*****************************************************************
07/11/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.163
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IPS-English POLITICS: No Evidence of Secret Enrichment by Iran
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Dashes Hopes for a Breakthrough
3 BBC: No result in Iran nuclear talks
4 AFP: Iran envoy says 'no reason for pessimism' at talks with EU -
5 AFP: Iran must halt enrichment - US -
6 AFP: Iran vows not to back down, EU 'disappointed' after new talks -
7 AFP: Iran vows not to back down, warns of 'long road' in nuclear sta
8 AFP: Iran says nuclear offer needs clearing of ambiguities -
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy in Beijing to Discuss N. Korea
10 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Missile Crisis Stirs Up Discord
11 Guardian Unlimited: US sticks with diplomacy on North Korea
12 Guardian Unlimited: White House Blasts Clinton N.Korea Policy
13 BBC: Push to end bitter row on N Korea
14 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Vote on N. Korea Sanctions Delayed
15 AFP: China opposed to any action that worsens Korean situation - Hu
16 AFP: China rejects UN resolution on NKorea
17 US: NewStandard: EPA Staffers Protest Curtailed Library -
18 Platts: Bush administration wants US-India nuke deal passed before r
19 US: Guardian Unlimited: GOP Lawmakers Propose Weapons Sanctions
20 Guardian Unlimited: Deterrence still needed in a nuclear world
21 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Toning Down Criticism of Putin
22 Guardian Unlimited: Putin limbers up to flex new muscles at G8
NUCLEAR REACTORS
23 US: NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
24 Guardian Unlimited: Clean-up costs of new reactors marginal, experts
25 Guardian Unlimited: The Capital Letter Challenge
26 Guardian Unlimited: Lack of detail generates confusion and frustrati
27 Guardian Unlimited: Power package to see UK through to 2050
28 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear chiefs say plans do not go far enough
29 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear shelter
30 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Unveils a 50-Year Energy Plan
31 SocietyGuardian.co.uk: Local vigour must lead the climate change rev
32 Guardian Unlimited: Renewables alone cannot fill energy gap, says Da
33 Guardian Unlimited: Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past -
34 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Notice; Meetings
35 Guardian Unlimited: Power play
36 Guardian Unlimited: Darling: Nuclear power here to stay
37 Guardian Unlimited: Energy review set to spark protests
38 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power future is confirmed
39 London Times: Business told to foot nuclear costs
40 Guardian Unlimited: Government energy review
41 Guardian Unlimited: 'A dirty and dangerous path'
42 Guardian Unlimited: What is a national debate?
43 London Times: Green row as Government backs nuclear power -
44 Evening Times: Scots 'don't need nuclear power' -
45 BBC NEWS: UK nuclear power: The contenders
46 BBC: Q: UK energy review
47 BBC NEWS: Wales | Island 'hopeful' on nuclear plant
48 US: AZ Republic: Palo Verde nuclear plant restarts Unit 1 reactor
49 BBC: US 'to make Russia nuclear offer'
50 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power plants get go-ahead
51 US: BBC: US nuclear debate hinges on costs
52 BBC: No nuclear stations for NI
53 BBC: How nuclear got back on agenda
54 BBC: 'Nuclear' book wins £10,000 prize
55 Platts: UK plans energy white paper for new nuclear at turn of year
56 Platts: France needs extra investment in electric generating capacit
57 US: Rutland Herald: Vernon officials taking stock of Vt. Yankee
58 Independent: Blair presses nuclear button, but will the market stump
59 Independent: Energy review backs nuclear role
60 Independent: Blair takes nuclear option in bid to solve Britain's en
61 Belfast Telegraph: Fight against stations plans 'only starting'
62 AFP: Britain prepares to trumpet new era for nuclear power
63 AFP: Britain champions nuclear, renewable energy in major review -
64 Greenpeace: Blair's energy review: save nuclear, destroy the climate
65 AFP: Environmentalists arrested in Russia after anti-nuclear protest
66 Guardian: Comment is free: An atomic time bomb
67 Telegraph: Nuclear energy to get state backing
68 Telegraph: Key energy review backs nuclear power
69 Telegraph: New wave of nuclear power fired up by 2016
70 Guardian: Comment is free: Pushing the nuclear button
71 US: Technology Review: The Best Nuclear Option
72 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Power in Britain's Energy Future
73 Scotsman.com: Blair faces Scots revolt over new nuclear plants
74 NewsRoom Finland: TVO vexed as Areva-Siemens says Olkiluoto 3 nuke y
75 US: WIStv.com: Startup of second nuclear facility begins at Savannah
76 Irish Examiner: Row over British plans for more nuclear plants
77 Guardian: Comment is free: A watershed on energy?
78 UPI: Blair to OK new nuclear plants
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
79 US: Platts: NRC staff recommends extension of shelf life of KI
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
80 US: NRC: NRC Publishes Information Notice on Groundwater Contaminati
81 US: Deseret News: SXR Uranium may buy Rio Tinto Wyoming assets
82 US: Blethen Maine: State a tempting target for nuclear waste
83 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear waste proliferation
84 reviewjournal.com: Audit questions Yucca spending
85 Telegraph: Did Sellafield workers seed leukaemia?
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
86 DOE: DOE Issues Request for Proposals Seeking a Contractor to
87 Rocky Mountain News: Investigators praise cleanup efforts at Flats
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IPS-English POLITICS: No Evidence of Secret Enrichment by Iran
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:19:41 -0700
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
ROMAIPS MM NA HD IP SC BW NU=20
POLITICS: No Evidence of Secret Enrichment by Iran
Analysis by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Jul 11 (IPS) - U.S. and European officials have been saying f=
or years that Iran is using its publicly declared nuclear programme as a =
cover for a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, but has never produced=
concrete evidence to support that argument.
Since April, however, Western suspicions of such a secret bomb programme =
have focused on the idea that Iran has an underground uranium enrichment =
programme based on the P-2 centrifuge, which is more advanced than the P-=
1 centrifuge that was used to achieve a 3.5 percent level of uranium enri=
chment last April.
In a story on Apr. 17, one week after that accomplishment was announced b=
y Iran, New York Times reporters William J. Broad and David E. Sanger wro=
te, =94Western analysts long suspected that Iran had a second, secret pro=
gramme -- based on black market offerings of the renegade Pakistani nucle=
ar engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan -- separate from the activity at its main n=
uclear facility at Natanz. But they had no proof.=94
Broad and Sanger suggested that the more advanced P-2 centrifuges on whic=
h President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had said was =94under the process of rese=
arch and test=94 might be the basis for a secret uranium enrichment progr=
amme. The Iranian leader's remark, they wrote, could indicate that Iran's=
relationship with the Pakistani nuclear network =94went on longer and wa=
s far deeper than previously acknowledged.=94
The P-2 centrifuge design that came from the Khan network is rated in enr=
ichment efficiency as a 5 compared with somewhere between a 1 and 3 for t=
he P-1, according to Jeffrey Lewis, director of the Project on Managing t=
he Atom at Harvard's Belfer Centre. If they were operational in large num=
bers, that could spell much faster progress toward the amount of uranium =
enrichment required for bomb-making.
But the specter of a clandestine P-2 enrichment programme paralleling the=
declared P-1 progress at Natanz is not supported by leading independent =
specialists or by what is known about the history of Iran's nuclear progr=
amme.
David Albright, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for =
Science and International Security, has long been extremely sceptical of =
Iran's public declarations about its nuclear policy. But in an interview =
with IPS, he said there is =94not much evidence=94 of a clandestine P-2 e=
nrichment programme, adding, =94I don't see any evidence of a large P-2 c=
entrifuge plant.=94
London's International Institute for Strategic Studies produced a report =
last year referring to suspicions that the P-2 centrifuge was =94the nucl=
eus of a secret enrichment programme=94. Nevertheless, Mark Fitzpatrick, =
a senior specialist on Iran's nuclear programme at the IISS, told IPS the=
re is =94no evidence=94 of a P-2 programme that could enrich uranium any =
time soon, and that Iran has focused on enriching uranium with P-1 centri=
fuges.
When Robert Joseph, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and In=
ternational Security, discussed the threat from Iranian uranium enrichmen=
t on Mar. 8, he focused entirely on Iran's publicly declared P-1 programm=
e.
Suspicion of Iran's nuclear policy has been provoked by Tehran's tendency=
to withhold important information about its nuclear programmes from the =
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even after it had pledged in Oc=
tober 2003 to provide a complete and accurate account of what it had conc=
ealed for nearly two decades.
Hassan Rowhani, the long-time secretary of the Iranian Supreme National S=
ecurity Council, admitted in a speech to high-ranking Iranian clerics in =
the autumn of 2004 that this tendency had been damaging to Iran's interes=
ts. Referring to uranium enrichment, he said, =94If we had done it openly=
, the problem would have been far simpler.=94
Instead, since October 2003, the IAEA has repeatedly found evidence of nu=
clear activities that Iran had not declared.
The most serious of those discoveries involved the P-2 centrifuge. After =
details of Libya's purchases from A.Q. Khan network were revealed to the =
IAEA in 2003, Iran had to acknowledge that it had purchased drawings of a=
P-2 centrifuge in 1995 from the same network.
Iran decided against reliance on the P-2 centrifuge, however. What Sri La=
nkan businessman Buhary Syed Abu Tahir, who was a key part of Khan's netw=
ork, has revealed under interrogation since early 2004 indicates that Ira=
n never placed a significant order for the P-2. It is not even clear tha=
t it obtained even a single P-2 centrifuge from the network.
On Jan. 21, 2006, Agence France-Presse published a story based on an unna=
med Western diplomatic source, alleging that had told Western interrogato=
rs of three shipments of one P-2 centrifuge each to Iran in 1997. But tha=
t story is shrouded in doubt and ambiguity.
IAEA Director General Mohammad ElBaradei revealed in a February 2005 inte=
rview that the IAEA had already had =94an extended conversation=94 with T=
ahir. But apparently Tahir said nothing about P-2 shipments to Iran when =
he was interviewed by the IAEA. IAEA reports show that the IAEA did not a=
sk Iran about what it called =94possible delivery=94 of P-2 centrifuge co=
mponents until November 2005.
Both a State Department official and an IAEA source told =94Arms Control =
Today=94 that Tahir could not provide any documentation for the claim.
David Albright, who has long had excellent contacts in IAEA, told IPS tha=
t Tahir =94believes [the Iranians] got samples of P-2 from salesmen in Du=
bai=94 but =94can't say that they arrived in Iran.=94 Iran has insisted t=
hat it neither ordered nor received any P-2 centrifuges from the Khan net=
work or any other intermediary.
Iran has also claimed to the IAEA that it did no work on the P-2 centrifu=
ge from the time it received the drawings of the P-2 centrifuge in 1995 u=
ntil it contracted with a private company to produce a revised design for=
the P-2 and test it without using gas. The IAEA has expressed doubt abou=
t that assertion, indicating that the modifications done on the original =
could not have been achieved in such a short time.
Iran was undoubtedly doing other research work on the P-2 during the 1995=
-2002 period. Nevertheless, the evidence supports the broader claim by Ir=
an that it had decided to develop the P-1 rather than the P-2 during that=
period.
According to Iran's October 2003 declaration to the IAEA, between 1997 an=
d 2002, Iran had begun to operate small cascades of 10-20 P-1 machines. A=
nd early in that period, Iran decided to construct an enrichment faciliti=
es at Natanz based on the P-1 centrifuge, rather than the P-2. =20
Journalist Mark Hibbs, writing in =94Nuclear Fuel=94 last February, repor=
ted that Iran told the IAEA last year that it chose to use the P-1 as its=
mainstay because it had encountered difficulties in finishing a crucial =
component of both the P-1 and the P-2: the bottom bearing. Hibbs wrote th=
at manufacturing the bearings correctly requires highly sophisticated mac=
hine tools that are not generally available outside a few advanced indust=
rialised countries.
The P-1 centrifuges that Iran acquired from the A.Q. Khan network were kn=
own to be prone to excessive vibration, because the Pakistanis had not ye=
t mastered the bottom bearings in those early years.
Iran has made no secret of the fact it is pursuing research on the P-2. I=
n a press conference on Jun. 2, 2004, Rowhani said that research on the P=
-2 had had not yet been completed, and that Iran =94would decide on produ=
cing P2 parts whenever pertinent research is completed.=94
But Tehran has not responded to IAEA inquiries about the status of P-2 re=
search since Ahmadinejad's Apr. 11 remarks. A source close to the IAEA to=
ld IPS Monday that this silence may reflect Iran's backtracking from its =
2003 pledge to implement the Additional Protocol requiring reporting on s=
uch activities.
That Iranian move was a response to the U.S.-EU initiative to refer Iran =
to the U.N. Security Council last March. =94It's all part of the diplomat=
ic game,=94 said the source.
*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His =
latest book, =94Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to W=
ar in Vietnam=94, was published in June 2005.
=20
=3D 07112132 ORP013
NNNN
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Dashes Hopes for a Breakthrough
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 2:01 PM
AP Photo GVW101
By SLOBODAN LEKIC
Associated Press Writer
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator said
Tuesday that talks on Tehran's atomic program will be a ``long
process,'' urging patience and dashing hopes of a breakthrough
on the international standoff.
The comments by Ali Larijani, following talks with European
Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, appeared to dash any
hopes that Iran will meet a Wednesday deadline on a six-nation
offer of incentives aimed at dissuading Tehran from uranium
enrichment.
``We have discussed a wide range of important issues together,
consultations will now be done by both sides. We will be in
contact together in order to see how to proceed,'' Larijani said
after the negotiations. ``We have to go into a long process, we
must be patient.''
Solana offered little comment on progress made during the
meeting, which lasted around four hours.
``We will make (an) analysis and we will see how to proceed,''
Solana said.
Neither side gave an indication on whether Iran was moving
toward accepting a package of incentives offered last month.
Iranian officials in Tehran reiterated that they need
clarification on the proposal before giving any formal response.
Solana was hoping for a positive reply from Larijani on the
offer of economic and trade rewards as well as nuclear expertise
and reactors in exchange for a pledge by Iran to suspend uranium
enrichment activities during nuclear talks.
Solana said he would brief foreign ministers from the United
States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain on Wednesday
in Paris on his talks with the Iranians.
The six powers want an Iranian response to the incentives
package before the weekend summit of the Group of Eight
industrialized nations in St. Petersburg, Russia. But Iranian
officials have insisted they won't present a formal response
until August.
On Tuesday, a top French official ruled out setting a new
deadline for Iran during the upcoming G-8 summit since China
will not be present at that meeting.
The diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the
sensitivity of the talks, said France was reluctant to set any
ultimatums, calling them counterproductive.
In Washington, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said
the incentive package merits ``a warm and ready welcome'' from
Iran.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised anew the possibility
of punishment but gave no specifics.
``We hope that the Iranians choose the path before them for
cooperation, but of course we can always return to the other
path should we need to,'' Rice said.
On Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki warned
the G-8 summit against making any decisions on Iran's nuclear
program without consulting it first, arguing that this could
harm Tehran's talks with the EU.
Western officials have threatened to restart efforts to punish
Iran through possible U.S. Security Council sanctions unless
Tehran stops enrichment and agrees to talks by Wednesday.
Tehran has asserted repeatedly that its nuclear program, which
includes uranium enrichment, is peaceful and aimed at generating
power. But the process is contentious because enrichment can
both generate power or create the fissile core of nuclear
warheads, and the U.S., Israel and EU all fear the research
program is a cover for developing weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: No result in Iran nuclear talks
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
[Ali Larijani (l) and Javier Solana]
The two negotiators met last week for a working dinner
The EU foreign policy chief and Iran's nuclear negotiator have
held talks on calls for a halt to Iranian uranium enrichment,
without any breakthrough.
The EU's Javier Solana had been pressing Ali Larijani to accept
an offer of incentives aimed at suspending Tehran's enrichment
programme.
But Mr Larijani said the offer contained too many "ambiguities"
for Iran to give a response.
A spokeswoman for Mr Solana described the meeting as
"disappointing".
The EU had been hoping for a "substantial response" from the
Brussels meeting, and the US secretary of state has also urged
Tehran to respond to the offer.
But Iran insists it will make no final decision before August.
"We must be patient and try to negotiate...We must allow more
time for negotiations to work," Mr Larijani said after his
four-hour meeting with Mr Solana.
Foreign ministers of the five permanent UN Security Council
members plus Germany are to meet in Paris on Wednesday to discuss
their next move.
"We will make (an) analysis and we will see how to proceed," Mr
Solana said.
Decisions
Neither man gave any further details of the talks to reporters,
but they said they would be in contact after Mr Solana had
reported to Wednesday's meeting.
NUCLEAR OFFER
Iran allowed to buy spare part for civilian aircraft made by US
manufacturers Restrictions lifted on the use of US technology in
agriculture Provision of light water nuclear reactors and
enriched fuel Support for Iranian membership of World Trade
Organisation
From Western diplomatic sources Last throw of the dice?
Mr Solana said they had reviewed events since his delivery of the
UN offer of economic and political incentives to Tehran, during a
visit to the Iranian capital on 6 June.
Neither side gave an indication on whether Iran was moving toward
accepting the package, which is backed by the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council and Germany.
Although no formal deadline was imposed, US President George W
Bush later said the Iranians had "weeks not months" to respond to
the offer.
The US wants Tehran to respond to the offer before the start of
the G8 summit on Saturday.
Speaking in Washington before the meeting, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice had said it was time for Tehran to respond to
the offer.
The US had previously championed diplomatic censure of Iran from
by the UN Security Council.
However, Iran's foreign minister had said Tehran saw Tuesday's
talks in Brussels as a chance to iron out some details in the
proposal, rather than a time to make a final decision.
Iran denies claims it is trying to make atomic bombs and insists
it has a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: Iran envoy says 'no reason for pessimism' at talks with EU -
[Javier Solana with Ali Larijani (L)]
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani has
arrived for fresh talks with EU foreign policy chief Javier
Solana on Tehran's standoff with the West, saying there was "no
reason for pessimism."
Larijani, who has been in Europe since last week, insisted that
Tehran will take as long as it needs to decide how to respond to
an international offer designed to persuade the Islamic republic
to suspend uranium enrichment.
"We have already stated our position. We don't usually speak
before having reflected," he told journalists shortly before
arriving at Solana's office in Brussels' EU district on Tuesday.
Asked for his forecast on the talks, which will also involve
representatives from Britain, France, Germany and Russia, he
said there was "no reason to be pessimistic."
World powers have been pushing Iran to respond positively to the
offer -- economic, trade and political incentives in exchange
for an enrichment suspension -- before a meeting of Group of
Eight leaders this weekend.
But Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will
not respond before August, and a member of the Iranian
delegation said Tuesday that "there is no deadline".
Arriving for their talks, Larijani was met by Solana and, amid a
swarm of bodyguards, both swept in without speaking to reporters.
The West has made it clear that a rejection of the offer would
rekindle debate at the UN Security Council over what further
measures to take against Iran.
But it is unclear exactly where this would lead, in particular
since Russia and China, which have veto rights, have made it
clear they oppose sanctions against Tehran.
AFP
*****************************************************************
5 AFP: Iran must halt enrichment - US -
Tue Jul 11, 2:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States warned that Iran" />
Iranmust stop uranium enrichment and reprocessing, after Tehran
said the demand was a problem in an offer designed to defuse its
nuclear standoff with the West.
Iranian chief negotiator Ali Larijani said after talks with
European Union" /> European Unionforeign policy chief Javier
Solana in Brussels that the offer was broadly acceptable but
demands to suspend uranium enrichment were still an obstacle.
But State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the formula
given to Iran by permanent members of the UN Security Council
plus Germany last month was clear.
"Suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing-related
activities. It's very simple," he said.
"And in return for that suspension, the P5-plus-1 said that they
would suspend any activity in the UN Security Council."
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricehad
already spoken to Solana for a readout of the talks, a day
before a meeting of foreign ministers of the permanent five
members of the UN Security Council plus Germany on the issue in
Paris, McCormack said.
Pressed on whether the Iranian stance was acceptable, or whether
his use of the phrase "in the absence of a clear answer"
reflected dismay at Tehran's response, he said a formal reaction
would await Wednesday's meetings in Paris.
He said a united position would be laid out at the Paris talks,
ahead of this weekend's G8 summit in Russia, adding that he had
"detected no division" in the group about how to move forward.
A European Union spokeswoman, meanwhile, told AFP in Brussels
that Solana's talks with Iran were "disappointing" and "not
satisfactory."
Major world powers have offered Iran economic and political
incentives in return for halting uranium enrichment. Enriched
uranium can be used as fuel in a nuclear power reactor and, when
enriched to a much greater degree, as material for an atomic
bomb.
Larijani told reporters in Brussels earlier that "there are
different ambiguities but the offer has a central core that is
suitable, acceptable."
But he confirmed that there was still discord over US-led
demands that Tehran suspend uranium enrichment.
"Negotiations are precisely aimed at reaching an accord on
points over which we disagree," he said.
But a senior State Department official said on condition of
anonymity that there would not be "any negotiation about what is
negotiable" at the Paris talks.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: Iran vows not to back down, EU 'disappointed' after new talks -
by Siavosh Ghazi Tue Jul 11, 3:23 PM ET
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Iran" /> vowed not to cave in to international
pressure over its nuclear plans, as the European Union" />
lamented a lack of progress in talks on a Western offer to defuse
the standoff.
Tehran's top nuclear envoy negotiator, Ari Larijani, speaking
after talks with European Union foreign policy chief Javier
Solana and other European officials, warned of a "long road"
ahead to solve the crisis.
"The meeting was disappointing," Cristina Gallach told AFP,
saying the latest round of discussions with the Tehran envoy
"was not satisfactory."
The comments came after hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
speaking in Tehran, promised Iran would continue sensitive
nuclear fuel cycle work and would not back down.
"The Iranian nation is determined to obtain all of its rights,
including full nuclear rights and the complete exploitation of
the nuclear fuel cycle," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the
ISNA news agency.
Iran insists that it only wants to develop nuclear energy but
its lack of cooperation with the United Nations" /> nuclear
watchdog and enrichment activities have raised suspicions that
it is covertly trying to build an atomic bomb.
In an effort to get it to freeze uranium enrichment -- a process
needed to fuel a nuclear reactor but which could also be used to
make a bomb -- the West on June 6 offered Iran a package of
economic and political incentives.
The Brussels meeting was aimed at taking stock of developments
since then, and to lay the groundwork for talks in France on
Wednesday between foreign ministers from the five permanent UN
Security Council members plus Germany.
Solana said he would report to the ministers from the six powers
which drew up the offer and "we will make an analysis ... to see
how we proceed."
Larijani sought to play down the sense of doom, saying the
Western offer was broadly acceptable. "There are different
ambiguities but the offer has a central core that is suitable,"
he said.
But he admitted: "We have a long road to travel... We have to be
precise and patient."
The United States meanwhile underlined that Iran must stop
uranium enrichment and reprocessing, the crucial sticking point
at the heart of the talks.
"Suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing-related
activities. It's very simple," said State Department spokesman
Sean McCormack, adding that in return all action against Tehran
at the UN Security Council would be suspended.
And an Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said: "We agreed on a number of principles but there is
disagreement over suspension (of uranium enrichment)."
He noted that Solana "was unable to respond to all questions"
posed by the Iranian delegation and that he would "need to
obtain a mandate" from the six powers to do so.
The six had wanted Iran to respond positively to their offer
before a meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight major
industrialized countries starting in Saint Petersburg this
weekend.
But Ahmadinejad has said Tehran will not respond before August.
The West has made it clear that rejecting the offer would
relaunch debate at the UN Security Council on how to further
escalate pressure on Tehran.
But it is unclear exactly where this would lead, in particular
since Russia and China, which have veto rights, have made it
clear they oppose sanctions.
An EU source meanwhile said Iran welcomed the offer but
indicated that little concrete progress was made -- including on
clarifying "ambiguities" which Tehran said it wants cleared up
regarding the Western offer.
"They said that the offer was positive but we didn't manage to
find out what ambiguities they found. They skirted the real
issues," said the official, requesting anonymity.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Iran vows not to back down, warns of 'long road' in nuclear standoff -
by Siavosh Ghazi Tue Jul 11, 1:07 PM ET
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Iran" /> has vowed not to cave in to
international pressure, while its nuclear envoy, Ari Larijani,
warned of a "long road" ahead before Tehran's atomic standoff
with the West can be resolved.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised Tuesday Iran would
continue sensitive nuclear fuel cycle work and would not back
down, even as Larijani held fresh talks with European Union" />
foreign policy chief Javier Solana on the high-stakes impasse.
"The Iranian nation is determined to obtain all of its rights,
including full nuclear rights and the complete exploitation of
the nuclear fuel cycle," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the
ISNA news agency.
"It will not back down one iota in the face of ill-intentioned
propaganda," he said, after the United States and Britain warned
of a return to the United Nations" /> Security Council if his
regime drags its feet.
Iran insists that it only wants to develop nuclear energy but
its lack of cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and
enrichment activities have raised suspicions that it is covertly
trying to build an atomic bomb.
In an effort to get it to freeze uranium enrichment -- a process
needed to fuel a nuclear reactor but which could also be used to
make a bomb -- the West on June 6 offered Iran a package of
economic and political incentives.
The Brussels meeting was aimed at taking stock of developments
since then, and to lay the groundwork for talks in France on
wednesday between foreign ministers from the five permanent UN
Security Council members plus Germany.
"During these negotiations certain important points came up. Mr
Solana must consult his friends and then we will have to define
together how we will proceed because we have a long road to
travel," Larijani said afterward.
"We have to be precise and patient," he said.
Solana said he would report to the ministers from the six powers
which drew up the offer and "we will make an analysis ... to see
how we proceed".
Talking to reporters later at the Iranian embassy, Larijani was
more upbeat, saying that the offer was broadly "suitable" but
that the issue of suspending enrichment remained the central
problem.
"There are different ambiguities but the offer has a central
core that is suitable, acceptable," he said.
"We think that the Iranian dossier can be resolved very easily
through negotiations," he said. "We are determined to see that
this happens as quickly as possible but it is normal to clear up
the ambiguities."
An Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said:
"We agreed on a number of principles but there is disagreement
over suspension (of uranium enrichment)."
He noted that Solana "was unable to respond to all questions"
posed by the Iranian delegation and that he would "need to
obtain a mandate" from the six powers to do so.
The six had wanted Iran to respond positively to their offer
before a meeting of leaders of the Group of Eight major
industrialised countries starting in Saint Petersburg this
weekend.
But Ahmadinejad has vowed that Tehran will not respond before
August.
The West has made it clear that rejecting the offer would
relaunch debate at the UN Security Council on how to further
escalate pressure on Tehran.
But it is unclear exactly where this would lead, in particular
since Russia and China, which have veto rights, have made it
clear they oppose sanctions.
In Washington, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> ,
standing shoulder-to-shoulder with British Foreign Secretary
Margaret Beckett, warned overnight: "It is really time to get an
authoritative answer."
"We hope the Iranians choose the path before them for
cooperation but, of course, we can always return to the other
path should we need to," Rice told a news conference.
"And that path ... was, of course, the path to the Security
Council."
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Iran says nuclear offer needs clearing of ambiguities -
Tuesday July 11, 10:34 PM
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has said that an international proposal
aimed at ending a stand-off over its nuclear programme needed to
be cleared of ambiguities before the Islamic republic could give
a reply.
"If the Europeans want a quick response from Iran, they should
remove ambiguities," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi
told official media Tuesday.
"Our response will not be impulsive, and we shouldn't say that
the response will be given at a certain date," he stressed,
adding that "now the ball is the court of the Europeans."
World powers have been pushing Iran to respond positively to the
offer -- economic, trade and political incentives in exchange
for a suspension of uranium enrichment -- before a meeting of
Group of Eight leaders this weekend.
The offer, drawn up by the five permanent Security Council
members plus Germany, was presented to Tehran six weeks ago.
The Islamic republic has insisted it is serious about defusing
the nuclear standoff, but has so far indicated that it is
unwilling to suspend its uranium enrichment activities.
Iran says it wants to enrich uranium only to make civilian
reactor fuel, although the process can be extended to make
nuclear weapons.
Asefi's comments came as Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali
Larijani, arrived in Brussels for fresh talks with EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana -- who is hoping to get an indication
of whether or not Iran will accept the deal.
Iran has so far not elaborated on what it sees as ambiguities in
the offer.
Asefi also warned G8 leaders against taking action against Iran
in the absence of a reply.
"If the G8 summit takes stances that are not in accordance with
our rights and path, it will not have a constructive impact on
the continuation of the negotiations," he said.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Australia &NZ Pty Limited. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Envoy in Beijing to Discuss N. Korea
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 6:01 PM
AP Photo XED103
By AUDRA ANG
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - China's president issued an unusual public appeal
Tuesday to a visiting North Korean official to avoid aggravating
tensions with its missile test program, as the U.S. and Japan
urged Beijing to press its ally Pyongyang for concessions. U.S.
nuclear envoy Christopher Hill arrived in Beijing for his second
visit in a week amid urgent diplomatic exchanges, saying talks
were in a ``crucial period.''
He said he had no plans to meet with the North Korean official.
China's Foreign Ministry criticized a Japanese proposal that
demands the North stop developing, testing and selling ballistic
missiles as ``an overreaction,'' while South Korea's leader said
the missile tests and Japan's talk of a pre-emptive strike have
complicated efforts to seek peaceful means to deal with
Pyongyang.
Cabinet-level talks between North and South Korea, meanwhile,
kicked off with the South telling its northern neighbor that
Pyongyang's missile tests were destabilizing the region.
President Hu Jintao told the visiting vice president of the
North's parliament, Yang Hyong Sop: ``We are against any actions
that will aggravate the situation. We hope that relevant parties
will do more things conducive to the peace and stability of the
peninsula,'' according to the official Xinhua News Agency.
Hu said Beijing is ``seriously concerned'' and called for
progress in stalled six-nation talks over the North's nuclear
program.
The warning by Hu, who rarely speaks publicly about North Korea,
represented an unusually firm stance by Beijing and appeared to
reflect growing frustration with its unruly ally.
Hill said Washington was counting on Beijing to take the lead in
lobbying the North to stop missile tests and return to nuclear
talks.
``China clearly has a close relationship with the DPRK and the
most influence, and we certainly would like to see what kind of
leverage China has,'' Hill said, referring to the North by the
initials of its formal name.
Hill arrived from Tokyo following talks with Japanese officials
as part of an Asian tour to coordinate a response to North
Korea's missile tests last week, including a long-range
Taepodong-2 potentially capable of hitting the United States.
The weapons, which landed in the waters between the Korean
Peninsula and Japan, created a major new challenge for the six
countries trying to defuse the North's nuclear threat.
So far, the nations have struggled to find a consensus on how to
handle the crisis. The discord and division has likely delighted
the reclusive communist nation, which often tries to drive a
wedge between the nations seeking to pacify Pyongyang.
Hill said he added a second stop in Beijing to gauge the
progress made by Chinese diplomats with the North. He said he
had no plans to meet with the North Koreans, whose government
has refused to return to nuclear talks until Washington lifts
sanctions meant to punish the North for money-laundering and
other offenses.
``Our position has been pretty firm on this,'' he said. ``We
meet with all the delegations, including the DPRK ... but they
have to be in the six-party process.''
Hill said ``the jury is still out'' on whether Pyongyang was
ready to carry out a joint statement issued in September at
six-nation talks that calls for the North to renounce nuclear
development in exchange for aid and a security guarantee.
China, South Korea, Japan and Russia are the other participants
in the negotiations.
U.N. Security Council members on Monday agreed to delay a vote
on a Japanese proposal to sanction the North over the missile
tests in hopes that China, the isolated regime's main ally and
aid donor, can persuade it to refrain from any more launches.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said adoption of
the proposal ``will cause an escalation of tensions and further
intensify the problem ... and undermine efforts to resume the
six-party talks.''
Instead, Beijing proposed a nonbinding U.N. statement that
called for renewed talks on the North's nuclear programs.
``China is gravely concerned about the current situation and we
have expressed our position to the DPRK side over the past
days,'' Jiang said without elaborating.
South Korean President Roo Moo-hyun told his country's lawmakers
that the South ``has continuously tried to eliminate use of
force of any kind on the Korean Peninsula.''
``But I am concerned that the latest North Korea missile
launches and Japan's comment on a pre-emptive attack may create
obstacles to these efforts,'' he said.
The North Korean envoy, Yang, was beginning a five-day visit to
Beijing to mark the 45th anniversary of a friendship treaty
between China and North Korea. A Chinese delegation including
Beijing's chief nuclear negotiator, Wu Dawei, was in Pyongyang
on a reciprocal visit.
At a dinner marking the start of a four-day gathering in Busan,
South Korea, envoy Lee Jong-seok told the North's delegation
Pyongyang's missile tests was ``making the situation in the
region unstable and is also affecting South-North relations.''
North Korea's chief delegate Kwon Ho Ung said that he would try
to make the talks a success and that the Koreans should stick
together.
``No matter how the situation changes and the environment
becomes different, both the North and the South, without going
off this rail, should go to the end on the path'' of
reconciliation, Kwon said.
---
Associated Press writers Kana Inagaki in Tokyo, William Foreman
in Seoul and Jae-Soon Chang in Busan, South Korea, contributed
to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: N. Korea Missile Crisis Stirs Up Discord
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 10:46 AM
AP Photo XUN303
By WILLIAM FOREMAN
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's missile tests stirred up
more discord Tuesday among its Northeast Asian neighbors, with
South Korea and Japan jousting over Tokyo's suggestions of
pre-emptive strikes against the North.
Japan and China, meanwhile, were advocating different strategies
for how the United Nations should respond to last week's
launches.
The bickering and divisions were likely to please the North,
which frequently tries to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its
allies in the campaign to defuse Pyongyang's nuclear threat.
North Korea sent shivers throughout the region last week by
test-firing seven missiles, believed to include a long-range
Taepodong-2 - potentially capable of hitting the United States.
The missiles also led to a flurry of diplomatic activity, which
continued Tuesday with the U.S. envoy on North Korea wrapping up
a Japan visit and flying to China for more talks. A high-level
North Korean delegation also traveled to Beijing, while the
North and South were to begin a new round of ministerial
meetings in the southern city of Busan.
A top government official suggested Monday that Japan might want
to knock out the North's missile bases with pre-emptive strikes.
But Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe added Japan would first
need to consider whether such an attack would violate its
pacifist constitution, adopted after World War II.
Its military capability to launch such a strike is another
issue. The Defense Agency has said Japan does not own weapons
such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea, only
defensive ground-to-air and ground-to-vessel missiles.
Abe's comments angered South Korea, which has favored using
diplomacy, negotiation and other forms of engagement to deal
with the North.
Jung Tae-ho, a spokesman at the South Korean president's office,
on Tuesday accused Tokyo of ``arrogance'' and said its
``dangerous and provocative rhetoric such as 'pre-emptive
strike' has intensified the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. He
also accused the Japanese of using the missile tests as ``a
pretext for becoming a military power,'' noting that Japan has a
history of aggression in the region. The Korean Peninsula was a
Japanese colony from 1910 to 1945.
In Tokyo, Abe declined to comment on Jung's remarks. But
Japanese Defense Agency chief Fukushiro Nukaga said the country
was ``committed to freedom and maintaining peace'' and he hoped
Seoul would consider Japan's postwar record.
He also noted that ``under the constitution, we do not wage war
and do not use force against other countries.''
South Korea has been critical of Japan's efforts to drum up
support for a U.N. vote on a resolution sanctioning North Korea.
Seoul fears such a move could further antagonize Pyongyang and
cause a split within the U.N.
Tokyo agreed to delay the vote Monday and give diplomacy more
time, although on Tuesday it reaffirmed its commitment to
eventually seek the resolution.
China favors a softer approach: a nonbinding ``presidential
statement'' by the U.N. Security Council calling for stalled
six-party negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program to
resume as quickly as possible. Those involved in the talks are
the U.S., Russia, Japan, South Korea, China and North Korea.
The proposed statement carries less weight than a resolution and
is not legally binding.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the Japanese
proposal was ``an overreaction'' and would escalate tensions in
the region and undermine security.
China's proposed statement will likely be discussed by U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, who returned to
Beijing on Tuesday for more talks.
``Obviously we're in a rather crucial period,'' Hill told
reporters at the Beijing airport. ``The Chinese government has
an important diplomatic mission going on and so we want to be in
close consultation.''
The U.S. wants North Korea to resume a moratorium on ballistic
missile launches, return to the six-party talks and implement a
joint statement reached at the talks last September.
Other Chinese diplomatic efforts include an ongoing six-day
visit to North Korea by China's chief nuclear negotiator, Wu
Dawei, who met with his North Korean counterpart, Vice Foreign
Minister Kim Gye Gwan, Jiang said. She did not give any details.
The high-level North Korean delegation that arrived in Beijing
on Tuesday was part of a goodwill exchange, and it was unclear
whether it would discuss the missiles.
South Korea said it would press the case with the North when
their envoys gather Tuesday for four days of Cabinet-level talks
in Busan. The 19th round of the talks will be the first
face-to-face meeting between the two Koreas since the missile
tests.
---
Associated Press writers Audra Ang in Beijing and Kana Inagaki
in Tokyo contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: US sticks with diplomacy on North Korea
North Korea talks 'at pivotal stage'
David Fickling and agencies
Tuesday July 11, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Attempts to limit North Korea's nuclear programme are at a
pivotal stage, the top US nuclear negotiator said today, as
cracks grew in the coalition of nations tackling Pyongyang's
nuclear ambitions.
"We're in a rather crucial period," the US assistant secretary of
state, Christopher Hill, said as he arrived in Beijing amid a
flurry of diplomatic trips to China, Japan and South Korea.
"The Chinese government has an important diplomatic mission going
on and so we want to be in close consultation."
North Korea's testing of seven ballistic missiles last Tuesday
may have backfired when its long-range Taepodong-2 missile
crashed less than 40 seconds after its launch, but its statement
of aggressive intent has sown seeds of dissent among the fragile
coalition of nations dealing with the regime.
In particular, an increasingly ebullient stance by Japan has
soured already difficult relations between Tokyo and South
Korea, which favours a more conciliatory approach to the
Pyongyang regime.
Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, said yesterday that
Japan would have the right under its pacifist 1947 constitution
to carry out a pre-emptive strike on North Korea "if there is no
other way to prevent a missile attack on Japan".
The remarks echoed comments by the chief of Japan's defence
agency and were later talked down by Japanese prime minister
Junichiro Koizumi.
But Jung Tae-ho, a spokesman for the South Korean president Roo
Moo-Hyun, said that Tokyo was using the crisis as a pretext for
becoming a military power.
He accused Japan of "arrogant and outrageous rhetoric that
further intensifies the crisis on the Korean peninsula".
Japanese militarism is particularly feared on the peninsula,
which Japan occupied from 1910 to 1945, and is still officially
frowned on domestically for all but defensive purposes.
But after a 1998 North Korean missile test sent a rocket over
Japan and into the Pacific Ocean there has been a growing public
debate on the issue within Japan.
Hopes of building a coalition against North Korea were raised
today when South Korea today took a notably stronger line with
Pyongyang at the start of a four-day ministerial meeting between
the governments.
"The recently created circumstance is making the situation in
the region unstable and is also affecting South-North
relations," Seoul's unification minister Lee Jong-seok said in a
speech at a dinner with the North Korean delegation.
His North Korean counterpart, Kwon Ho Ung, insisted that the two
Koreas should stick together against "foreign threats",
understood to be a veiled reference to Japan and the US.
"Disaster does not necessarily come from within our region. It
sometimes comes from the outside," Kwon said. "We need to work
better to deal with disasters that come from the outside."
The division between North and South Korea was an artificial
creation of the Cold War and there are still strong emotional
and family ties between the two states, which are often invoked
by North Korean officials who describe the presence of 25,000 US
troops in the south as "imperialism".
Pyongyang's state news agency KCNA today accused the US of
attempting to exploit the missile situation and called on the
two Koreas to stand together against the "humiliating history of
foreign presence".
"In crying over the 'missile threat,' the US seeks to conceal
its sinister intention and, behind the curtain, create
favourable climate and condition for implementing its strategy
of world supremacy," KCNA said.
In his current mission, Mr Hill hopes to encourage a stiffening
of China's stance towards North Korea.
He raised the prospect of regional war today, saying that North
Korea was "firing off missiles of all shapes and sizes, missiles
that are aimed at not just us but countries in the region".
But so far Beijing has refused to endorse a UN security council
resolution on Pyongyang's missile test, offering instead a
nonbinding "presidential statement".
A spokeswoman for the foreign ministry said that Japanese
proposals of a security council resolution were an overreaction
that would increase tension, and added that Beijing's own
diplomacy would not yield immediate results.
"The problems cannot be resolved in one or two trips and solely
through diplomatic efforts by the Chinese side," the spokeswoman
said.
Japan sees itself as particularly vulnerable to North Korean
ballistic missiles and has been pushing for sticks against
Pyongyang, principally sanctions and security council
resolutions, in contrast to the carrots offered by China and
South Korea.
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 Guardian Unlimited: White House Blasts Clinton N.Korea Policy
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 3:46 AM
AP Photo CADM104
By FOSTER KLUG
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House belittled former President
Clinton's policy of direct engagement with North Korea on
Monday, saying efforts to shower North Korean leader Kim Jong Il
``with flowers and chocolates'' failed.
White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters that Bill
Richardson, who served as United Nations ambassador and Energy
Secretary under Clinton, ``went with flowers and chocolates, and
he went with light-water nuclear reactors ... and a basketball
signed by Michael Jordan and many other inducements for the
'dear leader' to try to agree not to develop nuclear weapons,
and it failed.''
Snow added, ``We've learned from that mistake.''
Jay Carson, a spokesman for the former president, responded,
``This is a serious issue for global security, and it's
unfortunate that the Bush administration's TV spinmaster is
manufacturing excuses for North Korea's transgressions instead
of looking at the last six years of inaction and the abandonment
of diplomacy.''
Members of President Bush's Republican administration, which
succeeded Clinton's, have repeatedly rejected the suggestion
that formal discussions might be undertaken with Pyongyang
outside of six-nation talks meant to rid the North of its
nuclear weapons program. Bush officials insist on speaking with
the North at a negotiating forum that includes the Koreas, the
United States, Japan, China and Russia. Those talks have been
stalled since November.
Snow did say the Clinton tactic of trying to ``talk reason to
the government of Pyongyang'' was ``at least a good faith effort
on the part of some very smart people.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
13 BBC: Push to end bitter row on N Korea
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
[China's UN ambassador Wang Guangya ]
China's UN envoy warns sanctions could make the situation worse
Fresh diplomatic efforts are under way to end the increasingly
bitter international row over how to respond to North Korea's
missile tests.
A senior US envoy is on an unscheduled visit to Beijing, amid
Chinese opposition to the threat of sanctions.
And a Chinese team is in North Korea, expressing concern about
the situation.
There are divisions at the UN on a Japanese draft resolution -
backed by the US, France and UK - condemning North Korea.
We do think that the Chine mission to North Korea has some
promise, and we would like to let that play out Condoleezza Rice
Who stands where on N Korea
North Korea raised tensions last week when it test-fired seven
missiles - including a long-range Taepodong-2, a weapon which is
believed to be capable of reaching Alaska.
In response, Japan drafted a resolution branding North Korea a
"threat to international peace and security" and invoking
Chapter Seven of the UN charter.
Resolutions made under Chapter Seven are legally binding and can
authorise sanctions or even military action.
Diplomatic flurry
China, which proposed a statement condemning the tests but
stopping short of sanctions, says the Japanese proposal is an
"over-reaction" that would "increase tension".
[Anti N Korea protest in Seoul, 11th July]
The international community is angry at the North's missile tests
Seoul has also reacted with alarm over Japan's stance over North
Korea, accusing Japan of acting recklessly, after Tokyo
suggested the possibility of pre-emptive strikes on North Korean
missile sites.
Amid these tensions, the flurry of diplomatic activity
continues.
The American envoy to North Korea, Christopher Hill, is holding
talks in Beijing, and a high-level North Korean delegation is in
Seoul.
"Obviously, we're in a rather crucial period," Mr Hill told
reporters at Beijing airport.
"The Chinese government has an important diplomatic mission
going on and so we want to be in close consultation."
Meanwhile, Chinese President Hu Jintao told a visiting top North
Korean official that China was opposed to any actions that "may
worsen the situation on the Korean peninsula", Xinhua news
agency reported.
'Strong signal'
The BBC's Richard Galpin, at the UN, says China and Russia,
which both have the power of veto in the Security Council,
believe that using a UN resolution to impose sanctions on North
Korea at this stage would be irresponsible and unconstructive.
China's UN ambassador, Wang Guangya, said China was worried it
could ultimately pave the way for military action against North
Korea.
Instead, he said he believed the best initial response would be
a non-binding statement by the Security Council calling on
Pyongyang to stop the development of ballistic missiles and halt
any testing.
That approach is backed by the Russian envoy to the UN, Vitaly
Churkin, who said the statement provided "an excellent basis for
a strong signal to Pyongyang" and "the right mode of action".
But the US, UK and France, also permanent members of the
Security Council, say it is far too weak, especially as it is
not legally binding.
All 15 members of the Security Council have at least agreed to
hold off from voting immediately on a resolution calling for
sanctions, to allow time for China to resolve the crisis through
diplomatic means.
But after a meeting in Tokyo with the Japanese foreign minister,
Christopher Hill expressed doubts about the extent of Beijing's
influence over Pyongyang.
"I must say the issue of China's influence on the DPRK [North
Korea] is one that concerns us, because China said to the DPRK:
'Don't fire those missiles' - and the DPRK fired them," he said.
The BBC's Charles Scanlon, in Seoul, says North Korea will take
comfort from the widening gulf between its neighbours.
*****************************************************************
14 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Vote on N. Korea Sanctions Delayed
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 5:46 AM
AP Photo XUN303
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Supporters of a Security Council
resolution that would impose sanctions on North Korea agreed to
delay a vote in the hope that China can pressure Pyongyang to
return to talks on nuclear disarmament and halt missile tests,
U.S. officials said Monday.
The five veto-wielding nations on the U.N. Security Council are
divided over sanctions. The U.S., Britain and France support the
resolution proposed by Japan after North Korea test-fired seven
missiles on July 5 - one apparently a long-range type that could
potentially reach the United States.
China and Russia oppose sanctions and have been pressing for a
weaker presidential statement, which is not legally binding,
instead of a resolution.
China introduced a draft presidential statement on Monday.
Beijing's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said it represented the
best compromise and the best way to get North Korea to return to
the six-party talks on nuclear disarmament which have been
stalled since September.
Wang told reporters the resolution ``will not calm down the
situation'' and urged all parties to send ``a unified message''
to the North. And he indicated for the first time that China
might be prepared to consider a weaker resolution.
``If they wish to have a resolution, they should have a modified
one, not this one,'' he said.
Ambassadors from the five permanent members of the Security
Council met Monday with Japan on the North Korean question while
a Chinese delegation arrived in North Korea pledging friendship
and deeper ties.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States
agreed with Japan that ``it would be wise'' to allow some time
for Chinese diplomacy to work.
``We do think that the Chinese mission to North Korea has some
promise and we will like to let that play out,'' she told
reporters in Washington.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the resolution's
supporters decided not to press for a vote on Monday in order to
support Chinese diplomacy.
After the meeting at the U.N., Wang told reporters ``the members
have different views so we agreed that we will continue
consultations about that.''
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said a non-binding
presidential statement was not acceptable to the resolution's
supporters.
However, he acknowledged that China would likely veto the
Japanese resolution as it stands today.
Rice said the United States wants North Korea to return to a
moratorium on ballistic missile launches from the Korean
peninsula, resume the six-party talks and implement a joint
statement agreed to by the countries at the six-party talks last
September.
In that statement, North Korea committed to abandoning ``all
nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at
an early date'' to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The six
parties - the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and
Russia - also reaffirmed that the goal of the talks ``is the
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a
peaceful manner.''
The Chinese delegation which arrived in Pyongyang on Monday is
led by Vice Premier Hui Liangyu and includes China's main
nuclear negotiator, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei. A North
Korean delegation was also expected to visit China on Tuesday.
Wang said China asked North Korea to do ``one or two things that
will prove they are serious for a diplomatic solution.'' Asked
what they requested, he said, ``things like moratorium and
coming back to the six-party talks.''
North Korea has warned that U.N. sanctions would be tantamount
to a declaration of war and China and Russia are concerned that
a sanctions resolution could lead North Korea to launch new
missiles and possibly pull out of the six-party talks.
Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe told reporters that
Japan will continue to seek the resolution to sanction North
Korea, but will wait a while before it pushes a vote. Japan's
U.N. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said Tokyo could still call a vote
anytime but wants to give Chinese diplomacy a chance.
Bolton said the resolution sponsors ``will reevaluate on a daily
basis whether to proceed'' with a vote.
The Japanese draft, under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter which
allows military enforcement, demands that North Korea
immediately stop developing, testing, deploying and selling
ballistic missiles.
It would ban all U.N. member states from acquiring North Korean
missiles or weapons of mass destruction - or the parts or
technology to produce them - and order all countries to take
steps to prevent any material, technology or money for missile
or weapons programs from reaching the North.
The resolution urges North Korea to immediately return to the
six-party talks.
China's presidential statement calls on the North to return to
the moratorium and stop developing, testing, deploying and
selling ballistic missions. It urges all states not to buy
missiles or missile technology from the North and to prevent the
transfer of missiles and missile-related goods and technology to
Pyongyang.
The statement also calls on North Korea and countries in the
region ``to show restraint and refrain from any action that
might aggravate tension'' and to continue to work for a peaceful
and diplomatic solution to nonproliferation issues. It called
for all parties to work for a speedy resumption of six-party
talks.
Japanese officials said Monday that negotiations may not be
enough, using rhetoric unprecedented in the country that adopted
a pacifist constitution after its defeat in World War II.
``If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an
attack ... there is the view that attacking the launch base of
the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of
self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,'' cabinet secretary
Abe said.
South Korea said Tokyo's ``threatening'' rhetoric was
intensifying the crisis on the Korean Peninsula and undermining
peace in the region. A presidential spokesman, Jung Tae-ho,
accused Japan of using the situation as a pretext for becoming a
military power, referring to Tokyo's history of aggression.
The Korean Peninsula was ruled by Japan as a colony from 1910 to
1945.
----
Associated Press Writer Anne Gearan contributed to this report
from Washington.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: China opposed to any action that worsens Korean situation - Hu
Tuesday July 11, 11:36 AM
- BEIJING (XFN-ASIA) - President Hu Jintao has told a visiting
top North Korean official that China is opposed to any actions
that would make the situation on the Korean peninsula any worse,
Xinhua news agency reported.
'China ... hopes all relevant parties can act in a way
conducive to the stability of the peninsula,' Xinhua quoted Hu
as saying.
Hu made the remarks when meeting with visiting Vice President
of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly Yang Hyong-Sop, who
arrived in Beijing earlier today for a five-day visit.
His arrival comes amid regional efforts to cool tensions
triggered by North Korea's test of seven ballistic missiles and
coincides with a visit to Pyongyang by China's top negotiator on
the North Korean nuclear issue Wu Dawei.
The visits were announced before North Korea's missile tests
last week and were originally set up to commemorate the 45th
anniversary of a friendship treaty between the two neighbors,
China's foreign ministry said.
'Whatever may happen China will continue to unswervingly commit
itself to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean
peninsula, promoting the six-party talks and pursuing a
nuclear-free Korean peninsula,' foreign ministry spokeswoman
Jiang Yu told journalists.
'We ask all sides to remain calm, exercize restraint and take
positive actions to ease the current tensions so as to create
favorable conditions to resume the six-party talks.'
Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
16 AFP: China rejects UN resolution on NKorea
by Cindy Sui Tue Jul 11, 6:26 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - China has rejected a proposed UN resolution on
possible sanctions against North Korea" /> North Korea, dashing
US and Japanese hopes for quick action over Pyongyang's missile
tests.
A foreign ministry announcement that the draft Security Council
resolution was an "overreaction" came amid another flurry of
shuttle diplomacy to address the crisis in the wake of last
Wednesday's missile launches.
Separate talks between North and South Korea" /> South Korea,
and China and the United States, were held a day after a vote on
the resolution was postponed by the Council -- where China holds
the veto power to block it.
Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu did not mention any veto
but said the legally binding Council resolution would "undermine
the progress" on North Korean disarmament talks and needed to be
thoroughly re-worked.
"China believes this draft resolution represents an overreaction
and, if adopted, it will cause a further escalation of the
problem," Jiang said on Tuesday.
The resolution could "undermine the progress made in the
six-party talks. There should be a substantial revision of the
draft," she said, referring to stalled talks on persuading
Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program.
"China is gravely concerned about the current situation and we
have expressed our position to the North Korean side," she said.
The secretive North Korean state test-launched seven missiles
last week in the direction of Japan, which has since pressed for
a Council resolution that would clear the way for sanctions and
in theory even military action.
North Korea in response said that sanctions would be an "act of
war."
The volleys of rhetoric have been accompanied by intensive
diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Pyongyang, which
has boycotted the six-nation disarmament talks since November.
At the Security Council on Monday, Japan said it had decided to
postpone a vote and instead await word from a high-level Chinese
delegation currently holding six days of negotiations in the
North Korean capital.
China, the North's main ally, countered with a so-called
presidential statement -- a Council document that carries no
legal force -- that was rejected.
"It did not respond sufficiently robustly to actually what the
present threat is," said Britain's ambassador to the United
Nations" /> United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry. "Indeed it did not
recognize that there was a threat."
Meanwhile the top US envoy on North Korea, Christopher Hill,
returned to Beijing on Tuesday for the second time in a week,
making another stop on a busy tour trying to muster diplomatic
consensus.
"Obviously we are in a rather crucial period," Hill told
reporters on arrival.
"The Chinese government has an important diplomatic mission
going on, so we want to be in close consultation with the
Chinese government," he said. A US embassy official said Hill
would stay at least overnight.
State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceon Monday that China still
placed its hopes in the six-party talks, the official Xinhua
news agency reported.
North Korea has announced it has nuclear weapons and the talks
were intended to get the North, one of the most isolated and
impoverished nations in the world, to abandon its atomic
programmes.
But an agreement in September to do that in exchange for energy
and security guarantees was never implemented before the North
began boycotting the talks less two months later to protest US
financial sanctions.
Japan's push for further sanctions has also run into opposition
from South Korea -- which, like China, often criticises what it
sees as a Japanese failure to apologise for its wartime
behaviour in the 20th century.
Top Japanese spokesman Shinzo Abe on Monday suggested a possible
pre-emptive strike on North Korea, drawing more criticism on
Tuesday.
"It is a serious development that Japanese cabinet ministers
have made a series of comments that justify a possible
pre-emptive strike and the use of military power against the
Korean peninsula," said a spokesman for South Korean President
Roh Moo-Hyun" /> Roh Moo-Hyun.
South Korea in 2000 launched a "sunshine policy" of reconciling
with its longtime Northern adversary, and the North sent a
delegation to South Korea for new talks on Tuesday.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
17 NewStandard: EPA Staffers Protest Curtailed Library -
by Megan Tady
July 11
Environmental Protection Agency scientists, engineers and other
technical specialists are protesting closures of technical
research libraries.
+ White House Looks to Cut EPA Library Funds (Feb 13, 2006)
President Bush proposed removing about $2 million of support for
the agency’s libraries in his FY 2007 budget. The EPA’s
total proposed 2007 budget is $7.3 billion.
Already, and before Congress has consented to the budget cuts,
the EPA has begun reducing access to library collections. The
facilities are used by staff researchers and outside watchdogs
alike to investigate and track a multitude of Agency records.
Sixteen locals from four unions – the American Federation of
Federal Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the
National Association of Government Employees and the Engineers
and Scientists of California – representing 10,000 EPA
employees have sent a letter to Congress expressing their
concern over the closures.
In March, employees at the EPA’s Midwest Regional Library
received a memo that the facility was closing "in the near
future" because the budget cuts resulted in a removal of 90
percent of the library’s funding.
While the EPA’s National Library Network is comprised of 28
libraries around the United States, the unions’ letter to
Congress asserts that library services in nineteen states have
already been "significantly reduced."
In the letter to Congress, the signatories contend that the
closures will diminish access to public-health and environmental
studies and hinder the agency’s ability to respond to
emergencies, effectively enforce pollution controls and conduct
long-term research. © 2006
The NewStandard. All rights reserved. The NewStandard is a
*****************************************************************
18 Platts: Bush administration wants US-India nuke deal passed before recess
Washington (Platts)--10Jul2006
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that the Bush
administration is pushing the US Senate and House of
Representatives to vote "yea" on the US-India Civil Nuclear
Cooperation Initiative "this month, before the summer recess."
Citing legislation passed by both houses of Congress
recently despite what she called "overwhelming partisan margins,"
Rice told the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin
and the Asian-American Hotel Owners Association in Washington
that she was lobbying for the legislation with the help of the
India Caucus. "Our work is not yet done," she said.
A major goal of the initiative is easing India's "reliance
on hydrocarbons from unstable sources like Iran," Rice said.
"This is good for India and it's good for the US," she said. "Our
civil nuclear initiative will elevate our partnership to a new
strategic level."
"This initiative will create...American jobs," she said,
adding that it would bring in "thousands of new jobs, directly
and indirectly.
"By helping India's economy grow, we will thus be helping
our own," she said, adding that the initiative would bolster
world stability.
"The US unequivocally supports the international nuclear
nonproliferation regime, the cornerstone of which is the
[Nuclear] Nonproliferation Treaty," she said. "Let me be clear;
we do not support India joining the [Nuclear] Nonproliferation
Treaty as a nuclear weapons state."
The goal is to include India in the global nonproliferation
regime by requiring India to place two-thirds of its existing and
planned nuclear reactors "under the watchful eye of the
International Atomic Energy Agency," she added. The UK, France
and Russia all support this goal, she said.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: GOP Lawmakers Propose Weapons Sanctions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 10:01 PM
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Responding to North Korea's missile tests,
congressional Republicans urged greater efforts to build a
national missile defense system and proposed new sanctions on
nations doing weapons business with North Korea.
``We have to have a defense that allows us to shoot down
incoming ballistic missiles,'' said House Armed Services
Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., at a news conference
Tuesday.
House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also said the North
Korean test-firing last week of seven missiles including one
that potentially could reach the United States underscored the
need for a U.S. missile defense system.
``We and the rest of the world would feel much safer if in fact
we had a missile defense system up and operating,'' he said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he planned to
introduce legislation that would add North Korea to a
nonproliferation act that currently outlines sanctions against
foreign individuals who supply weapons technology to Iran and
Syria.
``North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its possession of
long-range missiles that could potentially hit the U.S. is a
grave threat to the security of the American people and to peace
and stability in East Asia,'' Frist said in a statement.
The nonproliferation act, passed in 2000, originally applied
only to Iran. It was expanded to include Syria in 2005.
Under the measure, the president can impose sanctions on any
foreign person who transfers goods and technologies to those
countries that contribute to their ability to produce missiles,
nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Foreign persons
who acquire such items from those countries are also subject to
sanctions.
The sanctions for such people could include a ban on their
obtaining U.S. government contracts or U.S. export licenses.
Hunter said he planned to confer with Senate Armed Services
Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., about putting more money
for missile defense in a defense spending bill now being
negotiated between the House and Senate so the country can
``move ahead with these systems as rapidly as possible.''
Americans, he said ``are in a race against time'' in defending
themselves against threats such as the North Korean Taepodong-2
missile, which failed its July 4 test but is thought to have
been designed to be capable of hitting the western United
States.
The Pentagon says the current system is capable of defending
against a limited number of missiles in an emergency, and
President Bush earlier said the United States had a ``reasonable
chance'' of shooting down the North Korean long-range missile
had it not failed.
More than $100 billion has been spent on the program since 1983,
including $7.8 billion authorized for the current fiscal year.
Hunter criticized Democrats who opposed Bush's 2001 decision to
withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and who have
annually sought cuts in the administration's missile defense
spending proposals.
In May the House defeated a Democratic-supported amendment that
would have cut $4.7 billion from the $9.1 billion allotted for
missile defense in the 2007 defense bill.
``It's time for the Democrats to stop fighting the ghost of
Ronald Reagan,'' Hunter said. Reagan was an early supporter of a
missile defense system, that opponents derided as ``Star Wars.''
But Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., author of the amendment to cut
missile defense spending, said numerous government studies have
come out against building a weapons defense system that has yet
to be proven reliable in test runs.
Spending billions on a system before it has been adequately
tested would give Americans a false sense of security, he said.
``It's too bad people are choosing to politicize this issue.''
Hunter acknowledged the missile interception system is still in
an ``immature state.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Deterrence still needed in a nuclear world
Letters
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The letters (July 11) in response to your Trident leader (July 8)
raised some interesting issues, but only presented one side of
the argument. While there is more to the special relationship
than just the nuclear angle, if the UK was to abolish its
independent deterrent, the US might perceive the UK as a less
important international partner, might not wish to carry the UK's
deterrent burden itself, and would almost certainly take a very
dim view of leaving France as the only nuclear power in Europe.
It may be immoral to consider having to kill hundreds of
thousands of innocent people, but as the UK's deterrent is in
place only to deter someone who threatens us first, is it not
moral that the UK's first concern should be to protect the
hundreds of thousands of UK citizens that such a potential
adversary would be threatening to slaughter in the first place?
Britain deploys its nuclear deterrent under the sea in a
submarine precisely so that it is not seen as provocative - for
example a Trident boat sailing in times of a crisis - but so that
the deterrent is always there, ready, just in case, and so that
no one can eliminate it pre-emptively. Natural disasters, and
national and global socioeconomic priorities are not going to
stop other nations wanting to develop a nuclear weapons
capability, and not spending money on replacing Trident will not
see billions suddenly available for other causes. Government just
doesn't work that way.
An open debate is needed, but it must be structured by reality.
Nuclear weapons exist, and the UK abolishing its own deterrent
will not precipitate others doing the same. The UK should look
to reduce its nuclear weapons levels further still and should
encourage Washington and others to open multilateral arms
control talks - but none of this removes the need for the UK to
retain a minimum deterrent to protect the nation in a
nuclear-armed world and in a future we just cannot predict.
Dr Lee Willett
Head of military capabilities programme, Royal United Services
Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Toning Down Criticism of Putin
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 11:31 AM
AP Photo WHCD115
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is toning down his
administration's criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin's
steps to restrict political and economic freedoms as Russia
prepares to host an annual summit of economic powers.
Bush cited a ``good friendship'' with the Russian president,
said he hoped to put the finishing touches on a deal to bring
Russia into the World Trade Organization, and remarked that it
was for others - not the United States - to say whether Russia
was intent on blackmailing its neighbors on energy.
``That's not an issue we worry about here at home. That's an
issue that the European leaders are going to have to work
through,'' Bush said in an interview with foreign reporters
ahead of this week's trip to Germany and to St. Petersburg,
Russia.
Bush defended Putin against criticism from some at home and
overseas that Russia should not be a member of the Group of
Eight industrial democracies, let alone the host, because of
antidemocratic activities.
``As far as the G-8 goes, from my perspective, Russia is an
active participant. President Putin has been there, he speaks,
he talks, he acts, he interfaces, plus, he's hosting it,'' Bush
said.
``We've got a good friendship with the Putins. We're comfortable
around them,'' Bush said in an interview in the White House on
Monday with reporters from Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan. The
White House released a transcript of the session on Tuesday.
While he noted that ``there are problems that are surfacing'' in
the U.S.-Russian relationship, Bush's words were far milder than
those of Vice President Dick Cheney. In a speech in Lithuania in
May, Cheney accused the Putin government of backsliding from
democracy and exerting more state control over the economy,
particularly the energy industry.
Bush leaves on Wednesday for a trip that will first take him to
Germany, and then at week's end to St. Petersburg, Putin's
hometown and site of this year's G-8 summit, made up of the
United States, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Canada
and Russia.
In a wide-ranging discussion with the foreign reporters, Bush:
- Said it was in the U.S. interest for Russia to gain admission
to the Geneva-based WTO. ``It's been a difficult negotiation,''
he said. ``So hopefully we can get it done. I'm optimistic about
it.'' A top Putin aide, Igor Shuvalov, told reporters last week
that Russia hoped to win final U.S. backing during Bush's visit.
- Praised Japan for offering to delay a U.N. Security Council
vote on possible sanctions against North Korea over its missile
tests to give a Chinese delegation a chance to go to the North
Korean capital to try to persuade Pyongyang to rejoin six-nation
disarmament talks. If that fails, ``the Security Council option
is always there,'' Bush said.
-Said he was looking forward to the first leg of his trip, a
visit to Chancellor Angela Merkel's home turf in what used to be
East Germany. Bush said much has been made of his differences
over Iraq with her predecessor, Gerhard Schroeder, ``but I will
tell you that from my perspective, and I think he would say
this, is we've tried to work beyond that.''
-Said he hoped Italy would not decide to withdraw troops from
Afghanistan, as it had done from Iraq. ``Every country gets to
make its own mind what to do, but I would hope that those who
are weighing whether or not it makes sense to stay or go look at
the consequences of failure, and realize the great benefits of
liberty for the people of Afghanistan,'' Bush said.
Earlier, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley
said that Bush will ``speak frankly but privately'' with Putin
about human rights and democracy.
Richard McCormack, who was an undersecretary of state for
economic affairs in the administration of the first President
Bush, said that the White House is honoring the two ``unwritten
traditions for economic summits.''
The first is that the host country gets to set the agenda. ``The
second ... is that you don't embarrass the host,'' said
McCormack, now with the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington-based think tank.
Bush will meet separately with civil society leaders in Russia.
Hadley also said that Bush and Putin would discuss a U.S.
decision to open discussions with Moscow on an agreement that
could allow Russia to house spent nuclear fuel. However, Hadley
said that any discussions this week would just represent the
beginning of talks.
``It will take months to do,'' he said.
Putin has been seeking ways to expand Russia's role in the
multibillion-dollar nuclear power business by storing spent
fuel, including nuclear fuel provided by the United States to
other countries.
In the round-table interview, Bush said, ``Civilian nuclear
power, that's going to be an important subject, as far as I'm
concerned'' at the G-8 summit. He did not elaborate.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
22 Guardian Unlimited: Putin limbers up to flex new muscles at G8
Simon Tisdall
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The Guardian
The official agenda for this weekend's Group of Eight summit of
leading industrial countries in St Petersburg includes action on
energy security, global education and disease pandemics. But for
the summit's host, President Vladimir Putin, the overriding aim
is to confirm post-Soviet Russia's re-emergence as a global
player deserving of a place at the top table.
"What Putin really wants is for Russia to be recognised as a
power in its own right, not relying or dependent on the US,
China or the EU," said Jennifer Moll, a Russia expert with the
Risk Advisory Group. "The increasing assertiveness of Russia's
foreign policy and the push to join the World Trade Organisation
are evidence of this. For Putin, the summit is about dispelling
old notions of the G7 plus one. It's about great power status."
Mr Putin's bullish mood looks justified. Russia's economy has
grown annually by an average 6% since 1999. As a financial
analyst, Andrew Rozanov, recently pointed out for the Chatham
House thinktank, Russia is now the world's 12th largest economy.
It has a trade surplus of more than $120bn (£65bn), a budget
surplus of 7.5% of GDP and reserves in excess of $300bn.
Most of this new-found wealth, and the Kremlin's resulting
political confidence, flows from energy exports. Russia is the
world's second largest oil producer and has an estimated 65% of
global natural gas reserves. Last winter brought a glimpse of
what that means when Ukraine's gas supplies were temporarily
cut, causing panic further west. As in the cold war, Russian
tanks are poised on Europe's borders - but now the tanks contain
oil, not gun crews.
Despite accusations of of anti-democratic tendencies, Mr Putin's
personal popularity is unmatched by his G8 guests. His approval
rating is roughly twice that of George Bush or Tony Blair. And
despite growing NGO and opposition criticism at home, many
Russians seem to admire his readiness to challenge US global
leadership assumptions.
On North Korea's missiles tests, on Iran's nuclear ambitions, on
Hamas's control of the Palestinian Authority, and on Darfur, Mr
Putin has consistently blocked or sidestepped US-led moves
towards punitive action. On Kosovo, Georgia, Moldova and
Ukraine, his position is often seen as unhelpful. These issues,
plus Russia's poor human and civil rights record, could make for
an indigestible dinner when he and Mr Bush meet privately on
Friday evening. The fact that they are unlikely to be resolved
only underscores Moscow's strengthening self-belief.
Yet old, familiar Russian paranoia still makes Moscow a touchy
partner. "To be honest, not everyone was ready to see Russia
begin to restore its economic health and its position on the
international stage so rapidly," Mr Putin said last month. "Some
still perceive us through the prism of past prejudices ... and
see a strong, reinvigorated Russia as a threat." Nato's eastward
expansion is set in this context; so, too, is European
reluctance to open downstream energy business to Russian
companies.
Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Centre said the US had made
a strategic mistake in assuming that post-Soviet Russia could be
drawn, or tethered, within the west's orbit. "Now it has left
that orbit entirely. Russia's leaders have given up on becoming
part of the west and have started creating their own
Moscow-centred system," he wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine. On
issues such as Iran, "Russia will continue essentially to share
western goals while opposing western (and especially US)
hardline policies".
Mr Putin was not seeking confrontation at the G8 summit, Ms Moll
said. But nor was the meeting likely to achieve a consensus or,
indeed, much at all. "He doesn't want to be seen as an energy
hawk threatening other people. He does want to do things his own
way," she said. As a result, increasing friction was likely
while Mr Bush remained in office. "We need some new thinking in
Washington."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: NRC Approves Power Uprate for Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - 2006-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-092 July 11, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by
Constellation Generation Group to increase the generating
capacity of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant by 16.8 percent.
The NRC staff determined that Constellation could safely
increase the reactors output primarily by upgrading certain
plant systems and components. NRC staff also reviewed
Constellations evaluations showing the plants design can handle
the increased power level.
The NRC's safety evaluation of the plants proposed power uprate
focused on several areas, such as the nuclear steam supply
systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical
systems, accident evaluations, radiological consequences,
operations and training, testing, and technical specification
changes. For added confidence in the analysis, the NRC staff
also conducted independent calculations and evaluations of
selected areas.
The power uprate for the plant, located about 20 miles east of
Rochester, N.Y., will increase its generating capacity from
approximately 525 to 610 megawatts electric. Constellation
intends to operate Ginna at the higher power level following its
fall 2006 refueling operations.
NRC previously published a notice about the power uprate
application in the Federal Register providing the public an
opportunity to comment or request a hearing. No hearing requests
were received by the NRC, but the staff did address
environmental comments from New York state officials in the
final environmental assessment of the uprate. The agencys
evaluation of the Ginna uprate will be available through the
NRCs ADAMS electronic document database by entering ML061380249
on this Web page: http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.
Last revised Tuesday, July 11, 2006
*****************************************************************
24 Guardian Unlimited: Clean-up costs of new reactors marginal, experts say
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The Guardian
Dealing with the waste from new reactors and cleaning up the
power station sites afterwards will add only a marginal cost to
the problems of Britain's existing nuclear legacy, experts
claimed yesterday.
Britain's 50 years of often haphazard nuclear activities have
produced large amounts of radioactive rubbish, which are likely
to be dumped in a £15bn bunker deep underground. New reactors
will increase the volume of this waste legacy by about 10%, which
is unlikely to raise the storage cost significantly.
There will also be a cost associated with the handling of the
spent uranium fuel produced by new reactors. The total depends on
how long the new stations operate for, but the industry says it
could be about £7bn.
One of the biggest unknowns is the cost of dismantling new
nuclear power stations at the end of their useful life. The cost
to the taxpayer to clean up the sites of 20 of Britain's
existing nuclear plants has risen to £70bn and is expected to
increase.
But Paul Howarth, research director at the Dalton Nuclear
Institute at Manchester University and a former scientist with
British Nuclear Fuels, said a new generation of reactors would
be cheaper to dispose of because they were designed with
clean-up in mind. He said the decommissioning costs for a new
fleet of reactors would be about £7bn - about 2% of the total
investment needed to finance, build and operate them. Ministers
are expected to establish a new fund intended to cover this,
created by an annual levy on nuclear electricity, similar to a
scheme in the US.
The DTI yesterday said "back-end" costs of new plants, including
decommissioning, would be about 3% of the total. Dr Howarth
said: "The existing legacy waste is left over from the
pioneering days of the 1950s and 1960s when the [political]
climate was less sensitive to the environmental impact. There
was no thought given to how they could be cleaned up and how to
isolate their wastes."
Useful link
Government's report on the energy review
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: The Capital Letter Challenge
Simon Hoggart
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The government's long-delayed report on our energy supplies
dropped with a dull thud yesterday. So did my spirits. It's
titled The Energy Challenge. Those of us who do Berlitz courses
in New Labour language know that the word "challenge" actually
means "a real problem, and we haven't a clue what to do about
it".
And so it proved to be. To sum up the result of all this thought:
"We need more renewable energy. And we might well need nuclear
power too. Perhaps."
Another way of telling how much at sea ministers are is by noting
the quantity of capital letters they use in their statements. In
the language of New Labour capitals are used to make pious hopes
sound as if they were effective policies, already in place.
Alistair Darling - spiritual leader of the boring sect of Labour
ministers - used a great many yesterday. There was the Renewable
Transport Fuel Obligation, the Combined Heat and Power Scheme,
the Emissions Trading Scheme and the Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management. And who could forget the Climate Change Review
Programme? Or the newly convened Coal Forum?
These bodies and aspirations are the equivalent of the Abolition
of Sin Project and the Universal Happiness Delivery Initiative.
Mr Darling rattled through a bunch of impressive sounding
statistics. We could save 7% of our energy needs by turning off
the TV and the computer instead of leaving them on standby.
Carbon capture could cut emissions by 80% to 90%. (I like the
idea of capturing carbon. "Sheriff, there's a bunch of carbon
out there, and it's terrorising decent folk hereabouts. Round it
up!")
He used the word "incentivise" more often than is wise for a
speaker who wishes his audience to stay awake. We had to
incentivise energy companies to help people to make their homes
better insulated and more energy efficient. "Supply less
energy!" That had to be the watchword of the energy suppliers!
"The Renewable Obligation is the key to support the expansion of
Renewables," said Mr Darling, elliptically, and you could hear
the capital letters form in his mouth. "It has brought forward
major developments, particularly on-shore wind, landfill gas,
and the use of biomass." At this point you could see the Scots
Nat MPs muttering angrily, "It's Scotland's wind!"
Mr Darling's opposite number is Alan Duncan, who may be short
but who packs quite an effective punch. Think of a gay,
immaculately dressed Jimmy Cagney. He hacked at the report like
a capo cutting down a disloyal mafioso. The report amounted to
almost nothing. Six months' work, 2,000 submissions, and
hundreds of thousands of hours of civil servants' work, and the
conclusion? "Nuclear power could make a significant
contribution."
"This is not carbon-free, it is content free!" he shouted.
And where were the nukes? The prime minister had said that
nuclear power was back "with a vengeance". Well, it wasn't. "The
prime minister's rhetoric is nothing more than that, macho
rhetoric!"
The reaction of boring ministers to crossness is to curl into a
ball, like a little hedgehog, and become even more boring. When
Michael Meacher, a former minister who is greener than the
Incredible Hulk and not much less angry, stormed and raged
against nuclear power - offshore wind could fill the gap - Mr
Darling saw him off by going into a Zen-like trance.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited: Lack of detail generates confusion and frustration
Terry Macalister
Wednesday July 12, 2006
If the government got one thing right yesterday it was to present
the energy review as something more than just a straight vote for
nuclear power. Many critics and supporters were left confused and
frustrated by the details- or lack of them - on atomic power
given by industry secretary Alistair Darling.
Alan Duncan, for the Tories, accused Labour of producing not just
a carbon-free strategy but a content-free one, while the
Association of Electricity Producers, whose members would build
any new plants, called for an end to the "frothy talk".
But others saw the signals they wanted or suspected. The
Washington Group, a nuclear project management company, welcomed
a commitment to atomic power while London's mayor, Ken
Livingstone, condemned it as a "colossal mistake".
Tony Blair had muddied the waters beforehand with repeated
expressions of support for more nuclear reactors, making the
energy review look like a rubber-stamping exercise.
In fact, the energy document is light on detail but clearly
welcoming to nuclear. A similar review in 2003 left the door
slightly ajar but insisted the economics looked unpromising.
Yesterday the door was quietly but surely yanked open to atomic
power with the government promising to come up with a framework
for action to be contained in a white paper around the year's
end.
It will be up to the private sector to fully finance any new
stations. There would be no subsidies, direct or indirect, Mr
Darling insisted repeatedly to a barrage of sceptical questions
from his own backbenchers and the other side of the Commons.
Mr Darling will make a determined effort to streamline the
planning process, which could drive some objectors out of
inquiries and into direct action.
But the minister was careful to present nuclear in a context by
raising the proportion of renewable energy electricity suppliers
have to use in order to avoid paying penalties. That figure is
currently close to 4% but the government plans to drive it up to
20% by 2020.
There were also promises to help wind and other technologies to
connect with the national grid, which distributes electricity
around the UK but which has been inflexible when approached by
suppliers of renewable energy.
The green movement remained divided on the renewable energy
proposals, with some giving a cautious welcome and others
condemning Mr Darling for being insufficiently bold. Even the
long-neglected coal industry manages to make a return to
prominence in the review, with promises to set up a coal forum
similar to a North Sea initiative that helped increase
efficiency for the oil and gas sector.
The government has been forced to tread a fine line to find ways
of tackling the twin problems of lowering carbon emissions and
providing greater energy security.
Doing nothing was not an option. For decades, atomic power has
generated 20% of the UK's electricity but this figure will
dwindle to below 5% after 2020 as old stations are retired. At
the same time, new restrictions on coal burning threaten another
historic source of energy, while North Sea oil and gas are
running out fast.
Yet the prices of both those fossil fuels have soared, with oil
at $75 a barrel, compared with a historic price of about $20,
and gas bills have run up in its wake. President Vladimir
Putin's decision to cut Russian gas supplies to Ukraine in the
depths of winter over a price spat was a potent symbol of what
life could be like for an energy-dependent Britain.
There remains, however, the fear that a revival of nuclear power
- which still has plenty of unanswered questions about skills
shortages, site-flooding and waste costs - will suck investment
out of other sectors.
Mr Darling denies it, but huge centralised projects such as
£12bn for half-a-dozen nuclear plants also drag away focus from
local solutions and potential energy efficiency.
The government has laid out an encouraging range of initiatives
on energy efficiency, including phasing out old, less
energy-efficient fridges and making the government carbon
neutral by 2012. But previous promises to cut demand have come
to little.
The Energy Savings Trust says action by householders on easy
solutions such as more insulation could cut 8m tonnes of
greenhouse gases a year, equivalent to output from six nuclear
plants.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
27 Guardian Unlimited: Power package to see UK through to 2050
Mark Milner
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The Guardian
The government yesterday unveiled an array of measures, from
nuclear new-build to phasing out the standby setting on
computers. It said these would take the UK closer towards meeting
its target of cutting carbon emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by
2050 and helping to secure energy supplies in the long term.
Energy minister Malcolm Wicks said the measures should cut UK
carbon emissions by between 19m and 25m tonnes by 2020 - the
equivalent of the annual emissions of Greece or Austria. The cuts
are over and above those put forward under the Climate Change
Review Programme.
Nuclear
The government's review concludes that under "likely scenarios"
there is an economic case for building new nuclear power
stations to replace the reactors which currently produce around
a fifth of Britain's electricity. "Government believes that
nuclear has a role to play in the future UK generating mix
alongside other low-carbon options," it says.
The review says the impetus for new nuclear capacity must come
from the private sector, which would be expected to propose,
develop, construct and operate any new plant as well as meeting
the decommissioning costs and a "full share" of nuclear waste
management costs.
However, the government is setting up a framework to streamline
the planning process for nuclear new-build, with national issues
to be addressed once, and subsequent inquiries concentrating on
local issues. It will appoint an expert to develop a system for
managing decommissioning and waste management costs. More
detailed proposals will be given in an energy white paper at the
turn of the year.
Renewables
The government is to give a big boost to the renewables sector
by raising the amount of electricity suppliers have to generate
or buy from renewable sources or face financial penalties.
Companies generating electricity from, say, wind farms are given
renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) which are sold on to
other suppliers to meet their obligations. The government is
proposing to raise the renewable obligations level to 20% by
2020. That compares with about 4% at present and the previously
planned ceiling of 15% by 2015-16.
It is also considering the renewable obligations programme to
favour emerging renewable technologies, such as offshore wind,
wave and tidal power over those which have already established
themselves.
The review is pushing industry watchdog Ofgem and the
transmission companies to resolve the problems which have, at
times, made it difficult for renewable generators to hook up to
the national electricity grid.
In addition a new fund - the Environmental Transformation Fund,
to support renewable energy and other non-nuclear low carbon
technologies - will be announced as part of the comprehensive
spending review next year.
Other sources
In order to develop a balanced energy portfolio, the review
contains plans for other sources of energy. It proposes
maximising exploitation of Britain's North Sea oil reserves, and
the creation of a new Coal Forum which would bring together the
coal-fired generators, coal producers, plant suppliers and
unions with a view to securing a long-term future for coal-fired
generation and UK coal production. Last winter, as gas prices
rose and supplies tightened, coal provided 50% of the UK's
electricity generation.
The review calls for further work on carbon capture and storage,
a developing technology, where the carbon created by burning
coal or gas is piped away and buried. The review notes that
Britain has strong advantages in the form of the depleted oil
and gas fields in the North Sea, where captured carbon could be
stored. It is also keen to bolster microgeneration, which
currently provides less than one half of one per cent of
Britain's electricity, and "distributed energy" which captures
the heat generated when fossil fuels are burned and which can be
used locally.
Carbon trading
Under the EU's emissions trading scheme (ETS), big industrial
concerns are given limits for the amount of carbon they emit. If
they emit less, then can sell the surplus; if they over-pollute
they have to buy permits from another company which has kept
within its allowance. The scheme was preferred by industry to a
straight carbon tax but overgenerous targets have led to sharp
changes in the value of carbon permits, undermining confidence
in the scheme.
The government said it remained committed to a "continuing
carbon price signal" and that the ETS would remain the key
mechanism. It said the UK should work with its international
partners to strengthen the scheme as well as toughening up the
rules in the UK if that was necessary to reassure investors.
The government is pressing the EU to extend the ETS to the air
transport sector and the review said it would also like to see
it cover surface transport. The review noted that transport
accounts for 30% of UK energy use and 25% of carbon emissions
and is pressing the EU to clarify new car fuel efficiency
targets.
Saving energy
The review argues that the starting point for reducing carbon
emissions is to save energy and is recommending a package of
measures from building more energy-efficient homes to smart
meters, which give consumers real-time information about how
much electricity they use.
The government is keen to phase out the most inefficient white
goods and the energy wasted by leaving electrical appliances on
standby. Mr Darling told the Commons that appliances on standby
consumed 7% of all the electricity generated in the UK.
The review suggests measures to encourage other organisations -
not covered by the ETS - to cut carbon emissions and is
promising a consultation programme this year. As Mr Darling
noted, there are 5,000 large business and public services not
covered. One supermarket chain is one of the biggest electricity
consumers in the UK, he said. The government is promising to
lead by example, pledging that its office estate will be carbon
neutral by 2012 and cutting carbon emissions from central
government buildings by 30% by 2020.
Planning
The energy industry has consistently complained that one of the
biggest obstacles to investment is the length, cost and
uncertainty of the UK planning process. The review promises
changes to the planning system for energy projects, new rules to
provide "efficient inquiries" and "timely decision-making".
Consultation on a policy framework for nuclear new-build is also
promised.
Implementation
The review lists a series of consultations which the government
is planning over the coming months, from improved billing
methods to investment in the North Sea, and which will culminate
in a new white paper. The government will also create an "office
of climate change" to monitor progress on carbon reduction and
ensure joined-up policy.
Useful link
Government's report on the energy review
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
28 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear chiefs say plans do not go far enough
Terry Macalister and Patrick Wintour
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The Guardian
The nuclear power industry dealt a blow to the government's hopes
of seeing a new generation of plants when leaders warned that the
energy review published yesterday did not go far enough or offer
suitable incentives. Politicians must get away from the "froth"
of words and come up with something more concrete before winning
support for new stations, said the Association of Electricity
Producers (AEP).
Other nuclear experts warned that Tony Blair's hopes of a nuclear
future could be wrecked by skills shortages, while the energy
regulator, Alistair Buchanan, said last night there could be a
gas supply crunch as early as this winter.
But the prime minister is convinced he has won over nuclear
investors by offering a range of measures, including a
speeding-up of the planning process and allowing reactor designs
to be licensed in advance.
The power industry warned that it needed more clarity.
"Well-informed people seem to forget that the government does
not build and run our power stations. It is our members that do
that. They have to spend at least £20bn on clean, new power
stations," said David Porter, chief executive of the AEP. "It is
vitally important that we move on as soon as possible from the
froth of public debate to a meaningful framework for investment."
But EDF Energy, one of the UK's biggest power suppliers, which
has been at the forefront of lobbying for new plants, described
the review as a "major step" forward.
Mr Blair appeared to have tempered backbench anger over his
endorsement of a new generation of nuclear power stations by
also announcing unexpectedly tough curbs on business and
consumer consumption of carbon, including green levies on
supermarkets and banks and bans on energy-inefficient fridges
and bulbs.
Alistair Darling, the trade and industry secretary, worked
closely with the environment secretary, David Miliband, to
produce the package, which includes a novel business model for
electricity in which firms' profits will be based on the
delivery of energy services, including the amount of
energy-efficient heat and light provided, rather than simply
electricity.
Mr Blair privately highlighted the plan for a domestic carbon
trading scheme covering 500 big companies currently excluded
from the European scheme, including big firms like Tesco. He
also persuaded cabinet sceptics that the commitments on energy
efficiency and renewables, coupled with the climate change
crisis, overrode doubts about the cost of nuclear, and the
storage of its toxic waste.
But there were signs that Mr Blair had been unable to construct
a cross-party consensus. The shadow industry secretary, Alan
Duncan, said Mr Darling's statement contained "no real policies,
no real action, no real decisions. This review could have done
so much more. It is a grave and perilous let-down." Edward
Davey, the Lib Dems' spokesman, welcomed the commitments to
renewables but added: "By caving in to the nuclear industry
lobby, you have destroyed the possibility of cross-party
consensus."
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
29 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear shelter
Energy review
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The Guardian
Were it not for the clear and present danger that climate change
presents to the planet, it is likely that the energy review
presented by the government yesterday would have been very
different. Some of the issues it dealt with - especially security
of supply and cost - would surely have been included. But the
overwhelming evidence of global warming has transformed nuclear
power from a source fraught with risk into a much more attractive
carbon-free alternative to gas and coal-generated electricity.
The rehabilitation of the nuclear industry would have been hard
to imagine in 1986, in the wake of Chernobyl. But other things,
apart from climate change, have changed the debate since then.
Britain's nuclear industry's safety record, while not flawless,
has been respectable over the past 20 years. As things stand,
Britain's aging nuclear power stations generate 20% of this
country's electricity. As they are decommissioned, only one will
still be in operation in 20 years' time, contributing just 6% of
the overall electricity supply. Added to that shrinking base, a
substantial portion of Britain's coal-fired power stations will
also have to close to meet EU environmental legislation.
Tony Blair has made it plain for some time in public - and even
longer in private - that he favoured building new nuclear power
stations to help fill this gap. The energy review puts Mr
Blair's desires into black and white, including the important
qualification that the private sector should pay for and operate
the new stations, and share the waste disposal and
decommissioning costs. That is important, although the review
leaves unanswered some important questions regarding regulation,
planning and insurance that will be addressed in the white paper
due out later this year.
The most important unanswered question remains how to deal with
nuclear waste. For that we must wait for the final report, later
this month, of the committee on radioactive waste management, on
potential sites for "geological disposal" - deep burial - a
process the committee warns may take several decades to
finalise. Then there are the likely sites for any new stations,
and the likeliest candidates are those sites that currently
house nuclear plants, for obvious reasons. An important
exception is the Sellafield site that has long been the subject
of vociferous opposition in Ireland. If the government intends
to continue using Sellafield then it must ensure that Ireland's
valid objections are met and resolved.
Mr Blair and Alistair Darling are right to say that Britain
needs a mix of energy sources. For that reason, replacing
Britain's aging nuclear infrastructure with a new generation of
safer and cheaper nuclear generators is a sensible step. That
will not be popular in all quarters, even with many of those who
are greatly concerned by climate change. What is important is
that renewing Britain's nuclear generators should be seen as a
stop-gap measure. That is why replacing the current proportion
of power generated by nuclear means, rather than increasing it
further, is important. Over-emphasis on nuclear power could
dangerously distort Britain's energy market and crowd out
funding and research into alternatives.
Technology alone will never be a silver bullet, but in 20 to 30
years' time there is the prospect of renewable energy and
alternative sources - such as hydrogen-powered transport -
making deep inroads into the country's carbon output. Meanwhile,
exciting new forms, including tidal generation and biofuels, are
all on the cusp of mainstream development, along with carbon
capture and storage techniques that may even turn coal into the
fuel of the future. Substantial spending on efficiency,
especially in overhauling Britain's energy-profligate housing
stock, will also repay itself many times over. But all of these
require time, and renewing the nuclear base will provide that.
Useful link
Green party of England and Wales
Email your comments for publication to
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
30 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Unveils a 50-Year Energy Plan
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 5:46 PM
AP Photo LON125
By DAVID STRINGER
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) - Britain unveiled its energy plan for the next 50
years Tuesday, saying nuclear power could make a ``significant
contribution'' to the country's needs as it seeks to reduce
dependence on imported fuel and cut the pollutants blamed for
global warming.
Trade Secretary Alistair Darling said increasing energy
efficiency and boosting the use of renewable power sources would
be central, and nuclear energy could also make a ``significant
contribution.''
``A mix of energy supply remains essential and we should not be
over-dependent on one source if we're going to maintain security
of supply in the future,'' he told Parliament.
Prime Minister Tony Blair, who once opposed nuclear power, said
Tuesday that ``what's changed my thinking is not just climate
change, but the fact that we're going to move from being
self-sufficient in basic energy to a big importer.''
Blair argues Britain needs nuclear power to keep it from
becoming overly dependent on fuel imports from the Middle East,
Central Asia and Russia as its North Sea oil reserves diminish.
He says that despite environmental concerns about the safety of
nuclear plants, they are necessary if Britain wants to cut its
emissions of the gases like carbon dioxide that are blamed for
global warming. Nuclear plants do not produce such gases.
Britain's 23 nuclear power stations supply about 20 percent of
the country's electricity - but all but one are due to be closed
down by 2023.
Alan Duncan, energy spokesman for the opposition Conservative
Party, said the new energy plan lacked substance and avoided
tough decisions. It failed to make a real commitment to nuclear
power despite Blair's support for it, he said.
Blair has claimed that without new nuclear power plants, Britain
will rely on gas for 55 percent of its energy needs by 2020 - up
from 38 percent currently. As much as 90 percent of that gas
would be imported, he has said, leaving Britain dangerously
dependent on the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia.
But government advisers on sustainable energy, lawmakers and
many environmentalists challenge Blair's view, claiming he has
failed to secure support for a new nuclear program and has
dismissed potential alternatives. They, like Blair, are worried
about tackling climate change.
``The government is going to have to stop looking for an easy
fix to our climate change and energy crises - there simply isn't
one,'' said Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable
Development Commission, an independent advisory body to the
government.
Britain has lagged behind other European nations in boosting its
use of renewable energy such as wind and solar power. Germany,
the world's largest producer of wind power, will shut down all
its nuclear plants by about 2021.
Tony Juniper, British director of Friends of the Earth, said
that while the new report's proposals to boost use of renewables
and increase efficiency would be welcome, far more is needed if
Britain is to begin cutting the pollutants blamed for global
warming.
``We need more than this review, we need a legal framework
that's going to send a consistent sign to the economy that we
have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,'' he said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
31 SocietyGuardian.co.uk: Local vigour must lead the climate change revolution
David Cameron:
Comment
Wednesday July 12, 2006
The Guardian
Twenty years ago, at the height of the cold war, local councils
had a key role in contingency planning for the greatest threat
to the survival of mankind - namely, a nuclear exchange between
the two great superpowers. The world has changed dramatically
since then, and today, in the 21st century, the greatest
long-term threat this planet faces is global warming.
In the battle against climate change, here in Britain, local
government is once again in the front line. Local councils have
a vital part to play in delivering a low-carbon future. We need
to waste less energy, to generate more energy locally, and to
generate more energy from renewable sources. Local authorities
can make it happen, and we should encourage them and help them
to do it.
In Britain, we are still lumbered with the same
backward-looking, central-planning mindset that has dominated
thinking on electricity since the first half of the last
century. There will always be a need for a robust and secure
national grid. Energy security is vital, but it is a myth that
it can only be provided from remote and inefficient power
stations, or that electricity has to travel hundreds of miles to
market.
We live in a fast-changing world of scientific research and
innovation. I want Britain to be at the forefront of the green
energy opportunity, and I want local government to be in the
forefront of Britain's environmental progress. That, in turn,
requires action from national government. We need to spark a new
green energy revolution. We must remove the barriers that stand
in the way of exciting innovation in fields such as renewable
and decentralised energy. We need to think in an entirely new
way about energy. The future of energy is not top-down, it's not
centralised - it's bottom-up and decentralised.
Decentralised energy - electricity generated in smaller, more
local units such as neighbourhood combined heat and power
schemes - could make an enormous contribution to reducing carbon
emissions and improving energy efficiency. Decentralised energy
offers an exciting vision of 21st-century energy supply,
re-engineering the system and opening it up to new, smaller
technologies and more local participants. This would be to the
long-term advantage of the consumer as well as helping to tackle
climate change. Already councils up and down the country are
taking the lead in pioneering 21st-century solutions to the new
energy challenge.
Last month, I presented the Ashden Awards, which highlight and
reward the successful use of sustainable energy. One of the main
awards was won by Barnsley council, which has pioneered the most
extensive use of biomass heating in the UK. Barnsley uses waste
wood to heat community housing and other public buildings and,
by replacing coal and gas, the council saves nearly 3,000 tonnes
of carbon dioxide emissions a year.
And Woking borough council in Surrey isn't waiting for a global
solution to climate change; it has pioneered the use of
decentralised energy to reduce carbon emissions through the use
of combined heat and power - solar power, geothermal power, and
hydrogen fuel cells. It is developing more sustainable energy
from waste, and delivering a 30% improvement in home energy
efficiency.
In total, Woking has been able to reduce its carbon emissions by
a staggering 77% across its municipal estate. I want to see
these islands of local government innovation become the everyday
experience right across the UK.
· David Cameron is leader of the Conservative party. This is an
extract from his speech to the Local Government Association
conference on July 6.
[UP]
SocietyGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: Renewables alone cannot fill energy gap, says Darling
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The government today gave the green light to a new generation of
nuclear power plants, sparking a battle with environmentalists
but also pledging a plethora of green measures on renewable
energies.
The conclusions of the review, as well as being the worst kept
secret in Whitehall, represent a U-turn for the government,
which only three years ago put nuclear energy on the backburner.
The trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, announcing
the findings of the 216-page review in the Commons, said nuclear
power would make a "significant contribution" to cutting carbon
emissions.
But Mr Darling pledged the private sector would have to meet the
costs of building, managing and decommissioning nuclear power
plants, and its "full share of long-term waste management costs".
Under questioning from sceptical Labour backbenchers, Mr Darling
refused to elaborate on what "the full share" of possibly
unknowable storage costs could be, saying it was "self-evident".
The prime minister was not in the chamber to hear the statement,
but earlier today backed a new generation of nuclear power
stations while visiting an offshore windfarm on the Kent coast.
Speaking on board a fishing vessel, Mr Blair said: "We're about
to move to a situation of importing energy. We have to at least
replace our nuclear power stations. These decisions have to be
taken now. [Or] 15 years down the line we have got high energy
prices and real problems.
Measures were also unveiled to reduce the demand for
electricity, such as phasing out inefficient consumer goods and
limiting the amount of time TVs and other products could be left
on standby.
Mr Darling told MPs the proposals he had set out would result in
a reduction of between 19m and 25m tonnes of carbon by 2020,
above the measures already announced in the climate change
review programme.
The minister said: "As our North sea oil and gas production
declines, our dependence on imports will increase.
"Our forecasts suggest that over the next 20 years, up to a
third of our existing generating capacity will reach the end of
its life."
Mr Darling said this was a "critical" moment to make choices
that will safeguard energy supplies for the next 30 to 40 years.
He stressed that energy had to be conserved in homes, businesses
and in public buildings.
He pledged more help for homeowners to reduce their energy bills
and said inefficient electrical goods will be phased out.
There will also be new incentives for supermarkets, hotel chains
and other large organisations to reduce carbon emissions.
"It is clear we need a mix of energy and that the challenges are
so great that we cannot afford to rule out any low-carbon energy
source that could help."
Mr Darling said the government planned to increase the
proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources to
20%, a five-fold increase on today's level.
However, that commitment appears to be merely a reiteration of
the white paper of 2003, which committed the energy firms, under
the renewables obligation, to source 10% of electricity from
renewables by 2010, and 20% by 2020.
The minister said that nuclear power accounted for one-fifth of
the UK's electricity but this was likely to drop to just 6% by
2020.
And he concluded: "Our analysis suggests that alongside other
low-carbon-generating options, a new generation of nuclear power
stations could make a contribution to reducing carbon emissions
and reducing our reliance on imported energy."
Alan Duncan, the shadow trade and industry secretary, called the
statement "not carbon free, but content free", with "no real
decisions", just six consultations and a forum.
He claimed it didn't go as far as Mr Blair's own enthusiasm for
nuclear, leaving the PM "out on a limb".
Mr Duncan said nuclear power should only be a "last resort".
"What I would like to see is a cross-party consensus to reduce
carbon emissions, guarantee affordable security of energy supply
and create a level playing field to give a green energy
revolution a chance," he said.
The Liberal Democrats are accusing ministers of "surrendering"
to the nuclear lobby, and oppose Mr Blair's decision "to press
the nuclear button".
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrats' trade and industry spokesman,
called nuclear "a stealth tax on every home".
He added: "Deciding to create more nuclear waste, when we're
still not sure where to put the waste from the last 50 years, is
utterly irresponsible.
"With nuclear decommissioning and waste disposal costs already
approaching £100bn, this proposal is also financially reckless."
The PM has been accused, by the Green party among others, of
staging a "consult and ignore" exercise in the review -
repeatedly expressing a preference for new nuclear plants before
today's publication.
He told MP as recently as last week he had "changed his mind" on
nuclear since the 2003 review.
The most prominent nuclear sceptic in the cabinet is believed to
be Margaret Beckett, but she was transferred from the
environment brief to be foreign secretary in Mr Blair's May
reshuffle.
Mr Darling told MPs the planning system needed "fundamental
reform", in conjuction with the devolved assemblies.
The SNP immediately pledged to make opposition to new nuclear
power stations in Scotland a key plan of its election campaign
for next year's elections to the Scottish parliament.
Although Holyrood has no direct responsibility for energy
provision, it does have powers over planning permission -
something today's energy review also touches on.
The Liberal Democrats, who are also opposed to nuclear power,
share power with Labour in the Scottish executive.
The six mooted new power plants will only be sited in England,
Wales and Scotland. The Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain -
who describes himself as a "nuclear sceptic" - has already ruled
out building a reactor in Ulster due to objections from the
Irish government.
He said: "There are no plans to build any nuclear power stations
in Northern Ireland - that is the view I have taken as secretary
of state.
"It's also part of an understanding we have with the Irish
government, who are opposed to any new nuclear build on the
whole island of Ireland." Some experts believe new nuclear
plants will swallow money from a limited pot intended for green
technologies.
Tom Burke, a visiting professor of environmental policy at
Imperial College and University College London, and a nuclear
sceptic, said: "In the real world, if people invest in nuclear,
they are not going to invest in renewables."
There are also concerns over nuclear power plants becoming
terrorist targets. A report by the independent thinktank the
Oxford Research Group earlier this year catalogued increasing
incidents of terrorists targeting economic and infrastructure
targets globally, as well as seeking mass civilian casualties.
Mr Darling also pledged that the government buildings would be
carbon neutral by 2012.
Today's energy review will be turned into a white paper, after
further consultation, by the end of the year, Mr Darling
informed MPs.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
33 Guardian Unlimited: Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past -
but we still don't need it
Comment |
[George Monbiot]
It's true that another Chernobyl couldn't happen in a new
reactor, but the case against is as strong as ever
Tuesday July 11, 2006
If someone had worked out how to cause a war within the
environment movement, they could not have developed a better
means than nuclear power. In public we will line up to attack
the energy review published by the government today. But in
private we will reserve some of our venom for each other, as we
start to ask ourselves whether we have made the right decision.
The UK's dying nuclear power stations are, at the moment, its
principal source of low-carbon energy. Electricity produced by a
pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have
been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon
dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891.
If our nuclear power stations are replaced by thermal plants,
the UK's annual output of CO2 will rise by roughly 51m tonnes,
or 8% of the total. Zac Goldsmith, arguing against new nukes,
calls this percentage "miniscule". This is breathtaking. We
campaign to prevent electrical appliances being left on standby,
hoping to save some 4m tonnes of CO2 a year. How can we then
dismiss a cut 13 times as great?
Some groups, such as Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation and
the Sustainable Development Commission, have produced reports
showing that we can meet the government's target - a 60% cut in
carbon emissions by 2050 - without recourse to atomic power. They
are right, but the target is now irrelevant. In the book I am
publishing in September, I will show that when you take into
account both human population growth and the anticipated
reduction in the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon, we require
a worldwide cut of roughly 60% per capita by 2030. If emissions
are to be distributed evenly, this means that the UK's need to be
cut by 87% in 24 years.
In seeking the best means by which this cut can be made across
all sectors (transport, electricity, heating and construction),
I have been forced to set aside my prejudices. I hate nuclear
power, but do we need it to help prevent the planet from cooking?
Answering this question means challenging people on both sides
of the debate. Anti-nuclear campaigners have a tendency to
believe anything that casts the industry in a bad light. Last
month's edition of The Ecologist magazine, for example, contends
that 14m tonnes of concrete are required to build a nuclear
power station, resulting in a massive release of carbon dioxide.
Specifications are notoriously hard to come by, but I have
managed to find the figures for Calder Hall A, opened in 1956.
It used 72,500 cubic yards of concrete, which equates to 108,000
tonnes, or less than 1% of the Ecologist's estimate. Modern
power stations are smaller.
We have made similar mistakes over the global supplies of
uranium. Noting that the world possesses "assured reserves" of
high-grade ores sufficient to last for 40 or 50 years at current
rates of use, some environmentalists have argued that if new
nuclear plants are built, they will run out of fuel before they
reach the end of their lives. But they have confused assured
reserves with total global resources. In other words, they have
assumed that no further discoveries will ever take place. Forty
to 50 years is in fact a very high level of assurance.
There's little doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last
month New Scientist reported that the 400,000 uranium miners
working in East Germany between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an
increased risk of lung cancer of about 10%. But it didn't say
whether this is the case elsewhere, or how it compares to other
kinds of mining. One tonne of uranium, according to government
figures, produces as much energy as 75,000 tonnes of coal. It is
impossible to believe that coal has the lesser impact.
I am forced to admit that an accident like Chernobyl's could not
take place in a new nuclear power station. Secondary containment
of the reactor core and new safety systems make a total meltdown
impossible. Nor do I believe that new reactors would present a
useful target for terrorists. It would not be difficult to make
the containment buildings strong enough to resist an impact with
an airliner.
But there are other arguments that do stand up. The most
fundamental environmental principle - one that all children are
taught as soon as they are old enough to understand it - is that
you don't make a new mess until you have cleared up the old one.
To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations
before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing
plants is grotesquely irresponsible. The government's advisers
have determined only that it should be buried. No one yet knows
where, how or at what cost.
This is just one of the factors that make a nonsense of the
economic projections. How on earth can we say what nuclear power
stations will cost if we don't even know what their
decommissioning entails? The government will assure us today
that there will be no subsidies and no guaranteed prices for the
nuclear industry. This should allow us to forget about the cost,
and leave the market to determine whether nuclear power stations
should be built. But in order to guarantee public safety, the
government must be ready to rescue our power stations or their
waste piles if the nuclear operators are in danger of going
bankrupt. To ensure that the operators don't fudge their
figures, the government must make it clear that it is not
prepared to rescue them. It is a paradox that cannot be resolved.
And how does any system - political or technological - cope with
the timescales involved? If, as a result of slow leakage into
the groundwater, radioactive materials from a burial site were
to kill an average of only one person a year for one million
years, those who made the decision to bury them will - through
their infinitesimal and unrecorded impacts - be responsible for
the deaths of a million people.
It has also become clear that we will never rid the world of
nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every
state that has sought to develop a weapons programme over the
past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North
Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear
power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to
use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves.
But perhaps the strongest argument against nuclear power is that
we do not need it, even to reach the extraordinarily ambitious
target that the science demands. With similar levels of
investment in energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage,
and the exploitation of the vast new offshore wind resources the
government has now identified, we could cut our carbon emissions
as swiftly and as effectively as any atomic power programme
could. In North America, where natural gas supplies have already
peaked and are in long-term decline, this is a much tougher
challenge than in Eurasia; but while our supplies of gas persist
we should use them, and bury the carbon dioxide that our power
stations produce, while developing the electricity storage
systems that will eventually replace them.
Some of our arguments against nuclear power have collapsed, but
it seems to me that the case is still robust.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: Sunshine Act Notice; Meetings
FR Doc 06-6151
[Federal Register: July 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 132)]
[Notices] [Page 39133] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11jy06-123]
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Date: Weeks of July 10, 17, 24, 31, August 7, 14, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and Closed.
Matters To Be Considered: Week of July 10, 2006 Wednesday, July
12, 2006 9:45 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (closed--ex.
2). Week of July 17, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of July 17, 2006.
Week of July 24, 2006--Tentative Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:50
p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative): a. Pa'ina
Hawaii, LLC, unpublished April 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order
(accepting the intervenor's and NRC Staff's Joint Stipulation
regarding two admitted environmental contentions) (Tentative).
b. David Geisen, LBP-06-13 (May 19, 2006) (Tentative). c. Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP).
System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Permit for Grand Gulf ESP)
(Tentative).
Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of
International Programs (OIP) Programs, Performance, and Plans
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Karen Henderson, (301) 415-0202.) This
meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
http://www.nrc.gov .
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Programs. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Barbara Williams, (301)
415-7388.) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address,
http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of July 31, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of July 31, 2006.
Week of August 7, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of August 7, 2006.
Week of August 14, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 14, 2006.
* * * * * * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to
change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information:
Michelle Schroll, (301) 415-1662.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * *
* * Additional Information: By a vote of 5-0 on July 5 and 6,
2006, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and
Sec. 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that ``Discussion of
Management Issues (closed-- ex. 2)'' be held July 12, 2006, and
on less than one week's notice to the public. Commissioner Jaczko
voted to have both open and closed sessions for this meeting.
* * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to
individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a
reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings,
or need this meeting notice or the transcript of other
information from the public meetings in another format (e.g.
braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program
Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at (301) 415-7041, TDD: (301) 415-
2100, or by e-mail at DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for
reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: July 6, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6151 Filed 7-7-06; 10:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
35 Guardian Unlimited: Power play
The powerful business of promoting a nuclear future
Analysis
The interesting thing about today's energy review will be how the
government tries to sweeten the nuclear pill with green
initiatives, writes Matthew Tempest
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday July 11, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
The worst-kept secret in Whitehall is that today's energy review
from the government will recommend a new generation of nuclear
reactors - indeed, Mr Blair as good as admitted such to senior
MPs last week when he declared he had "changed his mind" on
nuclear power.
So the document is likely to be of most interest for how the
government tries to "sugar" the nuclear pill with green
initiatives.
Primary among those will be an escalation of renewable energy
provision, and measures aimed at energy conservation.
Taking the latter first, the German government has led the way.
One of centre-right chancellor Angela Merkel's actions on taking
power was to announce all pre-1978 housing stock would be
upgraded to bring it into line with contemporary energy
efficiency standards over the next 20 years.
Hopes of something similar here are unlikely to be met. Last
year the World Wide Fund for Nature withdrew from John
Prescott's housing steering group "in despair" at what it
thought was the government's failure to encourage more
energy-efficient homes in the Thames Gateway.
The government may fear - as US president Jimmy Carter found out
in the1970s - that there is a political cost in telling people
to cut down on consumption.
As for renewables, Britain has often been considered to have the
best potential in the world for both wave and tidal energy -
environmentalists and some engineers campaigned long and hard
through the 1980s for Margaret Thatcher to build a tidal barrier
across the Severn estuary, which it is estimated could provide
power the equivalent of three nuclear reactors.
While the renewables sector broadly welcomed the 2003 energy
white paper, which called for energy from renewables to reach
10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020, there were quibbles over the small
print - whether contracts really provided enough long-term
financial guarantees to pump prime the sector from a virtual
standing start.
Meanwhile, environmentalists feared the government was going for
the easy "quick fix" option - onshore windfarms - at the expense
of more substantial long-term prospects such as tide and wave
energy, with predictable consequences in terms of a backlash
from countryside protestors alarmed at having their rural view
spoilt.
So expect instead a focus on locally produced heat and energy -
called "CHP", combined heat and power - and something that David
Cameron was promoting heavily last week.
But if the battle against nuclear power really is lost, the key
questions the anti-nuclear lobby will want answering are:
Who will pay for the clear-up and storage costs of waste
radioactive material?
This is literally the billion dollar question. While the
government part-privatised the nuclear industry, it left the
taxpayer to pick up the costs of decommissioning plants and
storing waste. The comes in at a cool £75bn, or - in layman's
terms, the equivalent of around an extra 25p on income tax.
Whether the private sector can make profits out of building and
running nuclear power plants is one thing, but how will the
government square the assertion that there will be no public
subsidy for nuclear if it continues to foot the bill for
cleaning it up?
Is nuclear really carbon free?
Its proponents say it is. It's detractors point to carbon
emission costs of mining uranium and transporting it to the UK.
And the fact that ultimately uranium, like coal, oil and gas, is
a finite resource - what will happen to nuclear plants when it
runs out.
Is nuclear reliable?
Those opposed to wind, solar and wave power point out,
correctly, that these energy sources might be infinite, but they
are also intermittent. Anti-nuclear activists counter-claim that
nuclear too is, in effect, intermittent, due to the regular shut
down of nuclear plants for safety and maintenance checks.
Party politics
The Liberal Democrats, Respect -and, outside Westminster, the
Green party - are the only parties opposed in principle to
nuclear power.
Despite opposing new nuclear when Mr Blair was briefly shadow
energy spokesman in the 1980s, the parliamentary Labour party
has not historically had a particularly strong anti-nuclear
stance (Harold Wilson's "white heat of technology" government
was in favour), at least compared with its traditional position
on nuclear weapons. And the former cabinet minister Jack
Cunningham, whose constituency took in the Sellafield power
plant, was considered the most pro-nuclear MP in the house.
Last week the Conservatives' interim energy report refused to
rule out backing new nuclear build, but called it a "last
resort". With a party traditionally aligned to the nuclear
lobby, it will be interesting to see if Mr Cameron ultimately
goes along with a new generation of reactors - his final policy
on the matter will be settled next summer, when the policy
taskforces report back - or promises to scrap Labour's programme.
Direct action?
If all else fails, will there be direct action - physical
protests - against new nuclear power plants?
The government appears to have pre-empted the possibilities,
both by speeding up planning processes, and by mooting building
new plants on the sites of existing plants.
Moreover, and perhaps not unrelated, the Terrorism Act 2006
amends the Serious Organised Crime Act to make trespass on a
nuclear site a criminal offence.
Email your comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
36 Guardian Unlimited: Darling: Nuclear power here to stay
[UP]
Press Association
Tuesday July 11, 2006 9:28 AM
The Government has made it clear that nuclear power should
remain part of the UK's energy generation, sparking a huge row
with "green" campaigners and some scientists.
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said nuclear has
always been part of the country's energy mix and "should remain
so".
He will publish the Government's Energy Review later on Tuesday,
which is set to herald the building of a new generation of up to
six nuclear power stations.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party and other
anti-nuclear groups have warned there was no public support for
nuclear power and have pressed the Government to invest more in
renewable energy such as wind farms.
Mr Darling said on Tuesday that the amount of electricity
generated by nuclear would fall from the current 20% to 6% in
the next 20 years, leaving a gap in the market which has to be
filled.
The country also faced the big challenge of climate change and
security of supply.
Mr Darling said that if measures were not taken now to fill the
gap left by the closure of ageing nuclear power stations, more
gas would be imported, often from unstable parts of the world.
Interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Darling said:
"I don't think renewables can fill the whole gap."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
37 Guardian Unlimited: Energy review set to spark protests
[UP]
Press Association
Tuesday July 11, 2006 7:03 AM
A fresh row over nuclear power is poised to flare when the
Government will say it has a role to play in generating energy,
sparking an outcry from green campaigners and some experts.
The long-awaited energy review is due to be published and is
believed to have concluded that nuclear is economically viable
and should play a role in UK energy policy. The move could clear
the way for the building of six new nuclear power stations to
replace those being closed.
Ministers will also unveil plans for a big increase in the
amount of energy generated from renewable sources such as wind,
solar and tidal, from the current 4% to nearer 20%.
Changes to the planning process of dealing with applications for
new nuclear power stations as well as wind farms are expected to
be included in the announcement.
The Green Party published the results of a survey of 500 members
of the public, which it said "dramatically" highlighted public
opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Almost nine out of 10 people rejected the nuclear option, while
98% backed greater investment in renewable energy and 99% said
more should be done to promote energy-saving measures in the
home.
"This puts pay to any suggestion that nuclear power is accepted
as a necessary evil by the UK," said party spokesman Keith
Taylor. "Despite the Government's ceaseless attempts to frame
the debate as one of 'nuclear, or the lights go out,' the
British public are not convinced."
Most of those polled said they believed the Government had
already made up its mind to support nuclear before launching its
review earlier this year.
Mr Taylor said the review had been an exercise in "consult and
ignore" by the Prime Minister, who announced in May his support
for nuclear as part of the energy mix.
Stephen Tindale, Executive Director of Greenpeace said: "Polls
show that most people oppose nuclear power, even as a last
resort. The Prime Minister seems to be the only one interested
in having it as a first option."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
38 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power future is confirmed
[UP]
Press Association
Tuesday July 11, 2006 5:33 PM
The Government has sparked a huge row with green campaigners by
pledging support for a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The long-awaited Energy Review said nuclear power would make a
"significant contribution" to securing the UK's energy needs for
the next generation, a move set to provoke an angry backlash
from campaign groups and left-wing Labour MPs.
Ministers stressed they wanted a mix of clean, low-carbon energy
sources which would include more renewable power generated from
wind farms, wave and solar.
Measures were also unveiled to reduce the demand for
electricity, such as phasing out inefficient consumer goods and
limiting the amount of time TVs and other products could be left
on standby.
But it was confirmation of support for nuclear power that caused
the most controversy, even though the Prime Minister said in May
- before the review was published - that nuclear was back on the
agenda "with a vengeance".
The 216-page review, The Energy Challenge, said the economics of
nuclear as a source of low-carbon generation had improved.
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the UK faces
specific challenges, including climate change and the need to
provide secure, cleaner energy at affordable prices.
"As our North Sea oil and gas production declines, our
dependence on imports will increase. Our forecasts suggest that
over the next 20 years, up to a third of our existing generating
capacity will reach the end of its life."
Mr Darling said this was a "critical" moment to make choices
that will safeguard energy supplies for the next 30 to 40 years.
He stressed that energy had to be conserved in homes, businesses
and in public buildings. He pledged more help for homeowners to
reduce their energy bills and said inefficient electrical goods
will be phased out.
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
39 London Times: Business told to foot nuclear costs
July 11, 2006
By Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent
Nuclear power was firmly back on the agenda tonight after the
Government paved the way for a new generation of nuclear
generators by spelling out the steps it will take to speed up
licensing and planning of new reactors.
The long-awaited Energy Review called nuclear generation an
important source of low carbon electricity that would make a
significant contribution to meeting the country’s energy policy
goals.
However, ministers insisted that the private sector would have
to fund, construct and operate new plants, including the full
cost of decommissioning and long-term waste costs.
For more coverage of the row over nuclear power click
here.
There was also a renewed commitment to the renewables
obligation, a subsidy for wind farms and other renewable energy
sources that is approaching a £1 billion a year and is to be
increased. A role for coal, as long as it can be made more
environmentally-friendly, and gas was also carved out in the 218
page review.
Energy companies with experience in the nuclear field looked
like the big winners in the review but the initial reaction from
the stock market was to mark traditional energy companies down
because of the review's emphasis on renewable power.
British Energy and EDF Energy, two companies who have said that
they are prepared to build nuclear power stations without
subsidy, welcomed the review’s findings. US nuclear specialists,
who are keen to break into the UK market, also praised the
report's "realism".
However, there was concern from consumer groups and business
organisations that the Government had not put cost at the centre
of the review. Manufacturers also criticised the absence of
measures to address the UK’s poor level of spending on energy R,
which remains significantly lower than that in competitor
countries.
The Sunday Times
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: Government energy review
Mark Tran summarises the main points
Tuesday July 11, 2006
Tony Blair announced an energy review in November 2005. The
Department of Trade and Industry review considers measures needed
by 2020 and beyond to tackle climate change and ensure secure and
affordable energy supplies.
The review is a follow-up to the 2003 energy white paper, setting
out four policy goals: cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by
2050; reliability of supplies; promotion of competitive markets
in the UK and beyond; adequate and affordable heating for every
home. The government said a review was needed now because of
declining domestic energy supplies, rising fuel prices and ageing
coal and nuclear stations.
Energy review: main points
Nuclear power The report confirms that nuclear power is "back on
the agenda with a vengeance". It says a mix of energy supplies
is essential and that new nuclear power stations could make a
significant contribution. The review says it will be up to the
private sector to cover the costs of investment, decommissioning
and storage of nuclear waste.
Energy efficiency More help for homeowners to understand and
reduce their energy bills, the phasing out of inefficient
electrical goods and a consultation on new incentives to reduce
emissions from large organisations such as supermarkets and
hotel chains.
Renewable energy Obligations to push the proportion of
electricity generated from renewables - solar, wind, tidal - to
20%, a five-fold increase from current levels.
British oil Although the North Sea oil fields are mature, the
government will press ahead with measures to exploit remaining
reserves, including west of Shetland.
Carbon trading The EU emissions trading scheme - designed to cut
greenhouse gases from businesses - needs to be strengthened to
work more effectively.
Planning The planning system is to be streamlined. Energy
companies, whether seeking to build gas storage facilities, wind
farms or any other kind of large energy installation, should not
face costly uncertainties and delay. "Local concerns about
specific sites must be taken into consideration but the right
balance has to be struck with the national need for our vital
energy infrastructure."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
41 Guardian Unlimited: 'A dirty and dangerous path'
Quotes from political, business and non-governmental figures on
the government's energy review
David Fickling
Tuesday July 11, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
[Nuclear and radiation warning sign]
Nuclear and radiation warning sign. Photograph: Getty Images
Conservatives
The energy spokesman, Alan Duncan: "This statement is not
carbon-free, it is content-free. There are no real policies, no
real action, no real decision, no real energy review ... there
is nothing here. Where is the action? Even on the future of
nuclear power, the review is vague."
Liberal Democrats
The trade and industry spokesman, Edward Davey: "By picking the
nuclear option the government are imposing a stealth tax on
every home. Every nuclear power station ever built has needed
public subsidies and government guarantees. If the government
invested more in energy efficiency and renewable technologies
then new nuclear build would not be necessary."
Greens
The principal speaker, Keith Taylor: "Alistair Darling has
today led the UK down a dirty and dangerous path, that of a
fresh round of astronomically expensive nuclear power stations.
Using nuclear power to tackle climate change is a fool's
paradise. The other measures outlined raise more questions than
they answer - how will they translate the rhetoric into action
on the ground, especially in terms of the micro-generation push?"
Greater London Authority
Mayor Ken Livingstone: "It is a colossal mistake to head off
down the nuclear path once again. Nothing in the review leads me
to change my mind that commissioning a new generation of nuclear
will be a huge waste of precious time and money, and a real
diversion from the critical task of cutting carbon emissions.
The government had a real chance to put Britain at the forefront
of tackling climate change and it gives me no pleasure to say
that it has failed to take it."
Sustainable Development Commission (government advisory body)
The SDC said it was "very disappointed" that the government was
encouraging nuclear energy, but the SDC chairman, Jonathan
Porritt, added: "All in all, there is much here to be encouraged
by. The tone of the document is much more positive than the
review of the climate change programme, and the determination to
move towards a low-carbon economy comes across loud and clear.
The principal challenge now is delivery, not further policy
refinement."
Business
Confederation of British Industry
The director general, Richard Lambert: "Ministers are correct
to include both nuclear and renewable power in their thinking.
Streamlining the planning process for new power infrastructure
and establishing a long-term pricing mechanism for carbon will
help give business confidence to invest in both. New power
plants must go hand-in-hand with greater energy efficiency."
British Energy (the largest power generator and largest operator
of nuclear plants in the UK)
The chief executive, Bill Coley: "Nuclear energy is a near-zero
carbon source of base load electricity generation, and can play
a significant role in combating climate change and contribute to
security of supply for the UK."
E.ON (the largest non-nuclear electricity generator in the UK
and owner of Powergen)
The chief executive, Paul Golby, called for fewer restrictions
on planning policy: "Planning is fundamental to our industry,
it's every bit as vital to renewable projects as it is to
nuclear, gas and clean coal power stations and to distribution
and transmission networks. It is clear that, for the UK, a
failure in planning would be a case of planning to fail."
EEF (the manufacturers' organisation)
The director general, Martin Temple: "This is the only response
possible to the dual challenge of energy supply and climate
change. The government should be applauded for setting out a
balanced strategy and grasping the nuclear nettle."
Chemical Industries Association
The chief executive, Steve Elliott, highlights the situation:
"Now is the time to put words into action and to resolve what is
fast becoming the UK energy crisis. Government has been right to
look at all the long-term options but industrial users need
confidence that energy supplies will be secure and affordable."
Environmental organisations
National Energy Foundation
The head of renewables, Gareth Ellis: "Alistair Darling made
all sorts of nice noises but there was very little detail. He
didn't mention any targets for renewable domestic heating, and
that's desperately needed. I have to say I'm sceptical at this
stage."
The deputy director, Ian Byrne: "Energy efficiency in industry
and commerce seems to have been completely ignored. We were
quite pleased to see that government-owned properties will be
carbon neutral by 2012."
Friends of the Earth
The director, Tony Juniper: "The energy review is a massive
missed opportunity. It is not ambitious enough on energy
efficiency and renewable power and practically ignores tackling
emissions from the transport sector. It's clear that the
government's priority is nuclear power. This is a huge mistake.
The government must aim to make the UK a world leader in
developing a low-carbon economy."
Country Land and Business Association
The president, David Fursdon: "The debate over nuclear
electricity is a distraction. We must go further than simply
talking about electricity; electricity accounts for only some
25% of UK greenhouse gas emissions. The European Environment
Agency has estimated we can get 16% of our total energy supply
including heat and transport fuels as well as electricity from
sustainable farming and biomass waste sources."
Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
42 Guardian Unlimited: What is a national debate?
Comment |
Julian Glover
Wednesday July 12, 2006
Taking things literally, Tony Blair yesterday launched a national
debate on a launch, bobbing around beside an off-shore wind farm
to show how committed he is to thinking deeply about the future
of electricity. Since he has already made up his mind and wants
to see big new nuclear power plants humming away, this new
national debate on energy is, in fact, no debate at all.
This is entirely in keeping with political tradition. Politicians
like national debates - it makes them sound serious, consensual
and long-term. But few involve the nation, or much debate. The
point is to keep the public out.
This year alone parliament has heard more than 100 calls for
national debates to begin. Issues up for discussion have
included: the future of policing; road charging; pensions;
hoodies; Britishness; the comprehensive spending review; council
tax; a bill of rights; the health service; the cost of medicines;
drug laws; nuclear weapons; nuclear waste; and smoking. The EU
has demanded a national debate on something called "the European
public sphere".
None of these got far. They lacked the basic ingredients of a
successful national debate, which are a report on the Today
programme (all the better if it suggests that Gordon Brown and
Blair have fallen out over the issue), an outraged editorial in
the Daily Mail and scare stories pointing out the horrors to
come (power cuts, deaths or national bankruptcy) if a decision
is not taken.
International examples are also helpful in keeping debate going,
especially claims from newspaper columnists that Sweden or
Australia arrange things much more sensibly.
Quite when national debates end, and who decides the outcome, is
officially unclear. More begin than are concluded.
Among those that have arguably made a difference are the 1975
Europe referendum and the current pensions debate. People have
been persuaded that they have to retire later: the polling
evidence is striking. But they have changed their minds only
because politicians - and Adair Turner's inquiry - have insisted
they do. Underneath, that is not much of a debate.
So how can things be improved? Perhaps there should be a
national debate about it.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
43 London Times: Green row as Government backs nuclear power -
July 11, 2006
Sellafield Nuclear power plant in Cumbria: the amount of
electricity generated by nuclear power stations is due to fall
from 20 per cent to 6 per cent in the next 20 years (PA)
Nuclear power stations to be fast-tracked through planning
By Jenny Booth and agencies
The Government today revealed plans to change the planning laws
to ensure that some of Britain's ageing nuclear power stations
can be replaced - sparking a huge row with "green" campaigners.
Announcing the Government’s Energy Review in Parliament today,
Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said that
nuclear energy could make a significant contribution to
Britain's future energy security. It is understood that this
could entail the building of a new generation of up to six
nuclear power stations.
Mr Darling told MPs that the amount of electricity generated by
nuclear power would fall from the current 20 per cent to 6 per
cent in the next 20 years. He made no specific policy
commitments, promising further consultation and a White Paper
this winter, but said that decisions must be made "in the next
few years".
If measures were not taken now to fill the gap left by the
closure of ageing nuclear power stations, Britain would become
dependent on costly overseas gas imports, often from unstable
parts of the world.
The process of commissioning new nuclear plants - and indeed
wind farms - has been until now greatly delayed by the planning
process. In future, the Energy Review promises, the Government
will be able to make a declaration of need, stating that the
country requires a nuclear power station - reducing the scope
for lengthy objections at public inquiries.
Mr Darling told MPs however that nuclear power was only a part
of the solution, and announced that in future, 20 per cent of
Britain's energy should come from renewable sources. The current
target is 15 per cent.
The building of new renewable energy plants has however also
been prone to planning delays, so today's review proposes to
create the post of specialist planning inspector whose role will
be to ensure that applications for offshore windfarms and
turbines to harness the power of the tide should not get bogged
down.
Mr Darling also said that coal-fired power generation - which
last winter was providing up to a half of Britain's energy needs
- had a future role to play, so long as technology could cut the
heavy toll of carbon it released into the atmosphere.
The Trade and Industry Secretary said that exhausted North Sea
oil fields could be used for "carbon capture" - safely storing
potentially polluting carbon emissions - thus cutting carbon
emissions by millions of tonnes.
There was a raft of proposals for encouraging businesses to
reduce their energy usage and emissions, and cutting pollution
by road transport by, for example, greater use of biomass fuels
as alternatives to fossil fuels.
The Energy Review says that individuals too can play their part
in preventing climate change. It proposes that new applications
to site solar panels or wind turbines on the roofs of domestic
properties should become virtually exempt from planning laws, in
order to encourage homeowners to become more actively involved
in generating their own power.
In most cases there would be a presumption that such planning
applications should be accepted, the review says, and technology
should be developed to allow excess power generated in this way
to be fed into the national grid.
Power generation firms should also be given incentives to help
homeowners make their homes more energy efficient, rather than
simply trying to sell them as much power as possible. Measures
such as smart metering and better and clearer fuel bills would
help consumers to understand how to reduce their energy usage,
Mr Darling told the Commons.
The Government wishes to cut dramatically the 7 per cent of all
power used in the UK which is used keeping computers, videos,
televisions and other electrical appliances on standby. Mr
Darling said that talks would be held with manufacturers and
other bodies in order to cut the amount of effectively wasted
energy.
Despite the many green initiatives in the Energy Review, the
issue that has enraged Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the
Green Party and other anti-nuclear groups is the proposal to
invest once more in nuclear power. Green groups claimed today
that there was no public support for nuclear power, and no need
to replace ageing nuclear power stations.
"We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by
cutting energy waste, harnessing the power of renewables and
using fossil fuels more efficiently," said Tony Juniper, the
director of Friends of the Earth.
"And we can do this without wasting more money on dirty and
dangerous nuclear power. The world is already a dangerous place.
Encouraging countries around the world to build nuclear power
stations will make it even more so."
Instead, he said, the Government should pass a new climate
change law committing Britain to annual cuts in carbon dioxide
emissions.
Stephen Hale, the director of the Green Alliance and a former
Defra special adviser, said that Mr Blair's public support of
nuclear power had skewed the debate and was draining investment
away from renewable energy. Taxing flights would be a better way
of tackling climate change, he said.
"As long as this Government identifies nuclear power as
essential, it will discourage potential investors in other
sectors," he said.
"Climate change is the pretext for the Government’s position on
nuclear. But a rethink of the aviation White Paper would be far
more effective as part of a climate strategy than a new wave of
nuclear power stations."
The Conservatives mocked Mr Darling's statement as short on
specifics. Alan Duncan, the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary,
said: "He proposes six new consultations and a new forum, but
there's no real policies, no real action, no real decisions, no
energy review at all. There's nothing there."
Earlier, David Cameron said the Government was right to
prioritise cutting carbon emissions "to save the planet" and
make sure that Britain's power supplies were secure. "What
they’ve got to do is allow a revolution in green energy," he
said. "You’ve got to allow that market to explode. Nuclear can
be there as a last resort."
There was strong support from the unions for the idea of Britain
guaranteeing a stable, domestic source of energy. Gary Smith,
national officer for the energy industry for the GMB union,
said: "Thank goodness someone has taken a forward looking view
so that we will not have to rely on anyone but ourselves to meet
our energy needs in the years to come. GMB welcomes the
commitment to a balanced energy policy."
But consumer experts said that the debate should take more
account of the high energy prices that British households are
being forced to foot.
"One way or another, we are going to be left with higher
household energy bills, and if the pricing trends we have seen
over the past five years continue, we could see prices increase
by a further 80 per cent by 2011, taking the average household
energy bill from its current level of £915 to £1,647," said Ann
Robinson, of consumer advice firm uSwitch.com.
"There are already three million households in this country who
are struggling to pay their energy bills, and this figure could
rise to over six million in the next five years unless the
Government incorporates specific, targeted measures to tackle
this problem when it unveils its final proposals."
Times Newspapers Ltd.
*****************************************************************
44 Evening Times: Scots 'don't need nuclear power' -
SCOTLAND produces six times more energy than it uses, a new
study has revealed.
The SNP - which commissioned the research - said the finding
defeated the case for a new generation of nuclear power stations
north of the border.
It comes as a new row over nuclear power is set to flare today
when the Government will say it has a role to play in generating
energy, sparking an outcry from green campaigners.
The energy review will be published and is believed to have
concluded nuclear is economically viable and should play a role
in UK energy policy.
The move could clear the way to the building of six new nuclear
power stations to replace those being closed.
The SNP study found Scotland exports10 times more oil and about
six times more gas than Scots need, 24% more electricity and
almost twice as much coal as is necessary to meet demand north
of the border.
The study was carried out by Professor Stephen Salter, of
Edinburgh University, who pioneered research into the potential
for wave energy in the 1970s.
His research claimed offshore renewable energy could produce
enough electricity to meet twice the peak Scottish demand.
It also claimed the tidal power potential of the Pentland Firth
and the Hebrides had been underestimated and could exceed
current UK nuclear capacity.
SNP shadow energy minister Richard Lochhead said: "The review
points to an energy-rich Scotland powered by the sea, the sun,
the wind, our land and using fossil fuels cleanly.
"With the prospect of such a scenario, it would be absurd to
contemplate a new generation of dangerous and expensive nuclear
power stations."
At Westminster today, ministers will also unveil plans for a big
increase in the amount of energy generated from renewable
sources such as wind, solar and tidal, from the current 4% to
nearer 20%.
Publication date 11/07/06
*****************************************************************
45 BBC NEWS: UK nuclear power: The contenders
| Science/Nature |
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006, 16:18 GMT 17:18 UK [
Nuclear power was "back on the agenda with a vengeance", Tony
Blair said late last year when he launched the UK energy review.
[UK nuclear power plant worker]
How nuclear power plants generate electricity
Now, ministers have given the green light to new nuclear power
plants, which will replace the ageing fleet that currently
provides 20% of the UK's electricity.
Industry figures and nuclear experts say three designs of
so-called Generation III+ reactors are likely to be among the
front runners:
Areva EPR Westinghouse AP1000
Candu ACR1000
"GENERATION III+" TECHNOLOGY
The UK's current fleet of Magnox and Advanced Gas Cooled
Reactors (AGRs) are Generation I and Generation II designs, the
vast majority of which are fast approaching the end of their
40-year operating lives.
The new power plants that could replace them are Generation III+
reactors - a term used to describe the latest designs.
Generation IV reactors are not likely to be commercially
available for at least another 20 years, but manufacturers are
developing a number of designs.
The characteristics of Generation III+ designs include:
+ Modular construction - components are built elsewhere and
shipped to the reactor site
+ Evolutionary design - years of experience operating reactors
has allowed engineers to simplify designs and cut construction
and generation costs, while improving safety measures
+ Passive safety features - in the event of a "severe
accident", safety systems use natural forces such as gravity,
circulation and evaporation, rather than "active" systems such
as pumps, motors and valves
+ Waste - industry experts say the new more efficient
reactors, over their design lives, will generate only 10% of the
waste the UK's entire nuclear sector has produced to date
+ Cost - manufacturers say the final figure depends on a
number of factors, such as location, number of reactors, and the
planning and licensing process, but each plant is estimated to
cost about £400-500m
AREVA EPR [Diagram of Areva EPR nuclear power plant]
1. Reactor core
2. Control rod drive mechanism
3. Pressuriser
4. Steam generator
5. Generator turbine
6. Steam generator
7. Containment shell
Reactor type: Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR)
Generation capacity: 1,600 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: approximately 42 months
Manufacturer: Europe-based Areva/Framatome ANP
Currently licensed in UK? No
The EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) is the latest design from
Areva, and the 1,600 MW reactor is described as "the highest
unit power to date".
The manufacturers say the reactor offers significantly reduced
power generation costs because it requires less fuel and is
designed to be operational for 92% of its 60-year life.
Finland is currently building the first EPR reactor at
Olkiluoto, which is expected to start producing electricity in
2009. France is expected to start work on the second reactor of
this kind in 2007.
WESTINGHOUSE AP1000 [Diagram of AP1000 nuclear power plant]
1. Reactor core
2. Steam generators
3. Pressuriser
4. Passive cooling water tank
5. Steel containment shell
6. Turbines
Reactor type: PWR
Generation capacity: 1,117 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: 36 months
Manufacturer: US-based Westinghouse
Currently licensed in UK? No
Westinghouse says the AP1000's passive safety systems have
simplified its design. Compared with reactors that produce the
same amount of power, it uses 50% fewer valves, 35% fewer pumps,
70% less cabling and can be contained in a building almost half
the size.
This has a knock-on effect regarding the time it takes to
construct the reactor. Westinghouse says: "Construction
forecasts, verified by independent reviewers, indicate that an
AP1000 could be built in three years or less."
The AP1000 is currently the only generation III+ design to be
licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and
Westinghouse is bidding to build the power plant in China.
CANDU ACR1000 [Diagram of ACR-1000 nuclear power plant]
1. Reactor core
2. Horizontal fuel channels
3. Steam generators
4. Heat transfer pumps
5. Emergency injection system
6. Steel containment wall
7. Turbine generators
Reactor type: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR)
Generation capacity: 1200 MW
Design life: 60 years
Construction time: 42 months "from first concrete to fuel
loading"
Manufacturer: Canada-based Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd
Currently licensed in UK? No
The Candu ACR1000 is a light-water-cooled, heavy-water-moderated
tube reactor and is the latest design in a line of reactors
which stretches back to the 1940s.
Its horizontal fuel channels allow the reactor to be refuelled
with slightly enriched uranium while it is still generating heat
to power the steam generators, reducing the amount of time the
plant is "offline" and not supplying electricity to the grid.
The first ACR1000 is expected to be built in Canada, and
producing electricity by 2014.
*****************************************************************
46 BBC: Q: UK energy review
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
[Electricity pylons (image: PA)]
Could an 'energy gap' leave the UK struggling to keep the lights
on?
The government on Tuesday will publish the findings of its energy
review.
Much of the attention centred on whether new nuclear power plants
will be given the go-ahead.
However, there are a number of issues that the review will cover.
What is the energy review?
The review was announced by Tony Blair in November 2005, and has
been overseen by Trade and Industry Minister Malcolm Wicks.
It has been focusing on progress in a number of key policy areas,
including:
+ Cut the UK's CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050, with real
progress by 2020
+ Secure energy supplies
+ Making sure that every home is adequately and affordably
heated
Why do we need this review when the government published an
Energy White Paper in 2003?
Government officials have said the review was necessary to
assess the developments made in the areas above, which were
originally outlined in the White Paper.
But they also list a number of factors that have occurred since
2003 that they said made a review necessary. They include a
surge in oil prices, reserves of North Sea gas being depleted,
and concern over a looming "energy gap".
What is the "energy gap"?
In short, the projected demand for electricity over the coming
decade is greater than the projected generation capacity. This
has lead to worries about the nation's ability to keep the
lights on.
The reasons behind the so-called "energy gap" are that a number
of large coal-fired power plants will have to close because of a
European directive that limits emission levels.
Also, all but three of the nuclear power plants in the UK are
scheduled to reach the end of their operating life by 2020.
Currently, nuclear reactors generate 20% of the UK's
electricity.
These closures combined with a growing demand for electricity in
homes and businesses has led to the emergence of the energy gap.
Why is nuclear power back on the agenda?
This can be boiled down to two reasons: economics and emissions.
Gas-fired power stations provide about 40% of the UK
electricity, but the rising cost of natural gas has seen a rise
in people's energy bills.
This rise in electricity generation prices have helped make
nuclear power plants become more economically competitive.
Concerns about being dependent on unreliable overseas supplies
have also led to a number of key people, including Tony Blair,
giving serious thought to the nuclear option.
As for emissions, nuclear power plants produce virtually no CO2
when generating electricity.
This makes it an attractive option for the government, which is
set to miss its self-imposed target of cutting CO2 emissions by
20% on 1990 levels by 2020.
However, uncertainty still surrounds the thorny issue of
radioactive waste. A panel of experts recently said that burying
the waste deep underground was feasible, but the price tag of a
clean-up programme for the UK's nuclear waste could exceed
£70bn.
Are people going to see their energy bills continue to rise?
In the past few years, households have seen a rise in gas and
electricity bills after a number of years of stable prices.
SMART METERS [Smart meter (Image: Mor Associates)]
How smart meters change the way we measure energy use
There appears to be little chance of cheaper bills in the
short-term while global energy markets remain volatile.
Rising bills particularly affect families on lower incomes. The
government describes "fuel poverty" as a household that spends
10% or more of its disposable income on gas and electricity.
Ministers recently announced plans for energy suppliers to help
people become more energy efficient and reduce their demand.
This could involve insulating homes, buying energy efficient
equipment or even installing so-called "smart meters".
*****************************************************************
47 BBC NEWS: Wales | Island 'hopeful' on nuclear plant
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 16:58 GMT 17:58 UK
Wylfa
Power station 'deal to save jobs'
Anglesey Council leaders say they are "hopeful" that a new
nuclear power station could be built on the island.
It follows the go-ahead for a new wave of UK nuclear power
stations in the UK government's energy review.
Council leader Gareth Winston Roberts said a new nuclear plant
was "central to safeguarding key jobs".
The review also proposes changes to speed up offshore windfarm
planning applications and a new study on tidal power in the
Severn estuary.
The existing Wylfa nuclear power station near Cemaes is due to
be decommissioned in 2010.
Its closure could also jeopardise the future of Anglesey
Aluminium, which receives its power supply from the plant.
The council has already lobbied for a replacement for Wylfa.
The review said that decisions on replacing Britain's nuclear
power stations need to be made in the next few years, which will
be built by the private sector.
'Boost for renewables'
Mr Roberts said: "We came out in favour of nuclear energy in
March, and I am hopeful that Anglesey will be one of the sites
favoured by the government for a new power station."
He said the council would now be working with the Department of
Trade and Industry and local stakeholders "to ensure that the
necessary infrastructure is in place so that Anglesey can
support the next generation of nuclear power stations."
[Severn estuary]
A review of tidal energy in the Severn estuary is proposed
Wylfa on Anglesey was commissioned in 1963, opened in 1971, and
is due to stop operating in 2010.
Rhodri Morgan's assembly government has said it "does not see
the need" for Wales to have new nuclear plants.
Friends of the Earth said building new nuclear power plants
would be "unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary".
The energy review aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions and
secure Britain's energy supply.
Welsh Secretary Peter Hain welcomed the review, saying it would
provide "a massive new boost for renewables," raising the target
for renewable energy to 20 per cent by 2020.
He added: "The proposed changes to the planning system will
reduce the time it takes to get approval for big renewable
energy projects like offshore windfarms, which can make a big
contribution to cutting emissions."
The review says government and agencies should "explore" the
issue of tidal energy in the Severn estuary although it admitted
plans for a £14bn barrage "raise strong environmental concerns".
*****************************************************************
48 AZ Republic: Palo Verde nuclear plant restarts Unit 1 reactor
[azcentral.com]
plant restarts Unit 1 reactor
Jul. 11, 2006 12:00 AM
Arizona Public Service Co. restarted one of three reactors at
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station and found none of the
vibrations that have sapped the reactor's output all year.
Crews cranked up Unit 1 to 70 percent on Monday, but several
tests remain before the reactor resumes 100 percent output.
The tests include a check of the reactor's steam generators,
which were installed last fall but never tested at full power
because of a vibrating cooling pipe. That pipe limited the
reactor's output to no more than 32 percent before APS decided
in March to shut the reactor down and fix the problem.
APS has estimated that it will cost $46 million to buy
electricity to replace that lost as a result of Unit 1's
problems. If Unit 1 passes all tests, it could soon resume full
output of about 1,300 megawatts. The other two reactors remain
at 100 percent.
- Ken Alltucker
Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
49 BBC: US 'to make Russia nuclear offer'
Last Updated: Monday, 10 July 2006
[Nuclear logo on a drum of waste]
The US will reportedly offer to lift a ban on storing spent
nuclear fuel
The US is expected to make significant concessions to Russia over
the storage of nuclear fuel in order to win backing for foreign
policy, reports say.
According to newspapers including the Washington Post, the US is
keen to get Russia's support as it tackles concerns including
Iran and North Korea.
President George W Bush is due to meet with Russia's President
Vladimir Putin later this week at the G8 summit.
The reported offer signifies a shift in US-Russian relations,
analysts say.
On Monday, the Wall Street Journal claimed that the US would have
to make a number of concessions because it "needs Russia more
than Russia needs the US".
According to the newspaper, as well as lifting a ban on storing
spent nuclear fuel, the US was also offering to back Russia's
membership of the World Trade Organisation and give Russian
companies freer access to US markets.
Tight rein
Many observers are predicting that President Bush and Mr Putin
will announce greater co-operation over nuclear issues at the
upcoming G8 summit of industrialised nations later this week in
St Petersburg.
[Activists protesting against nuclear dumping]
The problem with nuclear power is that very few people want the
waste
Talks, which are expected to take months, will focus on giving
Russia a larger chunk of the multi-billion dollar nuclear-waste
disposal industry.
At present, the US controls the nuclear fuel it produces, and
retains that control even if it has sold it to another nation
such as South Korea or Taiwan.
That means that even when the nuclear fuel is used up and needs
to be disposed of, client nations of the US cannot transfer it
to Russia because of the US ban in place.
The US has stopped Russia from handling its nuclear fuel because
of concerns about security and the way in which Moscow provided
technology to other nations including Iran.
A main concern is that the nuclear waste could be used to
provide radioactive material for weapons.
Analysts say that by lifting the ban the US will not only
improve its relations with Russia, but also give it the ability
to dispose of greater amounts of nuclear waste should it decide
to boost its nuclear power generation programme.
According to the New York Times, the idea of nuclear
co-operation had been ignored for a while, but was revived when
Russia's top atomic energy official, Sergei Kiriyenko, visited
Washington several weeks ago.
The paper quoted Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, as saying the US then
realised that concessions could help bring Russia more on board
with its efforts over Iran.
"They had reached the conclusion that entering the negotiations
would provide continuing leverage," Mr Einhorn was reported to
have said.
*****************************************************************
50 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power plants get go-ahead
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006, 21:28 GMT 22:28 UK [
[Electricity pylons near Sizewell Nuclear Power stations]
Nuclear power to make "significant contribution"
The go-ahead has been given for a new wave of UK nuclear power
stations.
Industry secretary Alistair Darling told MPs nuclear power needed
to be part of the mix of energy supply for the UK over the next
40 years.
The Conservatives say nuclear power should only be a "last
resort". The Liberal Democrats accuse ministers of "surrendering"
to the nuclear lobby.
Tony Blair says new nuclear power stations will reduce future
reliance on imports and help tackle climate change.
In a Commons statement on the Energy Review, Mr Darling said:
"The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations
could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy
policy goals.
"It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct
and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of
decommissioning and their full share of long term waste
management costs."
"Safety and security" would be "paramount" with nuclear plants,
he promised.
"Nuclear does mean we can generate electricity without carbon
emissions. It does provide a consistency of energy which wind
power cannot," he said.
Mr Darling stressed that "a mix of energy supply is essential
and we should not be over dependent on one source".
The plans would help meet the government's target of cutting
carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, he said.
And they would ensure the UK had secure energy supplies rather
than relying increasingly on foreign gas imports.
The review also proposes:
+ That electricity companies provide 20% of energy from
renewables - up from the current 15%
+ Storing carbon dioxide in old oil fields - the UK is working
with Norway to develop this
+ New incentives to make homes more energy efficient and to
cut energy waste by businesses
+ Measures to cut the 7% of electricity currently used by
domestic appliances left on standby
+ Encouraging smaller scale electricity generators, and
combined heat and power plants, to be sited close to where the
power is used
For the Conservatives, shadow trade and industry secretary Alan
Duncan said Mr Darling's statement contained "no real policies,
no real action, no real decisions".
He said the review showed Mr Blair was "out on a limb" in his
backing for new nuclear power stations - a position, he claimed,
that was not shared by the Cabinet.
Fresh look
Edward Davey, the Lib Dems' trade and industry spokesman,
warned: "By caving into the nuclear industry lobby, you have
destroyed the possibility of cross-party consensus."
London Mayor Ken Livingstone said it was "a colossal mistake" to
head down the nuclear path again.
"We need a solution to the climate change that protects the
environment rather than threatens it, and one that does not
literally cost the earth," said Mr Livingstone.
It's not a question of either/or - it's everything that's got to
be done to make a difference
Tony Blair [
Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor said: "Alistair
Darling has today led the UK down a dirty and dangerous path,
that of a fresh round of astronomically expensive nuclear power
stations."
An Energy White Paper in 2003 said better efficiency and
investment in renewable forms of energy was the way ahead for
the UK.
But the prime minister ordered a policy review last November,
saying a fresh look was needed at how the UK could ensure it had
a secure energy supply and meet its targets for fighting global
warming.
The review has been criticised for purely "rubber stamping" Mr
Blair's own wish for developing nuclear.
But the prime minister told BBC Two's Newsnight: "If we're going
to go from being self-sufficient in gas to importing it, if
prices are rising, if we know that climate change is an even
more serious problem than we thought a few years ago, how can we
take nuclear out of the mix?"
During a visit to an offshore wind farm near Whitstable, Kent,
Mr Blair said he wanted to see renewables grow by five times in
the next 15 years.
"It's not a question of either/or - it's everything that's got
to be done to make a difference," he said.
As well as opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats, the nuclear power proposals have also come under fire
from a number of Labour MPs.
Former environment minister Michael Meacher asked: "Why are we
going down the nuclear route at all? Nuclear is more expensive
and decommissioning costs are enormous."
Members of SERA, the Labour environment campaign, said nuclear
power could not contribute to tackling climate change over the
next 10 years.
*****************************************************************
51 BBC: US nuclear debate hinges on costs
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
By Richard Allen Greene BBC News, Washington
[Greenpeace activist rallies against nuclear power in Russia on
the anniversary of Chernobyl]
Activists' appeals to emotion may be beside the point
Anti-nuclear campaigners have some chilling rhetoric at their
disposal, the ability to evoke visceral fear with a single word:
Chernobyl.
Or with three: Three Mile Island.
No new nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the US since
Three Mile Island suffered the partial meltdown of a reactor core
in 1979.
But campaigners on both sides of the nuclear power debate in the
US say that it is less a matter of environmental or safety
concerns than simple economics.
Philip Clapp, the president of National Environmental Trust in
Washington DC, said nuclear energy was just too costly without
"massive government subsidies".
"There is a large misconception about what killed nuclear power
in the US," he told the BBC.
"If we don't have a policy th drives up the cost of coal, then
nuclear is in trouble - coal is just too cheap in the United
States Henry Jacoby, MIT
"Most Americans cannot remember Three Mile Island," he said,
arguing that dollars and cents, not public fear of nuclear power,
was the deciding factor.
"It is wildly expensive compared with any other energy strategies
- that is what shut down nuclear power development," he said.
Industry incentives
President George W Bush has spoken of the country's need for more
nuclear energy, but Mr Clapp dismissed that as empty talk.
"There is no room in the US federal government budget to buy one
nuclear power plant. We have deficits as far as the eye can see,"
he said.
[Three Mile Island, the site of the worst US nuclear accident]
But in fact the Bush administration's Energy Policy Act has
offered investment incentives for the next half-dozen nuclear
plants to be built in the US.
Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the nuclear industry's advocacy
group the Nuclear Energy Institute, agreed that it was economics
that had held up nuclear energy in the US for a generation.
But he disagreed with Mr Clapp about everything else.
"You had a flattening in electricity demand because of a
slowdown in the economy," he said - and that was the reason no
new plants had been built.
US energy needs are growing again, he said, and the country
needs more nuclear power plants as a result.
"The Department of Energy has forecast a 45% increase in energy
demand by 2030," he said.
Public backing
The US currently has 103 nuclear power plants operating at 64
sites across the country, which provide nearly 20% of US energy
needs.
Toshiba, which is buying US energy giant Westinghouse to become
the world's largest maker of nuclear reactors, expects about 16
orders for new nuclear power plants in the US, Reuters reported
at the end of June.
[Pie chart of US energy generation]
The Nuclear Energy Institute predicts applications for new
nuclear plants at a minimum of 10 sites in the US by the end of
2008.
And it says public opinion will not stand in the way.
Three in four Americans would find it acceptable to build a new
reactor at their nearest existing nuclear power plant, research
for the NEI found in March - and about two in three Americans
favour nuclear energy as one way of producing electricity.
"This is a time of greater acceptance of nuclear power now than
at any time since the early 1970s," Mr Peterson said.
He said Americans now believed it was safe, that it was
necessary to secure energy independence, and that it would be an
effective was to reduce the carbon emissions that have been
linked to climate change.
And electricity companies believed there was a profit to be
made, he said.
"This is not religious fervour. This has to be a business
decision. You're not going to put $2bn down on a whim.
[Graph showing levels of US public support for
nuclear energy]
"They will have clients for the electricity before they build the
plants."
But Henry Jacoby, an expert on energy policy and planning at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), said that
ultimately, whether or not nuclear power was financially viable
would depend on government policy.
"If we had a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system like the
European trading system, it would make a big difference," he
said.
"If we don't have a policy that drives up the cost of coal, then
nuclear is in trouble," he said. "Coal is just too cheap in the
United States."
*****************************************************************
52 BBC: No nuclear stations for NI
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
[Nuclear sign painted on barrel of waste]
Mr Hain said nuclear power stations would not be built in NI
Nuclear power stations will not be built in Northern Ireland,
Secretary of State Peter Hain has said.
He was speaking as a new generation of nuclear power stations was
expected to be given the go-ahead by the government following its
energy review.
The review is expected to make the case for as many as six new
facilities in England, Scotland and Wales.
However, Mr Hain said that renewable energy sources would provide
the way forward for Northern Ireland.
"There are no plans to build any nuclear power stations in
Northern Ireland - that is the view I have taken as secretary of
state," he said.
"It's also part of an understanding we have with the Irish
government, who are opposed to any new nuclear build on the whole
island of Ireland
"That means that we have to go very strongly and progressively
for green, clean, renewable energy, which is what we will be
doing."
Global warming targets
Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered the energy review last November
to decide how the UK would meet its targets for fighting global
warming and ensuring energy security.
Nuclear currently meets 20% of the UK's energy needs and Mr Blair
says that gap needs to be filled as all the existing plants are
decommissioned by 2023.
Supporters of nuclear power want to have a firm framework on
which to make investment decisions.
They insist they will not need government subsidies to build new
nuclear plants.
But critics say siding with nuclear power will make investors
less likely to put money into renewable sources and distract from
energy efficiency - the focus of the government's last energy
review in 2003.
*****************************************************************
53 BBC: How nuclear got back on agenda
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
Analysis By Nick Assinder
Political correspondent, BBC News website
Tony Blair may have changed his mind over nuclear power during
the past three years but many more minds will have to be changed
if his vision is ever to become a reality.
[Greenpeace protesters]
Blair will not persuade protesters
The prime minister has little hope of winning over the likes of
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth or the Green Party who are
vehemently opposed to nuclear and are pressing the government to
invest more in renewable energy.
But powerful opposition is also coming from the Liberal
Democrats, whose policy is to oppose nuclear power, specifically
on the grounds it would crowd out investment in alternatives.
And many Labour backbenchers remain fundamentally opposed to
nuclear energy, with around 60 having signed a Commons motion
opposing the move.
And the prime minister is not the only senior Labour figure who
once expressed opposition to nuclear power.
When the government published its energy White Paper in 2003, it
called for massive reductions in CO2 emissions, a huge boost to
renewables like solar, wind and tidal power, and energy
efficiency programmes.
Death knell
But it also ruled out building new nuclear power stations to
replace existing ones coming to the end of their lives, stating
nuclear was an "unattractive option".
It did leave the door ajar for future atomic plants, but the then
Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt warned any new nuclear investment
would undermine the drive for energy efficiency and renewables.
[Sizewell station]
Nuclear was seen as unattractive option
Although she added: "We are not absolutely ruling out new nuclear
build forever".
At the time, Friends of the Earth welcomed the policy as "the
death knell for nuclear power in Britain".
A group of ministers, including Foreign Secretary Margaret
Beckett and Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, are said to
retain doubts over the policy although, crucially, Chancellor
Gordon Brown supports the prime minister's view.
Meanwhile former environment ministers Michael Meacher and Elliot
Morley are leading Labour opposition from the backbenches.
The Tories are so far hedging their bets, claiming only that,
while there "might be some more nuclear" in future, it should be
seen as a last resort.
Hard message
And they greeted the review by claiming the government had failed
to show exactly how it would go about building new stations, and
how many.
But, perhaps most dangerous of all, if recent polls are correct
there is little support amongst voters for a new generation of
nuclear power stations.
[Wind farm]
Government wants big boost to renewables
The prime minister answers all this by saying things have changed
since 2003 and led him to reassess the position.
While he is still giving a big push to renewables and efficiency,
he no longer sees an alternative to including nuclear in the mix
because, by 2020, Britain will have gone from being
self-sufficient in energy to 90% dependent on imports.
The latest buzz phrase from Downing Street is: "wishful thinking
won't keep the lights on".
That is the hard message the prime minister - and, presumably,
Gordon Brown - now have to sell to the country.
Nick.Assinder-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk
*****************************************************************
54 BBC: 'Nuclear' book wins £10,000 prize
Last Updated: Tuesday, 11 July 2006
[Robert Minhinnick, photo: Toril Brancher ]
Minhinnick said his prose work was 'political writing through
imagery'
The poet and writer Robert Minhinnick has won the £10,000 Wales
Book of the Year award, announced in Cardiff.
To Babel and Back is partly based in his home town Porthcawl but
also draws on travels to Iraq and Argentina, with nuclear and
political themes.
The shortlist also included a first novel and a poetry
collection.
The Welsh language prize, also worth £10,000, was won by Rhys
Evans for his biography of Plaid Cymru's first MP Gwynfor Evans,
who died in 2005.
Neath-born Minhinnick, who is editor of Poetry Wales, said his
book was a collection of essays, observations and stories "both
real and imagined".
It also has a thread of his own personal journey, following
depleted uranium to Iraq.
One of the more disturbing extracts of the book, which takes in
political, nuclear and environmental themes, details a day trip
he took to Babylon.
He was taken to a bunker where 400 people burned to death after
an American smart bomb in the first Gulf war had exploded.
[Rhys Evans]
Evans worked through boxes of personal files and papers
Minhinnick thought he saw bats hanging from the ceiling.
"After my guides had taken me through the bunker they said those
blackened shapes were children's hands," he said.
"Parents had held the children up to the ceiling to help them dig
for safety from the fire but instead their hands became fused to
the burning hot ceiling.
"After, they tried to pull the bodies from the bunker but the
hands remained stuck to the ceiling."
Also nominated was Swedish-born Kitty Sewell for her first novel
Ice Trap and poet Ifor Thomas, who drew on his experience of
being treated for prostate cancer.
The Welsh language prize was won by BBC Wales journalist Rhys
Evans for his biography of Gwynfor Evans, his first book.
He admitted it was sparked by his own "obsession" for the
subject, backed up by painstaking research of boxes of papers and
letters belonging to the former Carmarthen MP, who died aged 92
in April 2005.
Peter Finch, chief executive of the awarding body Academi, said:
"The judges' choice for Wales Book of the Year Award 2006 shows
the maturity of the literature of Wales by selecting authors at
the height of their powers."
A special On Show: Welsh Book of the Year is shown on Tuesday 11
July, BBC2 Wales, 2320 BST.
*****************************************************************
55 Platts: UK plans energy white paper for new nuclear at turn of year
London (Platts)--11Jul2006
The UK government unveiled its energy review on Tuesday including
a widely-anticipated move to facilitate the building of new
nuclear power stations in the country.
The government said it planned to carry out a consultation
process into measures to make it easier to build new nuclear
plants.
Measures could include streamlining the licensing process
and clarifying the strategy on decommissioning and nuclear waste,
the government said as it released the conclusions of its energy
review after six months.
The consultation will lead to an energy white paper around
the turn of the year.
Trade and industry minister Alistair Darling said it would
be for the private sector "to initiate, fund, construct and
operate new nuclear plants."
The private sector would have to "cover the cost of
decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste
management costs," he said.
If the UK does nothing to replace ageing nuclear plants,
nuclear power's share of current energy output will drop from
"just under 20%" now to 6% in 15 years' time, Darling said.
Darling said that although it was "more likely than not"
that some of the drop in nuclear's share of the energy mix will
be replaced by gas, new nuclear plants "could make a significant
contribution" to future energy supply.
Nuclear developers might gain some certainty for their
investment from the government's commitment Tuesday to a
"continuing carbon price signal." The mechanism for this would be
a strengthened European Union Emissions Trading System, which
currently runs only until 2012.
Having a price for carbon imposes a cost on fossil fuel
power generation but helps nuclear and renewables.
Renewables will also be boosted by an increase in the
renewables obligation, which compels supplies to source a minimum
percentage of power from renewable sources. The renewables
obligation is currently at 6.7%, due to rise to 15.4% in
2015/2016. Under current policy the obligation would remain at
that level until 2027. The government now plans to increase the
minimum level to 20%, which it said could be "achievable" by
2020.
A coal forum will be set up between generators, coal
producers, trade unions and others to secure a long-term future
for coal-fired generation and coal production in the UK.
The government will also seek to increase North Sea oil and
gas output, and plans to launch a task force with the industry on
developing infrastructure in the West of Shetland region.
Gas looked in short supply last winter in the UK, and the
government will review the effectiveness of security of supply
arrangements, and will also consult this autumn on the planning
process for gas infrastructure.
Beyond generation, the government's energy review also
called for greater energy efficiency, and said it would press for
the European Commission to bring road transport into the EU
Emissions Trading System.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts UK Gas Report
Terms & Conditions Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
56 Platts: France needs extra investment in electric generating capacity
London (Platts)--11Jul2006
France needs additional investment in electric generating
capacity by 2015 despite the anticipated gain of 16-19
terawatt-hours of annual supply when the Eurodif gaseous
diffusion enrichment plant is retired around 2012, French
industry ministerFrancois Loos said July 10.
Loos spoke to journalists after promulgating the country's second
Pluriannual Investment Plan, or PPI, for electricity
supply/demand, covering the decade 2005-2015.
The plan foresees the need for 5.2 gigawatts of additional
capacity, half in semi-baseload and half in peaking capacity,
which could cost between Eur 1 billion and Eur 5 billion (between
US$1.3 billion and $6.4 billion), he said.
The analysis underpinning the plan showed that Electricite de
France's Flamanville-3 EPR, expected to come online in 2012, will
be competitive at a capacity factor of only 57% but will likely
operate more than 7,000 hours a year, exceeding a capacity factor
of 80%, because reaching the target for renewables' contribution
in 2015 (21% of total supply) will be very difficult.
For more details, request a trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
57 Rutland Herald: Vernon officials taking stock of Vt. Yankee
Rutland Vermont News & Information
July 11, 2006
VERNON — A town board is planning to tour the Vermont Yankee
nuclear power plant as it weighs whether to uphold a 25 percent
increase in the appraisal used for property tax purposes.
The Board of Listers did not gain access to the plant when it
decided the plant was worth $239.4 million and its fuel worth
$35 million. So the Board of Civil Authority will be allowed to
examine the property as it considers Yankee owner Entergy
Nuclear's appeal of the valuation.
Patricia Galbraith, representing Entergy in its appeal, said it
was not safe for listers to visit the plant when they were
conducting their reappraisal because a power increase was under
way at Yankee. The plant now is producing 20 percent more
electricity and it will be safe for the Board of Civil Authority
to visit, she said.
Last year, Vermont Yankee was assessed $180 million and paid
$1.2 million in municipal taxes under the terms of a tax
stabilization agreement. Education taxes are paid directly to
the state and are not affected by that agreement.
The issue between Entergy and the listers is whether the tax
agreement is still in effect. Signed in 2000, it spells out that
the plant's value should decline in stages from $165 million
this year to $120 million in 2010.
But the listers decided that the agreement was no longer valid
because of the power boost, which the plant owners dispute.
"We have a tax stabilization agreement in place to have that
value placed on the grand list. Any other value is invalid,"
Galbraith said.
Vernon Lister Phyllis Newton estimated that because the
increased overall value would lower the tax rate, Entergy would
end up paying about $30,750 more than it did last year. Entergy
disputed that calculation and Galbraith said the company had
expected to pay less in the next tax year than last year.
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
58 Independent: Blair presses nuclear button, but will the market stump up the
cash?
By Michael Harrison and Saeed Shah
Published: 12 July 2006
The Government yesterday ruled out subsidies for nuclear power
or market mechanisms such as a "nuclear obligation" requiring
suppliers to buy a set proportion of their needs from nuclear
stations, raising doubts as to how a new generation of reactors
might be built.
The nuclear lobby claims that a streamlined and shortened
planning and licensing regime is all that is needed to make a
new construction programme viable. But City experts believe it
will require government guarantees before any private investors
will put money into the nuclear industry once again.
As recently as the 2003 energy White Paper, the Government said
that "the current economics of nuclear power make it an
unattractive option for new generating capacity".
That was after British Energy, the country's biggest generator
of nuclear power, was saved from collapse only after a £5bn
bale-out from the Government which left it as the m ajority
shareholder in the company.
But yesterday's long-awaited Energy Review turned that
assessment of three years ago on its head declaring that "new
nuclear stations would make a significant contribution to
meeting our energy policy goals".
The review did not spell out how many new nuclear stations might
be needed, but officials indicated that at at least six new
1,000-megawatt stations would be required to prevent Britain
becoming excessively dependent on imported natural gas.
The review says: "It will be for the private sector to initiate,
fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants, and to cover the
full cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term
waste management costs."
Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of the state-owned French
energy company EDF Energy and the man said to have been
instrumental in persuading Tony Blair to sanction a new nuclear
programme, responded positively to the review, saying: "We are a
step nearer the possibility of investing in nuclear with today's
announcement."
However, in the absence of some mechanism to prevent investors
losing all or most of their money, as British Energy did when
the company went bust four years ago, City experts are sceptical
of how much interest there will be from the financial markets.
One senior investment banker closely involved in the energy
sector said: "It will require some form of subsidy or nuclear
obligation or long-term contract arrangement to convince private
investors. Without one of those three, I would be amazed if any
bank would be prepared to finance a new nuclear station. You
would find it difficult to get a gas station built, let alone a
new nuclear reactor."
Aside from speeding up the planning and licensing process, the
Government's approach to new nuclear appears to be to leave it
to market forces. The review calculates it will cost £38 a
megawatt hour to produce electricity from a new nuclear station.
That compares with British Energy's current operating costs of
£23 a megawatt hour and current forward wholesale electricity
prices of £50 an hour.
Assuming the price of gas stays at around 37p a therm (which
equates to oil at $40 a barrel), nuclear build costs are £38 a
megawatt hour, and fossil-fuelled generators have to pay at
least 10 (£6.90) for every tonne of carbon they produce, then,
say DTI officials, new nuclear will be cheaper than a gas-fired
station and considerably cheaper than an offshore wind farm. If
the price of carbon crept up to 36 a tonne, then each
1,000-megawatt nuclear station would generate a saving of £1bn
over its lifetime. If the price of gas rose to 60p a therm
(equivalent to $70 a barrel of oil), each nuclear station would
generate a net gain of £2.8bn.
However, it will be for the capital markets to decide whether it
is worth putting up the investment on this basis when there is
no guarantee what will happen to future wholesale electricity
prices or carbon costs. Unlike gas or coal or renewables,
nuclear power is baseload and has to run constantly. British
Energy went bust after wholesale prices collapsed and the cost
of producing electricity from its eight nuclear stations was
greater than the price it could sell for.
At present, the carbon price is around 15 a tonne. At that
level, the net benefit of building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear
reactor would be more like £200m - which is a very small margin
to earn over a 40-year lifespan given the inherent risks and
huge uncertainties surrounding a new nuclear programme.
Adrian Ham, an independent consultant, says: "Blair says that
'the time is now' to make decisions about our energy future. But
they've left it to the market, which means there's nothing new.
It [the Review] is a lot of fluff. We need more government
action. Left to itself, the market is far from taking the right
course in terms of the energy mix, either from a carbon or
strategic point of view."
Jim Watson, an energy expert at the University of Sussex, points
out that Britain can hardly continue to lecture the rest of
Europe about liberalising their markets if, at the same time, it
is proposing intervention here on behalf of nuclear. He added:
"We are in danger of repeating history. At the end of the 1980s,
Margaret Thatcher - widely thought to be a 'strong' Prime
Minister - ordered a new generation of 10 new nuclear power
stations. In the end, she got just one - Sizewell B. We fear
that this may be about to happen again."
Despite EDF being the most likely developer of new nuclear power
stations in this country, Mr de Rivaz failed to get one thing he
wanted - government intervention to provide a minimum price for
carbon. Europe's Emissions Trading System (ETS), for buying and
selling carbon credits, does not even extend beyond 2012 - a
relatively close horizon given how long it takes to build any
sort of power generation plant.
Nevertheless, EDF remains optimistic: "The Government is
committed to there being a continuing carbon price signal which
investors take into account when making decisions ... The EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is here to stay beyond 2012 and
will remain the key mechanism for providing this signal. We will
keep open the option of further measures to reinforce the
operation of the EU ETS in the UK should this be necessary to
provide greater certainty to investors," the Energy Review
states.
The most bullish proponent of new nuclear stations is Areva, the
state-owned French reactor company which is building the
privately financed Olkiluoto plant in Finland - the first
"third-generation" reactor in the world.
Charles Hufnagel, a spokesman for Areva, insisted yesterday the
company was ready to build plant here. He said in Finland the
project has received no subsidy, the client is a private sector
one and the electricity market in the country is "totally free".
He added: "Nuclear players do not need any subsidy to put in
place nuclear that is market-friendly."
Olkiluoto and an EDF Energy plant just starting construction in
Normandy, Flamanville 3, are the only examples of European
nuclear build using third generation reactors. Each of these is
costing about £2.1bn to build. Of course, the more that are
built using this European Pressurised Reactor design, the lower
the costs. The Finnish plant should start production at the end
of 2009 while the EDF facility is scheduled to begin commercial
operations in 2012.
Given the nature of nuclear power, the up-front investment is a
much higher proportion of the total costs, as fuel is much
cheaper during operation than gas or coal. It should take around
10 years to put in place a working nuclear power station, given
a smooth planning and licensing process.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
59 Independent: Energy review backs nuclear role
By Martha Linden and Alan Jones, PA
Published: 11 July 2006
The Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks today insisted there was a
role for nuclear power in the future as he called for a
"balanced" package of energy sources to supply the nation.
Mr Wicks said the Government had climate change, energy
efficiency and concerns about where energy would come from in
mind when drawing up the long-awaited energy review published
today.
"I certainly realise that it (nuclear energy) is controversial
and that there are public fears that need to be addressed," he
told GMTV.
"But, you know, about 20%, or one fifth, of our electricity...
already comes from nuclear reactors. The question is shouldn't
we replace that, so that can we keep that source of electricity?
It is only about one fifth, and what we need in the future is a
balance."
Mr Wicks said the Government would like to see around 20% or one
fifth, of energy by 2020 coming from renewable sources such as
solar panels, wind farms and tidal energy.
He also signalled that the Government would promote an
energy-saving policy in homes, highlighting examples such as the
energy wasted by video recorder stand-by buttons.
"We are going to have a crackdown on energy inefficient
appliances of different kinds," he said.
He said schools and homes in the future would be built to "far
higher" standards of energy efficiency.
Mr Wicks' remarks come as the long-awaited energy review was
believed to have concluded that nuclear is economically viable.
The move could clear the way to the building of six new nuclear
power stations to replace those being closed.
Changes to the planning process of dealing with applications for
new nuclear power stations as well as wind farms are expected to
be included in the announcement.
The apparent green light for nuclear energy has prompted strong
opposition from environmental groups and campaigners.
The Green Party published the results of a survey of 500 members
of the public, which it said "dramatically" highlighted public
opposition to a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Almost nine out of 10 people rejected the nuclear option, while
98% backed greater investment in renewable energy and 99% said
more should be done to promote energy-saving measures in the
home.
"This puts paid to any suggestion that nuclear power is accepted
as a necessary evil by the UK," said party spokesman Keith
Taylor.
"Despite the Government's ceaseless attempts to frame the debate
as one of 'nuclear, or the lights go out', the British public
are not convinced."
Most of those polled said they believed the Government had
already made up its mind to support nuclear before launching its
review earlier this year.
Mr Taylor said the review had been an exercise in "consult and
ignore" by Prime Minister Tony Blair, who announced in May his
support for nuclear as part of the energy mix.
Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Polls
show that most people oppose nuclear power, even as a last
resort. The Prime Minister seems to be the only one interested
in having it as a first option."
Mr Tindale said Mr Blair was "fixated" with nuclear power, at
the expense of other forms of energy.
Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said: "The Energy
Review is a golden opportunity to lead the world in the
development of a low-carbon economy.
"We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by
cutting energy waste, harnessing the power of renewables and
using fossil fuels more efficiently.
"We can do this without wasting more money on dirty and
dangerous nuclear power. The world is already a dangerous place.
Encouraging countries around the world to build nuclear power
stations will make it even more so."
Environmental think-tank Green Alliance said it expected Mr
Blair's "obsession" with nuclear to derail stronger support for
renewables and energy efficiency.
Director Stephen Hale said: "Britain desperately needs a new
energy policy. But the depressing truth is that the review was
undertaken not to address this but to act as a springboard to
alter the Government's nuclear position.
"As long as this Government identifies nuclear power as
essential, it will discourage potential investors in other
sectors."
But Institute of Directors director-general Miles Templeman
said: "Rising energy costs are causing real concern as the
business community grows increasingly anxious about further cost
increases. We hope to see a strong strategy from the Government
in tackling these concerns.
"British bosses are fully committed to a diverse approach to
energy as they are strongly supportive of the need for an
expansion of both nuclear and renewable sources."
The IoD said two-thirds of its members wanted an expansion of
nuclear capacity, with 84% wishing to see more renewable sources
of energy.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
60 Independent: Blair takes nuclear option in bid to solve Britain's energy
problem
By Michael McCarthy, Michael Harrison and Jonathan Brown
Published: 12 July 2006
New nuclear power stations will figure in a big range of fresh
measures to combat climate change and improve Britain's energy
security, the Government said yesterday, sparking a furious row
with environmentalists.
After months of leaks, hints and speculation, ministers
confirmed that new atomic plants would be built - by the private
sector - to help reduce UK emissions of greenhouse gases, and
cut future dependence on imported energy supplies, such as
Russian gas.
The announcement brought criticism from green groups who have
long been opposed to all things nuclear. Organisations from
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to the Government's own
environment advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission,
expressed dismay. Many environmentalists attacked what they said
was Tony Blair's personal preoccupation with nuclear power.
Labelling the decision "a disaster", the director of Friends of
the Earth, Tony Juniper, said nuclear power was "unsafe,
uneconomic and unnecessary".
But business and labour were behind the Government, with the
CBI, the TUC and the unions all broadly welcoming the move.
"While there are strong lobbies for and against almost every
part of the energy mix, the only long-term solution can be a
balanced approach," said the TUC general secretary, Brendan
Barber, adding that the Government had got the balance right.
The new nuclear initiative is at the heart of Mr Blair's
long-awaited Energy Review, looking at Britain's energy policy
for the long term, and published yesterday - although it is
three years since the last Energy Review was lukewarm about the
nuclear idea. But in that time Mr Blair has changed his mind
profoundly about nuclear's role, influenced by two key close
advisers - Geoffrey Norris, the industrial adviser to the 10
Downing Street policy unit, who has stressed the importance of
energy security, and the Government's chief scientific adviser,
Sir David King.
Sir David has convinced Mr Blair that dangerous as a nuclear
world might be, a global warming world is infinitely more
dangerous, and that despite its problems, nuclear energy is an
essential tool for cutting the emissions of the gases causing
global warming.
While coal, gas and oil-fired power stations produce large
volumes of the principal greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2),
atomic plants produce virtually none. At the moment the nuclear
sector produces about 20 per cent of Britain's power as
low-carbon electricity, but this will shrink to about 6 per cent
by 2020 as old stations close.
Sir David does not think that other low-carbon, renewable energy
technologies, such as solar, wind and wave power, can fill the
"energy gap".
The review did not say how many nuclear plants were expected to
be built, although most observers think it will be about six.
But it stood firmly behind the policy, saying: "We have
concluded that new nuclear power stations would make a
significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals."
The private sector will "initiate, fund, construct and operate"
the plants, and cover the cost of decommissioning them, and the
disposal of their radioactive waste, the review said. The
Government, for its part, will address "potential barriers to
new nuclear build", including making the planning system
simpler. But there was no suggestion of government subsidy, or
putting a floor under the price of nuclear electricity - or any
hint of how the new plants would actually be financed.
Yet although the nuclear proposals brought most reaction
yesterday, the Energy Review contained a substantial range of
other initiatives designed to put Britain on the road to Tony
Blair's long-term climate change target of cutting CO2 emissions
by 60 per cent (on 1990 levels) by 2050. Officials said that
when the new measures were implemented, they would cut Britain's
CO2 emissions by 21 to 25 per cent below 1990 levels, by 2020.
They have the double purpose of saving energy and making the
energy that is used less carbon-intensive, and many of them -
not least the new plans for decentralised energy and local
"microgeneration" of electricity - are proposals that
environmentalists have long been calling for.
New energy-saving measures unveiled yesterday include: driving
the least efficient domestic electronic goods out of the market,
and phasing out the "stand-by" function on televisions and
computers; providing incentives for large organisations such as
supermarkets, hotels and local authorities to cut carbon
emissions; trialling "smart" electricity meters giving
information on real-time energy use and real-time pricing;
making new housing developments low carbon, or carbon neutral,
over the long term.
New measures to provide more low-carbon energy include: a review
of how to produce energy locally rather than at centralised
power plants; encouragement of microgeneration techniques such
as household wind turbines or solar panels; an increase in the
renewables obligation, forcing energy suppliers to buy more
electricity from renewable sources, with extra incentives for
emerging technologies such as tidal power and more work on the
technique known as carbon capture and storage, which removes the
C02 from power station emissions and buries it underground.
Furthermore, the Government is proposing a number of new ways in
which the planning system can be streamlined so that big new
energy projects are not involved in planning enquiries which can
last several years - as has been the case in the past.
Even while striving for a low-carbon future, the Government is
also looking to secure future supplies of Britain's own fossil
fuels. It is convening a coal forum to examine the long-term
future of UK coal production and coal-fired power, and it is
taking a new look at how to make the most of remaining supplies
of North Sea oil - and the more difficult-to-access oil reserves
west of Shetland on the so-called Atlantic Frontier.
Objections to atomic power
Even the peaceful use of nuclear energy raises profound green
objections. The main one is what to do about the radioactive
waste produced in an atomic reaction, which in some forms is the
most dangerous substance on earth.
It remains dangerous for millennia - the time it takes for a
given amount of plutonium to decay by half is 24,000 years - and
there is still no agreed long-term disposal route for the
nuclear waste produced in Britain.
Green activists are also much exercised by the potential for
cancers and other illnesses from radiation that leaks into the
environment, and are not reassured by the nuclear industry's
sorry history of not coming clean about accidents.
It was a long time before the truth emerged about Britain's
first big nuclear accident, in 1958 at Windscale in Cumbria (now
renamed Sellafield).
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
61 Belfast Telegraph: Fight against stations plans 'only starting'
By Debra Douglas 11 July 2006
Anti-Nuclear campaigner Eddie McGrady today vowed the fight
against nuclear energy was only just beginning.
Speaking after it emerged a new generation of nuclear power
stations will be given the go-ahead, South Down MP Mr McGrady
criticised the development.
"This move by Tony Blair comes as a surprise and a shock and
goes against public opinion across the UK and almost unanimous
opposition here in Northern Ireland," he said.
"A recent independent report stated nuclear energy is not
economical or viable.
"It is a difficult problem and one which requires earnest and
open debate before the matter is settled.
"The fight is only just beginning."
Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain today vowed nuclear
stations will not be built in the province but Mr McGrady, who
has been a long-term opponent of the nuclear power, said his
stance was irrelevant.
"The new green image of the Secretary of State in respect of
nuclear power provision is a total contradiction to Tony Blair
in terms of Labour party policy," he added.
"It is irrelevant in that it won't be his wishes carried out but
those of the Prime Minister."
Meanwhile, Dr Peter Doran, a lecturer on Sustainable Development
at Queen's University, said the decision to go nuclear was "a
failure of leadership".
He said: "Tony Blair's determination to commission a new
generation of nuclear power plants as part of his political
legacy flies in the face of common sense and sound advice.
"The Secretary of State, Peter Hain, is just one of the members
of the Government who harbours misgivings about Blair's decision
to go nuclear.
"Hain is right to warn that the nuclear issue is a distraction
from the pressing question of investing in a sustainable mix of
renewable energy technologies and fuel sources, not to mention
investment in driving down energy demand through energy
efficiency."
© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI)
*****************************************************************
62 AFP: Britain prepares to trumpet new era for nuclear power
by Deborah Haynes Tue Jul 11, 7:22 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> 's government is set
to herald a new era for nuclear power alongside a greater
reliance on renewable sources when it releases a review of
Britain's energy needs.
But the long-awaited report -- to be released later Tuesday --
will trigger an angry response from environmentalists because
any support for cleaner power, such as solar or tidal energy,
will be overshadowed by the nuclear references.
The review, ordered by Blair late last year, is expected to
propose the construction of a new generation of nuclear power
plants to help offset shrinking North Sea oil and gas reserves.
It will also reportedly call for a five-fold increase in
electricity production from renewable wind, solar, tidal and
agricultural sources.
Blair wants Britain to rely more on nuclear power rather than
expensive and dirty carbon fuels in a bid to combat climate
change and reduce Britain's dependence on foreign energy
imports.
But environmental groups argue that there are better ways to do
this, such as greater investment in renewable energy and a
reduction in consumption.
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, speaking before
he released the report to parliament at 3:30 pm (1430 GMT), said
nuclear power had always been part of Britain's energy mix and
"should remain so".
He also warned that the amount of electricity generated by
atomic energy would fall from 20 percent to six percent in the
next 20 years as ageing nuclear power stations are closed.
If action is not taken to fill the resulting gap in supply more
gas will have to be imported, often from unstable parts of the
world, Darling said.
"I don't think renewables can fill the whole gap," he told BBC
radio.
The Observer newspaper at the weekend said the government's
review would conclude that nuclear power was economically viable
and should play a role in future energy requirements.
Without nuclear power, Britain's dependence on gas would rise
from 38 percent to 55 percent by 2020, with up to 90 percent of
this imported, largely from unstable regions such as the Middle
East, Central Asia, Africa and Russia, it reported, citing a
final draft of the review.
In addition, the closure of nuclear and coal plants over the
next decade would mean 25 gigawatts of carbon-free, secure
capacity must be built by 2020 -- some 30 percent of current
capacity -- according to the document.
The Observer quoted the review as saying: "Based on a range of
possible scenarios, the economics of nuclear now look more
positive than at the time of the 2003 energy white paper."
The Department of Trade and Industry is considering building six
new nuclear power stations, each capable of generating 1.6
gigawatts of power, The Observer said, citing unnamed sources.
Turning to renewable energy, the report will suggest raising the
level of electricity produced by wind, solar, tidal and
agricultural sources from four percent to 20 percent of
Britain's needs, the newspaper said.
Such overtures towards renewable energy failed to appease the
critics.
Tony Jupiter, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "We can
tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting
energy waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using
fossil fuels more efficiently."
"And we can do this without wasting more money on dirty and
dangerous nuclear power."
Stephen Hale, a former adviser to the Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, said it would be a mistake to rely too
heavily on atomic energy.
"Britain desperately needs a new energy policy," he said. "But
the depressing truth is that the review was undertaken not to
address this but to act as a springboard to alter the
government's nuclear position."
Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them
built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide around 25 percent of
the country's electricity.
Proponents of new reactors, which emit virtually no carbon
dioxide, say they would help Britain meet a pledge to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
63 AFP: Britain champions nuclear, renewable energy in major review -
by Deborah Haynes Tue Jul 11, 6:55 PM ET
LONDON (AFP) - Nuclear power "could" make a significant
contribution to Britain's energy needs alongside renewable energy
sources, the government said in a long-awaited review of its
energy policy.
The wording was softer than bullish comments made by Prime
Minister Tony Blair" /> in May that nuclear energy was "back on
the agenda with a vengeance", and appeared aimed at appeasing
environmentalists who oppose the atomic option.
But Blair warned Tuesday that any decision to rule out new
nuclear power stations would be a "huge risk".
He wants Britain to rely more on nuclear power rather than
expensive and dirty carbon fuels in a bid to combat climate
change and reduce the country's dependence on often volatile
foreign energy imports.
Environmental groups argue that there are better ways to do
this, such as greater investment in renewable energy and a
reduction in consumption.
But Blair countered: "With the best will in the world -- and
we're going to make a big increase in the use of renewables --
you're not going to be able to fill all the gap."
He told critics to "just face up to the facts" in a BBC
television interview.
"If we're going to go from being self-sufficient in gas to
importing it, if prices are rising, if we know that climate
change is an even more serious problem than we thought a few
years ago, how can we take nuclear out of the mix?
"Isn't that a huge risk to take?
"And if you take the wrong decision now, and it turns out to be
wrong in 15 or 20 years' time, then of course it's too late to
do anything about it.
"We would be completely dependent on imports of possibly very
highly-priced gas, with all the issues of security of supply
because of where the gas comes from."
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling, who unveiled the
review in parliament, said: "The government has concluded that
new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution
to meeting our energy policy goals."
He warned that Britain would lose about one-third of its
capacity to generate electricity over the next two decades as
ageing coal and nuclear power stations close down.
"Decisions will have to be taken on the replacement in the next
few years," Darling told the House of Commons, noting that a
wider use of renewable energy -- such as solar, tidal and wind
power -- would help to fill the gap.
"Far from getting rid of the renewables obligation, as some have
proposed, we intend to increase it from 15 percent to 20
percent," the minister said.
At the same time, without, for example, a new generation of
nuclear power plants, Britain would also need to rely more on
imports of gas from potentially unstable parts of the world,
increasing the risk to its energy supply.
The review, ordered by Blair late last year in the face of
shrinking North Sea oil and gas reserves, did not mention how
many new stations were desired.
The Observer newspaper, however, reported at the weekend that
the Department of Trade and Industry was considering building
six.
Darling said any investment in replacement nuclear capacity
would be funded by the private sector rather than government
subsidies.
The report explores Britain's energy needs for the next 30 to 40
years. A statement of government policy is due to be published
around the end of the 2006 after further consultation.
Darling said the country faced two main challenges -- the need
to tackle climate change and cut carbon emissions.
Britain's electricity-guzzling households and businesses must be
encouraged to reduce their energy consumption through incentives
offered by power companies, the minister said, noting that seven
percent of electricity is wasted on electrical appliances that
are left on standby.
Cleaner energy was also important, with the review setting a
target of 20 percent of electricity to come from renewable
sources by 2020.
Such environmentally-friendly overtures failed to appease
critics who focused on the nuclear references.
Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them
built in the 1960s and 1970s. They provide around 25 percent of
the country's electricity.
Proponents of new reactors, which emit virtually no carbon
dioxide, say they would help Britain meet a pledge to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of 1990 levels by 2010.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
64 Greenpeace: Blair's energy review: save nuclear, destroy the climate
Choose Clean Energy - Stop Climate Change
[A new nuclear age]
11-07-2006
It's now official. Blair wants a new generation of nuclear
reactors. The energy review is over and, disappointing as it may
be, the conclusion won't come as a surprise to anyone who has
been following recent events. The review has been a farce from
the beginning: "a rubber-stamping exercise for a decision the
Prime Minister took some time ago," according to the chairman of
the Trade and Industry Committee.
But Blair's obsession with nuclear power hasnt just undermined
the energy review process; it has also undermined the review's
own commitments to renewables and efficiency.
"Tony Blair is fixated with getting new nuclear power stations
built," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace executive director, "and
that means anything substantial in this review that supports
clean green energy will be fatally undermined as long as Blair
remains Prime Minister. You can't roll out new nuclear power
stations and build widespread sustainable energy projects. The
reality is that nuclear sucks up all the money. There is an
enormous radioactive cloud hanging over this energy review which
threatens to drown any positive moves on decentralised energy,
renewables and energy efficiency."
Blair's basic assumption - that nuclear power and renewables can
work side by side - is fatally flawed; nuclear power doesn't
complement renewable and efficiency - it undermines it.
And it's not just Greenpeace who says so. In 2003 at the
announcement of the Energy White Paper, Patricia Hewitt (then
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry) said:
"It would have been foolish to announce we would embark on a new
generation of nuclear power stations because that would have
guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment in
both energy efficiency and renewables. That is why we are not
going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now."
(Hansard; 24 February 2003 : Column 32)
Nuclear power is the epitome of a centralised energy system.
True energy efficiency depends on a decentralised system. The
vast financial, political, institutional and technical
investment needed for new nuclear power stations will not only
suck investment away from renewables and efficiency, it will
also lock the UK into its current, criminally wasteful,
centralised energy system.
Blair can't have it both ways. If nuclear power is a core part
of the UK's energy policy, so too is the archaic, centralised
system upon which it depends. If decentralised energy is seen as
key, the energy market and regulatory framework must be
overhauled to encourage efficiency and renewables.
Blair claims that we need nuclear power. It will, he says, help
to cut UK carbon emissions and ensure energy security. Building
10 new nuclear reactors would only deliver a four per cent cut
in CO2 emissions by 2024: far too little too late to combat
climate change. And nuclear power's overall contribution to
total UK energy demand is so tiny (only 3.6 per cent) that it
can only marginally affect energy security.
The real answer to energy security and climate change is
decentralised energy. "A commitment to decentralised energy -
making power generation localised and vastly more efficient -
would have been a positive development," says Tindale, "as would
have been real support for renewable energy projects. Instead we
get more talk. The pro-nuclear small print in this review shows
that Blair is a roadblock to reform."
Thanks to Blair, New Labour is now the only mainstream party
clinging to nuclear power as a central part of their energy
policy. The Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Ken
Livingstone and David Milliband all understand that, as Cameron
said last week, "the future is decentralised". Recent studies
and reports have shown decentralised energy to be cheaper,
cleaner and more secure than nuclear power. And nuclear power is
increasingly seen not only as dirty and dangerous, but also as
irrational and archaic.
So why would a man so obsessed with his legacy choose to leave a
legacy like this one? He's done a U-turn on nuclear power but
there won't be a chance to do a U-turn on climate change. The
160,000 people who die as a result of climate change every year
can't be brought back to life. The radioactive waste created as
a consequence of Blair's decision will be kicking around on
earth for up to a million years.
"David Cameron, David Miliband and the Lib Dems all understand
decentralised energy," says Tindale. "When Tony Blair leaves
office Britain can get on with tackling climate change and
fostering energy security without reaching for the technologies
of the past. Blair fixed his own energy review to make it a
manifesto for nuclear power. With Blair in Government, the
chances of actually addressing climate change and ensuring
energy security diminish by the day."
*****************************************************************
65 AFP: Environmentalists arrested in Russia after anti-nuclear protest
Tue Jul 11, 4:42 PM ET
SAINT-PETERSBURG, Russia (AFP) - Thirteen environmental activists
were arrested in Russia after staging an anti-nuclear protest in
Saint Petersburg, where leaders of G8 nations will debate energy
policy at a weekend summit. [ src=]
Protest organizers Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group,
said the activists had been roughed up by Russian police at the
rally, which was held to demonstrate against the storage of
nuclear waste in Russia.
"Thirteen environmentalists including the deputy head of
Ecodefense (a Russian group), Vladimir Slivyak, and a Bellona
member, Vera Ponomaryova, were beaten and arrested by police in
central Saint Petersburg," it said in a statement.
Local police confirmed the arrest to AFP but declined to comment
on the reported rough treatment of the group. They did not say
whether the 13 were still in custody late Tuesday.
The unauthorized protest was broken up only minutes after it
started.
Russia stores considerable amounts of nuclear waste. On Tuesday
it denied that it would use the Group of Eight nations summit
this weekend to negotiate taking in nuclear waste from the
United States.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
66 Guardian: Comment is free: An atomic time bomb
The decision to back nuclear power is a wrong turning and a
missed opportunity.
Chris Huhne
July 11, 2006 07:57 PM
The government's decision to back nuclear power is a wrong
turning and a missed opportunity. It should have stuck with its
policy of 2002, with its emphasis on energy saving and
renewables, rather than changing to nuclear. Nuclear is a tried,
tested and failed technology which will cost the British
electricity consumer or the British taxpayer dearly.
There is no solution to nuclear waste. Decommissioning costs are
vast and escalating. Operating costs are unattractive without
guarantees of prices or otherwise rigged markets. That is why
not a single nuclear power station has been built by private
investors anywhere in the world without government subsidy since
the disasters at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
If a generator builds nuclear, and then it finds that it is
uneconomic, what is to stop it walking away from the
decommissioning and waste storage costs leaving them with the
British taxpayer? The issue of waste will last much longer than
the life of any existing company. Cowboy builders walk away from
their obligations by putting their companies into liquidation.
Nuclear companies could too easily do the same.
The vast investment required in nuclear power will inevitably
drain money and manpower away from renewable energy sources like
wind, tidal and wave power and from energy saving. The last
energy review clearly found that these were the least costly
means of filling the electricity gap.
Moreover, the long lead times to build nuclear plants mean that
we are bound to become substantially more dependent on
gas-powered electricity generation. The sensible option would
have been to recognise that we will be more dependent on gas in
the short term, and bring forward long-term projects like the
Severn barrage or lagoon scheme and turbines in the Pentland
Firth to reduce our reliance in the long term.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and
Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester
M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
67 Telegraph: Nuclear energy to get state backing
[telegraph.co.uk]
By Stephen Seawright (Filed: 11/07/2006)
The Government's long awaited Energy Review comes out later
today which will pave the way for the construction of nuclear
power plants.
Britain's existing fleet of nuclear power plants were built by
the state but the Government wants the private sector to build
any new ones. To encourage the private sector the review is
expected to lay out plans to make it easier for nuclear plants
to be built such as making it easier for planning approvals to
be obtained.
The construction of Sizewell B, the last nuclear power plant to
be built in Britain which started operating in 1995, was delayed
as it became mired in planning approvals process. Planning
permission was first sought for Sizewell B in 1981.
The Government is expected to move towards creating a "statement
of need" which will cite power projects deemed to be of national
importance and make it more difficult for planning authorities
to block their construction.
The urgency comes from the fact that Britain is scheduled to
lose 30pc of its electricity generation capacity by 2020.
Yet today's review represents a sharp reversal of Government
policy which three years ago rejected the idea that new nuclear
power plants were needed. Other forms of electricity generation
were believed to be able to make up for the lost generation
capacity.
Dramatic changes in the last few years have led to nuclear
becoming more appealing. The price of gas, which is used to
generate 40pc of Britain's electricity, has soared. Britain,
which used to have enough of its own gas, is becoming steadily
more reliant on imports of the fuel.
Following Russia's decision to briefly cut supplies to Europe
last year because of a dispute with Ukraine over prices
Britain's reliance on imports has raised concerns about security
of supply.
Renewable energy technology also does not look like it will be
able to deliver as much power as initially hoped. Nuclear power
is seen as an environmentally friendly alternative as it also
has low emissions of carbon.
Disposal of nuclear waste remains an unresolved issue but the
amount created by the new generation of reactors is a fraction
of the existing ones.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
68 Telegraph: Key energy review backs nuclear power
[telegraph.co.uk]
(Filed: 11/07/2006)
The Government has sparked a row with green campaigners by
pledging support for a new generation of nuclear power stations.
[Wind energy]
Wind is one source of renewable energy
The long-awaited Energy Review said nuclear power would make a
"significant contribution" to securing the UK's energy needs for
the next generation, a move set to provoke an angry backlash
from campaign groups and left-wing Labour MPs.
Ministers stressed they wanted a mix of clean, low-carbon
energy sources which would include more renewable power
generated from wind farms, wave and solar.
Measures were also unveiled to reduce the demand for
electricity, such as phasing out inefficient consumer goods and
limiting the amount of time TVs and other products could be left
on standby.
But it was confirmation of support for nuclear power that caused
the most controversy, even though the Prime Minister said in May
- before the review was published - that nuclear was back on the
agenda "with a vengeance".
The 216-page review, The Energy Challenge, said the economics of
nuclear as a source of low-carbon generation had improved.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
69 Telegraph: New wave of nuclear power fired up by 2016
[telegraph.co.uk]
By Katherine Griffiths (Filed: 11/07/2006)
Tony Blair wants the first in a new generation of nuclear power
stations to be fired up in 2016. The target, considerably
earlier than has been expected, underlines how important Downing
Street believes the nuclear element is in its drive to meet the
twin needs of increasing energy supplies while cutting carbon
emissions by 60pc by 2050.
Mindful of the widespread opposition to nuclear energy, the twin
targets of having perhaps four new nuclear reactors up and
running 10 years from now, and of building a total of 12
reactors, are unlikely to be mentioned explicitly in today's
120-page Energy Review.
But they are the key goals of the Government's blueprint of
energy policy for the next half a century. As such, after the
much-trailed Energy Review is published today, Downing Street
wants to crack on with plans to start licensing designs for
nuclear reactors this autumn.
Well aware of the Government's ambitious timetable, giants of
the nuclear industry are talking to utility firms about forming
partnerships to build and deliver the power.
Major players among the utilities include France's EDF, owner of
London Energy - which is becoming EDF Energy - as well as
Germany's Eon and RWE. On the nuclear side, France's Areva,
Toshiba-owned Westinghouse and General Electric of the US are
all keen to get a slice of the nuclear building programme.
At the same time as getting the ball rolling on licensing, the
groups will have to start finding the money to finance their
plans because it has been made clear that the Energy Review,
presented in the form of a Green Paper, will not include any
government subsidies for nuclear energy.
Financing will, therefore, have to come entirely from the
private sector, probably in the form of consortia including the
utility and nuclear companies along with financial investors.
This could be quite a tall order. Even the new reactors, which
will be less expensive than the current generation of ageing
power stations they will replace, are likely to cost between
£2bn and £2.5bn each to build.
As the Government wants 12 new reactors, that means up to £30bn
needs to be found from private investors.
Mark Spelman, an energy analyst at the consulting firm
Accenture, believes the money can be raised in the City, but
only if the Government has listened to the concerns of the
nuclear industry about planning and the disposal of nuclear
waste.
"It is not a question of whether the money is there. It is
there. But the Government will need to go into a lot of detail
about the ground rules as people will want to know whether they
can make a return," Mr Spelman said.
On planning, the nuclear industry is keen to avoid a repeat of
the process that led to the building of Britain's newest nuclear
reactor - Sizewell B in Suffolk - which opened in 1995. Running
for six years, the investigation into whether the plant should
be built was Britain's longest-ever public inquiry.
The Energy Review will detail a streamlined plan. There will be
just one public inquiry to look at all of the nuclear reactor
designs, which will start late this year or early next.
It is understood that a High Court judge will be appointed to
oversee the process.
There will also be an official called an advocate general or
counsel to the inquiry who will decide who can make
representations to the inquiry, with any two groups not allowed
to argue the same point in an attempt to speed up deliberation.
Even this streamlined process is likely to take three or four
years. Local planning permission will still be needed for each
site. However, the Government wants the plants to be built on
the sites of the existing power stations, which is likely to
smooth the planning permission process.
And as an additional fail-safe, the Government is considering
taking back many of these sites under its own control from their
owner, British Energy. The Government owns two-thirds of British
Energy and could strike a deal to pay the private shareholders a
sum of money in return for ownership of the sites, such as
Sizewell, Dungeness in Kent and Hinkley Point in Somerset.
Ministers will try to reassure the nuclear industry on the issue
of radioactive waste by allowing companies to charge from day
one for the price of delivering the energy and for the future
price of decommissioning.
All of this will not eradicate risk. Clean-up costs of the
current fleet of reactors has dramatically over-run and now
stands at £70bn.
There is also a worry that, while the new reactors will last for
40 to 50 years and require huge up-front investment, it is very
difficult to know whether today's high energy prices will
continue. Indeed, in the case of British Energy falling prices
forced the Government to bail it out in 2002.
These risks not withstanding, there will be plenty of interest
in the nuclear building programme. Indeed, the Government can
expect cut-throat competition and lobbying between the various
utility and nuclear companies to grab as much of the business as
they can.
EDF, a major player in the UK electricity market, has Gordon
Brown's brother, Andrew, as its head of media relations in the
UK. The company is likely to team up with its compatriot, the
nuclear engineering company Areva.
Nuclear industry sources believe the duo might even try to
persuade the Government to grant exclusive rights to allow it to
build the whole nuclear fleet in return for a considerable
discount in the price of energy delivered.
Such a plan is unlikely to be successful. The Government is keen
"not to put all of its eggs in one basket", one source said,
adding that both the Westinghouse and Areva designs would
probably be approved.
Westinghouse was owned by the Government until this year, when
it was bought by Toshiba for $5.4bn (£2.9bn). It has yet to
decide which utility to take on as a partner.
Not all of the Energy Review will be on the future of nuclear.
When the Department of Trade and Industry saw a draft recently,
it is understood to have insisted that more was put into the
document on renewable energy in order to present a balanced
picture and to minimise criticism from the anti-nuclear lobby.
As a result, the Energy Review is likely to unveil plans for a
five-fold increase in energy generation from wind, solar, tidal
and agricultural sources.
There might even be something to pleasantly surprise the oil and
gas industry, which is not expecting much from this Energy
Review. That could be in the form of incentives to increase
drilling in the North Sea in an attempt to limit the reliance on
volatile parts of the world for oil and gas.
© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2006. | Terms &
*****************************************************************
70 Guardian: Comment is free: Pushing the nuclear button
Richard Adams
July 11, 2006
The government's second energy reviewin the space of two years
is distinguished by the recommendation that will be making
tomorrow's headlines: building new nuclear power generators.
While there is plenty of interesting stuff in the white paper,
including on the need for improving energy efficiency, carbon
pricing and trading, and on the desirability of generating more
power from renewable sources, it is the nuclear button that will
arouse the most interest and controversy.
What today's report shows is how things have changed. Twenty
years ago, in the wake of Chernobyl, public opinion would have
presented an almost insurmountable obstacle to building new
nuclear generation plants in the UK. Since then, of course,
global warming and climate change have succeeded in changing the
view of nuclear generation, and rehabilitated it, for better or
for worse. But even those convinced by the need for new nuclear
generation should be aware that this is far from being a
solution to Britain's carbon emissions. The current share of
power generation that nuclear provides for the UK is small, just
80bn kilowatts a year, compared with the 250bn output of
carbon-based fossil fuel powered stations. It would take a huge
increase in nuclear generation to make a dent in the UK's target
of cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2050 - and there are many
better and probably cheaper alternatives to doing that.
So what happens if we build new nuclear plants? The first
question is, who pays for it? Commercial power generators such
as EDF have said they will pick up the bill so long as they
receive a fixed price for electricity in long-term contracts -
not exactly a subsidy but a guarantee (the companies want to
protect their investment, which represents a huge sunk cost,
against the possibility that, say, a fall in gas prices back to
the levels seen only a few years ago that would price nuclear
power out of the market). The who pays? question also involves
indirect subsidies, such as decommissioning and disposal costs.
The other big government intervention would be insurance of some
form. Where the power plants are located is another issue. More
importantly still, where will the waste be disposed of? As
things stand, no other country will take British nuclear waste,
and there are as yet no long-term disposal sites in this
country.
If global warming was not an issue, then the nuclear lobby would
be a lot weaker. Its only argument would be "energy security",
and the dangers on relying on imports of gas to fuel our power
stations. (The fear is that the Russians could use the gas
supplies as a trade weapon, as it appears to have done to
Ukraine recently. Ironically, one issue on the agenda of the G8
meeting next weekend in St Petersburg is energy security.) Most
uranium comes from Canada and Australia, but another leading
exporter is Kazakhstan, which is not exactly Switzerland. But if
energy security was the issue then there would probably be only
one answer: coal, something the UK has a lot of (even though 50%
of the UK's current coal imports also come from Russia)
underground. "Clean coal" technology, if it becomes reality, and
carbon sequestration, when combined could actually make coal a
real alternative. Perhaps that is the best way to view today's
announcement of more nuclear plants: as a stop-gap, until
cleaner technology one day allows us to finally jettison nuclear
power completely.
About webfeeds Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR
*****************************************************************
71 Technology Review: The Best Nuclear Option
[Technology Review, An MIT Enterprise]
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
By Matthew L. Wald
Imagine a nuclear industry that can power America for decades
using its own radioactive garbage, burning up the parts of
today's reactor wastes that are the hardest to dispose of. Add
technology that takes nuclear chaff, uranium that was mined and
processed but was mostly unusable, and converts it to still more
fuel. Then add a global business model that makes it much less
likely that reactor by-products such as plutonium will find
their way into nuclear weapons in countries like Iran, even as
economical nuclear-power technology becomes available to the
whole world.
That is the alluring triple play the Bush administration hopes
to turn with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) it
unveiled earlier this year, a proposed long-term research and
development program almost as audacious as the Manhattan
Project. The basic fuel-reprocessing concepts at its heart have
been kicking around for the better part of a half-century. Now
they are being touted anew as a way to provide plentiful
carbon-free fuel for an energy-hungry world threatened by
human-induced climate change.
Under the plan, for which the administration has requested $250
million for the fiscal year beginning October 1, the United
States and certain partner countries would process spent nuclear
fuel using new techniques that would turn some of it into more
fuel and minimize the amount requiring disposal. The United
States and its partners would also lease reactor fuel to other
countries, which would then return their spent fuel to be
reprocessed.
The technology could exploit uranium far more efficiently:
Phillip J. Finck, associate director at Argonne National
Laboratory near Chicago, says it could extract up to 100 times
as much energy from uranium as is now possible. With the waste
now piled up at reactors around the United States, the theory
goes, GNEP could produce all the electricity the country will
need for decades, maybe even centuries -- assuming enough of the
necessary new reactors could be built. That would eliminate
about a third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (roughly the
portion that today comes from fossil-fuel power plants). All
this while reducing waste and thwarting the diversion of fuel to
nuclear weapons.
In practice, though, in the best scenario GNEP would take
decades to develop, and in the worst it might produce nothing;
it could turn out to be a nonstarter on technical grounds, or
the technology could be economically uncompetitive with other
carbon-free sources of electricity. And the program could
undermine a more modest and achievable goal: resuscitating a
nuclear industry that hasn't launched a successful reactor
project since 1974.
Today, a public once wary of nuclear energy has opened up to it
as a possible answer to global warming. New reactor designs
similar to those used in today's commercial fleet -- but said to
be safer and more efficient -- are already approved or under
review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Utilities are
in various stages of planning at least 16 such reactors (see
"Stirrings of Renewal," p. 61) and may file applications with
the NRC as early as the end of next year.
Such reactors are the most promising near-term alternative to
additional conventional coal plants that produce prodigious
amounts of carbon dioxide. But it is uncertain when or if they
will be built. If it is to happen, the industry must persuade
investors to take a big plunge. That means convincing them that
the plants will compete financially with other inherently
low-carbon-emitting sources, like wind turbines, or with coal
plants that sequester their carbon dioxide -- a technology that
may be achievable but hasn't yet been demonstrated (see "The
Dirty Secret"). According to the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit utility research organization based
in Palo Alto, CA, whose members include owners of coal and
nuclear plants, the near-term reactor designs may barely be
cheaper than the sequestration technology. And if the United
States puts no constraints on carbon emissions, nuclear power
will have to keep competing with conventional coal plants.
Meanwhile, the industry is still waiting for a solution to its
chief near-term problem: what to do with waste piling up at
existing nuclear plants. Skip Bowman, president and CEO of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, says that
without a speedy waste solution, today's tentative renaissance
will "come to a screeching halt." A company cannot get a license
for a new plant without a plan for the waste, and at this point,
waiting for the Energy Department to open its long-delayed Yucca
Mountain waste repository in Nevada does not constitute a plan.
In this context, Bowman says, GNEP presents a "distraction
factor."
Some academics agree, saying the Energy Department needs to forge
a clear nuclear strategy and stick with it. Andrew Kadak, a
nuclear engineer at MIT (see "DOE's Blurred Nuclear Vision"),
says the department has followed "zigzag policies." He counts
GNEP as the fifth nuclear initiative in the last five years,
citing the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative; Nuclear Power 2010 (an
effort to break ground on a new conventional reactor by that
year); Generation IV (a new suite of reactor technologies, such
as gas-cooled or lead-cooled plants); and the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, which portions of GNEP resemble.
If the Energy Department wants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
by promoting the promised revival of nuclear energy, it will have
to hurry before power companies fill the market with conventional
coal plants that could last 50 years. GNEP may only weaken the
department's focus, adding cost and complexity with new, untried
technologies.
GNEP is a very long-term vision; most of the initial $250 million
would be spent just to study how the new technologies might work
and what they would cost. But its proponents' thinking is that we
need a very long-term vision. The Energy Department predicts that
1,000 nuclear power plants will be running worldwide by
midcentury, up from 441 today. And the existing uranium supply,
GNEP advocates argue, won't feed that many reactors.
The size of the uranium supply is in fact unknown, because
uranium went through a long period of depressed prices, and not
many people have been looking for it lately. According to
industry sources, about 3 million tons are known to exist, but
another 12 million tons or so may be out there. (An MIT study in
2003 predicted that enough uranium was still available to build
1,000 reactors and run them for 40 years.) To the extent that we
may need to stretch this resource, however, GNEP offers a way --
at least on paper -- to recover vast amounts of additional energy
from it.
Existing reactors generate energy through a chain reaction that
begins when a free neutron hits an atom of U-235, an isotope of
uranium, and splits its nucleus. The split atom throws off two or
three neutrons; usually, one splits another U-235 atom, and
others are absorbed by atoms of another uranium isotope, U-238,
to form plutonium-239 and other transuranic elements (those
beyond uranium in the periodic table). These transuranics, along
with fission products such as cesium isotopes, are among the
components of nuclear waste.
The trouble is, U-235 is a relatively rare isotope; natural
uranium consists of about one part U-235 to 142 parts U-238,
which is not as easily split. Uranium used for reactors is
enriched so that U-235 occurs at a concentration of one part in
20. GNEP would use uranium more efficiently by burning
transuranics from spent fuel, after they are separated from the
other by- products through reprocessing. It could also exploit
some of the U-238. The key would be to develop a new generation
of reactors, called "fast reactors."
Reactors that are cooled by water, as almost all reactors are
today, slow the neutrons considerably after they're released by
the chain reaction. But the reactors proposed by GNEP would not;
they would use a different material, probably molten metal, to
carry off the heat. (Unfortunately, the preferred metal for this
purpose -- sodium -- burns on contact with water or air.) Like a
billiard ball shot by a more powerful cue, the neutrons would
pack a bigger punch -- enough to split some of the U-238 as well
as the transuranic isotopes.
The transuranics happen to be among the longest-lived materials
in the waste stream, and thus some of the hardest to dispose of.
That's what makes GNEP seem so appealing as not only a
climate-change solution but a waste solution, too. Finck says it
would theoretically cut the heat and toxicity of what is today
considered waste enough to make Yucca Mountain last through this
century, instead of being fully booked before the first fuel
bundle is buried.
Nuclear-power pioneers in industry and government always assumed
that fuel would be reprocessed to recover the plutonium for
reuse. Such reprocessing is the way the Manhattan Project
gathered plutonium for the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki. (The
Hiroshima bomb used enriched uranium.) W. R. Grace opened a
reprocessing center in West Valley, NY, in 1965 and later sold it
to Getty Oil. The plant ran until 1972 and cost more than $1.6
billion to clean up. General Electric tried, too, building a
plant in Morris, IL, but it was deemed inoperable in 1974. Then
President Carter banned the technology because of proliferation
concerns.
GNEP would bring these ideas back from the grave in a much more
ambitious form that raises such concerns once more. One worry is
the way the bomb-usable material would be extracted from the used
fuel. Backers say GNEP would reduce the risk of proliferation,
because unlike the old reprocessing techniques, still used in
some countries, the new ones would not yield pure plutonium. But
today eight kilograms of plutonium -- the amount required to make
a bomb -- is embedded in about a metric ton of highly radioactive
waste; in the new system it would be diluted with only a small
quantity of other materials. Governments or terrorists would find
it far easier to steal the separated material and extract the
plutonium, critics say, than they would to recover plutonium from
today's spent nuclear fuel.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, discussing GNEP, promised that it
would "respond to the challenges of global terrorism." The idea
is to baby-proof the fuel cycle: countries like Iran could lease
fuel enriched to reactor levels -- 5 percent U-235 -- but not to
bomb levels, typically greater than 90 percent U-235. They would
send their spent fuel back to more-secure countries for
reprocessing and a second go-round inside the advanced reactors.
These reactors, which would burn many of the elements produced in
the simpler reactors, would be located in stable places like
Indiana or Florida -- or in countries that already have nuclear
weapons.
The resulting "partnership" would make American policy on nuclear
technology more similar to that of Russia and France, both of
which already separate plutonium. Advocates cite this as an added
bonus of a program that, says Finck, "will provide the United
States with a long-term, affordable, carbon-free energy source
with low environmental impact."
The GNEP Mirage
But GNEP may be a mirage. For one thing, the sponsors have hardly
any idea what it would cost; the $250 million proposed by the
Bush administration is for a program that hopes to figure that
out. GNEP backers say their technology will expand the supply of
nuclear fuel enough to slash carbon emissions virtually forever
and allow us to avoid the specter of choosing between global
warming and very high-priced energy. It would appear, however,
that saving money on nuclear fuel may be practical only if price
is no object.
Richard L. Garwin, an IBM fellow emeritus and the coauthor of
seven books on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, estimates that
existing reprocessing plants like the one operating in France
supply reactors with plutonium at a price of approximately $1,000
per kilogram of uranium saved. But the market price of uranium,
he points out, is around $100 per kilogram, and it might be at a
temporary peak.
Fuel is only part of the cost of nuclear power, and Finck says
reprocessing fuel and reusing it in fast reactors would add only
about 10 percent to overall power costs. But where even that
modest increment would come from is not clear. Frank N. von
Hippel, a physicist and policy expert at Princeton University's
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, notes
that the United States set out to build a fast reactor in the
1970s but dropped the effort in 1983 after France, Germany, and
the United Kingdom built them and then abandoned them as too
costly and difficult. And once the fast reactors were built, the
system envisioned by GNEP might require as many as one of the
expensive new reactors for every three ordinary ones, according
to sponsors, depending on how effective the new reactors were.
Garwin says of the fast reactors, "There is no conception of
these things making their way economically."
"I hope that we'll have more reactors; I certainly hope the world
will have more," Garwin says, referring to the types that are
operating commercially today. "But that will only happen if it
looks economically profitable for private industry to get into
this area." And right now a lot of smart money -- some of it
channeled through the Energy Department -- is going not only into
that conventional nuclear power but also into other carbon-free
energy sources, such as wind, solar, and coal with carbon dioxide
sequestration.
EPRI recently analyzed the prices of zero-carbon electricity
sources and found that if, as manufacturers claim, new reactors
could be built for $1,700 per kilowatt of capacity (less than the
cost in the 1980s, even before adjusting for inflation), they
would produce electricity at about $49 per megawatt-hour.
Although that's about two-thirds the price of biomass, and half
the price of wind, other technologies on the drawing board may do
the job for very little more. For about $55 per megawatt-hour,
EPRI found, coal could be gasified and burned, and the carbon
dioxide sequestered. Power plants running on gasified coal have
not been commercialized yet, but conventional pulverized-coal
plants could be built that would sequester their carbon dioxide,
and they would produce power at about $65 per megawatt-hour.
Those technologies are perceived by investors as lower risk, and
the United States has hundreds of years' worth of coal.
In a few years, or a few decades, carbon taxes could be universal
in the industrial world, a war in the Persian Gulf could make the
price of oil double or triple, and electricity demand could surge
-- particularly if somebody came up with a better battery that
could be mass-produced for electric cars. But even if all those
things pushed the world toward zero-carbon energy, we would still
be looking for the zero-carbon energy that cost least. That could
be nuclear energy, according to EPRI. But Steve Specker, the
president of EPRI, expects a "horse race" between different
zero-carbon coal technologies.
Playing with Proliferation
Beyond the cost issue, GNEP could reverse a successful strategy
against proliferation, say a variety of scientists, including
Princeton's von Hippel. He argues that reprocessing spent nuclear
fuel creates too great a risk, even if the plutonium is mixed
with small amounts of other materials that do not make good bomb
fuel. Not only could plutonium from spent fuel fall into the
wrong hands, opponents say, but reprocessing in the United States
could encourage other countries to reprocess nuclear waste
themselves, making their own by-products available for weapons.
Given that the United States gave up reprocessing in the
mid-1970s for that very reason, von Hippel finds it ominous that
now, with GNEP, the country could embrace it once more. "The
United States has been extraordinarily successful for 30 years in
opposing the spread of reprocessing to nonweapons states by
making the argument 'We don't reprocess; you don't need to
either," he says. That's part of the logic of the 2003 MIT study,
"The Future of Nuclear Power," which concluded that reprocessing
as pursued by France, Russia, and Japan did not provide
sufficient safeguards against proliferation. It also concluded
that the prospect of a uranium shortage wouldn't be a reason to
move to reprocessing in the United States "for many years to
come."
It's easy to see why the research community is delighted about
GNEP. It represents a huge source of funds. It's a
loaves-and-fishes trick for the industrializing world, especially
for bureaucrats who would like to redeem the predictions, made by
their 1950s predecessors, of power "too cheap to meter." But GNEP
is not relevant to a revival of nuclear power. Utilities
abandoned more than 100 reactor projects in the 1970s and '80s,
and only now -- spurred by high fossil-fuel prices and a shift in
public attitudes -- are they thinking of trying again. A fancy
fuel cycle meant to support a burgeoning commercial industry is
useless if there is no commercial industry. What nuclear power
needs is to get up and running soon, supplanting
carbon-dioxide-emitting sources in an economical and boring way.
Without that, nothing will follow.
Matthew L. Wald, a reporter in the Washington bureau of the New
York Times, has written about the nuclear industry for 27 years.
*****************************************************************
72 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Power in Britain's Energy Future
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday July 11, 2006 9:31 PM
AP Photo AXLP111
By BETH GARDINER
Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) - The British government embraced nuclear power as a
key energy source in the coming decades in a new policy unveiled
Tuesday, angering environmentalists eager to promote renewable
power sources such as sun, wind and waves.
Prime Minister Tony Blair says atomic power will allow Britain
to go green, arguing the country can make cuts in its emissions
of the pollutants blamed for climate change if it moves away
from fossil fuels and includes nuclear power plants in energy
plans the next 30-40 years.
``The challenges are so great that we cannot afford to rule out
any low-carbon energy source that could help,'' Trade Secretary
Alistair Darling said as he laid out the blueprint before
lawmakers.
Environmentalists quickly slammed Blair for backing new nuclear
plants despite safety issues and concerns about waste disposal,
stressing that Britain lags behind other European nations in
developing renewable energy sources - such as solar or tidal
power.
Germany, the world's largest producer of wind power, will shut
down all its nuclear plants by about 2021.
``Nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomic and unnecessary,'' said
Tony Juniper, the British director of Friends of the Earth. ``We
can meet very demanding carbon dioxide reduction targets and we
can do it quickly - without nuclear.''
Blair, who has been talking about nuclear energy for several
months, also argues that Britain needs nuclear power to meet
rising demand and to reduce the country's dependence on imports
from the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia - particularly
since its North Sea oil reserves are diminishing. Moscow
unnerved many European nations this year when it briefly shut
off supplies to Ukraine.
``What's changed my thinking is not just climate change, but the
fact that we're going to move from being self-sufficient in
basic energy to a big importer,'' Blair told reporters Tuesday
while traveling aboard a fishing vessel at an offshore wind farm
on the eastern English coast.
``It's not a question of either/or (nuclear power or renewable
energy). It's everything that's got to be done to make a
difference,'' Blair said.
Other regions have followed similar strategies. Asia is going
nuclear to feed its ravenous appetite for energy, while the
United States and Russia are reviving long-dormant nuclear
plans. France, which gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear
plants, is a leader of the industry's renaissance.
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said that proposals to increase
efficiency together with a focus on renewable energy would cut
Britain's annual carbon emissions by between 19 tons and 25 tons
by 2020 - the equivalent of the annual emissions of Greece or
Austria.
Environmentalists charged that Britain is still not doing enough
to cut greenhouse gases and that the new report contained too
little substance on how the plans would work.
``This statement is not carbon-free, it is content-free,'' Alan
Duncan, energy spokesman for the opposition Conservative Party,
said after Darling addressed the House of Commons. ``There are
no real policies, no real action, no real decision, no real
energy review.''
Darling said the government would lay the legal groundwork now
for the construction of new nuclear stations to replace aging
ones that are scheduled to be decommissioned. It will hold
consultations on proposals for streamlining applications for
permission to build new plants, changes that will be set out in
another report at the end of the year, he said.
Final decisions on building new plants will have to be made in
the next few years, he said. Any new plants will be built by
private companies without government subsidy, he said.
Britain's 23 nuclear power stations supply around 20 percent of
the country's electricity. All but one is due to be closed down
by 2023.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
73 Scotsman.com: Blair faces Scots revolt over new nuclear plants
[Scotsman.com News] Wednesday, 12th July 2006
BILL JACOBS WESTMINSTER EDITOR
THE Government today gave the go-ahead for a new generation of
nuclear power stations setting up a potential confrontation with
Holyrood over the future of Torness.
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling announced a series
of measures aimed at filling the energy gap over the next 20
years.
But he spelt out there would be "no government subsidy" for new
nuclear stations with developers required to pay for the full
cost from start to finish, including decommissioning.
In his statement to MPs he also revealed a raft of measures to
cut consumption, promote renewable generation such as wind and
wave power, and promote energy efficiency in the home and
factory.
These include legislating to ensure that new TVs, stereos and
other electrical equipment would be banned from having permanent
stand-by buttons. He told MPs the modern devices left on hold
for hours now consumed seven per cent of the nation's
electricity usage.
While existing equipment in homes could not be tackled, he
promised new laws to force manufacturers to either put a short
time limit on standby buttons or drop them altogether from new
products.
He said the Government's energy review showed that new nuclear
power stations were "viable" and necessary to close the energy
gap, but he also set long-term goals to boost renewable sources
such as wind and wave power.
Although the energy review launched by Tony Blair in November
will limit the powers of English councils to block new nuclear
plants, the Scottish Parliament will keep the final say on
similar developments north of the Border.
With Mr Darling, in charge of the study, and local East Lothian
MP Anne Moffat backing a new station on the Torness site but
Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell opposed, the scene is set
for the most serious confrontation between Edinburgh and London
since devolution.
The Scottish Executive - wary of Liberal Democrat and
Nationalist opposition to nuclear - wants to extend the life of
the existing station from 2018 to 2030.
But it is opposed to a new development there.
However, Mr Darling and others at Westminster believe existing
sites - including Torness - are the best place to develop new
plant. The review has been deeply controversial since the start
with the Prime Minister saying it had to look at the nuclear
option. He said it was now back on the agenda with a
"vengeance".
This has enraged anti-nuclear campaigners who believe that
renewables - especially wind and wave power in Scotland - are
the way ahead.
With the decline of coal and North Sea gas, government officials
say the current ten per cent of imported gas last year could
rise to 90 per cent by 2020.
Mr Darling said: "There are two major issues to deal with. One
is climate change. We need to take steps to pumping carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. The second is security of supply.
"For 30 years we have been self-sufficient in oil and gas
because of the North Sea. But as that steadily declines although
there are reserves still to be exploited we are going to have to
rely increasingly on imported gas from sometimes unstable parts
of the world.
"First we need a massive drop in consumption and much more
energy efficiency. That means for example encouraging good
practise in the use of electricity."
He added: "Final authority for the go-ahead of nuclear will
remain with the Scottish Parliament both in terms of planning
consents and nuclear consents under the Electricity Act.
"It is my view that existing nuclear sites would be the most
likely place for new nuclear plants. That would apply to Torness
on the West of Scotland and Hunterston on the East.
"Torness is due to close between 2018 and 2023 but we could
extend its life. The final decision on whether to site new
plants would be for the Scottish Executive, power companies and
the local planning authorities."
The Scottish National Party is totally opposed backing the
extension of life at the coal-fired Longannet Power Station and
importing coal and gas in the short-term and renewables in the
long-term.
Main proposals of energy review:
• Government go-ahead for new generation of nuclear power
stations, probably at existing sites possibly including Torness.
• Legislation to ban indefinite stand-by buttons on TVs,
stereos and other electrical equipment.
• Extra £1 billion a year in subsidies for carbon-free power
generation including renewables and nuclear.
• New European Union carbon charges to make electricity from
gas and oil more expensive.
• New market mechanisms to encourage electricity companies to
help home owners and businesses promote energy saving.
• Simplified planning systems in Scotland and England to speed
up process of approving new wind and nuclear plants - although
Holyrood will have the final say on whether the latter go ahead.
Last updated: 11-Jul-06 14:41 BST
©2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
74 NewsRoom Finland: TVO vexed as Areva-Siemens says Olkiluoto 3 nuke year behind
schedule
11.7.2006 at 12:21
Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said in a statement
Tuesday that Olkiluoto 3, the country's fifth nuclear power
station, would be ready for commercial operation a year behind
schedule in the second quarter of 2010.
"TVO is not satisfied with the time schedule situation and works
hard together with the supplier to improve the situation," Martin
Landtman, the TVO project head, said in the statement.
"The supplier has confirmed his commitment to look for
acceleration of the remaining works. However, the effect of such
accelerating measures can be verified only as civil and
manufacturing works proceed."
The supplier is a Franco-German consortium formed by Areva and
Siemens.
/STT/
© Copyright STT 2006
© 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign
Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit
for Promotion and Publications
*****************************************************************
75 WIStv.com: Startup of second nuclear facility begins at Savannah River Site
Columbia, SC:
(Aiken-AP) July 10, 2006 - Federal officials announced Monday
that operations have begun at a second facility at the Savannah
River Site to immobilize nuclear waste in glass logs.
The first glass waste storage building used for the last decade
is nearing capacity.
The US Department of Energy says the new facility has the
capacity to store over two-thousand canisters and shouldn't fill
until 2015.
There are roughly 36 million gallons of radioactive waste at SRS
left over from Cold War-era bomb making.
About 34 million gallons of the waste stored in the tanks is
made up of salt waste, which the agency considers low-activity
and can be left behind at the site.
The high-level radioactive waste is converted into the glass
logs.
Posted 9:44pm by Graeme Moore
SRC="http://WISTV.images.worldnow.com/images/static/gfx/wn_powerb
y.gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and
WISTV, a Raycom Media Station.
*****************************************************************
76 Irish Examiner: Row over British plans for more nuclear plants
THE British Government sparked a huge row with green campaigners
yesterday by pledging support for a new generation of nuclear
power stations.
The government’s long- awaited energy review said nuclear power
would make a “significant contribution” to securing the country’s
energy needs for the next generation, and help to tackle carbon
emissions.
Ministers stressed they wanted a mix of clean, low-carbon energy
sources which would include more renewable energy generated from
wind farms, wave and solar power. ['']
Measures were also unveiled to reduce the demand for
electricity, such as phasing out inefficient consumer goods and
limiting the time TVs and other products can be left on standby.
But it was confirmation of support for nuclear power that caused
the most controversy, even though Prime Minister Tony Blair said
in May that nuclear was back on the agenda “with a vengeance”.
The 216-page review published yesterday, The Energy Challenge,
said the economics of nuclear as a source of low-carbon
generation had improved.
Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said Britain faces
specific challenges, including climate change and the need to
provide secure, cleaner energy at affordable prices.
“As our North Sea oil and gas production declines, our
dependence on imports will increase.
“Our forecasts suggest that over the next 20 years, up to a
third of our existing generating capacity will reach the end of
its life.”
Mr Darling said the government planned to increase the
proportion of electricity generated from renewable sources to
20%, a five-fold increase on today’s level.
Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said the
Prime Minister had “fixed his own energy review to make it a
manifesto for nuclear power”.
“You can’t roll out new nuclear power stations and build
widespread sustainable energy projects,” he said.
Irish Environment Minister Dick Roche said it was “simplistic
and disingenuous” to link the issue of climate change with the
decision. He added that the “solution could be worse than the
problem”.
Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern added that the Irish Government
remains implacably opposed to the decision to build new nuclear
plants.
© Irish Examiner, 2006, Thomas Crosbie Media, TCH
*****************************************************************
77 Guardian: Comment is free: A watershed on energy?
The nuclear decision matters, but it's important to read beyond
the headlines of today's report.
John Vidal
About WebfeedsJuly 11, 2006 07:01 PM
Nuclear power is back. Well, it was never much of a secret that
Mr Blair was going to opt for the most controversial power
source that the world has ever known, but the official decision
is still significant.
It means that the British nuclear industry, which has
self-confessedly botched its finances for two generations and
left future governments with a £70bn decommissioning bill as
well as a £10bn mountain of radioactive waste to clear up, can
carry on as if its sorry past had never happened.
It means that the lights will still be on in 15 years' time, but
it also means that future generations will question what our
fixation in the early 21st century was with a technology born of
a dreadful war 60 years war before, and which has needed
unimaginable subsidies to survive ever since.
When in 50 years time our grandchildren start to clear up the
mess that this new generation of nuclear power will make, they
may well wonder if we saw things clearly. Did we really need to
replace nuclear power with nuclear, they may mutter as they keep
paying the bills and filling up the caverns with the waste? How
come this government surrendered to the interests of a few
mighty industrial conglomerates?
But this energy review, the second in three years, is far more
than a justification of nuclear power. It may also be justly
remembered as the moment when an oil-obsessed, energy-profligate
department of industry read the runes and began a slow turn
towards creating a low-carbon economy in response to climate
change and future energy shortages.
And it could also mark the moment when the penny finally dropped
across all government that it's not efficient to pollute, and
that there's more money to be made in saving energy than in
generating it. Even if there are no firm policy commitments, in
that sense the review is a triumph.
Increasing the renewable electricity target to 20% by 2020 is
still nowhere near enough to meet the real challenge of climate
change, and increasing the biofuel target to 10% is no more than
Brussels already demands, but it is the tone of the report that
marks a real change. The language is one of potential and
possibility, for the individual as much as for business and
local government.
For the first time, the national emphasis has been put on the
decentralisation of energy, away from the Stalinist-style
central planning that has marked energy generation for the last
60 years. From now on the individual household or business will
be encouraged to generate its own power with micro-generation
and to save energy as never before. The possibility is even held
out of emission trading between individuals. In energy terms,
all this is pretty revolutionary, the beginning of a green
philosophical change as significant as Margaret Thatcher's
determination to extend home ownership to everyone.
But there are great dangers implicit in the review, too. New
planning laws will be needed to overrule objectors, whether of
onshore wind power or nuclear. We can expect bitter battles on
the hillsides and in the town halls. The review may lead
directly to mega-schemes like a Severn barrage, which will be
massively opposed. The trade-off in visual terms may be
dramatic. Great swathes of Britain may be put to growing energy
crops. Hillsides may become crowded with turbines. Forcing
Scotland and Wales to bow to nuclear and wind power will be
divisive.
But, in the end, the whole stated point of the review was to
chart ways forward to stave off climate change. As the Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change Researchwisely remarked this
afternoon, this was not so much a review of energy so much as
one of electricity generation. It deliberately did not address
transport, which uses one third of all the energy we use, and it
barely got to grips with energy saving.
Seen like this, the decision to continue with nuclear power -
which actually only provides 3.6% of the energy we use to move
our machines and ourselves and to light and heat and cool our
buildings - is pretty marginal.
About webfeeds Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2006.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
*****************************************************************
78 UPI: Blair to OK new nuclear plants
United Press International - Energy -
7/11/2006 11:38:00 AM -0400
LONDON, July 11 (UPI) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair is
expected to give the go ahead for six new nuclear plants amid
complaints from environmentalists.
Blair on Tuesday will sign off on replacing at least half of the
aging nuclear reactors in Britain, The Scotsman reported. There
are 12 such reactors, all set to expire within ten years.
To do so British regulations will have to be altered, possibly
weakening the rights of local governments to oppose nuclear
plants. Scotland could still veto any new nuclear plant, though.
Blair is expected to also include renewable energy as a focus of
Britain's future power sources, possibly up to 20 percent of
current electricity sources. Four percent of Britain's
electricity is renewable-based.
Blair's proposal's won't funnel any money to nuclear or
renewable energy but will construct a pricing scheme making them
more competitive than fossil fuels.
Tony Juniper of the group Friends of the Earth said Blair should
rely more on renewable energy than he is, warning against the
dangers of nuclear power.
Ed Davey, spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said Blair was
pressed by the nuclear industry lobby, adding: "The country now
faces a costly, ineffective and unpredictable approach to the
future of our environment."
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
79 Platts: NRC staff recommends extension of shelf life of KI
tablets
Washington (Platts)--10Jul2006
NRC should extend the shelf life of potassium iodide (KI) tablets
that some states have stockpiled in case there is a severe
accident near a nuclear plant, the agency staff recommended in a
newly released paper, Secy 06-142.
The staff also recommended replacing KI tablets that have already
been distributed to people within the 10-mile emergency planning
zone of a reactor, the paper said.
NRC decided in 2001 that it would fund an initial supply of KI to
the 34 states that were eligible for the tablets.
However, it made no commitment at that time to replenish the
tablets, which have a shelf life of five years.
The supply of tablets issued in 2002 to 21 states will expire in
2007. The staff said the Food and Drug Administration has issued
guidance for a process to extend for two years the shelf life of
the drug if the tablets were stored "under controlled conditions"
in state stockpiles.
The NRC staff said this program option would cost the agency
about $400,000 each in fiscal 2007 and 2008.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
80 NRC: NRC Publishes Information Notice on Groundwater Contamination Due to Leaks
News Release - 2006-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-093 July 11, 2006
The NRC is informing all operators of nuclear power plants and
research and test reactors, including those currently undergoing
decommissioning, about recent examples of groundwater
contamination at reactor sites due to undetected leaks from
facility structures, systems or components.
Nuclear power plant operators have recently informed the NRC of
several leaks from spent fuel pools and underground pipes. None
of these events has impacted public health, but given one
example of contamination migrating off a reactor site, the NRC
is sharing its plans for addressing the issue as well as lessons
learned to this point in time.
The NRCs Information Notice reminds plant operators that while
the agencys regulations require environmental monitoring related
to planned releases of slightly radioactive water from
facilities, operators should not assume information from that
monitoring will provide full understanding of potential
undetected contamination.
The notice describes several lessons learned, including:
Variable evaporation rates from spent fuel pools, as well as
water transfer activities during refueling operations, can
complicate efforts to detect small leaks;
Plant operators should consider monitoring groundwater that
leaks into rooms below ground level, in order to exclude
contaminated leakage from the plant as the leak source;
Groundwater monitoring and sample analysis should be able to
detect isotopes common to nuclear power plant operation; and,
Onsite monitoring and sampling programs could be the only
reliable method for detecting repeated leakage, particularly
underground leakage.
The notice is available on the agencys Web site, by entering
accession number ML060540038 at this address:
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm. Questions should be
directed to Timothy Frye (phone 301-415-9676 or tjf@nrc.gov).
The agency also recently announced the creation of a task force
to examine the issue of inadvertent, unmonitored releases of
radioactive liquids containing tritium from U.S. commercial
nuclear power plants. General information regarding groundwater
contamination is available on the NRCs Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/grndwtr-cont
am-tritium.html.
Last revised Tuesday, July 11, 2006
*****************************************************************
81 Deseret News: SXR Uranium may buy Rio Tinto Wyoming assets
[deseretnews.com]
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
By Stewart Bailey
Bloomberg News
SXR Uranium One Inc., which is developing South Africa's largest
uranium resource, has successfully bid $110 million to buy Rio
Tinto Group's Sweetwater Uranium Mill and Green Mountain deposit
in Wyoming.
This "is a significant step toward one of the key
strategic goals we set for ourselves as a company in 2005 —
acquiring the capacity to mine and process uranium in the U.S.,"
Neal Froneman, chief executive officer of the Toronto-based
company, told reporters Monday in Johannesburg.
Froneman, a former gold miner, wants to gain a foothold
in the U.S., which accounts for more than a quarter of world
uranium demand. The company is digging one mine in South Africa,
plans to develop a second in Australia and is searching for
deposits in Canada as it seeks to benefit from a more than
sixfold jump in uranium prices over the past six years.
SXR, one of 10 bidders, will pay London-based Rio $65
million in cash and another $45 million by issuing 6.1 million
new shares if it is accepted as the buyer after due diligence
investigations, the company said. It may pay as much as another
$40 million, depending on the uranium price, once the mill is in
"commercial production," SXR said.
Power plants use most of the 175 million pounds of the
metal consumed each year, while mines produce 105 million
pounds. The supply deficit will widen as new nuclear reactors
are built in Russia, India and China.
Uranium traded at $46 a pound Monday, according to Metal
Bulletin. It averaged $27.94 a pound last year and $18.06 in
2004. It traded as low as $6.95 in November 2000.
SXR was attracted to Rio's Wyoming assets because of
existing operating permits for the uranium mill and the
proximity of the plant to the world's largest market for the
metal, Froneman said. SXR said it expects six to 10 new reactors
to be built in the U.S.
Froneman estimates that by 2009, U.S. utilities will
suffer shortages of the metal that can be bought under contract.
That's the year he expects the mothballed Sweetwater mill, which
has a license until 2014, to start production.
The nearby uranium deposit contains about 57.7 million
pounds of the metal, he said. The plant also has a license to
treat radioactive waste.
"There's nowhere else in the world where you find assets
like these in America," Froneman said in an interview. Wyoming's
attitude to uranium mining "is probably the best you will find in
the U.S."
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
82 Blethen Maine: State a tempting target for nuclear waste
[Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel]
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
By KEITH EDWARDS Staff Writer
Copyright © 2006 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
Staff photo by Joe Phelan
Dr. Edwin Lyman, the senior staff scientist for the Union of
Concerned Scientists' Global Security Program, speaks on Monday
afternoon at the University of Maine at Augusta.
AUGUSTA -- If a federal proposal to reprocess nuclear waste into
fuel for reactors moves forward, Maine could be considered a
good spot for a regional storage and reprocessing facility, the
senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Global
Security Program said Monday at the University of Maine at
Augusta.
Dr. Edwin Lyman said the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
proposal, part of President Bush's energy initiative, has a
catchy, marketable name and a noble-sounding premise of seeking
to reduce the amount of nuclear waste that must be stored by
recycling it into nuclear reactor fuel.
But Lyman -- in a sparsely attended speech sponsored by the
Maine chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Union of
Concerned Scientists, Peace Action Maine, University of Southern
Maine Department of Environmental Science, Maine chapter of the
Sierra Club, and the American Lung Association of Maine -- said
the name is misleading and the end result could mean more
nuclear waste to be stored.
And, he said, it could result in plutonium stockpiles that
terrorists could target in an attack or try to acquire to make
their own bomb.
The Bush proposal, according to a Department of Energy Web site,
would seek to improve and spread technology capable of
reprocessing used nuclear waste. The amount of spent nuclear
fuel that would have to be stored for as long as 1 million years
would thus be reduced, according to the department.
Lyman, however, said that reprocessing could actually create
more nuclear waste, because materials used in reprocessing could
also be considered at least low-level nuclear waste.
And, he warned, the process would extract plutonium from the
spent fuel. The plutonium is embedded in the spent fuel, and is
thus much more difficult to access, particularly for terrorists
whom Lyman said could make a nuclear bomb from only a few pounds
of plutonium.
He said reprocessing could create an additional 500 metric tons
of plutonium if all existing nuclear waste is reprocessed.
"However bad disposing of it in the ground is, reprocessing it
is even worse," Lyman said of a long-debated proposal to store
nuclear waste underground in Yucca Mountain, Nev.
He said officials are looking for sites around the country
interested in hosting a reprocessing facility.
Lyman said Maine, unfortunately, could be a very good candidate
for a regional nuclear waste storage and reprocessing site for
New England, perhaps at the Maine Yankee site.
However, Charles Pray, a state nuclear safety advisor, said the
state and federal government have an agreement that the federal
government will not seek to take possession of Maine Yankee, and
he also said Maine Yankee would not seek to become a nuclear
reprocessing facility.
But Pray also said he agreed with 99 percent of Lyman's speech,
and said he advocates and supports storing nuclear waste in
Yucca Mountain.
Lyman said the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent
nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 citizens and scientists
that advocates for a healthy environment, is neutral on nuclear
power in general.
Keith Edwards -- 621-5647
kedwards@centralmaine.com
Wally of Gray, ME
Jul 11, 2006 8:29 AM
Why not bring nuclear waste to Maine??? Bringing out-of-state
waste here is been the only thing the Baldacci administration
has done for "economic development" in four years.
Remember... we bought the landfill in West Old Town, gave the
paper company a sweetheart deal and built an incinerator (the
paper company still closed) called Juniper Acres. Now the
"environmental governor is trying to open a trash to energy
incinerator in Athens, Maine to create 20 jobs.
I'll bet if Baldacci gets on the nuclear bandwagon, he'll
promise us 50 jobs!
Rachel Powers of South Portland, ME
Jul 11, 2006 7:02 AM
The environmental president strikes again! Don't bring nuclear
wastes to Maine. Wind turbines fine...but really who needs to
become a waste site?
[Morning Sentinel and Kennebec Journal] Home Delivery
Central Maine Newspapers Augusta - (800) 537-5508 Waterville -
(800) 452-4666
Copyright © 2006, Blethen Maine Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
83 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear waste proliferation
Today: July 11, 2006 at 7:28:44 PDT
A Russian dump doesn't let Yucca off
By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun
President Bush's proposal to consider helping Russia with its
own version of Yucca Mountain won't diminish the
administration's appetite for a nuclear waste dump in Nevada or
soften the nuclear industry's push for a domestic disposal site,
experts said Monday.
In fact, the administration's policy keeps the Nevada repository
on the table as part of Bush's far-reaching, and some say
unrealistic, strategy for a global nuclear renaissance.
As the president prepares for this week's G-8 summit in St.
Petersburg, Russia, the administration has announced it is
negotiating an agreement with Moscow that could send U.S.
nuclear waste from overseas reactors to Russia. In exchange,
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be expected to help block
Iran's nuclear weapons program.
"This is another sort of example of the globalization of nuclear
power," said Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute
for Policy Studies. "The Russians are looking to escape the
isolation they've had in nuclear power, and the United States is
looking to solve the foreign waste problem."
The U.S. deal would be a lucrative boost for Russia's ambitions
as a leading nuclear-industry state. It would also resolve the
administration's thorny problem of where to put the United
States' spent nuclear fuel from across the globe, which has
stymied nuclear energy expansion overseas much the way it has in
this country.
The U.S. has control over nuclear fuel that originates in this
country but is used overseas in such countries as South Korea
and Taiwan and is responsible for it after it is used. Russia
could be a final resting place for that nuclear waste.
Opening a waste site in Russia would help the Bush
administration move forward with its Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership - a controversial fuel recycling program that calls
on nuclear states to produce energy for export in hopes of
discouraging non-nuclear states from joining the nuclear club.
One of the many problems with that proposal has been what to do
with all of the new waste - although experts also call recycling
a potential boondoggle that will take decades to bring to
fruition.
But nuclear policy experts are skeptical of Russia's ability to
keep nuclear waste from falling into enemy hands . They point to
polls that show the vast majority of Russians opposed to having
that country become an international nuclear waste dump.
"The people who want to build these reactors will hold these up
and say, 'We've solved the waste problem,' " said Kevin Kamps,
nuclear waste specialist at the Nuclear Information and
Resources Service. "But then reality intervenes. There's going
to be huge problems encountered with this dump proposal."
Even with all of the problems facing Yucca Mountain - setbacks
that now put its opening 20 years behind schedule - supporters
continue to push for it as their best hope for handling the
nation's spent fuel because the alternatives are even more
problematic.
Experts said strict export and transit regulations would likely
dissuade American nuclear energy companies from trying to ship
domestic waste to Russia rather than wait for Yucca . Nuclear
energy officials agree.
"Our material isn't going to go there," said Steven Kraft of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the nation's leading industry advocacy
organization.
In recent months, focus has shifted away from Yucca as a
facility to house spent nuclear fuel and toward one that would
take on recycled fuel under the president's GNEP plan .
Energy Department spokesman Craig Stevens said Monday the
administration stands by Yucca Mountain as its key to handling
the nation's waste. But he added that opening up Russia would
certainly help the nuclear renaissance.
"It eliminates a major hurdle to expand nuclear energy
throughout the world." Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202)
662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
84 reviewjournal.com: Audit questions Yucca spending
Jul. 11, 2006
County report challenges DOE priorities
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- With the Yucca Mountain site still far from being
designed or licensed, the Energy Department may be jumping the
gun on some of the work it is preparing on the nuclear waste
project next year, Clark County officials say.
The county is challenging DOE priorities for the proposed
repository, based on a study of the department's $544.5 million
congressional budget request for 2007.
Only a small portion of the budget was earmarked for repository
licensing, the DOE's top priority, county officials said in a
report.
Meanwhile, larger sums were planned to be spent on
transportation, canister development and site work that "may be
premature at this point," according to the report.
"It appears that at a minimum, $91,140,300 in activities
described in DOE's budget request could be legitimately
questioned as inappropriate for approval in fy (fiscal year)
2007," planning manager Irene Navis said in the analysis.
The Clark County budget breakdown was conducted in March. The
resulting four-page report surfaced recently after it was sent
to Nevada county and state officials, the Energy Department and
members of Congress.
After his staff reviewed the analysis, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.,
inserted a provision into the Senate's 2007 Energy Department
spending bill calling for a Government Accountability Office
audit of the Yucca budget.
"I've been concerned for some time that the DOE has been using
some of its Yucca funding in ways that are prohibited under the
law," Reid said in a statement. "Clark County's analysis also
raised some serious concerns about the unauthorized use of Yucca
funding."
Reid said that with a GAO audit, "we can take a closer look at
the situation and make sure all the spending is in full
compliance with the law."
Energy Department officials did not comment on the county's
findings. Spokesman Allen Benson said it is up to Congress to
determine what work is appropriate for DOE to conduct in the
coming year.
"Our appropriations come from Congress," Benson said.
A final 2007 figure will be set later this year. A House bill
would set aside DOE's full request while a Senate bill would cut
it by $50 million.
Clark County, whose elected officials oppose the repository
program, has performed DOE budget audits for the past three
years, Navis said.
"We have pointed out things that go beyond where we think they
ought to be considering where they are in the license
application process," Navis said.
Navis said she does not believe DOE is breaking a law "but the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act is specific about what DOE should and
shouldn't be spending money on in this stage of the game."
For instance, she said the law prohibits DOE from establishing
temporary storage facilities at the Yucca site, but according to
the county memo it appears from the budget that DOE is
considering interim storage "as a fait accompli."
The Energy Department postponed a December 2004 target date to
submit a license application for a nuclear waste repository at
the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. DOE reportedly
is eyeing a 2008 license application, with a projected
repository opening between 2015 and 2020.
Clark County has challenged $28 million budgeted for fuel and
canister-handling facilities at the Yucca site, and another $8
million for waste packaging, charging DOE has not yet designed
the special containers that will carry the highly radioactive
waste.
"A basic question is, if funds are spent now and there are
changes in the license, or the canisters or the license are not
approved, how will DOE recoup these millions of dollars?" the
county report asked.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
85 Telegraph: Did Sellafield workers seed leukaemia?
[telegraph.co.uk]
(Filed: 11/07/2006)Page 1 of 5
The debate about what caused childhood cancers around the nuclear
complex has ignited again, explains Roger Highfield Some ideas
seem so plausible, so simple and so dazzlingly logical that they
acquire a life of their own, even when the evidence stacks up
against them. One of the best known is the suggestion that
radiation leaks from nuclear plants are responsible for clusters
of leukaemia cases among children who live nearby.
[Sellafield, Cumbria]
Many Sellafield workers who lived at Seascale were doubly
susceptible to a leukaemia cluster, argues Prof Kinlen
This idea was born in 1983 with a searing and influential
television documentary, Yorkshire TV's Windscale: the Nuclear
Laundry, which for the first time highlighted a disturbingly
high rate of childhood leukaemias near Britain's nuclear
reprocessing plant in Cumbria. Because radiation causes cancer,
the link between the cancer cluster and the sprawling complex,
later renamed Sellafield, seemed overwhelming.
But five years after the film, when intensive efforts had failed
to link the cluster to radiation, an intriguing alternative
explanation was put forward by Prof Leo Kinlen of the Cancer
Research UK's Epidemiology Unit in Oxford. An expert committee
was a decade later to pour cold water on his theory - but in the
past few days, he has published a paper in the British Journal
of Cancer that shows how the committee got it wrong.
The cluster is real enough and was detected when investigative
journalists discovered that in the village of Seascale there had
been several cases of leukaemia, a rare cancer. The public
outcry following the TV programme about the "Seascale cluster"
forced the government to establish an investigation led by Sir
Douglas Black, former president of the Royal College of
Physicians.
His committee agreed that the incidence of childhood leukaemia
was high in Seascale, the village nearest Sellafield where many
processing plant workers and their families lived. Seven cases
were identified in people under the age of 25 who had lived
there between 1955 and 1983. For children under the age of 10,
there were five cases when they would have expected an average
of 0.5. But the problem was that the known emissions were far
too small to account for the cluster.
Unsurprisingly, there were accusations of a cover-up but, as part
of Black's legacy, the Committee on the Medical Aspects of
Radiation in the Environment (Comare) was set up to make an
exhaustive and long-term investigation.
Prof Kinlen had another idea. In 1988, in The Lancet, he
suggested that an unidentified infection - possibly a virus - was
responsible. Sited between the Lake District and the Irish Sea,
Seascale is 37 miles from the nearest town and relatively cut off
by the Cumbrian mountains.
This isolated cul de sac had been subjected to a huge influx of
people over 50 years as a result of the thousands of people who
built and operated the Sellafield plant. Perhaps the Seascale
cluster resulted when this influx brought viral infections with
them to a rural community that was more susceptible.
There is extensive research literature linking cancers to
viruses, which insert their genes into their host and can trigger
genetic changes that cause cancer. Leukaemia in cats is caused by
the feline leukaemia virus.
Perhaps the best known example in people is cervical cancer,
which is caused by the human papillomavirus. Fortunately, many
more people are infected with these viruses than develop cancer.
Prof Kinlen pointed out there was substantial evidence to relate
population mixing to epidemics, especially in isolated places.
When America first mobilised an army in the First World War,
camps with American soldiers from sparsely populated states were
more prone to epidemics than those with city dwellers. He found
increases of leukaemia from population mixing in the creation of
new towns, the wartime evacuation of children to escape the
Luftwaffe bombing, near rural camps in the days of National
Service, and the influx of oil workers into Scotland.
But the committee set up to study the effects of radiation was
unconvinced. In 1996, in its fourth report, Comare cast doubt on
Prof Kinlen's idea, stressing that no rise in childhood leukaemia
had been found in Seascale during the Second World War, when
ordnance factories were built at Sellafield and nearby Drigg and
there had been an apparent large influx into Seascale.
This was seen by some as a serious challenge to Prof Kinlen's
population mixing idea. But his research continued to show that
he was on to something. He studied childhood leukaemia in Orkney
and Shetland during the Second World War when around 60,000
troops were based there to guard against invasion from
German-occupied Norway.
He compared the leukaemia mortality among around 12,000 wartime
children with that in the more than 6,000 children born between
1946 and 1955, when the visiting servicemen had left and the
local population fell to its normal level. There was a 3.6-fold
increase in the risk of leukaemia among the wartime children,
compared with post-war children.
His idea also gained powerful backers, notably the late and great
epidemiologist Sir Richard Doll, who established that smoking
caused lung cancer. But that left the nagging concerns about the
Seascale cluster and whether he had, as Comare suggested, got it
wrong by not explaining the wartime data.
The key point made by Comare, which had commissioned a Leeds
University team to investigate, was that when the ordnance
factories to make TNT had been sited at Drigg and Sellafield,
both isolated coastal sites, there had been a large influx of
people into nearby Seascale. Prof Kinlen's earlier studies
suggested there should have been a rise in leukaemia soon after.
But, said Comare, there was no peak. The anti-nuclear movement
seized on this as evidence that radiation was again under the
spotlight as the likeliest cause.
Now Prof Kinlen has carried out more detective work to find out
what really happened during the war years when those factories
were built. He examined the basis for Comare's claims, talked to
local people and combed the Public Records Office to find out
construction details.
What emerged has confirmed his suspicions: it is no surprise that
the effects of the factories on the risk of leukaemia could not
be detected in the work of Comare and the Leeds team. Wartime
records and electoral registers reveal that Seascale was
relatively unaffected by the construction of the ordnance
factories and remained a small village during the war.
Workers were mainly drawn from other communities or were
accommodated away from Seascale, at hostels near Drigg and
Bootle, or the Nethertown construction camp north of Sellafield.
Strikingly, in these communities, there was indeed an increase of
childhood leukaemia at the peak of the construction work. "Comare
had misread the date on a crucial document," he said.
Seascale witnessed a surge in numbers with the construction of
the Windscale nuclear facility after the war, when it became the
country's biggest industrial site with 9,000 workers. As a
consequence, there was a 10-fold surge in primary school numbers
in the Fifties and Sixties as the village expanded to accommodate
the plant's scientific and administrative staff.
Seascale was doubly susceptible to a leukaemia cluster, argues
Prof Kinlen, because not only was there an big influx of people
but they were also mostly white-collar workers who were less
likely to have encountered the mystery microbe linked to
leukaemia: after the migration more than 40 per cent of the
village was social class one, whereas the next highest proportion
in the whole country was around 10 per cent.
The new Seascale inhabitants were as keen to move out again,
seeking a less remote or an older village to live in, so the
leukaemia cluster persisted because of the turnover. "There was
an extraordinary pattern of movement," said Prof Kinlen,
referring to how children susceptible to new infection moved
through Seascale in the Fifties and Sixties. "The teachers were
always complaining they could not get to know the pupils."
The cluster reported in the TV documentary continued into the
Eighties, probably as a result of the 50,000 workers recruited to
build the Thorp plant at Sellafield, Britain's biggest rural
industrial project, one which was never mentioned by Comare.
In the past few years, Prof Kinlen has also found the most
striking example of this effect in the isolated American desert
town of Fallon, Nevada. A US Navy aircraft base had close to
100,000 recruits pass through in 1999 and 2000 combined. The next
year, the largest excess of leukaemia ever seen was recorded,
with more than 30 times the expected rate. Prof Kinlen is bemused
by how the residents still prefer to blame discharges from
planes, rather than the massive influx of servicemen.
Like so many fields of science, the answer to this mystery has
raised several more questions: which infectious agent was
responsible? Is this mechanism - and thus a virus - responsible
for the majority of the 400 or so childhood leukaemia cases
diagnosed each year? And could it complicate the emerging
evidence of a link between power lines and leukaemia?
*****************************************************************
86 DOE: DOE Issues Request for Proposals Seeking a Contractor to
Manage and Operate Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
July 10, 2006
WASHINGTON, DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
announced the issuance of a final Request for Proposals (RFP)
for the competitive selection of an approximately $1.58 billion,
five-year management and operating contract for Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab). Fermilab is a major DOE
Office of Science single program research facility located on
6,800 acres approximately 45 miles west of Chicago, Illinois.
Fermilab is a world leader in high energy physics, which helps
the U.S. maintain global competitiveness, said Under Secretary
for Science, Dr. Raymond L. Orbach. Through this contracting
process, DOE seeks the best possible management of this
laboratory to sustain our cutting-edge scientific resources in
this highly competitive field of research.
The RFP includes provisions to facilitate competition, encourage
superior science and achieve excellent management performance.
Selection criteria include contractor experience and past
performance in both science and business management; key
personnel, including the proposed laboratory director; strategy
for fulfilling DOEs mission for the laboratory; management
strategy and approach to achieving excellence in both
world-class scientific research and development, as well as in
operations and business management; and the value added by the
contractor.
Significant changes from the draft RFP (issued in May 2006) and
other items of interest are highlighted for offerors in the
final RFPs executive summary. The final RFP includes a maximum
annual fee of $3.55 million and provisions relating to workforce
transition and contractor benefits and pensions.
Interested entities will have until August 24, 2006, to submit
proposals to a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) made up of DOE
business and technical experts. Based on feedback from the
one-on-one meetings held on the draft RFP and feedback received
from interested parties, DOE has decided not to hold a formal
Preproposal Conference. However, questions on the RFP may still
be submitted by potential offerors to the SEB and answers will
be posted on the RFP web site.
Fermilabs mission is to advance the understanding of the
fundamental nature of matter and energy by providing leadership
and resources for qualified researchers to conduct research at
the frontiers of high-energy physics and related disciplines.
Approximately 2,500 scientists from 230 universities and
laboratories in 35 states and 30 countries carry out research at
the energy frontier, the highest energy environment for
discovery of particle physics in the world.
Fermilab funding for FY 2007 is projected to be approximately
$315 million, provided by the High Energy Physics Program of the
Office of Science, and other federal agencies. Fermilab
operates user facilities that include the Tevatron, the worlds
highest energy particle accelerator, the MiniBooNE, a neutrino
oscillation experiment, and NuMI/MINOS, a long-baseline neutrino
oscillation experiment. In addition, Fermilab is the Host
Laboratory for U.S. participation in the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) Compact Muon Solenoid detector, construction of certain
LHC accelerator components, and the U.S. LHC Accelerator
Research Program.
The RFP is available on the DOE e-Commerce web site:
http://e-center.doe.gov/. In addition, an information library
regarding the solicitation is available on the DOE Office of
Science web site at http://rfpfnal.sc.doe.gov/.
Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806 Sandra Geib,
(630) 252-2420 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
87 Rocky Mountain News: Investigators praise cleanup efforts at Flats
New techniques accelerated 10-year project, report says
July 11, 2006
The rapid cleanup of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant
drew praise from congressional investigators who pointed to a
creative work force and an incentive- laden agreement that pushed
the contractor to move fast.
A report released Monday by the Government Accountability Office
- the investigative arm of Congress - outlined actions that
accelerated the 10-year, $10 billion cleanup of the site 16
miles west of Denver.
The report follows a similar review in 2001 that found the
cleanup was over budget and behind schedule. The GAO credited
the turnaround to:
• New and safer techniques that cut contamination enough to ship
some items as low-level waste, making for easier and cheaper
disposal.
• Using explosives to bring down certain buildings. In taking
down one of the four original manufacturing buildings, for
example, a contractor estimated the use of explosives saved four
months and cut risks to workers who were spared more
time-consuming demolition techniques.
• Congress' decision in 2001 to create a wildlife refuge at
Rocky Flats, removing uncertainty about future uses and allowing
regulators, along with citizens and the Department of Energy, to
set firm cleanup levels.
• A contract designed to speed up the work. DOE's 2000 agreement
with Kaiser-Hill included the potential for tens of millions of
dollars of bonuses for coming in under budget targets and ahead
of a March 31, 2007, deadline.
"The GAO's report is a complete 180 from the report the
investigative agency submitted to Congress five years ago," said
Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican from Loveland who in 2004 sought
the GAO's follow-up review.
"This report is confirmation that what we believe to have been
accomplished at Rocky Flats has indeed taken place," he said.
The GAO report also lightly scolded the DOE, charging the agency
with failing to "carry out some aspects of its oversight
responsibilities."
The GAO, for example, said the DOE didn't independently verify
the cleanup contractor's scans of any remaining radioactivity in
the soil. DOE officials responded that the work "would not
provide sufficient additional information to justify (its)
completion," the report said.
The report also notes that the DOE doesn't require that lessons
learned at Rocky Flats or elsewhere be applied to other sites.
"We noted additional lessons that could also be useful for other
DOE sites planning or undergoing cleanup, such as involving the
future site manager in remedial decisions and taking a
consultative approach with the regulatory agencies on cleanup
decisions," the report said. The Energy Department agreed and
said it would work harder to incorporate lessons learned.
The GAO report made no mention of recent allegations by former
workers that Kaiser-Hill threw away millions of dollars of
usable, often new, tools and equipment.
Workers said Kaiser-Hill dumped the materials as a way to speed
up the cleanup and earn $170 million of bonuses, a charge
Kaiser-Hill has disputed. Officials have said such practices
were not widespread.
The Rocky Mountain News publicized those complaints in April.
Later, the DOE's Office of Inspector General reopened a review
of those complaints. A spokeswoman for the OIG told the News
last week that the agency is continuing to look into the matter.
In another Rocky Flats-related development, the Rocky Mountain
Peace and Justice Center announced Monday that it hired former
University of Colorado instructor and environmental activist
Adrienne Anderson to lead its new "Nuclear Nexus" project, which
will work toward the global abolition of nuclear weapons.
Anderson is well-known to environmentalists and regulators alike
as a vocal critic of the role of corporations and government
agencies in polluting the environment. --> Subscribe
2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************