Kansas to let nuclear plant guards "shoot to kill"

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signed a bill on Wednesday authorizing security guards to shoot to kill to protect the state's lone nuclear power plant.
"There's no doubt that nuclear facilities are a potential target for terrorists," said Sebelius in a press statement. "Kansas has one nuclear plant, Wolf Creek, and we must make sure it's properly protected. Allowing guards to use deadly force in certain circumstances increases the security of the plant, and of our state," said Sebelius.
The law is called the "Nuclear Generating Facility Security Guard Act."
Texas and Arizona have similar laws and the Kansas measure grew out of the legislature's joint committee on campus security, according to the Kansas governor's office.
The Wolf Creek nuclear power station generates 1,200 megawatts of electricity, which can power about 1 million homes.
A spokesman at the governor's office was not able to say whether there had been attacks on the Wolf Creek plant since it began operation in 1985 in Burlington in Coffey County, about 100 miles southwest of Kansas City.

ABC News: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire

ABC News: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire

Fire Breaks Out at Nuclear Waste Incinerator in Western Japan, but Officials Say No Radiation Leak
By KOZO MIZOGUCHI
The Associated Press
TOKYO - A fire broke out at a nuclear power plant's waste incinerator in western Japan on Wednesday, but officials said no radiation leaked into the atmosphere. Two workers were injured.
It took firefighters wearing protective suits nearly two hours to reach the blaze because of thick smoke, and another two hours to put out the flames at the facility in Oi, about 235 miles west of Tokyo, said Manabu Kobana of Kansai Electric Power Co.
Sensors inside and around the plant showed no signs of a radiation leak, police said. All four pressurized water reactors at Oi were operating normally, and workers at the plant reactors remained at their stations during the fire. No one was evacuated.
"We don't believe the reactors were at any time exposed to danger," Fukui police official Ritsuo Eto said.
Two workers who were inspecting the facility were rushed to a hospital after inhaling smoke, but they were not in critical condition and were not exposed to radiation, fire officials said.
Resource-poor Japan is heavily dependent on its nuclear program, but the public has been increasingly wary of reactor safety following a series of malfunctions and accidents.
The cause of Wednesday evening's blaze located at the waste incinerating facility between the No. 3 and No. 4 reactors was still under investigation. But flames seemed to have come from an area in the facility where the ash from incinerated trash is packed into steel barrels, Kobana said.
The waste processed at the facility includes employee uniforms, rags and other trash from the plant and may contain "minuscule" levels of radiation, Kobana said.
Japan's 55 nuclear reactors supply about one-third of the country's electricity, according to the Natural Resources and Energy Agency, though residents are wary of the plants' safety record.
In 2004, five workers were killed when a corroded pipe at a reactor in western Japan ruptured and sprayed plant workers with boiling water and steam in the country's worst-ever nuclear plant accident. No radiation escaped from that reactor, which has since resumed operations.
In 1999, a radiation leak at a fuel-reprocessing plant northeast of Tokyo killed two workers and triggered the evacuation of thousands of residents. That accident was caused by two workers who tried to save time by mixing excessive amounts of uranium in buckets instead of using special mechanized tanks.
The government has said it wants to build 11 new plants and raise electricity output generated by nuclear power to nearly 40 percent of the national supply by 2010.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

French govt backs long-term nuclear waste burial - Forbes.com

French govt backs long-term nuclear waste burial - Forbes.com

PARIS (AFX) - Industry Minister Francois Loos said the government has decided to propose long-term burial of France's stock of highly-radioactive nuclear waste, following a 15 year review of the options for dealing with spent fuel from the country's network of nuclear reactors. The burying of nuclear waste in rock formations several hundred meters below the earth's surface, known as 'deep geological disposal', would provide France with a secure solution for waste that will remain toxic for hundreds of thousands of years, Loos said at a press conference. 'Wastes have been produced over the past 40 years; they are there, and it's up to us to manage them,' Loos said, adding that new taxes will be levied on nuclear plant operates, mainly Electricite de France, to fund additional research on radioactive waste disposal. Already, provisions are being constituted to finance nuclear waste management, and Loos said that for a typical French family's annual electricity bill of about 600 eur, about 10 eur is set aside to cover disposal costs. A final burial site will be chosen by 2015, and Loos reaffirmed that France will not allow storage of high-level nuclear waste from other countries. But environmental groups were quick to attack the government's plan, saying that public opinion is largely against long-term burial, which has been tested at a laboratory near the city of Bure in Eastern France for several years. Cap 21, the ecology party headed by former environment minister Corinne Lepage, condemned a 'dangerous and unacceptable project,' saying that studies have not demonstrated the long-term safety of deep burial, which could begin leaking radioactivity over the thousands of years they would have to be stored. Loos said Parliament will begin debating the proposed law on April 6, and hopes a final vote on the project will be made before the end of the summer.

Nuclear confusion: help or hindrance?

Ethical Corporation: Columnists - Climate change - Nuclear confusion: help or hindrance?

In this second article on climate change, Janus pleads for an open and fact-based debate on whether or not nuclear power has a future role to play
“Desperate times call for desperate measures”, an old saying goes. The world needs more energy for development – the International Energy Agency sees demand rising by 52% between now and 2030. But if governments want to combat climate change, fossil fuel use – which provides by far the largest (and rising) share of primary energy – will have to be reduced. So what, if any, is nuclear’s role, and how should it be assessed?After decades without new build in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development area, it is no secret that nuclear power is back on the agenda. The main drivers are rising concern about climate change, oil and gas prices, and energy security. But already the debate has become stereotyped. Depending on whom you listen to, we should either be building many more reactors, or phasing them out over the next decades.Here is a set of questions that the nuclear industry should answer if it is to make a convincing case.

Uranium?Uranium, like oil, is a non-renewable resource. By some accounts, there are less than 50 years of relatively cheap uranium left at current rates of use. One German institute puts the figure as low as 20 years. Uranium prices have risen sharply in the past years. The World Nuclear Association expects that demand will exceed supply in the period to 2015, meaning further price rises. If nuclear power is scaled up, energy planning will need to be explicit about fuel prices and reserves. Reprocessing, and other fuels such as thorium, offer possibilities. However, as the experience with nuclear fusion research has shown – where billions have been invested over decades without lighting a single bulb – caution is needed.Time?Being the most complex piece of energy kit yet invented, construction of a nuclear power station takes time. Finland’s decision to proceed with a fifth nuclear plant is illustrative. First proposed in 2000, the 1600 MW Olkiluoto plant was approved in 2002. Construction started in early 2005 and it is expected to go into commercial operation in 2009, with a 50 to 60 year lifetime. In other words, it can be nearly a decade before nuclear power is displacing coal. Is this fast enough to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, and still meet energy needs? And that is not taking into account the fact that most existing reactors are 25 to 40 years old and will need to be shut down and decommissioned in the coming decades. Money?In the 1950s and 1960s, the full economic costs of nuclear power were largely hidden, being partly covered by defence budgets and other government investment. With decommissioning, insurance underwriting, waste storage and disposal, spent fuel shipment and the like, nuclear’s costs have never been fully built into energy costs. With reactors costing several billions of dollars apiece, the opportunity/cost arguments become vital. Given that much of the capital investment will be public money or guaranteed – private investors will not step up without some form of subsidies – is it too much to ask what other energy services a fully-costed nuclear reactor would buy? What, for example, could energy efficiency or renewables deliver for the same money? The work in this area of energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins deserves a close review. Security?Ever since the September 11 attacks on the US, the potential risk of nuclear power plants has had to be reassessed. Apart from releases of radioactive materials as a result of a terrorist attack, the nuclear cycle offers the determined and disaffected various options, including “dirty” bombs and potentially even a nuclear weapon. While International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards have done basically a good job in tracking nuclear use, the current confrontation with Iran highlights the dilemmas. If it were decided to expand nuclear power, a serious strengthening of the international safeguards regime – from mine to long-term disposal – would seem to be essential. Public support?It is a long time since large-scale public demonstrations against nuclear power. But it has been a long time since there was a proposal to build new nuclear capacity in the OECD region, Finland aside. While the public appears to let by-gones be by-gones as far as existing reactors are concerned, no one really knows what the response will be to a proposal to build new plants.CO2 budget?Nuclear is being sold as part of the answer to climate change. However the mining, processing and enrichment of uranium require fossil fuels. Nuclear reactors and long-term containment sites need huge quantities of steel and concrete, production of which is also greenhouse gas intensive. If the “nuclear is good for the climate” argument is to be convincing, a sound greenhouse gas life-cycle analysis will be needed to show how nuclear stacks up against other energy sources and systems. Nuclear has a carbon footprint: let’s see it and let’s see how the carbon cost avoided stacks up against the other options.Technology?Ever since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on “inherently safe” next generation reactors. The problem is that there is limited experience of these. China has built a 10 MW high-temperature gas-cooled pebble bed reactor (HTR-10), which is claimed to be “passively safe”. It is reported to have plans to put a full-scale 200 MW version on line this decade, at an estimated cost of US$300 million. China’s nuclear industry has not disguised its hope to sell the 200 MW reactors throughout China, and to world markets. If the technology proves cost-effective and safe, low-cost competition from China seems likely to add a new element to the economics of the debate. For the time being, nuclear power is a part of the energy mix. If nuclear is genuinely a contribution to efforts to deal with climate change, as ecologists like James Lovelock contend, it should be considered. The case, however, is yet to be made and the unseemly rush in this direction at present brings to mind the old adage that “fools rush in where angels fear to tread”

Terror risks of nuclear fuel

Terror risks of nuclear fuel csmonitor.com

By Mark Clayton Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
The Bush administration's plan to deploy a high-tech fuel to power a new generation of nuclear reactors worldwide has a potentially explosive problem:
It is too easy for terrorists to grab and turn it into a nuclear bomb.
That's the criticism expressed by nuclear scientists and in several little-known federal studies about the technology underlying the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, unveiled last month. Administration officials tout GNEP for technological breakthroughs that dramatically reduce the nuclear waste from civilian reactors and, at the same time, greatly reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.
Using GNEP's new fuel technology, called UREX-Plus, the United States could safely end its three-decade moratorium on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel intended to keep plutonium from spreading, officials say. "The goal of GNEP is recovery of the energy in a way that doesn't promote weapons," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a US Senate committee last month.
Knowledgeable critics have said from the outset that the new reactor fuel envisioned in GNEP is not so very hard to turn into bombs. But what has not been widely known is that their views are echoed by the US Department of Energy's own studies. According to a 2004 study conducted for an Energy Department blue-ribbon commission, for instance, the UREX-plus technology was only slightly more "proliferation resistant" - difficult to turn into bombs - than the PUREX process used by other nations. The US has often criticized PUREX for its vulnerability.
"The bottom line is that UREX-plus is not much more proliferation resistant - by their own estimates," says Henry Sokolski, former deputy for nonproliferation policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration.
To be proliferation resistant, nuclear material should be so radioactive it would be deadly to handle, nearly impossible to divert without detection, and fiendishly difficult to refine into weapons fuel. UREX-plus falls well short by all three measures, according to federal reports.
For example: Any such reactor fuel should be so radioactive that it would be "self-protecting." The National Academy of Sciences calls for a "spent fuel standard" for plutonium. That means it should be so radioactive - emitting 1,000 rads per hour at arms-length - that anyone trying to steal it would receive a lethal dose of radiation within 30 minutes. It also means it should be as difficult to transport as a 12-foot-long assembly of nuclear fuel rods weighing half a ton or more.
But UREX-plus, as developed and as presented to Congress until recently, would emit less than 1 rad per hour, according to a November report from the Energy Department's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Even using the lower standard for plutonium developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, that's 1/100th of the necessary level for self-protection.
The UREX technologies "would still produce a material that is not radioactive enough to deter theft and could still be used to make nuclear weapons," says Edwin Lyman, a physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"UREX-plus is just PUREX with lipstick," adds physicist Frank von Hippel, former assistant director of national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology:Supporters say critiques are outdated
Government scientists say UREX-plus is much better than critics say it is.
"There's only one step where this material has low self-protection, not up to the max, and then it's heavily guarded," says Phillip Finck, deputy associate laboratory director at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, Ill., and the administration's top scientific spokesman on UREX. "This process, UREX-plus, is much more proliferation resistant than things developed in the past."
And the Energy Department's 2004 study that rated UREX-plus only slightly above PUREX "should be performed again in view of the real technological changes since then," he adds.
Nevertheless, Dr. Finck in a presentation to congressional staff last Friday proposed a major change to UREX-plus that would add the radioactive element europium to the mix. That change is intended to boost the fuel's self-protection level, but it would also require additional refining capability at each "advanced fast-burner" reactor site, costing many billions more than the price tag US Energy Secretary Bodman offered in congressional hearings last month, several experts say.
So far, the government has proposed spending $250 million on GNEP planning and development. If GNEP gets the green light, it would cost another $3 billion to $6 billion over five years to get engineering scale demonstration facilities going and perhaps $20 billion to $40 billion overall, Bodman says.
But with the US needing dozens of reactors and reprocessing plants to meet demand, the cost could rise into hundreds of billions of dollars, according to early Energy Department estimates and the National Academy.
Radioactivity isn't the only defense against terrorists and rogue states. Another key is whether the plutonium-based fuel can be measured accurately. Plutonium is a sticky substance that gets caught in nooks, and crannies, like drains. The more accurately it can be tracked, the less likely an employee at a civilian reactor could divert small amounts without getting caught, a strong point for UREX-Plus, Finck says.
But the plutonium in UREX-plus would be in powder and liquid forms and mixed with other materials, known as minor actinides or MAs. And this mixture, which is intended to make it harder for terrorists to extract the plutonium, could make it very hard to measure, government scientists say.
"Even small concentrations of MAs in plutonium mixes could complicate the accuracy of the plutonium measurement if not properly taken into account: consequently, safeguards of plutonium could be affected," Los Alamos scientists wrote in a 1996 study.
A third test of a fuel's proliferation potential is whether it can be readily used as bomb fuel with little further refinement. With PUREX, the reprocessing technology now used by Britain, France, Russia, and Japan, it's clear that its plutonium oxide output could be swiftly and easily converted to metallic plutonium for a bomb, experts say.
By contrast, UREX-plus fuel "is not attractive or useable as weapons material," said Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy at a press conference unveiling the GNEP program last month.
But that's not what several energy Department scientists have concluded. They found that plutonium-based reactor fuels with various impurities can still be used in a crude or even an advanced nuclear weapon.Fuel could become bomb, study says
A "subnational group using designs and technologies no more sophisticated than those used in first-generation nuclear weapons could build a nuclear weapon from reactor-grade plutonium," a 1997 DOE study found. The explosion would be on the scale of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in World War II. But even a "fizzled" explosion would mean a one-kiloton explosion, enough to devastate the core of a major US city.
True, that study did not evaluate the "minor actinides," elements included in UREX-plus, such as americium and neptunium. But more recent DOE analysis indicates such elements are not much, if any, real obstacle to the fuel's use in a weapon. Indeed, UREX-plus would contain americium and neptunium, nuclear elements with explosive properties any terrorist or a rogue state could well appreciate, government physicists say.
"As nuclear weapon design and engineering become more common in the world, it becomes possible to make nuclear weapons out of an increasing number of technically challenging explosive fissionable materials," including the likes of americium, wrote a DOE scientist in a 1999 report.
Such fears are largely unfounded, counters Finck at Argonne. "Theoretically, yes, you could use it [in a bomb.] But it would be an extremely difficult process. I can't comment further on that."
Common security measures, he adds, such as close-in surveillance cameras, real-time computer tracking of material, guards, guns, and fences at UREX-plus reprocessing plants, in tandem with technical challenges would make the fuel very difficult to steal.

Russia, U.S. push nuclear power at G8 energy meet

Reuters AlertNet - Russia, U.S. push nuclear power at G8 energy meet

MOSCOW, March 16 (Reuters) - Russia and the United States called on Thursday for the world to embrace nuclear power to guarantee stable supplies of energy and cut emissions of harmful greenhouse gases.
The two, former Cold War foes who still control the world's biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons, made their atomic appeal at a meeting of energy ministers from the Group of Eight nations in Moscow.
"We are hopeful of a very substantial rebirth of the global nuclear industry," U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a post-meeting news conference.
A statement issued by Russia, chairing the G8 for the first time this year, supported "safe and secure" nuclear power as a key alternative in an era of soaring oil prices.
"Atomic energy alternatives must be accessible to other countries, including developing countries," Russian President Vladimir Putin told energy ministers in the Kremlin.
Environmentalists expressed horror at the nuclear push by Moscow and Washington, which came little more than a month before the 20th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, Ukraine.
Russia is also at the centre of international controversy over its plans to supply nuclear technology to Iran, suspected by the United Nations' nuclear watchdog of seeking to build an atomic bomb.
"The nuclear industry is desperate to secure funding of billions from the taxpayers of the G8," said Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace International.
"If they succeed we will fail in securing a sustainable energy future and will fail to prevent dangerous climate change."
Ministers from G8 members France, Canada and Italy backed the nuclear call. But Germany, now phasing out nuclear power, and Japan, hit by leaks from its Tokaimura nuclear plant in 1997 and 1999, expressed reservations.
FOSSIL FUELS RULE
Russia, the world's largest producer of oil and gas, also used its G8 chairmanship to promote fossil fuels, marking a major departure from the climate change agenda set at the bloc's summit last year.
"Despite the increased presence of alternative sources in the energy mix, fossil fuels will remain the basis of the world energy industry for at least the first half of the 21st century," a Russian statement said.
The statement, which did not reflect a joint G8 position, contrasted with the line taken at last year's summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, which focused on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy.
It also appeared to depart from commitments made by Russia as a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol to curb output of carbon dioxide -- blamed by environmentalists as the main cause of global warming.
Environmentalists have posted what they say is a leaked energy strategy paper being prepared for the G8 summit in St Petersburg on the Internet. Russian officials have not confirmed the draft's authenticity.
"My hope is that the end product won't look like the draft," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the global climate change programme at the World Wildlife Fund. "I am counting on Germany, France and Britain to ensure that this text is put into shape."
PROMOTING DIALOGUE
Russia invited officials from energy consuming giants China and India and oil producer cartel OPEC to promote a global energy dialogue ahead of the July 15-17 G8 summit.
But critics accuse the Kremlin of using its massive energy supplies as a political weapon, adding to the world's energy woes at a time when oil prices exceed $60 per barrel.
Some participants at the talks criticised the Russian statement's failure to acknowledge the impact of a recent gas crisis in Europe.
Russia's gas monopoly Gazprom , which supplies a quarter of Europe's gas, shocked the continent in January by briefly cutting supplies in a pricing dispute with Ukraine.
Russian Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko dashed hopes of breaking Gazprom's monopoly this week, saying Moscow would not ratify the European Energy Charter, which would entail opening access to its pipelines to third parties.

Safe nuclear power supply strategy to be prepared for G8 summit

RIA Novosti - World - Safe nuclear power supply strategy to be prepared for G8 summit

MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - A joint strategy to supply the world's poorest countries with nuclear power without risking nuclear proliferation could be developed for the Group of Eight leaders' summit, to take place in July in St. Petersburg, Russia's industry and energy minister said Thursday.
Viktor Khristenko said after a meeting of G8 energy ministers that initiatives proposed by Russia, the U.S. and France were being currently discussed.
"We hope that during the preparation for the summit all these proposals will gain a more harmonious form, and that there will be a mutual understanding of how we will cover such risks," he said.
President Vladimir Putin said in late January that Russia was ready to build an international center "to offer nuclear fuel cycle services, including [uranium] enrichment under the control of the IAEA."
In February, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed allocating $250 million from the 2007 budget on an international program to produce and deliver nuclear fuel for other countries' nuclear power plants.

EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice

EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice

London (Platts)--16Mar2006

The costs for new nuclear power are "huge," and from an economic perspective
it may not be the best choice for helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
a European Commission official told Platts March 14.

"From a pure market perspective, you have to look at what is really economic
and efficient," said Lars Mueller, a policy officer with the EC Environment
directorate general. "There are huge costs for nuclear power, if you include
the costs for waste, and the waste problem is not solved in any country.
Neither is the problem of decommissioning." He did not give any cost figures.

As a policy officer, Mueller ranks just below EC commissioners. He is involved
with negotiations with European Union states about areas such as emissions
trading and makes recommendations to the EC commissioners.

Mueller was in Stockholm speaking at a public hearing on climate change
organized by members of the Permanent Standing Committee on Environment and
Agriculture in the Riksdag, or parliament.

Mueller said he was doubtful of Finnish claims that the 1,600-MW EPR being
built at Olkiluoto for Teollisuuden Voima Oy, or TVO, is the most economic way
to get more baseload power. "I would be interested to hear how they justify
the investment," he said.

Finland has said that nuclear is economical since TVO is a cooperative that
sells power at cost to its owners and that the owners would be willing to pay
a small premium for security of supply. TVO also has said it can run the unit
as least as efficiently as its existing reactors, so electricity from the new
unit would not cost any more.

Mueller added that the decision to build a new unit in Finland was made for
"policy reasons, not economic reasons," noting Finland's desire to reduce its
energy dependency on neighboring Russia.

Finnish political and utility sources admit that they want to reduce
dependence on Russian electricity and are willing to pay a premium for that.
But they also say they believe that a new nuclear unit can be cost competitive
for the cooperative shareholders in TVO, compared to their other choices for
buying electricity.

Mueller said, however, that given the lack of commercially viable renewable
technology, nuclear cannot simply be ruled out. But countries that choose not
to use it, and opt instead for renewables, must "seriously step up investment
in these technologies."

The market, he said, "should play a major role in giving the answer as to what
type of energy we have in the future."

He also called for "big money" to be put into programs for energy efficiency
in countries such as China and India where economic growth is creating huge
demand for more power.

During his talk, Mueller said that European Union, or EU, states must do more
to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as well as develop plans for adapting to a
certain amount of climate change which he said is inevitable.

While he said that one way to cut emissions may be with carbon capture and
storage technology, he noted that it carries "many legal questions. There are
liability issues that need to be sorted out."

EU states also need to be thinking now about what kind of program should be
set up to combat climate change after the second phase of the EU Emissions
Trading System ends in 2012, Mueller said.

Despite uncertainty over what will happen to the system after that date, and
worries about whether the EU can sustain the system if countries such as the
US don't participate, Mueller said he is convinced that "we will have
emissions trading after 2012. The question is what kind of trading we will
have. But the directive is there and this is one of our key measures."

Concern over Russian plan to sell nuclear reactor fuel

FT.com / World / International economy - Concern over Russian plan to sell nuclear reactor fuel

By Guy Dinmore in Washington and Neil Buckley in MoscowPublished: March 15 2006 18:43 Last updated: March 15 2006 18:43
Russia on Wednesday defended its plans to sell nuclear fuel to India as western governments and advocates of arms control voiced concern that international guidelines were being weakened at a critical juncture for the global system of nuclear non-proliferation.
//
ADVERTISEMENT

on error resume next
plugin = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash.4")))
if ( plugin


-->
Controversy over the deal highlights the complexities facing the Bush administration in promoting its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership – a plan to marry energy security with arms control by providing for an elite club of industrialised nations to supply developing countries with nuclear fuel before taking it back.
Ahead of Thursday’s meeting of Group of Eight energy ministers in Moscow, Samuel Bodman, US energy secretary, on Wednesday called for international support for the plan, saying the US and Russia had a special responsibility to be “good stewards of the enormous nuclear legacy of the cold war”.
But Russia, the host of the G8 meeting, has upset fellow members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group by deciding supply 60 tonnes of nuclear fuel to India, which is not a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
A spokesman for Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia’s federal atomic energy agency, insisted the delivery of uranium would comply with the NSG’s guidelines on nuclear fuel exports, which permitted such deliveries under an exception clause when safety was at stake. Russia considered this delivery to India to be covered by that clause, the spokesman added, echoing a similar stance by India’s foreign ministry. A spokeswoman for Mr Bodman, in Moscow, said Russia’s plan to supply India with fuel had not been discussed during a meeting with Mr Kiriyenko.
The Russian agency’s spokesman said India’s Tarapur reactors were now operating with fuel that had been burned out beyond the projected levels, which affected its safety, since India did not have sufficient enrichment capacity to replace the fuel itself.
Despite such assurances, member states of the NSG – an informal association that sets guidelines for trading in nuclear materials – were generally unhappy with Russia’s decision although there was little they could do about it, diplomats said.
“There is general discontent with Russia,” a senior diplomat said, dismissing the argument that Russia had to supply fuel for safety reasons. “But these are guidelines not rules,” he said of NSG principles intended to stop the supply of nuclear material to states such as India, Pakistan and Israel that have not signed the NPT.
India’s foreign ministry said the Russian decision conformed with the July 18 agreement between President Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Washington. Mr Bush then, the Indian foreign ministry in New Delhi noted, committed the US to working with “friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy co-operation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded reactors at Tarapur.”
The US State Department expressed concern over the deal. But analysts noted that its criticism was much more muted than in 2001 when the US protested at Russia’s decision then to supply fuel to Tarapur, which is under UN safeguards.
“The US is in an extremely awkward position,” commented Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, a non-partisan group that promotes effective arms control policies. “Through its agreement with India last July, the Bush administration has ceded much of its authority and credibility to object to actions by states that break NSG rules.”
Mr Kimball warned that China, also a member of the NSG, would likely argue that it should be allowed to restart its nuclear trade with Pakistan.
Such concerns were voiced by opponents of the US-India agreement, which, if approved by Congress, would allow India to enter the global nuclear market and keep its weapons and some facilities beyond international inspectors.
“If Russia goes forth with the sale of nuclear material to India without consensus from the NSG, this will begin a new era in which the rules that governed nuclear trade for decades are gradually swept away,” said Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat.
Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, said on Tuesday that deals to supply India with fuel should move forward “on the basis of steps that India will take, but has not yet taken” under the nuclear deal that was settled during President Bush’s visit to India this month.
Separately, the G8 is considering a plan to promote a broad expansion of civil nuclear power, part of Russia’s focus on international energy security. According to a leaked draft of its “action plan” on energy, the G8 will call for the development of a new generation of nuclear reactors that can reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and eliminate problems with radioactive waste.

Blair may give Britain new nuke weapons

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Blair may give Britain new nuke weapons

LONDON, March 13 (UPI) -- The British government is considering developing a new nuclear deterrent and may even have started to deploy it.
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has failed to confirm or deny a report that a new British nuclear weapons system is already being secretly developed.
Asked about the report in this week's Sunday Times newspaper about a replacement for the Trident submarine-launched nuclear missile system, Straw said: "We are giving consideration to the development of a new system."
Plans to replace Trident, which some estimate will cost £20 billion, are expected to be drawn up by the next British general election. And Blair has promised MPs the "fullest possible" debate before any decision, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported Monday.
The Sunday Times said an anonymous senior British source had told it work on the weapon has already been underway since Blair was re-elected to a thrid consecutive term of office in May 2005. According to the paper, the research is being carried out at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston, Berkshire.
The Sunday Times said British government scientists wanted to produce a warhead using proven components to avoid breaching a ban on nuclear testing.
Straw said Britain was "entitled to have a nuclear weapons system," and had reduced the numbers of systems it had from three to one.
Blair's official spokesman later said: "We are in a process of thinking about thinking about it," but he added, "not this month and not next month," the BBC said.
Last month Blair told a committee of senior MPs there would be the "fullest possible" debate on any decision to develop a new nuclear warhead. But he said his Labor Party was committed to keeping Britain's nuclear deterrent.

Uranium to soar with nuclear revival

The Standard - China's Business Newspaper

Nuclear energy's revival can best be seen in uranium, which outperformed the metals markets in 2005 and may do so again this year.Tuesday, March 14, 2006Nuclear energy's revival can best be seen in uranium, which outperformed the metals markets in 2005 and may do so again this year.
Uranium is poised to climb 27 percent to US$50 (HK$390) a pound in the next six months because "there's not a lot of uranium available," said Jean- Francois Tardif, who put 8.4 percent of his C$300 million (HK$2,005) Sprott Opportunities Hedge Fund LP into uranium. The Toronto-based fund jumped 39 percent in 2005, when its peers on average returned 9.3 percent, according to Hedge Fund Research of Chicago.
Wellington Management of Boston, which oversees US$521 billion, in the fourth quarter raised its stake in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco, the largest uranium producer. The fund holds 13.6 percent of Cameco worth C$2 billion, according to Bloomberg data.
The Anglican Church in Sydney took uranium off a list of unethical investments last year, and its funds benefited from a 23 percent gain in BHP Billiton, the No4 uranium miner.
Uranium last year gained 76 percent, beating all but one of the 19 commodities in the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index. Only sugar jumped more.
Not even zinc, the favorite this year among commodity specialists surveyed by Bloomberg News in January, will keep pace with uranium.
Analysts surveyed then said zinc would offer the best return from the six primary London Metal Exchange markets, advancing 21 percent.
Just 60 percent of the uranium consumed in the world's nuclear reactors is mined each year. Without supplies from stockpiles and recycled from Russian warheads, the energy industry wouldn't have enough uranium to keep all of its plants running.
Demand for nuclear power is increasing in China and India because of rising prices for oil, gas and coal. Finland is building a new reactor, and utilities in France and the United States are considering additions. Concern that the burning of fossil fuels contributes to global warming is accelerating the push.
Bob Mitchell, the manager of a hedge fund that invests in wholesale uranium, is so bullish that he turned down offers from mining companies to buy his entire inventory. He wouldn't identify the companies or give details on his holdings.
"I remain a buyer of uranium," said Mitchell, of Adit Capital Management in Portland, Oregon. Mitchell said he began buying uranium in November 2004 at US$20 a pound amid reports that some power companies were moving to replenish their inventories. Uranium ended last week at US$39.25 a pound, according to Metal Bulletin.
Speculators "have taken out whatever slack exists in the market," said James Cornell, president of RWE Nukem, a trader of uranium and unit of RWE of Essen, Germany's second- largest utility. Investors are "getting to available supplies of uranium before the utilities."
After three decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry may receive more than US$200 billion of investment by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency in Paris. As well as the 24 reactors now being built, another 41, with a capacity of almost 43,000 megawatts, have been ordered or are planned, according to the World Nuclear Association in London.
China, which plans to increase its nuclear generation fourfold by 2020, has agreed to safeguards sought by the government of Australia before it will allow uranium exports, the Australian Financial Review said Monday.
"Both sides are satisfied with the results of the negotiations and are confident of a successful outcome," a spokeswoman for Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Monday in Canberra.
A 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station in the United States can power about 740,000 average households, based on US Energy Department and World Nuclear Association data.
Such a plant would use a tonne of uranium fuel every two weeks, with about nine tonnes of uranium oxide needed to make the fuel.

Demand for nuclear power keeps uranium rising - Marketplace by Bloomberg - International Herald Tribune

Commodities: Demand for nuclear power keeps uranium rising - Marketplace by Bloomberg - International Herald Tribune


MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006
WELLINGTON A revival in demand for nuclear energy is benefiting uranium, which outperformed the metals market in 2005 and could do so again this year.
Uranium is poised to climb 27 percent to $50 a pound in the next six months because "there's not a lot of uranium available," said Jean-François Tardif of the Sprott Opportunities Hedge Fund.
Uranium gained 76 percent last year, beating all but one of the 19 commodities in the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index. Only sugar jumped more.
Not even zinc, the favorite among commodity specialists surveyed by Bloomberg News in January, is expected to keep pace with uranium.
Miners produce just 60 percent of the uranium consumed in the world's nuclear reactors each year. Without supplies recycled from Russian warheads, the energy industry would not have enough uranium to keep its plants running.
Demand for nuclear power is increasing in China and India as prices for oil, natural gas and coal rise. Finland is building a new reactor, and utilities in France and the United States are weighing similar steps. Concern that burning fossil fuels adds to global warming is accelerating the push.
Bob Mitchell, who manages a hedge fund that invests in wholesale uranium, is so confident about its prospects that he rejected offers from mining companies to buy his entire inventory. He declined to identify the companies or give details on his holdings.
"I remain a buyer of uranium," said Mitchell of Adit Capital Management. Uranium ended last week at $39.25 a pound, according to Metal Bulletin.
Speculators "have taken out whatever slack exists in the market," said James Cornell at uranium trader RWE Nukem. Investors are "getting to available supplies of uranium before the utilities."
After three decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry may get more than $200 billion of investment by 2030, the International Energy Agency said.
Christopher Donville reported from Vancouver.


WELLINGTON A revival in demand for nuclear energy is benefiting uranium, which outperformed the metals market in 2005 and could do so again this year.
Uranium is poised to climb 27 percent to $50 a pound in the next six months because "there's not a lot of uranium available," said Jean-François Tardif of the Sprott Opportunities Hedge Fund.
Uranium gained 76 percent last year, beating all but one of the 19 commodities in the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index. Only sugar jumped more.
Not even zinc, the favorite among commodity specialists surveyed by Bloomberg News in January, is expected to keep pace with uranium.
Miners produce just 60 percent of the uranium consumed in the world's nuclear reactors each year. Without supplies recycled from Russian warheads, the energy industry would not have enough uranium to keep its plants running.
Demand for nuclear power is increasing in China and India as prices for oil, natural gas and coal rise. Finland is building a new reactor, and utilities in France and the United States are weighing similar steps. Concern that burning fossil fuels adds to global warming is accelerating the push.
Bob Mitchell, who manages a hedge fund that invests in wholesale uranium, is so confident about its prospects that he rejected offers from mining companies to buy his entire inventory. He declined to identify the companies or give details on his holdings.
"I remain a buyer of uranium," said Mitchell of Adit Capital Management. Uranium ended last week at $39.25 a pound, according to Metal Bulletin.
Speculators "have taken out whatever slack exists in the market," said James Cornell at uranium trader RWE Nukem. Investors are "getting to available supplies of uranium before the utilities."
After three decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry may get more than $200 billion of investment by 2030, the International Energy Agency said.
Christopher Donville reported from Vancouver.


WELLINGTON A revival in demand for nuclear energy is benefiting uranium, which outperformed the metals market in 2005 and could do so again this year.
Uranium is poised to climb 27 percent to $50 a pound in the next six months because "there's not a lot of uranium available," said Jean-François Tardif of the Sprott Opportunities Hedge Fund.
Uranium gained 76 percent last year, beating all but one of the 19 commodities in the Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index. Only sugar jumped more.
Not even zinc, the favorite among commodity specialists surveyed by Bloomberg News in January, is expected to keep pace with uranium.
Miners produce just 60 percent of the uranium consumed in the world's nuclear reactors each year. Without supplies recycled from Russian warheads, the energy industry would not have enough uranium to keep its plants running.
Demand for nuclear power is increasing in China and India as prices for oil, natural gas and coal rise. Finland is building a new reactor, and utilities in France and the United States are weighing similar steps. Concern that burning fossil fuels adds to global warming is accelerating the push.
Bob Mitchell, who manages a hedge fund that invests in wholesale uranium, is so confident about its prospects that he rejected offers from mining companies to buy his entire inventory. He declined to identify the companies or give details on his holdings.
"I remain a buyer of uranium," said Mitchell of Adit Capital Management. Uranium ended last week at $39.25 a pound, according to Metal Bulletin.
Speculators "have taken out whatever slack exists in the market," said James Cornell at uranium trader RWE Nukem. Investors are "getting to available supplies of uranium before the utilities."
After three decades of stagnation, the nuclear industry may get more than $200 billion of investment by 2030, the International Energy Agency said.
Christopher Donville reported from Vancouver.