UK’s Spring budget a ‘myopic sop’ to nuclear obsessives
https://cnduk.org/spring-budget-a-myopic-sop-to-nuclear-obsessives/ 14 Mar 24
CND Vice-President Dr Ian Fairlie writes for us on the purchase of the Wylfa nuclear site in last week’s budget.
On March 6, as part of the Spring Budget, the Chancellor announced a deal with the Japanese multinational Hitachi to purchase the defunct and closed Wylfa and Oldbury nuclear sites for £160 million. Hitachi suspended the much larger Wylfa project in 2019 and then abandoned it in September 2020 due to the massively rising costs of building nuclear plants.
Many nuclear enthusiasts read into the Chancellor’s statement that the government was going to build new plants at these sites. However a careful reading of the Budget statement reveals no such commitment. Instead, several independent commentators drily remarked that if Hitachi had decided the Wylfa nuclear plant was commercially untenable, why would anyone in Government think it was.
In fact, it is likely the £160 million land purchase was little more than a sop to myopic nuclear obsessives in the Conservative Party. The reality is that, in energy strategy terms, this sum is a drop in the bucket compared to the estimated £46,000 million (£46 billion) which Hinkley C nuclear plant would cost if it ever were completed. And, in another comparison, the Chancellor confirmed that the budget for the 2024 Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions mainly for wind and solar projects will be set at over £1,000 million (£1 billion).
The environmental group People Against Wylfa B called the Chancellor’s statement a cynical move to try to support Tory Virginia Crosbie MP to keep her Ynys Môn parliamentary seat. Not much chance of that happening as her majority is under 2,000, and several recent by-elections have shown that Tory majorities of even 20,000 or more are now unsafe.
Why the US is trying to imprison Assange: Report from inside the Court
But even if what the United States is saying were true, these documents were not published first by Assange. John Young, the owner of a website called cryptome.org testified to the court that he was the one who published the documents first, and the United States never prosecuted him or asked him to take them down.
Extraditions for political offenses are forbidden under Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003
The Extradition Act, which is the implementation of the US-UK treaty inside British law, is missing this section. This is likely due to the fact it was passed at the height of the “War on Terror” in 2003, giving the Americans carte blanche to snatch people, drag them to the US and throw them in dungeons
Richard Medhurst Al Mayadeen English, 7 Mar 2024, https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/why-the-us-is-trying-to-imprison-assange–report-from-inside
Richard Medhurst is a British journalist who has covered Julian Assange’s extradition case from inside the court since 2020. In this article, he explains what took place in the latest hearings, why the United States is trying to extradite the WikiLeaks founder, and why everyone should care.
Julian Assange is an Australian journalist in the United Kingdom, and the founder of WikiLeaks. He published documents that were given to him by a US soldier called Chelsea Manning, which showed US war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and much more.
The United States want to extradite Assange from the UK to America, and put him on trial for publishing these classified documents. They are threatening him with 175 years in prison.
The reason this case is so serious is because it essentially makes journalism illegal.
The United States claims Assange asked Manning for classified documents and that this is a crime. It’s not.
The US alleges that Assange having classified documents in his possession and publishing them is a crime. It’s not.
Asking for classified documents; protecting sources, these are things journalists do every single day around the world.
But because these files were so embarrassing to the United States and exposed the brutality of their war crimes, they are threatening Assange with almost two centuries in prison; and to do it, they are accusing him of being a “spy” and a “hacker”, charging him with 17 counts under the “Espionage Act”, and with one count of “Conspiracy to Commit Computer Intrusion”.
The goal of this indictment is to make an example out of Assange, and make other journalists afraid to publish things that the public has a right to know.
If extradited, Assange would be placed in the worst prison conditions imaginable, “Special Administrative Measures” (or SAMs): A strict regime of solitary confinement, no contact with other prisoners allowed, and barely any contact with your family. SAMs are internationally recognized as torture. Julian would be sent to the worst prison in America, ADX Florence, a super-maximum security facility in Colorado.
On January 4, 2021, British judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked Assange’s extradition because US prison conditions would be so oppressive in his current state as to drive him to suicide.
Nevertheless, despite blocking the extradition on health grounds, she agreed with all the political and trumped-up charges.
I have attended all of Assange’s court hearings and saw the smears against him debunked by dozens of expert witnesses. But the judge still chose to side with the United States. She chose to essentially criminalize journalism, even drawing dangerous equivalences between the US Espionage Act and Britain’s Official Secrets Act (OSA).
After this, the United States went to the English High Court to appeal her ruling and won by providing empty promises that they would supposedly treat Assange well– even though the United States has a history of violating extradition assurances. I exposed this when I published classified documents from David Mendoza’s extradition from Spain to the US, a case previously cited in court by Julian’s lawyers.
After the US succeeded in overturning the lower court’s ruling in Dec 2021, there was only one thing left: A signature from the Home Secretary, who allowed the extradition to go ahead.
The above is everything that took place between 2020 and 2024, which brings us to the latest hearings at the Royal Courts of Justice in February 2024.
Point 1: To appeal the ruling of the lower court from Jan 4, 2021.
Assange’s lawyers argued that the judge was correct to block Assange’s extradition on health grounds, but she was wrong to agree with all the political charges (equating him with a “hacker” and a “spy”).
They’re saying very plainly: This case is undemocratic, it criminalizes journalism, and doesn’t take into account the fact that the documents Assange published expose enormous US war crimes that the public had the right to know about.
(See for example the “Collateral Murder” video published by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks: Footage from a US gunship crew laughing as they slaughter Iraqi civilians, among them children and reporters).
Another claim made by the United States is that Assange “harmed informants” by publishing unredacted cables. Ironically, this was proven false by the United States’ own military when they court-martialed Chelsea Manning (the soldier that gave the files to Assange). The US military couldn’t find a single example of anyone having been harmed by the disclosures.
The assertion by the United States that Julian Assange simply published all these documents without censoring or redacting names simply isn’t true: I listened to many journalists tell the court how they spent countless hours meticulously redacting names with Assange.
Assange’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge in the lower court failed to undertake a balancing act. She blindly accepted the United States’ premise that the lives of informants– who weren’t even harmed– are more important than the people killed and tortured by the United States. This is tantamount to saying: The United States should be allowed to continue committing these war crimes in secret; that it’s somehow okay for them to butcher people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the public have no right to know.
But even if what the United States is saying were true, these documents were not published first by Assange. John Young, the owner of a website called cryptome.org testified to the court that he was the one who published the documents first, and the United States never prosecuted him or asked him to take them down.
This demonstrates that the whole case against Assange is selective, political, and has nothing to do with the law.
Assange’s lawyers are also arguing that the judge in the lower court failed to undertake a balancing act. She blindly accepted the United States’ premise that the lives of informants– who weren’t even harmed– are more important than the people killed and tortured by the United States. This is tantamount to saying: The United States should be allowed to continue committing these war crimes in secret; that it’s somehow okay for them to butcher people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the public have no right to know.
But even if what the United States is saying were true, these documents were not published first by Assange. John Young, the owner of a website called cryptome.org testified to the court that he was the one who published the documents first, and the United States never prosecuted him or asked him to take them down.
This demonstrates that the whole case against Assange is selective, political, and has nothing to do with the law.
The Espionage Act that Assange is being charged under was created during World War I, in 1917. It has always been used as a political tool against dissidents such as Eugene Debs, or whistleblowers like Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, who exposed the true extent of the US war in Vietnam, and NSA mass surveillance.
If you’re charged under the Espionage Act, you’re also forbidden from arguing a public interest defense. This means that even if you expose colossal government crimes, you still go to prison.
Point 2: The Home Secretary was wrong to allow the extradition
This constitutes the second part of Assange’s appeal: It is illegal in Britain to extradite someone to another country, knowing they could face the death penalty.
If the Home Secretary, who has the final say on extraditions, is aware of such a risk, they are compelled to bar the extradition.
It is inconceivable that Priti Patel was unaware of who Julian Assange is, and the likelihood he would be killed in the United States. Once in US jurisdiction, the US could pile on additional charges, or simply execute him, as espionage is a capital offense.
Even without a specific death sentence, at 52 years old, even a 30-year bid is akin to a death sentence.
The hollow assurances given by the United States do not preclude the death penalty. And on top of that, the Home Secretary didn’t even bother asking for assurances that would.
So how could the Home Secretary agree to send Assange to a foreign country that so clearly wants to see him dead?
Mike Pompeo, who back then was head of the CIA, and then-president Donald Trump, launched this legal case against Julian Assange. In the past, Donald Trump had called for Assange to be given the death penalty, while Mike Pompeo proclaimed Assange “has no First Amendment rights”. After WikiLeaks published a trove of CIA documents, dubbed the Vault 7 files, Mike Pompeo declared war on WikiLeaks by publicly labeling it a “non-state hostile intelligence service”
All these political denunciations of WikiLeaks and Assange were then followed up with threats against him and his family. As we heard in court in 2020 from protected witnesses, the CIA had drawn up plans to potentially kidnap or assassinate Julian.
The United States is accusing Julian Assange of “espionage”. Normally, this is where the case should be thrown out, because espionage is considered a textbook political offense. And it is forbidden to extradite someone for a political offense under the US-UK Extradition Treaty, Art 4.
Customary extradition treaties have always forbidden extradition for political offenses such as “espionage” and “treason”. And this line of defense has been used before in court to successfully block extraditions.
- Extraditions for political offenses are forbidden under Article 4 of the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003
Here is where the problem arises:
The Extradition Act, which is the implementation of the US-UK treaty inside British law, is missing this section. This is likely due to the fact it was passed at the height of the “War on Terror” in 2003, giving the Americans carte blanche to snatch people, drag them to the US and throw them in dungeons.
At the time of its passage, many criticized the Extradition Treaty as being extremely one-sided in favor of the United States.
No matter how you look at Assange’s case, it is unfair and illegal.
The United States wants to prosecute Julian Assange under US law, but at the same time deny him any protections under US law, such as free speech. If Assange has no First Amendment rights as a foreign national, then how can he be punished as a foreign national – who is not even in the US? This is such a flagrant double standard, and selective application of the law.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is incorporated into British law through the Human Rights Act. Upon examination, it is clear that Julian’s rights are being flagrantly violated
Article 5 protects one from arbitrary detention.
Because this is a political case, it would be a violation of the Extradition Treaty to send Julian to America. Therefore, he has no reason to be in prison right now, and is therefore being arbitrarily detained in violation of his Article 5 rights.
Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial.
We know the United States spied on Assange’s conversations with his lawyers when he was inside the Ecuadorian embassy; stole his electronic devices; and collected medical and legal records.
In 2020, I sat in court with Fidel Narvaez, the former Consul to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. We listened to the submissions of two protected witnesses who confirmed they had spied on Assange because the security company they worked for, UC Global, had been contracted by the CIA to do so. They also discussed plans to potentially kidnap and poison Julian Assange and harvest DNA from his baby.
To spy on someone’s privileged conversations with their lawyers, and to use tainted evidence in court is scandalous beyond words, and violates the fundamentals of due process in any jurisdiction. Any judge would have thrown this case out from day one.
We also know Assange will not get a fair trial in America because the jury will be selected from a pool of people who work for the CIA, NSA, or have friends and family working in the intelligence community. These are the very same people whose crimes Julian Assange exposed.
The court in Virginia that issued the charges and would hold this trial is used specifically for this reason; because the jury is biased and the government knows it can’t lose. It is already 100% guaranteed that he will get convicted and go to prison.
Additionally, the United States could use secret evidence against Julian Assange, that he wouldn’t even be allowed to view due to it being “classified”.
Article 7 protects one from being punished retroactively. The case against Julian Assange is unprecedented: No publisher in America has ever been prosecuted, let alone convicted for publishing classified documents.
This case criminalizes journalism, and therefore violates Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Assange’s lawyers went over the ECHR repeatedly because it is incorporated into British law, meaning the court is obliged to follow it. Not only that, but this was their way of hinting to the judges: If you don’t give us permission to appeal, we will go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, and that court will look upon your decision unfavorably.
(The United Kingdom is a founding and current member of the European Council, which is separate from the European Union).
Assange’s lawyer, Mark Summers, argued very clearly: The Strasbourg court will see that a) these US war crimes were real; b) they were happening on the ground at the time, and; c) by publishing these documents Assange altered the United States’ behavior: The helicopter massacres like in the “Collateral Murder” video stopped, and the Iraq war came to an end.
Assange’s team put together a very compelling defense during this week’s hearing.
Continue readingCold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power
Jim Green, Mar 12, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/cold-turkeys-the-demise-of-nuclear-power-in-australias-aukus-partner-countries/
When announcing the AUKUS agreement in 2021, then Prime Minister (and secret energy minister) Scott Morrison said: “Let me be clear: Australia is not seeking to establish … a civil nuclear capability.” He also said that “a civil nuclear energy industry is not a requirement for us to go through the submarine program.”
However, Coalition Senators argued in a report last year that Australia’s “national security” would be put at risk by retaining federal legislation banning nuclear power and that the “decision to purchase nuclear submarines makes it imperative for Australia to drop its ban on nuclear energy.”
So, let’s see how nuclear power is faring in our AUKUS partners, the UK and the US.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
This is a story about conventional, large reactors. All that needs to be said about ‘small modular reactors’ in the UK and the US is that none exist and none are under construction.
The UK
The last power reactor start-up in the UK was 29 years ago — Sizewell B in 1995.
Over the past decade, several proposed new nuclear power plants have been abandoned (Moorside, Wylfa, Oldbury) and the only project to reach the construction stage is Hinkley Point C, comprising two French-designed EPR reactors.
In the late 2000s, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was £2 billion (A$3.9 billion). When construction of two EPR reactors at Hinkley Point commenced in 2018 and 2019, the cost estimate for the two reactors was £19.6 billion.
The current cost estimate for the two reactors has ballooned to £46 billion (A$89 billion) or £23 billion (A$44.5 billion) per reactor. That is 11.5 times higher than the estimate in the late 2000s. Further cost overruns are certain. This is an example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
The UK National Audit Office estimates that taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point — primarily in the form of a guaranteed payment of £92.50 (A$180) per megawatt-hour (2012 prices), indexed for inflation, for 35 years — could amount to £30 billion (A$58 billion) while other credible estimates put the figure as high as £48.3 billion (A$94 billion).
Delays
The delays associated with Hinkley Point have been as shocking as the cost overruns. In 2007, French utility EDF boasted that Britons would be using electricity from an EPR reactor at Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017. In 2008, the UK government said the reactors would be complete “well before 2020”.
But construction of the two reactors didn’t even begin until 2018 and 2019, respectively, at which time completion was expected in 2026. Now, completion is expected in 2030 or 2031.
Undoubtedly there will be further delays and if the reactors are completed, it will be more than a quarter of a century after the 2007 EDF boast that Britons would finally be using electricity from Hinkley Point to cook their Christmas turkeys.
Construction will take well over 10 years; planning and construction over 25 years. Yet in Australia, the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
‘Something of a crisis’
Nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo said in 2017 that the UK’s nuclear power program faced “something of a crisis”. The following year, Toshiba abandoned the planned Moorside nuclear power project near Sellafield despite generous offers of government support — a “crushing blow” according to Yeo.
Then in 2019, Hitachi abandoned the planned Wylfa reactor project in Wales after the estimated cost of the twin-reactor project had risen by 50 percent.
Hitachi abandoned the project despite an offer from the UK government to take a one-third equity stake in the project; to consider providing all of the required debt financing; and to consider providing a guarantee of a generous minimum payment per unit of electricity.
Long gone was the 2006 assertion from then UK industry secretary Alistair Darling that the private sector would have to “initiate, fund, construct and operate” nuclear power plants.
The UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities noted that Hitachi joined a growing list of companies and utilities backing out of the UK nuclear new-build program:
“Let’s not forget that Hitachi are not the first energy utility to come to the conclusion that new nuclear build in the UK is not a particularly viable prospect. The German utilities RWE Npower and E-on previously tried to develop the site before they sold it on Hitachi in order to protect their own vulnerable energy market share in the UK and Germany.
“British Gas owner Centrica pulled out of supporting Hinkley Point C, as did GDF Suez and Iberdrola at Moorside, before Toshiba almost collapsed after unwise new nuclear investments in the United States forced it to pull out of the Sellafield Moorside development just a couple of months ago.”
Sizewell C
The UK government hopes to progress the Sizewell C project in Suffolk, comprising two EPR reactors, and is once again offering very generous support including taking an equity stake in the project and using a ‘regulated asset base‘ model which foists financial risks onto taxpayers and could result in taxpayers paying billions for failed projects — as it has in the US.
If recent experience is any guide, the government will struggle to find corporations or utilities willing to invest in Sizewell regardless of generous government support.
(The same could be said for plans for small modular reactors or mid-sized reactors envisaged by Rolls-Royce — it is doubtful whether private finance can be secured despite generous taxpayer subsidies.)
Many reactors have been permanently shut down in the UK: the IAEA lists 36 such reactors. Since the Sizewell B reactor startup in 1995, there have been 24 permanent reactors shut-downs and zero startups.
Repeat: since the last reactor startup in the UK, there have been 24 shut-downs!
The capacity of the nine remaining reactors (5.9 gigawatts — GW) is less than half of the peak of 13 GW in the late 1990s. Nuclear power’s contribution to electricity supply has fallen from 22 percent in the early 2000s to 14.2 percent.
Meanwhile, the UK government reports that renewable power sources accounted for 44.5 percent of total UK generation in the third quarter of 2023, a higher share than fossil fuels and around three times more than nuclear’s share.
What to make of the conservative UK government’s goal of quadrupling nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050? It is deeply implausible. The facts speak for themselves. Two dozen reactor shutdowns and zero startups since 1995.
The Hinkley Point project has been extremely slow and extremely expensive. The Sizewell C project is uncertain. Other proposals — including proposals for small modular reactors — are even more uncertain and distant.
Unsurprisingly, the extraordinary cost overruns and delays associated with Hinkley Point have complicated plans to advance the proposed Sizewell C project.
In 2010, the UK government announced that Sizewell was one of the locations slated for new reactors. Fourteen years later, construction is some years away and it remains uncertain if the project will reach the construction stage. EDF and the UK government are seeking to raise a further £20 billion from new investors. All reasonable offers considered.
France
The Sizewell C project is equally complicated across the channel due to EDF’s massive debts and its plan to replace the EPR design with an EPR2 design, about which little is known except that safety will be sacrificed on the altar of economics. EDF’s debt as of early 2023 was €64.5 billion (A$107 billion) and it was fully nationalised later in 2023 due to its crushing debts.
In addition to its adventures across the channel, EDF has a “colossal maintenance and investment programme to fund” in France as the Financial Times noted in October 2021.
As in the UK, there has not been a single reactor startup in France since the last millennium. The only current reactor construction project is one EPR reactor under construction at Flamanville. The current cost estimate of €19.1 billion (A$31.6 billion) is nearly six times higher than the original estimate of €3.3 billion (A$5.5 billion).
Construction of the Flamanville reactor began in 2007 and it remains incomplete 17 years later. Planning plus construction have taken over a quarter of a century. Yet the Coalition argues that Australians could be cooking Christmas turkeys with nuclear power 10 years from now.
France’s nuclear industry was in its “worst situation ever“, a former EDF director said in 2016 — and the situation has worsened since then. Another former EDF director said in early 2024 that the French nuclear industry is “on a slow descent to hell” and he has “fierce doubts about EDF’s ability to build more reactors.”
The US
The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned in 2017 after the expenditure of around US$9 billion (A$13.6 billion). Construction began in 2013 and the project was abandoned in 2017.
The project was initially estimated to cost US$11.5 billion; when it was abandoned, the estimate was US$25 billion (A$38 billion).
Largely as a result of the V.C. Summer disaster, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and its parent company Toshiba only avoided bankruptcy by selling its most profitable assets. Both companies decided that they would no longer take on the huge risks associated with reactor construction projects. A year earlier, Westinghouse said its goal was to win overseas orders for at least 45 AP1000 reactors by 2030.
Criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the V.C. Summer project are ongoing: the fiasco is known as the ‘nukegate’ scandal.
Vogtle
With the abandonment of the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina, the only remaining reactor construction project in the US was the Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors).
Construction of the Vogtle reactors began in 2013 and the expected completion dates of 2016 and 2017 were pushed back seven years to 2023 and 2024. In 2014, Westinghouse claimed a three-year construction schedule for AP1000 reactors but the Vogtle reactors took 10 and 11 years to complete.
The first licence application for the Vogtle project was submitted in 2006 so planning and construction took 17 years in addition to the time spent before the 2006 application.
The latest cost estimate for the Vogtle project is $34 billion (A$51 billion), more than twice the estimate when construction began (US$14–15.5 billion). The project only survived because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts.
In 2006, Westinghouse said it could build an AP1000 reactor for as little as US$1.4 billion (A$2.1 billion) — 12 times lower than the latest Vogtle estimate of US$17 billion (A$25.5 billion) per reactor. Another example of the Golden Rule of Nuclear Economics: Add a Zero to Nuclear Industry Estimates.
Corruption scandals
In 2005, the US Nuclear Energy Institute claimed that Westinghouse’s estimate of US$1,365 per kilowatt “has a solid analytical basis, has been peer-reviewed, and reflects a rigorous design, engineering and constructability assessment.”
In fact, the estimate was out by an order of magnitude and the Institute’s involvement in a raft of corruption scandals has been exposed. No doubt the Dutton Coalition would happily parrot whatever lies the Institute chose to feed them, and no doubt the Murdoch/Sky/AFR echo-chamber would happily amplify those lies.
During the ill-fated ‘nuclear renaissance’, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission received applications to build 31 reactors, but only the Vogtle and V.C. Summer projects reached the construction stage and only the twin-reactor Vogtle project was completed. Two out of 31 ain’t bad. Well it is, actually.
Thirteen reactors have been permanently shut down since 2013 with many more closures in the pipeline. The US has one of the oldest reactor fleets in the world with a mean age of 42.1 years. The mean age of the 29 reactors closed worldwide from 2018‒2022 was 43.5 years.
Around 20 unprofitable, ageing reactors have been saved by nuclear bailout funding but their future is precarious. In addition to the V.C. Summer corruption scandal, nuclear bailout programs are mired in corruption scandals (see here, here, here and here and if you’re still not convinced see here, here, and here).
Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.
Aberdeen shipping logistics company warned over nuclear transport safety failings.
An inspection by the industry watchdog found that nuclear
material had been transported without the proper safety checks in place.
The UK’s nuclear watchdog has slammed an Aberdeen-based shipping
logistics company over risks posed by its transportation of radioactive
materials.
The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the UK nuclear
regulatory body, identified a series of failings with Streamline Shipping
Group’s risk assessments during a routine compliance inspection at their
site in Aberdeen on January 31. Among the alarming findings were the fact
that radioactive materials had previously been moved despite not being
identified in risk assessment documentation.
Aberdeen Live 8th March 2024
https://www.aberdeenlive.news/news/aberdeen-news/aberdeen-shipping-logistics-company-warned-9152174
Hinkley Point Responds to Environmental Concerns Over Bristol Channel Eel Populations
Hinkley Point addresses SEG’s concerns on eel populations in the Bristol Channel, proposing solutions for environmental conservation amidst development.
BNN, Nitish Verma, 05 Mar 2024
In a recent development, Hinkley Point has addressed concerns voiced by the Sustainable Eel Group (SEG) regarding the nuclear plant’s impact on eel populations in the Bristol Channel. The SEG, a prominent organization dedicated to the conservation of the European eel, has expressed reservations about supporting the Hinkley Point C development without significant changes to protect these migratory fish, especially the critically endangered European eel.
Environmental Alarms and Hinkley’s Rebuttals
The Bristol Channel is home to the most substantial population of migrating eels in the British Isles, with recent surveys suggesting an annual arrival of 75 million tonnes of glass eels. This has raised alarms about the potential threats posed by the Hinkley Point C development to this vital migratory route. The area’s designation as a RAMSAR reserve and Site of Special Scientific Interest underscores its global ecological importance. Chris Fayers, head of environment at Hinkley Point C, countered these concerns by highlighting extensive research conducted by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), which suggests a minimal impact on fish populations, including eels. Furthermore, joint studies by the Universities of Bristol and Exeter have been cited to address risks related to noise pollution, a factor previously thought to significantly harm eel populations.
Proposed Solutions and SEG’s Stance
In response to the SEG’s concerns, Hinkley Point C has proposed the creation of a new salt marsh and the implementation of fish passes designed to be ‘eel friendly’ and benefit the overall eel population. These measures aim to mitigate the environmental impact of the nuclear plant’s operations on the local ecosystem. However, the SEG remains cautious, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence and effective implementation of these measures before lending their support to the development. The group’s focus on ensuring the survival and recovery of the European eel underscores the critical nature of this issue.
Looking Ahead: Conservation and Development Balance
The debate surrounding Hinkley Point C’s impact on eel populations in the Bristol Channel highlights the broader challenge of balancing infrastructure development with environmental conservation. As the largest and most high-profile NGO focusing on the recovery of the European eel, the SEG’s concerns carry significant weight. The outcome of this situation could set important precedents for how large-scale projects address and mitigate their environmental impacts. With both sides presenting arguments and potential solutions, the ongoing dialogue between Hinkley Point C and environmental groups will be crucial in determining the future of the Bristol Channel’s eel populations. https://bnnbreaking.com/world/uk/hinkley-point-responds-to-environmental-concerns-over-bristol-channel-eel-populations
Anglesey nuclear power plant plan resurrected almost four years after being shelved due to costs
This Is Money, By JOHN ABIONA , 7 March 2024
Plans for a nuclear power plant in North Wales look set to be revived almost four years after the project was shelved.
Jeremy Hunt said the Government has bought the Wylfa site on Anglesey and a second at Oldbury-on-Severn in south Gloucestershire from Hitachi for £160million.
The Japanese firm walked away from building the plant at Wylfa in September 2020 having suspended the project the year before due to rising costs.
But yesterday the Chancellor, who referred to the island by its Welsh-language and constituency name, said: ‘Ynys Mon has a vital role in developing our nuclear ambitions.’
Ministers are also pressing ahead with plans for small modular reactors (SMRs) with six companies including Rolls-Royce bidding to win the contract.
These will complement Somerset’s Hinkley Point C and Suffolk’s Sizewell C nuclear power stations…………………………………………….more https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13165945/Anglesey-nuclear-power-plant-plan-resurrected-four-years-shelved.html
UK Labour versus Green
What’s the Choice between Labour and the Green Party on energy?
Set against the Government’s ever-incredibly shrinking net zero commitments, Labour’s own shrinking net zero commitments in its ‘Green Prosperity Plan’ still look substantially better. But is this a difference big enough for environmentally conscious people to vote Labour? Or is Labour abandoning the climate struggle so much that people should go for the Green Party instead?
These are troubling questions for Labour supporters who put climate policy at the top of their to-do lists. Most troubling is the fact that Labour’s programme seems to ignore the benefit of converting the nation away from using natural gas and towards use of heat pumps…………………………………………………………………………………..
Then there is the clean power plan. This is supposed to have all electricity generated from non-fossil fuels by 2030………………………………………………………….
Nuclear black hole
Indeed, Labour may end up pouring a lot of the money intended for other types of green energy down the black hole that will open as the Government seriously starts the Sizewell C project. That project will be a terrible public spending/consumer bill disaster compared even to Hinkley C. This is because unlike Hinkley C the construction cost overruns will be borne by the UK Government and the UK energy consumers, and not by EDF. Sizewell C may not come online until after 2050. This new nuclear would in practice, anyway, make little difference to the need to balance fluctuating renewable energy supplies. Labour’s proposals mention small modular reactors (SMRs), a fantasy concept that is getting nowhere across the planet. If nuclear reactors were best small, they would not have become bigger! More wasted money!
Green Party and extra spending
The Green Party of England and Wales (GPEW), by contrast, is promising an extensive programme of green energy investment. They will say more in the forthcoming manifesto.
However, in March 2023 they called for £37 billion annual spend to pay for insulation, plus a range of support measures for different types of renewable energy and replacing gas boilers with heat pumps.
True, much of it would rely on borrowing money. However, a significant portion of the funding is based on a promise to raise a new wealth tax as well as the promise held out by Labour for more windfall taxes on oil and gas. In addition, the Green Party has called for carbon taxes to fund measures, the carbon taxes to be levied on ‘the biggest polluters’. Avoiding spending money on nuclear power (which the Green Party opposes) will release a lot of funds for green energy compared to Labour………………………………………………………………….
Public Ownership
The Green Party also supports a lot more public ownership of energy compared to Labour. I certainly support the nationalisation of the domestic energy supply sector. This will cost very little for the state to buy – arguably nothing since the consumer will no longer have to pay bail-outs for bankrupt suppliers. It has always been a nonsense to say that this retail supply market is competitive……………………………………………… more https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/labour-versus-green
Improvement notice served over storage of hazardous materials at Dounreay
By Alan Hendry – alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 4 Mar 24, https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/improvement-notice-served-over-storage-of-hazardous-material-344039/
An improvement notice has been served over shortfalls in arrangements for storing alkali metals at Dounreay.
Buildings used to store these metals, predominantly sodium, were leaking in rainwater – with pools observed where the containers were being kept.
The notice was served by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) on Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS), formerly Magnox Ltd.
ONR inspectors judged that the prolonged period of exposure to moist and damp conditions was resulting in degradation of the barriers for safe storage of the chemicals.
Although no-one was harmed as a result of these shortfalls, and there were no radiological consequences, ONR concluded that there was potential for serious personal injury if workers had been exposed to the hazardous materials.
‘It’ll be a shortlist of one!’ Villagers in England fear nuclear dump proposal
Plans for a new wave of atomic power have not factored in local concerns over the safety of the waste sites the schemes entail.
Alex Lawson, Sun 3 Mar 2024 , https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/03/itll-be-a-shortlist-of-one-villagers-in-england-fear-nuclear-dump-proposal
When Ian Harrison returned to the Lincolnshire coast to care for his parents a decade ago, he didn’t expect to spend his own retirement fighting plans to dig a £50bn nuclear waste dump near the beaches of his childhood.
Harrison, 67, lives a mile from the village of Theddlethorpe, one of three sites in England being examined for a possible geological disposal facility (GDF) to handle decades of nuclear waste from the power and defence industries. The cavernous dump will feature a series of tunnels and vaults dug 200-1,000 metres underground, capable of holding high-risk nuclear waste.
“It’s just a terrible idea to put a nuclear dump next to a seaside resort,” says Harrison, a retired warrant officer. “The safety concerns are real – look at Chernobyl – but people are more worried about the tourism that comes to Mablethorpe and the impact on local businesses.”Map showing proposed and withdrawn sites for GDFs
After several sites fell out of contention, the former gas terminal in Lincolnshire is one of just three which remain, with two on the Cumbrian coast – Mid Copeland and South Copeland. There is speculation about another site on the north-west coast.
The search for a home for Britain’s nuclear waste underlines a problem at the heart of its energy ambitions. Politicians have extolled the virtues of low-carbon nuclear power, but little attention has been given to the question of where to put the resulting waste.
Allerdale in Cumbria was ruled out last September after the government body behind the GDF project, Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), said there was “only a limited volume of suitable rock”, meaning it was not safe for storage. Last month, councillors in East Yorkshire withdrew from a process to consider hosting a GDF at South Holderness, east of Hull. In 2021, a council leader in Hartlepool resigned in a similar GDF row.
“At South Holderness, the local population complained and the council listened and stopped it,” says Harrison. “Here, people are worried, but they are sugarcoating it and not taking into account local concerns. Eventually, this will end up with a shortlist of one: us.”
The GDF is forecast to cost between £20bn and £53bn. Work on the project could take decades to begin, and high-risk waste will not enter it until at least 2075. The cost will be met by taxpayers, the existing nuclear plants’ operator EDF, and future power station operators.
Work on the GDF is expected to 4,000 jobs in its first 25 years. It is not an unprecedented move – Finland is nearing completion of a 450-metre-deep cavern to store its waste. France, Canada, Switzerland and Sweden are making progress on similar projects.
Britain’s nuclear waste is largely generated by its ageing power stations, as well as by industrial and defence sectors. It is housed in more than 20 ground-level sites which can hold the waste for up to 100 years, meaning a permanent store needs to be found. Even more waste is expected to be generated from a new era of reactors, despite lengthy delays,starting with Hinkley Point C in Somerset, currently the only new UK station under construction.
The handling of nuclear waste in Britain was put in the spotlight last year when the Guardian published Nuclear Leaks, a year-long investigation into problems with cybersecurity, safety and a “toxic” culture at Sellafield. Most of the waste now at the Cumbria site will be sent to a GDF, probably between 2050 and 2125.
While it can be argued that the Copeland sites have communities familiar with nuclear waste, it is an alien industry for Theddlethorpe, where geologists are studying the clay rock under the seabed.
Proponents of a GDF at Theddlethorpe, where a facility would be built onshore and the store tunnelled under the sea six miles off the coast, argue it will bring not only jobs but investment – in flood defences, road improvements and rail links. Detractors say its largely retired community will barely contribute to the workforce, and its holiday parks will play host only to construction workers while tourism slowly dies. A government gaffe in which Skegness was wrongly spelled as “Skegross” on a map did little to engender local support.
Ken Smith, a retired former lecturer and chair of the Guardians of the East Coast pressure group, says: “People call us nimbys and tell us that we’re only interested in the impact on house prices, but that’s a red herring. It’s about the people who live here and the way this could change their lives.”
A test of public support for the Theddlethorpe project is likely to be conducted in 2027. Jon Collins, the independent chair of the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership, says only a small number of the 10,000 people who live in the search area have yet expressed an opinion. “There are a lot of people who have yet to engage. People deserve the opportunity to have a proper debate with all the facts before a decision is made.”
In Mid Copeland, David Moore, 70, a retired farmer, says local support for the project has increased in recent years. “Our community has been brought up handling radioactive waste,” says Moore, a representative on the Mid Copeland GDF community partnership. “We have a highly skilled workforce, and know it brings highly paid jobs.” Residents in nearby South Copeland are more circumspect, he claims.
A contentious element of the project has been the £1m a year in funds offered to prospective sites, handed out by NWS. Spending has included £382,067 for an adventure playground, garden and CCTV at the village halls; £49,981 on a project to reduce loneliness; and £26,102 to the Parrot Zoo Trust. Some locals see the taxpayer money as a “bribe”; others argue the money might as well be taken while the debate continues.
Collins says any final decision needs to take into account both local opinion and the best geological conditions for the site.
But Smith says: “A GDF is simply sweeping the problem under the carpet. My worry is that I want future generations to enjoy what I have I can take my grandchildren for a picnic on the beach: you can’t do that at Sellafield. I do not want the area to be torn apart. If they industrialise this coastline then all that enjoyment will be lost.”
NWS said: “A GDF will only be built where there is a suitable site and a willing community. This is a consent-based process and we are committed to giving local people all the information they need, listening to all voices and letting local people have their say on the topic.”
Scottish National Party ministers to set out plans for removing nuclear weapons after independence
A new policy paper will focus on an independent Scotland’s ‘place in the world’
The Scotsman, By Alistair Grant, 4 Mar 24
SNP ministers are to set out proposals for the armed forces in an independent Scotland, including the removal of nuclear weapons from the country.
Angus Robertson, the external affairs secretary, will launch a new policy paper today focused on an independent Scotland’s “place in the world”.
And it will argue Scotland would gain “a seat at the table at the UN, the EU and other important global and regional forums”.
Mr Robertson said: “Independence would mean that Scotland gets to determine the type of nation it wants to be on the world stage. A nation that acts based on its values and principles, promotes human rights and development, and builds partnerships with other countries and international organisations to address global challenges.
“As an independent country we could renew and strengthen our existing relationships on these islands and around the world – promoting peace, prosperity and climate action, as a good global citizen committed to safeguarding human rights and upholding international law and the rules-based order.
“Scotland has a long history of being an outward-looking nation and I look forward to setting out our proposals in detail.”
It will be the latest in a series of Scottish Government papers, titled Building a New Scotland, which are described as forming a prospectus for an independent Scotland.
The SNP has long backed the removal of nuclear weapons from Faslane. However, there have been questions in the past over what this would mean for possible Nato membership.
The Scottish Greens, who have a power-sharing relationship with the SNP, do not support joining Nato…………………………………………………………. https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-ministers-to-set-out-plans-for-removing-nuclear-weapons-after-independence-4540930
Mistakes, Misfiring and Trident: Britain’s Flawed Nuclear Deterrence
Australian Independent Media, March 4, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark
Nuclear weapons are considered the strategic silverware of nation states. Occasionally, they are given a cleaning and polishing. From time to time, they go missing, fail to work, and suffer misplacement. Of late, the UK Royal Navy has not been doing so well in that department, given its seminal role in upholding the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. In January, an unarmed Trident II D5 nuclear missile fell into the Atlantic Ocean after a bungled launch from a Royal Navy submarine.
The missile’s journey was a distinctly shorter than its originally plotted 6,000 km journey that would have ended in a location somewhere between Africa and Brazil. In language designed to say nothing yet conceal monumental embarrassment, UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps called it “an anomaly” while the Labour opposition expressed concern through its shadow defence secretary, John Healey. An anonymous military source was the most descriptive of all: “It left the submarine but it just went plop, right next to them.
The anomaly in question, which Shapps witnessed on board the HMS Vanguard, took place off the coast of Florida during a January 30 exercise at the US’s Navy Port site. Its failure is the second for the missile, which was also tested in 2016 and resulted in its automatic self-destruction after veering off course and heading to the United States. It was therefore galling for the Defence Secretary to then claim in a written statement to Parliament that Trident was still “the most reliable weapons system in the world”, a claim also reiterated by the missile’s manufacturers, Lockheed Martin. With a gamey sense of delusion, Shapps continued to argue that the test merely “affirmed the effectiveness of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, in which the government has absolute confidence. The submarine and crew were successfully certified and will rejoin the operational cycle as planned.”…………………………………………………………………………………..
Even at the best of times, deterrence, as a claim, is the stuff of fluffy fiction, astrological flight and fancy. It is unverifiable, speculative, highly presumptuous. Who is to know if a nuclear weapon will be fired at any point, at any time, against any target, on whatever pretext presents itself?
The madman theory suggests that such a weapon will be deployed, though we are not sure when this might eventuate. Keeping company with such a theory is the rational, mass murderer type who takes comfort in the prospect that 100 humans might survive a holocaust killing billions. Shoot and take your chances. Human stupidity glows with the hope that errors will be healed, and mass crimes palliated.
In actual fact, the true proof of such deterrence would lie in hellish murder: weapons launched, catastrophe ensuing. Those recording such evidence are bound to be done by coarse skinned mutants with plumbing problems.
The Trident misfiring episode can be seen in one of two ways. First, it illustrates the point that we are here because of dumb luck, having survived error, misunderstanding and miscommunication. In the second sense, it yields an uncomfortable reality for the war planners in White Hall: Trident may not work when asked to.
Whether a system fails because of faulty machinery or accident, the problem of misfiring does not go away. At some point, a misfire with potency will result in deaths, though we can perhaps be assured that Trident may simply fail to live up to the heavy sense of expectation demanded of it. We can hope it just plops. https://theaimn.com/mistakes-misfiring-and-trident-britains-flawed-nuclear-deterrence/
Holderness: Government guarantees plans for nuclear waste dump will be dropped for good
A Government minister has guaranteed that proposals for a nuclear waste dump in south Holderness will be dropped for good, the area’s MP has said.
By Joe Gerrard, 28th Feb 2024, https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/environment/holderness-government-guarantees-plans-for-nuclear-waste-dump-will-be-dropped-for-good-4536953
Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart said he had secured a commitment from Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie that a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) will not come to south Holderness.
The Conservative MP said he was delighted with the confirmation after people from Holderness and local councillors managed to put a stop to the plans..
It comes after Nuclear Waste Services, the Government agency behind the proposals, said it would wind down the South Holderness Working Group after East Riding councillors voted to withdraw.
It followed pressure from local campaigners and South West Holderness ward’s Coun Sean McMaster and Coun Lyn Healing, backed by Mr Stuart, after GDF proposals were announced in January.
They would have seen radioactive nuclear waste transported to south Holderness and stored in a network of vaults and tunnels hundreds of metres underground for up to 175 years.
The establishment of the Working Group began a process that would have lasted at least a decade while also bringing between £1m and £2.5m-a-year in funding to the area.
Nuclear Waste Services said the international consensus was that GDFs were the best long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and it would have brought economic benefits to south Holderness
It comes after Nuclear Waste Services, the Government agency behind the proposals, said it would wind down the South Holderness Working Group after East Riding councillors voted to withdraw.
They would have seen radioactive nuclear waste transported to south Holderness and stored in a network of vaults and tunnels hundreds of metres underground for up to 175 years.
The establishment of the Working Group began a process that would have lasted at least a decade while also bringing between £1m and £2.5m-a-year in funding to the area.
Nuclear Waste Services said the international consensus was that GDFs were the best long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste and it would have brought economic benefits to south Holderness.
But residents and councillors who spoke at East Riding Council’s full meeting on Wednesday, February 21, said it threatened tourism and farming and had caused house sales to fall through.
Former UK Government nuclear waste disposal adviser Paul Dorfman told LDRS putting a GDF in an area at risk of flooding such as south Holderness was ludicrous.
Mr Stuart said Nuclear Minister Mr Bowie had told him Nuclear Waste Services would fully respect the council’s decision to end discussions about the GDF
The Beverley and Holderness MP added the council vote reflected deep opposition in the local community to the plans.
Mr Stuart said: “Many people in Holderness didn’t want nuclear waste to come to the place they call home.
“I always want to see our communities strengthened, and Coun McMaster and Coun Healing did just that through their motion to have the council withdraw from discussions with Nuclear Waste Services.
“I’m delighted that the government minister responsible has confirmed that Nuclear Waste Services will now withdraw from Holderness, and leave us alone for good.”
France accused of ‘unacceptable’ behaviour after demanding UK taxpayer cash for Hinkley nuclear.
Former energy secretary Chris Huhne says Paris must cover cost overruns
Jonathan Leake, 29 February 2024 •
France’s demands for UK taxpayers to help fund Hinkley Point
C are “wholly unacceptable”, according to the former energy secretary
who helped develop the nuclear project. Chris Huhne, who was energy
secretary from 2010 to 2012, said he was “astonished and saddened” to
hear that both Bruno Le Maire, the French finance minister, and Luc
Rémont, chief executive of EDF, were pressing the UK to help with the cost
overruns.
Mr Huhne was a leading architect of the deal with EDF, France’s
state-owned electricity supplier, to build the nuclear power station. Under
the deal, finally signed off by Mr Huhne’s successor, Ed Davey, EDF was
responsible for all the estimated £18bn costs, with a start date of 2025.
Telegraph 29th Feb 2024
Conservationists say Hinkley C nuclear water intakes could wipe out Atlantic salmon stocks
West Somerset Free Press, By John Thorne , Friday 1st March 2024
ENDANGERED Atlantic salmon could be wiped out in the Bristol Channel once the new Hinkley Point C nuclear power station starts generating electricity, campaigners fear.
They believe the estuary’s migrating salmon population could be decimated by huge water cooling intakes serving the power station’s nuclear reactors.
The Missing Salmon Alliance (MSA), which is a collective of passionate conservation organisations with a common interest in improving the plight of Atlantic salmon, is demanding greater fish protection measures by Hinkley C’s owner EDF.
They accused EDF of ‘flagrant disregard’ for major fish kill potential if it was successful in a bid to drop a requirement to fit acoustic fish deterrents (AFDs) on the water intake heads on the bed of the estuary.
Consultation on Hinkley’s proposals to drop the AFDs ended on Thursday (February 29) and MSA said it understood the system was now unlikely to be used.
As mitigation for the removal of the AFDs, EDF had suggested compensatory creation of wetland habitat for birds and other species, and enhancements to fish passage on some existing weirs.
But MSA said Hinkley would draw a huge amount of water from the Bristol Channel to cool its reactors, about 120,000 litres per second.
A spokesperson said: “This is the equivalent of three Olympic swimming pools per minute and twice the average flow of the River Thames, in London.
“An independent panel warned in 2021 the power station could capture up to 182 million fish per year. It is likely that most of these will not survive.”
The area surrounding Hinkley is a Special Area of Conservation with a number of rivers which are home to endangered, protected, and commercially important fish, including Atlantic salmon, shad, elver eel, which is critically endangered, conger eel, brown shrimp, cod, bass, whiting, flounder, sole, and thornback ray.
The Severn has one of only four UK spawning populations of twait shad and data showed a significant risk of Hinkley wiping them out as nearly one-third of their population used the sea around the abstraction zones.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies Atlantic salmon as ‘endangered’ in Great Britain and ‘near threatened’ on a global scale.
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust head of fisheries Dylan Roberts said: “Wild Atlantic salmon migrate through the Bristol Channel each spring from a number of recognised rivers in the area.
“It is critical a real-time assessment of salmon smolts migrating through the area is funded by EDF.
“This is not solely about salmon, it is a much broader remit.
“It is about conserving our wider biodiversity against a massive State project steamrolling through and putting two fingers up to the environment.”
Angling Trust head of campaigns Stuart Singleton-White said: “What EDF propose in terms of compensation is inadequate.
“It will not compensate for the millions of fish sucked in by these intakes every year.
“It will decimate Atlantic salmon and shad.
“Without proper compensation and mitigation, they could become locally extinct.”………………..
Chris Huhne Letter: Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing bill for EDF failings
I was astonished and saddened by your report that both Bruno Le
Maire, the French finance minister, and Luc Rémont, chief executive of
EDF, are pressing the UK government to help with the cost overrun at
Hinkley Point C, the EDF nuclear plant under construction in the UK.
I regret EDF’s €12.9bn write down, but it is the French company’s
responsibility (Report, February 17). I will save French blushes by not
quoting all the promises that were made by the company about the low cost
of its nuclear energy (a fraction even of what was ultimately agreed). What
is wholly unacceptable, however, is the notion that the UK taxpayer should
in any way be on the hook for cost overruns when it was always made utterly
explicit — by me and my successor — that this would never happen.
A clear condition of the Hinkley project was that EDF would be entirely and
solely responsible for the construction costs and risks, and the UK
government would merely guarantee a price (subsidy-free, taking account of
carbon costs) for the electricity output once the plant started. Nothing
could be more unambiguous either legally, politically or morally.
Neither I nor my immediate successors would ever have agreed any contract — a
contract for difference — on any other basis. Any British minister who
now goes back on that arrangement would be betraying their responsibility
to the exchequer, and would be a legitimate target for the public accounts
committee.
FT 28th Feb 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/175d212b-0a93-48f5-b68c-2a58bd098796
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 (102)
- 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 
