs are “third generation European Pressurised Water Reactors”—the largest nuclear plants in the world. They have a chequered history, even before any has actually produced a single watt of electricity. Construction of the first prototype began in 2005 in Finland: expected to be finished in 2009, it is still under construction.
The same is true of the second, at Flamanville in France, where construction began in 2007. It has also hit delays and cost over-runs of staggering proportions. It too is due to start in 2018.
The other two EPRs are being built in China. Both should have been in operation by this year, but both also have undergone unspecified delays.
Safety question
The biggest problem for EDF, which owns and is building the Flamanville reactor, is that there are safety issues over the strength of the steel used to build the pressure vessel. It contained too much carbon and is undergoing stress testing to see if it is safe. While the outcome of these tests remains unknown, a question mark hangs over the station’s future.
This, plus the vast amount of remedial safety work required by the French safety regulators from EDF on its fleet of 58 ageing reactors in France itself, has put the company under severe financial strain. It needs to find €100 bn for repairs, and to improve safety following the Fukushima disaster in Japan, to keep the plants operating until 2030.
As a result of fears that the company might overstretch itself and jeopardise jobs in France the six trade union representatives on EDF’s board have expressed opposition to the company going ahead with building reactors on British soil.
Unfilled gap
This further postponement of a start date for the new reactors leaves the UK government with a gaping hole in its energy policy, despite it offering to pay double the existing price of electricity for the output from Hinkley Point, a subsidy that will continue for 35 years.
The Conservative government has been relying on nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels from 2025, when it plans to phase out all its coal stations. Some renewable energy subsidies have been scrapped to make way for new nuclear stations.
In all, the Conservative government wants ten new nuclear stations in the UK—four EPRs and the rest from Japan and the US. None of these now seems likely to be built before 2030, if at all.
Perhaps to divert attention from the postponement of the new reactors, EDF announced that it was going to extend the life of four of the nuclear power stations it already operates in Britain. It bought eight ageing stations of British design in 2009 for £12.5 billion.
Longer lives
Some were already due to close in 2018 but have had their lives extended. Now another four will be kept open to bridge the gap left by the failure to build the new stations at Hinkley Point.
These are the Heysham 1 plant in northwest England and another at Hartlepool in the northeast, both of which had been due to be switched off in 2019 because of their advanced age. They will be allowed to keep producing electricity for another five years.
Two other reactors, Heysham 2 and Torness in Scotland, have been granted extensions of seven years to 2030. There is no reason—as long as the stations are deemed safe – why further life extensions should not be applied for, and granted.
Continuing to apply for life extensions for old nuclear stations also saves the company from technical bankruptcy. Once a station is closed its decommissioning costs become company liabilities. With the company’s debts already high, it would not take many closures for EDF’s liabilities to exceed its assets.
Paul Brown, a founding editor of Climate News Network, is a former environment correspondent of The Guardian newspaper, and still writes columns for the paper.
Call on the British govt to hold a public enquiry on the murder of Hilda Murrell
The British Government: To open a public enquiry on the murder of Hilda Murrell https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/The_British_Government_To_open_a_public_enquiry_on_the_murder_of_Hilda_Murrell/?sFUDDfb Why this is important
The unsolved murder of Hilda Murrell, Anti-Nuclear Activist
Hilda Murrell, Anti-Nuclear Activist, Abducted & Murdered 31 years ago, Mining Awareness Plus, “Hilda Murrell (3 February 1906 – 23? March 1984) was a British rose grower, naturalist, diarist and campaigner against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. She was abducted and found murdered five miles from her home in Shropshire,…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Murrell
In the UK House of Commons, 1984:
“There is also the evidence of my friend, Mr. Gerard Morgan Grenville, whom I have known for nearly 40 years. Mrs. Morgan Grenville tells me how Hilda Murrell rang them up in a great state at the end of February, and how she fetched her husband. Mr. Morgan Grenville, with whom I have had a good deal to do and who is a deeply serious man, says that her parting words on the telephone were: “If they don’t get me first, I want the world to know that one old woman has seen through their lies“. One is reminded of Scudder, the diarist in John Buchan’s “The Thirty-Nine Steps”. Mr. Morgan Grenville had never heard Miss Murrell speak in that way before. Why should an old lady be prompted to say that?
There has been speculation that her death was connected with a paper that she had written on the problems of nuclear waste and reactor choice, which she hoped would be read at the Sizewell B inquiry. Arthur Osman, writing in The Observer on 2 December, began his article: Silkwood parallels in English woman’s death … Was anti-nuclear power campaigner Hilda Murrell murdered because she was becoming too much of a nuisance to the industry?” “House of Commons Sitting, Miss Hilda Murrell (Murder) HC Deb 19 December 1984 vol 70 cc458-72 458 3.51 am, Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)” © Parliamentary Copyright, OPL:http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/dec/19/miss-hilda-murrell-murder [1]
Book Review of:
“A Thorn in Their Side – The Hilda Murrell Murder
Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/27/2012 – 10:49 Reviewed by Nigel Chamberlain, January 2012………anybody who was involved in anti-nuclear activities during the 1980s was placed under Police Special Branch surveillance in their own localities. Those asking the more penetrating questions and those encouraging others to join them in actively opposing the nuclear state were subject to more intensive forms of intimidation – and worse – at the hands of MI5 and their sub-contractors. The ‘civil’ nuclear power industry also had a surveillance arm.
Hilda Murrell was one of those anti-nuclear activists whose research and writing was deemed dangerous enough by the security state to warrant their full attention and to prevent her ideas from spreading and challenging those who held power. Although it is hard to comprehend in our post-Cold War environment and less ideological times, those who held power decided that those who fundamentally challenged it, could legitimately be harassed, have their human rights suspended and be marginalised – all in the name of defending freedom and democracy.
The irony is that those who were campaigning for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the prevention of the expansion of the nuclear power industry were trying to achieve it by almost entirely democratic means. …………..
Read the book, visit the Hilda Murrell website, then make your own judgement. http://www.hildamurrell.org
Author: Rob Green, Publisher: Rata Books
Year published: 2011
ISBN: 978-0-473-19685-1“http://www.natowatch.org/node/611http://www.natowatch.org/legal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/ [The book is available at Amazon, Ibooks, etc. Additional info is found at the Hilda Murrell web site.]……………https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/hilda-murrell-anti-nuclear-activist-abducted-murdered-31-years-ago/
UK public conned by vested interests, into funding Trident nuclear weapons system
The whole nuclear weapons industry, the flaccid phallic posturing, the stern, brow-furrowing arguments for maintaining it – all are a con of epic proportions. We, the public, are being deceived left, right and centre into allowing fraudulent governments to squander our money on something which merely serves to inflate the wealth of those involved.
Trident: How the banks have their fingers on the button https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/3468/trident-how-the-banks-have-their-fingers-on-the-button CommonSpace columnist Steve Topple investigates the finance behind nuclear weapons
THE debate surrounding the renewal of the Trident nuclear ‘deterrent’ is a perpetual one that never appears to be out of the news in some way. Take last week. On Monday, Labour went into (another) nuclear-grade meltdown over the ‘thorny’ issue (pun intended) of the party’s stance on the matter, with the GMB Union wading into the debate on Tuesday.
Thursday saw Whitehall sources suggest David Cameron will be delaying the vote on its renewal until after the EU referendum, and on Saturday the US defence secretary blundered in, urging the UK to renew the programme to keep its “outsized” role in the world, like our country was some sort of fast-food meal deal you only get in America.
How much do we really know about the detail of the finance behind Trident and the networks of power?
The UK’s Trident system consists of four submarines, each capable of carrying 16 missiles (but in line with government policy only ever carry eight). These in turn carry up to 12 warheads each (although again, policy deems a maximum of 40). One is on constant patrol, while another is under maintenance and two are either in training or in port.
The cost of the Trident renewal programme is, as is always the case, subjective. The government claims it will be £31bn (up from £25bn last year); activists claim the figure will be a lot higher, and the top-end amount quoted was by Reuters, estimating that over its lifetime the system will cost £167bn.
But how much do we really know about the detail of the finance behind Trident and the networks of power? I delved deeper into the murky waters of vested and financial interests that surround the world’s nuclear weapons – and the results were telling.
To understand why the current UK Government and its predecessors are just so keen on keeping our ‘deterrent’ – ignoring the advice of so many independent bodies – as always the first place to begin is the House of Lords.
Lord Hollick, who was a member of the select committee on economic affairs which gave evidence against Scottish independence, is also a director of a company called Honeywell, which has a contract with the government to develop systems to extend the life cycle of Trident.
I delved deeper into the murky waters of vested and financial interests that surround the world’s nuclear weapons – and the results were telling.
Lord Hague, director of Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (a company which deals in the trading of stocks and shares, including defence) is also chair of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which advises government on defence policy.
Meanwhile, Lord Hutton, adviser to nuclear weapons site security firm Bechtel Corporation, consultant for big-name weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin and chair of the Nuclear Industries Association, was until last year chair of RUSI.
By my calculations (checking every member’s interests against those companies involved with the Trident), over 15 per cent have what can be deemed as ‘vested interests’ in either the corporations involved in the programme or the institutions that finance them, and this is just for our nuclear capability – one suspects the percentage for defence in general would be higher.
While we’re on the subject of RUSI, on 4 February this year Malcolm Chalmers, director of research there, participated in a debate on Newsnight where he asserted it was “most unlikely that [Trident] will be phased out … I see no evidence for that”, while promoting the myth that the main argument against nuclear weapons was a “moral” one – because we couldn’t spend £167bn in a better way, obviously…
This stance from Chalmers on Trident (and RUSI’s previous proposals of merely scaling back the programme) is unsurprising when you consider the links to the House of Lords I mention above – even less so when you take into account that RUSI is sponsored byfour companies directly involved in Trident – Babcock, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Rolls Royce.
The rot surrounding the rabid disease of cronyistic, chumocratical influence in Westminster putridly festers in the banks.
But there’s more. The rot surrounding the rabid disease of cronyistic, chumocratical influence in Westminster also putridly festers in the banks. A report by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (iCan) cited 41 UK-based financial institutions that invested directly in the nuclear weapons industry (including Labour Party bankrollers the Cooperative); institutions which can be found splattered across the House of Lords register, riddling the government external appointments list (note HSBC’s former directors Lord Green, Rona Fairhead of the BBC Trust and Ruth Kelly of the FCA); and on the headers of numerous political party consultations.
But, here’s the real crux of the matter regarding financial institutions and the system as a whole’s involvement in the nuclear weapons industry – they don’t just bat for ‘our team’.
Almaz-Antey is a state-owned Russian defence industry manufacturer, responsible for at least 26 sub-operators, which predominantly develops anti-aircraft defence systems. It gained notoriety after it was suggested that it was one of its BUK surface-to-air missiles that shot down flight MH17 over Ukraine in 2014.
Funding for Almaz-Antey generally comes from either the Russian Government directly, or via the state-owned Vnesheconombank (VEB) development bank – for example, in 2012 Almaz received RUB 35bn from the Defence Ministry and 25bn from VEB to develop the S-500 Prometey air and missile defence system – touted to be the most advanced on the planet.
Being ‘state-owned’, however, doesn’t always mean state-funded, as an archived press release from 2011 shows. In April of that year VEB signed an agreement for a syndicated loan worth $2.4bn, from 19 banks – and they were all outside of Russia.
UK institutions included Barclays and HSBC, and other prominent contributors were JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse – five of the very same banks that were also listed on iCan’s report as funding/investing in Western nuclear programmes.
This example is not, however, some fluke. Uralvagonzavod, which develops Russia’s anti-aircraft tanks, deals with the country’s Sberbank. It, in turn, is 43 per cent retained by ‘international legal investors’ (the detail of which I cannot find), and owns £87bn of assets across the OECD countries. Furthermore, Barclays is also involved, having bid forthe contract to supply the bank with an RUB 3.5bn credit line.
Rostec State Corporation (an umbrella company for 663 other organisations, mostly relating to the military) owns and is part-financed by Novikombank – which in turn is financed by Deutsch Bank, Credit Suisse and – yes, you guessed it – Barclays.
Note also that the latter runs investment operations in the country, and has been assisting the Russian Government with the privatisation of state assets. But perhaps the most disturbing part of this is who finances Russia’s Trident equivalent – the Dolgorukiy class submarine programme.
Manufactured by a company called Sevmash, it receives its financing from the state-owned VEB bank. So yes, correct – Barclays and HSBC, both UK banks, are both directly funding Trident via investment and financing arrangements with Rolls Royce, BAE Systems and Babcock in the UK, while also indirectly funding the equivalent nuclear deterrent of UK ‘enemy’ Russia.
Get it yet?
Multinational corporate banks are playing one big chess game – except it’s all make-believe and there will never be a checkmate, because that would be unprofitable. Governments willingly participate – those in charge are invariably shareholders in weapons manufacturing companies or their financiers.
We are not living in some Sean Connery-era James Bond film. The world is intrinsically too financially entwined for either the East or West to ever press ‘the button’ – and to believe they would is, in my opinion, deluded.
You want a comparison of the current state of the planet and a Bond film? Try Spectre. A group of unelected corporate terrorists pulling the strings of government – or the‘military industrial complex’ if you prefer (although Eisenhower’s theory now pales in comparison with the reality).
Perhaps what sticks in the throat the most, however, is one bank I haven’t mentioned: the Royal Bank of Scotland.
The bank that we, the public, hold an 84 per cent stake in after the 2008 financial crash. A bank that invests not only in 10 companies that are involved in Trident, but is also a financier of Russia’s VEB bank. So therefore a bank which invests in Russia’s nuclear deterrent, as well as ours.
We are fundamentally providing the money to pay for both the East and the West’s nuclear weapons – and then to add insult to injury we pay for our own, again, via taxation.
The whole nuclear weapons industry, the flaccid phallic posturing, the stern, brow-furrowing arguments for maintaining it – all are a con of epic proportions. We, the public, are being deceived left, right and centre into allowing fraudulent governments to squander our money on something which merely serves to inflate the wealth of those involved.
There is no threat – except from our own foolhardiness for sleep-walking for decades and allowing this to continue happening.
The sooner we wake up, the better.
The case grows, for stopping Britain’s Hinkley Point nuclear project
Britain’s nuclear strategy exposed at Hinkley Point EDF’s travails only add to the uncertainty over UK energy policy http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9d484f08-d63c-11e5-829b-8564e7528e54.html#axzz40ZWJ8xlp February 18, 2016
It seemed an attractive proposition. Not only was this less than previous reactors, it was competitive with other power sources. New technology seemed to have opened the door to affordable carbonless electricity; Britain could meet its ever-tougher climate goals without shaking the public down.
A decade on and a major nuclear accident later, the world knows better. Nuclear projects elsewhere have been scrapped and existing stations shuttered or scheduled for early closure. Meanwhile stringent regulations have exposed Areva’s promise as a chimera. It turns out that the price of new nuclear for Britain is not £24 per MWh but nearly four times as much.
Even at these elevated prices, Britain’s first proposed new station, at Hinkley Point, is in difficulty. Despite agreeing a deal in 2013, EDF, the developer, has yet to commit to the £18bn project. There are concerns about technology and the French group’s financial capacity. Hinkley Point C — if it opens — may be materially delayed.
The government has done its best to make things easy. It eschewed a competitive bidding process and guaranteed to buy electricity from Hinkley Point at a £92.50 per MWh index-linked for 35 years after the station has been commissioned.
The French face several obstacles. First, there is the question of EDF’s balance sheet, groaning under a €37bn debt pile. The company’s share price has more than halved in the past year and its market capitalisation is now about €21bn. That is not much more than the company’s 67 per cent share of the cost of Hinkley C.
Linked to this are worries about the reactor technology it is employing. The two projects under construction, including EDF’s at Flamanville in France, are delayed and over budget. It might be difficult to entice lenders while it is possible that problems with Flamanville might cause construction to be halted or scrapped.
Politicians have come this far down the road with Hinkley Point because of the constraints they are under. Despite life-extensions, the UK’s existing nuclear stations are near to closing and its dirtiest coal plants are being shut to comply with EU rules. New capacity is needed. Replacing coal with gas would reduce carbon emissions but not enough to meet the targets the government has set itself.
New nuclear might not be needed were the UK to rethink its costly promises and reduce its carbon targets to match those of other EU states. If new reactors are to be considered, however, they must be subjected to the rigours of competition. That is the only way to get the right technology at acceptable cost.
Britain is saddled with the worst of all worlds. The government has effectively written the French a long-dated option to sell it unproven technology at an extremely generous price. Politically painful it may be, but the case for halting Hinkley Point C is becoming hard to refute.
Greenpeace gives 8 reasons why UK should now give up on Hinkley nuclear station
8 reasons George Osborne needs to let Hinkley nuclear plant go http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/8-reasons-george-osborne-let-hinkley-nuclear-go-20160216 by Richard Casson — 16 February 2016 George Osborne wants to build a new nuclear plant in Somerset — Hinkley Point C. If it goes ahead it’ll be the first nuclear power station to come online in the UK in 30 years.
But right now it’s increasingly looking like a big if. Because Hinkley is on the verge of becoming a national omnishambles. It’s suffered huge delays, safety concerns, and it’s clear the money could be far better spent. Here are eight reasons the Chancellor needs to #LetHinkleyGo.
1. The ‘unconstructable’ nuclear reactor
When Hinkley was first proposed in 2007, part of the Labour government’s sales pitch at the time was that it’d use a newfangled European Pressurized Reactor (EPR for short). Sounds appealing, right? Not so much. There are three sites where EPRs are under construction — and all three are experiencing serious difficulties. One academic even described the type of reactor as ‘unconstructable’. Not exactly encouraging is it, George?
2. The cost is astronomical
Back in 2008 the cost of the two Hinkley reactors was put at a princely £5.6 billion. The price kept going up and by 2015 that was revised to £18 billion. And now there are rumours it could clock in at a whopping £24.5 billion. That’d make Hinkley (wait for it)… the single most expensive object on earth.
3. About that reactor again…
Even if Hinkley’s “unconstructable” reactor is actually constructed, there are further concerns over how safe it’ll be. In Flamanville, France — where a power station with the same reactor design is being built — construction has suffered huge setbacks because of ‘anomalies’ in the reactor steel vessel. You don’t have to be a nuclear expert to know that the word ‘anomalies’ is NOT a good word to hear when talking about the centrepiece of a fission reactor.
4. Does anybody even want it anymore?
Like a fading teenage romance, everyone seems to be falling out of love with Hinkley. The Daily Mail called it the biggest white elephant in Britain. Financial creditors and investors have warned against building Hinkley. And now there are rumours that within EDF (the French company that will build Hinkley’s reactor), some of the board members who oversee the running of the company have spoken out against the project. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg (see here for a long list of newspaper articles opposing the Hinkley deal).
5. Onshore wind is already cheaper (and soon solar will be too)
The world of energy is changing. The cost of wind power and solar energy are falling fastand will only drop more in the future. Meanwhile, analysts have calculated that providing electricity from onshore wind would work out cheaper than Hinkley — even with the costs of providing for backup when the wind doesn’t blow. Meanwhile the construction costs for Hinkley only seem to go one direction — upwards.
6. It’s already 8 YEARS overdue
When Hinkley was first announced, we were told that electricity generated by the power station would be ‘cooking Christmas turkeys by 2017’. But then the operational date was pushed back to 2018. A few months later it became 2019. Last autumn EDF admitted it’ll be more like 2023… until they changed their mind and announced it’ll be even later. Contrast this with the London Array – the world’s largest offshore wind farm – which took less than three years to build, and it makes Hinkley look like the Christmas turkey.
7. We could be forced to pick up the cost
With all the delays and setbacks, some are starting to wonder if Hinkley could get canned completely. If it doesn’t go to plan, who will pick up the cost? The answer — taxpayers will. The funding mechanism the government put in place means that if Hinkley is abandoned, or doesn’t work when completed, UK citizens could be required to shell out a stonking £17 billion to French and Chinese backers to cover their costs.
8. The (not so) little matter of nuclear waste
We are nowhere near finding a storage solution for our existing nuclear waste, never mind future nuclear waste produced by Hinkley. It will take approximately 35 years to build a nuclear ‘storage solution’ (read: bury it underground). And even if it goes ahead soon the waste fuel from Hinkley would not be dealt with until near the end of the 22nd century. So far nobody knows where that will be or how it will happen. Oh and it will cost an estimated £12 billion.
EDF in its financial woes, extends the life of four nuclear reactors
EDF extends life of four nuclear reactors Final decision on investment in Hinkley Point still pending, with analysts and activists casting doubt on the project, Guardian, Sean Farrell 16 Feb 16, EDF plans to extend the life of four nuclear power plants in the UK and has said it is close to announcing a decision on its investment in two new reactors at Hinkley Point.
The French energy company said the lives of the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool plants would be extended by five years until 2024, and the closure dates of Heysham 2 and Torness will be delayed by seven years to 2030………
EDF, which is 85% owned by the French government, announced the extensions as it reported a 68% plunge in profits last year and cut its annual dividend. The company, which has been hit by falling power prices, said net debt increased by €3.2bn (£2.5bn) to €37.4bn.
The fall in EDF’s annual net profit to €1.19bn was caused by a tripling of provisions, asset writedowns and other one-off items to €3.64bn. EDF surprised markets by cutting its dividend to €1.10 a share after paying €1.25 for the previous three years.
But the company restated the appeal of the £18bn Hinkley Point project in Somerset. EDF has delayed deciding on the plan due to funding problems, according to reports in France…….
Paul Dorfman of the UCL Energy Institute said EDF’s financial position cast doubt on the prospects for Hinkley Point. “Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, it may just not happen,” he told the BBC’s Today programme. “EDF shares have crashed to half their value a year ago; the budget for Hinkley alone is bigger than EDF’s entire market value.”
Greenpeace said EDF and the French government were in disarray over the cost and risk of the Hinkley project.
Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s policy director, said: “EDF’s accounts show growing debts and falling earnings. Hinkley is a bad investment and most people with an ounce of financial acumen have now come to realise this. George Osborne stands alone in defending Hinkley’s honour.” http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/16/edf-extends-life-of-four-nuclear-reactors-hinkley-point-decision
UK Nuclear “Beauty Pageant” Scheme: More Than Sheer Madness; Rudd Conflict of Interest
The UK is having an architectural contest to “beautify” the proposed Moorside Nuclear reactor Site, which we choose to call a “beauty pageant”. The image of the Toshiba owned Westinghouse AP 1000 looks like a milk churn or can, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AP1000Reactor.jpg
Milk Churn-Can and Pail https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rpa-releases-april-milk-production-figures
Cows at Moorside site on the Irish Sea, facing Sellafield Nuclear Site
Maybe they will stick a plastic cow in front of the Moorside visitors’ centre to replace the real cows, which they like to make graze near Sellafield and other nuclear sites?
While a Gothic Devil would be more appropriate,
it will not match the simplicity of the, almost 1000 year old, Old St. Bridget’s Church, seen in the distance with the Windscale chimney at Sellafield to the right.
nor the runic standing stone-crosses, which are estimated at around 900 to 1400 years old. This has been a Christian site since…
View original post 1,507 more words
Britain’s nuclear power project to be derailed unless private investment magically comes to the party
UK new nuclear plan will fail without private investors, says Horizon chief Britain cannot just rely on state-backed enterprises like EDF and its Chinese partners to build a fleet of new nuclear reactors, Alan Raymant warns , Telegraph UK By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor 14 Feb 2016 It wasn’t meant to be this way.
By now, construction of EDF’s new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset was supposed to be well underway, ready to fill the looming energy supply crunch as old coal plants close.
More reactors were supposed to be following on Hinkley’s heels, with 16 gigawatts – enough to meet about a third of peak winter UK electricity demand – up and running by 2025, replacing Britain’s existing nuclear plants as they retired.
Instead, cash-strapped EDF is still to take a final decision on Hinkley, with the latest hoped-for decision date, this Tuesday, likely to be missed.
First power from the Somerset plant is not due until 2025 and while other developers are aiming to start generating around the same time, they are years off investment decisions.
“Everybody would have liked the nuclear new build programme to have happened sooner,” admits Alan Raymant, chief operating officer of Horizon Nuclear Power, which plans to build two reactors at Wylfa on Anglesey, followed by two more at Oldbury in Gloucestershire……..
With new owners bringing a different reactor technology to the project – twin Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) with a combined capacity of 2.7GW – Horizon pushed its target for first power from Wylfa back to the “first half of the 2020”. This remains the aim, Raymant confirms: “We are looking at 2024, 2025.”
To do that, it needs to take a final investment decision on the plant in “early 2019”. That gives Horizon three short years to secure planning consent, safety approval for the ABWR design, a Government subsidy contract, EU state aid clearance, and the backing of investors……..
the biggest hurdle will be finding the money. If the UK wants to deliver16 gigawatts of new nuclear – now by a revised target of 2030 – it is going to need to secure many tens of billions of pounds of investment.
“We have to look to widen the pool of investors as far as we can,” says Raymant. “We can’t just rely on state-owned enterprises to provide that investment.”
The comment is a clear reference to Hinkley. EDF (85pc French state-owned) had hoped to build the plant in partnership with Centrica, the listed UK utility, but Centrica withdrew in 2013, citing spiralling costs and delays.
EDF set out to bring other investors on board: pension funds and Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds were touted, but none signed up. “For third parties observing the announcements of delays and cost overruns for the EPRs [the Hinkley reactor technology] under construction, it is difficult to commit,” Jean Bernard-Levy, EDF chief, admitted.
Only China’s state nuclear corporation has so far agreed to invest, taking a lower share than EDF had hoped and even then only in return for a red carpet invitation to build its own reactor technology at Bradwell.
EDF also abandoned the idea of project-financing Hinkley, despite securing £17bn of Government loan guarantees; it has since emerged the loans had been awarded a sub-investment grade, BB+ rating by Infrastructure UK. EDF is now struggling to get the project over the lineby funding its share from its own balance sheet.
Hiroaki Nakanishi, the head of Hitachi, has already warned that the debacle raises “very serious concerns” about its own investment in the UK and questions over the “real solutions for setting up financial support”.
For Horizon, Raymant says, project-financing is a must. Hitachi only plans to retain a minority stake in the eventual construction.
“The challenge for us and for Government is to make sure that the framework that’s in place actually enables a wider range of investors to participate,” he says. “If it doesn’t do that, we won’t deliver a programme of new nuclear.”…… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12156773/UK-new-nuclear-plan-will-fail-without-private-investors-says-Horizon-chief.html
EDF’s financial woes increases delay on decision about Hinkley nuclear plant
EDF funds shortfall adds to nuclear plant delay Michael Stothard in Paris and Kiran Stacey in London, Ft.com 14 Feb 16 High quality global journalism requires investment.
EDF has still not secured funding for a £18bn nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset, further delaying one of the UK’s biggest energy projects.
Board members at the French utility will meet on Monday to sign off on the company’s annual results. Some supporters of the Hinkley Point plant had hoped they would use the meeting to give the scheme their final approval, but two people close to the process told the Financial Times EDF has not secured the necessary funding.
The final investment decision is not on the formal agenda, those people said, with one person saying it could be several months before all the financing is lined up…….
The market turmoil this year has made discussions over the financing more difficult, one person close to the talks said. EDF is in discussions with the French government to help find financing.
EDF is also spending at least €1.25bn to buy a majority stake in Areva reactor unit, Areva NP, as part of a government-backed bailout. It also faces a €100bn bill to upgrade its ageing nuclear power stations by 2030.
EDF said in September last year that the plant it is building in Flamanville, Normandy — already years overdue — would be delayed another year until 2018 and would cost €10.5bn, up from an initial budget of €3bn.
The UK government and EDF executives had hoped a final investment decision would swiftly follow the company’s agreement in October with CGN, the Chinese state-owned nuclear group, on how much of the deal each would finance. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/34a0fbee-d1a0-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html#axzz40BFAOtmS
Defective pressure vessel could seal the tomb of the EPR nuclear reactor
French Nuclear Safety Authority has discovered a serious fault in the construction of the pressure vessel http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/news/14275656.LETTER__the_French_Nuclear_Safety_Authority_have_discovered_a_serious_fault_in_the_construction_of_the_pressure_vessel/ Allan Jeffery, Bridgwater 14 Feb 16 Before Hinkley C can be built, the EPR reactor of the same design being built at Flamanville in France must be completed and be established generating before 2020, or else the UK government’s guarantees and financial agreements fall apart.
So it is not surprising that EDF tried to go unnoticed as it drove a convoy carrying the steel lid and pressure vessel from Chalon, where it was produced across France to Flamanville, though this was documented and publicised by Greenpeace last week.
In April the French Nuclear Safety Authority, (the ASN) discovered a very serious default in the composition of the steel used in the pressure vessel. Tests showed excessive presence of carbon, which makes the steel more brittle and subject to breakage. The pressure vessel contains the huge amounts of atomic fission energy in the core.
EDF was quick to minimise the problem and promised other tests. If EDF was serious with the safety measures the company should await the validation of the ASN of the test results that might be released in late 2016 or early 2017.
As Yannick Rousselet from Greenpeace France quoted, “Once again, EDF is turning a blind eye to all the issues, continuing as though no one else would notice and going forward anyway until there is no turning back.”
The nuclear industry is desperate and that new failure in safety could have serious consequences, not only in France, but also in China (Taishan) and England at Hinkley Point, which are among the other vessels produced with the same steel.
If the tests confirm the safety problem, EDF would have to replace the whole vessel, and have to break open and remove the first pressure vessel at Flamanville, adding huge costs and further delays, which would bring the final blow to the industrial jewel already dying.
This defective lid could seal the tomb of the EPR reactor!
English countryside dotted with nuclear bunkers from the Cold War
There are hundreds of secret nuclear bunkers in Britain ready and waiting for WW3
RUSSIA has announced that we are in a new Cold War after the relationship between the West and them have become more and more strained. http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494567/cold-war-nuclear-apocalypse-world-war-three-how-could-you-survive-russia-north-korea-bomb By Helen Whitehouse [Good Photos] 14th February 2016 Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said: “One could go so far as to say we have slid back to a new Cold War” after describing NATO’s policies towards Russia as “unfriendly and opaque”.
The biggest ever bombing raid is currently taking place in Syria, pounding anti-Assad rebels.
But the US, Britain and France claim that air strikes against the rebels are helping ISIS, causing tensions to rise between them and Russia.
The last Cold War, spanning from the 1960s right to the 1990s saw the UK bracing for a nuclear attack – and this could be looking likely once again.
The doomsday clock is set very close to midnight, North Korea have recently announced they successfully tested the H-Bomb and Russia are claiming a new Cold War.
Should the UK be preparing for the nuclear apocalypse?
If that is the case, luckily there could be a specially re-enforced concrete bunker to protect you from atomic attack within minutes of your front door.
Thousands of bunkers were built in the last Cold War when nuclear attack seemed more a likelihood than a possibility.
And a lot of these structures still remain dotted around the English countryside – but the bad news is you would never be able to use them.
Instead of offering protection to normal people, these would be manned by teams of specially trained officers sending vital information across the country.
And although in the event of another nuclear war we might be able to use the remaining bunkers as protection, less than 1% of the general population would be able to seek shelter.
The biggest UK shelter in Burlington, Wilts, potentially had space for 100,000 people but only a fraction of that would be housed in the event of an attack.
In the last Cold War, those really desperate for a safe spot could volunteer at one of the 1,500 small boltholes dotted within ten miles of every home.These were manned by four members of the public who would gather information on what the world was looking like after the attack and send it into the bigger bunkers for officials to process.
People did volunteer for these positions – but if a bomb did go off, it would have meant leaving family behind.
One of the remaining sites is a bunker in York which gives an insight of what might go on as the UK braces for war.
It once would have housed staff and officials monitoring the dire situation on the outside – and had supplies and equipment stockpiled in the event of an attack.
It is open to the public and still in working order as it was in the 80s when tensions over nuclear war were last at the highest.
Rachael Bowers, English Heritage site manager said: “When a nuclear bomb explodes, it generates heat, blast and radiation – all of which are harmful to humans.
“The thick concrete walls of the bunker are covered with a layer of brick, three layers of asphalt to make it watertight and almost a metre of soil.”
She added that, like the other bunkers in the UK, all the doors are fitted with a seal to keep radioactive material out and the bunker would be pressurised – meaning no dust particles could end up inside.
In the event of a nuclear attack, radiation sickness would kill of those not immediately obliterated by the blast.
It would be a long, painful way to go – so in the event of a bomb, it’s important to have systems in place to keep people safe from the radiation.
The prospect of this was so terrifying in the last Cold War that police would have manned the bunker door if a bomb went off to stop general people attempting to rush inside.
There would be enough supplies stockpiled inside for occupants to survive 30 days, the most harmful period after a nuclear bomb hit.
There are still hundreds of these concrete shells around the UK. But if we came under threat of a nuclear attack, could we run and hide in these safe rooms?
Nick Catford, author of Cold War Bunkers, says the shelters were designed only to provide a place for officials to work safely through the crisis.
He says that the concrete shells could be used as protection against the aftermath of the bomb but would need kitting out with more up-to-date tech.
He also added that no bunker could ever take a direct hit from a weapon and survive especially with the stronger, more sophisticated bombs we have today.
“None of the shelters were designed to take a direct hit. Many of them would survive a near miss and those that are still in use would continue to function. The problem with the old bunkers is that all the life support plant, if it is still there, will no longer be operational so if any are to be brought back into use they would have to be completely refurbished and probably refitted.
“If we refurbished some of our old bunkers they would really only be any uses as fallout shelters as they equipment they were designed for would be totally obsolete.”
During the Cold War members of the public were advised to build their own shelters in their homes.Advice was to stock up on food, re-enforce the walls with sandbags and even paint windows white to reflect heat.
Whereas the specially built bunkers had air conditioning and sealed doors, the general public was encouraged to use sandbags and heavy objects to re-enforce walls and stop as much radiation seeping through as possible.
No nuclear weapon ever went off in the UK, so it was never tested how successful this advice would be.
200 of the shelters are still left in tact and dotted around the country but it would never ever be an option for civilians to use them as protection.
So anyone concerned about the Cold War heating up this time best get building their own bomb shelter.
UN ruling on Julian Assange, and Constitutional Law
Whether or not you believe Mr. Assange is guilty of a sexual offence, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest, the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden
Liora Lazarus: Is the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Decision on Assange ‘So Wrong’?UK Constitutional Law Association 13 Feb 16 The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention handed down its decision on Julian Assange on Friday 5 February 2015 (A/HRC/WGAD/2015/54). It has been met with almost universal ridicule from a line of British officials, legal academics and the press. The decision has been described as ‘ridiculous’ by the UK Foreign Secretary, Phillip Hammond, and former Director of Public Prosecution Ken MacDonald argues that describing Assange’s conditions as ‘arbitrary detention’ is ‘ludicrous’. The press is equally incredulous. ………
Factual background
Mr. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden to answer allegations of sexual assault. The Swedish prosecutorial authorities have issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which the UK authorities are bound to implement. Mr. Assange, after arrest of 10 days and house arrest thereafter, was granted asylum by Ecuador after his appeal against the EAW failed. This is when he took up residence in the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2012. Assange argues that he fears ultimate extradition from Sweden to the USA on the grounds of his involvement in Wikileaks.
This is obviously no small fear, given the sentencing and treatment of Chelsea Manning in the USA, and the decision of Edward Snowden to take up asylum in Russia. The Swedish authorities refuse to grant Assange any guarantee of non-refoulement to the US, and his right to asylum has also not been recognized by the UK or Sweden. ……..
Mr. Assange argues that he is not free to leave the Embassy; he would have to accept the conditions of his immediate arrest, his extradition to Sweden and his subsequent questioning there. He would have to undertake the risk that he would be extradited to the US, and the subsequent risks to his rights were that to happen.
The mandate of the UN WGAD and the test for ‘deprivation of liberty’
In order to establish its competence, and to decide upon the case, the UN WGAD has to decide whether there is a ‘deprivation of liberty’ under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This involves a more severe restriction of motion within a narrower space than mere interference with liberty of movement. (This is explained in General Comment 35 by the UN Human Rights Committee, para. 5……..
The UN WGAD is given a very specific mandate by the United Nations and its Members to decide on these very issues. ……..
The European Arrest Warrant and the Swedish investigation
As easy as it might be in the press to simplify the issues surrounding this case, it is worth elaborating on some key technicalities. The UK authorities are acting pursuant to the conditions of a EAW issued by Sweden who are asking to question Mr. Assange on allegations of sexual assault in order to decide whether to charge him.
The prosecutorial authorities in Sweden re-opened the case against Assange, despite an earlier preliminary investigation (in which Assange had co-operated while in Sweden) that decided there was no case against him in respect of the alleged rape. There is to date no charge against Mr. Assange. The EAW has been at the core of Sweden’s approach, and there had been no attempt by Swedish prosecutors to make use of ‘mutual assistance protocols’ in which Mr. Assange could be interviewed by video-conference (a procedure available under Article 9 of Second Additional Procotol on ‘mutual assistance’)………
Assange’s lawyers have offered co-operation on this alternative a number of times. The Swedish prosecutorial authorities have refused to explore these alternatives, relying instead on the EAW they have issued. They have also failed to disclose the full case against Assange.
Assange has tried but failed to challenge the European Arrest Warrant against him in Sweden and in the UK. In a judgment handed down on 11 May 2015, the majority of the Swedish Supreme Court held that the EAW was valid, but a dissent in this case by Justice Svante Johansson also argued that the arrest warrant was ‘in violation of the principle of proportionality’, as the reasons for continued detention did not ‘outweigh the intrusion and inconvenience’ caused to Assange. According to the Guardian coverage of this case, the ‘Swedish Supreme court also stated … that the investigating authorities “must examine what alternative investigative opportunities are available to drive the investigation forward”. Former Legal Counsel to the United Nations and Legal Adviser to the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Hans Corell, has stated that he “does not understand why the prosecutor had not questioned Julian Assange during all the years he has been at the Ecuadorian Embassy”………….
The main arguments of Assange’s lawyers
The central argument of Assange’s lawyers’ proceed on the basis that his confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy ‘cannot … be characterized as volitional’ (para 13). He is not free to leave, because he is protecting himself from the violation of other human rights: ‘the only way for Mr. Assange to enjoy his right to asylum was to be in detention’ (para 11). If Assange were to leave he would be arrested in the UK and extradited pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by Sweden. Consequently, he would expose himself to the risk of a ‘well founded fear of persecution’ were he to be extradited to the US from Sweden (para 12).
In the UK, Assange’s challenge goes to the validity of the EAW under UK law……….
Evaluation
In essence, the UN WGAD had to decide two questions. Firstly, whether there was a ‘deprivation of liberty’ as opposed to a ‘restriction of liberty’. Secondly, assuming the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, whether that deprivation of liberty was ‘arbitrary’.
In response to the first question, the UN WGAD clearly accepted the argument that Assange’s conditions are not volitional, or self-imposed……..
the UN WGAD was persuaded that the confinement was arbitrary. The most compelling grounds were those based on proportionality. In short, there could have been another, less restrictive way of proceeding. Before issuing a European Arrest Warrant, the Swedish authorities could have followed the normal practice of interviewing Assange in a British police interview room. After Assange, sought asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy they could have questioned Assange by video link. He could have been provided the chance to respond to the allegations against him, or provided with an assurance related to his refoulment to the US. But his conditions currently are based on the legitimacy of an EAW which two UK Supreme Court justices consider invalid under UK law, and which one Swedish Supreme Court judge considers disproportionate……….
There is still no charge against Mr. Assange. He has, under international, European, and domestic law, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. He has offered to respond to the process in other ways, and would co-operate fully if he had a further guarantee of non-refoulment.
Whether or not you believe Mr. Assange is guilty of a sexual offence, whether or not you think he is a self-publicist deliberately resisting arrest, the fact remains that the authorities could use less restrictive means without compromising the initial investigation into the allegations regarding his sexual conduct in Sweden. ……….
Reasonable (and even judicial) minds have clearly differed on these issues, which suggests that the UN WGAD decision cannot fairly be described as ‘ridiculous’, ‘ludicrous’, or ‘so wrong’. No doubt views on this may be coloured by our particular position on the integrity of Assange’s himself. But human rights are not meant to favour the popular amongst us; they are meant to favour us all.
Liora Lazarus is a Fellow of St. Anne’s College and an Associate Professor in Law at Oxford University. https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/02/09/liora-lazarus-is-the-united-nations-working-group-on-arbitrary-detention-decision-on-assange-so-wrong/
Arbitrary detention of Julian Assange – United Nations finding
Julian Assange arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the UK, UN expert panel finds United Nations Human Rights Office GENEVA (5 February 2016) – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by Sweden and the United Kingdom since his arrest in London on 7 December 2010, as a result of the legal action against him by both Governments, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said today.
In a public statement, the expert panel called on the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation (Check the statement: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17012&LangID=E)
Mr. Assange, detained first in prison then under house arrest, took refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy in 2012 after losing his appeal to the UK’s Supreme Court against extradition to Sweden, where a judicial investigation was initiated against him in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct. However, he was not formally charged.
“The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considers that the various forms of deprivation of liberty to which Julian Assange has been subjected constitute a form of arbitrary detention,” said Seong-Phil Hong, who currently heads the expert panel.
– See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E#sthash.oPdlDR4g.dpuf
The experts also found that the detention was arbitrary because Mr. Assange was held in isolation at Wandsworth Prison, and because a lack of diligence by the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office in its investigations resulted in his lengthy loss of liberty.
The Working Group established that this detention violates Articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and Articles 7, 9(1), 9(3), 9(4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Check the Working Group’s Opinion on Julian Assange’s case (No. 54/2015), adopted in December: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/A.HRC.WGAD.2015.docx
NOTE TO EDITORS:
The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The WGAD has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.
The binding nature of its opinions derives from the collaboration by States in the procedure, the adversarial nature of is findings and also by the authority given to the WGAD by the UN Human Rights Council. The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.
……… http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E#sthash.oPdlDR4g.dpuf http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17013&LangID=E
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- 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)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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 
