Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Brazil nearly built nuclear bomb in 1990s, scientist says

The Globe and Mail: Brazil nearly built nuclear bomb in 1990s, scientist says

Tuesday, August 30, 2005 Updated at 3:10 AM EDT

Associated Press

Rio De Janeiro — Brazil's military continued work on a nuclear bomb after it was ordered to scrap the program in 1985 and by 1990 had nearly finished building one, a leading nuclear scientist said.

Jose Luiz Santana, the former president of Brazil's nuclear energy commission, known by its Portuguese acronym CNEN, said the military was preparing a test explosion when the program was ultimately dismantled in August, 1990.

Earlier this month, former president Jose Sarney, who led Brazil's first civilian government after a 1964-85 military dictatorship, told Globo TV that he scrapped a program to build an atomic bomb when he came to power. The ruling generals were long suspected of seeking nuclear weapons, but Mr. Sarney's comments were the first confirmation of the secret program.

Mr. Santana, however, said the military was still working on a bomb when former president Fernando Collor succeeded Mr. Sarney in 1990 and hoped to conduct an underground test blast in September of that year at a remote base in Brazil's eastern Amazon.

Military officials had even obtained the enriched uranium needed to fuel the bomb, Mr. Santana told Globo TV in an interview.

Mr. Santana said it took him and his team seven months to dismantle the program.

“I took office in April, 1990, ... but it was only in August that CNEN managed to gain control of the container” of enriched uranium from the military, Mr. Santana told Globo.

He said the military obtained the uranium from another country but declined to identify it. He also refused to name military officials behind the nuclear effort.

CNEN denied Mr. Santana's contentions.

“There do not exist any documents in the institutional archives or information that prove the claims in the story,” it said in a statement Monday.

It added that all nuclear material in Brazil is stored with the knowledge of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In 2003, Brazil's science minister at the time, Eduardo Campos, caused a furor when he said Brazil should pursue “any form of scientific knowledge, whether the genome, DNA or nuclear fission.”

Many took the comment to mean Brazil intended to develop nuclear weapons. The government denied having any such goal, stressing that Brazil's constitution bans the use of nuclear energy for non-peaceful purposes.

Brazil's nuclear program again stirred concern last year, when the government announced it was working to enrich its uranium and refused to allow the UN nuclear agency to inspect nuclear facilities in Resende, 100 kilometres southwest of Rio.

The government cited the need to protect industrial secrets. Eventually an agreement was reached allowing the inspections to go ahead with Brazil having to unveil its centrifuges.

Iran says has made new atomic breakthrough

Top News Article | Reuters.com

Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:44 AM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has made a new breakthrough in its controversial nuclear program, successfully using biotechnology to extract larger and cheaper quantities of uranium concentrate from its mines, state television reported.

Quoting the unnamed manager of the project, state television said on Monday night that "the new technique used for the production of yellowcake will reduce costs, and efficiency will increase one hundred-fold as well."

Yellowcake, or concentrated uranium oxide, is an early stage of the nuclear fuel cycle which Iran says it needs to master to feed atomic reactors which will generate electricity.

But Washington and the European Union fear Iran could use the same techniques to produce bomb-grade fuel and want Tehran to scrap nuclear fuel work for good.

Iran has refused and earlier this month resumed work at a facility which converts yellowcake into a gas which can then be enriched to produce reactor fuel or warhead material.

Uranium enrichment itself, however, remains suspended as a confidence building measure aimed at reassuring the world that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Iran hitherto used acid to turn uranium ore mined in its central desert region into yellowcake. Using biotechnology, the television report said, would be better for the environment.

Iranian officials have recently boasted that while some sensitive parts of the atomic program were frozen during the last two years while negotiations were held with the West, Iran's atomic scientists have been busy perfecting other, less sensitive, parts of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

El debate apremiante de la energía

EL CORREO DIGITAL | OPINI�N - El debate apremiante de la energ�a: " "

RAMÓN JÁUREGUI ATONDO /PORTAVOZ DEL PSOE EN LA COMISIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL DEL CONGRESO
Imprimir Enviar
Sea cual sea el ángulo desde el que analicemos el problema energético, negros nubarrones aparecen en nuestra vista. Unos porque dicen que los combustibles fósiles se acaban; otros porque las cifras de demanda de energía se disparan y no hay esperanza suficiente en las energías alternativas, es decir, las renovables (sol, mar, viento y los biocarburantes de la agricultura); otros porque la fusión nuclear se retrasa y quizás no llegue y la energía de fisión nuclear no ha resuelto el problema de sus residuos. Otros porque, mientras todo esto ocurre, seguimos emitiendo CO2 por toneladas cada día y se confirma el caos climático que se avecina. Otros, en fin, porque creen que una escasez de oferta tan grave, de un elemento tan esencial, para la economía y el bienestar del mundo, acabará produciendo conflictos internacionales de importancia geoestratégica.

El crecimiento del consumo se explica fácilmente. Aunque el sector industrial de Occidente se mantiene en cifras relativamente estables, el consumo en el sector servicios y en los hogares crece con los avances domésticos y el aire acondicionado. En particular, los países de la UE están creciendo en el consumo a un ritmo del 1% anual, pero el desarrollo económico de la Europa del Este eleva el consumo energético de la ECOS ( Europa Central, Oriental y del Sur) a más del 2% anual. Pero estos crecimientos son calderilla comparados con los fuertes tirones de demanda que están ejerciendo China, India y el Sudeste asiático, región del mundo en la que se concentran más de 2.500 millones de personas con crecimientos económicos sostenidos de hasta el 10% anual (caso de China, por ejemplo). El consumo energético mundial ha crecido en el periodo 1980-2002 más de un 45% y los expertos aseguran que la demanda se multiplicará por 1,6 en los próximos 30 años.

Conviene recordar que la energía que consumimos procede mayoritariamente de los combustibles fósiles. En la Unión Europea, donde más se han desarrollado otras fuentes energéticas, el consumo derivado del petróleo es del 43%; del gas, el 24%; y del carbón, un 13%, lo que suma un 80%, aproximadamente, de dependencia de los fósiles, con el consecuente volumen de emisión de CO2. Nuestra 'diversidad energética' sólo es del 13% nuclear, 5% hidroeléctrica y 3% eólica.

Si examinamos ahora la oferta, debemos reconocer primero que los cálculos sobre la duración de las reservas mundiales de los tres combustibles fósiles no son infalibles. Tomando como base el ritmo actual de crecimiento anual (1,5% de la media mundial), los expertos dicen que quedan reservas de petróleo para 40 años, de gas para 70 años y de carbón para cerca de 200 años. Pero dos factores se contraponen: de una parte, pueden producirse crecimientos del consumo no previstos y de otra, la búsqueda incesante de nuevos pozos en todo el mundo puede alterar sustancialmente esas previsiones. En todo caso, el examen de la oferta debe completarse con una referencia geográfica: la mayor parte de las reservas energéticas primarias (a excepción del carbón) están concentradas en unas pocas zonas geográficas y en pocos países. Europa es el gran continente amenazado, porque sólo Dinamarca, Noruega y el Reino Unido son suficientes energéticamente hablando. En conjunto, Europa importa el 75% del petróleo que consume y cerca del 50% del gas y el carbón que necesita, lo que la convierte en una zona especialmente vulnerable al futuro energético. Por último, hay que destacar el alza de precios que se viene produciendo en los últimos meses como consecuencia de la Guerra de Irak, la reducción de las reservas, el aumento de la demanda y la inestabilidad geopolítica de los países productores.

Este cuadro de inestabilidad económica y geopolítica, de incertidumbre cuantitativa y de vulnerabilidad e importantes dependencias de grandes zonas del mundo configura una amenaza creciente a la paz. Felipe González ha señalado recientemente que EE UU y China «están tomando posiciones frente a los recursos actuales y futuros en las energías no renovables, empleando recursos económicos, capacidad de influencia y/o potencia pura y dura, pero no están haciendo un esfuerzo paralelo de investigación y desarrollo de otras energías». Su llamada de atención concluía señalando que la escasez de energía acabará siendo un factor fundamental para la paz o la guerra, «tan importante como la proliferación armamentística y las amenazas del territorio internacional, que, para colmo, no vamos a poder separar de los problemas de la energía».

Pero no acaban ahí los malos presagios. Las emisiones de gases derivadas de la combustión de estos fósiles, principalmente CO2, metano y SO2, siguen aumentando y provocando una acentuación del efecto invernadero de la atmósfera, que a su vez origina una subida de las temperaturas globales. El 'calentamiento del planeta' tendrá efectos significativos en el clima, en el nivel del mar, en las precipitaciones, los ecosistemas, la salud, etcétera, por lo que es generalizada la opinión de que constituye el problema medioambiental más serio al que se enfrenta actualmente la Humanidad.

En este contexto, es explicable que muchos hayan vuelto a mirar a la energía nuclear como la solución menos mala. Pero la energía nuclear tiene los mismos inconvenientes que provocaron, en su día, las moratorias internacionales en casi todo el mundo y que no han sido satisfactoriamente resueltos: la seguridad de sus instalaciones, el riesgo de utilización bélica y la falta de una solución aceptable para los residuos radioactivos, especialmente para los de alta actividad, que constituyen una herencia inadmisible para las generaciones futuras durante cientos de miles de años.

¿Soluciones? Hay que colocar el signo de la interrogación al hablar de soluciones en el tema energético. ¿Las energías renovables? ¿La fusión nuclear? ¿El hidrógeno? ¿Una nueva agricultura para cultivar nuevas energías de biomasa? Son signos de esperanza incierta. En unos casos porque sus costes son altísimos. En otros porque la tecnología no está desarrollada, la organización del cambio energético no está ni prevista ni organizada o porque su aportación al conjunto de la energía necesaria es demasiado pequeña. El tema energético reclama una combinación de medidas políticas, económicas, sociales y educativas que afectan a gobiernos y a ciudadanos, a empresas y a investigadores, a la sociedad en general y que, sin ánimo de agotar un problema tan complejo, deben pasar por las siguientes líneas de acción:

Primera. Las energías renovables deben ser potenciadas a través de un marco legal de fomento que incluya mecanismos de estímulos a su generación: primas de producción, subsidios directos, compras obligatorias, comercialización de energía verde, etcétera. En el año 2004, España, por ejemplo, una de las grandes potencias mundiales en industria eólica, tiene instalados unos 8.000 MW, equivalentes al 6% de la energía total generada. Antes de 2010 deberíamos lograr 20.000 MW, aunque eso requerirá explorar la instalación de grandes plantas eólicas marinas, lo que exigirá nuevos consensos sociales y medioambientales.

La producción solar es todavía mínima, a pesar de que España tiene excelentes condiciones de insolación. La biomasa sólo acaba de despegar. En Francia, sin embargo, se han planificado ya cambios estratégicos en los cultivos y se están construyendo grandes plantas para el uso energético de la colza y de otros cereales, en una apuesta que puede revolucionar la agricultura europea. La reciente noticia (EL CORREO del 21 de julio) de que el EVE y Abengoa invertirán 90 millones en la primera planta de bioetanol de Euskadi va en la buena dirección.

Segunda. Los ciudadanos tenemos que tomar conciencia de la gravedad de la situación energética y asumir como inevitable una profunda reforma de nuestros hábitos. El uso del transporte colectivo, el ahorro en los consumos de energía y agua en nuestros hogares, la instalación de energía solar para la calefacción y el agua caliente, la compra de los biocarburantes para nuestros vehículos, el aislamiento de nuestras viviendas y la selección de nuestros electrodomésticos, en función del consumo energético, o la compra de 'energía verde' son sólo algunos de los criterios que debemos ir incorporando a una 'conciencia energética' que debe llegar a todos los habitantes del planeta.

Naturalmente, esta cultura individual hacia la energía debe ir acompañada de políticas de ahorro y eficiencia en el consumo energético que favorezcan la reacción ciudadana: información a los consumidores, tarifas que premitan el ahorro y castiguen los excesos, máxima liberalización de las empresas comercializadoras, medidas de eficiencia energética de los edificios, reformas técnicas en los aparatos de consumo, etcétera.

Tercera. Es urgente impulsar y favorecer la investigación científica y la innovación tecnológica en el campo de la energía. Hay cuatro grandes campos de acción que apuntan esperanzas que debemos convertir en realidad:

-La tecnología de fusión nuclear (ITER) que acaba de obtener un gran acuerdo mundial para instalar en Francia el reactor experimental.

-La tecnología fotovoltaica, que si abarata costes puede resultar fundamental en el largo plazo porque transforma en energía eléctrica la inmensa luz solar.

-La energía eólica, si optimiza su tecnología y se puede instalar en el mar y en países con alto potencial.

-La producción y utilización de biocombustibles para la automoción, así como el desarrollo de la tecnología del hidrógeno.

Cuarta. La no emisión de CO2 y la abundancia de uranio hacen recomendable la energía nuclear en el actual estado de cosas, pero no será solución mientras no se desarrolle la tecnología de fusión nuclear (ITER) o mientras no se encuentren soluciones aceptables al problema de los residuos de alta radioactividad. Las dos tareas pendientes en esta materia son acortar los largos plazos de vida radioactiva de los residuos, mediante investigaciones que están bastante avanzadas, y ubicar en cementerios nucleares 'seguros' (capas geológicas estables y profundas) los restos de las centrales existentes.

Éstos son los caminos sobre los que existe consenso mundial. Ahora hace falta que pasemos 'de las musas al teatro'.

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Europe�s mendacity doomed Iran talks to failure

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Europe�s mendacity doomed Iran talks to failure

By Trita Parsi
Published: August 30 2005 20:13 | Last updated: August 30 2005 20:13

The European Union has proved itself a most unsuitable mediator in the nuclear stand-off between Iran and the US. While it has managed to win extensive concessions from the Iranian side, it has failed to compel Washington to provide adequate incentives for Iran to agree to disregard its rights under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.


The Europeans doomed themselves to failure when they rejected Iran’s right to enrich uranium in return for limited American support for the EU’s diplomatic efforts. But Iran’s right to enrich uranium is guaranteed by the NPT, a fact reflected by the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution urging Iran to “re-establish full suspension of all enrichment related activities”. This step was deemed a “voluntary, non-legally binding confidence-building measure”.

Earlier in April, the EU rejected an Iranian proposal to dismantle its industrial scale enrichment programme while only keeping a limited number of centrifuges under strict IAEA inspections. The EU’s decision was not rooted in a disbelief in the feasibility of the Iranian proposal or the ability of the UN inspectors to ensure that Iran could not violate its commitment, but rather in its fear of facing yet another confrontation with Washington since the Bush administration had made it clear that it would not accept any deal permitting Iran to master the fuel cycle. The White House’s position was spelled out at a press conference on April 28 2005. America recognises that “we can’t trust the Iranians when it comes to enriching uranium . . . they should not be allowed to enrich uranium,” President Bush said.

Clearly incapable of compelling the US to budge, the European strategy has been to procrastinate on the talks in the hope that Iran would fail to call the EU’s bluff, while searching for an exit strategy that would enable the EU to pass the blame on to Iran. The EU found its perfect scapegoat in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s new conservative president, whose reputation was damaged prior to taking office by accusations of involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis. In early August, the EU proposed to Iran what an Asian diplomat referred to as an “empty offer”, knowing that it would cause a crisis during Mr Ahmadinejad’s first week in office. The European proposal did not recognise Iran’s right to enrichment and offered only European – not American – security guarantees in return for Iranian compromises.

But as the EU ducks its international responsibilities, the Iranian impasse becomes bigger than just nuclear proliferation. What is at stake now is the EU’s credibility as a force to be reckoned with in international politics.

It is true that the international community does not have many reasons to trust the Iranian regime. At a minimum, its human rights violations and lack of democracy hinders the development of trust. Yet, the issue at hand is not whether the international community can trust Iran, but whether it can trust the IAEA and the UN inspectors.

In the case of Iraq, trust was put in intelligence reports from Iraqi dissidents with criminal pasts rather than in the testimonies of the UN inspection team. We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The IAEA and the UN inspectors were right and the intelligence reports were wrong. This time around, the IAEA even assembled a team of American and international scientists to verify its conclusions, in order to avoid having its work dismissed by untrusting western governments.

By rejecting the Iranian compromise proposal to avoid a clash with Washington, the EU chose to second-guess the IAEA and not heed the lesson of Iraq. The EU’s exit strategy failed and the Europeans must now produce a verifiable solution with Washington that does not negate rights guaranteed by the non-proliferation treaty.

Symmetry needs to be created in the negotiations by recognising that Iran’s steps and the west’s incentives can only be enduring when combined. Instead of demanding Iran permanently give up its right to enrichment in return for a non-permanent guarantee of access to fuel by the EU, Iran should be asked to freeze its enrichment programme as long as the EU and the US continue to provide it with security guarantees and access to nuclear fuel.

If the EU chooses to refrain from seeking a nuclear solution out of fear of angering the Bush administration, the IAEA will be wise to request mediation from states that have the courage to live up to their international obligations the next time the world faces a nuclear crisis.

The writer is a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University

CanAlaska Identifies Multiple Uranium Zones North East Athabasca Project, Saskatchewan

CanAlaska Identifies Multiple Uranium Zones North East Athabasca Project, Saskatchewan

Canalaska Ventures has defined fourteen anomalous zones.

Vancouver, BC (PRWEB via PR Web Direct) August 30, 2005 -- CanAlaska Ventures Ltd. (TSX.V-CVV: OTCBB-CVVLF) www.canalaska.com, Toll Free 1.800.667.1870, is pleased to report the first quantitative results from uranium exploration and sampling at the Company's North East Athabasca Project. This large project consists of 490,340 acres (1984 km2) and straddles the Saskatchewan-Manitoba border. Athabasca sandstone outliers to the west and south (Reilly Basin) indicate the strong possibility that this area was once covered by Athabasca sandstone. The North East Project exploration licenses cover the northern extension of the Wollaston Belt, which underlies all of the major uranium mines in the eastern Athabasca Basin.

This summer the Company has carried out detailed lake sediment sampling over the entire license area, and is awaiting results on the majority of the 1,900 individual lake samples. Previous exploration work in the North East Project area in the late 1970s identified uranium boulder trains and uranium-rich lake sediments. CanAlaska's current program of surface follow-up and prospecting with a field staff of 15 geologists and prospectors has led to the discovery of new areas of mineralised boulders and outcrops.

Canalaska Ventures has defined fourteen anomalous zones. Of these, seven have had previous exploration, and seven are either new zones or significant additions to previous work. The geochemical results obtained from the early part of this year's survey of six of the zones are tabulated below. An extensive boulderfield in the Hook Lake Zone has uranium values from 0.2% to 3.65% U3O8 (4lb – 73 lb / ton U3O8), and is located south of mineralised outcropping zones of pelitic gneiss which have returned preliminary values from 0.31% to 0.81% U3O8 (6.2 – 16.2 lb / ton U3O8). Significant molybdenum mineralisation is associated with most samples, along with occasional higher gold values. These priority areas are now receiving detailed follow-up exploration by the Company's field crews to establish drill testing priorities.See
http://www.canalaska.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=116069&_Type=News-Releases&_Title=CanAlaska-Identifies-Multiple-Uranium-Zones-North-East-Athabasca-Project-Sa

Highlights:

* Extensive uranium mineralisation in basement immediately to north of Athabasca contact

* Uranium boulder trains 0.2% to 3.65 % U3O8 on surface

* 14 target zones, with 6 priority zones identified

* Blanket coverage with over 1,900 lake sediment samples

* New outcrop discoveries of 0.31% to 0.81% uranium from current work

*http://www.canalaska.com/i/maps/NEMineralizedZones_Aug282005.jpg

About the Athabasca Basin

The Athabasca Basin hosts a number of major uranium deposits including Cigar Lake and McArthur River, two of the largest and highest grade uranium deposits in the world. Production from the Athabasca Basin accounts for over 30% of the world's supply of uranium. For the past two decades, uranium exploration within the Athabasca Basin has been at a relatively low level and it is evident that the potential for the discovery of other deposits remains high. Peter Dasler, President of CanAlaska, has noted that “before commencing our staking program, CanAlaska carried out a comprehensive analysis of existing geological and geophysical data, and the Company has identified and acquired properties that are well located and have considerable potential. The results of our initial airborne surveys have produced targets which support this potential.” 83

The Company and its shareholders are positioned for what CanAlaska believes will be the largest expansion in uranium exploration since the 1970s. Harry Barr, Chairman of CanAlaska has stated, “CanAlaska holds one of the largest uranium exploration portfolios in the Athabasca Basin and is actively exploring its properties”.

About CanAlaska Ventures Ltd.

CanAlaska is a mineral exploration company concentrating on exploration for uranium in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, Canada, where the Company has recently assembled a large land package (over 1,650,000 acres).

Additional CanAlaska Information can be viewed at: Message from the President of CanAlaska Ventures Ltd.,
http://www.canalaska.com/s/AboutUs.asp?ReportID=91419; Investor Relations Information Package, Recent CanAlaska News Releases
http://www.canalaska.com/s/InvestorRelations.asp?ReportID=38704; Recent CanAlaska News Releases http://www.canalaska.com/s/NewsReleases.asp; To receive a FREE CanAlaska Ventures WorldWide News Weekly Uranium Report go to: http://www.canalaska.com/s/Projects.asp?ReportID=103681

The qualified person for this release is Peter Dasler, P.Geo, President of CanAlaska Ventures Ltd.

On behalf of the Board of Directors
Peter Dasler, President

The TSX Venture has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release: CUSIP#137089108. This news release contains certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed in the Company's documents filed from time to time with the British Columbia Securities Commission and the United States Securities & Exchange Commission.

Investor Contact:
Spiros Cacos, Corporate Development
Tel: 604.685.1870
Toll Free: 1.800.667.1870

Iran Holds Big Bargaining Chips in Dispute

WSJ.com - Iran Holds Big Bargaining Chips in Dispute

Tehran May Use High Oil Prices, Iraqi Turmoil
As Leverage in Nuclear Talks With the West
By NEIL KING JR. in Washington and FARNAZ FASSIHI in Beirut, Lebanon
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 18, 2005; Page A4

President Bush says the world is "coalescing around the notion" that Iran must be barred from getting nuclear weapons. But two factors -- soaring oil prices and chaos in Iraq -- are giving Tehran new muscle in its diplomatic standoff with Europe and the U.S.

Iran's role as both an oil producer at a time of record prices and as a player in the politics of neighboring Iraq have made it trickier for the Bush administration to get tough on Tehran in the nuclear showdown. The administration has threatened to seek United Nations sanctions against Iran in the fall if the country refuses to accept international oversight of its nuclear program.

For their part, Iran's leaders seem to sense their advantages. In recent weeks, they have made clear they believe they have plenty of leverage and are less vulnerable to economic pressures from the outside. The country's new, hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently said "no economic or political incentive can dissuade us from getting peaceful nuclear energy."

WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO




WSJ's Gerald Seib discusses Iran's new leverage in nuclear weapons talks with Europe and the U.S.



A State Department official said the Bush administration has noted Iran's "new defiance" but believes it is symptomatic of "a new overconfidence by the Iranian regime in its level of international support."

A diplomatic effort to contain Iran's nuclear program -- led by Britain, Germany and France and supported by the U.S. -- hit a serious snag two weeks ago, when Iran rejected a package of political and economic incentives offered in return for abandoning its nuclear-enrichment program. Iran then resumed work at a uranium-conversion plant in Isfahan -- a step that could assist in making nuclear weapons, though Iran says it seeks only civilian nuclear power.

The restart prompted a rebuke from the International Atomic Energy Agency and Western vows to take the matter up at the U.N. when heads of state meet there next month.

The nuclear standoff comes at a particularly inopportune time for the Bush administration. In Iraq, the administration is scrambling to help the country's factions overcome differences and hammer out a constitution, taking a crucial step toward solidifying the country so U.S. troops might eventually withdraw.

Iran, which shares a long border with Iraq, has huge sway over much of Iraq's now-dominant Shiite population, and it could disrupt the constitutional process if it so chose. Western diplomats in Tehran say Iranian officials have been blunt in recent weeks on that point, threatening to cause problems in Iraq if the Bush administration tries to punish Iran with international sanctions.

The most influential man in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, a Shiite leader whose approval has been central to every political twist and turn, is Iranian. When Iran's foreign minister, Kamal Kharazi, visited Iraq recently he visited Mr. Sistani -- an audience so far denied to top U.S. officials. "It didn't exactly please us to see the Iranians getting face time with Sistani," said a senior American diplomat in Iraq.

At the same time, oil prices have become a domestic thorn for President Bush, and any move that might push them higher could cost him support. Oil hit a nominal record of more than $66 a barrel last week before slipping slightly to $63.25 a barrel yesterday in New York trading.

Iran pumps around 3.5 million barrels a day, or about 4% of global oil production. It is the second-largest producer of oil in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and has the world's second-largest natural-gas fields. Analysts are divided over whether Tehran would openly use its energy leverage in a diplomatic standoff, if only because the Iranian government is so dependent on oil revenue.


Officials in Tehran, however, have suggested that they might move to crimp tanker flows through the crucial Strait of Hormuz, which would have far-more-serious consequences. Around 15 million barrels of oil a day, and a large percentage of the world's gas supplies, flow through Hormuz. The Energy Department calls the strait "by far the world's most important oil chokepoint."

"We have told the Europeans very clearly that if any country wants to deal with Iran in an illogical and arrogant way...we will block the Strait of Hormuz," said Mohammad Saeedi, a spokesman for Iran's Center for Nuclear Energy, which runs the country's nuclear facilities and uranium-enrichment program.

High oil prices also have protected Tehran from outside leverage. Not only has the country's economy benefited, but Tehran also has made a successful push in recent years to slash its international debt and to strengthen ties as an energy provider to developing countries such as China and India.

"Iran's vulnerability to outside economic pressures couldn't be much lower than it is right now," said Patrick Clawson, a regional expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Still, some analysts contend Iran is by no means immune to outside pressure. Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution in Washington said the U.S. could get Iran's attention with a push among the Group of Eight leading nations to impose a ban on major investment in Iran.

"Right now, they are fat and happy with the price of oil," Mr. Pollack said. "But that won't bail them out of their long-term economic problems. For that, they need the kind of investments that can only come from outside."

The diplomatic impasse between Europe and Iran has led even some Republicans in Congress to call for President Bush to open direct talks with Tehran, a move no U.S. president has made since Washington cut off diplomatic ties with Iran in 1980.

Write to Neil King Jr. at neil.king@wsj.com and Farnaz Fassihi at farnaz.fassihi@wsj.com

North Korea Sparks Proliferation Fears Throughout Asia

WSJ.com - North Korea Sparks Proliferation Fears Throughout Asia

Historic Rivalries Exacerbate
Nuclear Anxiety in Region;
Taipei Frets About China
Japan's New Plutonium Plant
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS and GORDON FAIRCLOUGH
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
June 16, 2005; Page A1

(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)

ROKKASHO-MURA, Japan -- It has taken 20 years and $20 billion to complete the nuclear-reprocessing plant that sprawls across a windy field here within sight of Japan's northern Pacific coast.

If all goes as planned, the facility later this year will begin separating plutonium from highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. At full capacity, the plant will produce about nine tons of plutonium a year. That's enough to meet 10% of Japan's civilian nuclear-fuel needs -- or to make 1,000 nuclear warheads.

Japan, which has forsworn nuclear weapons, says the venture is solely commercial and an important step toward energy self-sufficiency. The only nation to suffer a nuclear attack -- the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II -- Japan retains fierce anti-nuclear feelings, though not as fierce as they once were.

But in a region already fearful of North Korea's nuclear-weapons ambitions, the Rokkasho project is adding to the anxiety. Arms-control experts and some U.S. officials warn that if North Korea tests an atomic bomb, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan might reconsider their pledges not to develop nuclear weapons. This trio of American allies possesses more than enough technical expertise, and Asian history supplies considerable mistrust.

NUCLEAR AMBITIONS




See a Q&A with a nonproliferation expert on the state of global nuclear affairs. Plus, the nonproliferation treaty may be losing its teeth amid moves in Iran, North Korea.



"If you had a nuclear North Korea, it just introduces a whole different dynamic," the U.S. ambassador to Japan, Thomas Schieffer, told reporters earlier this month. "That increases the pressure on both South Korea and Japan to consider going nuclear themselves."

For years, the nuclear temptation in Asia as elsewhere has been held in check by formal agreement and a strong international taboo. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, countries that renounced nuclear weapons could expect their neighbors and rivals to be similarly constrained.

But the constraints have weakened over the past decade. India and Pakistan, which never signed the treaty, declared themselves nuclear-armed -- and paid little price for their defiance. Iran is widely suspected of trying to use its nuclear-power complex to build a weapon. And speculation has mounted that North Korea -- which declared in February it has nuclear weapons -- could be preparing to test one.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all insist they have no nuclear-weapons ambitions. American pressure and, in the case of Taiwan, the threat of Chinese retaliation serve as powerful restraints. But key players in all three countries have begun to quietly question their own anti-nuclear pledges while raising even stronger doubts about their neighbors' intentions.


Chun Yung Woo, South Korea's deputy foreign minister for policy planning, warns that a nuclear-armed North Korea could set off a "nuclear domino effect," with Japan and Taiwan following. "I don't think Japan will go nuclear overnight because of a North Korean test," he says, "but it would fundamentally change the balance of forces...providing strong ammunition to the Japanese rightists" who have advocated a more muscular military. Harsh Japanese colonial rule during most of the first half of the past century has left many South Koreans deeply suspicious of Japan.

Japanese officials are just as edgy about South Korea, especially after Seoul admitted last summer that scientists at a government institute had enriched, or concentrated, a very small amount of uranium in 2000. The enrichment process can be used to produce fuel for nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons. South Korean officials said the experiment was unauthorized and wouldn't be repeated.

In light of that episode, Tadao Yanase, director for nuclear-energy policy at Japan's trade ministry, says he wouldn't want South Korea to operate a fuel-reprocessing plant such as Rokkasho. "I don't think the international community can easily trust the country which had this in their past," Mr. Yanase says.

North Korea's erratic behavior has greatly exacerbated this uneasiness. Last week, North Korean officials seemed to signal an interest in coming back to international disarmament talks but then declared that they were building more nuclear weapons.

A high-powered group of nonproliferation experts, meanwhile, has called on Tokyo to "indefinitely postpone" operations at Rokkasho, warning that starting the Japanese plant could make it harder to persuade North Korea and Iran to abandon their reprocessing and enrichment efforts. The group, brought together by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit advocacy organization, includes former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry.

Separately, Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has called for a five-year moratorium on all new nuclear-fuel plants, which he says can turn countries into "latent" nuclear-weapons states. Aides to Mr. ElBaradei say he hasn't said whether the Japanese facility would be covered by a moratorium. Eight countries, although not the U.S., now do significant reprocessing. With Rokkasho, Japan would become the ninth, and the only one without nuclear weapons.

From the outside, Rokkasho, which also includes a uranium-enrichment plant, looks like an ordinary industrial complex, with surprisingly low-key security. Two rows of fencing ring its 1,800 acres, but the gate to a local road stood open on two recent days and guards checking identification were unarmed. A police armored personnel carrier sat outside the facility's most sensitive site: the squat building that houses the 40-foot-deep cooling ponds containing 1,300 tons of spent fuel from Japanese nuclear power plants.

Making MOX

When nuclear fuel, which is made of uranium, burns in a reactor, plutonium is one of the byproducts. The mission of Rokkasho is to extract that plutonium and mix it with uranium to make a newer form of fuel known as MOX. Japan, a country without oil, gas or uranium deposits, has long coveted its own domestically produced source of fuel.

From a viewing gallery above the cooling ponds, the metal sheathing of the 14-foot-long rectangular spent-fuel assemblies look like miniature skyscrapers, glimmering faintly in the dark water. Once the plant begins operating, the spent fuel will be sliced into 1.5-inch pieces that will be dissolved in nitric acid and the plutonium separated out.

Isami Kojima, president of the plant's owner, Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd., acknowledges that some outsiders may worry about proliferation. He says the plant's operations will be "fully transparent," with IAEA inspectors on site 24 hours a day to ensure against diversion of nuclear material. He also vows that pure "plutonium will never be produced." The IAEA, however, classifies MOX as a "direct use material" -- along with plutonium and enriched uranium -- since the plutonium in MOX can be removed relatively easily for use in weapons.

Symbolic Threat

Any perceived threat posed by the Rokkasho plant is mostly symbolic, since Japan has long had the materials and skills it would need for nuclear weapons. European contractors and a small Japanese plant have already separated some 40 tons of plutonium for eventual use as fuel. The country can also enrich uranium, another key nuclear-weapon ingredient.

Within Japan, debate over Rokkasho has focused solely on safety and economics. The Japanese nuclear industry has been battered by a series of accidents and scandals, and there is extra public wariness about comparatively new MOX fuel. No local government has yet agreed to the burning of MOX in its reactor.

Officials with the Japanese utilities that helped finance Rokkasho say the key issue is energy security for a country that gets about a third of its electricity from nuclear power. "We can't rely on the world to guarantee the security of our energy supply and our economy," says Teruaki Masumoto, vice chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies.

The utilities have another serious problem: The spent-fuel ponds at their 53 commercial reactors are filling up. Industry officials say their best hope of persuading local governments to build "interim storage" is if they promise the fuel will eventually be reprocessed at Rokkasho.

Opposition to nuclear weapons "is part of the identity of the Japanese people, as the world's only victims of a nuclear attack," says Akihiko Tanaka, an international-relations scholar at Tokyo University. Still, over the years, Japanese officials -- and not just those on the far-right fringe -- have quietly contemplated the nuclear-arms question, occasionally even ordering up studies on the topic. But until recently, any politician who publicly raised the possibility of nuclear armament usually lost his job.

That political restraint is weakening. In 2002, a leading opposition politician, Ichiro Ozawa, said that if China, which has nuclear weapons, became too powerful, "we have plenty of plutonium in our nuclear power plants, so it's possible for us to produce 3,000 to 4,000 nuclear warheads." That same year, Yasuo Fukuda, then the government's chief cabinet secretary, told reporters that as Japan considers amendment of its post-World War II "peace constitution," which bars the country from having offensive military capability, its declared anti-nuclear stance "is also likely" to change.

Mr. Ozawa later retracted his remarks, and Mr. Fukuda tried to soften his. But neither resigned.

Masahiro Akiyama, a former vice defense minister, says the fact that leaders can talk out loud about nuclear weapons, even if rarely, is the result of Japan's maturity and its growing sense of vulnerability. That vulnerability was brought home in 1998 when North Korea tested a non-nuclear missile over Japan and again in 2002 when Pyongyang confirmed that it had abducted a dozen Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 1980s.

Both Mr. Akiyama and the international-relations scholar, Mr. Tanaka, say that if there is a North Korean nuclear test, discussion of nuclear weapons will become more common. But they believe that Japan is far more likely to bolster its conventional military forces -- a process already under way as the country moves toward a more "ordinary" military -- while seeking even stronger military ties with the U.S. The American and Japanese governments would also have to work "to calm down more extreme elements" in Japan, Mr. Tanaka says.

Japanese Threat?

Meanwhile, Japan's neighbors are nervously watching not just North Korea, but the Japanese as well. Historic Korean mistrust of Japan has been exacerbated recently by a dispute between Seoul and Tokyo over two small islands, as well as concern over Japan's moves toward strengthening its military. In a poll in April by the Seoul-based survey firm Research & Research, 37% of respondents ranked Japan as South Korea's biggest security threat. That compared with 29% for North Korea, 19% for the U.S. and 12% for China.

In a separate poll last July, Kim Tae Hyun, a political scientist at Chung-Ang University in Seoul, found that 51% agreed that South Korea should have nuclear weapons.

Both anti-Japanese and pro-nuclear sentiment will play out in a big-budget South Korean movie set for release this summer. "Heaven's Soldiers" features a fictional joint North and South Korean nuclear-weapons program. The nuclear-armed heroes travel back in time to medieval Korea, where they help fend off invasions by the Manchurians and Japanese. "The reason these kinds of plots appeal to Korean viewers is that many Koreans believe that if they have nuclear weapons it would prevent" attacks by hostile regional powers, says Min Joon Ki, the film's writer and director.

South Korea has a substantial base of nuclear material and expertise. It has 19 nuclear plants and more than 40 tons of unseparated plutonium in spent fuel stored under IAEA monitoring. Seoul also had a secret weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s, until the U.S. threatened to withdraw its military protection. Unlike in Japan, the U.S. has successfully discouraged South Korea from developing reprocessing or uranium-enrichment technology -- a double standard that rankles many South Koreans.

American and IAEA officials say they see no sign that Seoul is trying to revive a weapons program. But privately, some officials say they are skeptical of Seoul's claim that its uranium-enrichment experiments in 2000 -- which required a lot of money and access to uranium and were hidden from the IAEA -- received no official support.

Chang In Soon, the former head of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, where the experiments in 2000 took place, acknowledges that "developing a complete fuel cycle is every nuclear scientist's dream." But he adds, "We have declared denuclearization to the international community, which makes it impossible for us."

Japan is another issue, he says. "Although Japan claims its experiments are carried out transparently under the full inspection of international nuclear watchdogs, the country has the potential to make nuclear weapons," the South Korean says. "The potential development of nuclear weapons by Japan in the future when circumstances change cannot be ruled out."

From the 1960s through the 1980s, Washington stopped various covert weapons programs in Taiwan. As in South Korea, the U.S. has blocked Taiwan from developing its own fuel production. Taiwan's fear that others in the region may go nuclear, as well as the island's anxiety about the growing number of Chinese missiles aimed in its direction, might tempt nationalist and avowedly anti-nuclear leaders to think again.

Last summer, the pro-government Taipei Times editorialized that "the ability to obliterate China's ten largest cities and the Three Gorges Dam would be a powerful deterrent to China's adventurism." The editorial, coupled with unconfirmed reports that the government had set up a small committee to review the feasibility of nuclear weapons, led Nelson Ku, an opposition legislator and former head of the navy, to demand an explanation. Taiwan's then-premier, Yu Shyi-kun, denied that the country is developing nuclear weapons.

Write to Carla Anne Robbins at carla.robbins@wsj.com and Gordon Fairclough at gordon.fairclough@wsj.com

Europe's New Nuclear Standoff

WSJ.com - Europe's New Nuclear Standoff

As Public Hostility Slows Atomic Energy
In the West, It's Embraced in the East
By NINA SOVICH
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
June 29, 2005

As much of Western Europe dithers over atomic energy, its Eastern neighbors are building a new generation of nuclear stations to meet rising domestic demand and explore export opportunities.

Nuclear energy has several advantages in Eastern Europe: labor is relatively inexpensive, half-developed sites from the Soviet era already exist, governments have provided sovereign guarantees on new plants, and there is a determination to reduce dependence on Russia, which supplies as much as 90% of natural gas in some countries.

"Nuclear power is actually a point of national pride [for Eastern Europe]. Sometimes countries are defiant because they don't want to be told what to do," says Joseph Pospisil, a nuclear-industry expert at Fitch Ratings in London. The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria plan to build new plants. Slovenia and Croatia are considering pooling their funds to expand the nuclear station they currently share.

Nuclear energy also seems like Eastern Europe's best hope of exporting energy.

"Coal is difficult to extract and increasing natural-gas consumption has to be carefully evaluated from the point of view of the security of supply policy," said Teodor Chirica, director general of Romania's state-owned utility Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica.

"Nuclear represents the optimum mix for Romania. And while new nuclear plants will focus on internal demand, yes, there is some room for export," Mr. Chirica said.

The confidence contrasts with most Western governments' wariness of public hostility to nuclear power as well as the subsidies needed to underwrite funding for replacement plants or upgrades to existing units. As nuclear-power stations are built in Finland and France, governments elsewhere -- especially in Germany, the U.K. and Italy -- have struggled to decide on the right mix of power sources.

This has led to some cross-border squabbles. The antinuclear Austrian government tried to stop the Czech Republic's publicly traded utility CEZ AS from upgrading its Temelin nuclear plant, which sits 60 kilometers from the Austrian border. CEZ nevertheless plans to add two new turbines to the plant later in the decade, the company said.

The European Union also made the closing of Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear plant a condition for the country's entry into the EU, saying that "it cannot reasonably achieve a high level of nuclear safety." According to the International Atomic Energy Authority, the United Nations body charged with evaluating the safety of the world's nuclear-power plants, Kozloduy was among the most profitable plants in Europe and met the IAEA's safety standards.


Bulgaria closed the plant but said it will build a new nuclear-power station at a half-finished site in Belene, 200 kilometers north of the capital Sofia.

The Bulgarian government is likely to hand over the half-built site at Belene free of charge, valued at €1 billion ($1.2 billion) according to some estimates, and take a 51% equity stake in the plant itself.

"The case of Bulgaria is partly political, partly ambition and to some extent a reaction to the closure of four units of Kozloduy which the EU requested as a condition for entry," said Yanko Yanev, head of the IAEA's Nuclear Knowledge Management Unit in Vienna.

Eastern Europe also is looking to nuclear power as a way to exploit the demand for power in its western neighbors. By 2010, 60% of Europe's aging power plants will have to be retired, in part because of stringent emissions requirements. Germany's coalition government is also committed to making Germany a nuclear-free state by 2021, which would mean closing 19 nuclear plants, accounting for 30% of Germany's power-generation capacity.

Sector experts warn that boosting exports won't be straightforward. Even against a background of aging Western generating capacity and disarray in some major economies about the preferred fuel mix for a new generation of power plants, cross-border rivalries and a lack of transmission capacity could well crimp Eastern ambitions.

Italian energy company Enel SpA's new chief executive, Fulvio Conti, also says he wonders how much room his country has for imports from the East. "Italy is the country with the highest level of energy imports [in Europe], 16%, and it would be difficult to import more," he says. "Imported energy also has potential risks, limited interconnection and increased dependence on other countries."

German power companies E.On AG and RWE AG declined to comment on nuclear-power imports.

France's and Eastern Europe's export ambitions are constrained by the technical obstacle of Europe's heavily burdened cross-border transmission lines.

Capgemini SA said cross-border electricity-transmission lines in Europe were so inadequate that blackouts, like the ones that hit Italy and France in 2003, remain a threat.

The European Parliament has called for €28 billion to be spent by 2013 to increase interconnection capacity.

The race to export power to the West has led some governments in Eastern Europe to offer construction guarantees that utilities in European deregulated markets such as the U.K. can only dream of.

Debt incurred to build the new unit of the Cernavoda nuclear station in Romania, set to open by 2007, was backed by government guarantees and an export credit agreement that lowers interest rates. Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica paid for some of the equity stake as well.

Some countries are calling for tenders before the financing structure has even been ironed out, expressing confidence that banks and nuclear developers such as Areva of France and General Electric Co. of the U.S. will help foot the bill.

An Areva spokesman said such structure was "not the tradition" for developers to take an equity stake in a nuclear-power plant.

GE declined to comment.

"The Romanians will be desperate to export electricity to Greece and Turkey, through Bulgaria, even if they have to limit internal consumption," says the IAEA's Mr. Yanev.

Write to Nina Sovich at nina.sovich@dowjones.com

The Glory of France

WSJ.com - The Glory of France

July 5, 2005; Page A20

It's fitting that France was chosen last week as the site for an experimental nuclear fusion reactor being built by an international consortium. The French have been a glowing example (no pun intended) of the benefits of nuclear power for decades.

No country gets a larger share of its total electricity from nuclear power than France at 78%. Perhaps more amazing, France consumes less than 4% of the world's energy but produces about a sixth of its nuclear power. Because the groundwork for this nuclear proficiency was laid in decades past, France deserves to be at the center of the attempt to take the next big step forward, fusion.

The goal of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor -- a $10 billion joint project by the European Union, U.S., Russia, China, Japan and South Korea -- is to develop the first sustainable nuclear fusion process. The reactor will try to reproduce the reactions that occur in the sun, in which two hydrogen atoms are forced together to produce one helium atom and a tiny amount of energy. Replicated on a large enough scale, and harnessed properly, nuclear fusion could create vast amounts of energy with little waste by-product.

Unfortunately, none of this will happen in time to address the current global energy crunch. Optimistic estimates are that the first commercially viable fusion reactor is at least four decades away, assuming that the goal is attainable at all. For now, the buzz over the French reactor makes this as good a time as any to ask again why good old-fashioned nuclear fission remains a relatively small energy source for large energy users. The U.S. and Britain get only 20% of their electricity from nuclear plants.

Most puzzling is that much of the opposition to nuclear power comes from the left -- which, in the U.S. at least, often takes its cue from France -- and in particular environmentalists. How the greens can on the one hand rail about fossil fuels' contribution to "global warming" and on the other criticize nuclear reactors that don't emit carbon dioxide is a mystery.

Absent the political risks and excessive regulatory burdens typical of the U.S., the French have found nuclear power to be cheaper than coal. Per kilowatt-hour it is less than one-third the cost of gas and oil, according to figures compiled by Energy Velocity and EUCG Inc. As the French have so aptly proven, nuclear power plants can be safe as well as productive.

China, taking a pragmatic approach at a time when its appetite for energy is driving up oil prices, is building two new nuclear plants. The country hopes to double the share of electricity supplied by nuclear power over the next two decades. That would still be only about 4%. But by 2060 China hopes to meet about one-third of its energy needs through nuclear power, an executive with China National Nuclear Corp. told an industry conference in Shanghai this weekend.

In the U.S., no new nuclear power plant has been built since the 1970s. But a Washington-based trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, expects that by the end of this decade at least one company will receive a new license to build and operate a nuclear plant, spokesman Mitch Singer says. In Germany, one of the many potential benefits of a Christian Democrat victory in September's snap elections (as the polls suggest) would be a promised reversal of the ruling Social Democrats' decision to close the country's 19 nuclear plants by 2021. Some 30% of Germany's energy is from nuclear power.

"Sudden climate change" -- the current redefinition of the "global warming threat" -- will come up at this week's G-8 summit in Scotland. Instead of browbeating President Bush for not signing the Kyoto Protocol, industrial nation leaders could do more for economic growth and the environment by vowing to follow France's example and remove the regulatory barriers to further investment in nuclear power. Unfortunately, President Jacques Chirac will be the leading champion of the costly and scientifically unsupportable Kyoto industrial emission rules, smug in the knowledge that France is already enjoying cheap and clean nuclear energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases.

Bush's India Deal Bends Nuclear Rules

WSJ.com - Bush's India Deal Bends Nuclear Rules

U.S. Cites Exceptionalism
Of Situation, but Accord
May Stir Others' Ambitions
By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 20, 2005; Page A11

WASHINGTON -- President Bush unilaterally rewrote the rules of the nuclear game this week when he agreed to sell nuclear technology to India.

U.S. officials defended the decision by emphasizing India's exceptionalism: New Delhi may have an illicit nuclear-weapons program, they argue, but it also is the world's largest democracy and a key ally. Others are watching closely, including Iran and North Korea -- with their own illicit-weapons ambitions -- and South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil and Egypt, which now may feel freer to re-examine or even break their antinuclear vows.


Mr. Bush had a lot of reasons, from grand strategy to mercantilism, to agree -- pending Congress's approval -- to New Delhi's request to buy everything from nuclear fuel to nuclear reactors for its civilian power program.

The Pentagon long has argued for strengthening India as a counterweight to China, and the White House is eager to revive the U.S. nuclear industry with new overseas markets until a wary American public is brought around to accepting nuclear energy as a power source.

U.S. officials also say it was counterproductive to deny reality. India will never give up its atomic weapons, they contend, and with this week's agreement, New Delhi is making important nonproliferation commitments. India agreed to place its entire civilian nuclear program under international monitoring, though it hasn't agreed to stop producing plutonium for its unmonitored weapons program.

Even as he declared India a nuclear power -- a fact the U.S. hasn't formally acknowledged -- Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a joint session of Congress yesterday that his country is "fully conscious of the immense responsibilities." (See the joint Bush-Singh statement)

George Perkovich, a South Asia expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, said that if the U.S. can persuade other countries of India's exceptionalism, then Washington may pull this off without doing lasting damage to the wider nonproliferation system. But, he is skeptical that presenting it "as a fait accompli" is the best course.


"If you can get other countries to agree that this won't weaken their commitment to a rule-based system, then that's fine," Mr Perkovich said. "But if it appears we're being cavalier about the rules...then it gets harder to persuade other people to strengthen the rules or enforce them."

Just a few months ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed similar concerns. In an April interview with The Wall Street Journal, she said any decision to sell civilian nuclear technology to India would have "quite serious" implications for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The Bush administration, which had expected any deal would have to wait until the president travels to India sometime next year, scrambled to explain its decision to allies and friends yesterday. Ms. Rice spoke with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who played an important role in the India negotiations, spoke with senior British, French and German officials and was expected to meet with Japanese officials last night.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, however imperfect, is the keystone arms-control agreement, one that has dissuaded many other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons. The 1970 treaty recognizes only five nuclear-weapons states -- the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France -- and bars sales of nuclear technology to any country that breaks the treaty or refuses to join. India, Pakistan and Israel all have refused to sign. The Indians and Israelis used technology acquired ostensibly for civilian purposes to secretly build nuclear weapons.

Mr. Bush has consistently shown little enthusiasm for traditional arms-control agreements. But until this week he has been one of the most outspoken champions of strengthening and enforcing the NPT, starting with punishing North Korea and Iran for secretly pursuing nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials say Monday's India decision won't in any way muffle those demands and that the cases aren't comparable. "We don't believe the Iranians have been telling the truth to the IAEA for the last 20 years," Mr. Burns said yesterday. "We know North Korea has been proliferating. And we know the Indians have not. They have a very strong commitment to nonproliferation."

Nevertheless, the decision, especially if it is seen as commercially motivated, could undercut U.S. demands that Russia halt its nuclear cooperation with Iran or Washington's efforts to persuade India to abandon a proposed $4 billion gas-pipeline deal with Tehran.

There are serious concerns that other U.S. allies may decide that they, too, are exceptional and that they can abandon their nuclear vows without facing harsh punishment from Washington. Indeed, U.S. officials have been warning in recent months that if North Korea tests a nuclear weapon, then Japan, South Korea and Taiwan all may be tempted. At a minimum, the U.S. could face some tough new demands. South Korea or Taiwan, for instance, could revive their long-held desires for a nuclear-fuel program. Washington has blocked both, fearing the technology could be diverted to produce nuclear weapons.

India's first request almost certainly will be for nuclear fuel for two U.S.-supplied power reactors in Tarapur, both of which already are under IAEA monitoring. Before the White House can agree to that, it must either seek a waiver of current U.S. law -- which bans nuclear trade with India -- or try to amend the law itself. "I made it very clear [to the Indians] that we cannot just turn on the fuel supply next Monday morning. We had to seek agreement with Congress and that may take time," Mr. Burns said.

In a sign of the tensions that may produce, yesterday House members of the conference committee working to draft a compromise national energy bill tried to include language to block the export of nuclear technology to India. Senate members of the committee, however, rejected the move.

The Energy Bill And Your Bills

WSJ.com - The Energy Bill And Your Bills

Law Heading Toward Passage
Includes Incentives to Change
Appliances, Windows and Cars
By HOMA ZARYOUNI
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 28, 2005; Page D1

After five years of trying, Congress is expected to clear an energy bill this week that provides a range of incentives for consumers to rein in energy use.

While the $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives over 10 years are primarily targeted at energy companies, there are a number of consumer provisions, including tax breaks on energy-efficient appliances, cars and even solar power for homes.

The changes won't likely lead to significant conservation efforts, and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman says the bill would do little to ease gasoline prices in the near future. Still, consumer and environmental groups say a number of provisions will provide a nice break for those who already were thinking about buying a hybrid vehicle or installing a solar-power system at home.

Stuffed with all sorts of provisions, the bill is one of the most sweeping pieces of energy legislation in years. It also represents a compromise that drops some long-contentious issues, including a Bush-backed effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife reserve to oil drilling. Critics say it doesn't do enough to wean the nation off its dependence on imported oil.

For consumers, one of the biggest changes appears to be a four-week extension of daylight-saving time -- a provision that excites a wide range of companies, from candy makers, who see better Halloween sales, to the charcoal industry, which sees consumers spending more of their twilight hours barbecuing in the backyard.

NEW SAVINGS




Here's how the energy bill could affect what we buy:

• Incentives to buy fuel-efficient appliances

• Incentives to buy hybrid vehicles

• The extension of daylight-saving time

• Expanded use of ethanol as a gasoline additive

• Reliability standards for power grid (aimed at preventing blackouts)

• Incentives for installing solar power at home




Here is a rundown of the consumer provisions -- and how to make the most of them:

Energy-Efficient Homes

Most of the tax breaks are for upgrading heating, air conditioning and appliances.

In addition, consumers could get a tax credit of 10%, as much as $500, on the amount they spend to upgrade thermostats, to caulk leaks or to take other steps to stop energy waste. To keep down the overall cost of the provision, there is a $200 limit on the credit for replacing windows. The credits go into effect Jan. 1, 2006.

Steve Baden, executive director of the Residential Energy Services Network, a nonprofit company that creates programs to save energy for many federal and business office buildings, suggests that consumers get an energy rating for their homes. The cost of an energy audit for most two or three-bedroom homes is about $400. Mr. Baden says the rating will pinpoint the areas the consumer should fix; he generally recommends making the repairs or upgrades that will lead to significant savings on heating and electric bills.

The bill also gives tax breaks on purchases of some new energy-efficient appliances. Brian Castelli, executive vice president and chief operator of Alliance to Save Energy, cautions that consumers will want to make sure the appliance actually saves them more in energy costs than the premium price costs them.

The bill also gives a tax credit of 30% of a consumer's expenditures on solar energy, with a cap of $2,000. The break, however, specifically excludes solar systems to heat swimming pools.

Tax Credits for Hybrid Cars

One of the biggest new tax breaks is an auto industry-backed tax credit, valued at thousands of dollars for some vehicles, for buying a hybrid car -- one that uses both gasoline and electricity -- or a vehicle powered by electricity or fuel cells. The tax credit, which replaces a less generous tax deduction, is linked to the weight and fuel efficiency of the vehicles.

For fuel-cell-powered vehicles weighing less than 8,500 pounds, for instance, the base credit will be $8,000; heavier vehicles will get bigger credits. Additional credits are offered for cars and light trucks that are more fuel-efficient than 2002 models. (A tax credit gives the taxpayer a dollar-for-dollar reduction in his or her taxes.)

The tax breaks for hybrids are smaller, and the bill limits the number of hybrids sold by any one manufacturer that can claim the credit. The pending highway bill has additional incentives to encourage the purchase of hybrids, which in general are $3,500 to $5,000 more expensive than standard vehicles. Most of the credits apply to vehicles purchased or leased from the beginning of 2006 through the end of 2009.

For cars powered by natural gas, liquefied natural gas, any liquid fuel that is at least 85% methanol or certain other alternative fuels, the tax credit is based on a complex formula that factors in the cost, weight, emissions and fuel efficiency of the vehicle.

The energy bill also extends an existing tax credit, for as much as $4,000, for buyers of electric cars or those powered by rechargeable batteries.

Daylight-Saving Time Extension

Daylight-saving time would be extended by four weeks, beginning in 2007. In the spring, it would begin on the second Sunday in March instead of the first Sunday in April; in the fall, it would be extended for one week, ending on the first Sunday in November.

Opponents talk about how schoolchildren will walk in the dark to get to school. The proponents talk about getting more days of sunshine, a Halloween where children can trick or treat before dark and more cookouts and barbecues. It also is expected to save each household 1% of its energy bill.

The airline industry fought the provision and says it is likely to result in higher ticket costs. The airline industry would have to adjust its schedules and might not be able to operate as many flights.

Energy Bill May Revive Nuclear Power in U.S.


WSJ.com - Energy Bill May Revive Nuclear Power in U.S.

Industry Still Faces Numerous Hurdles;
Is 'Great' Legislation Going to Be Enough?
By JOHN J. FIALKA
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 28, 2005; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- The energy bill nearing passage in Congress could be the best news the nuclear-power industry has seen in many years. The question now is whether it will be enough good news to produce what the industry and the Bush administration both want: a genuine revival of nuclear power.

The bill contains at least $1.5 billion in direct subsidies to promote a new generation of nuclear power plants, plus the potential of billions of dollars more in government commitments to ensure that the plants will get financial backing on Wall Street. (See related article.)

"This is a great bill," said John Kane, a senior vice president for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the utilities that run the nation's 103 operating nuclear power plants. He says the bill, which provides a legal foundation and financial incentives for new nuclear plants, "will set the stage for nuclear to play a role in supporting our future economic development."

The package took months of lobbying, including last-minute intervention by President Bush, who successfully pushed for a new government-backed insurance program -- "standby support insurance" -- that would protect plant owners against losses caused by delays in the lengthy regulatory approval process required to win a plant operating license.

Whether this will be enough to launch construction of plants promising to be safer, easier to operate and more secure against terrorist threats remains to be seen. No new nuclear plant has been proposed since the 1970s, and there is skepticism on Wall Street and elsewhere that the new models will ever get built.

Still, some utilities already familiar with nuclear power are moving ahead. "Congress is to be congratulated," said Curt Hebert Jr., executive vice president of Entergy Corp. The New Orleans company runs 10 nuclear plants that produce 52% of its electricity, and it hopes to be the first to license a new one, with site selection possible in October. No final decision has been made, he said, but the company is "optimistic and hopeful."


Entergy currently has invitations from counties in New York, Louisiana and Mississippi to locate a new plant there. "This is the opposite of NIMBY," he explained. "This is, please build the plant in my backyard." In rural areas hosting nuclear plants, he noted, the facilities represent a good portion of the tax base.

The nuclear plant Entergy is weighing would cost $2 billion to $2.5 billion. That is more than a similar coal or natural gas-fired plant, a factor he said the company is weighing against others, including the possibility that Congress may pass mandatory regulations on carbon dioxide over the next decade. Nuclear power plants don't produce carbon-dioxide emissions, which are thought to be a cause of global warming.

Nuclear power also will be a hedge against the possibility that the price of natural gas -- which fires some of Entergy's other plants -- will continue to rise. The downside, Mr. Hebert says, is that the plants take a long time to permit and build. If Entergy is first in line to build a new plant, as he hopes, the process could take a decade or more.

That is where the energy bill comes in. It extends the coverage of the Price-Anderson Act, which limits the liability for current nuclear-power-plant accidents to $9 billion each, to new plants. Its "standby support insurance" will ensure the first six plants to go through federal and state licensing processes can recover as much as $500 million for delays caused by regulatory logjams or lengthy legal challenges during construction.

It also provides production tax credits for the first half-dozen plants, giving them the same incentives as power produced by wind turbines, and it has $1.2 billion in tax write-offs to help offset the costs of funds needed to ensure that the plants can be safely torn down, or "decommissioned."

"At this point I think you could crawl out on a limb a little bit and say this will probably be what the industry needs to get started," Mr. Hebert says.

Not everyone is ready to get out on that limb, though. Theodore Roosevelt IV, a managing director of Lehman Brothers, said utilities already have started courting Wall Street, and bankers see the possibility of billions of dollars of new investments looming. "We're all talking about this and there is some enthusiasm," he said.

He added that financial analysts remain worried about an unresolved nuclear-waste problem and the proliferation of nuclear materials. They also worry about proliferation of government subsidies.

"I get nervous and cautious around subsidies. These things should be able to stand on their own two feet."

Nonetheless, he thinks Congress has started a process that others, especially those worried about climate change, may have to "think through." Mr. Roosevelt said that "we shouldn't have old nuclear taboos governing future policies."

Write to John J. Fialka at john.fialka@wsj.com

EPA Proposes Limiting Exposure To Radiation Near Waste Site

WSJ.com - EPA Proposes Limiting Exposure To Radiation Near Waste Site

Associated Press
August 19, 2005 7:27 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency, trying to overcome a court ruling that threatens a possible nuclear waste dump in Nevada, Tuesday proposed new radiation exposure limits for the project aimed at protecting the public for up to 1 million years.

Under the proposal, people living near the Yucca Mountain waste site 10,000 years from now could be exposed to as much as 350 additional millirems of radiation annually, more than three times what is allowed from nuclear facilities today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The maximum levels of exposure before 10,000 years would be 15 millirems per year, a little more than a standard chest X-ray.

The new EPA standard is intended to satisfy a court decision a year ago that said the EPA's initial requirements were inadequate because they didn't address exposure limits after 10,000 years, when the site is expected to contain its highest radiation levels. The ruling threatened to cripple the project at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, unless the EPA developed new rules.

Yucca Mountain is planned as a national repository for spent commercial reactor fuel and high-level defense waste. The opening date has been repeatedly delayed and is now expected in 2012 or later.

The EPA proposal, which would become final after a public comment period, will establish a two-tier standard that limits the level of radiation exposure to the public from the waste dump -- one for a period of up to 10,000 years and another for after that point to one million years.

A federal appeals court in July 2004 said the EPA had violated a directive from Congress when it had earlier limited its exposure standards to 10,000 years. A National Academy of Sciences report had said such a standard should target the periods of greatest radiation levels from the waste, a period well beyond 10,000 years.

Under the revised standard, a person near the site must be exposed to no more than an additional 15 millirems of radiation over a year up until 10,000 years as a result of radiation leaking from the buried waste through groundwater or other sources. After 10,000 years the exposure limit from the waste site is increased to 350 millirem per year.

"In short they've decided to kill a few people," said Joe Egan, an attorney who represented Nevada in the court fight over the project. "This is an obvious effort to give the project a pass" after the 10,000 year period.

Mr. Egan said the standard would allow as much as 700 millirem of radiation exposure a year, when added to the 350 millirem of natural background radiation in the Yucca area. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which must still approve a permit for the Yucca waste site, limits public radiation exposure from nuclear facilities it licenses to no more than 100 millirems per year.

Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's head of air and radiation office, said people living near the site wouldn't be subject to "any more radiation than millions of people routinely are exposed to from natural radiation" in cities such as Denver where natural background radiation is high because of their elevation.

Annual radiation from natural sources varies widely depending on elevation and other factors, but averages about 300 millirems a year, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It can be as high as 700 millirems in some areas such as Denver, said Mr. Holmstead.

The Yucca Mountain waste site is being designed to accept highly radioactive used reactor fuel from commercial nuclear power plants around the country as well as some defense waste. The government had hoped to open the underground site by 2010, but that timetable has slipped to 2012 or possibly later.

Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the Energy Department, said the administration is firmly committed to pushing ahead with the Yucca project. "This is a standard that we can certainly meet," he said, when told of the EPA's two-tier approach. The Energy Department hopes to submit a formal application for a license for Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission early next year, although Mr. Stevens said the department was not setting a date.

Opponents of the site said it fell short of what is needed. "It's not a protective standard," said Judy Treichel, director of the Las Vegas-based Nuclear Waste Task Force, which opposes the Yucca project. "It's a way, I guess, for the EPA to help the Department of Energy build its dump."

Monday, August 29, 2005

Gulf of Mexico oil output falls 92% after Katrina -

Accident halts work to ship soil containing uranium to U.S. - Japan's Leading International News Network

Japan Today - News - Accident halts work to ship soil containing uranium to U.S. - Japan's Leading International News Network

Monday, August 29, 2005 at 14:56 JST
TOTTORI — A governmental nuclear research and development institute began work Monday to ship soil containing uranium ore from Yurihama, Tottori Prefecture, to the United States for disposal, but the work was suspended almost immediately due to an accident.

The operation, planned to be completed in 19 days, was suspended after a bag containing the soil fell from a vehicle during transportation, causing slight injuries to a worker, the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute said. Under the operation, the institute plans to transport some 290 cubic meters of soil with a relatively high surface radioactive level out of the total of 3,000 cubic meters of uranium-containing soil from the town's Katamo district.

© 2005 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission.

Expert highlights advantages of establishing nuclear power plants - Irna

Expert highlights advantages of establishing nuclear power plants - Irna

Tehran, Aug 29, IRNA
Iran-Energy-Hassan-Nejad
Current crude prices make any plan to replace fossil power plants with nuclear ones justifiable, said a senior energy economy expert Hadi Hassan-Nejad here on Monday.

Hassan-Nejad told IRNA that pumping crude from underground reserves is economical due to the low cost of the project.

He said recovery of oil from new reserves, however, cost dearly and in other words, since delivery of each barrel of crude through this method is costlier, replacement of fossil power plants with nuclear ones is justifiable.

He added that the shortage of gas and kiln oil in certain periods of the year for power generation in power plants is among other reasons that justified establishment of the nuclear power plants.

Hassan-Nejad said the cost of controlling pollution caused by nuclear power plants compared to the cost for controlling pollution caused by fossil power plants much lower

ACCI urges nuclear power rethink. 29/08/2005. ABC News Online

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1448563.htm

Australia's largest business organisation has called on the Federal Government to seriously consider nuclear power as a way of meeting Australia's energy needs.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) chief executive Peter Hendy says solar and wind power are not yet viable solutions and would cost jobs if implemented in a widespread way.

On the other hand, he says nuclear power is economically efficient and does not add to greenhouse gas emissions.

The ACCI wants the Federal Government to conduct a feasibility study into the establishment of nuclear power generators in Australia.

It concedes fossil fuels will continue to supply most of the country's energy needs but argues it is only sensible to look at all options.

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Nuke industry seeks more power - York Daily Record

Nuke industry seeks more power - York Daily Record

Consortium to apply for first new reactor since TMI accident
By SEAN ADKINS
Daily Record/Sunday News
Sunday, August 28, 2005

At bottom: · In it together
Mention nuclear power to a longtime resident who lives within eyeshot of Three Mile Island in Dauphin County and the reaction is usually mixed.
Memories of mass evacuations and news reports of dangerous radiation levels spurred by the March 1979 partial meltdown of TMI Unit 2 has marred the reputation of the nuclear industry.

The U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not approved the construction of a new plant since 1978, said Diane Screnci, an NRC spokeswoman.

A negative public perception of the nuclear industry, the NRC’s strong focus on TMI’s partial meltdown a year after the accident and the drive for utilities to improve existing plants rather than invest in new sites all have delayed the filing of any permit application to build a reactor, said David Lochbaum, nuclear power expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit environmental group.

“The regulatory framework has always been there,” Screnci said. “It was a decision by the utilities not file an application.”

The NRC is the federal regulatory body that issues permits needed to build and operate nuclear power plants.

The need to meet the nation’s hunger for electrical power may make new nuclear reactors at existing plants a reality.

Last month, Maryland state and local officials met with members of a consortium of nuclear power companies to discuss the possibility of building a $2 billion Calvert Cliffs Unit 3.

The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power plant is a dual-reactor site in Lusby, Md. — located roughly three hours south of York County.

Nuclear power companies have collectively argued for years that benefits such as the reduction of greenhouse gasses would support the building of new reactors.

The five-member Board of Calvert County Commissioners passed a resolution in July unanimously supporting the project in an effort to urge NuStart Energy Development LLC to select the site for the first nuclear reactor to be built in nearly 30 years, said Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell, a Charles County, Md., Republican and the Maryland House minority whip.

O’Donnell was a senior at Middletown Area High School at the time of the TMI Unit 2 partial meltdown. Following high school, O’Donnell served in the U.S. Navy and eventually landed a job at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant.

While O’Donnell no longer works for the plant, he continues to live within five miles of the site.

“I think the revitalization of the nuke industry in the United States is long overdue,” he said. “My hope is that this country is building a new plant by the end of this decade. It’s part of the national energy policy to advocate this.”

In Pennsylvania, State Rep. Bruce Smith, R-Dillsburg, said he is disappointed that Calvert Cliffs may soon house the nation’s first new reactor since the partial meltdown of TMI Unit 2. Smith lived in northern York County at the time of the accident.

“The nuclear industry wants to do this as quickly and smoothly as possible so that they can get back into big business,” he said. “Due to my experience with TMI, I don’t support the use of nuclear power in the United States.”

Despite some negative opinions regarding the proliferation of the nuclear power industry, NuStart Energy and its member companies continue to collect data on individual plants.

Constellation-owned Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is one of six sites now under review by NuStart Energy for the possible construction of a standardized advanced nuclear reactor.

Formed in March 2004, NuStart Energy is a consortium of 11 nuclear power-related companies that joined forces to share the cost of a combined construction and operating license — an NRC permit needed to build and operate a commercial nuclear reactor.

Created by the NRC in 1989, the combined construction permit and operating license requires a detailed site environmental review and a preliminary safety analysis. Those combined studies, along with other required reviews, can cost more than $500 million.

To help offset the cost and encourage the construction of new plants, the U.S. Department of Energy agreed — through its Nuclear Power 2010 program — to use federal dollars to pay 50 percent of the cost to prepare a license application.

In September, NuStart Energy will file two applications with the NRC for combined construction and operating licenses for two of the six sites, said Marilyn Kray, president of NuStart Energy and a vice president at Exelon Generation in Philadelphia.

Exelon owns and operates TMI Unit 1 and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station.

One license application will outline a design for a General Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor while the other will review plans to build a Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Reactor.

While NuStart Energy will take about three years to complete the license application before it is submitted to the NRC, most utilities have spent nearly 30 years designing steps that would lead to a new nuclear reactor.


Construction fallout

For about a year following the TMI accident, the NRC geared most of its focus on the cause of the partial meltdown and how a similar catastrophe could be averted at other plants, Lochbaum said.

At that time, nearly all of the commission’s officials had been drawn into that investigation and reviews of all operating licenses needed by companies to run their plants were all but postponed, he said. “They did not have resources to review a plant that was under construction,” Lochbaum said. “The accident did not speed up the construction of plants already in the pipeline.”

A year after the accident, the NRC resumed its normal operating license review processes, he said.

Another reason why utilities have not applied to build a plant in nearly 30 years may have more to do with economics and a lack of demand than with the public distrust of the nuclear industry.

Roughly half of the 103 reactors now in operation were under construction at the time of the TMI Unit 2 partial meltdown.

Nuclear power companies brought those plant’s online in the decade following the accident and started to generate enough power to meet demand.

In 1990s, those companies chose to improve the capacity of their current plants rather than invest in new sites, Lochbaum said.

“It was cheaper to improve rather than to build,” he said. “You already had all the concrete and cables paid for. You didn’t need to go through the regulatory process.

Since 1990, nuclear power plants have been able to improve their average electrical generation capacity from 65 to 90 percent, Lochbaum said.

“That does not leave too much room from growth,” he said. “(Utilities) have to start building more plants to produce more electricity and meet the demand of growing population.”


A powerful need

Nuclear power companies have offered many reasons why the United States needs more power plants.

Aside from the fact that a nuclear power plant produces no greenhouse gasses, some utilities argue that more sites would allow for additional power output and eventually help to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Such logic is problematic.

Dick Dubiel said Northeast residents who use oil to heat their homes would need to switch to electricity to support the argument that more power plants would help reduce the need for foreign fuel.

In the northeastern United States, more people use heating oil as a main fuel source compared to other sections of the country, he said. Dubiel is a co-owner of Woodstock, Ga.-based Millennium Services Inc., a consulting firm that specializes in the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

Between 1974 and 1982, Dubiel supervised Three Mile Island’s radiation, protection and chemistry program.

More electricity generated by additional power plants will not reduce the need for gasoline, he said.

“When you talk about the dependence on foreign energy, you are talking about gas,” Dubiel said. “Unless everyone switches to electric-powered cars, (more nuclear power plants) won’t be much of a help.”

About 80 percent of imported oil is used for domestic transportation, according to eyeforfuelcells.com.

One expert contends additional reactors would likely replace plants that are on tap to be decommissioned by the NRC within the next 20 to 40 years.

Lochbaum said utilities do not need to prove that additional nuclear power reactors are needed immediately. Rather, those companies need to show that new-generation reactors would be ready to replace many aging power plants that will most likely be decommissioned in the near future, he said.

“These newer reactors can help shoulder the burden and continue to help meet demands (for energy),” he said.

These new plants do have the potential to satisfy the nation’s hunger for electricity, but the projects also have potential to boost the economy.

If approved by the NRC and NuStart Energy, the Calvert Cliffs expansion would create 2,000 to 3,000 construction jobs during the four years that are needed to build the advanced reactor, according to the Calvert County Department of Economic Development.

Utilities are not expected to face work shortage delays similar to those that arose when commercial nuclear power was more widely accepted. In the 1970s, when multiple plants were under construction, a manpower shortage of welders and engineers caused widespread delays, Lochbaum said.

Costs went up and schedules slipped, he said.

“There were dozens of projects going on at the same time,” Lochbaum said. “We drained the tanks dry in terms of manpower. This time around, you’ll only have two projects going on at the same time so staffing shouldn’t be a problem.”

Aside from construction jobs, a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs does promise to boost permanent employment. Constellation Energy could hire an additional 250 to 400 people to help operate the advanced reactor, said Keith Cunningham, director of the utility’s communications.

Should the commission issue a combined permit for a new reactor to be built at Calvert Cliffs, the new site could be operational by 2014.

Electricity generated by the new reactor would flow to the PJM Interconnection power grid.

All of York County’s power flows through PJM’s grid.

Regardless of the approved permits, Constellation Energy or any other member of NuStart Energy would not be obligated to build a reactor, Kray said.

The utility could sell off that particular portion of land to another company or build a reactor it intends to sell or operate, Cunningham said.

“There would be a lot of options,” he said. “It is still too early to make any sort of conclusions or decisions. We are very pleased our site was chosen (among the finalists).”



Reactor strength

In the past, NRC officials struggled to regulate a motley crew of reactor designs.

Often, the commission had to retain a large engineering staff with a diverse knowledge of reactor designs, Dubiel said. The task of regulating several reactor designs often slowed the licensing process, he said.

Since the accident at TMI Unit 2, engineers have worked to standardize reactor designs that rely more on the laws of physics than on laws of engineering.

“The laws of physics can’t make mistakes,” Dubiel said.

Both proposed reactor designs — the General Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor and the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Reactor — allow for fewer pipes and valves compared to their older counterparts, Kray said.

The operation relies on natural circulation, gravity feed and heat transfer, she said.

“Safety is improved if you have less failure mechanism,” Kray said. “The less equipment you need to buy and maintain.”

Lochbaum said engineers have based several of their modern reactor designs on the lessons learned from the 1979 TMI Unit 2 partial meltdown.

For example, at the time of the accident, the reactor’s feedwater pumps shut down, and plant officials switched on the plant’s auxiliary systems.

Initially, the auxiliary or backup feedwater system experienced problems. Valves were closed that should have been open, Lochbaum said.

Modern systems are designed as dual purpose, and several of the components can act as primary and secondary equipment, he said.

An advanced reactor would have enough equipment within a dual purpose system that if one pipe did malfunction, other mechanisms could still adequately pump coolant to the system, Lochbaum said.

“You are not supposed to be one broken pipe from a disaster; that’s too thin,” he said. “This dual-purpose system works to prevent that.”


In it together
Members of the NuStart Energy Development LLC consortium:

Constellation Energy of Baltimore

Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C.

EDF International North America, Washington, D.C.,

Entergy Nuclear, Jackson, Miss.

Exelon Generation, Philadelphia

Florida Power & Light Co., Juno Beach, Fla.

Progress Energy, Raleigh, N.C.

Southern Co., Atlanta.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn.

GE Energy, Atlanta

Westinghouse Electric Co., Pittsburgh