***************************************************************** 05/23/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.121 ***************************************************************** 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 UN Nuclear Watchdog Circulates Report On Iran To Security Council 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran accuses US academic of instigating 'soft re 3 US: [NYTr] Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War? 4 Bush developing new nukes - for what? 5 US: Guardian Unlimited: House Panel Nixes Plans for New Warhead 6 US: New York Times: The Assault on Reason - Al Gore - Book - Review 7 BBC NEWS: Shedding light on CIA mystery flights 8 US: AFP: Oil prices advance before US energy report - 9 US: UPI: Concern growing over tribal rights-of-way 10 [NYTr] Brits' amber light for more nuclear power 11 RIA Novosti: Russia and Southeast Asia: Commitment to cooperation NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 Guardian Unlimited: No showdown over nuclear power, insists Darling 13 Guardian Unlimited: Government pushes forward nuclear plans 14 Guardian Unlimited: All clear for nuclear 15 Guardian Unlimited: Government backs nuclear power plan 16 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power consultation launched 17 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Agency: Iran Still Defying U.N. 18 Guardian Unlimited: Future energy generation row rages 19 Guardian Unlimited: Fresh nuclear row set to erupt 20 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers to press on with new nuclear power sta 21 NRC: NRC Signs Memorandum of Cooperation with China on the AP1000 22 Guardian Unlimited: How Britain generates its power 23 Guardian Unlimited: Background: Nuclear power in the UK 24 Guardian Unlimited: Prime sites for nuclear power stations identifie 25 US: Power Magazine: Davis-Besse should die 26 US: NRC: NRC Receives Award for Excellence in Performance and 27 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power 'must be on agenda' 28 BBC NEWS: 'No showdown' over nuclear power 29 BBC NEWS: Key points: Energy statement 30 US: Platts: Areva to build uranium hexafluoride conversion complex 31 US: Platts: Browns Ferry-1 restarting after being idle for 22 years 32 ITN: Row over nuclear power rumbles on 33 Platts: UK favors nuclear but govt to consult to October before deci 34 US: Tennessean: TVA restarts nuclear reactor in Alabama - 35 US: Chillicothe Gazette: NRC says inspections key to plant safety 36 London Times: Darling dismisses 'daft' anti-nuclear lobby and unveil 37 US: APP.COM: Meeting tonight on nuclear plant safety | 38 US: APP.COM: Oyster Creek front and center | 39 AFP: Blair argues for nuclear power as govt publishes proposals - 40 AFP: Govt launches energy blueprint, stresses importance of nuclear 41 Reuters: Energy plan set to support nuclear option 42 Reuters: Major energy policy shake-up unveiled 43 Reuters: UK to bury old nuclear plants 44 Reuters: U.S., India must compromise on nuclear deal 45 Reuters: India, U.S. to hold more talks on nuclear deal 46 Norway Post: Norwegian industry wants nuclear energy 47 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin to replace parts of turbines, raise ca 48 US: International Business Times: Hitachi, GE to Build Power Plant i 49 Reuters: Nuclear power plants worldwide 50 Guardian Unlimited: Power trip 51 Reuters: INSTANT VIEW 4-Reaction to UK energy policy plans 52 Telegraph: Nuclear power's uneasy history 53 US: KVII Online: PGU proposes contract 54 Comment is free: Nuclear's hidden subsidies 55 Comment is free: Nuclear policy? No thanks 56 AFP: US and India '90 percent' close to nuclear pact: top official - NUCLEAR SECURITY 57 US: Platts: US Homeland Security panel presses NRC on cybersecurity NUCLEAR SAFETY 58 US: Portsmouth Daily Times: NRC talks of USEC license 59 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive legacy | Russia | 60 JOGJCC: Waste chamber to be surveyed for rogue particles NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 61 US: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Airport cleanup is said to be done 62 US: Times of India: Australia not to sell uranium to India-Rest of W 63 ReviewJournal.com: Nuke waste routes discussed 64 US: CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Nuclear waste may go via WNC 65 US: News-Record.com: Triad could route for nuclear waste haul 66 US: Reuters: Cameco sees uranium supply crunch continuing 67 US: Don't Waste South Carolina: Say No To Being the Nation's Nuclear 68 LasVegasNOW.com: Caliente Corridor Being Considered Again For Yucca PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 69 Power Magazine: Liar, liar, pants on fire 70 DOE: DOE Provides up to $19 Million for Advanced Vehicle Technologie 71 DOE: Energy Dept. Awards $22.7 Million for Basic Solar Energy Resear 72 DOE: U.S. – China Energy Cooperation 73 bizjournals: Energy Department issues proposed rules for loans 74 KnoxNews: The names are a shame 75 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology 76 KOB.com: Former LANL archivist seeks security reports ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UN Nuclear Watchdog Circulates Report On Iran To Security Council Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:01:23 -0400 UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG CIRCULATES REPORT ON IRAN TO SECURITY COUNCIL New York, May 23 2007 6:00PM The head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) today circulated his latest report regarding Iran to the Security Council. The report, entitled “Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” covers the period since <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/iranreport0507.html">IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei’s previous report of 22 February. It was also submitted today to the agency’s 35-member Board of Governors, which will consider the report at its next series of meetings in Vienna starting on 11 June. In Mr. ElBaradei’s February report, he wrote that Iran has continued enriching uranium in spite of a call by the Security Council that it suspend such activities. “Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear programme,” he said in the February report, which also noted that without greater transparency and spot checks, the agency cannot confirm that Iran’s uranium enrichment activities are solely for peaceful purposes, as Tehran contends, rather than for the production of weapons. In March, the Security Council adopted a resolution calling for the tightening of existing sanctions on Iran, the imposition of a ban on arms sales and the expansion of the freeze on assets. It also reaffirmed that Iran must take the steps required by the IAEA’s Board, which called for a full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. Additionally, the resolution said that Iran must ratify and implement the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) Additional Protocol which grants the IAEA expanded rights of access to information and sites, as well as authority to use the most advanced technologies during the verification process. 2007-05-23 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran accuses US academic of instigating 'soft revolution' Robert Tait in Tehran Wednesday May 23, 2007 A US academic arrested during a family visit to Iran has been accused of trying to overthrow the country's Islamic system amid growing fears of a general crackdown against intellectuals with western ties. Haleh Esfandiari, Middle East director at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, a Washington-based thinktank, has been accused of fomenting a "soft revolution" by forming a network "against the sovereignty of the country". The allegations, in an official statement issued to state news outlets, after Ms Esfandiari, 67 - who has dual US and Iranian nationality but has lived in America since 1980 - was arrested and detained in Tehran's notorious Evin prison this month following several months under virtual house arrest. Her arrest on May 8 prompted a call by the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, for her release. The intelligence ministry's statement claimed that Ms Esfandiari had admitted cooperating with the New York-based Soros Institute, run by the financier George Soros, who has funded opposition movements in Communist eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. "In the preliminary interrogations, she said the Soros centre in Iran had an unofficial communication network and was trying to develop and expand it to follow up its 'soft revolution' aims," the statement said. "This is an American-designed model with an attractive appearance that seeks the soft toppling of the country." It is unclear if the allegations amount to formal charges or will lead to Ms Esfandiari being tried. However, Lee Hamilton, president of the Wilson Centre and a former Democratic congressman, dismissed them as totally unfounded. "Haleh has not engaged in any activities to undermine any government, including the Iranian government," he said. "There is not one scintilla of evidence to support these outrageous claims," he said. The accusations against Ms Esfandiari, whose husband is Jewish, follow claims by the Kayhan newspaper - thought to be close to Iran's leadership - that she belonged to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group. The accusations follow a series of recent arrests of Iranians with western connections. This month, Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator and ambassador to Germany, was arrested on spying charges before being released on bail. Parnaz Azima, a journalist with the US-funded Radio Farda, has been prevented from leaving Iran since January after her passport was confiscated. Such accusations against pro-democracy campaigners have become commonplace as tensions with the west mount over Iran's nuclear programme. However, some critics say the arrests are really aimed at stifling domestic dissent. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War? Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:57:14 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit In These Times via Alternet - May 23, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/51368 Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War? By William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that nuclear-armed terrorists could "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America." This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House's release of "A National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which painted a picture of a "troubling potential WMD terrorism nexus emanating from Tehran." The administration is building the case for war against Iran -- a job made easier by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that Iran can now enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- despite the fact that many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast. This is not the first time the "no-nuclear-weapons-for-you" ploy has been used to lay the groundwork for a war. On Oct. 7, 2002, while making the case for regime change in Iraq, President Bush said: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and histrionics about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities followed ... all of which were challenged at the time, and have turned out to be completely fabricated. And, when not grinding the axe of pre-emptive war as counter-proliferation strategy, the administration periodically raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, in the form of dirty bombs and suitcase-sized warheads. But while the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled, the United States is allocating more funding, on average, to nuclear weapons than during the Cold War. The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion this year -- into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states opted not to pursue the deadly technology. The centerpiece of the administration's move toward developing a new generation of nuclear weapons is "Complex 2030," a multiyear plan introduced last April by the National Nuclear Security Administration (the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons program). Complex 2030 calls for the construction of new or upgraded facilities at each of the National Nuclear Security Administration's eight nuclear weapons-related sites throughout the country. The plan also calls for building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), inside the old warheads. The program was conceived in response to concerns that the cores of existing nuclear weapons could be wearing out and need to be replaced. But RRW development has gone much further than that. The Department of Energy (DOE) notes in its summary of Complex 2030 that one of the major goals of the program is to "improve the capability to design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements." In short, while the Bush administration has publicly stressed reductions in nuclear weapons, it is working to produce new, more usable nuclear weapons. Three small steps forward As a candidate for president in 2000, and during his first months in office, Bush suggested that the United States should significantly cut its nuclear arsenal. In his first address before a joint session of Congress, the new president went so far as to pledge: "We can discard Cold War relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs." He followed through on this promise with the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for reducing the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals from 6,000 each -- the limit established under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads each over a 10-year period. Presidents Bush and Putin signed the treaty at Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg right after the city celebrated its 300th birthday in June 2003. Also known as the Treaty of Moscow, SORT has serious flaws. It has no method for verifying that each side is meeting its commitments; the cuts are not permanent -- neither side is obligated to destroy or dismantle the warheads, only to take them "off-line;" and both sides would have to agree to extend the treaty if they have not met their obligations by the time the treaty expires in 2012. After the Senate unanimously voted to ratify the treaty, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered." Yet even with these flaws, SORT establishes important benchmarks and offers the potential of trust-building between the former superpower rivals. Another positive development occurred in mid-February, when the Bush administration, after years of work through the "six party talks," announced a deal with North Korea. The hermit nation agreed to take the first steps toward dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition. The first phase of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. In exchange, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 60-day period. The agreement demonstrates that the Bush administration is slowly learning the nuances of diplomacy -- you have to give to get. More good news surrounds the recent fate of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). One of the most controversial new weapon designs proposed by the nuclear weapons complex, the RNEP promised to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, such as underground bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons and military command centers. Such a difficult challenge would necessitate decades of steady and climbing investment, making it the kind of techno-fantasy that the nuclear weapons complex of the future would love to tackle. In 2003, Congress allocated $15 million to study the RNEP. But in 2004 and 2005, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), then chair of the Water and Energy Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, led successful fights to defund the RNEP. Later, he boasted: "It's dead, forget about it! Go conventional. If I have to kick it three or four times, I'm going to keep kicking at it until we think we've totally gotten it out of the way." Giant leaps backward The Bush administration has aggressively counteracted these small positive developments with a succession of negative and destabilizing actions and statements -- the most significant of which is the assertion that nuclear weapons are a central component of U.S. military and political strategy. This stunner was concealed within the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a Pentagon report that relies on input from the Joint Chiefs and the armed services to define the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security. The final classified report concluded that nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends." Submitted to Congress in January 2002, the NPR was not made public until portions were leaked to the press two months later. It states, "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will ... be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required." The NPR introduces the concept of a "new Triad," composed of nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive systems, and "responsive infrastructure" for maintaining and/or producing nuclear weapons as requested. The report also emphasizes the development of creative new nuclear weapons -- like low-yield or surgical warheads that are able to "reduce collateral damage," and nuclear bombs with "earth penetrating" capabilities. The NPR concluded that nuclear weapons "provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force." The Bush NPR explicitly named potential targets -- Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia. The review explained that the United States might use nuclear weapons to retaliate for the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. targets, as the ultimate tool in a military conflict over Taiwan, or, disturbingly, as a response to undefined "surprising developments." Proliferation trumps prevention During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year. When the Cold War ended, DOE officials and members of Congress imagined the conversion of the nuclear weapons complex. But innovative proposals for civilian or green technology labs never got off the ground, and the nuclear labs successfully lobbied Congress for a new infusion of weapons money. By the end of President Clinton's tenure, nuclear weapons activities within the DOE's annual budget had jumped to $5.2 billion -- more than the Cold War average, but less than what the new Bush administration would say it needed. Since then, spending on nuclear weapons has increased by almost 14 percent to a 2007 total of $6.4 billion (after adjustment for inflation), but it is not enough to satisfy a nuclear-obsessed administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), formed in 2000 to manage the nation's nuclear weapons complex within the DOE, has a five-year "National Security Plan" that calls for annual increases that will push the nuclear weapons budget to $7.4 billion by 2012. Compare these significant increases in nuclear spending to what the DOE is allocating for non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear conflict. The NNSA spends more than nine times more on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities" -- a category that includes nuclear weapons, naval nuclear reactors and environmental cleanup at military nuclear facilities -- than it does on nuclear arms reductions and non-proliferation. In addition, spending on nuclear weapons research, development and maintenance in the DOE budget far outpaces the funding devoted to the development of alternative energy sources, a critical need in the age of global warming and dwindling oil supplies. The DOE's proposed budget for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" -- which includes non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel forms of energy -- is $1.2 billion for FY 2008, one-thirteenth of expenditures on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities." Upgrading nuclear capabilities Under Complex 2030, the NNSA is taking steps to boost the U.S. ability to test and produce new warheads, and to consolidate production of uranium, plutonium and non-nuclear components within nuclear weapons. The central component of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The official rationale for the RRW program is to produce weapons that are safer and more durable than the warheads in the current stockpile. Supporters of RRW fear that the components of nuclear weapons could wear out and that the only way to know if the warheads are viable is to replace their inner workings. And -- the line of thinking continues -- as long as scientists are replacing the plutonium or uranium cores, they might as well "tweak" the weapon's design. But the assertion that the old nuclear weapons need to be replaced by reliable new warheads is undermined by a recent NNSA study that indicates that the existing plutonium triggers, or "pits," may be viable for another 90 to 100 years. The report, issued in November and reviewed by an independent panel of scientists and academics, indicates the need for considerable skepticism of the Complex 2030 claims. In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed for future development of new warheads with new capabilities. A key element of this upgraded and consolidated nuclear infrastructure is a new facility to produce "pits," the plutonium triggers that set off the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. The DOE has proposed constructing a Modern Pit Facility, but Congress has deemed the $2 to $4 billion price tag too steep, and has rejected funding proposals for two years running. As an alternative, the department is pushing the idea of a Consolidated Plutonium Center (CPC) that would bring all of the plutonium-related activities together at one site. The new facility would be a sort of "modern pit facility-plus," capable each year of producing 125 plutonium pits to trigger nuclear weapons, and at the same time develop new military applications for plutonium. This more expansive concept is likely to cost more than the facility alone, but NNSA has yet to provide a cost estimate to Congress. A small down payment for the CPC -- $24.9 million -- is proposed in the FY 2008 budget; budget projections for continuing work on the CPC total $282 million through 2012. Under Complex 2030, the new CPC will be one of a series "transformed" and "consolidated" nuclear sites. Currently, there are eight facilities -- Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Calif.) and Sandia National Laboratories (N.M.), the Nevada Test Site (R&D activities, including sub-critical experiments), the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in Tennessee (uranium and other components), the Pantex Plant in Texas (warhead assembly, disassembly, disposal), the Kansas City Plant (non-nuclear components), and the Savannah River Site (tritium extraction and handling) in Georgia. While Complex 2030 would mandate that some of the sites have a smaller "footprint" (less floor space), it would also require the investment of tens of billions of dollars for new or upgraded factories, including two new factories -- a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and a Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) -- at the Y-12 site; a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to "support plutonium operations"; a new factory for the production of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons at the current site of the Kansas City plant; and significant upgrades at the Pantex warhead assembly/disassembly facility. The spending on the CPC is only a small portion of the as yet unknown costs of the Complex 2030 initiative. Broken pledges, skeptical Congress All of this raises concerns for Robert Civiak. A program examiner for Department of Energy national security programs in 1988 and 1989, Civiak now does research for Tri-Valley Cares, a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. He calls the Reliable Replacement Warhead a "multibillion dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal." Jay Coghlan, executive director at Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, agrees, calling RRW a "nukes forever program, and a Trojan horse for future new designs." NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first RRW by 2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in the San Francisco Chronicle, the work is already beginning. He writes, "Lab officials said researchers not only have produced extensive designs ... but they have already conducted non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices and other components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons would be manufactured." Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized the RRW project for its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time," he says. "My preference is that the DOE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has not ruled out slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration is unable to present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging threats and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve strategic goals." The 110th Congress and beyond In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for research on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons." Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom joined him in successfully leading an effort to defund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Skepticism about the need for massive investment in nuclear weapons at a time of huge war bills and growing deficits, a growing sophistication about nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means that for the first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling the heat. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that houses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently won the Reliable Replacement Warhead competition. In a press release issued after the decision, she said, "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement Warhead program" -- a program that she remains "100 percent opposed to." Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors, and a number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) -- all of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in their states or districts -- the Complex 2030 plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure may be scaled back or rejected by congressional opponents, who will receive backing from arms control and environmental organizations. But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion there, more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex 2030 plan, more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming aspects of the nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Members of Congress are going to need to challenge the bedrock of administration foreign policy -- that nuclear weapons should occupy center stage as a guarantor of U.S. security. But they will not do that without being pushed -- and pushed hard -- by civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities for a big tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary cold warriors like George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who in January co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"; well-established Washington organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association; disarmament activists like Helen Caldicott and the Abolition 2000 network; and members of the international community from the United Nations on down are all saying the same thing: The United States cannot insist that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue nuclear technology, while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand. Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash in nuclear weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to make. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 4 Bush developing new nukes - for what? Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:57:37 -0500 (CDT) Original source URL: http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/ Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War? By William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan, In These Times Posted on May 23, 2007, Printed on May 23, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/ Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that nuclear-armed terrorists could "blackmail the free world and spread their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America." This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House's release of "A National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which painted a picture of a "troubling potential WMD terrorism nexus emanating from Tehran." The administration is building the case for war against Iran -- a job made easier by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that Iran can now enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- despite the fact that many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast. This is not the first time the "no-nuclear-weapons-for-you" ploy has been used to lay the groundwork for a war. On Oct. 7, 2002, while making the case for regime change in Iraq, President Bush said: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and histrionics about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities followed ... all of which were challenged at the time, and have turned out to be completely fabricated. And, when not grinding the axe of pre-emptive war as counter-proliferation strategy, the administration periodically raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, in the form of dirty bombs and suitcase-sized warheads. But while the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled, the United States is allocating more funding, on average, to nuclear weapons than during the Cold War. The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion this year -- into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states opted not to pursue the deadly technology. The centerpiece of the administration's move toward developing a new generation of nuclear weapons is "Complex 2030," a multiyear plan introduced last April by the National Nuclear Security Administration (the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that oversees the nuclear weapons program). Complex 2030 calls for the construction of new or upgraded facilities at each of the National Nuclear Security Administration's eight nuclear weapons-related sites throughout the country. The plan also calls for building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), inside the old warheads. The program was conceived in response to concerns that the cores of existing nuclear weapons could be wearing out and need to be replaced. But RRW development has gone much further than that. The Department of Energy (DOE) notes in its summary of Complex 2030 that one of the major goals of the program is to "improve the capability to design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted warheads in the event of new military requirements." In short, while the Bush administration has publicly stressed reductions in nuclear weapons, it is working to produce new, more usable nuclear weapons. Three small steps forward As a candidate for president in 2000, and during his first months in office, Bush suggested that the United States should significantly cut its nuclear arsenal. In his first address before a joint session of Congress, the new president went so far as to pledge: "We can discard Cold War relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's needs." He followed through on this promise with the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for reducing the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals from 6,000 each -- the limit established under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads each over a 10-year period. Presidents Bush and Putin signed the treaty at Konstantin Palace in St. Petersburg right after the city celebrated its 300th birthday in June 2003. Also known as the Treaty of Moscow, SORT has serious flaws. It has no method for verifying that each side is meeting its commitments; the cuts are not permanent -- neither side is obligated to destroy or dismantle the warheads, only to take them "off-line;" and both sides would have to agree to extend the treaty if they have not met their obligations by the time the treaty expires in 2012. After the Senate unanimously voted to ratify the treaty, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called it "as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered." Yet even with these flaws, SORT establishes important benchmarks and offers the potential of trust-building between the former superpower rivals. Another positive development occurred in mid-February, when the Bush administration, after years of work through the "six party talks," announced a deal with North Korea. The hermit nation agreed to take the first steps toward dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition. The first phase of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. In exchange, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 60-day period. The agreement demonstrates that the Bush administration is slowly learning the nuances of diplomacy -- you have to give to get. More good news surrounds the recent fate of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP). One of the most controversial new weapon designs proposed by the nuclear weapons complex, the RNEP promised to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, such as underground bunkers containing chemical and biological weapons and military command centers. Such a difficult challenge would necessitate decades of steady and climbing investment, making it the kind of techno-fantasy that the nuclear weapons complex of the future would love to tackle. In 2003, Congress allocated $15 million to study the RNEP. But in 2004 and 2005, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), then chair of the Water and Energy Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, led successful fights to defund the RNEP. Later, he boasted: "It's dead, forget about it! Go conventional. If I have to kick it three or four times, I'm going to keep kicking at it until we think we've totally gotten it out of the way." Giant leaps backward The Bush administration has aggressively counteracted these small positive developments with a succession of negative and destabilizing actions and statements -- the most significant of which is the assertion that nuclear weapons are a central component of U.S. military and political strategy. This stunner was concealed within the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a Pentagon report that relies on input from the Joint Chiefs and the armed services to define the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security. The final classified report concluded that nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends." Submitted to Congress in January 2002, the NPR was not made public until portions were leaked to the press two months later. It states, "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will ... be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required." The NPR introduces the concept of a "new Triad," composed of nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive systems, and "responsive infrastructure" for maintaining and/or producing nuclear weapons as requested. The report also emphasizes the development of creative new nuclear weapons -- like low-yield or surgical warheads that are able to "reduce collateral damage," and nuclear bombs with "earth penetrating" capabilities. The NPR concluded that nuclear weapons "provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force." The Bush NPR explicitly named potential targets -- Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia. The review explained that the United States might use nuclear weapons to retaliate for the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. targets, as the ultimate tool in a military conflict over Taiwan, or, disturbingly, as a response to undefined "surprising developments." Proliferation trumps prevention During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year. When the Cold War ended, DOE officials and members of Congress imagined the conversion of the nuclear weapons complex. But innovative proposals for civilian or green technology labs never got off the ground, and the nuclear labs successfully lobbied Congress for a new infusion of weapons money. By the end of President Clinton's tenure, nuclear weapons activities within the DOE's annual budget had jumped to $5.2 billion -- more than the Cold War average, but less than what the new Bush administration would say it needed. Since then, spending on nuclear weapons has increased by almost 14 percent to a 2007 total of $6.4 billion (after adjustment for inflation), but it is not enough to satisfy a nuclear-obsessed administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), formed in 2000 to manage the nation's nuclear weapons complex within the DOE, has a five-year "National Security Plan" that calls for annual increases that will push the nuclear weapons budget to $7.4 billion by 2012. Compare these significant increases in nuclear spending to what the DOE is allocating for non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear conflict. The NNSA spends more than nine times more on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities" -- a category that includes nuclear weapons, naval nuclear reactors and environmental cleanup at military nuclear facilities -- than it does on nuclear arms reductions and non-proliferation. In addition, spending on nuclear weapons research, development and maintenance in the DOE budget far outpaces the funding devoted to the development of alternative energy sources, a critical need in the age of global warming and dwindling oil supplies. The DOE's proposed budget for "Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" -- which includes non-nuclear, non-fossil fuel forms of energy -- is $1.2 billion for FY 2008, one-thirteenth of expenditures on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities." Upgrading nuclear capabilities Under Complex 2030, the NNSA is taking steps to boost the U.S. ability to test and produce new warheads, and to consolidate production of uranium, plutonium and non-nuclear components within nuclear weapons. The central component of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program. The official rationale for the RRW program is to produce weapons that are safer and more durable than the warheads in the current stockpile. Supporters of RRW fear that the components of nuclear weapons could wear out and that the only way to know if the warheads are viable is to replace their inner workings. And -- the line of thinking continues -- as long as scientists are replacing the plutonium or uranium cores, they might as well "tweak" the weapon's design. But the assertion that the old nuclear weapons need to be replaced by reliable new warheads is undermined by a recent NNSA study that indicates that the existing plutonium triggers, or "pits," may be viable for another 90 to 100 years. The report, issued in November and reviewed by an independent panel of scientists and academics, indicates the need for considerable skepticism of the Complex 2030 claims. In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed for future development of new warheads with new capabilities. A key element of this upgraded and consolidated nuclear infrastructure is a new facility to produce "pits," the plutonium triggers that set off the explosion of a hydrogen bomb. The DOE has proposed constructing a Modern Pit Facility, but Congress has deemed the $2 to $4 billion price tag too steep, and has rejected funding proposals for two years running. As an alternative, the department is pushing the idea of a Consolidated Plutonium Center (CPC) that would bring all of the plutonium-related activities together at one site. The new facility would be a sort of "modern pit facility-plus," capable each year of producing 125 plutonium pits to trigger nuclear weapons, and at the same time develop new military applications for plutonium. This more expansive concept is likely to cost more than the facility alone, but NNSA has yet to provide a cost estimate to Congress. A small down payment for the CPC -- $24.9 million -- is proposed in the FY 2008 budget; budget projections for continuing work on the CPC total $282 million through 2012. Under Complex 2030, the new CPC will be one of a series "transformed" and "consolidated" nuclear sites. Currently, there are eight facilities -- Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (Calif.) and Sandia National Laboratories (N.M.), the Nevada Test Site (R&D activities, including sub-critical experiments), the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant in Tennessee (uranium and other components), the Pantex Plant in Texas (warhead assembly, disassembly, disposal), the Kansas City Plant (non-nuclear components), and the Savannah River Site (tritium extraction and handling) in Georgia. While Complex 2030 would mandate that some of the sites have a smaller "footprint" (less floor space), it would also require the investment of tens of billions of dollars for new or upgraded factories, including two new factories -- a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) and a Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) -- at the Y-12 site; a new Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory to "support plutonium operations"; a new factory for the production of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons at the current site of the Kansas City plant; and significant upgrades at the Pantex warhead assembly/disassembly facility. The spending on the CPC is only a small portion of the as yet unknown costs of the Complex 2030 initiative. Broken pledges, skeptical Congress All of this raises concerns for Robert Civiak. A program examiner for Department of Energy national security programs in 1988 and 1989, Civiak now does research for Tri-Valley Cares, a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. He calls the Reliable Replacement Warhead a "multibillion dollar effort to redesign and replace every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal." Jay Coghlan, executive director at Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, agrees, calling RRW a "nukes forever program, and a Trojan horse for future new designs." NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first RRW by 2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in the San Francisco Chronicle, the work is already beginning. He writes, "Lab officials said researchers not only have produced extensive designs .. but they have already conducted non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices and other components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons would be manufactured." Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized the RRW project for its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There appears to have been little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time," he says. "My preference is that the DOE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has not ruled out slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration is unable to present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging threats and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve strategic goals." The 110th Congress and beyond In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for research on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very provocative and overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons." Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Spratt (D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom joined him in successfully leading an effort to defund the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. Skepticism about the need for massive investment in nuclear weapons at a time of huge war bills and growing deficits, a growing sophistication about nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means that for the first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling the heat. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that houses the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently won the Reliable Replacement Warhead competition. In a press release issued after the decision, she said, "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable Replacement Warhead program" -- a program that she remains "100 percent opposed to." Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors, and a number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) -- all of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in their states or districts -- the Complex 2030 plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure may be scaled back or rejected by congressional opponents, who will receive backing from arms control and environmental organizations. But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion there, more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex 2030 plan, more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming aspects of the nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Members of Congress are going to need to challenge the bedrock of administration foreign policy -- that nuclear weapons should occupy center stage as a guarantor of U.S. security. But they will not do that without being pushed -- and pushed hard -- by civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities for a big tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary cold warriors like George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who in January co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons"; well-established Washington organizations like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control Association; disarmament activists like Helen Caldicott and the Abolition 2000 network; and members of the international community from the United Nations on down are all saying the same thing: The United States cannot insist that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue nuclear technology, while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand. Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash in nuclear weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to make. 2007 Independent Media Institute. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Subscribe cyberjournal list: cj-subscribe@cyberjournal.org (send blank message) cyberjournal blog (join in): http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Moderator: rkm@quaylargo.com (comments welcome) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: newslog-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org For additional commands, e-mail: newslog-help@cyberjournal.org ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: House Panel Nixes Plans for New Warhead Thursday May 24, 2007 12:31 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers in the House struck a blow Wednesday to the Bush administration's plans to develop a new, sturdier nuclear warhead, rejecting a proposed $89 million for design work the Energy Department wanted for next year. A House Appropriations subcommittee refused to fund the new warhead project, saying it should not be pursued before development of a comprehensive strategy on future nuclear weapons needs. The National Nuclear Security Administration in March selected the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California to develop a design and detailed cost estimates for the new warhead, which the administration says is needed to ensure future reliability of the nuclear stockpile without testing. The United States has not conducted an actual nuclear weapons test since 1992 because of nuclear proliferation concerns. Administration officials argue that the new warhead - and variations to be developed later - will be easier to maintain and will be more secure and more reliable without testing than the warheads they will replace. Opponents have argued that development of a new warhead sends the wrong signal to the world on nuclear nonproliferation. An independent scientific panel last month cautioned against proceeding with the new warhead without a clearer outline of future weapons needs, though it acknowledged the new design could be a ``prudent hedge'' against the uncertainties of an aging stockpile. The House Appropriations' energy and water subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over nuclear weapons funding, voted by voice to advance for full committee action a broader nuclear weapons and energy funding bill that did not include the $89 million sought by the Energy Department for the warhead program. ``Given the track record of mismanagement at the (nuclear weapons) agency for projects that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear weapon,'' said Rep. Peter Visclosky, D-Ind., the subcommittee chairman. Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the Energy Department's nuclear weapons programs, said attempts will be made to restore funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. ``It's still early in the congressional process,'' said Wilkes. ``We will continue to communicate with various House and Senate committees on RRW, which is an important national security issue.'' Work on the new warhead program has been authorized by a House Armed Services subcommittee and the program has the strong support of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who is the ranking Republican on the Senate appropriations panel that deals with the issue. Domenici recently called on the administration to ``take a more active role'' to sell the warhead modernization and ``answer critics who says the RRW will lead to an arms race.'' Nonproliferation advocates hailed the House subcommittee action and viewed it as a body blow to the new warhead program. John Isaacs, executive director of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, praised the subcommittee for ``putting a stop to the administration's grandiose plans for developing new hydrogen bombs which are unnecessary and undercut U.S. and international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.'' Michael McCally, executive director of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, called halting the warhead program ``a major victory for the safety and health of Americans as well as for international peace and security.'' The Energy Department argues that the new warhead is needed because of concerns about maintenance and future reliability of the existing warheads in an era of no underground nuclear testing. It would be designed to be more robust and more easily maintained and include improved safeguards to prevent potential use by terrorists, its proponents maintain. They also said it may allow future reduction of the number of warheads needed in reserve. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 New York Times: The Assault on Reason - Al Gore - Book - Review - By MICHIKO KAKUTANI Published: May 22, 2007 In “The Assault on Reason” Al Gore excoriates George W. Bush, asserting that the president is “out of touch with reality,” that his administration is so incompetent that it “can’t manage its own way out of a horse show,” that it ignored “clear warnings” about the terrorist threat before 9/11 and that it has made Americans less safe by “stirring up a hornets’ nest in Iraq,” while using “the language and politics of fear” to try to “drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts or the public interest.” Fernando Ariza/The New York Times "The Assault On Reason" by Al Gore THE ASSAULT ON REASON By Al Gore 308 pages. Penguin Press. $25.95. The administration’s pursuit of unilateralism abroad, Mr. Gore says, has isolated the United States in an ever more dangerous world, even as its efforts to expand executive power at home and “relegate the Congress and the courts to the sidelines” have undermined the constitutional system of checks and balances. The former vice president contends that the fiasco in Iraq stems from President Bush’s use of “a counterfeit combination of misdirected vengeance and misguided dogma to dominate the national discussion, bypass reason, silence dissent and intimidate those who questioned his logic both inside and outside the administration.” He argues that the gruesome acts of torture committed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq “were a direct consequence of the culture of impunity — encouraged, authorized and instituted” by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. And he writes that the violations of civil liberties committed by the Bush-Cheney administration — including its secret authorization of the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on calls and e-mail messages between the United States and other countries, and its suspension of the rights of due process for “enemy combatants” — demonstrate “a disrespect for America’s Constitution that has now brought our republic to the brink of a dangerous breach in the fabric of democracy.” Similar charges have been made by a growing number of historians, political analysts and even former administration insiders, and President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings have further emboldened his critics. But Mr. Gore writes not just as a former vice president and the man who won the popular vote in the 2000 election, but also as a possible future candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 race for the White House, and the vehemence of his language and his arguments make statements about the Bush administration by already announced candidates like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton seem polite and mild-mannered in contrast. And yet for all its sharply voiced opinions, “The Assault on Reason” turns out to be less a partisan, election-cycle harangue than a fiercely argued brief about the current Bush White House that is grounded in copiously footnoted citations from newspaper articles, Congressional testimony and commission reports — a brief that is as powerful in making its points about the implications of this administration’s policies as the author’s 2006 book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was in making its points about the fallout of global warming. This volume moves beyond its criticisms of the Bush administration to diagnose the ailing condition of America as a participatory democracy — low voter turnout, rampant voter cynicism, an often ill-informed electorate, political campaigns dominated by 30-second television ads, and an increasingly conglomerate-controlled media landscape — and it does so not with the calculated, sound-bite-conscious tone of many political-platform-type books, but with the sort of wonky ardor that made both the book and movie versions of “An Inconvenient Truth” so bluntly effective. Mr. Gore’s central argument is that “reason, logic and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions” and that the country’s public discourse has become “less focused and clear, less reasoned.” This “assault on reason,” he suggests, is personified by the way the Bush White House operates. Echoing many reporters and former administration insiders, Mr. Gore says that the administration tends to ignore expert advice (be it on troop levels, global warming or the deficit), to circumvent the usual policy-making machinery of analysis and debate, and frequently to suppress or disdain the best evidence available on a given subject so it can promote predetermined, ideologically driven policies. Doubts about Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction were sidestepped in the walk-up to the war: Mr. Gore says that uranium experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee told him “there was zero possibility” that aluminum tubes acquired by Saddam Hussein were for the purpose of nuclear enrichment, but felt intimidated from “making any public statement that disagreed with the assertions being made to the people by President Bush.” And the Army chief of staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki’s pre-invasion recommendation that several hundred thousand troops would be needed for a successful occupation of Iraq was similarly dismissed. “Rather than engaging in a reasoned debate on the question,” Mr. Gore writes, administration members “undercut Shinseki for disagreeing with their preconceived notion — even though he was an expert, and they were not.” Moreover, Mr. Gore contends, the administration’s penchant for secrecy (keeping everything from the details of its coercive interrogation policy to its National Security Agency surveillance program under wraps) has dismantled the principle of accountability, even as what he calls its “unprecedented and sustained campaign of mass deception” on matters like Iraq has made “true deliberation and meaningful debate by the people virtually impossible.” Mr. Gore points out that the White House repeatedly implied that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, between the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and Iraq, when in fact no such linkage existed. He observes that the administration “withheld facts” from Congress concerning the cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which turned out to be “far higher than the numbers given to Congress by the president.” And he contends that “it has become common for President Bush to rely on special interests” — like those represented by the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi before the war, and ExxonMobil on the climate crisis — for “basic information about the policies important to these interests.” When Mr. Gore turns to the larger cultural and social reasons behind the decline of reason in America’s marketplace of ideas, his arguments become fuzzier and less convincing. His argument that radio was essential to the rise and reign of Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini (“without the introduction of radio, it is doubtful that these totalitarian regimes would have commanded the obedience of the people in the manner they did”) is highly reductive, just as his argument that television has enabled politicians to manipulate mass opinion while preventing individuals from taking part in the national dialogue seems overly simplistic. As for his conviction that the Internet can help re-establish “an open communications environment in which the conversation of democracy can flourish,” it plays down the more troubling aspects of the Web, like its promotion of rumor and misinformation alongside real information, and its tendency to fuel polarizing, partisan warfare. Part civics lesson, part political jeremiad, part philosophical tract, “The Assault on Reason” reveals an angry, impassioned Al Gore — a far cry from the carefully scripted, earth-tone-wearing Al Gore of the 2000 presidential campaign and the programmed “creature of Washington” described in the reporter Bill Turque’s 2000 biography of him, “Inventing Al Gore.” Much the way that the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” showed a more accessible Al Gore — at ease with himself and passionate about the dangers of global warming — this book shows a fiery, throw-caution-to-the winds Al Gore, who, whether or not he runs for the White House again, has decided to lay it all on the line with a blistering assessment of the Bush administration and the state of public discourse in America at this “fateful juncture” in history. ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Shedding light on CIA mystery flights Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 11:30 GMT 12:30 UK By Olenka Frenkiel Reporter for This World: Mystery Flights It is alleged that the CIA flew their planes to 29 different countries "This World: Mystery Flights" pieces together the jigsaw of "extraordinary rendition", the alleged illegal CIA transfer of terror suspects to secret prisons in Europe. In far eastern Poland in 2002 and 2003 strange planes landed on an old disused runway in a secluded forest - nine times. The airport was closed but Mariola Przewlocka, the airport facilities manager, was told to accept the planes or "heads would roll". Airport staff were told to stay away while the passengers were unloaded out of sight. Mini-vans with blacked-out windows drove them away to a former Soviet military intelligence base, where it is believed the CIA has its own zone. Extraordinary rendition Was Poland a staging point in the network of secret prisons established by the United States in their "extraordinary rendition" programme? Did these mystery flights bring al-Qaeda suspects to Poland? "It didn't occur to anyone then that it might have something to do with transporting prisoners," says Mariola Przewlocka. "All the rigmarole surrounding the flights - now I think it may have been possible." "Extraordinary rendition" is the CIA term for taking prisoners abroad for interrogation, a policy the US administration defends as a necessary tool in the "war on terror". It denies that prisoners are taken to be tortured. But it offers no explanation for transporting them around the world to countries that are known to use torture, such as Uzbekistan, Morocco, Egypt and Syria. Torture denials Binyam Mohammed claims to have been horribly tortured Binyam Mohammed, a British resident from Ethiopia was "rendered" to Morocco in a Gulfstream N379P after he was arrested in Pakistan. He says he was tortured there until he agreed to sign a statement his captors had prepared. The statement said that he was a member of al-Qaeda; that he had met Osama bin Laden and that he was part of a plot to explode a radioactive bomb in America. His lawyer Clive Stafford Smith believes US denials on torture cannot be true. "He was taken by the Americans to Morocco," he said. "He's not Moroccan so there's only one purpose and that's for him to go through a little bit of extraordinary interrogation." Another rendition flight - this time a Boeing 737 - which stopped in Mallorca on its way to Afghanistan, was photographed by plane-spotters. When human rights organisations, journalists, lawyers and plane-spotters compared notes, and when the dates were matched with flight logs and other prisoners' testimonies, the extent of the rendition programme began to be revealed. It is alleged that the CIA flew their planes to 29 different countries and that there were 300 CIA landings in Europe alone, 80 in Britain. How many prisoners were rendered is still not known. Nor is it known whether many were subjected to torture. Damaging European governments continue to deny they were involved. Joseph Manchado, the plane-spotter who photographed the Boeing in Mallorca, is sceptical. "I think the Spanish authorities knew that there were flights from Palma to Guantanamo. Clearly businessmen don't fly to Guantanamo. I don't suppose the authorities investigated - they just prefer to keep quiet and turn a blind eye to what was going on right under their noses". Few people in America or Europe have cried for the fate of these Muslim men who may or may not be guilty, but who have never been tried or given a chance to defend themselves in court. Some will think they deserve no mercy, in revenge for al-Qaeda's crimes committed in their religion's name. But the former head of the CIA in Europe Tyler Drumheller admits the policy has been damaging. In an exclusive interview with the BBC he says: "It's a mess, and it's going to get worse. A lot of things were done after 9/11 that are going to be looked at for years to come. There are going to be commissions, inquiries, court cases." Mr Drumheller was head of clandestine operations between 2001 and his resignation in 2005. He cannot speak of the secret prisons, for fear of prosecution himself, but he believes the buck stops with the US President. ANTI- RENDITION ACTION Germany: Parliamentary investigation; arrest warrants issued by Munich court for 13 suspected CIA agents Italy: Judge to decide on whether to try suspects in case of kidnapped imam Portugal: Investigation opened in January by public prosecutor Romania: Parliamentary investigation into secret prison claims Spain: Judge investigating whether CIA flight stopovers violated human rights law Switzerland: Criminal probe into use of Swiss airspace to fly kidnapped imam from Italy to Germany By September 2006, the Whitehouse was forced to admit that "a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war had been held and questioned outside the United States in a separate programme operated by the Central Intelligence Agency". But the President would not say where detainees had been held, or divulge details of their confinement. Slowly Europe's democracies are cranking into action in a belated attempt to hold their own governments to account. In Italy, a former chief of military intelligence is in court. Warrants are out for the arrest of CIA agents formerly based there and the government is being accused of a cover-up. The former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and the former Polish Defence Minister Radoslaw Sirkorski have denied that Poland and the military airbase in question were involved. The UK Government has said it does not know and has no way of finding out who was aboard the 80 CIA flights that landed on British soil. This World: "Mystery Flights" will be broadcast on Thursday 24 May 2007 at 2100 BST on BBC Two. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Oil prices advance before US energy report - Wed May 23, 8:11 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - World oil prices climbed in cautious trading on Wednesday, as dealers awaited the latest snapshot on US energy reserves, which were forecast to have risen last week. Brent North Sea crude for July delivery gained 38 cents to 69.90 dollars in electronic trading. New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in July, added 30 cents to 65.81 dollars a barrel in electronic deals before the official open of the US market. Crude futures fell on Tuesday as traders cashed in profits from recent gains, and also shrugged off a new production cut at Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, which is the largest oil field in the United States. Later on Wednesday, the US Department of Energy was expected to reveal another increase in American motor fuel reserves. "All the (DoE) figures are expected to post rises prior to the US driving season," CMC Markets trader Nas Nijjar said. "We may see a slight drop in prices this afternoon, but they're supported by the supply concerns from Nigeria, Iran in the background, and the continued growth of demand in China." Market expectations are that American gasoline or petrol stockpiles rose by 1.2 million barrels in the week ending May 18. That would mark the third weekly increase in a row. Motor fuel is the current oil-market focus ahead of the peak-demand US driving season, which begins this weekend, when many Americans hit the roads for vacation destinations. London analysts meanwhile forecast that inventories of US crude oil advanced by 600,000 barrels last week. Despite such expectations the market is concerned that refinery problems in the United States have reduced gasoline supplies to sharply below average for this time of year. Those concerns, alongside ongoing unrest in key producer Nigeria, helped push Brent crude to 70.83 dollars per barrel on Monday -- the highest level since August 31, 2006. In Nigeria, a Lebanese national was abducted early Tuesday in the country's southern oil city of Warri. The kidnapping was the latest in a series of abductions to hit the restive Niger Delta since militants stepped up their attacks on oil firms and related sectors. In oil-rich Iran, meanwhile, the UN nuclear watchdog was to issue a report Wednesday expected to show the Islamic republic continuing to defy UN demands that it stop enriching uranium and open the door to new sanctions against Tehran. International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei will be reporting to the 35 nations of his board of governors as required by a UN Security Council resolution of March 24 that had imposed a second round of sanctions after a first round levied last December, an IAEA official said. Western nations, led by Washington, contend that Tehran's nuclear programme masks an atomic weapons plan, despite the country's insistence that it is only for civilian nuclear power. Traders are concerned that pressure on Iran -- the world's fourth-largest oil exporter -- could prompt it to retaliate with cuts to crude exports. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 UPI: Concern growing over tribal rights-of-way United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 23, 2007 at 5:39 PM WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) -- Recent reports from the U.S. Department of Interior and Department of Energy voice concern over energy rights-of-way. Under the Energy Policy Act, the two departments are required by Congress to submit such a report on the grants, expansions and renewals of energy rights-of-way dealings on tribal lands, according to the Fair Access to Energy Coalition. Recently, there has been a string of conflicts between those controlling the tribal lands and the energy companies attempting to negotiate. The Jicarilla Apache Nation is allegedly refusing to bargain with the Williams Company over renewing the right-of-way, and the Navajo Nation is in dispute with El Paso Natural Gas Company over a 900-mile lease. "Consumers should be pleased that the departments recognize that lengthy impasses over critical energy rights-of-way on tribal lands can arise due to uncertainty, lack of uniformity and transparency in negotiations and that Congress has constitutional authority to resolve those impasses by specific legislation," said Nancy Ives, executive director of the Fair Access to Energy Coalition. Growing difficulty in negotiations and shortening of lease contracts along with rising costs are all suggested in the report from the two departments. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 [NYTr] Brits' amber light for more nuclear power Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:21:37 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Channel 4 News - Snowmail (UK) - May 23, 2007 http://www.channel4.com AMBER LIGHT FOR MORE NUCLEAR POWER It's an amber light for more nuclear power stations in Britain: a strange announcement in the House of Commons in which the government edges towards building new nuclear power stations but doesn't commit itself to doing so. And it's very clear that the maths doesn't yet stack up to make it a sure-fire winner for private commercial investment. We'll be trying to dissect the minister's statement with Alistair Darling. Our environmental reports are available at: http://linkger.com/0f29c0 * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 11 RIA Novosti: Russia and Southeast Asia: Commitment to cooperation Opinion & analysis - 14:51 | 23/ 05/ 2007 German Gref, Russian Minister of Economic Development and Trade Russia has recently dramatically intensified its foreign economic policy regarding Southeast Asian nations. Moscow firmly believes that close cooperation with the member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) is logical, especially against the background of problems in relations with the United States and the European Union, which have been making claims to Moscow amidst growing anti-Russian rhetoric. Meanwhile, Southeast Asian nations have shown readiness to promote relations with Russia, a major Eurasian state that needs to stand firmly on its feet, relying on its partners in Europe and Asia. The mutual attraction between Russia and ASEAN countries is promoted by their common views of the multipolarity principle and a desire to maintain political stability as a prerequisite for trouble-free economic development and transition to a more advanced democratic model. Our countries proceeded in a similar way, developing a market economy and democracy. Russia's transition period has much in common with events in Southeast Asian nations, which entered the period of post-industrial modernization with underdeveloped democratic institutes and primitive civil societies, general discontent among the public, domination of the comprador bourgeoisie, and weak local governments. Corruption is a common vice for all sectors in their societies and a natural component of their underdeveloped economies. Russia has suffered from many of these evils, and has used the experience of ASEAN countries to address them. The ASEAN-Russia Joint Cooperation Committee (ARJCC), set up in 1997, holds its meetings alternatively in Moscow and in one of the ASEAN capitals. The Russia-ASEAN Cooperation Foundation, which oversees bilateral economic, trade and research-technical cooperation, consists of representatives of official bodies and of business and scientific communities. The Foundation has stepped up its efforts in the past few years, when the Asian vector of Russia's foreign policy gained in strength. The Russian economy is being reformed now, and it is my firm belief that two factors can propel it to a higher level. They are the development of innovation technologies and restructuring. Encouraging the development of a knowledge-based economy is especially important now that Russia depends so heavily on energy exports. Although ASEAN experience cannot always be used in Russia owing to differences in wages and salaries, we have been studying it carefully. We have found many things we could emulate, such as methods of attracting foreign investment, the establishment of special economic zones and free trade zones, support to small and medium-sized businesses, and the creation of a common regional currency, the Asian Currency Unit (ACU). Russia has only just begun establishing special economic zones as growth points, whereas Singapore has eight of them. In the past 20 years, Singapore has helped to launch several such projects in China, Vietnam and Indonesia. In 2006, the governments of Russia and Singapore signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperation in establishing special economic zones. I was appointed co-chairman of the committee on the implementation of the memorandum, co-chaired by my colleague, Minister of Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang. His country was attracted by Russia's proposal to assume management of a special economic zone in Russia. We want to make use of Singapore's unique experience of attracting foreign investment and investing substantial funds abroad. Singapore accounts for 39% of total investment in Asia, and has invested over $60 million in the Russian economy. It is also a country with low investment risks, and therefore investment in it totaled $5.35 billion in 2006. There are 750 development banks in the world, and they are very successful in Southeast Asia, where they account for 12% of all issued loans (the figure for Germany is only 8%). Russia will do its best to borrow the experience of these financial institutes. In April, the lower house of Russia's parliament, the State Duma, passed a bill on the establishment of the Russian Bank for Development and Foreign Trade with an authorized capital of $2.5 billion. It should coordinate all new development institutions, such as the Russian Agency for Special Economic Zones, the Russian Venture Company, and the Investment Fund. The establishment of the Russian Development Bank mirrors a new reality, which demonstrates that Russia has grown out of the clothes of a "commodities extra." Apart from working to mold Russia's positive image abroad, the Development Bank should have a revitalizing effect on the key economic sectors, such as agriculture, mechanical engineering, steelmaking, the nuclear and chemical sectors, and high technologies. Are we happy with the development of our trade and economic ties with ASEAN countries? We certainly are, because aggregate turnover with them has almost doubled in the past six years. On the other hand, we see clearly that we are using only one-third of the potential of our trade and technological cooperation. This is why our ASEAN partners and we are looking for new spheres of cooperation. We have said openly that we want to shift the focus to the services and high-tech goods. We have held several consultations on the issue with representatives of regional business communities, and Russian High-Tech Exhibitions in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok were a success. Russian research laboratories have received first contracts from Singapore for doing research and design projects, including in dual-purpose goods. Malaysia will invest $25 million in the next three years in a joint project to create leokain and bitomycin, antibiotics for the treatment of wounds and burns. Malaysia is also beginning a project of the Russian company Tana aimed at establishing a network of telemedical video monitoring centers for helping patients with grave infectious diseases, tuberculosis, AIDS, and malaria. Malaysia's Petronas took part in the initial public offering of Russian state-run oil company Rosneft, buying $1.1 billion worth of its shares, or more than British Petroleum or China's CNPC investment in it. We are also pinning hopes on cooperation in space research and peaceful space exploration, which has begun only recently but has already yielded its first results. In late 2007, a Russian booster will place Malaysia's Measat-3 satellite on a geosynchronous orbit. Russia will also contribute to building a launching site on Biak, a small Indonesian island situated northwest of New Guinea. Located on the equator, the island is a perfect spot economically for the Air Launch project. ASEAN countries have also shown considerable interest in GLONASS, the Russian space-based navigation system comparable to NAVSTAR, the American GPS system. Energy is another sphere of promising cooperation with ASEAN countries. According to modest forecasts based on projected rates of economic and demographic growth, global energy consumption will increase by 20% in 20 years and will double by the middle of the century. This will increase Russia's role as energy provider. Russian energy giant Gazprom has calculated that Russia, which has the world's largest energy reserves, will supply some 110 billion cubic meters of gas to Southeast Asian by 2020, with the share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) growing consistently. Russia has signed a memorandum on strategic cooperation with PTT, Thailand's oil and gas corporation. Gazprom is negotiating with Malaysia's Petronas on participation in the construction of a gas pipeline across ASEAN and of gas supply infrastructure in the member countries. Russian electricity monopoly RAO UES is also actively looking for partners and investors in Southeast Asian countries. It is discussing with Malaysia the financing of new electricity assets in Russia, hoping that Malaysian partners will invest about $2 billion in the Russian generation sector. Russia's Silovye Mashiny producer of power machines is rapidly strengthening its foothold in the region. The demand for its equipment has grown considerably owing to the construction and modernization of thermal and hydropower plants in Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Russia has years of experience in nuclear technologies, including in designing and using fast neutron reactors. The average prime cost of electricity produced by Russian nuclear power plants is $0.014 per kWh. Russia is one of the world's leaders in the production of small nuclear power units, and its achievements could also be used in other countries. Several regional countries, notably Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, have announced their intention to develop a nuclear sector in their power industries. Russian experts are modernizing the Da Lat Nuclear Research Reactor and assembling equipment for the Hanoi gamma-ray unit. Nuclear contracts are being negotiated with other countries. In particular, Indonesia is pondering the acquisition of a Russian-made floating nuclear power plant, an exclusive product of Russian engineers. In addition, Russia is supplying modern aircraft and helicopters to the region and establishing technical maintenance centers in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is not selling only military equipment. Everyone knows about the destructive force of forest fires in tropical regions, which is why Asian countries have been attracted to Russian-made Be firefighting amphibious aircraft. Russia is also supplying KAMAZ trucks and many other civilian goods to the region. When describing Russia's cooperation with ASEAN countries, I would like to say a few words about the commendable energy of Asian companies in Russia. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in construction, retail trade, the food sector, agriculture and timber processing in Russia. In conclusion I would like to add that the better we know each other, the more joint regional projects we will have. I am convinced that the multitude of mutual interests of Russia and Southeast Asian countries is a reliable foundation for the architecture of our future trade and economic relations, which we view with great optimism. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: No showdown over nuclear power, insists Darling Press Association Wednesday May 23, 2007 Nuclear power will continue to be generated in Scotland "for the foreseeable future" despite local opposition to new stations being built, the UK government said today. The trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, sought to play down suggestions of a looming showdown between London and Westminster after the first minister, Alex Salmond, said there was "no chance" of new nuclear stations being built in Scotland. More than a third of Scotland's electricity came from the Torness and Hunterston nuclear stations, said Mr Darling. "Torness has got probably another 10 to 20 years life in it, so there is going to be nuclear power in Scotland for the foreseeable future," he said. Mr Darling was speaking hours before publication of an energy white paper which is expected to include nuclear power as part of a mix of energy sources that will also include renewables. But he accepted that the Scottish parliament could block future sites being built through devolved powers. Although energy policy is not devolved, Scottish ministers have control of the planning system and also have to give consent under the Electricity Act to the construction of new power stations above a certain size. "We are not changing the devolution settlement. They have always had that power,"Mr Darling told BBC Radio Scotland. "The Scottish executive has the planning authority, it also has the right to veto connections to the grid - so they have always had that double lock. Nothing has changed in that respect." But he warned that blanket opposition to nuclear power and to windfarms was no answer to meeting future energy needs. "Given the problems we face with climate change, given the fact that we cannot go on belching carbon into the atmosphere, given the fact that we are going to become more dependent on importing gas from countries like Russia and the Middle East, we have to have a sensible mix of generation," he said. Mr Darling told an audience in Aberdeen in March that the white paper would meet the challenges of securing supply and meeting environmental obligations, through an energy mix that included renewables, oil and gas - and, "subject to consultation", - nuclear. Labour in power in Scotland favoured keeping nuclear as part of the energy mix but the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens have resolutely opposed to nuclear new-build. Green MSP Patrick Harvie said last night: "There is no need for confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster here - just different opinions and options being taken by two governments acting within their competencies. "In Scotland we are awash with renewable resources and we will aim to take advantage of them. "The rest of the UK can do the same but it is a shame there appears to be a willingness in Westminster to cling to the dirty technology of the past." The leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Nicol Stephen, said directing government investment away from wind, wave and tidal power into nuclear would "fatally damage" Scotland's opportunity to become the renewables power house of Europe. "Nuclear power has a history of hidden costs and is fraught with potential dangers." Jim Mather, the Holyrood minister responsible for energy, will set out the SNP administration's approach to an energy strategy in a speech today to the UK's biggest renewable energy conference in Aberdeen, bringing together more than 200 overseas delegates and 350 exhibitors. Meanwhile, the new SNP leader for Westminster - due to be announced later this morning - will spearhead the party's opposition to plans for new nuclear power stations. Friends of the Earth said the policy focus should be on "much larger emission reductions" by government without the need to press the nuclear option. Roger Higman, Friends of the Earth's campaigns co-ordinator, said: "We can tackle climate change and keep the lights on without building new nuclear power stations. "The government must promote energy saving measures - aimed at reducing emissions from homes and transport - as well as finding new ways to generate electricity. "Unfortunately energy efficiency initiatives have so far been neglected in favour of hugely expensive proposals for a new nuclear programme, despite the fact that the government's own advisers have said that cutting emissions from other sources will be more cost effective and quicker." Useful link Government's report on the energy review Have your say Email your comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Government pushes forward nuclear plans Peter Walker and agencies Wednesday May 23, 2007 A cow grazes on a field next to Sellafield nuclear plant. Photograph: EPA The government is to push ahead with proposals to build a new generation of commercially built nuclear power stations, the industry secretary, Alistair Darling, told parliament this afternoon. "We have reached the preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new nuclear power stations," Mr Darling told the Commons. Ministers would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting greenhouse emissions and diversifying power supplies, he said, introducing the government's new energy white paper, Meeting the Energy Challenge. This document additionally lays out a series of commitments on energy efficiency and other green measures, among them a target of 15% for the amount of electricity produced using renewable sources by 2015. The government today also published a separate consultation document on nuclear energy. While this gives interested groups until October 10 to submit their views, it makes the government's view on the issue clear, arguing that a decision on new nuclear capacity is needed soon, and that it is a viable option. Ministers had concluded that "preventing energy companies from investing in new nuclear power stations would increase the risk of not achieving our long-term climate change and energy security goals, or achieving them at higher cost", the paper says. Greenpeace - which forced the publication of the white paper to be delayed from March after it mounted a court challenge - immediately condemned the conclusions, saying ministers were neglecting viable alternative energy sources. "The government has tinkered with its failing energy efficiency and renewables policy while indulging its nuclear obsession," said Greenpeace director John Sauven. "If ministers go down the nuclear route, they will strangle the new, clean energy technologies of the investment and political support they need." Today's announcement comes as little surprise, given Tony Blair's much-repeated insistence that nuclear power is a vital component in ensuring the UK both cuts its emissions of greenhouse gases and maintains secure energy supplies in an era of declining North Sea oil and gas production. "It is right that we consider how nuclear power can help to underpin the security of our energy supply without increasing our reliance on fossil fuels," he wrote in an article for today's Times. However, Mr Blair - and his equally nuclear-keen successor, Gordon Brown - are likely to face considerable unrest on the issue from some Labour backbenchers, as well as MPs from other parties. In a letter published in today's Guardian, a group of Labour, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National Party MPs warned against being "politically panicked into accepting a technology that poses a continuing risk in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism", among other drawbacks. Mr Darling told MPs that a decision on future nuclear power plants had to be taken this year, noting that around a third of the UK's current electricity generation capacity would become defunct within the next decade or so, while the lead-in times for new nuclear plants meant they would not make a significant contribution before around 2020. Without new nuclear facilities, "there is every chance" the gap will instead be filled with power stations burning fossil fuels, he added. At a later press conference the minister stressed that the government had to plan to use a mixture of energy sources. "My firm view is that nuclear does need to be part of that - to exclude it as an option makes no sense at all," he said. It was "more likely than not" that any new nuclear power stations would be built on sites which already have similar plants, he added. An earlier energy white paper in February 2003 highlighted the lack of planned new nuclear plants but was equivocal about the technology, saying "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity" and that there were also issues involving waste. However, today's paper noted that the urgency of tackling climate change and a growing UK reliance on energy imports meant this had changed and that new waste disposal technologies now existed. Opponents say the consultation thus far has been largely a sham, with all the major decisions on the issue long ago taken. Mr Blair's official spokesman insisted today that other opinions were being listened to, but that the arguments for nuclear power were simply too strong. "The consultation is real, but, equally, the analysis is real," he said. "And the analysis is very clear: that we are increasing the renewable sector substantially, we are investing in clean coal technology, but all of that will not fill the gap left by 20% of our current electricity needs being met by nuclear, and that those stations need to be renewed within the next 15 years." 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 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: All clear for nuclear Thursday May 24, 2007 "Over 10 years," wrote Tony Blair yesterday, "I have watched energy policy go from a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country's future as defence." The prime minister usually wheels out the big picture when he needs to emphasise an issue's urgency, but it invites the question: where was he while it came to such prominence? By 1997, Britain's energy industry was already near the end of its golden age. Yes, it was self-sufficient in fuel and had an infrastructure that aroused international envy. But the clock was definitely ticking. In 2004 Britain became a net importer of gas. Last year it bought in more oil than it sold; the first time that has happened since 1980. The infrastructure is also getting near its sell-by date. Of our big nuclear power stations, Hinkley B, Hartlepool and Hunterston B all close by 2015. Within 15 years, all but one of our existing stations will be shut. Coal capacity is coming offstream equally fast. Experts estimate that over 40% of the UK's electricity production will need to be replaced by 2015. Huge changes, but most of them have been on the horizon for years. So how has the government responded so far? With a protracted bout of throat-clearing. Over the past decade, energy policy has passed through six secretaries of state, numerous reviews and white papers and enough hot air to undermine the Kyoto protocol. Yesterday's white paper from Alistair Darling brought the nuclear and green lobbies together on a rare point of agreement: it did not change much. Mr Darling formally confirmed that the government saw nuclear power as central to the UK's future energy supply, although he did not provide any additional incentives for energy firms to invest in it. The big change on that front came on Monday, with the planning white paper's introduction of a independent commission to expedite big infrastructure projects. The stations will almost certainly arrive, but it will be a brave company that files the first application. It has been some years since Tony Blair, to misquote the old film, learned to stop worrying and love nuclear. No one could accuse him of not trying to take a lead. However, he has not always made the case in a straightforward manner. The point that British nuclear means we do not have to rely on nasty Iran and dodgy Russia for fossil fuels, for instance, does not acknowledge that uranium comes from such picture-postcard spots as Kazakhstan, Niger and, yes, Russia. For all the finger-wagging about security of supply, Britain will still import gas and oil - in vastly increased quantities after so many of our power stations shut in 2015. Opposition was steamrollered in a sham consultation which lost the government a judicial review this year. Ministers will make more efforts to persuade the public this time round and they will have their work cut out. This week's Guardian/ICM poll shows opponents of nuclear energy still outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44% - a rise in antipathy from the last poll on the issue at the end of 2005. Environment secretary David Miliband sat next to Mr Darling in the Commons yesterday, presumably to lend green cred. It is mainly on the demand side that the environmental case is being advanced. A carbon-trading scheme for banks and big supermarkets will be introduced. The scheme will be the world's first, and so involves taking the kind of lead that Mr Blair often talks about. There was also an eye-catching initiative of providing homeowners displays to show them how much electricity they use. But while Mr Darling insisted that newly-built houses should be green houses, there was next to no incentive for greater efficiency in existing homes. Recent years have seen many new ideas for greener energy yet, for all yesterday's grand talk of big challenges and pressing deadlines, few of them found a home in the white paper. So much heat, so little light. Useful link Government's report on the energy review Have your say Email your comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Government backs nuclear power plan From Press Association Wednesday May 23, 2007 8:08 AM The Government has made it clear that it wants nuclear power to remain part of the UK's energy mix, sparking a fresh row with environmental campaigners. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it would be a "profound mistake" to rule out building new nuclear power stations in efforts to secure power supplies. The minister, who will publish an Energy White Paper later on Wednesday, warned that power supplies could be disrupted on very hot or very cold days by the year 2017 unless action is taken now. He stressed the importance of energy conservation but admitted he had changed his mind about the need for new nuclear power plants, which he now supported. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Darling said the UK could not continue putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere. He said ways had to be found to generate secure reliable supplies of energy without contributing to climate change. "We must reduce the amount of energy we use. I will be setting out proposals on how we are going to do that," he said. Mr Darling countered criticisms about the level of grants available for home insulation, maintaining that money is available for individuals to make their homes more energy-efficient. But he said the Government wanted to incentivise the main energy companies to do more to encourage people to adopt energy-efficient measures. Mr Darling said far more needs to be done to promote renewable power but repeated that nuclear had to be part of the UK's future energy mix. "To exclude it as an option would be a very big mistake. I was pretty sceptical about nuclear but I have changed my mind. The science about climate change is now becoming abundantly clear - if we don't do something, climate change will get worse and worse." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power consultation launched From Press Association Press Association Wednesday May 23, 2007 1:38 PM A five-month consultation on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying energy supplies has been launched by the Government. Ministers made clear they want new nuclear power stations to be built, sparking a fresh row with environmental campaigners who accused the Government of peddling a "failed policy". Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it was the Government's preliminary view that it was in the public interest to give private energy firms the option of investing in new nuclear building projects. A 20-week public consultation started on Wednesday and will run until October 10. Mr Darling also told MPs that the amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, as he published the Energy White Paper. Mr Darling said: "We face two big challenges - climate change and maintaining stable and affordable energy supply in an increasingly unstable world. The Energy White Paper sets out a long-term framework for action to address these challenges at home and abroad. "The UK is also becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas at a time when global demand is accelerating. "We will ensure that we make the most of our substantial remaining reserves in the North Sea, have a diverse range of sources for our imports and make further progress opening up markets in Europe and more widely. "With a third of our current electricity generation capacity due to close in the next 20 years, there is also a pressing need for investment in new low carbon sources." Mr Darling told MPs that a decision on future nuclear power plants had to be taken this year, adding that it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate them. © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Agency: Iran Still Defying U.N. From the Associated Press Thursday May 24, 2007 12:31 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. nuclear monitor reported notable advances in Iran's uranium enrichment program Wednesday while warning for the first time that its knowledge of the country's nuclear activities was shrinking. The International Atomic Energy Agency's findings, while not surprising, set the stage for possible new U.N. sanctions - the third set of penalties since December. The report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei expressed the agency's concern about its ``deteriorating'' understanding of unexplored aspects of Iran's nuclear program. That finding reflected frustration with the results of a four-year IAEA investigation opened after revelations that Iran for nearly two decades had been clandestinely developing enrichment and other nuclear activities that could be used to make weapons. A senior U.N. diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly comment on the report, suggested the shrinking hole left for inspections by Iran's rollback of previous monitoring agreements was potentially as worrying as its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. In Washington, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said the report showed ``Iran is thumbing its nose at the international community.'' Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA in Vienna, asked: ``How can the world believe Iran's claims that its pursuits are peaceful, if Iran's leaders increasingly withhold information and cooperation from the world's nuclear watchdog?'' In a show of American military strength, ships carrying 17,000 sailors and Marines moved into the Persian Gulf on Wednesday, just days before U.S.-Iran talks on Iraq. The war games - which culminate in an amphibious landing exercise in Kuwait, just a few miles from Iran - appeared to be a clear warning to Iran ahead of the talks and possible U.N sanctions. ``The Americans are sending a message to Iran that they are not coming to the negotiating table weak, but with their military at Tehran's doorstep,'' said Mustafa Alani of the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center. Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's chief IAEA representative, suggested Washington and its allies on the U.N. Security Council - France and Britain - were at fault for any curtailment of IAEA inspection rights in his country. The three countries pushed the hardest for Security Council involvement last year in Iran's nuclear activities. ``The best advice to the few Western countries that have already deteriorated the situation is to stop their actions at the Security Council,'' Soltanieh told The Associated Press. Experts from the five permanent Security Council members - the U.S., China, Britain, Russia and France - as well as Germany will meet by the end of May to discuss how to promote further negotiations with the Iranians, and what the Security Council could do if the talks fail, China's deputy U.N. ambassador Liu Zhenmin said at U.N. headquarters in New York. Some diplomats said any action could be delayed until after the June 6-8 summit of the Group of Eight major industrialized nations. Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy organization, defended his country's decision to limit IAEA inspections in response to stepped up U.N. sanctions. ``It is right of any country to suspend part of its commitments because of a lack of realization of its own rights,'' state IRNA news agency quoted Saeedi as saying. The brevity of the four-page report indirectly reflected the lack of progress agency inspectors had made in clearing up unresolved issues, some of them stretching back for years. Among them were: Iran's possession of diagrams showing how to form uranium into warhead form; unexplained uranium contamination at a research facility linked to the military; information on high explosives experiments that could be used in a nuclear program, and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle. The restricted report, obtained by The Associated Press, also noted Iran's refusal to allow inspectors to visit a heavy water reactor under construction, or related facilities, since unilaterally revising an agreement with IAEA earlier this year. Once completed, sometime in the next decade, that complex will produce plutonium, which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make nuclear weapons. ``The agency ... remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify certain aspects'' about Iran's nuclear program, the report said. ``Unless Iran addresses the long outstanding verification issues ... the agency will not be able to fully reconstruct the history of Iran's nuclear program and provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear ... activities in Iran or about the exclusively peaceful nature of that program.'' At the underground Natanz enrichment facility, the only site now open to full IAEA monitoring, Iran's ultimate stated goal is running 54,000 centrifuges to churn out enriched uranium - enough for dozens of nuclear weapons a year. Uranium gas, spun in linked centrifuges, can result in either low-enriched fuel suitable to generate power, or the weapons-grade material that forms the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran insists it wants the technology only to meet future power needs and argues it is entitled to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But suspicions bred by nearly two decades of clandestine nuclear activities, including black-market acquisitions of equipment and blueprints that appear linked to weapons plans, have led to two sets of U.N. sanctions over its refusal to freeze enrichment. The report also suggested that Iranian experts had ironed out many technical glitches that had caused breakdowns in experimental, smaller-scale centrifuge operations. It said 1,312 centrifuges at Natanz were churning out small amounts of uranium enriched to 4.8 percent - suitable for power generation. Another 328 had been assembled and an additional 328 were being built as of May 13, it said. ``They now have 1,600, centrifuges - a year and a half ago they had 40 centrifuges,'' said the senior U.N. official. Iran was now able to link 164 centrifuges into an assembly capable of enrichment about every 10 days - a ``notable'' pace, the official said. --- Associated Press Writer Edith M. Lederer contributed to this report from the United Nations. --- On the Net: International Atomic Energy Agency: www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 18 Guardian Unlimited: Future energy generation row rages From Press Association Wednesday May 23, 2007 5:13 PM Rows over future energy generation are raging as the government came under fierce attack after launching a five-month consultation on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play. Opposition parties, environmental campaigners and pressure groups criticised ministers for peddling a "failed policy", questioning where new nuclear power stations would be built. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it was "more likely than not" that any new nuclear power stations would be built on the sites which already have similar plants. But Greenpeace said an official report published after a Freedom of Information request by the group showed that sites in the South, including Hinkley, Sizewell, Dungeness and Bradwell, were considered as the most suitable places for new reactors. Director John Sauven said: "Scientists say the speed at which climate change is happening means that some of the sites suggested for new nuclear power stations are threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges. Meanwhile political developments in Scotland have ruled out other sites. You have to question where the Government thinks it's going to build these things. "Government claims about Russia and the lights going out have the whiff of a dodgy dossier. They are whipping up fear to push a policy that is patently dishonest." The government also came under fire over plans for a Ł14 billion barrage across the Severn that would harness the tidal energy of the Severn Estuary, which Mr Darling said he was "very interested" in promoting. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warned that the 10-mile barrage would cause "untold damage" to the environment. Mr Darling said it was the government's preliminary view that it was in the public interest to give private energy firms the option of investing in new nuclear building projects. A 20-week public consultation started today and will run until October 10. Mr Darling also told MPs that the amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, as he published the Energy White Paper. He said the government had three aims - to reduce the amount of energy consumed in this country, to increase the amount of power generated by renewables and to ensure an energy mix. "I firmly believe that the mix we have will serve us well in the future. My firm view is that nuclear does need to be part of that - to exclude it as an option makes no sense at all." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Fresh nuclear row set to erupt From Press Association Press Association Wednesday May 23, 2007 4:28 AM A fresh row about nuclear power is set to break out when the government publishes its plans for securing energy supplies. The Energy White Paper is expected to herald a fresh consultation on how much support there is for nuclear power, and where power stations should be sited. Supporters and opponents will clash on the merits of nuclear against other forms of power such as renewable energy. The Green Party said it expects the announcement will herald the introduction of a new generation of nuclear power stations. The party principal speaker Sian Berry said: "If the government do go down the nuclear route, they will be committing the UK to a dirty, dangerous and astronomically expensive future. "Moreover, support for nuclear power will come at the cost of damaging the fledgling renewables industry. The UK has the potential to become a world leader in the young, clean and cutting-edge renewable energy industry but, instead, Gordon Brown wants to continue shovelling taxpayers' cash into the ailing nuclear industry. If he tries this, he will face strong opposition from people all over the UK." Greenpeace, which obtained a legal victory earlier this year after complaining that the government's energy review was "seriously flawed", said policies were needed to "transform" to way energy was consumed and delivered. Executive director John Sauven said: "The government's current energy strategy simply won't put us on a path to delivering the kinds of cuts needed to combat climate change. "Greenpeace supports building a new fleet of power stations across the country - modern large scale, renewable energy projects as well as ultra-efficient, Combined Heat and Power stations rather than the modified 1950s relics the government is supporting that waste more energy than they produce. Two-thirds of the energy going in to the UK's centralised power stations is immediately lost in the form of waste heat. "Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like a couch potato taking up smoking to lose weight. It doesn't deal with the problem, wastes money better spent elsewhere and brings huge problems of its own. That's why Tony Blair had to fix the energy review to get the answer he wanted." Help the Aged said it will be looking for what the white paper has to say about efforts to combat fuel poverty. Mervyn Kohler, the group's special adviser, said: "Fuel poverty is not just a statistical term - it substantially and tangibly blights people's lives. It leads to discomfort and misery for many, ill-health for quite a number, and death for some." © Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Ministers to press on with new nuclear power stations Terry Macalister and Julian Glover Wednesday May 23, 2007 The government will today reassert its determination to press ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations despite evidence of Tony Blair's inability to convince many of his own backbenchers and the public at large that atomic energy holds the key to security of supply and lower carbon emissions. An energy white paper published today will promise further consultation on the issue as demanded by the high court following a challenge by Greenpeace, but industry secretary Alistair Darling will make clear his belief that nuclear is essential if the UK is to meet growing energy demands and meet its Kyoto treaty commitments on C02. But the government faces battles ahead. A group of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs warn in a letter published in today's Guardian that "we should not be politically panicked into accepting a technology that poses a continuing risk in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism, produces a toxic waste for which no management solution is agreed, benefits from hidden subsidies and tends to undermine the prospects of renewable energy and efforts to increase efficiency". The letter, also signed by Friends of the Earth, said it was a "myth" that the lights would go out or that Britain would be far less dependent on gas imports without nuclear. A Guardian/ICM poll out this week shows opponents of nuclear energy narrowly outnumber supporters, by 49% to 44%, underlining how the government has made no progress in persuading people of the case for nuclear energy. When the Guardian last asked voters their opinion on the issue, in late 2005, 45% backed nuclear energy and 48% opposed it. The poll also shows that 62% of men think more nuclear power stations should be built against 27% of women. But industry has become increasingly positive with the huge German utility E.ON, which is fast-expanding in Britain and which sponsored last Saturday's FA Cup, saying for the first time that it was ready and willing to build new plants here and could do so without subsidies. "E.ON is keen to take a leading role in the development of a next generation nuclear programme," said Paul Golby, the chief executive of E.ON UK. "We believe that private companies will be able to fully fund the next generation nuclear build but it clearly requires sustained political and public support," he added. The company denied that nuclear would push out other forms of investment citing its commitment to spend Ł3bn on a variety of new gas and clean coal-fired power stations, together with wind, biomass and marine projects across the country. Mr Golby added: "This white paper should not be all about nuclear and our plans are suitably diverse - to keep UK plc's lights on we need to look at all our options and not just at one." 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 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: NRC Signs Memorandum of Cooperation with China on the AP1000 News Release - 2007-065 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) on Nuclear Safety for the Westinghouse Advanced Pressurized Reactor (AP1000) with the National Nuclear Safety Administration of the People's Republic of China (NNSA/China). Both organizations will continue to exchange information pertaining to regulatory activities and standards required by their organization's mission. Both have the common objective of improving the safety of nuclear facilities and materials and of protecting the public health, safety and the environment. This MOC provides for the establishment of an NRC-NNSA/China Steering Committee to oversee technical cooperation on the AP1000. Cooperative dialogue on the AP1000, a new reactor design, will provide benefits to both NRC and NNSA/China by offering opportunities to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory reviews and construction of this reactor design. Signing on behalf of the NRC during the U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue, Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield said, "This MOC emphasizes the commitment of both countries to the safety of nuclear power." Signing on behalf of NNSA/China was Liu Hua, Assistant Administrator and Director General. The MOC will be governed by the 2004 Protocol on "Cooperation in Science and Technology," which has provided the basis for long-standing general cooperation in nuclear safety matters between the NRC and its regulatory counterparts in China. The Protocol was first signed on Oct. 17, 1981, and has been renewed for five-year periods since then, with the most recent renewal signed on April 23, 2004. "This signing is another step toward strengthening the U.S.-China strategic economic dialogue, providing cooperation in joint innovations, energy security and the environment," said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Wednesday, May 23, 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: How Britain generates its power Peter Walker Wednesday May 23, 2007 The government is determined to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, arguing that they are the best way of providing the country with secure, low emission power. Currently, Britain's electricity generation comes from the host of sources, each with their own benefits and drawbacks. Nuclear A total of 20.5% of the UK's electricity was generated by nuclear power in 2005 - the last year for which figures are available - according to Department of Trade and Industry statistics. Nuclear plants have supplied power to the national grid since 1956, when the Calder Hall site in Cumbria first went into service. There are currently 19 reactors operating at 10 power stations around the country. Advocates of nuclear power - Gordon Brown among them - argue that it can play a major role in cutting carbon emissions and make the UK less reliant on imported energy. Some environmentalists, among them the veteran climate change expert James Lovelock, agree. However, critics insist the technology has much longer-term environmental problems and has always tended to end up being far more expensive than planned. A study commissioned by Greenpeace, released earlier this month, claimed that the average nuclear power station comes in four years behind schedule and runs three times over budget. Gas Natural gas is currently the most important single fuel for electricity generation, accounting for 38.5% of the UK total in 2005. The liberalisation of the UK gas market in the 1990s saw gas prices fall sharply, prompting electricity providers to switch from coal-fired power stations to gas-fired stations. This in turn led to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, because gas is less polluting than coal. However, the production of domestic North Sea gas is falling as reserves tail off, leaving Britain more reliant on imports with all the political uncertainty this can bring. The problem was starkly illustrated in late 2005, when a bitter dispute with Ukraine saw Russia reduce gas pipeline flows, affecting supplies to the EU. Oil Despite its unchallenged primacy as the fuel most consumers come into contact with directly, oil plays only a minor role in generation, providing just 1.4% of total output. It suffers similar drawbacks to those of gas - environmental impact, falling domestic supplies and the insecurity of relying on imports. Coal Although coal-fired power stations still provide 34% of total electricity, the domestic coal industry is a shadow of its former self. While there were 180,000 people working in the coal industry before the 1984 miners strike, the current figure is just 5,600. The UK does still have economically viable coal reserves, but these are expected to run out with 10 to 15 years. Already, half the coal used in the country is imported. Coal-fired power stations are less polluting than they once were, but still produce large amounts of greenhouse gases. However, some believe the emerging technology of "carbon capture", in which emissions are not released into the atmosphere, could see a new lease of life for coal. Hydro Power from running water currently supplies 1.25% of the country's electricity, providing virtually emission-free power once the initial impact of building the plant has been taken into account. Unfortunately, hydroelectricity is most heavily dependent not on technology or political will but on a factor beyond the control of any government - geography. While Norway can produce virtually all its electricity through hydro stations, much of the UK's potential in this area has already been used. Wind For all the many arguments for and against wind turbines, they are only a negligible player in total electricity production, making up just 0.75% of the national total. Wind is something the UK possesses in abundance, and the government is committed to building more wind farms to add to the 140 or so currently in operation. According to the DTI, wind energy will "make the main contribution" to the government's eventual target of producing 10% of its energy via renewable sources. However, the issue divides even environmentalists, some of whom worry about the impact on the natural landscape of large-scale wind farms. Other sources Around 3.6% of electricity comes from other sources, two-thirds of this renewables such as biofuels, wave and solar power, and the remainder from the likes of burning landfill gas. Some have hailed biofuels as a potential environmental saviour, but others worry the scale of production needed to meet large-scale energy needs would cause more problems than it would solve. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Background: Nuclear power in the UK Peter Walker explains the history of nuclear power in the United Kingdom Wednesday May 23, 2007 The government's position on nuclear power has evolved slowly but steadily towards its current standpoint: climate change and dwindling domestic energy resources mean there are few options but to build a new generation of nuclear plants. Britain was an early adopter of the technology and has had at least some of its electricity produced via nuclear reactors for more than half a century. However, while other nations have enthusiastically embraced nuclear generation - around three-quarters of French electricity is produced this way - Britain has been more tentative, with only around a fifth of its power being nuclear produced. Such has been the lack of investment in nuclear power, the government's energy white paper of February 2003 warned if no new plants were commissioned, or existing ones revamped beyond their planned life spans, by 2025 there would be only one nuclear plant still operating. That document was equivocal about the technology. Whatever the climate change arguments for nuclear power, the white paper concluded, "its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved". However, while not immediately recommending new nuclear stations, the white paper added: "We do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets." Less than three years later, the attitude had changed. A Department of Trade and Industry consultation document from January last year made it plain that ministers had been thinking further. While the government remained committed to sustainable targets, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks said in the introduction, "the challenges we face in meeting them have been thrown into sharper relief" through new evidence about climate change and a faster-than-expected fall in domestic oil and gas production. The time was now right to start "looking again at nuclear power as well as other sources of energy", he said. This position was firmed up in July 2006, when the industry secretary, Alistair Darling, told MPs that the government was indeed planning a new generation of nuclear power stations. "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals," Mr Darling told the Commons, introducing the DTI's Energy Review. Tony Blair's introduction to the 218-page document set out his views clearly - domestic oil and gas were running out, he warned, and: "Neither renewable energy nor greater energy efficiency can provide the complete solution to the shortfall we face." Britain must build a new generation of nuclear stations, Mr Blair argued, which would "yield economic benefits in terms of carbon reduction and security of supply". While the government has officially solicited outside views on the issue throughout this process, many believe this is purely for show and all the main decisions were finalised long ago. Nonetheless, ministers face potentially tough opposition, not only from environmental groups but also from MPs. In a letter published in today's Guardian, a group of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs warn that "we should not be politically panicked into accepting a technology that poses a continuing risk in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism, produces a toxic waste for which no management solution is agreed, benefits from hidden subsidies and tends to undermine the prospects of renewable energy and efforts to increase efficiency". The letter, also signed by Friends of the Earth, said it was a "myth" that the lights would go out or that Britain would be far less dependent on gas imports without nuclear power. 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 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: Prime sites for nuclear power stations identified Study commissioned by government says Brighton, Bristol, Midlands and Oxfordshire should be considered John Vidal and Terry Macalister Thursday May 24, 2007 The government is considering building nuclear power stations on the sites of old coal and gas-fired stations in Oxfordshire and the south-east, according to documents released yesterday as part of a consultation forced on it by the courts. A confidential report, commissioned by the DTI last year from leading energy analysts Jackson Consulting, has recommended a new generation of plants at existing or redundant civil and military nuclear power stations. But it says that many of these will be unavailable for years or will be unsuitable because they have limited connections to the national grid. Instead, the consultants say that "existing coal and/or gas-fired conventional power stations" should be considered for new nuclear sites. A further option would be to develop stations at "completely new greenfield sites". Of the 19 existing civil nuclear power station sites, only nine are considered feasible for new reactors, and only four of these are available immediately. However, the DTI has been advised that the sites of conventional power stations in the Midlands, the south coast near Brighton, and near Bristol could become available. The advice to ministers was outlined in a 50-page report, the only one known to have been commissioned by government specifically on the issue of the siting of new nuclear plants. It was submitted to the DTI last year and attempts by Greenpeace to make it public under freedom of information rules were repeatedly blocked. The study was finally disclosed yesterday, when the government published its latest energy white paper. This offered clear support for new nuclear plants but a fresh round of consultation has been demanded by the high court. Alistair Darling, the industry secretary, said that this would only take 20 weeks and argued it would be a "profound mistake" to rule out nuclear energy at a time of dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies and pressure to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. "Quite simply, in the public interest, we need to make a decision this year on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear because new stations take a long time to build. If nuclear is excluded there is every chance that its place would be taken by gas or coal generation which, of course, emit carbon," he said. According to the Jackson report, ease of connection to the national grid is the main factor in determining a site's suitability. This suggests that the best available location at present is at Harwell, a former military site close to Didcot power station in Oxfordshire. In the second rung of grid suitability come old coal-fired stations, but these are not mentioned by name. Only two nuclear sites that are immediately available - at Sizewell and Hinkley - are considered to be suitable to take new generation twin reactors. Eight of the 19 current nuclear sites considered by Jackson have limited grid connection and three - at Trawsfynydd and Wylfa in north Wales, Berkeley near Gloucester and Heysham in Lancashire are more or less ruled out with "major barriers that would be difficult to overcome". The report adds that new stations are unlikely to be feasible in Wales or Scotland because of devolution. While most existing reactors are on the coast, the report says it would be possible to build new ones inland. But these, it says, would need vast cooling towers, "as used by conventional coal and gas- fired generating stations such as Didcot in Oxfordshire". It says: "Cooling towers are very large structures which substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion, causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance, as well as adding to the cost of construction and reducing the station's power output 3-5%." The report highlights nuclear waste organisation Nirex's anxiety that the sites most prone to flooding from rising sea levels are in the low-lying areas of the south of England - exactly where electricity demand is forecast to be greatest. It states that new nuclear power stations would have to be engineered and designed to take this into account. Greenpeace director John Sauven said: "Scientists say the speed at which climate change is happening means that some of the sites suggested for new nuclear power stations are threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges. You have to question where the government thinks it's going to build these things. "The list of preferred sites for new build in this report is a matter of national interest, not just something for civil servants to see. It's scandalous the government was going to keep this under wraps." The DTI said last night that the report's conclusions were those of the consultants and it was too early to consider the siting of any potential new stations. A spokesman said private companies would ultimately propose where they should be built. 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 Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 25 Power Magazine: Davis-Besse should die You read it here first: the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will yank the operating license for the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant near Toledo, Ohio, owned and operated by FirstEnergy, an Akron-based utility holding company. Well it should. Why? Because the company has demonstrated over more than 20 years that it is incapable of running the plant and playing by the NRC's rules. The latest outrage is what the Lorain, Ohio, Morning Journal describes, correctly, as a "jaw-dropping, 180-degree spin on its story of the infamous acid-eaten reactor head at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant west of Sandusky. The new line is based on new consultants' studies the company paid for in connection with a $200 million insurance claim." Back in 2002, veterans of the industry will recall, FirstEnergy reported to the NRC that it had found a football-sized hole in the six-inch-thick steel vessel head at the 882-MW Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactor. Only a thin stainless liner prevented a breach of the vessel and a major loss-of-coolant accident, probably far bigger than the 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown. The resulting NRC investigation kept the reactor shut for three years, cost the company over $33 million in NRC penalties and more than $600 million in shutdown and repair costs, and led to federal criminal charges against three former plant workers. During the investigation, FirstEnergy said it calculated that the corrosion caused by borated water leaking from stress corrosion cracking in nozzles penetrating the head took some four years to manifest itself. The company inspected the head on a biennial schedule. The NRC concluded the company should have discovered the problem and FirstEnergy agreed. But last December, in a $200 million insurance claim with the industry mutual insurance company that covers all U.S. nuclear plants, FirstEnergy offered a report by Exponent Inc., a respected consulting firm, that said the corrosion occurred over a period of only four months. Why is that important? Because it means that the company would not have found the problem during its normal inspection schedule. So the utility was not negligent in its inspections. Cut the check for $200 million, please. What's worse, the company didn't tell the NRC about the report until early May, although the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which has done a great job over the years covering FirstEnergy, reported it in early April. Was the NRC angry? You bet. The NRC sent FirstEnergy on May 14 a rare "demand for information" on the report, calling for the company to 'splain itself "under oath," answering questions about why it took so long to inform federal regulators, how it evaluated the consultants' report compared to its earlier claim that the event took four years to develop, and how another FirstEnergy consultants' report that has surfaced jibes with the NRC's civil penalties notice in 2005. The NRC noted that its demand is designed to help the agency decide whether to "take further action, up to revising, suspending or revoking existing operating licenses." This is heavy-duty stuff from the NRC, an agency critics have long asserted is soft on licensees. Let's hope the ultimate action is revoking the license, prompting the company to find a better-behaved buyer for the plant. It’s not just about the latest flap. Davis-Besse has a history. According to the NRC, the single-unit plant has seen two of the five worst nuclear accidents in civilian reactor history. One is the recent head rot fiasco. Another is the 1985 failure of the plant’s two main feedwater pumps suppling water to the steam generators of the PWR. If the steam generators dry out, the plant is unable to remove the heat generated by the reactor. That’s what happened in 1979 at Three Mile Island, a sister B&W plant. A control room operator at Davis-Besse then tried to start the emergency feedwater pumps, but, according to the NRC, hit the wrong buttons. The steam generators nearly dried out before the operators figured out what was going on. The NRC said that incident should have been classified as a “site area emergency,” just a level below the TMI “general emergency.” Davis-Besse has a terrible record. Since 1996, according to NRC data, the plant has been cited a dozen times for notices of violations or enforcement orders. That’s far in excess of most PWRs. What to do? The NRC should jerk the license, which would likely force FirstEnergy to sell the plant (probably at a fire-sale price) to some company that can operate it safely and successfully. As a pro football fan, FirstEnergy reminds me of Tennessee Titans defensive back Packman Jones, recently banned for the 2008 season after serial offenses of law and good judgment. Whenever caught in a violation or indiscretion, Jones would offer a contrite apology and a promise to clean up his act and never do it again. Recently, on the eve of a meeting with NFL officials to plead for a reduction in his suspension, he was arrested for driving on a suspended license. When it comes to operating Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy is a regulatory recidivist. I’m sure the NRC’s patience has run out. The company richly deserves to have its license yanked. © 2007 Tradefair Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved | Ph: 832-242-1969 11000 Richmond, Suite 500 Houston, TX 77042 ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: NRC Receives Award for Excellence in Performance and Accountability Reporting News Release - 2007-066 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov For the sixth consecutive year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission received a prestigious award recognizing the quality of its annual performance and accountability reporting. The Association of Government Accountants (AGA) awarded NRC the Certificate of Excellence in Accountablitity Reporting (CEAR) for its outstanding efforts in preparing the agency’s Performance and Accountability Report for Fiscal Year 2006. The Certificate of Excellence is the highest form of recognition in federal government management reporting. It rewards excellence in an agency’s reporting of financial and performance results. In its award letter, AGA commended the NRC for preparing an informative, easy-to-read report. “We are honored to receive this award recognizing the agency’s commitment to excellence,” NRC Acting Chief Financial Officer Peter J. Rabideau said. “This clear, informative report provided to the public about the NRC's performance and how the NRC conducts its programs is the result of the dedication and hard work of the agency's staff.” NRC is one of 11 federal agencies receiving the AGA Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting award during a ceremony May 23 at the National Press Club. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Wednesday, May 23, 2007 ***************************************************************** 27 BBC NEWS: Nuclear power 'must be on agenda' Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 21:55 GMT 22:55 UK Ministers say it would be a mistake to exclude nuclear power Nuclear power is needed to help reduce carbon emissions and to ensure that the UK has secure energy supplies in the future, the prime minister has said. "We are not going to be able to make up through wind farms all the deficit on nuclear power," Tony Blair told MPs. The government's Energy White Paper has backed renewable energy and efficiency measures - but said the "preliminary view" supports more nuclear plants. They also said a new consultation launched on the merits of nuclear power was a "farce". READ THE REPORT [6.6MB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told MPs a decision on nuclear power was needed by the end of the year because many nuclear and coal-fired power stations were due to close within 20 years. Other key points include: * Free "real time" displays given on request to show homeowners how much electricity they are using. * Working with industry to "phase out" inefficient goods such as energy-consuming standby switches. * Tougher environmental standards for new build homes, and other products. * Consultation launched on possible sites for new nuclear plants - based on assumption environmental impact is not "significantly different" to other forms of energy generation. * Triple the amount of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and wave by 2015. * Set up the world's first carbon trading scheme for large organisations such as banks and government departments. * Encourage mining of UK coal where it is economically and environmentally appropriate to reduce reliance on exports. Mr Darling said the measures outlined could save between 22 million and 33 million tonnes of carbon emissions by 2020. UK'S ENERGY PRESSURES Supplies of cheap domestic gas are running low Oil and gas prices have risen dramatically Government aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% of 1990 levels by 2010 Nuclear generates 20% of the UK's electricity All but one of UK's nuclear power stations are set to close by 2023 and no more are planned South 'best for nuclear sites' BP pulls out of green plant UK nuclear energy options He said he wanted British industry to be at the forefront of new, green technologies, but added: "We can't become a low carbon economy in a single step." The government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power, he said. But, although the work done to identify possible site, he said no final decision would be made until the consultation ends in October. However, Lib Dem trade and industry spokeswoman Susan Kramer said: "This consultation is a total farce. Ministers have clearly already decided to back nuclear." Before the statement was published, Mr Blair told MPs at prime minister's questions: "If we want to have secure energy supplies and reduce CO2 emissions, we have got to put the issue of nuclear power on the agenda." Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell had accused him of appearing to "disregard the issue of risk and cost and toxic waste" and asked for more investment in renewable energy and "clean coal technology". The planning process for power stations is set to be streamlined by changes outlined on Monday. And Chancellor Gordon Brown - who will take over as prime minister in June - is also thought to back building more nuclear power stations. The White Paper was to be published in March, but the government was told to consult again after a legal challenge by environmental campaign group Greenpeace. Anti-nuclear protesters don't understand that at this time there's no alternative Andy, UK Send us your comments The Lib Dems, and some environmental groups, said that allowing new nuclear power stations to be built would draw investment away from renewable energy and other "green technologies" - like carbon capture. Friends of the Earth's Roger Higman told the BBC: "The fear we have is that by investing in nuclear, we will invest in a dangerous, dirty white elephant." For the Green Party, Caroline Lucas said: "By prioritising the construction of new nuclear power stations over reducing demand for energy ... the government is not only missing a trick, it is undermining efforts to tackle climate change." Shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "Whatever the rhetoric, there is nothing in this White Paper that will guarantee that a single nuclear power station will be built." "Business will only invest in nuclear power if it knows its costs - it needs certainty about carbon, decommissioning, and waste." The Tories are in favour of nuclear power as a last resort but oppose subsidies or price guarantees for nuclear firms. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 28 BBC NEWS: 'No showdown' over nuclear power Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 14:04 GMT 15:04 UK Torness is expected to run for at least another 10 years The UK Government has played down suggestions of a showdown between Westminster and Holyrood over the generation of nuclear power. First Minister Alex Salmond has said there was "no chance" of any more being nuclear plants being built in Scotland. However, a UK Government's white paper includes nuclear power as part of a mix of energy sources, alongside energy-saving measures across the UK. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling outlined his plans for the future of Britain's energy. Alongside the energy white paper Mr Darling launched a new consultation on the principle of including nuclear power as part of Britain's energy mix. He told the House of Commons that a decision on nuclear power would have to be taken this year. He said that the consultation period would run until October after which there would have to be a decision on whether the UK should build new nuclear power stations. The government was forced to re-run the consultation process after anti-nuclear campaigners Greenpeace won a High Court ruling which said that the previous consultation had been "seriously flawed". There is already something approaching a deal on the table Political editor Brian Taylor Earlier, Mr Darling told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme that the devolution settlement allowed Scotland to decide on its energy needs. He said: "The Scottish Executive has the planning authority, it also has the right to veto connections to the grid - so they have always had that double lock. "Nothing has changed in that respect." He said that more than a third of Scotland's electricity came from the Torness and Hunterston nuclear stations. "Torness has got probably another 10 to 20 years life in it, so there is going to be nuclear power in Scotland for the foreseeable future," he said. He warned that blanket opposition to nuclear power and to windfarms was not an answer to meeting future energy needs. "Given the problems we face with climate change, given the fact that we cannot go on belching carbon into the atmosphere, given the fact that we are going to become more dependent on importing gas from countries like Russia and the Middle East, we have to have a sensible mix of generation," he said. Although energy policy is not devolved, Scottish ministers have control of the planning system and also have to give consent under the Electricity Act to the construction of new power stations above a certain size. Labour in power in Scotland favoured keeping nuclear as part of the energy mix. A guide to nuclear power But Green MSP Patrick Harvie said: "There is no need for confrontation between Holyrood and Westminster here - just different opinions and options being taken by two governments acting within their competencies. "In Scotland we are awash with renewable resources and we will aim to take advantage of them. "The rest of the UK can do the same but it is a shame there appears to be a willingness in Westminster to cling to the dirty technology of the past." Liberal Democrat leader Nicol Stephen said: "Directing government investment away from wind, wave and tidal power into nuclear would fatally damage Scotland's opportunity to become the renewables power house of Europe. "Nuclear power has a history of hidden costs and is fraught with potential dangers." Scottish Energy Secretary John Swinney said he agreed with Mr Darling on the need for more energy efficiency and the development of renewable power sources. 'Exciting developments' However he told BBC Radio Scotland: "The Scottish government has made its position very, very clear, that we will not support the development of new nuclear power stations." He said it was "more likely" any new nuclear power stations would be sited in the south of England. He added: "I think there's a number of very interesting proposals coming forward in Scotland about how we can develop low carbon energy sources for our power stations. "I think we're on the cusp of some very exciting developments in Scotland." Friends of the Earth Scotland, said Scotland has the capacity to be self-sufficient from renewables and that new nuclear reactors were not needed to tackle climate change. Energy efficiency Chief Executive, Duncan McLaren, said: "Instead of wasting any more time and money on trying to revive polluting nuclear power, the government should be pushing ahead with measures to improve energy efficiency and tap into the whole range of renewable energy resources available to us." As well looking for an increase in renewable energy, Alistair Darling's energy white paper includes measures to encourage householders and businesses to save power. The government want power companies to increase their efforts to promote energy efficiency measures for their customers, and they are calling for businesses such as banks and supermarkets to trade carbon emmissions. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 29 BBC NEWS: Key points: Energy statement Last Updated: Wednesday, 23 May 2007, 13:17 GMT 14:17 UK Key points: Energy statement Here are the key points from Trade Secretary Alistair Darling's statement on the future of nuclear power: Mr Darling said the government had reached a preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power. He said the government would consult further, in a process which will run until October, before making the final decision. He said the government wanted low-carbon sources of energy and would do everything it could to encourage renewables. But Mr Darling added they alone would not be enough to minimise the "cost and risks". The government would consult on the "significant role" new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying power supplies. Mr Darling said it would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, and construct and operate new nuclear plants. There were also important issues to consider, including waste. The amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, he told MPs as he published the Energy White Paper. Mr Darling said a decision was required this year because new nuclear stations took a long time to build. New electricity meters will come with a real-time displays showing energy use from 2008 and there will be a short term offer of free displays from energy suppliers for households to 2010. The government says it expects everyone to have a smart meter within 10 years. A mandatory carbon trading scheme for large organisations such as banks, supermarkets and central government departments. The new Carbon Reduction Commitment "will be a cost-effective scheme that will save over a million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020". More support for wind, wave, tidal and other emerging technologies. Legislation to allow storage of natural gas under the seabed and the "unloading of liquefied natural gas at sea. Mr Darling said the government was in talks with a "half a dozen" companies about Carbon Capture and Storage technology. He said it would "take time" to set up a CCS system but Britain was at the "forefront" of developing such technology. White Paper gives more details on competition to build the first CCS plant to be up and running by 2014. Ł20m for public procurement of low carbon vehicles and extra Ł235m for green transport research. He said he had changed his mind on nuclear power, saying "I used to be sceptical" but had been persuaded by the need to cut carbon emissions as "nuclear is low carbon". It was also needed as Britain was running out of oil and gas, he said. He said he was reluctant to say "let's abandon nuclear" because Carbon Capture and Storage "may never work" or be available. He said tidal power was "in its infancy" but the government wanted to encourage its development. He said there had not been enough research done on the benefits of reducing carbon emissions using tidal power, with all the emphasis placed on the negative impact on the immediate environment on the River Severn and other areas where wave power could be harnessed. He said "there is a lot coal still available to me mined" in the UK but he could not force energy suppliers to buy it instead of imported coal. He said he wanted to "encourage" the extraction of UK coal where it was economically and environmentally viable. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 30 Platts: Areva to build uranium hexafluoride conversion complex 2007-05-21 Paris (Platts)--21May2007 Areva will invest 610 million euros to build a new uranium hexafluoride conversion complex at Malvesi and Pierrelatte, company officials said May 21. Christian Barandas, director of the Chemistry business unit of Areva NC (the former Cogema), said the new complex would be capable of converting 15,000 metric tons uranium a year by 2012, up from 14,000 mtU/year for the existing complex. He said the complex could ramp up to 21,000 mtU/year, depending on demand, possibly by around 2015. Sight preparatory work will begin this summer and work on the nuclear facilities is expected to start in early 2009, he said. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 31 Platts: Browns Ferry-1 restarting after being idle for 22 years 2007-05-22 Washington (Platts)--22May2007 Browns Ferry-1 achieved criticality at 12:28 am local time May 22, the Tennessee Valley Authority said. Operators will gradually increase power over the next several days and will test secondary plant systems to ensure they operate as designed, TVA said in a statement. TVA said it would continue to conduct tests during the next several weeks, including some brief connections to the grid followed by automatic shutdowns, before reconnecting for routine operation. All three Browns Ferry units were shut in March 1985 to address various performance and management deficiencies. Unit 2 went critical on May 24, 1991; unit 3 returned in November 1995. For more details, see the May 24 Nucleonics Week issue. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 32 ITN: Row over nuclear power rumbles on 22.00 Wed May 23 2007 The Government is to begin consulting on a new generation of nuclear power plants. "Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like a couch potato taking up smoking to lose weight" - Greenpeace's executive director John Sauven Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the Government had reached a "preliminary view" to allow energy companies to invest in new reactors. But he said a final decision on any new projects would not be taken until after a consultation process which will run until October. Mr Darling said the new measures in the Energy White Paper were aimed at tackling two problems - the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and securing energy supply. He told MPS: "Both are vital for our future. Both are global issues, calling for action internationally as well as action here at home." He said nuclear energy currently provided 18 per cent of UK electricity, but most of the power stations were due to close over the next ten to 20 years. "Quite simply, in the public interest we need to make a decision this year on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear because new stations take a long time to build," he said. Earlier, Prime Minister Tony Blair told MPs the "issue of nuclear power" has got to be "on the agenda". But shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said: "Whatever the rhetoric, there is nothing in this White Paper that will guarantee that a single nuclear power station will be built". Greenpeace, which obtained a legal victory earlier this year after complaining that the Government's energy review is "seriously flawed", said policies are needed to "transform" the way energy is consumed and delivered. Executive director John Sauven said: "The government's current energy strategy simply won't put us on a path to delivering the kinds of cuts needed to combat climate change." He added: "Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like a couch potato taking up smoking to lose weight. "It doesn't deal with the problem, wastes money better spent elsewhere and brings huge problems of its own. That's why Tony Blair had to fix the energy review to get the answer he wanted." And the Green Party's principal speaker Sian Berry said: "If the government do go down the nuclear route, they will be committing the UK to a dirty, dangerous and astronomically expensive future. "Moreover, support for nuclear power will come at the cost of damaging the fledgling renewables industry. "The UK has the potential to become a world leader in the young, clean and cutting-edge renewable energy industry but, instead, Gordon Brown wants to continue shovelling taxpayers' cash into the ailing nuclear industry. If he tries this, he will face strong opposition from people all over the UK." Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokeswoman Susan Kramer added: "The government is in danger of missing the opportunity to tackle climate change without resorting to the expensive mistake of nuclear power." ***************************************************************** 33 Platts: UK favors nuclear but govt to consult to October before decision 2007-05-23 London (Platts)--23May2007 The UK government Wednesday said it would wait until October before making a final decision on the role of nuclear power in the country. Trade and Industry Secretary Alastair Darling told Parliament that a new consultation on nuclear power would run until October 10. "We will consult on the significant role that new nuclear power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying our supply," Darling said. The government's preliminary view favors nuclear power, he added. The energy white paper sets the government's long-term policy goals and is a blueprint for legislation that will affect energy infrastructure, climate change-related regulations and environmental rules. The UK's Association of Electricity Producers estimates that companies will need to invest about GBP20 billion (Eur29.5 billion, $39.6 billion) in new power stations by 2020 to replace ageing units and meet rising demand. The white paper is expected to help determine the mix of investment--in nuclear, coal, gas and renewables. Some companies have been pushing the government to encourage nuclear development as a technology with low CO2 emissions and high energy output. "We are driving it forward because decisions are needed on replacement generation now. The rest of the world is waking up to the importance of nuclear. We must make decisions now so that the UK is not at the back of the global queue," British Energy CEO Bill Coley said Wednesday in a statement. British Energy is the country's largest generator and operates eight nuclear power stations that have a combined capacity of almost 10 GW. Others see nuclear as the wrong choice and a potential diversion from renewable sources of energy, such as wind and marine power. Opposition politicians also reacted. "There is nothing in this white paper that will guarantee that a single nuclear power station will be built," Alan Duncan, shadow trade and industry secretary said on Radio 4's Today program Wednesday (see story 09:01 GMT). "Nuclear power has a history of hidden costs and is fraught with potential dangers. There is also still the unanswered question of what to do with all the radioactive waste," said Liberal Democrat trade and industry secretary Susan Kramer said Tuesday in a statement. For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 34 Tennessean: TVA restarts nuclear reactor in Alabama - Nashville, Tennessee - Wednesday, 05/23/07 - Tennessean.com By JAY REEVES Associated Press BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Tennessee Valley Authority restarted the third and final reactor at its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant early Tuesday, ending a 22-year shutdown prompted by safety concerns at what was once America's largest nuclear plant. TVA, the nation's largest public utility, said the restart capped an exhaustive program that brought the reactor up to modern standards. A watchdog group, however, pointed to the plant's history of problems and questioned whether the reactor should be operating at all. The Unit 1 reactor began a self-sustaining nuclear reaction at 12:28 a.m. CST, capping a five-year, $1.8 billion renovation. Browns Ferry is on the banks of the Tennessee River about 110 miles south of Nashville. Plant spokesman Craig Beasley said there were no reports of problems, and the other two reactors at Browns Ferry remained at full power. "Returning Browns Ferry Unit 1 to our nuclear fleet gives TVA another dependable, safe and emissions-free source of generation to help meet the growing demand for power in the Tennessee Valley," TVA chief executive Tom Kilgore said in a statement. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave final approval for the restart last week. Beasley said extensive testing remained to be done before electricity from Unit 1 began flowing on transmission lines. Sara Barczak, safe energy director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said Browns Ferry has an "infamous history" that poses concerns even after the refurbishment. Reactors are most likely to have problems during and shortly after startups or as they age, she said, and Unit 1 falls into both categories because of its history, which includes a 1975 fire that was then the nation's worst nuclear power accident. Tennessean.com and its related sites are pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the Internet makes it Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Chillicothe Gazette: NRC says inspections key to plant safety www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Wednesday, May 23, 2007 By LOREN GENSON Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON - Federal and regional officials with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission attempted to lay residents' fears to rest Tuesday night through an explanation of the inspection process which will begin as they oversee the construction of the American Centrifuge Plant. Local residents got a chance to look over the inspection program set by the NRC for the plant which will be located in Piketon on land and buildings leased from the U.S. Department of Energy. The American Centrifuge Plant is owned by USEC, an energy company that hopes to utilize new uranium enrichment technology. The plant was licensed by the NRC in April, and construction is set to begin this month. The NRC will monitor the construction, completion and operation of the plant due to the highly sensitive nature of the uranium that will be handled. "We have standards of safety from a radiation standpoint," said Jay Henson, chief of the Fuel Facility Inspection Branch which covers the Piketon plant. "They cannot introduce uranium until we verify they meet the regulatory and license requirements." The license will be good for 30 years. NRC officials will do periodic inspections of the plant during that time to ensure their regulations are being followed. "There are 600 hours or so of inspection time per year," Henson said. He also said there would be inspection of the construction and staff training at the plant. "We want to be there when they're training their staff, we want to be there when they pour concrete," Henson said. "We want to observe what they're doing and ensure they're following the process." Some residents still had concerns over the safety at the facility, including Vina Colley, who had worked at the Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "Are you going to be inspecting the way they do maintenance?" Colley asked. "Because when I worked there, that's when I got sick was when they did maintenance, and that's why a lot of my co-workers are dying." The NRC could not speak to previous conditions, but did say under its license and inspection, maintenance operations would be looked at carefully. "A lot of these complaints stem from previous operations at the site prior to NRC licensing," said Brian Smith, chief of the Enrichment and Conversion Branch of the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards with the NRC. "We will be making sure that current operations meet the regulations and standards we have for the site." The NRC awarded the license to USEC for the American Centrifuge Plant operations only after a mandatory hearing in March. No contested hearing was conducted, although two local groups raised concerns about the facility. Colley's group, Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security (PRESS), and local resident Geoffrey Sea of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group, or SONG, have spoken out against USEC's intended use of the plant. Sea said one of his biggest concerns about the site is he believes USEC will not be able to complete construction on the project. "USEC has informed its shareholders it may not be able to fund this project and may have to abandon it," Sea said. "What would happen to this site if that happens?" The NRC said they would be able to take action if no activity was conducted at the site in 24 months, but Henson said the chances of USEC continuing to pay licensing fees while the site lay idle made little sense. "Our licensing fees are very high," Henson said. "It's expensive to have a license. It wouldn't make good business sense to have a license and not use the site, and if they don't pay their license fee then we can intervene and take action." Construction on the facility will begin this month and the first production is expected to begin in late 2009, with full production expected in 2012. Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 36 London Times: Darling dismisses 'daft' anti-nuclear lobby and unveils energy strategy- May 23, 2007 Nico Hines Eco-Worrier: what do you think of it? The Trade and Industry Secretary denounced critics of nuclear energy as “daft” today and told Parliament it was in the public interest to allow the building of new nuclear power stations, as he outlined a strategy for dealing with the country’s energy needs. Alastair Darling announced that the Government will launch a public consultation into nuclear power and outline plans to incentivise energy companies to help their customers to cut energy use. “We face two big challenges - climate change and maintaining stable and affordable energy supply in an increasingly unstable world,” Mr Darling told MPs as he unveiled the Government's energy White Paper. “With a third of our current electricity generation capacity due to close in the next 20 years, there is also a pressing need for investment in new low carbon sources.” The Industry Secretary set a deadline for a final decision on nuclear energy, which has faced numerous delays. “Quite simply, in the public interest we need to make a decision this year on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear because new stations take a long time to build,” he said. The White Paper outlined plans to reduce reliance on fossil fuels by tripling sustainable energy output by 2015, reducing energy use and launching a consultation into nuclear power. “With the measures we are proposing across government on energy and the wider environment we can cut emissions by between 23-33 million tonnes of carbon by 2020 - the equivalent of removing all the emissions that we get from every car, van and lorry on Britain’s roads today,” Mr Darling said. Alan Duncan, shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, derided what he called a lack of concrete proposals in the White Paper. He demanded that the Government guaranteed that further nuclear power stations would be built. He also criticised the lack of progress on carbon capture, which could help to reduce the release of carbon emissions. “It heralds the collapse of carbon capture, it continues an irrational regime for carbon penalties and incentives, it provides little or no prospect of hitting renewables targets, it does not offer the security we need,” Mr Duncan told MPs. “Ten months after the energy review it is still content free, not carbon free.” Mr Darling insisted nuclear energy was the only way to prevent increasing carbon dioxide emissions and end the reliance on “the whims of foreign governments” for UK energy supplies. “To say no to nuclear and there are many people saying no to new wind farms, that’s daft, it would needlessly expose the country,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning. “I came to this as a nuclear sceptic, but the facts have changed.” The Government has been forced into a full public consultation after Greenpeace won a court challenge in February, which found serious flaws in the initial consultation on nuclear power. The Times reveals today that work has already begun to license new nuclear power stations, despite the new consultation. The Health and Safety Executive, a Government agency, has received one formal application for the design of a nuclear station and three further expressions of interest. Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, accused the Government of disregarding concerns about risk, cost and toxic waste of nuclear power during Prime Minister's Questions. "Why are you so committed to nuclear power in a way which suggests you disregard the issue of risk and cost and toxic waste? "Where is the investment in wave, wind and tidal power and clean coal technology that would give us a secure, non-nuclear future?" Tony Blair replied that nuclear power had to be put on the agenda if Britain was to have secure energy supplies and reduce carbon emissions. "Let's be absolutely clear about this. We are not going to be able to make up through wind farms all the deficit on nuclear power. We are just not going to be able to do it," he said. The Government insist that nuclear energy is the only way to meet European Union aims to get 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and a draft law going through the British parliament calling for the country to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Greenpeace has dismissed the idea that nuclear power plants should be used to tackle climate change. John Sauven, director of the environmental charity said: "Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like a couch potato taking up smoking to lose weight. It doesn't deal with the problem, wastes money better spent elsewhere, and brings huge problems of its own." Mr Darling suggested that with diplomatic relations with Russia at their worst level since the Cold War, and instability in the Middle East, the UK must become more self-sufficient in energy. North Sea oil reserves are dwindling and the Government claims that nuclear power is the only viable option to make up the shortfall. "It would be a profound mistake for us to exclude a low carbon source and one where we could actually generate energy here at home and be less dependent on the whims of foreign governments as to whether or not we get the gas to heat our houses," he told the Today programme. In an article in The Times today Mr Blair wrote: "We are now faced with countries such as Russia, who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy. Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country's future as defence." © Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd ***************************************************************** 37 APP.COM: Meeting tonight on nuclear plant safety | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, May 23, 2007 TOMS RIVER: The public will have an opportunity to hear how the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant performed last year in terms of safety during a meeting 7 p.m. tonight between officials from the plant and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulators will hold an open house starting at 5:30 p.m. for any member of the public who would like to speak one-on-one with the individuals responsible for making sure that the Lacey plant runs safely. The open house and the meeting will be held at the plant's emergency operations facility, 1268 Route 37 West in Toms River. Nick Clunn Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 APP.COM: Oyster Creek front and center | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Post Comment Anyone with an interest in the fate of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant should try to clear their calendars for two meetings to be held in Toms River in the next eight days. It's doubtful the meetings will change the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's mind about granting the Lacey plant a 20-year license extension. But they should prove enlightening for members of the public still undecided about whether Oyster Creek should be allowed to continue operating and whether the NRC has done all it can to protect the health and safety of the public. The first meeting, tonight at 7 at the Emergency Operations Facility on Route 37, is the annual safety assessment. The NRC will review the plant's performance in 2006 and take questions from the audience. While the meeting is unrelated to AmerGen's license renewal request, some of the NRC staff members involved in reviewing Oyster Creek's application will be available for questioning at 5:30 p.m., prior to the start of the meeting. Among those expected to be on hand is Sam Collins, the NRC's Northeast regional administrator. The activists fighting Oyster Creek's license renewal can be expected to ask the tough questions the NRC has avoided answering — or given weak or misleading responses to — since the license renewal process began 18 months ago. It will be interesting to see how many of those questions are answered. The second meeting, related to the relicensing process, will be held May 31 at the Ocean County Administration Building on Hooper Avenue. The topic will be the status of the drywell liner, a steel barrier surrounding the reactor vessel. The drywell, and its ability to contain highly pressurized and radioactive steam in the event of an accident, has been a major source of contention during the relicensing process. If concerns about the drywell aren't satisfactorily addressed, a decision on license approval could be delayed until early next year. There is little drama about whether the NRC will ultimately approve license renewal for Oyster Creek. But there is plenty of doubt about whether such approval will survive challenges in the courts. The upcoming meetings may provide some insights into whether the NRC or the plant's opponents will prevail. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 AFP: Blair argues for nuclear power as govt publishes proposals - Wed May 23, 6:18 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Departing Prime Minister Tony Blair has put forth the case for a new generation of nuclear power stations as his government is set to publish Wednesday proposals to secure the country's energy supplies. The proposals come after the government suffered a political blow in February when the High Court ruled that a decision last year to approve plans for new nuclear power plants was illegal because public consultations were flawed. Writing in The Times, Blair said that "it is right that we consider how nuclear power can help to underpin the security of our energy supply without increasing our reliance on fossil fuels." "We can meet our carbon dioxide emissions targets, but only if we are willing to think ahead and take tough decisions over new wind farms -- and give serious consideration to nuclear power." His comments were set to kick off a debate on Britain's energy security and how the government would also meet its legally-binding targets of reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent by 2050, against a 1990 baseline. Britain has about a dozen nuclear power stations, most of them built in the 1960s and 1970s, providing about 25 percent of the country's electricity, compared with natural gas which provides about 40 percent. Advocates of new reactors -- which emit virtually no carbon dioxide -- argue they would help Britain meet its pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Blair, who will be succeeded by Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown on June 27, wrote that Britain faces "a serious challenge in securing our energy supplies ... we will be required to look at importing energy from less stable parts of the world." He added that Britain will be exposed to international energy markets "at precisely the same time that emerging economies, such as China and India, are increasing their energy consumption. "As if that were not enough, we are now faced with countries such as Russia, who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy." Blair continued: "We need a policy that conforms to the rising concern about climate change and gives Britain the secure, safe and politically acceptable supplies of energy that our livelihood demands." British Energy Photo: The Dungeness B power station in Kent. Departing Prime Minister Tony Blair has put forth... Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 40 AFP: Govt launches energy blueprint, stresses importance of nuclear - Wed May 23, 10:46 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - The government has outlined a plan for how to meet the country's future energy needs Wednesday, stressing nuclear power will likely play a key role. The Energy White Paper, which aims to tackle looming problems of climate change and energy security, was launched alongside a five-month public consultation on the use of nuclear power. Ministers want to increase the amount of energy from low carbon sources by encouraging more nuclear power and overseeing a threefold increase in energy generated from renewable sources -- from five to 15 percent -- by 2015. "It is right that we consider how nuclear power can help to underpin the security of our energy supply without increasing our reliance on fossil fuels," Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an article for Wednesday's edition of The Times. Britain currently has 12 nuclear sites, many built in the 1960s and 1970s, which generate about 25 percent of the country's electricity. Ministers plan to allow the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear power stations but it is not yet clear how many there would be or how much energy they would generate. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling told lawmakers in the House of Commons that a final decision on future nuclear power plants would be taken later this year. "We have reached the preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power," he said. "But before we make our decision we are consulting further." The government gave the go-ahead for new nuclear power stations last July but in February, London's High Court ordered it back to the drawing board after ruling that its consultation on the issue had been "seriously flawed." Final plans will be approved when current finance minister Gordon Brown, who also reportedly backs building more nuclear power stations, is prime minister -- he is due to take over from Blair on June 27. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Reuters: Energy plan set to support nuclear option Wed May 23, 2007 10:36AM BST By Jeremy Lovell LONDON (Reuters) - The government will underline its support for nuclear power on Wednesday as it sets out plans for a major policy shake-up to secure energy supplies and fight global warming. Britain's oil and gas from the North Sea are dwindling and it well remembers how Russia, which supplies 40 percent of Europe's gas, disrupted supplies last year. It also wants to meet its carbon emission cut targets. "We are now faced with countries such as Russia who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy," Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in The Times. "We need a policy that conforms to the rising concern about climate change and gives Britain the secure, safe and politically acceptable supplies of energy that our livelihood demands," he added. The government wants more energy from renewable sources and to encourage businesses and individuals to cut electricity use. The European Union aims to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and a draft law going through parliament calls for the country to cut emissions of climate warming carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050. But Blair and many of his ministers insist Britain must have a new generation of nuclear power plants to replace the 20 percent of electric power its ageing network provides. "If we knock out nuclear and say no more under any circumstances, that means we will have to import more gas and we run the risk of putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere," Industry Minister Alistair Darling told BBC radio. The Energy White Paper that Darling will present to parliament on Wednesday will cover all the energy options and make it clear that the government wants nuclear power -- to the outrage of many environmentalists. But because it was rapped over the knuckles earlier this year for failing to consult the public adequately on the nuclear issue, the government will also on Wednesday be forced to launch a full consultation process lasting several months. All but one of the existing nuclear power plants is due to close by 2023 and even the most optimistic pro-nuclear lobbyists reckon it will take a minimum of 10 years to build a new plant from scratch. Photo The government says no public money will go into new nuclear plants. But there is no clear evidence that private sector finance will be on offer for an industry that sucks up capital at the outset and has no guaranteed return. Major utility EDF Energy, whose parent company runs the fleet of reactors supplying some 80 percent of France's electric power, has proposed a "carbon hedge" in which the government basically underwrites the price of carbon. While new nuclear plants are likely to be by far the most controversial topic on Wednesday they will not be the only one. The Energy White Paper will promote the search for carbon capture and storage -- a potential huge money spinner in exports to countries such as China and India with large coal supplies and booming energy demand. It will also promote energy saving by businesses, call for more investment in renewable technologies such as wind and waves, back an extension of trading in carbon emission permits, urge greater energy efficiency and support micro-generation such as rooftop solar panels and wind turbines. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 42 Reuters: Major energy policy shake-up unveiled Wed May 23, 2007 3:17PM BST LONDON - The government on Wednesday set out radical plans to secure energy supplies and fight global warming, calling for new nuclear power plants, more renewables and also stressing key roles for businesses and individuals. Presenting his Energy White Paper to parliament, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government aimed to triple electricity from renewable sources by 2015, to consult widely on nuclear power and to have a carbon capture and storage power plant operating by 2014. Oil and gas from the North Sea are dwindling and the government well remembers how Russia, which supplies 40 percent of Europe's gas, disrupted supplies last year. It also wants to meet its carbon emission cut targets. "We are now faced with countries such as Russia who are prepared to use their energy resources as an instrument of policy," Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in The Times. "We need a policy that conforms to the rising concern about climate change and gives Britain the secure, safe and politically acceptable supplies of energy that our livelihood demands," he added. The government wants more energy from renewable sources and to encourage businesses and individuals to cut electricity use. The European Union aims to get 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, and a draft law going through parliament calls for the country to cut emissions of climate warming carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050. But Blair and many of his ministers insist Britain must have a new generation of nuclear power plants to replace the 20 percent of electric power its ageing network provides. "If we knock out nuclear and say no more under any circumstances, that means we will have to import more gas and we run the risk of putting more and more carbon into the atmosphere," Industry Minister Alistair Darling told BBC radio. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 43 Reuters: UK to bury old nuclear plants Wed May 23, 2007 3:22PM EDT By Sylvia Westall OLDBURY POWER STATION (Reuters) - Warm pipes in the reactor building and the quiet hum of a turbine are signs of the powerful chain reaction taking place at Oldbury nuclear power station, but it will not be operating much longer. All but one of Britain's nuclear power stations will be shut by 2023, and the government insists it must make a decision this year on whether to build new nuclear power plants. Publishing an energy policy document on Wednesday, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said the government had reached a "preliminary view that it would be in the public interest to allow energy companies to invest in nuclear power." Decommissioning ageing nuclear plants, like 40-year-old Oldbury in western England, and storing their toxic waste will cost around 70 billion pounds ($138.3 billion), according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. "It will be sad, this will all be buried underground," said Robin Beeby, defueling manager, looking out over hundreds of cooling pipes criss-crossing Oldbury's turbine hall. Workers not involved in the shutdown will hang up their yellow protective bodysuits and walk through the digital contamination detector for the last time in December 2008 when the plant stops pumping power to the national grid. The complete Oldbury shutdown will cost around 1 billion pounds and could take 110 years, nearly three times longer than the plant has been in operation. Site Director Joe Lamonby said many people living in the area would like the site eventually covered by green fields to blend into the surrounding area, even if it is not within their lifetime. "We could return it to a green field site but that would be more expensive than using it for another industry or indeed another nuclear site," he said. Darling said on Wednesday it would make sense for any new nuclear plants to be built alongside existing ones, because all the necessary infrastructure and links to the National Grid were already there. Deep inside Oldbury's two concrete reactors, the remote controlled refueling machine, the size of a small industrial crane, will work around the clock to remove the 53,000 radioactive fuel rods from the 360 degrees Celsius core. By 2109, only the empty reactor shells will mark the skyline over the banks of the River Severn and nine years later, all will be gone, unless another company decides to build a new plant in its place. Lamonby said some local residents will regret the closure. "A lot of them are supportive because they have lived with the site for the best part of 40 years. They like us being here because we are quite a good neighbor -- we bring a lot of income into the area." NEW POWER The River Severn estuary has the second highest tides in the world and is often proposed as a potential energy source. But the nuclear industry says power generated from renewable sources, such as wave power, cannot alone satisfy growing energy demand. "Wave power can provide a degree of (power) but it hasn't really been built on a scale to replace a modern 1,000 megawatt or 2,000 megawatt plant," Lamonby said. When working at full capacity, even the dated Oldbury site can produce up to 435 megawatts of electricity, enough to power two medium-size cities. While nuclear plants now supply about 20 percent of Britain's electricity, environmental groups oppose plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations. "The necessary cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved without resorting to the nuclear option," environmental group WWF said in a report last week. The government, which aims to cut Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 percent by 2050, has emphasized the environmental benefits of nuclear power, which produces far fewer harmful emissions than plants fired by coal and gas. However, environmentalists highlight the expense of new nuclear power stations and the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste. They say coastal nuclear plants could be at risk of flooding from rising sea levels. Greenpeace said on Wednesday that Prime Minister Tony Blair was "dangerously wrong" to think nuclear power was the answer to climate change. "Replacing our whole fleet of nuclear power stations would reduce our carbon emissions by just four percent," it said. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Reuters: U.S., India must compromise on nuclear deal Wed May 23, 2007 1:35PM EDT By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There has been some backsliding on the landmark U.S.-India nuclear agreement and both sides must compromise in order to close the gaps, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said on Wednesday. Burns said he would call Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon in the next two days to plan a date for a trip to New Delhi, which was postponed, but is now expected "in the next week or two." "It's going to require a little bit more hard work and some compromise on the part of the United States and the Indian governments to complete the deal, but I'm confident we can do that," Burns said. The much-heralded agreement would give India access to U.S. nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in 30 years, even though New Delhi tested nuclear weapons and never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Burns acknowledged completing the deal has been tougher than anticipated. But he stressed: "This agreement is too important for both of the governments and the private sectors of both countries for us to allow any temporary disagreements or backsliding in progress to be cemented." "Both sides need to compromise in order to reach a final agreement. Both of us are responsible for this agreement. I believe the Indian government has the best of will and the best of intentions. It's an enormously complex agreement," he added. Burns predicted a "major effort" in the next several weeks to bring the deal to a conclusion. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 Reuters: India, U.S. to hold more talks on nuclear deal Wed May 23, 2007 10:01AM EDT NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India and the United States will hold more talks to bridge differences over a landmark nuclear cooperation deal, seen as the touchstone of new warmth between the two nations, an Indian spokesman said on Wednesday. Technical experts of the two countries held talks in London on Monday and Tuesday over a bilateral pact that the two sides have struggled to agree on, making halting progress. "During these discussions, we have clarified certain concepts and exchanged ideas, making further progress towards a mutually agreed text," Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna told a news briefing. "Some further work is required to bridge the remaining gaps, so both sides have agreed that discussions will continue," he said, but added that no dates had been set for fresh talks. On Tuesday, a U.S. official told Reuters in Washington that he had not received a full report on the London talks but "there was not a lot of progress" when negotiators met on Monday. The deal aims to overturn a three-decade U.S. ban on sale of nuclear plants and fuel to India to help meet its soaring energy needs, even though it has tested nuclear weapons and not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It was passed into law by the U.S. Congress in December but a bilateral agreement which lays out the terms of nuclear trade has run into trouble, as New Delhi says new conditions unacceptable to it have been included. Senior officials of the two countries met in Washington earlier this month and said they had made extensive progress towards salvaging the landmark deal that has faced opposition from nuclear lobbies in both countries. However, new doubts arose after a planned visit to New Delhi set for later this month by Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the chief U.S. negotiator, was put off last week. Sarna said there was no word yet on dates for Burns' visit. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Norway Post: Norwegian industry wants nuclear energy 23.05.2007 08:07 Norsk Industri CEO, Stein Lier-Hansen, says to NRK that an energy demanding society like Norway's needs nuclear energy more than ever. - The demand for energy must be met without releasing more greenhouse gases like CO2. Nuclear energy is the best alternative, he says. He is supported by industrial leaders across Norway, interviewed by public broadcaster NRK. The only industrial leader interviewed by NRK, who is sceptical to Norwegian nuclear power, is StatoiHydro's chairman of the board, Eivind Reiten. - In my opinion, we have other and better possibilities in Norway, especially by developing the technology around the catching and depositiong of CO2, Reiten says. Norway has some of the world's largest deposits of Thorium. According to experts, reactors driven with Thorium will never be exposed to a melt-down. In addition, the problem with nuclear waste is minimal. (NRK) Rolleiv Solholm Imaker Content Management Systems - © 1996 - 2005 Imaker as ***************************************************************** 47 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin to replace parts of turbines, raise capacity by 52MW - By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 23 May 2007 CTK ÄŚEZ has begun upgrading the controversial TemelĂ­n power plant Temelin, May 22 (CTK) - Czech power company CEZ has started replacing parts of the turbines at both units of the Temelin nuclear power plant which will raise their capacity by at least 26MW each to 1,020 MW, Temelin and Skoda Power representatives told reporters today. The replacement will also extend the turbines' life span and will cost Kc700m. CEZ hopes the investment to return in three years. The replacement currently takes place at the second block which is shut down and the first unit will follow in August. The turbines are 22 years old. CEZ had some problems with their vibration in the past. The problems have been resolved last year but CEZ still decided to renovate the turbines. "We want Temelin's output to grow from the current 12 to 15 terawatthours of electricity a year in three-to-four years," said Temelin's director Vladimir Hlavinka. "The renovation will help secure a reliable and economical operation of the plant at least until 2042," said Jiri Smondrk of Skoda Power which supplies the components. But non-governmental organisations have said the replacement iss evidence that Temelin is an unfinished plant. "Besides, the frequent shutdowns may affect the primary circuit, namely cause a faster ageing of the reactor vessel due to temperature changes," Pavel Vlcek from the OIZP environmentalist organisation told CTK. CEZ has already modernised turbines at the 3rd and 4th units of the nuclear power plant in Dukovany, southern Moravia. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 International Business Times: Hitachi, GE to Build Power Plant in Va. - Posted 23 May 2007 @ 04:49 am EST Japan's Hitachi Ltd. said Wednesday it will team up with General Electric Co. to build a nuclear power plant with a next-generation reactor in the U.S. state of Virginia. U.S. power utility Dominion Resources Inc. has asked the two companies to build the nuclear reactor at its North Anna Power Station in central Virginia, a Hitachi spokesman said. The 1,500-megawatt reactor will be built on the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, or ESBWR, configuration, Hitachi said. U.S.-based GE announced the deal earlier in May. Dominion will ink a formal business agreement with Hitachi and GE by September, The Nikkei, Japan's leading business daily, reported in its Wednesday morning edition. Construction on the plant could begin as early as 2010, the report said, with the power plant going into production in 2014. The Nikkei said the project is valued at more than 200 billion yen ($1.6 billion). Hitachi declined to specify the value of the order. The ESBWR configuration includes next-generation technology such as storing cold water in the ceiling of the reactor so that in emergencies water can be released to cool the interior with minimal use of pumps, The Nikkei said. GE and Hitachi recently agreed to proceed with plans to create a global alliance of their nuclear businesses. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. © 2007 The Ibtimes Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms of service | ***************************************************************** 49 Reuters: Nuclear power plants worldwide 23 May 2007 11:57:40 GMT LONDON, May 23 (Reuters) - Britain on Wednesday gave the strongest signal yet that it wants a new fleet of nuclear power plants to be built as part of its plan to secure energy supplies and combat global warming. Nuclear power supplies some 20 percent of the country's electricity, but most of the stations are to be closed within a decade due to old age, and the youngest one -- Sizewell B -- is due to close in 2035. Nuclear power proponents say it is a clean power source that, in contrast to fossil fuels, does not emit climate warming carbon dioxide. They also say its fuel can be easily stockpiled and does not leave countries at the mercy of oil and gas exporting nations such as Russia. Following are some facts about nuclear power: * Nuclear power supplies 16 percent of the world's electricity and 34 percent of the European Union's. * 15 of the EU's 27 members have nuclear power plants, with the percentage of electricity supplied ranging from 78 percent in France to just 3.5 percent in the Netherlands. * Attitudes vary across the bloc. France has committed to renewing its reactor fleet, Finland is building a new plant, Germany and Sweden have committed to phasing out nuclear power and the Dutch have reversed a previous decision to phase it out. * Italy used to have four nuclear power reactors, but it shut down the last two following the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Consideration is being given to building of new nuclear capacity. * Nuclear power accounts for 20 percent of electricity in the United States and the government is actively promoting new nuclear plants through tax breaks. * Boom economy China gets just 1.9 percent of its electricity from 11 nuclear reactors, but four more are under construction, 23 are in the planning stages and there are proposals for another 54. * Worldwide there are 437 working reactors, with another 30 under construction, 74 planned and 162 proposed. Statistics from the World Nuclear Association. ***************************************************************** 50 Guardian Unlimited: Power trip Opinion With concern that the government is already committed to new nuclear build, a transparent and inclusive consultation process is vital Paul Dorfman Wednesday May 23, 2007 The public mistrust of policy decision-making on issues involving nuclear risk is a defining issue of the energy white paper that the trade and industry secretary, Alistair Darling, presents to parliament today. This is because the way government consults with the public has significantly changed since a high court decision by Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the 2006 energy review consultation was "misleading", "seriously flawed", and "manifestly inadequate and unfair". In other words, the consultation had totally failed. It was ill-conceived, carried out over too short a timescale, and did not involve the public in any meaningful way. Although the government had promised "the fullest public consultation", what it offered was a tick-box exercise that provided limited useful information, and did not allow for full and frank disclosure of all the important issues underpinning energy production and nuclear risk. The judge said that fresh discussions on the economics of new nuclear build, and how to store the resulting radioactive waste, were needed as "consultation was a right, not a privilege". So the government is now expanding these consultations to encompass the wider "principles" of whether more nuclear power is needed, and Gordon Brown is said to be keen to lead the debate over Britain's future energy policy, given that it will be one of the key decisions to be taken under a Brown premiership. However, there still seems to be widespread concern that government has already made up its mind. In an unguarded moment following the judicial review ruling, Tony Blair's response was: "This will change the consultation ... this won't affect the policy at all." The Department of Trade and Industry, which will run the consultation, has also said that it continues to believe nuclear power has a role to play in cutting emissions and helping to give this country the energy security it needs. Indeed, during a parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group conference last week, Lord Whitty, former parliamentary under-secretary of state for farming, food and sustainable energy, said that the government was going to give new nuclear power an "amber light", a "presumption for" in the energy white paper, including prelicensing of reactor design. Furthermore, on Monday this week, communities and local government minister Ruth Kelly published a planning white paper that limits public rights of opposition and fast-tracks major building projects, such as nuclear new-build. The Independent Planning Commission will have the final say in all but the most sensitive projects and the principle of "presumption in favour" of major projects as long as they conform to a declared national need. Such a streamlining of the process would take years off planning applications and clear away one of the major obstacles to private investment in new nuclear power stations. Meanwhile, industry is gearing up: British Energy and French utility company EDF are trying to interest Scottish gas-owner Centrica to join them in building a possible new nuclear plant in the UK. But although it looks sewn up, it is not over. The DTI must still get through the consultation. The question is how? An accumulating public sense of a lack of independence and a lack of transparency behind government initiatives in this area, and a hidden industry agenda belittling the problems and advancing preordained solutions seem to emit a strong whiff of mortgaging the long-term future to short-term interests. The questions are many, and important. How will significant "what if" issues - such as nuclear fuel supply and manufacture, vulnerability to attack, waste, radiation risk, decommissioning, reactor siting, costs of electricity-generating technologies, true renewable and energy efficiency modelling - be taken into account during the consultation? Will the consultation be directed by the DTI, and how will information about these issues be presented? In order to overcome the widespread belief that institutions wishing to impose their arbitrary actions upon the public may be secretive, all the key propositions and assumptions must be made explicit in any case that is put forward for new nuclear power stations. In order to access true public opinion about such a high-stakes issue, the consultation needs to be clear, integrated, independent and conducted over a long enough timeframe. Failure to do so would leave the government vulnerable to legal challenge and lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy policy decision. It is not good enough to ask a few audiences in a few short meetings over a few short months to make complex judgments about how best to power our society - we may as well have a consultation worthy of the significance of the issue. We need open information, enough time to think the issues through, a fair hearing for all sides, and a consultation structure that "outs" all the what-if questions by setting the nuclear issue within the wider energy production, consumption and efficiency contexts. The key here is information provision, the first pillar of the EU Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. This aims to ensure that the public is informed about its environment and that its role in decision-making is on an informed basis. On this basis, and to ensure an even playing field, it is critical that all sides of the debate are heard. This means that those consulted should hear evidence not only from the DTI and industry, but also from the Sustainable Development Commission, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Green Alliance. A general rule of consultation processes is that those who define the scope, remit and function often achieve the outcome they desire. Get your ducks in a line, and a predetermined outcome emerges. In order to establish a framework that ensures that the consultation is conducted in a transparent and fair and involving manner, and in the light of the judicial review ruling, it is not too late for the government to exercise political will and get this right. The extent of mistrust of the institutions and the institutional culture underpinning nuclear power underlines that this is a public mood that, although not immutable, has been deeply entrenched by long and discouraging experience. Although a broader, deeper, even-handed consultation may appear an inconvenience to certain sectors of the nuclear industry, a truly involving process would produce a better result for everyone by generating greater social consensus and trust in the eventual outcome. For complex issues with uncertain futures, the goal of involvement may not be to find the single "right answer" to the problem, but rather to bring people together in order to ensure that better decisions are made in the future. · Paul Dorfman is senior research fellow at the national centre for involvement at the University of Warwick, Rowntree research fellow on nuclear aspects of the energy review consultation, and was co-secretary to the UK governmental scientific advisory committee examining radiation risks from internal emitters Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 51 Reuters: INSTANT VIEW 4-Reaction to UK energy policy plans 23 May 2007 16:02:35 GMT LONDON, May 23 (Reuters) - Britain on Wednesday set out plans for a major policy shake-up to secure energy supplies and fight global warming, calling for new nuclear power plants and more renewable energy while pushing for less wastage. The government wants a new generation of nuclear plants partly to help limit growing dependence on imported natural gas. It hopes support for renewable energy - like offshore wind and tidal power - and cleaner use of fossil fuels, combined with better use of energy by businesses and individuals, will help keep the lights on while limiting British emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas held responsible for global warming. COMMENTS: PAUL GOLBY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF E.ON UK: "The Government has recognised in this White Paper that it's five minutes to midnight and the clock's ticking as we look to replace a third of our power stations. There was also a recognition that we can't rule anything out in our race to replace those stations and that means energy efficiency and distributed generation is every bit as important as new nuclear, coal or gas-fired power stations as we look to keep the lights on while also reducing our carbon emissions." RICHARD LAMBERT, CBI DIRECTOR-GENERAL: "Only a combination of nuclear and renewable sources, alongside more efficient gas, coal and oil generation, can deliver the reliable energy supply we need whilst tackling carbon emissions." TOSHIBA SENIOR EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MASAO NIWANO: "We are already heavily involved in the early UK new build processes and are very excited about continuing to work with the UK Government and utilities to provide a long term supply of clean energy." SCOTTISH POWER CEO JOSE LUIS DEL VALLE: "It is a considered and comprehensive report. I am pleased to see the Government taking a serious and consultative approach to the major energy issues we face." DOROTHY THOMPSON, CEO OF COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT DRAX. "Coal-fired generation has an important part to play in this transition through deploying technologies, such as biomass co-firing... We are particularly delighted with the proposal to band the Renewables Obligation. We believe this will deliver a regime that is fair to all forms of renewables and one that will make an important contribution to reducing CO2." PIERRE GADONNEIX, EDF chief executive: "New plans for non CO2 emitting nuclear power are a necessary response, through energy diversification, to climate concerns and to the need for secure energy supplies in Europe. EDF, the world's largest nuclear power operator, is determined to put its experience and skills at the service of British projects." JAKE ULRICH, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF CENTRICA ENERGY: "Without these badly needed incentives to reflect the higher cost of going offshore and to support greater investment in larger scale wind farms, the escalating costs of development could blow many wind farm projects right off the map." MARTIN TEMPLE, DIRECTOR OF MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION EEF: "Government should be applauded for setting out a balanced strategy which must include nuclear if we are to address security of supply and climate change objectives. It is now vital that a firm timetable is established to remove the barriers to private sector investment in low carbon sources of energy, especially nuclear new build. Government must also continue to encourage all sectors of the economy to improve their energy efficiency and pull their weight in reducing emissions." GREENPEACE DIRECTOR, JOHN SAUVEN: "The Government has tinkered with its failing energy efficiency and renewables policy while indulging its nuclear obsession. If ministers go down the nuclear route they will strangle the new, clean energy technologies of the investment and political support they need. Reaching for nuclear power to fight climate change is like an obese person taking up smoking to lose weight. It's a dangerous and expensive distraction in the fight against global warming." TOM DELAY, CEO OF THE CARBON TRUST: "The decisions the UK takes today on energy policy will be critical if we are to meet our long term carbon reduction targets. The Energy White Paper has much in it that should be welcomed, not least the creation of a new carbon trading scheme for large companies and the redesign of the renewables obligation that should ensure that the UK's vast offshore wind resource stands a strong chance of being developed over the next 10 to 15 years. NATIONAL GRID CHIEF EXECUTIVE STEVE HOLLIDAY: "We fully support today's announcement that secure energy supplies and climate change can be tackled together, and we're fully committed to playing our role in that. It's clear we need to look at the big ticket items like nuclear generation and carbon capture, but new and perhaps smaller ways to reduce our carbon footprint are also vital." ROB CORMIE, PARTNER OF CORPORATE FINANCE ENERGY GROUP AT KPMG: "We welcome the recognition that a mix of technologies will be required to meet Britain's energy needs... However, with one third of Britain's generating capacity needing renewal over the next 25 years, there needs to be a real urgency if we are to keep the lights on and achieve carbon emission reduction targets." TONY WARD, DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES AT ERNST & YOUNG "If the white paper's recommendations are to be translated into real investment in a more sustainable, diverse and lower carbon generation mix, then the private sector needs to be assured that their next steps can be taken with confidence... The time for assessing options is short." BRIAN ROBINSON, HEAD OF ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE AT THE INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS: "This Government must produce a tangible framework from this document. It is down to them to deliver the results that the 2003 White Paper didn't. The 2003 White Paper (Energy) tried to please everyone but did nothing. We cannot afford for this to happen again and there must be a balanced portfolio of renewable energies in place, right now." http://www.alertnet.org ***************************************************************** 52 Telegraph: Nuclear power's uneasy history By Roland Gribben Last Updated: 12:38am BST 24/05/2007 Slideshow: Where Britain gets its energy fromUK must tackle reliance on RussiaEDF chief Vincent de Rivaz: For my next mission - save the worldGeneral Electric in race for UK nuclear marketNuclear at the core of Britain's energy plans The file shows the passage of time, thin and well-fingered. Document 36 in EG1, dating back to 1953, is typical of the thousands of pieces of Whitehall 'literature' housed at the National Archives, fascinating in content, under-stated in terms of political and economic implications. Lord Cherwell, scientific adviser to both Churchill and Attlee Document 36 is no different. The one-time secret Energy Department file details the events surrounding the arrival of the nuclear power age, its early teething problems and the political tug of war with the US. The pen of Lord Cherwell, scientific adviser to both Churchill and Attlee, runs heavily through changes in the draft of a white paper providing reassurances that nuclear power was safe and competitive. More than a decade of work in Britain and in Canada during wartime had proved the technology. There was an uneasy backdrop. The file provides insight into US reluctance to share post-war atomic secrets and technology with a Labour administration and the difficulties Attlee faced in persuading a reluctant Eisenhower to increase Britain's atomic arsenal. Almost casually a two page summary of a late 1953 conversation between the two leaders mentions that Britain had a stockpile of 100 atomic bombs while the US with 2,500 in reserve was producing them at the rate of 600 a year. Attlee jumped when told Eisenhower wanted to drop an atomic bomb on Manchuria to bring down the curtain on the Korean conflict. The link between the military and civil applications of atomic technology was unbroken in the first generation of nuclear power plants. The Magnox reactors had the dual role of producing weapons grade plutonium and acting as prototypes for generating electricity. They provided the foundations for the first nuclear power age, an age that failed to live up to its pioneering promise of delivering cheap power and the long-term substitute for coal and oil because of a lengthy catalogue of mistakes. The attempts to create a one stop shop industry - from power plants to nuclear fuel reprocessing to provide an international platform - were bold and ambitious enough. The nuclear tide was running strongly at the time since Britain was leading the way with the 'peaceful' application of a devastating technology. The outcome alas was all too familiar. Britain backed the wrong technology, plumping first for Magnox, then advanced gas-cooled reactor systems. Hopes of producing an 'export winner' were dashed by the success of US pressurised and boiling water reactors in world markets. Politicians and the nuclear industry were guilty of mismanagement and blunders in under-estimating the challenges. Nuclear politics became an industry in its own right. The construction industry failed miserably to deliver power plant on time and budget. Design changes bedevilled projects with Dungeness B taking the booby prize for the most disastrous. Engineers ended their careers on a plant that started in 1965, was completed in 1983 and struggled to make its first contribution to the electricity market in 1985. Botched decisions on nuclear waste disposal and the frightening cost of de-commissioning (Ł72bn at the last count) have left nuclear power under a cloud while mismanagement, market pressures and the complications of electricity pricing mechanisms meant the taxpayer had to save British Energy from bankruptcy three years ago at a cost of Ł3bn. Despite the long list of shortcomings the nuclear plants - 18 were built in total - with some coaxing and scares have proved robust and capable of long life extensions but by 2020 only one nuclear power plant will be operating, the pressurised water reactors at Sizewell, the last to be built. Where now? Fifty four years after that first white paper nuclear power is on the verge of a second coming. Gordon Brown has taken over from Tony Blair as nuclear cheerleader in the face of strong opposition inside and outside parliament. Two energy white papers earlier this decade paid lip service to nuclear power and trumpeted the merits of alternative and renewable sources of energy. Worries about energy security and global warming helped blow nuclear back into the reckoning in a third accompanied by the promise of fast track planning clearance. Worries about safety, cost, the environment and a repeat of the mistakes of the past are being stacked against a nuclear power revival by opponents as the government stokes the debate. Alistair Darling, Trade and Industry Secretary, hopes to provide some of the answers today by setting out plans for a modest new nuclear power programme in yet another energy policy paper. But what are the chances of history repeating itself with technology and construction bottlenecks as well as public opposition casting a shadow over the new nuclear power programme? Less so say supporters who insist they are not seeking subsidies. Privatisation means government intervention, outside the key areas of licensing and health and safety, should be limited unless the newcomers start seeking guarantees. The private sector will have responsibility for financing, building, operating and delivering power and taking on board the horrendous costs of plant closures. Companies will have to wrestle with market forces but will benefit from improvements in design and sticking to a single nuclear technology and simpler designs. The demise of the British nuclear industry, however, means foreign companies will be in the driving seat in terms of construction and expertise. France with its considerable nuclear legacy is looking to make a killing. Nuclear crusader Sir Bernard Ingham, press overlord at No 10 during the Thatcher era is optimistic lessons have been learned. Sir Bernard, secretary of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy, lists three of them. He says: "For heavens sake go with world technology with all the international back-up. I think that lesson has been learnt. "The second lesson is that when we get hold of a piece of international technology we don't reinvent the wheel. If you think it's right then stick with it and don't forever be adding embellishments. This is what bedevils engineering. "The third is that the nuclear industry has to champion its technology. Either it believes in it or it doesn't. It hasn't done anything effective to meet the arguments of the greens who have belittled nuclear and lied about it." The first nuclear power age was costly in terms of money, reputation and missed opportunities despite the considerable achievements in harnessing the technology and creating a new industry. Nuclear power struggled to provide more than 25pc of electricity supplies at peak and its cost structure - expensive to build and cheap to operate - meant plant has to run flat out. Britain provided a test bed for nuclear power technology. Magnox and the AGRs were the nuclear bedrock but scientists tinkered with the high temperature reactor, a prototype of the steam generating heavy water reactor made its appearance at Winfrith and the fast breeder reactor struggled during its lifetime at Dounreay. The industry gave birth to notable scientists and engineers - Sir John Cockcroft and Lord Hinton among them - and a generation of brilliant technicians, most of them now drawing their pensions. Sellafield, one time nuclear equivalent of Silicon Valley in California, was regarded as one of the 'brainiest' places in the country. Cancer worries and safety and the world's first nuclear power accident, a serious radioactive leak at Windscale, the Sellafield predecessor, in 1956 overshadowed its early achievements. Nuclear power will continue to be under enormous scrutiny whatever the size of any new programme but if the lessons have been learned the prospects for the second age should be brighter. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | ***************************************************************** 53 KVII Online: PGU proposes contract PGU sends contract proposal to Pantex on Tuesday. By Chris Olsen Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 4:54 AM AMARILLO -- The   a contract proposal to the company on Tuesday. This contract addressed the concerns the  membership had with the contract   gave them to vote on last week.       Then, the Union overwhelmingly voted the contract down. “We did some compromising,” said Frank White,   President. “They wanted something, we wanted something, so we did some compromising, but there wasn’t a whole lot of movement, hopefully just enough to satisfy everyone.” The  s proposal did address the Union’s concerns in the areas of healthcare, overtime and seniority right.  released a statement saying, “Today’s [Tuesday’s] negotiations were positive and productive, but at this time no time table has been set to resume negotiations.” There were basically no differences in the first contract and the second contract. There were a couple of issues addressed about the overtime policy, but that was it. — PGU Wife, Amarillo Differences Howcome nobody ever puts facts down? In last weeks story, when they voted the contract down, only one PGU wife (not even a member) actually put down some facts about the contract.She actually knew what she was talking about and put down some of the medical premium info. PGU wife, I would love if you (or anyone else) would put down some facts to back up your comment. Are you telling me that the first and second contracts were exactly the same? This is a great place to air the facts and get support for PGU's cause, but instead you just get a bunch of old people who are doing well telling PGU to "quit crying" and "get back to work". And on the flipside, you get PGU members who want anonymous people making comments to reveal their identity for retaliation. I was on PGU's side in the beginning, but it just seems that they want everything.They cant get everything. Everyone is paying more for medical. And most companies dont even pay medical for family members anymore. I would love if someone would air THE FACTS and get me back on PGU's side. — tx ., tx JC Right now BWXT is not paying for the contingency force. The DOE is. When the DOE desides it's done, then BWXT will be out of pocket and things will change. Also, there are multiple things going on behind the scenes. BWXT is NOT bargaining in good faith and the union is fighting hard to get this to happen. We want to meet in the middle with them. But meeting in the middle means each side has to give a little and THAT is NOT what BWXT has done. If you are pulling for the union you need to contact Mac Thornberry and ask him why he is not taking a stand one way or another on this. His office needs to know that he will not recieve our votes next term if he does not help. We are the voters and we determine who is in office. He has lost over 3,000 votes right now because he refuses to step in and take a stand. Thank you for your concern and respect on this matter. — PGU Wife, Amarillo Confused So how will the union convince Pantex to comprimise? The PGU seems to be out of leverage. Pantex does not seem to mind using the contingency force and does not appear to be feeling any serious pressure from the DOE. I'm pulling for the PGU, but I don't see how they can force Pantex to comprimise. — J C, Amarillo ***************************************************************** 54 Comment is free: Nuclear's hidden subsidies guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > David Lowry The government's vision for the future of nuclear energy is much the same as its past: It expects the public to foot the bill. May 23, 2007 10:30 PM | Printable version While unveiling to MPs in the Commons the consultation paper on The Future of Nuclear Power, trade and industry secretary Alistair Darling, told them that: "It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants, and to cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of the costs of long-term waste management costs." In his valedictory speech to the Labour conference on September 26 last year, Tony Blair commented: "Ten years ago, energy wasn't on the agenda. The environment an also-ran... ten years ago I parked the issue of nuclear power. Today, I believe without it, we are going to face an energy crisis and we can't let that happen." He said much the same in prime minister's question time today. What he neglected to mention on either occasion was who was going to pay. It is the predilection for omitting such inconvenient truths that recently got the government into such hot water in the High Court over Greenpeace's challenge to the 2006 Energy Review. According to Blair's ministers, no subsidies are being sought by private companies keen to build new nuclear plants. All they want, goes the ministerial mantra, is some reform of the planning system, in order to refine (ie shorten) planning inquiries. This reform is already now underway with the planning white paper released on Monday this week. As the then energy minister Malcolm Wicks told MP Helen Goodman - a contributing author, with eight other Labour MPs, of a SERA energy pamphlet, What's in the Mix? - on July 24 last year, in a written reply: "The government concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals. It will be for the power sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new power generation and to meet all associated costs." Believe that, and you'll also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy. Gifts to the nuclear industry come in many guises, via government subsidies to help cover the cost of insurance, regulation and research and development, without which the private sector wouldn't invest in nuclear power. The situation regarding insurance clearly illustrates the point. At present, nuclear plant operators have limited liability in the case of an accident - under international agreements, any claim over ÂŁ700m falls on the taxpayer. No investor could realistically take on board the full insurance liabilities, which in the case of Chernobyl have run to several tens of billions of pounds. This sets the tone for the industry's relationship with government, relying on it as a quasi-pro bono consultancy. While regulation might sound like a public service, ensuring safety requirements, regulators are inherently there to advise the industry on everything from the efficacy of design to health and safety of personnel. Any new wave of building would require major government investment in regulatory authorities (such as the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency), to attract the necessary numbers and expertise. In a similar vein, the putative private sector keeps abreast of international developments through government membership of three nuclear clubs - the EU nuclear agency, Euratom, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Generation IV International Forum (GIF) on advanced reactor designs. Between 1997 and 2006, the government authorised ÂŁ102m to be donated annually to the IAEA alone, according to a written answer by the energy minister on July 4 last year. The minister declined to provide a similar figure for UK donations to Euratom, because it "is paid through the UK's general contribution to the European Commission's budget [and the Euratom] share of the UK contribution could be calculated only at disproportionate cost". The DTI has allocated ÂŁ5-10m in 2006/07 and ÂŁ5m in 2007/08 - to support UK involvement in international research under the aegis of GIF, with Generation IV systems set for potential international deployment from around 2030. Clearly, then, the taxpayer is paying for nuclear power even before a plan has been drawn or a brick has been laid; and the grateful nuclear industry laps it up. But all this support pales into insignificance when the issue of nuclear waste is addressed - or, as has systematically been the case, not addressed. When Alistair Darling unveiled last year's Energy Review to MPs in Parliament on July 11 2006 he used the same formulation as today telling MPs, "It will before the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning", adding the elliptical phrase "and their full share of long-term waste management costs". Darling's assertion was challenged by several MPs. Liberal Democrat environment spokesman Ed Davey asked: "Is he prepared to guarantee, for the entire life of the nuclear plants, that there will be no hidden subsidy, no super-long unfair price contract, no cap liabilities, no government support for nuclear waste decommissioning, no assistance with waste disposal and no stealth nuclear tax for consumers? If business does not build nuclear plants as he proposes, what happens to his policy?" Labour backbencher David Chaytor, a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, pointedly asked: "Will he clarify, however, the point in his statement that nuclear generators will be required to pay their full share of long-term waste management costs? Does that mean 100% of waste management costs, and how can we guarantee that, as we do not yet know what the waste management costs will be?" Darling replied: "The statement does mean that they are expected to meet the full share of those costs, which I would have thought was self-evident." It wasn't self evident to Scottish Nationalist MP Mike Weir, who pressed again: "Will the Secretary of State give a clear, unequivocal answer to this question? Does a full share of the long-term waste cost mean 100% - yes or no?" Darling meekly replied: "I have nothing to add to what I have already said." Prospective nuclear investors from the private sector have yet to elaborate how they will pay for the full cost of management (or eventual "disposal") of the new radioactive waste produced - including the eventual decommissioning of defunct reactors and associated infrastructures - in any atomic renaissance. The one public sector operator presently involved is British Energy, whose legacy of radioactive waste has been bailed out by hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, buttressed by a European Commission decision to waive opposition to such state aid from other power-sector operators, who point to the unfair advantage given to the nuclear sector, tipping the level playing field in nuclear's direction. Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Dr Vince Cable put this to Darling today, but received short shrift. The projected budget - funded mainly by the taxpayer - for the clean-up of the radioactive detritus that is the long-lived legacy of nuclear operations since the 1950s is some ÂŁ75bn and rising, as provided for by the 2004 Energy Act, which created the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. An outstanding question remains: will the new agency be given responsibility for delivering the proposals put forward by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management last July, for the long-term management of radioactive waste? Will it be able to recover costs from any company that puts forward proposals to build and operate a new nuclear power plant? As Friends of the Earth's director, Tony Juniper, said at the time of the unveiling of last year's Energy Review: "The disastrous economics of the nuclear industry means that UK taxpayers are already committed to paying tens of billions of pounds to clean up the mess created by half a century of nuclear power. Without massive public subsidies it is very doubtful that private sector companies will take the huge financial risks of building new nuclear reactors. To this extent it looks like the government is opening the door for new state handouts for nuclear." A hint of what is most likely to come can be seen most clearly in the United States, the supposed champion of the free market economy. The authoritative US business weekly Forbes reported on May 25 2006 that nuclear energy is not profitable without a raft of government subsidies. The article explains how the US government extended insurance coverage to the public in case of a reactor accident at any new plant for 20 years, provided generous federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of the project's cost and would take on the cost of any delay in plant construction related to litigation or government red tape - a huge prize for plant sponsors and investors. Forbes perceptively pointed out almost exactly a year ago: "These new subsidies were lavished on top of old ones, including the biggest one of all: the government shouldering the problem of nuclear waste. It is little wonder that nuclear is getting a second look." Whether you look across the Atlantic or closer to home, the reality remains: if Britain is to get new nuclear power, it's the taxpayer who's going to pay for it. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 55 Comment is free: Nuclear policy? No thanks guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > John Sauven The government's decision to turn to nuclear power on the grounds that it can solve climate change is based on panic. May 23, 2007 8:30 AM | Printable version "It would have been foolish to announce ... that we would embark on a new generation of nuclear power stations because that would have guaranteed that we would not make the necessary investment and effort in both energy efficiency and in renewables. That is why we are not going to build a new generation of nuclear power stations now." Not my words, or those of a hair-shirted hippy howling at the blades of a wind turbine, but the analysis of then-DTI chief Patricia Hewitt in a Commons debate on the 2003 Energy White Paper. Following the government's white paper yesterday on planning that will circumvent the need to consult local people over the siting of nuclear power stations (as well as other large projects like airports) the government will tomorrow seek to overturn the 2003 energy policy and clear the way for a fullscale nuclear renaissance. Expect to see Alistair Darling - Hewitt's successor who once joined Greenpeace activists in pasting anti-nuclear posters across Edinburgh - stand up in the Commons to warn that without new reactors the lights will go out and our carbon targets will be missed. Don't believe him. Under closer examination, the government's nuclear policy has about it the pungent whiff of a dodgy dossier. Nuclear power, which delivers just under one fifth of our electricity, provides just 3.6% of the UK's energy. It does little for heating, hot water or transport, where CO2 emissions are rising fast. A new nuclear power station has never been built on time and on budget in a western nation. Witness Finland, the EU's only current building project. Areva, the company building the new station, has admitted the plant is already €700m over budget and has now fallen almost two years behind schedule, despite construction having only started in September 2005. Our government warns apocalyptically about an energy gap in 2015, then suggests as the solution the one technology incapable of closing it in time. Margaret Thatcher wanted to build 10 nuclear plants. She built just one. Proposing nuclear power as the solution is delusional. A similarly myopic approach is evident in the government's claims that nuclear power can solve climate change. Again, let's turn to Finland. Hewitt's 2003 comments are supported by events that followed Helsinki's decision to go nuclear, as the move appears to be undermining alternative low-carbon energy strategies. After falling in 2001 and 2002, Finland's carbon emissions are now rising. Measures, promised in a 2001 climate report, such as energy taxation, have not been implemented. According to Finland's former environment minister Satu Hassi MEP, once the decision was made to build the new reactor, the country lost interest in alternative energy sources. One can only conclude that the same will happen here. Even if it doesn't, nuclear power would still only account for a reduction of around 4% in our CO2 emissions sometime around the mid 2020s. Those savings will be more than swallowed up by the aviation expansion envisioned in another of New Labour's white papers. Not exactly joined-up government. For all these reasons and more, Tony Blair last year tried to fix the public consultation at the centre of the energy review on which the new white paper is based. However in February this year he got caught out when Mr Justice Sullivan found in favour of a Greenpeace application for judicial review and ruled that the government's pro-nuclear decision was "unlawful". In his judgment he described the public consultation as "seriously flawed", "misleading" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair". Already it seems, from comments made by Darling and Blair, that the replacement public consultation, to be announced tomorrow, will be similarly skewed. They've already made up their minds. A genuine consultation would conclude that betting the farm on nuclear power would be a disaster for the fight against climate change. Greenpeace wants to see power stations built, but they need to be super-efficient, decentralised energy generating stations. That means capturing the heat they generate and feeding it into our homes and offices. Currently Britain's centralised power station system wastes two-thirds of the energy put into it, in the form of waste heat that escapes up cooling towers or as cooling water. Decentralised energy schemes are popular in Scandinavia and northern Europe. Woking council cut carbon emissions by 77% using decentralised technology. If on top of this you add renewable energy and an energy efficiency drive the problem can be solved. Banning energy inefficient light bulbs alone would save two power stations-worth of electricity. It's there, it's waiting to go, it's clean, effective and compared to nuclear, it's cheap. But if we let this government go nuclear, we lose the chance of building a decentralised system and slashing our emissions from electricity generation. del.icio.us | Digg it | Tailrank | Reddit | Newsvine | Now Public | Technorati This entry was tagged with the following keywords: nuclearpolicy government whitepaper patriciahewitt Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 56 AFP: US and India '90 percent' close to nuclear pact: top official - Wed May 23, 2:00 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and India are "90 percent" of the way toward sealing a landmark deal on nuclear energy, a top US official said Wednesday ahead of pivotal talks in New Delhi. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said he was waiting to hear back from US nuclear experts who attended two days of lower-level talks this week in London with Indian counterparts before firming up his trip to India. But the visit "I think will happen in the next week or two," he said at a Heritage Foundation seminar on US-India ties, which have warmed up dramatically after decades in the chiller during the Cold War. After the last round of US-India nuclear negotiations in Washington on May 1, the US State Department said Burns would head to New Delhi in the latter half of the month "to reach a final agreement." "We're 90 percent of the way there," Burns said of the nuclear pact, which was first agreed in July 2005 but remains held up by disaccord on issues like access for UN inspectors to both civil and military atomic sites in India. India has agreed as part of the US deal to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities, and to allow the civilian sites to be inspected. Burns said that aside from inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), India must also agree to demands for export and non-proliferation safeguards by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. Acceptance of those demands would allow India to remain outside the global non-proliferation treaty but still receive cutting-edge nuclear technology. "If India wants the benefits of civil nuclear trade with the United States, or France, or Russia, it is going to need to subject itself to inspection by the IAEA," Burns said. But he added: "I believe that India has the best of wills and the best of intentions. "I think you're going to see us make this leap," he said. "When we do that, it will be one of the great achievements in the US-Indian relationship going back to (Indian independence in) 1947." Indian foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said after the technical talks in London: "Some further work is required to bridge the remaining gaps and both sides agreed that discussions will continue." Indian sources and experts say India's plans to build fast-breeder nuclear reactors are still a subject for negotiation. India wants to use such reactors to reprocess nuclear fuel in contradiction of US law. Other differences include a clause that would permit the United States to cut off critical fuel supplies if India breaches its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Indian critics of the deal have attempted to stall it for fear that it will hamper India's nuclear weapons program, nine years after it staged atomic bomb tests that sparked a tit-for-tat response from arch-rival Pakistan. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 Platts: US Homeland Security panel presses NRC on cybersecurity policies 2007-05-21 Washington (Platts)--21May2007 The chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security is asking the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to move quickly to ensure nuclear power plant operators put comprehensive cybersecurity policies in place. In a May 15 letter made public on Friday, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, Democrat-Mississippi, and Representative James Langevin, a Rhode Island Democrat, who leads the panel's Science and Technology subcommittee, asked NRC Chairman Dale Klein to "move with all deliberate speed in ensuring that nuclear plant licensees institute comprehensive cybersecurity policies and procedures on safety and non-safety systems alike." The letter was prompted by an information notice NRC issued April 17 describing an August 19, 2006, shutdown of Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry-3 nuclear plant. According to the letter, TVA blamed the shutdown on the malfunction of the variable frequency driver controller due to excessive traffic on the plant's computer network. TVA's corrective actions included placing a firewall that limits connections and traffic to any devices on the plant's integrated computer system network, it said. The congressmen said NRC staff decided against investigating the failure as a cybersecurity incident, saying the failing system was a non-safety system and that TVA had determined the incident did not involve an external cyber attack on the system. Thompson and Langevin told Klein they have "deep reservations about the NRC's hesitation to conduct a special investigation into the incident." Noting that NRC is engaged in a rulemaking that will include regulations for cybersecurity, they said they hoped the new regulations "will reach beyond safety systems and underscore the impact that disruptions of non-safety systems can have on the operation of a plant." They asked that NRC answer seven questions, including whether the agency has conclusively determined the source of the "data storm" related to the Browns Ferry-3 incident, whether it plans to investigate the incident and how future regulations will address the cybersecurity interdependence of safety systems and non-safety systems. --Tom Harrison, tom_harrison@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 58 Portsmouth Daily Times: NRC talks of USEC license By JEFF BARRON PDT Staff Writer Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:13 PM EDT PIKETON - The United States Enrichment Corp. must meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards in order keep its license for the American Centrifuge Program, NRC officials said Tuesday. “They must follow the limits on exposure,” NRC Fuel Facility Branch Chief Jay Henson said at a public meeting. “We expect any emissions to be very small and within our regulations.” USEC Inc., plans to begin a new way of enriching uranium by 2012 at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. USEC leases the plant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Much of the NRC presentation dealt with the history of licensing and regulations USEC has gone through trying to deploy the American Centrifuge Program. The NRC granted USEC its license to operate the program on April 13. Prior to operation, NRC will conduct an inspection at the diffusion plant to make sure the buildings and equipment housing the program were constructed in accordance with the license conditions and commitments. In 2005, Vina Colley and Geoffrey Sea tried to stop the program, NRC officials said. But the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ruled against the pair, and the NRC denied an appeal of that decision. Colley and Sea were at the public meeting and peppered NRC officials with numerous questions about safety at the plant. Colley asked how the NRC can be trusted to ensure safety at the plant when there was contamination at the site when it began oversight in 1997. “The stuff that is in the environment now is legacy waste that was there way before 1997,” Henson said. NRC grants chief Brian Smith said USEC will shut down the Paducah (Ky). Gaseous Diffusion Plant once it starts enriching uranium in Ohio. USEC still is looking for investors to help finance the program. JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236. Copyright © 2007 The Portsmouth Daily Times | Top ***************************************************************** 59 Guardian Unlimited: Radioactive legacy | Russia | Litvinenko poisoning Wednesday May 23, 2007 The attorney general's statement yesterday left little room for doubt. The Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the former KGB agent and multimillionaire Andrei Lugovoi for the murder of a fellow former agent, turned exile, Alexander Litvinenko. Russia's response was as swift as it was curt. There would be no extradition, the federal prosecutor general's office said. Quoting the European convention on mutual legal assistance, which gives the country receiving the request of extradition the right to refuse, the office said Russian citizens accused of crimes abroad could only be tried in Russia. Within hours the matter had reached a dead end. Scotland Yard believes the forensic evidence is compelling. The murder weapon, polonium-210, is a sophisticated poison that is virtually undetectable, easily transportable (it produces alpha rather than gamma particles and so does not trigger radiation alarms at airports) and is only lethal when ingested. It was detected by accident, but once detectives knew what they were looking for the radioactive isotope left a golden forensic trail on light switches, briefcases and armrests on aircraft seats that led straight back to the poisoner. With each contact between the source of radiation and the person or object being contaminated, the level of radioactivity lessened, so detectives knew who was contaminating whom. They also know not only the reactor which produced the poison, but the date on which it was produced. Thus far the matter is clearcut. It is when one examines the motive for killing a man who had got political asylum in London, and causing a major public-health scare in a friendly western capital, that the plot goes haywire. That old question - who profits from it? - cannot be answered conventionally by pointing the finger at the Kremlin. There are powerful economic reasons, let alone political ones, why it is not in the Kremlin's interest to kill exiles in the financial capital of Europe. Start with plans to build a $5bn gas pipeline under the Baltic between Russia and Germany, continue with Gazprom, which supplies one-third of western Europe's gas, and work backwards. That is why some in Moscow yesterday questioned London's certainty. Pointing the finger of blame at the Kremlin, some said, simply added to an organised campaign to discredit Russia as a commercial partner in Europe. This campaign - it is being claimed - is designed to weaken Russia and turn it back to the days of the 1990s, when its economy was in collapse. They are wrong about the west, but it is not hard to see why they think this. Litvinenko was part of Boris Berezovsky's circle. Mr Berezovsky's extradition to Russia has been refused on the grounds that the charges were politically motivated. At best, Britain and Russia are losing faith in each other's legal systems. That is damaging relations between the two countries at a wider level. Yet Scotland Yard have been working with evidence, not conspiracy theories. The poison has been used in Russia in the past, and the Federal Security Service (FSB), the KGB's successor, does not forgive or forget people it regards as traitors. Both Mr Lugovoi, who has denied the charges, and his alleged victim, Litvinenko, worked in the ninth directorate of the KGB, the bodyguard service for senior political figures. Litvinenko fell out with the FSB in a big way. He accused Vladimir Putin of being involved in organised crime while in the FSB. He accused FSB colleagues of involvement in the apartment bombings that killed over 300 Russian civilians in 1999, which Mr Putin, then relatively unknown, used as a launchpad for his political career. The claims are old but the details Litvinenko provided were new. This was motive enough to silence him. The truth will probably never be known. But like the silvery dust of polonium-210, the affair is powerful enough to poison relations between Moscow and London. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 60 JOGJCC: Waste chamber to be surveyed for rogue particles John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier: By Iain Grant Published: 23 May, 2007 DIVERS are preparing to survey the innards of a disused subsea waste chamber which is the strongly suspected source of the widespread release of radioactive particles from Dounreay into the Pentland Firth. Plant operator the UKAEA believes rogue discharges washed hundreds of thousands of slivers of reprocessed reactor fuel out to sea. After being released from the diffuser chamber, they have gone on to pollute the site's enclosed foreshore as well as tracts of the seabed and stretches off the coastline, notably Sandside beach to the west. The divers are due to set out today (Wednesday) in a quest to monitor for radiation within the chamber and the surrounding rock. The team from Wick-based Fathoms is to uncap some of the risers on top of the chamber to gauge whether it is possible to feed a remote-control camera into the three-metre-high structure. Joe Toole, senior project manager on the UKAEA's particles team, said yesterday: "If we do get a camera down, we'll get some information about what is going on down there. It would tell us if the chamber is still intact or if it's falling apart. "We'll also see whether we are able to get access for radiation detectors and a probe so we can map the area in the diffuser and the surrounding rock for contamination." Mr Toole said it is possible for the equipment to distinguish between fixed contamination within the structure of the chamber and any remaining caches of particles. He added that precautions are in place to contain any contamination which could be released when the chamber is uncapped. The diffuser, which is 20 metres under the water, was made redundant with the introduction of the site's new sea discharge system in the early 1990s. The need to stem any potential ongoing releases of particles from the chamber was one of the recommendations made in the main report issued by the independent Dounreay Particles Advisory Group. Fathoms' catamaran will this summer complete the UKAEA's exercise in attempting to establish the spread and extent of the particles on the sea bed. The first phase will focus on the area between the diffuser west to Sandside Bay at a depth of up to 28 metres. Mr Toole said divers will be on board ready to recover any hot-spots whose activity is rated "significant" by DPAG. As with the other two phases – between the diffuser and the Dounreay foreshore and from the plant to the east side of Ushat Head – a remote-control radiation detector is being deployed. Mr Toole said four firms are taking part in trials commissioned by the UKAEA on emerging new technology to retrieve seabed hot-spots. He added that the UKAEA has, over the course of this year, improved the performance and cover of the radiation detection equipment mounted on the vehicles used by its contractors to monitor local beaches. Recent scans of beaches in Dunnet Bay have not uncovered any particles. None were found on Murkle or the Peedie beaches, while a survey under way at Dunnet has so far been clean. The beach contamination has been concentrated at Sandside, though a particle was found at Dunnet two years ago and another at Murkle earlier this year. The UKAEA is finalising its plans to deal with both the offshore and onshore contamination. It aims to publish these by the start of September. iain-grant@ukf.net All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 61 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Airport cleanup is said to be done WEDNESDAY | MAY 23, 2007 missouri One of the largest environmental cleanup jobs in Missouri has drawn to a close near Lambert Field, federal officials said Tuesday. The Army Corps of Engineers said its contractors removed more than 600,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the St. Louis Airport Site, one of three National Priorities List projects in north St. Louis County. The soil was taken to disposal sites outside Missouri. Radioactive contamination at the site dates back to development of the nation's first atomic weapons. Corps officials said the cleanup will make the area safe for future development. HAZELWOOD — School officials banned backpacks for the rest of the school year at Hazelwood West High School and Middle School after students found a bomb threat and bullets at the high school on Tuesday. The threat and bullets were found in the morning at different areas of the school, a district spokeswoman said. The threat was written on a bathroom wall and three 9 mm bullets were found in a toilet in a boy's locker room. Officials believe the threat and bullets are unrelated. Hazelwood police searched the school using dogs in the afternoon but found nothing else suspicious. The school year ends May 31. St. Louis Bread Co. and Starbucks will go head-to-head in the expansion of Loughborough Commons, a new shopping center near Carondelet Park in St. Louis. DESCO Group, the development arm of the Schnuck supermarket family, built the $40 million center with $14 million in city tax subsidies. A Schnucks store and a Lowe's hardware store opened there last year. Part of the 30-acre center along Loughborough Avenue includes spaces for other stores. The company announced Monday it has signed Bread Co., Starbucks, OfficeMax, Qdoba and Great Clips to lease space in 2008. It also said it was negotiating with a national restaurant chain for other space. It replaces an old Schnucks store, a former furnace factory, 20 homes and the former Carondelet Sunday Morning Athletic Club building. CENTERVILLE — The Department of Natural Resources will not be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit filed over the Taum Sauk reservoir collapse filed by Missouri's attorney general, a Reynolds County judge said Tuesday. Attorney General Jay Nixon sued the Ameren Corp. in December for damages from the 2005 collapse of the Taum Sauk reservoir, which destroyed much of Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park. The DNR filed a motion to intervene in the case in January. The agency's position was that it, and not the attorney general, had the legal authority to resolve the matter because it related to clean water issues and property damage to a state park, said the department's deputy director, Kurt Schaefer. Nixon said the ruling should help the state's lawsuit to proceed. Illinois COLLINSVILLE — A woman from Collinsville who collects tons of goodies and sends them to American military personnel in the Middle East is seeking donations to help mail 30,000 pounds of flypaper, flystrips and other bug-catchers. Marcia Fish has been sending packages filled with snacks, toiletries and sundry items to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004. She packs the donations into parcels and mails them to soldiers who make requests. Fish said Roxide International of New Rochelle, N.Y., has made a second big donation of bug-catching products — items that, she says, troops over there can't get enough of. Fish wants to mail the products, at a cost of $1 per pound in postage, in small amounts over the next 18 months. As of Tuesday, she said she has mailed boxes of bug-catchers costing $4,000 in postage and has little money left in her postage account. Those interested can contact her at 618-345-7477 or marciafish@sbcglobal.net. Donations may be made to AdoptaPlatoon and mailed to Fish at Metro Glass Services, 523 West Main Street, Collinsville, Ill. 62234. CARBONDALE — Southern Illinois University Carbondale has settled a two-year-old lawsuit brought by a Christian group whose student organization status had been revoked because members must pledge to adhere to Christian beliefs. As part of the deal with the Christian Legal Society, SIUC said it officially will recognize the group. Christian Legal Society sued SIUC in April 2005 after the university revoked the group's registered status, meaning it no longer could use the university's facilities or name. SPRINGFIELD — Governor Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday awarded $2.2 million to social service agencies in Southern Illinois for 42 para-transit vehicles. The vehicles, with ramp and lift equipment, will be used to help elderly people and those with disabilities get places. Agencies to receive funding in St. Clair County are Epilepsy Foundation of Southwestern Illinois, Associated Vocational Enterprises Inc., St. Clair County Transit District and Touchette Hospital. In Madison County, money will go to Beverly Farm Foundation, Challenge Unlimited Inc. and Residential Options Inc. The Associated Press contributed to these reports. ***************************************************************** 62 Times of India: Australia not to sell uranium to India-Rest of World 23 May, 2007 l 1147 hrs ISTlPTI MELBOURNE: Australia will not sell uranium to India until it signs the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane has said. The Minister's remarks were in contrast to the recent hints from Prime Minister John Howard that Australia could shift its policy and allow yellowcake to be exported to India. "The answer is no," Macfarlane said adding "the Australian uranium industry can prosper without India, that's my answer.” "We have a prohibition on the basis they have not signed the NPT," he told The Age newspaper. As recently as March, Howard appeared to leave open the prospect of Australian uranium sales to India. Speaking during a visit by India's nuclear envoy Shyam Saran, the Prime Minister said: "We see India as a very responsible country. The relationship between Australia and India is growing.” “It's a very important relationship. They will be considerations that we will bear in mind." Asked about the steps the government is taking towards a framework for nuclear power in Australia, Macfarlane said companies, which he declined to name, have already approached him to discuss commercial opportunities to enrich uranium in Australia. Macfarlane warned that Australia could not go down the nuclear route unless there was clear bipartisan support and the public accepted nuclear energy. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 63 ReviewJournal.com: Nuke waste routes discussed May. 23, 2007 Meeting focuses on transportation issues By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL What's the best way to get nuclear waste to a "dump" at Yucca Mountain? The same way the government wants to haul highly radioactive spent fuel for entombment in a "repository" at the mountain: By train and truck, over railways and freeways across the United States with the least risks of accidents and terrorist attacks. Or, maybe not at all in the not-so-distant future. That's how the discussion went Tuesday at a workshop of the U.S. Transport Council where Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis made the distinction clear. "A dump is a hole in the ground. A repository is somewhere where you put something valuable that's safe," he said. "We're putting something in there that's valuable, that's safe." With that, others from counties in Southern and Central Nevada along with nuclear transportation industry representatives and the state's transportation consultant presented views on the issue. The discussion was fitting for the role of the independent, nonprofit U.S. Transport Council in the nuclear waste debate. "Our goal is to enhance communication, hold frank discussion of the issues with transparency," said David Blee, a former assistant secretary of energy who is executive director of the U.S. Transport Council. Prospects of the north-south Mina rail corridor faded last month when the Walker River Paiute Indians announced they no longer were interested in having nuclear waste shipped across their reservation. After that, the proposed east-west Caliente corridor regained the spotlight for building a railway to Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. An outspoken proponent of that plan, Caliente Mayor Kevin Phillips, would rather call it the Central Nevada Energy Corridor because of its potential not only for bringing the nation's high-level nuclear waste to Nevada but also for furthering the state's potential for wind, coal and solar power. "I would hope Nevada would get its head out of its hands," he said. Bob Halstead, transportation consultant for the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, presented a slide show that, among other things, emphasized that a railroad from Caliente to Yucca Mountain should not be built because it fails to meet the state's expectations and doesn't have great economic potential. "I guess the killer issue on the Caliente route is the impact on Las Vegas," Halstead said. Selecting the route would put at least 5 percent of all nuclear waste rail casks through the populated Las Vegas Valley and as much as 87 percent. The so-called "mostly rail scenario" also would bring radioactive shipments through the Las Vegas metropolitan area on trucks, he said. Halstead commended the departments of Energy and Homeland Security for considering security issues "so bushwhackers can't know for sure what path they're going to come down today." However, the risk of human error and more sophisticated terrorists tactics involving "explosive formed penetrators" could breach transportation casks and spread potentially deadly radioactive materials, he said. "The bad guys are upping their game," he said privately as the workshop participants broke for lunch. Even without a terrorist trying to turn a nuclear waste cask into a so-called "dirty bomb," supporters of nuclear waste transportation can't dilute the human error factor with low-risk probabilities. He noted the Exxon Valdez accident that polluted Alaskan waters with crude oil occurred after 8,000 safe shipments. "Are they willing to kill us to force us to solve their waste problem?" Halstead asked. "The more you know the facts, the more you understand uncertainties. Where's the redundancy to protect us from waste-package failures?" Contrary to the nuclear industry's preference, he said the Department of Energy in order to meet the state's expectations should ship the oldest spent fuel first, if it is shipped at all, because there is less risk with the decaying waste. Maine's nuclear safety advisor, Charles Pray, said he thought Halstead's point about Nevada's expectations is valid. "But you also have to work with the expectations of every state with a nuclear power plant," he said. "I think this country has to move toward a national repository." Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 64 CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Nuclear waste may go via WNC Asheville, NC Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:16 AM by Nanci Bompey, NBOMPEY@CITIZEN-TIMES.COM published May 23, 2007 12:25 am ASHEVILLE — Large amounts of nuclear waste might pass through Asheville if the federal government picks a South Carolina facility as a nuclear fuel recycling site, according to a report released Tuesday by Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads. The Asheville-based, grass-roots group’s report mapped out possible land, rail and water routes nuclear waste would travel should the Department of Energy choose Savannah River National Laboratory in southeastern South Carolina as a fuel recycling center. Web Extras: Multimedia & Related Content Report prepared for the Commonsense at the Nuclear Crossroads - A study of the problems with the transport and reprocessing of nuclear waste in the Carolinas. (2,064 KB) The report detailed the transportation of radioactive materials from plants east of the Mississippi River and north of South Carolina to the South Carolina facility. On I-26 The road routes would pass through Asheville on Interstate 26, and additional waste could also be transported through the city when the future I-26 is completed. “The largest number of people impacted by the new federal program are the people along the transportation routes,” said Mary Olson, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s Southeast region. The group serves as a networking center for people concerned about nuclear power. It also helped to launch the report. The Savannah River National Laboratory is one of 11 sites being considered for a recycling center as part of the Department of Energy’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. Another proposed site, in Barnwell, S.C., is adjacent to the Savannah River National Laboratory. The other sites, including the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, would not require that large amounts of nuclear waste move through Western North Carolina. According to the Department of Energy, the program is intended to increase the use of nuclear energy without contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons capabilities. One part of the program calls for building a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor that would recycle radioactive waste from nuclear facilities nationwide into usable fuel or disposable waste. The agency is expected to narrow down the list of sites in the next two months. While the technology has yet to be fully developed, the recycling effort is an attempt to deal with the large amounts of nuclear waste accumulating at nuclear facilities. “My first intention was to share the horror that developed in me when I discovered there was this much material lying around and no one was doing anything about it,” said John Sticpewich, author of the report. According to the report, there were 46,999 metric tons of nuclear waste at 75 nuclear plant sites across the continental United States in 2002. That number was projected to reach 56,000 tons by the end of 2006. Today, waste is held in storage pools at the reactor sites. Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, it would be transported either by truck, rail or barge to the recycling facility. The waste would be taken in Transport-Aging-Disposal canisters, each of which would contain 76 to 90 kilograms of uranium and 63 to 75 kilograms of plutonium, more radiation than contained in the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, according to the report. About 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been transported over America’s highways, waterways and railroads over the past four decades, according to the Department of Energy. None has resulted in fatalities, injuries or environmental damage from the radioactive nature of the cargo. Sticpewich said the canisters are robust enough to survive a major road accident, but the government does not have a plan to deal with the potential for sabotage of the material. “These things are very susceptible to explosive attacks,” he said. Sticpewich said the report only outlines the scenario if Savannah River National Laboratory is chosen as the site for the recycling center and if the government can develop technology to recycle the fuel. “It is all ‘what ifs’,” he said. “What I am saying is do we want that answered.” Contact Nanci Bompey at 828-232-6003, via e-mail at nbompey@citizen-times.com Copyright © 2007 Asheville Citizen-Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 65 News-Record.com: Triad could route for nuclear waste haul Greensboro, North Carolina: : Wednesday, May 23, 2007 By Jason Hardin Staff Writer The road to a national nuclear waste repository could lead through the Triad, according to a report issued Tuesday by a coalition of environmental groups. That could expose residents here and along other routes to the possibility of a catastrophe — either accidental or intentional, said John Sticpewich, the report's author. The possibility of waste-laden trucks heading through the Triad comes from a federal review of possible sites for spent nuclear fuel. Out of 11 possible sites, two are in South Carolina, potentially making roads across the Carolinas major routes for the transportation of waste, according to the report. Interstates 40/85 through the Triad would be among those routes. Sticpewich, who lives in western North Carolina, said he thinks it's too dangerous to ship the waste anywhere, regardless of the destination. The traveling waste is still highly radioactive and could create a target for terrorists, he said. "You wouldn't have to be much of an expert to turn that into a very dirty bomb," he said. The U.S. Department of Energy is conducting a review of safety and environmental issues and is aiming to make a decision on sites by next summer, said Julie Ruggiero, a spokeswoman. "We want everyone's input, good or bad. It's good to have perspectives," Ruggiero said. "I think it's safe to say we'd only do it if it was safe and secure." The plans include facilities that would recycle some of the spent fuel into usable fuel and that would generate electricity using the fuel. Sticpewich said that the waste is shipped in containers designed to be sturdy, but that the consequences associated with failure are too high to take a chance. "Do you want to play that game?" he said. He also is skeptical of the plans to recycle so much waste. He estimates there are more than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste at various sites across the country. His recommendation is to stop using nuclear power and to keep waste where it is until there is a better method of dealing with it. Switching away from nuclear power would leave a void in the power supply, with alternatives being the greater use of coal plants, alternative forms of energy or efforts at conservation. Contact Jason Hardin at 373-7021 or at jhardin@news-record.com 200 East Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401 (336) 373-7000 or (800) 553-6880 ***************************************************************** 66 Reuters: Cameco sees uranium supply crunch continuing Wed May 23, 2007 3:29PM EDT By Cameron French NEW YORK (Reuters) - Uranium demand will likely outstrip supply for the next five to 10 years, but the supply crunch does not necessarily signal higher long-term uranium prices, the chief executive of Cameco Corp. (CCO.TO: Quote, Profile, Research said on Wednesday. Speaking at the Reuters Global Mining and Steel Summit, Jerry Grandey said that energy producers who are once again turning to nuclear energy will have to burn through existing uranium inventories before the sufficient new production comes on-line. "In the near term we've got a little bit of a supply crunch that's going on mostly because for two decades there was almost no investment being made in exploration," he said, pointing to global uranium consumption of about 180 million pounds a year, versus production in 2006 of about 103 million pounds. "In the long term there's no question that these high prices are going to stimulate more production and as soon as there's a little bit of excess in the marketplace then I think you'll begin to see prices relax." Uranium spot prices rose to $125 a pound this week, up from $7 in 2000 as a resurgence of non-greenhouse gas-producing nuclear power has driven demand. Grandey said, however, that spot prices didn't accurately reflect the longer-term contracts between uranium suppliers and customers. "We see for the first-time in history a decoupling of the long-term price from the spot price," said Grandey, whose company is the world's top uranium producer. "You look at the long-term price, it's about $85, and there doesn't seem to be much upward pressure on the long-term price, at least in the last few months." Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 67 Don't Waste South Carolina: Say No To Being the Nation's Nuclear Dump Radioactive Waste Routes Published by NIRS and 33 Organizations Written by Nuclear Information Resource Service Monday, 21 May 2007 New Maps from Common Sense Campaign Show Likely Waste Routes to Savannah River Site May 22 - Today 33 community-based groups nationwide teamed with Nuclear Information and Resource Service and the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign are releasing new maps showing the likely transport routes (road, rail and water) that high-level radioactive waste (irradiated or spent fuel) would take from nuclear power reactors to the federal Savannah River Site in South Carolina for reprocessing, if that location is chosen under the federal Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Eleven sites are currently under consideration for GNEP; two in South Carolina. Implementation of GNEP would redirect the transportation of this waste, previously assumed to target the flawed and unsuitable Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Part of a study by John Sticpewich entitled "A Study of the Problems With Transport and Reprocessing of Nuclear Waste in the Carolinas," the maps were generated using Department of Energy (DOE) data and the on-line DOE routing program, TRAGIS. "Credit analysts on Wall Street have suggested that moving the accumulated high-level waste from the reactor sites would make investment in new nuclear power more likely," said Sticpewich. "This report documents the huge tonnage of radioactive waste that must be dealt with, the very high costs of transporting it, and the potential for impact that such a move would have on hundreds of communities along the way." John Sticpewich did this work on behalf of the Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign based in Asheville, NC. The maps and his report are available at Maps of Waste Routes. Maps of Waste Routes to SRS Written by Gerald Rudolph Monday, 21 May 2007 John Sticpewich from Common Sense At the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign, in conjunction with Nuclear Information Resource Service has taken Department of Energy data and an on-line DOE routing program called TRAGIS and created maps showing the routes the radioactive waste is likely to take from nuclear power reactors to the Savannah River Site. See Radioactive Waste Routes Published by NIRS and 33 Organizations. Most of the routes go through the Columbia area. The maps following are the summary maps for the road, rail and water routes to SRS that are presented in the report. A PDF version of the map can be downloaded by clicking on the title of each map. Read more... Waste Shipment Route Full Report Available Written by Gerald Rudolph Monday, 21 May 2007 The full report by John Sticpewich is available on cd by contacting John at 828-675-1792 or Kevin Kamps at 301-270-6477 ex 14 or This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Parts of the report can be found here: Likely Routes for Nuclear Waste to South Carolina Written by Gerald Rudolph Monday, 21 May 2007 The Savannah River Site is a likely destination for the spent fuel from nuclear power plants from across the nation if the administration's GNEP program is enacted. GNEP, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, is a plan to reprocess the spent rods to separate the plutonium. Although there are questions about the possibility of using the plutonium for weapons, the GNEP plan involves using the plutonium to create more nuclear fuel rods to ship back to power plants. In addition to the fuel rods, the reprocessing will also create large amounts of highly radioactive liquid wastes and will result in larger volumes of waste than the original. The plan calls for this waste from reprocessing to be shipped to a final repository, but no site for such a repository has been found. Yucca mountain in Nevada was previously the planned destination, but Nevada has refused to allow waste to be sent to the site. Regardless of the lack of a destination, the Department of Energy is pressing places who want to be considered for GNEP to agree to receive the waste even before the reprocessing facilities are constructed and before a final repository site is determined. Does anyone really believe the waste will be removed from SRS once it arrives? The shipments that were originally destined for Yucca Mountain and which would be sent to SRS if it is selected as the GNEP site would be in the tens of thousands of truck shipments, most of them coming down I26 and I20 through Columbia metropolitan area to SRS. NIRS and John Sticpewich from  Common Sense At the Nuclear Crossroads Campaign have used DOE data and DOE software to create maps of the expected routes of waste from nuclear power plants across the Eastern half of the US to Savannah River Site.  Radioactive Wastes and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Written by Robert Alvarez Wednesday, 25 April 2007 Robert Alvarez has completed a report on the waste to be generated by GNEP. It shows some surprising results and  projects waste streams significantly larger than anything South Carolina has seen. 1.36 Mb Original The Economics of Nuclear Power Written by Jim Riccio (Greenpeace) Thursday, 03 May 2007 Greenpeace has released this new study on nuclear economics. It was co authored by former NRC Commissioner and NY State Public Service Commissioner Peter Bradford, among others. The new report published by a team of international energy and economic experts conclusively shows that nuclear power is neither a practical nor economically viable solution to tackling climate change. The report, "The Economics of Nuclear Power", commissioned by Greenpeace International, finds that nuclear power plant construction can run up to 300% over budget and, on average, take four years longer to build than planned. The report includes specific information about the US experience as well as the foibles abroad. A few questions concerning Greenville's drinking water Written by Joe Whetstone Thursday, 03 May 2007 The letter below was written by Joe Whetstone about the health impact of tritium waste from Barnwell in response to an editorial promoting the bringing of the nation's waste to Barnwell, SC. Read more... ***************************************************************** 68 LasVegasNOW.com: Caliente Corridor Being Considered Again For Yucca Mountain News for Las Vegas, Nevada - Melissa Duran, Reporter The Yucca Mountain project is far from dead. One of the trickiest parts about building a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain is getting the waste to the facility. One month ago, the Walker River Paiute Tribe said no to building a rail corridor through the middle of their reservation. Now, the idea of using the Caliente corridor is being tossed around again. Major interstates are being looked at including using the beltway, I-15 and US-95. Nevada leaders say the transportation of waste to our area is more likely to be a threat to us, in the short term, than the repository itself. Although studies show the possibility of an accident is low, the consequences are great. A worse case scenario accident could cost $10 billion to clean up in an urban area and an accident isn't the only thing Nevada leaders are worried about. "There are a lot of military guns, lots of improvised explosives that we know are available that might attack a shipment and that's a very big concern," says Nevada consultant Bob Halstead. "We have spent a lot of money looking at this project and site, and all of our information demonstrates we can protect public health and safety," Allen Benson with the Department of Energy states. The nuclear waste that will be stored at Yucca Mountain is currently being stored at temporary facilities throughout the U.S. The Yucca Mountain project is still slow moving. It's going to be another four years before any definite decisions are made about making Yucca Mountain the permanent U.S. nuclear waste repository. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 Power Magazine: Liar, liar, pants on fire Is the polygraph – a galvanic skin response test coupled with blood pressure and other physical symptoms, commonly known as a “lie detector” test – worthwhile in testing employees in sensitive positions? Acting against all evidence, the U.S. Department of Energy believes it is. In an April 30 memo, revealed by University of Maryland physics professor Bob Park on his website, the DOE notified Los Alamos employees that random polygraph tests of some 8,000 workers in “high-risk” categories will be the order of the day. Los Alamos has been plagued by security violations, mostly of its own making, going back at least to the bogus arrest of Los Alamos researcher Wen Ho Lee in 1999, charged with leaking nuclear secrets to China. The agency was never able to come up with evidence for those charges, so it plea bargained a deal with Lee on breaches of DOE security procedures. DOE is clearly spooked by its sloppy security record of at Los Alamos, the home to some of the most secret of secrets of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, going far beyond the Lee fiasco. Reliance on polygraph tests is an admission of failure, but the only thing the agency has to hold onto as it faces its inadequacies and inabilities to deal with them. Polygraph tests, science has repeatedly shown, are useless. As Park, the former Washington representative of the American Physical Society, said, “The polygraph, in fact, has ruined careers but never uncovered a single spy. If you have an orgasm while being tested and lie about it, the operator can probably tell. For anything else, it’s a coin toss.” The polygraph has two problems. It doesn’t find real spies. And it reports far too many “false positives,” employees who fail the test but are completely innocent. Among those whom the polygraph failed to catch are CIA analyst and traitor Aldrich Ames and FBI agent and Soviet spy Robert Hanssen. The test is, in Park’s words, “Worse than useless.” In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences, at the request of Congress, issued a study of the value of polygraph evidence. The NAS report – Polygraph and Lie Detection – found that the technology is worthless. Used for screening – such as the DOE is proposed at Los Alamos -- the academy found, “It’s accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test-takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.” In short, it’s junk. The academy report was similar to an earlier report from the late, lamented Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, which also concluded that the polygraph tests are useless. So the Republican Congress killed its scientific brainpower agency and continues to urge polygraph tests. Go figure. Federal security agencies continue to use the junk science-based tests, insisting they have value. In April 2003, following the NAS report, the DOE reaffirmed its irrational Jones for the lie-infector. Empty-suit DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham said, “We will continue to use counterintelligence scope polygraph examinations as one of several tools to screen personnel requiring access to high-risk information.” Translation: We will continue to drop employees into the water to see if they float or sink. If they float, they are witches and we will figuratively burn them at the stake. Of course, Abraham didn’t actually say that; some bureaucratic underling wrote the words. Abraham simply endorsed the lie. So the DOE is taking a test, misused in individual cases and never scientifically validated, and applying it randomly to all the 8,000 high-risk employees at Los Alamos. Somehow, this is not surprising in an administration that seems to have a tin ear to civil liberties, intelligence, the Constitution, and science. But the Bush administration surely seems to understand witchcraft. © 2007 Tradefair Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved | Ph: 832-242-1969 11000 Richmond, Suite 500 Houston, TX 77042 ***************************************************************** 70 DOE: DOE Provides up to $19 Million for Advanced Vehicle Technologies May 22, 2007 Projects total $33.8 million with government and industry cost share WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the selection of five next-generation vehicle research projects, which will receive up to $19 million in DOE funding to further the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Combined with industry’s cost share, projects selected for negotiation of awards total $33.8 million (FY’07-’10). The five projects support advanced power electronics and electric motor technologies to help bring advanced PHEV, HEV, and FCV applications to market in support of President Bush’s Twenty in Ten plan, which seeks to reduce U.S. gas consumption by twenty percent within the decade by increasing the use of alternative and renewable sources of energy and modernizing the current Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards. “These projects will not only help alleviate our ‘addiction to oil’ but also play a critical role in accelerating commercialization and making more clean and efficient alternative vehicles available to consumers,” Assistant Secretary Karsner said. “Not only will more alternative vehicles on the road help reduce our reliance on imported sources of energy, it’s also critical to confronting climate change.” Projects will focus on reducing the cost, weight, and size of electric drive and power conversion devices while also increasing vehicle efficiency. Selected projects focus on advancing research on four areas: high-temperature three-phase inverters; high-speed motors; integrated traction drive systems and; bi-directional DC/DC converters. Selected projects are as follows: Delphi Automotive Systems in Troy, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $4.9 million for high-temperature three-phase inverter research. Three-phase inverters control and regulate the speed of electric motors. Other team members include Dow Corning, GE Global Research, GeneSiC, Argonne National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University of Blacksburg, Virginia, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $1.7 million for a project that will focus on developing an advanced softswitching inverter for reducing switching and power losses. Other team members include Azure Dynamics, Powerex, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. General Electric Global Research of Niskayuna, New York, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $3.4 million for work on developing high-speed electric motors. Specifically, this work will focus on increasing the traction motor drive power density and efficiency at reduced costs for PHEVs, HEVs and FCVs by developing an electric motor of at least 55kW peak power and capable of high speed operation – with a goal of at least 14,000 revolutions per minute (RPM). Team members include GE Motors and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. General Motors Corporation in Torrance, California, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $7.9 million for development of a combined traction motor and power electronic inverter for PHEV, HEV, and FCV. This aims to lower the cost, weight, and package volume, and increase efficiency. Team members include Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Ames National Laboratory, Arnold Magnetics, Encap Technologies, Isothermal Systems Research, and AVX. U.S. Hybrid Corporation of Torrance, California, has been selected for an award of up to $1.3 million for a bi-directional DC/DC converter for PHEVs. This work will include a vehicle system study to determine the optimum operating battery and DC-link voltages, allowing for higher efficiency and lower costs. Team members include University of Illinois, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and SiCED. Advancing vehicle technologies is a significant part of DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program, which aims to develop vehicle technologies and alternative fuels that could dramatically reduce the demand for petroleum, decrease emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and enable the U.S. transportation industry to sustain a strong, competitive position in domestic and world markets. Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 71 DOE: Energy Dept. Awards $22.7 Million for Basic Solar Energy Research May 22, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $22.7 million in basic research projects aimed at improving the capture, conversion and use of solar energy. The research will help increase the amount of solar power in the nation’s energy supply. “These projects are part of our aggressive basic research in the physical sciences--what I call ‘transformational science’--aimed at achieving a new generation of breakthrough technologies that will push the cost-effectiveness of renewable energy sources to levels comparable to petroleum and natural gas sources,” Under Secretary for Science Dr. Raymond L. Orbach said. DOE’s Office of Science selected 27 projects that will focus on fundamental science to support enhanced use of solar energy. Universities and national laboratories in 18 states will conduct the research. The projects are part of a department-wide, comprehensive, balanced portfolio of basic and applied research and technology development aimed at significantly advancing the use of sunlight as a practicable solution to meet our compelling need for clean, abundant sources of energy. These projects, along with the commercialization projects funded through the Solar America Initiative, form an important component of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative. DOE plans to fund additional projects in fiscal year 2008. The projects will address two priority technical areas: Conversion of Solar Energy to Electricity (14 projects, $9.9 million over three years) The challenge in converting sunlight to electricity is to greatly reduce the cost per watt of delivered solar electricity by dramatically improving the conversion efficiency. A broad range of research on novel approaches to solar-to-electricity conversion is covered by these projects, including: nanostructured inorganic photovoltaics, plasmonic conversion concepts, organic and hybrid inorganic-organic photovoltaics, multiple-exciton generation for enhanced conversion, and nano-arrays for improved photoelectrochemical cell performance. Conversion of Solar Energy to Chemical Fuels (13 projects, $12.8 million over three years) The direct conversion of sunlight into chemical fuels is vital in order to overcome the problem of the day/night variation of the solar resource and to provide solar-derived energy in forms useful for transportation, residential and industrial applications. Projects in this area focus on two major areas: detailed studies of the machinery of natural photosynthetic systems aimed at biomimetic approaches to solar water splitting and photocatalytic schemes for the direct conversion of sunlight into hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels. The list of new projects follows. Basic Research for Solar Energy Utilization Institution Project Title Solar Energy to Electricity Arizona State University Dynamical Arrest, Structural Disorder, and Optimization of Organic Photovoltaic Devices California Institute of Technology Plasmonic Photovoltaics University of Colorado Study of Multiple Exciton Generation with New Multi-Dimensional Spectroscopies Cornell University Cross-Cutting Tools for Theoretical Organic Photovoltaic Research Massachusetts Institute of Technology Probing Nanocrystal Electronic Structure and Dynamics in the Limit of Single Nanocrystals Massachusetts Institute of Technology High Efficiency Biomimetic Organic Solar Cells University of Minnesota Monodispersed Zinc Oxide Nanoparticle-Dye Dyads and Triads: Characterization of the Early Events in Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells University of Minnesota Extracting Hot or Multiple Charge Carriers from Photoexcited Semiconductor Nanocrystals Ohio State University Designing Nanoparticle/Nanowire Composites and "Nanotree" Arrays as Electrodes for Efficient Dye-Sensitized Solar Cells University of Oregon Conjugated Ionomers for Photovoltaic Applications: Electric Field Driven Charge Separation at Organic Junctions University of Pittsburgh Nanocrystal-Based Dyads for Solar to Electric Energy Conversion University of South Carolina Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Composite Solar Cells for Efficient, Low-Cost, Photoelectric Energy Conversion Stanford University Nanophotonics-Enhanced Solar Cells University of Washington Molecular and Nanoscale Engineering of High Efficiency Polymer and Hybrid Organic/Inorganic Solar Cells Solar Energy to Fuels Brookhaven National Laboratory Solar Fuel Production Catalyzed by Transition-Metal Complexes University of Chicago New Transition Metal Building Blocks and Assemblies for Photocatalytic Fuel Production Emory University Solar Energy-Driven Robust Multi-Electron-Transfer Catalysts for Water Oxidation University of Illinois Self Assembly & Self-Repair of Novel Photosynthetic Reaction Center/Single Walled Carbon Nanotube Complexes for Solar Energy Conversion-Synthetic Analogs to Natural Processes Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Nanomaterials and Bio-inspired Approaches to Solar Derived Fuels University of Michigan Two-Dimensional Electronic Spectroscopy of Light-Harvesting Complexes Montana State University Protein Architectures for Photo-Catalytic Hydrogen Production North Carolina State University Molecular-Level Organization of Heterometallic Oxides/Organics for Photocatalysis University of Pennsylvania Semiconductor Ferroelectrics and Surface Nanomaterials for Highly Efficient Solar Hydrogen Production Pennsylvania State University Nanostructured Photocatalytic Water Splitting Systems Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Elucidating the Principles that Control Proton-Coupled Electron Transfer Reactions in the Photosynthetic Protein, Photosystem II. A Model for Design of Bio-inspired Photocatalytic Water Splitting Washington University Mechanism of Solar Energy Storage by Chlorosome Antennas of Green Photosynthetic Bacteria Yale University Oxomanganese Catalysts for Solar Fuel Production The basic solar research program is administered by the department’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences in the Office of Science. For additional information about DOE’s Solar America Initiative. DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio of research at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide, manages 10 world-class national laboratories with unmatched capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary scientific problems, and builds and operates the world’s finest suite of scientific facilities and instruments used annually by more than 19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all areas of science. Media contact(s): Jeff Sherwood, (202) 586-5806 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 72 DOE: U.S. – China Energy Cooperation May 22, 2007 We are committed to a number of bilateral efforts in which our nations are already engaged, including: * The U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue (EPD) - United States-China Energy Policy Dialogue was established between DOE and the National Development and Reform Commission in May 2004, to facilitate policy-level bilateral exchanges of views on energy security, economic issues as well as energy technology options. * The U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum – This forum was launched in 1998, and serves to facilitate opportunities for government and industry leaders from both countries to have frank discussions about our respective needs in the oil and gas sector. The Departments of Energy and Commerce are co-hosts of the Forum on the U.S. side, and the National Development and Reform Commission is the Chinese host. Industry representatives play a very active role in formulating meeting agenda and giving presentations. * The U.S.-China Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology (PUNT) Agreement - Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technology, signed in 1998, between DOE and China’s NDRC, to reaffirm the 1985 Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (PUNE). Cooperative activities have been implemented by China Atomic Energy Authority. The cooperation covers nuclear technology and export control, nuclear emergency management and safety, and high level waste management. This effort facilitated the U.S.- Chinese Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 2006 for export of AP1000 Westinghouse civil nuclear energy technology to China. We are engaged in several multi-national forums: * The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum (APEC) - APEC is a forum that facilitates economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region. APEC is the only intergovernmental grouping in the world operating on the basis of non-binding commitments, open dialogue and equal respect for the views of all participants. * The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP) - Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, comprised of Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States, addresses action on national pollution reduction, energy security and climate change concerns. Task forces under the APP have met to develop action plans for these sectors. The Partners endorsed plans containing nearly 100 individual projects and activities in Jeju, Korea, on October 13, 2006. * The International Energy Forum’s Joint Oil Data Initiative (JODI) – JODI is an effort by 96 countries to create a more transparent world oil market by providing timely, comprehensive oil data. The nations report monthly to the International Energy Forum Secretariat (IEFS) through the 6 international organizations (APEC, EU, IEA, OPEC, OLADE, and the UN) that joined to create JODI in 2001. The IEFS took over coordination of JODI in 2005, when the internet-based JODI World Database was launched. We will carry forward and build on multi-lateral projects such as: * Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) - CSLF is focused on the development of improved cost-effective technologies for the separation and capture of carbon dioxide for its transport and long-term storage. The purpose of the CSLF is to make these technologies broadly available internationally, and to identify and address wider issues relating to carbon capture and storage. CSLF, which now includes 20 countries including China, and the European Commission, has approved 17 capture and storage projects as well as a Technology Roadmap to provide future directions for international cooperation. * International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy – Established on November 20, 2003, seventeen countries and the European Union are partnering to efficiently coordinate multinational research, development and demonstration programs to advance the transition to a global hydrogen economy. The IPHE organizes and coordinates multinational research, development and deployment programs that advance the transition to a global hydrogen economy. * International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) - ITER is a joint international research and development project that aims to demonstrate the scientific and technical feasibility of fusion power. The partners in the project - the ITER Parties - are the European Union (represented by EURATOM), Japan, China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA. ITER will be constructed at Cadarache, France and is expected to be completed in 2015. DOE laboratories will subcontract with industry to build the components of ITER for which the U.S. is responsible. The total value of the U.S. contribution is $1.122 billion. We are partners in a number of bilateral science and technology agreements and protocols to advance research and development in high energy physics, nuclear fusion, energy efficiency and nuclear security technology, including: * High Energy Physics Implementing Accord – This bilateral accord between DOE and China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Chinese Academy of Science was initially signed in 1979 and is focused on advancing theoretical and experimental research, accelerator design, and related technology – specifically on recent upgrades to the Beijing Electron Positron Collider (BEPC) and the Beijing Electron Spectrometer (BES) * Protocol on Nuclear Physics and Controlled Magnetic Fusion – This protocol focuses on plasma physics, fusion technology, advanced design studies, and materials research. Originally signed in 1979 and renewed in April 2006 by DOE and China’s MOST, this protocol builds on cooperation through the IEA fusion research program and International Thermal-nuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) and includes collaborative research on China’s superconducting tokamak, HT-7U. * Fossil Energy Protocol – This protocol was signed in 2000 and has led to China’s participation in the Government Steering Committee of the FutureGen Initiative. The protocol was renewed in April 2005 and has led to various workshops and cooperation in research and development in coal liquefaction, enhanced oil recovery, and measurements of methane emission from agriculture. * Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Protocol – This protocol was renewed by Secretary Bodman and Minister Xu in December 2006 and is focused on cooperation in industrial energy efficiency; energy efficient building technologies; and joint research on biofuels. Past bilateral energy cooperation has resulted in the demonstration of wind and solar energy systems, training and certification workshops for wind energy technologies, resource assessment training and a renewable energy business workshop. * Protocol on the Exchange of Energy Information – This protocol signed in January 2000 has led to collaborative visits on information exchange and technical assistance related to energy information, analysis, and modeling. * Cooperation on the Beijing 2008 Green Olympics – DOE signed a protocol in January 2004 with China’s Ministry of Science and Technology, and Beijing Municipal People’s Government (BMPC) to promote use of clean energy technologies in use in the U.S. to drastically improve Beijing’s environmental standard by 2008 and to present the event as a magnificent “high-tech” sports meet. Continued cooperation includes the development of a renewable hydrogen production and dispensing facility that will provide hydrogen for a fleet of five hydrogen natural gas buses which will be cost-shared by DOE, U.S. industry and the Chinese government. We plan for future cooperation in a number of areas, including: * FutureGen Government Steering Committee – The Government Steering Committee (GSC) provides guidance and input to the Department of Energy with respect to the design and requirements of the research and testing program for FutureGen. The GSC will review, advise, and influence the requirements and scope of research that the FutureGen Initiative will address. * Generation-IV Nuclear Reactor Agreement – The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) was established in January 2000 to investigate innovative nuclear energy system concepts for meeting future energy challenges. The forum serves to coordinate international research and development on promising new nuclear energy systems for meeting future energy challenges. GIF members include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Euratom, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and United States, with the OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency as permanent observers. In July 2006, the GIF voted unanimously to extend an offer of membership to China and Russia, with formal entry expected in November of 2006. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 73 bizjournals: Energy Department issues proposed rules for loans Washington Bureau May 21, 2007 Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief The Department of Energy issued proposed regulations for government-guaranteed loans to support the development of clean energy projects. The government would guarantee up to 90 percent of the loans, as long as its guarantee doesn't exceed 80 percent of the project's total costs. Borrowers must have a significant equity stake in the project. No loans will be approved until the regulations become final. Congress has authorized up to $4 billion in loan guarantees this year, and President Bush has requested $9 billion for next year. Under the president's request, $4 billion in loans would go to central power generation facilities such as nuclear plants or coal plants that sequester carbon, $4 billion would go to biofuels and clean transportation projects, and $1 billion would go to new technologies in electric transmission or renewable power generation. "This demonstrates our desire to foster implementation and commercialization of new, environmentally friendly technologies that will reduce emissions and strengthen our energy and economic security," said Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. The department is evaluating 143 pre-applications for the loans. Members of Congress have urged the agency to move more quickly on the loan guarantees, which were called for in energy legislation enacted in 2005. Issuing the proposed regulations is an important step, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. "The energy loan guarantee program is important because of the cost of new nuclear power plants relative to the size of the companies that build them," said Richard Myers, the institute's vice president of policy development. For more information, see www.lgprogram.energy.gov. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All ***************************************************************** 74 KnoxNews: The names are a shame By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 23, 2007 UT-Battelle has done a lot of good things at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Naming buildings isn't one of them. The contractor, which took over management of the government lab in April 2000, has orchestrated a mega-million-dollar modernization program with funding from federal, state and private sources. The results have been exciting, transforming the look of a time-worn lab with new facilities that help attract new research programs to Oak Ridge. But the names associated with these shiny new structures are drabber than a lab coat, blander than a hospital diet. Two of the biggest new buildings are the Multi-program Research Facility, which houses the national security programs, and Research Office Building, which is home to an amazing array of supercomputers, research on energy technologies and other important projects. Sadly, MRF and ROB aren't names that inspire people to learn more about what goes on inside. The first building most visitors see upon their arrival is the Conference Center. It houses - duh - the conference center, as well as the lab's badging center and cafeteria. While that name is on the short side of creative, at least it's better than the original titling: Research Support Center. ORNL's new world-class experimental facilities - the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source and the $60 million Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences - aren't much better. They leave most people asking: What did you say? Even Billy Stair, ORNL's communications chief who can put a pretty doggone good spin on anything, finds it difficult to defend the building names. But he did offer what he called a feeble attempt. "When you go through the process of building a facility, you have to call it something - just something generic to refer to it," Stair said. There's hope that once the buildings are completed, there'll be a second chance to give them another name, maybe something more appropriate, maybe something more exciting, he said. "We've discussed it seriously," he said. In fact, he said he expects new names for the two privately financed buildings - ROB and MRF - in the near future. He also pointed out other new signs, some of them made of stone, which offer directions or identify missions, such as counterintelligence. Of course, UT-Battelle's naming practices aren't any worse than those of its predecessors. Before the modernization program, the newest building at ORNL was probably the High Temperature Materials Laboratory in the 1980s. It was pretty cool for its time, with a neat design and modern feel, but the name was no better back then than it is now. Even worse was the early penchant, dating to the World War II Manhattan Project, for naming buildings with numbers. Two of the biggest office structures at ORNL still bear the Cold War names of 4500-North and 4500-South. For gosh sakes, the lab director has his executive suite in 4500-North. That's not special. Maybe if you're a scientist, you have bigger things to worry about than the sign on the front door or the wall outside. The physicists over at the Holifield Radioactive Ion Beam Facility are probably thrilled with the nomenclature that sets them apart from the crowd. After all, that name was an upgrade - I think - from the former Holifield Heavy Ion Research Facility. On the positive side of things, I really like the new ORNL sign that adorns the east face of the Multi-program Research Facility. It has the lab logo with an oak leaf and a big "Oak Ridge," welcoming those who enter the lab via the roundabout at the entrance on Bethel Valley Road. The oak leaf is 17 feet tall and reportedly weighs about 50 pounds, so it wasn't easy to bolt in place. Also, there's construction progress on the new Joint Institute for Biological Sciences, a three-story, state-funded building on the west campus. Completion of the $11.8 million facility is scheduled for October. Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 75 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management Project Title: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board RSO: Crowley, Kevin Subject/Focus Area: Environmental Issue Project Scope A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify: o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports, updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the private sector. o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory). o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites that should be maintained to support research, development, and bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry. The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges. The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The approximate start date for the project is February 1, 2007. A report is expected to be released at the end of the project in approximately 16 months. Project Duration: 16 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/12/2007 Meeting 2 - 06/13/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 76 KOB.com: Former LANL archivist seeks security reports Posted at: 05/23/2007 10:55:39 AM By: Reed Upton Jessica Quintana outside U.S. District Court LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - A former archivist at Los Alamos National Laboratory is seeking documents about prosecutions against U.S. Department of Energy employees who mishandled documents. Twenty-three-year-old Jessica Quintana pleaded guilty May 15th to a single misdemeanor count of negligent handling of classified documents. Quintana was accused of taking secret data home from the lab. Under a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, she faces up to a year in jail, a maximum fine of $100,000 and a year of supervised release. Prosecutors have not opposed her request that she be sentenced only to probation. Quintana’s motion also asks that she be allowed to review FBI and DOE reports related to the matter before being sentenced. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************