I believe this is the plant that is the largest in Europe.
Other Investing, indeed. If the fire is not controlled or damage causing operational problems.
--- Firefighters unable to reach fire at Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant
From CNN's Jonny Hallam
Firefighters are unable to reach the fire at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, according to the mayor of the nearby town of Energodar, Dmytro Orlov, in a Facebook post.
“The Zaporizhzhia Power Plant is notifying of a threat at the first block of the power plant! The fire at the plant is continuing. The firefighters cannot reach the location of the fire,” he posted.
Earlier, the mayor posted to Facebook saying: "Intense fighting is ongoing on approach routes to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant. Our National Guard fighters are defending. There are victims, but the exact number and condition so far cannot be determined under the circumstances."

Germany is most at risk, as they have closed about 50% of their nuclear plants recently and know import well over 50% of their energy from Russia

France has relied on nuclear for a long time, with 70% of its electricity produced by its own reactors. France also exports its nuclear technology and reactors. Macron recently announced an expansion of reliance on nuclear a pledge that turn out to be prescient given the energy prices in Europe today.

Most of the talking financial heads on CNN and PBS say it will take weeks to months for the Russian economy to collapse, esp if Europe has to continue buying millions of nat gas and oil
Having shut down their nuclear plants ( what were they thinking???) they are very dependent on Russia

“Cyberattacks are more likely than a nuclear response by Russia.”
Gosh. I feel a lot better now!
Fido sent me something late yesterday re the Ukrainian issue. Being derelict I failed to read it - and now can’t even find it. The brokers and fund houses don’t want a run on the bank. Not that I was so planning.

@graust
Thank you for the suggestions. I had forgotten about GAAEX, although I have looked at it in the past.
Will look at them and report back.
I think you can break down the ideas into a lot of categories and find ideas and ETFs for most of them. This is not the ideal, as most ETFs are index funds and the solutions are likely to come form ideas little known now
the things I am looking at are Alternative energy, Industrial electrification, energy storage, nuclear power, Basic materials that are necessary ( ie copper, Lithium, nickel uranium, and industrial processes like carbon capture, Water infrastructure, recycling and process innovation.
A lot of the ETFs load up on the latter with MSFT, GOOGL, and of course TSLA

Barron's had a short article on Climate change funds, maybe in honor of the Glasgow conference.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/climate-policies-fund-choices-51636068332?mod=past_editions
I have been putting small amounts into solar, wind and alternative energy ETFs mostly but a lot of them seem based only on indexes, and I think active management has a far better chance of success.
The other push for "ESG" funds seems to be too broad to allow a focus only on the transition to a low carbon environment.
This will concentrate on alternative energy, grid development, energy storage, nuclear power, materials like lithium, uranium, carbon capture, water infrastructure etc, not good governance, inclusiveness, or other desirable social goals that have little to do with low carbon.
There seem to be only a few actively managed Climate Change Funds available, like GMOs' GCCHX but it has minimums far out of the reach of mere mortals. A number of hedge funds are getting involved, and have lots of information, but again unless you have $1,000,000 or more you are on your own.
Has anyone done any significant research here?

I'm not sure about 1968 - 1981, but between 1973 and 1980, while the stock market roughly doubled utilities, well, roughly doubled.
Over the indicated periods, $100 grew to:
Utilities: 1973-1989 $711 (7x), 1981-1990 $352 (3.5x) => 1973-1980 2x
Stocks: 1973-1989 $613 (6x), 1981-1990 $303 (3x) => 1973-1980 2x
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-20-fi-1567-story.html
Okay, the calculation isn't perfect. I'm using the time frame from 1973-1989 and factoring out data from 1981-1990, while what should be factored out is 1981-1989.
(Utilities did a tad better than the S&P500 in 1990, losing only 0.63% to the 500's 3.18% loss.)
https://www.bespokepremium.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/totalreturns.png
Despite rising interest rates, despite inflation (which hit the energy sector - the raw material for utilities - harder than the economy as a whole), utilities didn't come off too badly.
(3 mo T-bill returns jumped from 4.07% in 1972 to 7.03% in 1973, generally remaining above 5% and moving into double digits at the end of the 70s. Inflation first broke 6% in 1973, roughly doubling the 1972 figure, roughly doubling again in 1974 to 11%, generally remaining about 6%, returning to double digits at the end of the 70s.)
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
A broader point is that aside from an expectation of rising inflation and interest rates, the utilities sector is substantially different from it was in the 70s. Then it was heavily regulated. Because of that regulation, investors expected a nearly guaranteed rate of return and little appreciation. Though because of rapidly rising costs (energy prices), the industry often failed to achieve those "guaranteed" returns in the 70s.
Still, I'm not expecting another reduction in oil production (with commensurate price hikes) due to an Arab oil embargo after a war with Israel (1973) or due to a revolution in Iran (1979).
Since deregulation took off in the 80s, since power generation was separated from transmission, it's a completely different business environment. In the 70s, nuclear power was all the rage, and the industry benefited from the government covering plants in case of, um, mishaps.
Today, nuclear is declining, and other utilities have to bear the cost of their negligence. Such as PG&E:

In a news conference, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett announced the 31 charges, including 11 felonies, against the company. She said in July that her office had determined that PG&E was “criminally liable” for last year’s Zogg Fire, which burned near Redding.
...
The filing also includes felony arson charges against PG&E for "recklessly igniting" three other fires, all occurring in Shasta County in the last year and a half before and after the Zogg Fire.
PG&E equipment has been found responsible for some of the most destructive wildfires in California history, including the 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County that left more than 80 people dead. More recently, PG&E reported to California utility regulators that its equipment may have been involved in the start of the Dixie Fire burning in Northern California.

https://www.kcra.com/article/criminal-charges-pgande-zogg-fire/37724695
Such as the electric utility companies operating in Texas:
https://abc13.com/texas-griddy-electric-company-lawsuit/10987967/

Part of the responsibility for the near-collapse of the state’s electrical grid can be traced to the decision in 1999 to embark on the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation, handing control of the state’s entire electricity delivery system to a market-based patchwork of private generators, transmission companies and energy retailers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us/texas-electricity-ercot-blackouts.html
The utility industry over the past third of a century or so is simply not the same as the regulated, widows and orphans industry it was prior to the 80s.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are building a $1 billion 'next-generation' nuclear reactor in Wyoming...

The plant, which features a sodium reactor and molten salt energy storage system, would be safer, perform better, and be less expensive than traditional nuclear power, Gates said in a press briefing.

bill-gates-warren-buffett-nuclear-reactor-wyoming
and,
Petrostates See Dire Consequences If World Rejects Oil Too Fast...

It’s no surprise that top officials from the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters want to see the industry continue for decades to come. Their comments are illustrative of the vast gulf between the world’s current carbon-based energy system and the changes required to prevent damaging climate change.

https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-03/petrostates-see-dire-consequences-if-world-rejects-oil-too-fast?srnd=premium

@johnN,
Not sure if the class would agree that these are bond funds per se but as best as I can answer your question, in order of largest holding to less of:
PMEFX (Penn Mutual AM 1847 Income) - some would argue more of a balanced income fund
I-Bonds - let's see what inflation rate portion is come May 1st...I'm thinking this could pay out over 2.5%, no state taxes, indexed to inflation, US Govt has printing press and nuclear aresenal and reserve currency so likely amongst safest investment avail.
FPFIX - FPA Flexible fixed income
Good Luck to you and all,
Baseball Fan

Not trying to have innuendo in my writing, sorry. I mean that I don’t think the invention of nuclear weapons was as beneficial for humanity as that of penicillin, yet the free market tends to treat these innovations equally or, worse, favors whichever one is more profitable to sell. The subtext to the notion that more regulation is bad for innovation is that all technological advancement is good and the government should just get out of the way. Also embedded is the idea that unregulated businesses themselves don’t try to stifle innovation when it hurts their bottom lines. We probably would’ve had the electric car fifty years ago were it not for the big auto and fossil fuel companies. Government officials in the U.S. are ostensibly elected by the people who may or may not want more regulation of certain technologies. CEOs are not elected by the people and often do as they please regarding technology so long as it makes them and shareholders money. If that means developing technology that manipulates you into buying certain products, voting for certain candidates and invading your privacy so be it. If it means creating technology that stifles innovation by smaller competitors also so be it.

Aside from the environmental waste disposal problem and labor/community radiation exposure problem, the cost advantages of nuclear don't appear to be there. From the previous link:

Existing nuclear plants have relatively low operation, maintenance, and fuel costs compared to many fossil fuel plants; however these routine costs still make nuclear power economically uncompetitive in comparison with natural gas, wind, and solar.
New nuclear plants are another matter altogether; their continuing high construction costs make them uneconomical. Between 2002 and 2008, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In reality, even those astronomical projections have been surpassed. The two new units at the Vogtle Plant in Georgia, the only new nuclear construction in the United States, are now years behind schedule and projected to cost more than twice their original budget of $14 billion. Similarly, it was estimated that Duke Energy’s proposed Levy County Nuclear Power Plant in Florida would cost $5 billion, but projections ballooned to $22 billion. The project was canceled in 2017, and Duke Energy decided to focus on solar energy expansion instead.
Reactors also typically require a long period of planning, licensing, and building. The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide was just under 10 years.
The WSINR report also estimates that the cost of generating nuclear energy ranges between $112 and $189 per megawatt-hour (MWh), while solar power costs between $36 and $44 and onshore wind power comes in at $29 to $56.

Nuclear plants are prob best resources but don't build one in my backyard (maybe most MFOers may feel same way) but perhaps 1000 miles away

OK, well if we're to use clearly biased sources, then:
https://nrdc.org/stories/nuclear-power-101
https://nrdc.org/sites/default/files/plants.pdf

If you're going to discuss something as serious as the future of the planet's environment and our energy supply, I would recommend finding a more objective source than a natural resources money manager who invests primarily in oil, nuclear power and mining stocks--gorozen.com/firm/team--and has largely failed at it--https://morningstar.com/funds/xnas/grhax/performance

Report on Energy Transitions (from Fuller Treacy Money):
2021/March/ignoringenergytransitionrealities

We are making a terrible mistake when it comes to future energy policies. In previous letters, we have touched upon the challenges of the so-called “energy transition.” Today, we will explain in detail the imminent harm awaiting investors and policy makers who fail to acknowledge certain realities. Every green energy proposal we have examined relies on the trifecta of wind, solar, and electric vehicles combined with various battery technologies. In recent months, a renewed “hydrogen mania” has broken out as well, which adds a fourth leg to the green energy stool. Unfortunately, based upon our extensive research, these plans, including the current hydrogen craze, are bound to at best severely disappoint and, at worst, outright fail in what they attempt to accomplish.

and,

we believe there is a more straightforward, feasible solution. Nuclear power is the only technology that can provide reliable carbon-free base-load power. Any proposal seeking to seriously address carbon emissions must heavily incorporate nuclear electricity generation. Unfortunately, none of the current proposals include a material nuclear contribution. There is some reason to be optimistic however the Biden administration has acknowledged the need for nuclear power in combating climate change and may signal an important impending change in policy outlook.

Follow up Information:
blog.gorozen.com/blog
Nuclear & Uranium ETF (NLR) pays a 2.31% dividend and has a P&E of 14
Link to Overview:
https://etfdb.com/etf/NLR/#etf-ticker-profile
Vaneck Website:
https://vaneck.com/etf/equity/nlr/overview/
Search word "Nuclear" here at MFO:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/search?Search=nuclear

That is a good one - moral compass! Trump never has one as his niece, Mary pointed out in her book. The only things he worships is money and power.
Pence does not want to invoked 25th amendment. Article of impeachment takes time for voting. But he has access to the nuclear arms and that can be very dangerous for the country.

In my experience, the GOP tends to care more about the unborn than the living. Force women to have babies, but provide minimal to no healthcare, daycare, education or financial assistance to the poor who are often poor because they come from broken homes with single mothers. There is also the hypocrisy of opposing women's rights to choose while supporting the death penalty, unrestricted gun rights, building up our nuclear arsenal, starting wars with countries that did not attack us and supporting drill-baby-drill energy policies--including coal mining--that are killing the planet slowly and are an existential threat to humanity. The thing about the anti-Women's rights to choose issue is it is relatively cheap for the GOP fight. It doesn't cost the party a penny to say No. It would cost a lot more for them to provide women with adequate healthcare, childcare, housing, schooling and intervention to assure a healthy upbringing for what otherwise become unwanted children.

I was in a side branch of this business and see a lot of grey in the topics. One thought, when determining how much solar capacity is needed the studies need to include 7 to 10 days worth of batteries to allow for a string of dreary winter days. Or, as an alternative, a supply of natural gas plants that can run when necessary. And to insure those plants are always available, they need to be duel fuel - diesel fuel - backup.
If you want to question your beliefs (on both sides?) I recommend you check out Judith Curry’s site.
Also books such as: Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarm Hurts Us All, by Michael Schellenberger reinforce racqueteer’s points. His primary recommendation is that the world focus on developing nuclear power.

Isn’t it funny how Racqueteer said five posts ago “OK, last try for me,” yet he continues to argue his false position that attempting to eviscerate a Democratic clean energy policy that doesn’t even have all its details in place yet is “not political” as if scientifically there were another better policy put forward by the political opposition. The GOP has no real clean energy policy at all because it continues to argue as part of its libertarian death cult that anthropogenic climate change is a liberal hoax or that there’s nothing little old America can do as the second largest emitter of carbon emissions in the world. If you think you have a better plan, Racqueteer, submit it to the president elect’s team or apply for a job there. I’m sure if you’re as knowledgeable as you claim, they’ll hire you. Yet why do I suspect your “last try” wasn’t your last one and we’ll have another all-cap filled response? This isn’t about the truth or solving the problem for you. It’s about winning and getting the last word. So go ahead, and when you’re done submit your better ideas to the new president.
Oh wait, it seems like part of Biden’s failure of a clean energy plan includes nuclear: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/08/17/what-will-a-biden-harris-administration-do-for-nuclear-energy/amp/
I guess just send your geothermal idea with your resume because no one on Biden’s team is smart enough to think of that.