News Nuclear

Kansas to let nuclear plant guards "shoot to kill"

2006-03-23T03:35:00.000-08:00

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

ABC News: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire

2006-03-22T13:51:00.000-08:00

ABC News: No Radiation From Japan Nuclear Waste Fire

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

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

2006-03-22T13:47:00.000-08:00

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

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

Nuclear confusion: help or hindrance?

2006-03-20T15:28:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

Terror risks of nuclear fuel

2006-03-17T03:49:00.000-08:00

Terror risks of nuclear fuel csmonitor.com

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

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

2006-03-17T01:57:00.000-08:00

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

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

Safe nuclear power supply strategy to be prepared for G8 summit

2006-03-17T01:52:00.000-08:00

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

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

EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice

2006-03-17T01:11:00.000-08:00

EC official questions nuclear as efficient, economic choice

London (Platts)--16Mar2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concern over Russian plan to sell nuclear reactor fuel

2006-03-15T11:58:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Blair may give Britain new nuke weapons

2006-03-14T07:37:00.000-08:00

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

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

Uranium to soar with nuclear revival

2006-03-13T10:43:00.000-08:00

The Standard - China's Business Newspaper

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

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

2006-03-13T02:53:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

UK's Wicks pledges 'robust scrutiny' of nuclear energy option - Forbes.com

2006-03-09T15:44:00.000-08:00

UK's Wicks pledges 'robust scrutiny' of nuclear energy option - Forbes.com

LONDON AFX - The government has pledged 'robust scrutiny' of the potential impacts of using nuclear energy in any future power mix, said Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks. In remarks released by aides ahead of a visit to Manchester today, Wicks is expected to say that the government's ongoing energy review is not a 'headlong rush into building new nuclear plants'. 'It is about hard evidence, not just on the potential of nuclear, but also of renewables, fossil fuels and greater energy efficiency,' he will say in a meeting with safety, security and environmental regulators, environmental groups and nuclear power companies. 'The challenges are big and there'll be no easy or single solution. But I am certain of one thing - robust scrutiny of safety, security and environmental impact would be the prerequisite of going down the road of building new nuclear power stations.' However, Wicks' remarks appear to be out of step with Prime Minister Tony Blair, who yesterday told parliament Britain faced a 'major challenge' if it ruled nuclear power out of its calculations for future energy supply security and carbon emission reduction targets

Nuclear waste: bury it and forget?

2006-03-09T07:23:00.000-08:00

Reuters AlertNet - FEATURE-Nuclear waste: bury it and forget?

The signal audible every second in every corridor of the high-level toxic nuclear waste plant on Britain's sprawling Sellafield site is a sign all the alarms are working. If it stops, or changes tone, something has gone very wrong.
"The people who work here every day tell me they get used to it. But it tends to get on the nerves of everyone who visits the plant," Sellafield information officer Ben Chilton told Reuters on a tour of the site 480 km (300 miles) northwest of London.
The alarms are crucial for an industry that believes it could be granted a new lease of life as the world searches for an alternative to fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, that produce carbon emissions, blamed for global warming.
The nuclear industry says its technology emits no carbon and does not cause global warming but for many, still wary after disasters like the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl, the lingering fear is that the toxic waste might leak and kill.
Sellafield, and a plant at La Hague in northern France, can each reprocess 5,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel each year, accounting for roughly a third of annual global output.
But there will be more waste. China plans to build 30 new nuclear reactors by 2020, India has struck a deal with the United States to build several more plants, the United States is lining up tax incentives for new generators and Britain is considering new plants to plug a looming energy gap.
HELL'S BREW
The sludge that flows down the heavily armoured pipe into Sellafield's vitrification plant after plutonium and uranium have been taken from spent fuel rods for reuse is a hell's brew still emitting 40 times a lethal dose of radiation.
In shielded chambers with technicians watching through metre-thick leaded glass windows and using remote mechanical arms, the toxic stew is cooked down to a powder, combined with molten glass and poured into stainless steel urns.
These are cooled, closed and scrubbed before being sealed in insulated steel flasks and taken away for storage where, standing 10 deep in a concrete core and capped by a three-metre (10-foot) plug, the heat from the radiation is still tangible.
There are nearly 4,000 of these containers stored at Sellafield, which was the world's first commercial nuclear power plant when it opened in 1956, with room for 4,000 more.
Final disposal of the waste involves burying it in geologically stable formations. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years -- in other words, it would take up to 250,000 years before it degrades completely.
Chilton said waste comes from Britain, which has 11 nuclear plants, and from countries as far away as Japan, the third biggest nuclear power user after the United States and France.
Sellafield's scientists are confident they have the answers on waste and believe nuclear power can help ease climate change.
"From a technical point of view we can deal with any waste that comes from nuclear plants," said Graham Fairhall of Nexiasolutions, the research arm of the British Nuclear Group.
But for the green lobby, nuclear waste is an unacceptable legacy, whatever the benefits of nuclear power.
"Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive," said Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth. "We are only talking seriously about nuclear power again because of climate change. But it is not the answer."
Environmentalists say the costs of nuclear energy are not clear because of government subsidies and the toxic waste.
The latest estimate on the cost of cleaning up the waste from the last 50 years is 56 billion pounds ($97 billion), Juniper said.
"There may be technical solutions to dealing with the waste that will be generated, but note that they are still trying to deal with the waste they have already created," he told Reuters.
The British government, which has covered the costs so far, says finance for new reactors must come from the private sector.
An energy review in Britain, which faces a 20 percent power shortfall within a decade as ageing nuclear and coal-powered plants shut down, is due to be ready by the middle of the year.
LETHAL LEGACY
It is not just the high-level waste from fuel rods that has to be dealt with. Intermediate-level waste such as the casings of nuclear fuel rods, and low-level waste such as that produced in hospitals also has to be processed and stored.
Intermediate waste is chopped up and put in steel barrels that are filled with concrete and stored, while low-level waste is put in steel boxes that are crushed and put in a container, which is then filled with concrete and buried.
Industry experts say high, intermediate or low-level waste does not pose a security risk as one would need industrial-style resources -- like protective gear and surroundings -- to even approach the high-level waste, and the other two forms are either non-retrievable or non-lethal.
Public opinion in Britain is gradually swinging towards accepting nuclear energy to help combat climate change -- 54 percent were in favour according to a poll this year -- despite worries about the waste and security.
But while the nuclear industry says a Chernobyl-scale disaster could not happen here because the technology is different, some of the legacy problems remain a major headache.
At Sellafield, 49 years after a fire forced the closure of the Windscale I military reactor, scientists are still trying to work out how to dismantle the chimney-top filter that trapped the radioactive smoke and stopped a nuclear catastrophe.

Porritt whispers in PM's ear with all the force he can muster

2006-03-08T06:46:00.000-08:00

Independent Online Edition > Environment

By Michael McCarthy
Published: 07 March 2006
Listen to yesterday's Sustainable Development Commission report on nuclear power and you will hear something uncommon, fascinating and slightly awe-inspiring: the sound of a big beast in the environmental jungle, getting his retaliation in first.
Jonathon Porritt has come a long way since he was one of the founders of the Ecology Party (which subsequently became the Green Party), and then leader of Friends of the Earth. Now, as chair of the SDC, and Tony Blair's official environmental adviser, he is part of the government establishment.
But only to a degree. Sir Jonathon may be an Etonian by schooling and a baronet by title but he has remained radical in his green convictions, and one of those, which he shares with most other environmentalists, is that no good whatsoever can come of nuclear power.
He clearly sees the current Energy Review as a stitch-up, a cosmetic exercise to prepare the way for a new generation of nukes, and let's be honest, many would agree with him. The common perception is Tony Blair has taken the decision already.
But unlike most green activists, Sir Jonathon can actually do something about it. His position at the head of the SDC gives him direct access to Mr Blair and potentially enormous influence, and in certain circumstances, he has to be listened to. This is one of those circumstances, and he is making the most of it. He's not waiting for the outcome of the Energy Review; he's making a determined attempt to sway the result.
Yesterday's SDC report and accompanying papers represent the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option which has yet been produced. This is not green soundbite, this is serious stuff. It will have to weigh in the argument. It certainly raises dramatically the political stakes for Mr Blair - and for Mr Brown when he takes over - in opting for atomic power once again.
Mr Blair has never been anti-nuclear (he likes shiny modern technology). But he has been especially persuaded of the necessity of a full new nuclear-build programme to fight climate change, by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. Sir David has been whispering in one Blair ear; Sir Jonathon is now whispering in the other, although perhaps whispering hardly does justice to the force of yesterday's report.
The reason Sir Jonathon may ultimately not succeed is that the detail of the arguments against nuclear, displayed so powerfully yesterday, is not what is going to count. Few people would dispute that there is no solution yet to nuclear waste, or that nuclear economics are uncertain, or that a nuclear programme would partially lock the UK into a centralised energy system, or that there is a major security risk associated with nuclear energy. It's all true.
But the essence of the argument Sir David King has put to Mr Blair is that climate change is so threatening that nuclear is essential despite all that.
But you can't say the other side of it hasn't been made properly now, in the struggle between David and Jonathon for the ear of the Prime Minister.
Listen to yesterday's Sustainable Development Commission report on nuclear power and you will hear something uncommon, fascinating and slightly awe-inspiring: the sound of a big beast in the environmental jungle, getting his retaliation in first.
Jonathon Porritt has come a long way since he was one of the founders of the Ecology Party (which subsequently became the Green Party), and then leader of Friends of the Earth. Now, as chair of the SDC, and Tony Blair's official environmental adviser, he is part of the government establishment.
But only to a degree. Sir Jonathon may be an Etonian by schooling and a baronet by title but he has remained radical in his green convictions, and one of those, which he shares with most other environmentalists, is that no good whatsoever can come of nuclear power.
He clearly sees the current Energy Review as a stitch-up, a cosmetic exercise to prepare the way for a new generation of nukes, and let's be honest, many would agree with him. The common perception is Tony Blair has taken the decision already.
But unlike most green activists, Sir Jonathon can actually do something about it. His position at the head of the SDC gives him direct access to Mr Blair and potentially enormous influence, and in certain circumstances, he has to be listened to. This is one of those circumstances, and he is making the most of it. He's not waiting for the outcome of the Energy Review; he's making a determined attempt to sway the result.
Yesterday's SDC report and accompanying papers represent the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option which has yet been produced. This is not green soundbite, this is serious stuff. It will have to weigh in the argument. It certainly raises dramatically the political stakes for Mr Blair - and for Mr Brown when he takes over - in opting for atomic power once again.
Mr Blair has never been anti-nuclear (he likes shiny modern technology). But he has been especially persuaded of the necessity of a full new nuclear-build programme to fight climate change, by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. Sir David has been whispering in one Blair ear; Sir Jonathon is now whispering in the other, although perhaps whispering hardly does justice to the force of yesterday's report.
The reason Sir Jonathon may ultimately not succeed is that the detail of the arguments against nuclear, displayed so powerfully yesterday, is not what is going to count. Few people would dispute that there is no solution yet to nuclear waste, or that nuclear economics are uncertain, or that a nuclear programme would partially lock the UK into a centralised energy system, or that there is a major security risk associated with nuclear energy. It's all true.
But the essence of the argument Sir David King has put to Mr Blair is that climate change is so threatening that nuclear is essential despite all that.
But you can't say the other side of it hasn't been made properly now, in the struggle between David and Jonathon for the ear of the Prime Minister.

Blair says meeting energy/climate targets without nuclear a 'major challenge' - Forbes.com

2006-03-08T06:43:00.000-08:00

Blair says meeting energy/climate targets without nuclear a 'major challenge' - Forbes.com

LONDON (AFX) - Britain faces a 'major challenge' in meeting its energy needs and climate change obligations without considering nuclear power 'in the mix', said Prime Minister Tony Blair. Speaking during Prime Minister's Questions, Blair seemed to move further towards supporting construction of a new generation of nuclear stations. 'I still think there is a major challenge as to whether we can really make sure we can meet both our energy needs and our environmental targets without nuclear power in the mix,' he said. 'No-one has ever said it is the whole of the answer. The question is whether it's part of the answer as part of a sensible and balanced energy mix.'

'No quick fix' from nuclear power

2006-03-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS Science/Nature 'No quick fix' from nuclear power: "Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report "

Building new nuclear plants is not the answer to tackling climate change or securing Britain's energy supply, a government advisory panel has reported.
The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035.
The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks.
The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs.
The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises
Jonathon Porritt, SDC chair
Send us your views It regards building nuclear capacity as an alternative to reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
As North Sea supplies dwindle, nuclear is seen by some as a more secure source of energy than hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. Proponents say it could generate large quantities of electricity while helping to stabilise carbon dioxide CO2 emissions.
But the SDC report, compiled in response to the energy review, concluded that the risks of nuclear energy outweighed its advantages.
Pushing ahead
Jonathon Porritt, chairman of the SDC, commented: "There's little point in denying that nuclear power has benefits, but in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages.
"The Government is going to have to stop looking for an easy fix to our climate change and energy crises - there simply isn't one."

The report does not rule out future research on nuclearEnergy minister Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the government's review, said the SDC's findings made an "important and thorough contribution" to the debate.
"Securing clean, affordable energy supplies for the long term will not be easy. No one has ever suggested that nuclear power - or any other individual energy source - could meet all of those challenges," Mr Wicks said.
"As the commission itself finds, this is not a black and white issue. It does, however, agree that it is right that we are assessing the potential contribution of new nuclear [plants]."
24-hour power
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA), the representative body for the UK's nuclear sector, gave the report a more cautious welcome.
Philip Dewhurst, chairman of the NIA, said the SDC report was not as negative as they had feared.
"What the report is basically saying is that the government has got to make a choice between renewables and nuclear.
"The SDC is saying you cannot have both, but of course you can. We support having both renewables and nuclear," he told the BBC News website.
"The key factor about nuclear is its base load which means it keeps working 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Everyone would agree that some renewable technologies are intermittent at best."
Research by the SDC suggests that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only provide an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010).
While the SDC recognised that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK, it identifies five major disadvantages:
No long-term solutions for long-term storage of nuclear waste are yet available, says the SDC, and storage presents clear safety issues
The economics of nuclear new-build are highly uncertain, according to the report
Nuclear would lock the UK into a centralised energy distribution system for the next 50 years when more flexible distribution options are becoming available
The report claims that nuclear would undermine the drive for greater energy efficiency
If the UK brings forward a new nuclear programme, it becomes more difficult to deny other countries the same technology, the SDC claims
Future development
The panel does not rule out further research into new nuclear technologies and pursuing answers to the waste problem, as future technological developments may justify a re-examination of the issue.
But the report concludes that Britain can meet its energy needs without nuclear power.
"With a combination of low carbon innovation strategy and an aggressive expansion of energy efficiency and renewables, the UK would become a leader in low-carbon technologies," the SDC claims.
Critics of the Government's energy review say it is a way to get nuclear power, touted as a possible solution by Tony Blair, back on the agenda.
Conservative energy spokesman Alan Duncan said ministers should pay attention to the commission's conclusions.
"This report puts a spanner in the works for the government, who everybody believes has already made up its mind in favour of nuclear."
The Tories are currently reviewing their energy policy. Zac Goldsmith, deputy chair of the party's environment policy review which is due to report in 18 months time, is strongly opposed to nuclear power.
The Liberal Democrats have also attacked the economic uncertainties of nuclear power.
The Green Party says the government is determined to push ahead with nuclear power despite evidence that it is uneconomic.
The government is set to publish its findings later this year.

India ensured uninterrupted nuclear fuel supply

2006-03-05T07:23:00.000-08:00

Daily Times - Site Edition

* US to help create reserve nuclear fuel for the lifetime of Indian reactors* India will not sign model NPT agreementBy Iftikhar GilaniNEW DELHI: India has ensured an uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel for its reactors from a consortium of the United States, Russia, France and the United Kingdom through its recently concluded nuclear deal with Washington.Moreover, the US will also help create a reserve of nuclear fuel for the entire lifetime of India’s civilian nuclear reactors.Sources said on Saturday that India negotiated these two conditions in return for separating its civilian and military nuclear reactors in the deal with the US.They said that India extracted around half-a-dozen assurances to ensure permanent international safeguards co-terminus with permanent fuel supply commitments by the consortium. A declaratory assurance has been provided in the separation plan on “uninterrupted and continuous” supply of nuclear fuel for Indian civilian reactors under safeguards.The fuel supply assurance would also be incorporated into a trilateral agreement involving India, the US and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will provide “sanctity” to the agreement, sources said.They said that a likely provision of the nuclear fuel supply from the four nuclear powers will be that others would help out in case of the suspension of supply by one.India also expressed a desire to build lifetime reserves of fuel for its civilian nuclear reactors and managed to get the following assurance in the separation plan: “The US will support the creation of such strategic reserves for the lifetime of the reactors.” If all this fails, India would retain its “sovereign right” to take “corrective action” in the case of disruption in fuel supply, sources said. Under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the IAEA has two kinds of safeguards and additional protocols: for the non-nuclear weapon state signatories and the five nuclear weapon state signatories.The nuclear weapon signatories voluntarily offer safeguards on their nuclear facilities, while the non-nuclear states who have signed the agreement have no choice in the matter. The standard additional protocol signed by the non-nuclear states contains sanctions for intrusive inspections by the IAEA, while the nuclear states can negotiate in the protocol the extent of the intrusion.Sources said that India wants its “de facto nuclear status to be as close as possible to a de jure status” and to distinguish it from the non-nuclear weapon states.It insisted that safeguards of its declared nuclear facilities in perpetuity must come with fuel supplies in perpetuity. The US also agreed to help India negotiate an additional protocol with the IAEA, different from the model agreement signed by non-nuclear weapon states.Sources refused to identify the 14 nuclear plants that India has agreed to put under IAEA safeguards but indicated that Tarapur IV, India’s largest atomic power plant, is excluded from the list. The nuclear facilities on which the Indian negotiators refused to give any information to the Americans, and which may be excluded from the IAEA safeguards list, include: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre at Trombay, Prithvi Missile Storage Facility at Nangal, Defence Research and Development Organisation Research Laboratory near Chandigarh, Narora I and II power reactors in Uttar Pradesh, Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre at Kalpakkam in Tamil Nadu, Kakrapar I and II being built to produce plutonium and Kaiga in Karnataka, and the nuclear test site at Pokhran in Rajasthan.

US to clean up on UK nuclear mess

2006-03-05T07:01:00.000-08:00

The Observer Business US to clean up on UK nuclear mess

British companies are short of expertise in the controversial business of atomic waste. Neasa MacErlean on the race for £80bn of contracts Sunday March 5, 2006The Observer
Later this month, the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA), the government authority created last year to oversee decommissioning over the next 150 years, will know whether its draft strategy for this long-term clean-up operation has been approved by the government. If it has been, a new industry will take shape, worth more than £80bn in the UK if military waste is included.
But decommissioning will be controversial and difficult. Like other developers of nuclear weapons, Britain has a particularly nasty physical legacy of waste. Most of ours is in 230 hectares at Sellafield in Cumbria - but there are 19 other civilian sites in England, Wales and Scotland which, along with Sellafield, are also about to become the subject of major clean-up contracts. Much less information is publicly available about the military element but it is estimated that, in total, Britain's nuclear waste would fill the Millennium Dome.
Because little decommissioning work has been done in the UK, we lack home-grown expertise. Another area of controversy will, therefore, be the arrival of the Americans - who have the far more extensive experience in this field but will no doubt be accused of profiteering and cutting corners on safety.
On top of these issues, the very future of nuclear power hangs to some degree on how decommissioning is handled. It is inconceivable that any new nuclear reactor would be built in the UK without the construction plans taking into account decommissioning and the disposal of radioactive materials. The average Briton lives 26 miles from a nuclear site - a fact that could change the way many politicians and the much of the public view the future of nuclear power.
Certainly, the regulators know how the public feels. Sir John Harman is chairman of the Environment Agency, one of the nuclear industry regulators. He said: 'An actual nuclear waste facility is probably 15 years in the future. If a decision was postponed on this, we would think it imprudent to start a new programme of building nuclear reactors not knowing what we are doing about the waste.'
Also this month, the NDA will publish an update of its estimate of the cost of cleaning up the 20 sites: this is likely to be an increase on the current £56bn, to be awarded in contracts to private- and public-sector organisations. In April, the NDA is due to start the tender process for its first contract, cleaning up low-level nuclear waste at Drigg, near Sellafield. This contract is relatively small - £1bn or so - but it paves the way for much larger contracts.
In July, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will make its recommendations to government on the possibilities for future waste disposal. These look likely to say that disposal is feasible for the long-term future either in sites near each reactor or in one shared depository. What has been ruled out is an international site - a politically sensitive issue but one which could have produced a geologically safer solution.
While the debate about long-term waste disposal goes on, some of the biggest US names in nuclear decommissioning - Bechtel, Fluor, Shaw and CH2M Hill - will be working out how to go about winning the contracts to be handed out in Britain over the next five years.
Bechtel worked closely with the government on establishing the NDA in April 2005; Fluor, with 30,000 employees worldwide, has been working for the US government at its nuclear installations since the 1950s; Shaw, based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has already turned one US nuclear site back into greenfield land - invaluable experience for the forthcoming UK contracts; and CH2M Hill has joined forces with Amec (the only private British company expected to bid for this work) and the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the government body that claims to have 'more nuclear clean-up experience than anyone else in Europe'.
The other US companies in the running to get the contracts might follow the AMEC/UKAEA/CH2M Hill model by teaming up with European partners.
Whoever wins, skilled labour will be a problem. One expert believes that in the UK there are 'probably only a few hundred people trained and experienced enough to do this work'. The NDA sees the same problem. 'Overcoming the skills gap is one of the NDA's strategic priorities,' it says. It believes that about 30,000 people need to be recruited from the physical sciences and engineering sector for this work in the next 15 years.
The arrival of the Americans will cause an outcry. A spokesman for the NDA suggests that contracts will be awarded on the basis of cost and a mark-up - but the organisation says it will not publish the profit margin 'for commercial reasons'. One UK industry insider commented: 'The Americans will have the British taxpayers over a barrel and will spank their arse.'
The main contract that all potential bidders will have their eye on is Sellafield, due to be placed in 2009. A lot of wining and dining and making use of friendships will take place over this waste disposal gem. The value of work estimated by the NDA as needing to be done at Sellafield over its remaining lifetime is about £34bn. 'The place is in a desperate state,' said one specialist. It will not be clean until 2150.'
The problem at Sellafield and at some other locations is not so much the high-level radioactive waste - although it can remain highly dangerous for thousands of years, it is fairly easily identifiable. After it is given 40 years or so to cool down (a process now going on at Sellafield), this waste will then be encased in copper canisters and - as in the new Finnish plans which are attracting much interest from the rest of the world - buried in deep depositories in as safe a geological location as can be found.
The real problem is the intermediate-level waste, which is not readily identifiable, although some of it is almost as dangerous as that classified as high-level. Nirex, the government-owned company responsible for setting nuclear waste standards, estimates that the UK has 1,120 different types of nuclear waste (many resulting from Second World War and Cold War weapons development programmes). Finland, by comparison, has a much smaller problem, with fewer than 30 different waste streams.
'The really nasty problems are the pools of sludge in Sellafield,' says one insider. 'Do people know exactly what they contain?' The answer appears to be 'no', as not all the land contamination caused by the waste has yet been identified precisely.
Although the cost of nuclear clean-up will be spread over decades, it still represents a great prize to the companies that win the contracts. On its current figures, the NDA will handle contracts over the foreseeable future equal to the size of the entire British construction industry in any one year.
Then there is the military sector. This was estimated at £30bn in a rare parliamentary reference in 2001 by Margaret Beckett soon after she became Environment Secretary.
If we go for a new generation of nuclear reactors, organisations that win civil or military clean-up contracts will be the best placed to get involved in their design and development. And that's a whole new prize.

Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility - The Archive - The New York Times

2006-03-01T16:34:00.000-08:00

Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility - The Archive - The New York Times

By MATTHEW L. WALD (NYT) 752 wordsPublished: February 14, 2006WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - The Energy Department no longer has an estimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it wants to build at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and it may never have an accurate prediction of the cost, the energy secretary said on Monday.
The secretary, Samuel W. Bodman, said at a nuclear power industry conference that his department was redoing research and design for Yucca, which was supposed to start accepting civilian power-plant waste in 1998. But it is a first-of-a-kind project, making cost estimates difficult, he said, and the best that the department may be able to do is publish an estimate with a very wide range of error.
Last week the deputy energy secretary, Clay Sell, hinted for the first time that the money that the Energy Department had been collecting from the nuclear utilities since the 1980's might not be enough to pay for the project; the last published cost estimate was $60 billion, in 2001. The last date given for its planned opening, provided a year ago, was 2012. The department is facing lawsuits from utilities that want to recover extra costs created by the delay.
Mr. Bodman spoke Monday to hundreds of nuclear industry executives at a conference organized by Platts, an energy information division of McGraw-Hill. Other speakers said that various companies were considering building as many as 16 new reactors soon; none have been ordered in this country since the 1970's.
A lawyer in the audience asked how the industry could build new plants without assurances of a plan for the waste, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires.
Mr. Bodman did not answer, but instead began describing the problems of the Yucca project.
For one, he said, government scientists and their commercial contractors were trying to cope with research work that was done poorly by the United States Geological Survey. Another problem is a court decision that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to publish standards governing leakage of radioactive waste for one million years, he said; initially the Energy Department had planned on a timeline of 10,000 years.
In addition, he said, the project managers recently decided that they had to space the wastes more widely to prevent temperature inside the mountain from reaching the boiling point, because the effects of steam are more difficult to predict.
''There are problems with the U.S. Geological Survey work that was done, there are problems with the E.P.A. standards that are there, there are problems with the efforts of the Department of Energy. There's plenty of blame to go around,'' Mr. Bodman said.
His comments came more than six years after the Energy Department issued a ''viability assessment'' asserting that the mountain could hold waste from power plants and nuclear weapons plants, and two years after the department had planned to submit an application to get a license for the project.
Mr. Bodman had come to talk mostly about the Bush administration's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a plan that includes reprocessing nuclear wastes to reduce their volume and toxicity. Despite a spirited description of the program, he got no questions on that subject.
Some in the industry said, though, that the partnership introduced a new complication for Yucca. If used reactor fuel were put through a factory to recover reusable parts, as the proposal calls for, the new wastes could not be buried at Yucca until the project was reanalyzed, they said.
Another complication is that the department recently told utilities that they should ship fuel to Yucca in containers that could go directly into the mountain for burial. But some of the waste is now packaged in other kinds of containers, in locations where the reactors have been torn down, which means there is no easy way to repackage the materials.
Other nuclear professionals present, including the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nils J. Diaz, predicted that the nation would shift to a system of above-ground interim storage and perhaps the solution called for in the nuclear partnership: breaking up old nuclear fuel to recover reusable materials. But this could help spread material useful in nuclear weapons.

New dawn for nuclear power is distant - Business - International Herald Tribune

2006-03-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

New dawn for nuclear power is distant - Business - International Herald Tribune

New dawn for nuclear power is distant
By Matthew L. Wald and Heather Timmons The New York TimesTHURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006
WASHINGTON Amid signs of a revival in orders for nuclear power reactors, last month's sale of Westinghouse's former nuclear division to Toshiba might stand out as a landmark - but not necessarily because the industry seems ready to take off.
In fact, nuclear experts around the world, both skeptics and supporters of the technology, are surprised by the high price. Toshiba agreed to pay $5.4 billion for a collection of nuclear power manufacturing facilities, of which Westinghouse was the centerpiece, that had been assembled by British Nuclear Fuels. The sale closed at three times the price markets expected just six months ago.
There is much talk of a rebirth of the nuclear construction industry, but analysts say that most of it is just that. In the United States, the secretary of energy recently referred to 16 new reactors on the drawing boards, but not one has been ordered, and industry experts do not expect to see any orders until late 2007, at the earliest.
"I think we all were surprised by the price," said Michael Morris, president and chief executive of American Electric Power, the largest power generator in the United States. With his company serving five million customers in 11 states, Morris favors more nuclear power.
Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and later head of the public service commissions of both New York and Maine, said: "It's hard to imagine people putting a $5 billion bet on new reactors, as matters stand now, with uncertainty around climate change policy and impossibility of getting financing for them in private markets."
China has announced its intention of quadrupling its nuclear output in the next 20 years, which suggests about 30 more reactors, but only two are under construction. China has also stated that it wants to develop its own reactor.
In Western Europe, politicians in Italy, the United Kingdom and Poland have been examining the merits of new nuclear plants. But the only nuclear plant being built in Western Europe is a Finnish reactor that was the focus of 12 years of debate before construction began last year.
Much of the optimism on nuclear construction is based on the expectation that two recent trends will continue. The first is the rising cost of competing fuels, as well as increasing government controls on carbon emissions. The second is the inability of methods for reducing such emissions from other energy sources, like coal, to become widespread.
Nuclear power plants are more expensive to build than gas or coal plants, and take several years longer to construct. But once they are built, they generate energy steadily and cheaply and emit negligible amounts of greenhouse gases.
"Climate change gets people to think nuclear is going to pay off, in 5 years or 20," said Richard Sedano, a former member of the Vermont Public Service Commission and now director the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises government regulators on electric policy. In European countries where rules about carbon emissions are already firmly established, some critics of nuclear power have started to question whether building new reactors is a cost-effective way of reducing these emissions. More nuclear power generation "doesn't make sense economically and environmentally," said Norman Baker, the deputy environmental minister for Britain's Liberal Democrat party.
Spending £1 on improving energy efficiency cuts carbon emissions seven times as much as spending the same £1 on new nuclear construction, Baker said.
"If you're interested in climate change, you should demand clean coal and renewable resources," he said.
Energy markets have changed significantly across Europe since the 1970s, the last time nuclear plants were built in significant numbers. Many European power companies have been privatized, and the energy market has been opened up to competition in many countries. Any new construction would need to be financed by a private company, which would need to guarantee to investors that the reactor would eventually make a profit. It is not a sure bet, energy analysts say.
It is "too early to speak about a nuclear renaissance," according to a recent report on the European market by Standard & Poors, the rating agency.
Peter Kernan, the analyst at S&P and a co-author of the report, said, "The market environment is now significantly riskier than it was when the original nuclear plants were built."
Predicting sale prices for energy is nearly impossible. "Operators would need to be convinced there is a sound and robust business case" for building a plant before they start devoting capital to it, Kernan said. He said there is no evidence yet to suggest that.
Marc Herlach, a lawyer at Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan who represented British Nuclear Fuels in the Toshiba deal and who specializes in energy asset sales, defended the price, saying it made sense because of the rising cost of other fuels and concerns over greenhouse gases. "This is a different environment," he said.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved the design of a new Westinghouse reactor, the AP-1000. The letters stand for "advanced passive," because the reactor would have many fewer moving parts in its safety systems. No one has bought it yet.
Toshiba licenses technology from General Electric, which sells reactors that boil water in the reactor vessel and then run the water through a turbine to convert energy to mechanical energy, and then to electricity. In contrast, the Westinghouse design heats water in the reactor but under high pressure, so it does not boil; that water is then run through a heat exchanger to make steam that goes through the turbine.
With the sale, Toshiba becomes the only vendor to sell both boiling-water and pressurized-water designs. But in the short term, the least glamorous parts of Westinghouse's business may prove the most valuable for Toshiba: the company's extensive repair and maintenance services.

WASHINGTON Amid signs of a revival in orders for nuclear power reactors, last month's sale of Westinghouse's former nuclear division to Toshiba might stand out as a landmark - but not necessarily because the industry seems ready to take off.
In fact, nuclear experts around the world, both skeptics and supporters of the technology, are surprised by the high price. Toshiba agreed to pay $5.4 billion for a collection of nuclear power manufacturing facilities, of which Westinghouse was the centerpiece, that had been assembled by British Nuclear Fuels. The sale closed at three times the price markets expected just six months ago.
There is much talk of a rebirth of the nuclear construction industry, but analysts say that most of it is just that. In the United States, the secretary of energy recently referred to 16 new reactors on the drawing boards, but not one has been ordered, and industry experts do not expect to see any orders until late 2007, at the earliest.
"I think we all were surprised by the price," said Michael Morris, president and chief executive of American Electric Power, the largest power generator in the United States. With his company serving five million customers in 11 states, Morris favors more nuclear power.
Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and later head of the public service commissions of both New York and Maine, said: "It's hard to imagine people putting a $5 billion bet on new reactors, as matters stand now, with uncertainty around climate change policy and impossibility of getting financing for them in private markets."
China has announced its intention of quadrupling its nuclear output in the next 20 years, which suggests about 30 more reactors, but only two are under construction. China has also stated that it wants to develop its own reactor.
In Western Europe, politicians in Italy, the United Kingdom and Poland have been examining the merits of new nuclear plants. But the only nuclear plant being built in Western Europe is a Finnish reactor that was the focus of 12 years of debate before construction began last year.
Much of the optimism on nuclear construction is based on the expectation that two recent trends will continue. The first is the rising cost of competing fuels, as well as increasing government controls on carbon emissions. The second is the inability of methods for reducing such emissions from other energy sources, like coal, to become widespread.
Nuclear power plants are more expensive to build than gas or coal plants, and take several years longer to construct. But once they are built, they generate energy steadily and cheaply and emit negligible amounts of greenhouse gases.
"Climate change gets people to think nuclear is going to pay off, in 5 years or 20," said Richard Sedano, a former member of the Vermont Public Service Commission and now director the Regulatory Assistance Project, which advises government regulators on electric policy. In European countries where rules about carbon emissions are already firmly established, some critics of nuclear power have started to question whether building new reactors is a cost-effective way of reducing these emissions. More nuclear power generation "doesn't make sense economically and environmentally," said Norman Baker, the deputy environmental minister for Britain's Liberal Democrat party.
Spending £1 on improving energy efficiency cuts carbon emissions seven times as much as spending the same £1 on new nuclear construction, Baker said.
"If you're interested in climate change, you should demand clean coal and renewable resources," he said.
Energy markets have changed significantly across Europe since the 1970s, the last time nuclear plants were built in significant numbers. Many European power companies have been privatized, and the energy market has been opened up to competition in many countries. Any new construction would need to be financed by a private company, which would need to guarantee to investors that the reactor would eventually make a profit. It is not a sure bet, energy analysts say.
It is "too early to speak about a nuclear renaissance," according to a recent report on the European market by Standard & Poors, the rating agency.
Peter Kernan, the analyst at S&P and a co-author of the report, said, "The market environment is now significantly riskier than it was when the original nuclear plants were built."
Predicting sale prices for energy is nearly impossible. "Operators would need to be convinced there is a sound and robust business case" for building a plant before they start devoting capital to it, Kernan said. He said there is no evidence yet to suggest that.
Marc Herlach, a lawyer at Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan who represented British Nuclear Fuels in the Toshiba deal and who specializes in energy asset sales, defended the price, saying it made sense because of the rising cost of other fuels and concerns over greenhouse gases. "This is a different environment," he said.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently approved the design of a new Westinghouse reactor, the AP-1000. The letters stand for "advanced passive," because the reactor would have many fewer moving parts in its safety systems. No one has bought it yet.
Toshiba licenses technology from General Electric, which sells reactors that boil water in the reactor vessel and then run the water through a turbine to convert energy to mechanical energy, and then to electricity. In contrast, the Westinghouse design heats water in the reactor but under high pressure, so it does not boil; that water is then run through a heat exchanger to make steam that goes through the turbine.
With the sale, Toshiba becomes the only vendor to sell both boiling-water and pressurized-water designs. But in the short term, the least glamorous parts of Westinghouse's business may prove the most valuable for Toshiba: the company's extensive repair and maintenance services.

'N-Deal will help launch thorium reactors'

2006-03-01T16:00:00.000-08:00

'N-Deal will help launch thorium reactors'

New Delhi, February 25: As US President George W Bush's visit approaches, the few voices within the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) have joined to become a chorus.
0){
dc.write('');
date_ob.setTime(date_ob.getTime()+43200000);
dc.cookie='he=llo; path=/; expires='+ date_ob.toGMTString();} // -->

While DAE as a whole, has been painted as being opposed to separating military and civilian facilities, the "rebels" within DAE hope the government would not let the opportunity pass. For obvious reasons, they want to remain anonymous.
"India has witnessed four decades of stifled progress in the civilian nuclear programme, which till recently was acting more like camouflage for the not explicitly spelt out military ambitions," said one top DAE scientist.
"It is high time that the dubious status of affairs changes", he said. "In a changed world, where China is making strategic agreements to buy uranium from Canada and Australia for long-term energy security, India can ill-afford to turn down the opportunities striking its doors," said another physicist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC).

A senior reactor designer dismissed as rubbish DAE's argument that the separation plan would jeopardize research on thorium reactors that are expected to be main provider of electricity in the third stage of Indian nuclear power programme.
The basic reason why thorium is ignored world over is that it has to be externally fed with some man-made fissile material like plutonium to get ignited and start producing power, he said.
According to the designer, if India on its own, wanted to accumulate sufficient plutonium for its fast breeder programme and the thorium reactor research, it has to wait for at least 30 years.
"On the other hand, the Indo-US deal provides India a window of opportunity to get the plutonium and build thorium reactors today", he said.
There is at least 3000 tons of plutonium waiting to be reprocessed from spent fuel discharged globally from uranium-based reactors. For the first time after 30 years of freeze, the US is reconsidering plutonium use for energy generation and, together with Russia, is wanting to set up the GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) for plutonium recovery. It has invited India to become a partner.
Some DAE scientists say the indo-us deal would pave the way for India acquiring the plutonium it needs for its long-term energy security from thorium.
Coincidentally, BARC physicists Usha Pal and Jagannathan have designed a Thorium Breeder Reactor (ATBR) generating 600 mw of electricity that will consume only 880-kg of plutonium every two years. The reactor produces 50 per cent of its energy from thorium.
According to some DAE scientists, this ATBR is poised to start thorium utilization by India today without having to wait for 30 years if the Indo-US deal went through.
"The political climate is conducive for such a dialogue for first time in the history of world nuclear power generation", they said.

Russia drafts ambitious nuclear power plan

2006-03-01T06:59:00.000-08:00

Russia drafts ambitious nuclear power plan

Russia drafts ambitious nuclear power plan
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOVASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
MOSCOW -- Russia's atomic agency is drafting an ambitious program to build two nuclear reactors a year to make nuclear power account for a quarter of the nation's energy by 2030, officials said Tuesday.
Russia currently has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants, accounting for 16-17 percent of the country's electricity generation, and President Vladimir Putin has called for raising the share to 25 percent.
Stanislav Antipov, head of the state Rosenergoatom consortium that oversees Russian nuclear power plants, said the Cabinet is to discuss a federal program in March or April, which would propose funding and other measures to achieve the goal.
In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against nuclear power that followed the April 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the government has supported efforts to revive the nuclear industries.
Antipov told a news conference Russia has retained the core of the former Soviet nuclear industries, providing sufficient technological capacity for setting up the program.
The money would come from the consortium's own resources, the state budget and private investors, which would likely include Russia's Gazprom natural gas giant.

var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1);
document.write('');
var campaignID = "Advertising.com_1005-300"; var maxViews = 3; var maxMinutes = 1440; var classID = "Advertising300"; var capit = 1;
"Gazprom has expressed a desire to participate in building new reactors," Antipov said, adding the plan would allow Russia to save significant natural gas resources for exports.
"It's very advantageous for the state," he added.
It takes Rosenergoatom about five years to build a nuclear reactor, and the company would have to work on 10 reactors simultaneously to achieve the goal of commissioning two reactors a year, Antipov said.
Federal Nuclear Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said recently that Russia would have to build 40 new reactors to raise the share of power that comes from nuclear energy to 25 percent.
Rosenergoatom's technical director, Nikolai Sorokin, said Russia would continue extending the lifetime of Soviet-built nuclear reactors, which were designed for 30-year operation.
He said nine reactors already had their lifetime extended by 15 years.
The process will include all Russia's 11 RBMK-type reactors, the same kind as the one that exploded at the Chernobyl plant in then-Soviet Ukraine in the world's worst commercial nuclear catastrophe. One RBMK-type reactor at the Leningrad power plant near St.Petersburg already had its operational life extended by 15 years, and two others will follow suit this year, Sorokin said.
Sorokin insisted numerous checks by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other agencies had shown Chernobyl-type reactors meeting all safety requirements.
Antipov said Rosenergoatom also has drafted a plan to build six or seven floating nuclear reactors to provide electricity to distant Arctic areas. The first such reactor mounted on a barge is expected to be launched in three years.
He dismissed environmentalists' concerns about the floating reactors, saying they would meet all safety requirements.

Consumers 'will pay nuclear bill'

2006-02-28T12:29:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS Politics Consumers 'will pay nuclear bill'

Electricity bills will have to go up if the government builds a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Green Party has warned.
It claims the government is determined to push ahead with nuclear power despite evidence it is uneconomic.
The government says it is considering nuclear as part of an energy review but has not yet made up its mind.
The report comes as Tony Blair admitted there was a "long way to go" to tackle climate change.
'Not pre-ordained'
The government sees new nuclear plants as a "carbon-free" alternative to coal and oil - and a more secure source of energy than gas supplied by foreign states such as Russia, as North Sea supplies dwindle.
But the DTI insists its current policy review, which is being carried out by energy minister Malcolm Wicks is "not a foregone conclusion".
"It is not a bogus review and there isn't a conclusion that is pre-ordained," a spokesman told the BBC News Website.
The review is looking at both sides of the argument, he added, including the issue of nuclear waste, the costs involved and "public concerns around security".
It is also looking at ways of increasing renewable energy sources, already the subject of major investment by the government, he added.
But the Green Party says its "alternative energy review" looks at measures not being considered by the government.
'Inferior choice'
Green Party principal speaker Caroline Lucas MEP said: "Tony Blair is determined to push this country down the nuclear route, based on two arguments: guaranteeing affordable energy supply, and reducing carbon emissions.
"The Alternative Energy Review proves what anti-nuclear campaigners have long suspected - that, even using these criteria, nuclear power is the inferior choice.
"It shows that a twin-pronged investment in renewable alternatives and energy efficiency and conservation measures will not only deliver greater emissions reductions than nuclear power, it will deliver them more cheaply, and all without the huge safety risks inherent in the nuclear option."
The co-author of the Green Party report, Dr David Toke, said talk of a looming energy gap as North Sea oil runs out had been exaggerated and ministers had been swayed by the powerful and well-funded nuclear lobby.
'Stand-by'
He said there should be a centrally-organised programme of "demand reduction" - forcing companies to cut their use of electricity use through better efficiency.
Far more wind farms should also be built, he argued, and electronics companies should be fined if they did not scrap the "stand-by" button on computers and televisions, which he said was a major drain on energy supplies.
All of these measures meant consumers would pay less for their electricity, even if it meant possible increases in costs associated with energy efficiency, he told reporters.
"Do people want to pay more for nuclear power that will increase their bills, or do they want to pay for energy efficiencies that will reduce their bills?," he asked.
The Lib Dems have also attacked nuclear power for being uneconomic.
The Conservatives are currently reviewing their energy policy. Zac Goldsmith, deputy chair of the party's environment policy review, due to report in 18 months time, is strongly opposed to it.
Earlier on Tuesday, Mr Blair acknowledged there was still a "long way to go" to tackle climate change and pledged to work hard with other European leaders to extend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) beyond 2012.
He said the ETS must be more robust and he hoped there would be agreement on a range of new measures to increase energy efficiency.
He made his pledge as he met green umbrella group "Stop Climate Chaos" in Downing Street.
The government's advisory body on the environment, the Sustainable Development Commission, is due to release its advice on nuclear power on Monday, following a year-long investigation.

Russia's Uranium Stockpiles to Run Out by 2020�� Official - MONEY - MOSNEWS.COM

2006-02-27T14:27:00.000-08:00

Russia�s Uranium Stockpiles to Run Out by 2020�� Official - MONEY - MOSNEWS.COM

Russia’s uranium reserves could be depleted by 2020 if the current rate of uranium mining is sustained, said on Monday, Feb. 27, Anatoly Ledovskikh, head of the Russian Subsoil Resources Agency (Rosnedra).The agency’s materials show that Russia only produced 3,200 tons of the 16,000 tons of uranium it needed in 2005 and that it drew on stockpiles to plug the shortage. In other words, uranium mine output must increase six-fold, the materials said. The reserves of Russia’s uranium deposits are estimated at 615,000 tons. Three enterprises belonging to nuclear fuel corporation TVEL mine and explore uranium fields. Uranium will be explored at 28 sites at a cost of 708.2 million rubles in 2006.

Russia needs $10 bln to meet uranium demand by 2015

2006-02-27T14:21:00.000-08:00

Russia needs $10 bln to meet uranium demand by 2015

Russia has to invest $10 billion in uranium exploration and production to meet the domestic demand by 2015, the country's mineral resources watchdog said Monday.
Russia is currently producing 3,300 metric tons of uranium annually, or 20% of the domestic demand, said Vladimir Bavlov, deputy head of the Federal Agency for the Management of Mineral Resources.
The uranium reserves in storage facilities are likely to run out by 2015, Bavlov said. He added that a substantial 830,000-ton raw material base of uranium had been accumulated but that it was inferior in quality to that found in Canada or Austria.
Bavlov said that the program to develop the uranium sector envisioned producing 70%-75% of the uranium demand domestically by 2015 and covering the remaining 25%-30% through joint ventures with former Soviet republics and by imports.
Bavlov added that a major uranium deposit, the Elkonskoye, in East Siberia would come on-stream in 2010, with all the necessary industrial infrastructure ready for uranium and ore production.
Under the plan, the project is to yield 3,000 metric tons by 2015 and double that amount by 2020.
Bavlov also said smaller uranium ore deposits would be developed by joint ventures between his agency and the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power to maintain and increase the raw material base.
According to the agency, 720 million rubles ($25.6 million) will be allocated for uranium production in 2006 against 485 million ($17.2 million) in 2005. In 2007, budget investment in the uranium sector will rise to 1 billion rubles ($35.6 million) and further increase to 1.5 billion ($53.4 million) in 2008.
Bavlov also said that the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power would begin making an additional investment of 1.5 billion rubles in the sector in 2007.
'This will make the government contribution to uranium production total 3-3.5 billion rubles [$107-124 million] annually,' Bavlov said.

Baltic states agree to build nuclear power plant in Lithuania

2006-02-27T14:12:00.000-08:00

RIA Novosti - World - Baltic states agree to build nuclear power plant in Lithuania

RIGA, February 27 (RIA Novosti, Yuri Guralnik) - The three former Soviet Baltic republics have agreed on the joint construction of a nuclear power plant, the office of the Lithuanian prime minister said in a statement Monday.
The prime ministers of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia agreed at their meeting Monday to build a nuclear power plant in Lithuania before 2015, the statement said.
The premiers concluded that the NPP construction would be the easiest way to resolve an energy crisis expected in 2009, when the Chernobyl-style Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania will be closed due to the European Union's nuclear safety requirements.
Three energy companies - Latvenergo, Eesti Energa and Lietuvos energia AB - will work on the NPP project. They will have to draft an investment plan and select a contractor for the project, which will cost an estimated $3-4 billion.
Lithuania had previously expressed its interest in continuing its nuclear program beyond the closure of the Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear power plant.

British nuclear scientists say waste not a problem

2006-02-24T03:07:00.000-08:00

Science News Article Reuters.com

By Jeremy Lovell
SELLAFIELD (Reuters) - Nuclear waste, the spectre haunting the industry, will not pose a problem if Britain decides later this year to build a new generation of nuclear power plants, scientists said on Thursday.
With a lethal life measured in thousands of years, waste from nuclear power stations has a powerful grip on public imagination who fear theft or attack by terrorists or simply that it is an unwanted legacy for generations to come.
"From a technical point of view we can deal with any waste that comes from nuclear plants," Graham Fairhall, chief technology officer at Nexiasolutions, the research arm of the British Nuclear Group, told Reuters.
"And in any case, a new reactor system would produce just 10 percent of the waste volume from the old Magnox reactors," he added during a tour of the Sellafield nuclear site some 300 miles northwest of London.
The British government, facing an electricity shortfall of 20 percent as it closes its aging nuclear power plants, is in the throes of a comprehensive review of how to supply the country's energy needs for coming generations.
Not only is time running out for crucial decisions to be made as the stations are already closing, but Britain also has to meet its international obligations to cut carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his energy minister Malcolm Wicks have made it clear that nuclear power -- touted by its supporters as low carbon technology -- must be an option, although they accept that public acceptance could be a problem.
The scientists and engineers at Sellafield -- site of the world's first commercial nuclear electricity plant which opened in 1956 -- are confident they have the problem licked.
"The only question left is disposal or storage of the waste," Fairhall said.
At the sprawling 700-acre (283-hectare) site which employs 11,000 people, spent fuel rods not only from Britain's 11 nuclear reactors but from plants as far away as Japan are taken into a vast shed where they are initially immersed in pure water for six months.
The outer cladding is then stripped off and sent for storage in concrete-filled vats while the inner uranium core is recovered.

Reprocessing into plutonium and uranium leaves a highly radioactive sludge that is first evaporated in a two-stage process that reduces it to a powder.
That is mixed with molten glass at 1,100 degrees Celsius and poured into large stainless steel urns that are cooled, sealed scrubbed and put into a thick outer flasks for final storage.
The process is conducted remotely, with operators manipulating mechanical arms standing behind lead glass windows one meter (3 ft 3 in) thick.
The flasks are put into a giant repository that currently holds nearly 4,000 of them, awaiting a decision on a final solution later this year by a special government committee.
"This high level waste is still very radioactive, but there is no fissile material and when it has been vitrified it is unusable for anything," Fairhall said.
"To access these you would need an industrial set up like we have here. Anything less and the radiation would kill you -- and there would be no point in any case," he added.
The only question remaining, according to Fairhall, is whether to store the high level waste somewhere from which it may be retrieved in a few thousand years after it has lost its lethal potency or bury it forever.
"France has opted for disposal. But the Swedes have chosen copper containers that won't erode for a million years," he said.

Minister dismisses opponents of N-power as 'fundamentalists'

2006-02-23T14:44:00.000-08:00

Scotsman.com News - Politics - Minister dismisses opponents of N-power as 'fundamentalists'

Key points• New nuclear power stations are distinct possibility, states minister • Scots politicians entitled to their view but Wicks wants a "grown-up debate"• Comments may produce similar Westminster/Holyrood tensions as those over transport policy
Key quote"There are a lot of people saying No, No, No to this, but people have to make a judgment about where they want the energy to come from." - Malcolm Wicks, UK energy minister
Story in full
NUCLEAR
SCOTLAND should grow up and accept the possibility of new nuclear power stations north of the Border, Malcolm Wicks, the UK energy minister, has said.
In an interview with The Scotsman, he risked straining relations within the Scottish Executive coalition by appearing to brand Scottish Liberal Democrats, who implacably oppose nuclear power, "environmental fundamentalists".
Jack McConnell, the First Minister, has been softening his stance on nuclear power, despite pressure from his Lib Dem partners. Last month he refused to rule out the possibility of new nuclear stations in Scotland.
The First Minister has the power to use planning rules to block any new nuclear plants proposed in Scotland as part of an energy review Mr Wicks is carrying out.
With ministers in London, who have control of UK energy policy, increasingly convinced that new nuclear reactors must be part of the country's future energy system, there is growing frustration at Scotland's resistance.
Mr Wicks said he is "neutral" on nuclear power, but made clear he thinks no-one - Scottish ministers included - should automatically rule out atomic power.
He did not criticise Mr McConnell, insisting Scottish Labour leaders were "entitled" to their view, but made clear his frustration at the tone of Scottish political debate about energy policy.
"It would be foolish of a nation not to have a mature debate about it, a grown-up debate," Mr Wicks said.
"What I mean by a mature debate is not that every one agrees with me, but I think that minds should be open on this."
Mr Wicks's remarks follow tensions between Westminster and Holyrood over transport policy. A public dispute between Mr McConnell and Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, contributed to Labour's disastrous by-election loss in Dunfermline and West Fife this month.
The energy review, scheduled to be completed this summer, comes from the government's twin targets of cutting Britain's dependence on imported power sources - particularly Russian gas - and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
"Our paramount concern [is] to have an energy supply which is clean, and nuclear is a clean source of energy," Mr Wicks said, suggesting that many opponents of atomic power were not realistic.
Mr Wicks will visit Edinburgh and Fife today and tour a wave power project, but in the interview in London yesterday he made clear that such renewable sources cannot meet all of Britain's future energy needs, meaning nuclear power must be an option.
"Even if we really push ahead with renewables plus bearing down on energy efficiency, some people think that adds up to a solution. I think it adds up to a chunk of the solution," he said.
In a veiled attack on Scottish Liberal Democrats and other anti-nuclear groups, the minister pointed to Germany's plans to shut down nuclear power plants, a move he said would mean more carbon emissions. "I would at least hope that the environmental fundamentalists would look at that fact and think through the implications," he said.
Asked to identify those "fundamentalists", he said: "I mean people who are so committed to the environmental agenda but who imagine that the answer can be windmills and some tidal power and some solar power and some recycling."
Britain's nuclear power plants are nearing the end of their working lives, leaving ministers to choose whether to encourage the construction of new facilities.
Mr Wicks's review will be presented to Tony Blair in the summer. The Prime Minister is believed to have accepted that Britain must have some nuclear power.
"There are a lot of people saying No, No, No to this, but people have to make a judgment about where they want the energy to come from," Mr Wicks said.
Mr Wicks will meet Scottish ministers in Edinburgh today to discuss energy policy. An Executive spokesman last night said Scottish ministers would "make a contribution" to the review.
COAL
Unlikely revival of fuel that has cleaned up its act
MORE than two decades after Margaret Thatcher's battle with the miners, the British coal industry could be set for a surprise comeback.
Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, yesterday said coal, and particularly coal mined in Britain, will play a key role in our future energy mix. Keen to cut Britain's dependence on imported gas, much of which comes from Russia, Mr Wicks signalled that so-called clean coal has a big future.
"Carbon capture" technology allows coal to be burned, but emit much less carbon dioxide than in the past, and Mr Wicks said this could lead to an increase in British coal production.
There are only 42 opencast sites and eight major deep mines still in production, but there are some signs of recovery: Richard Budge, the former head of UK Coal, is trying to raise £35 million from a stock market flotation to reopen the Hatfield deep mine in Yorkshire.
Mr Wicks suggested that the coal from British mines should be used in new cleaner power stations to test the technology.
"I would like to see one or two major developments in Britain using British coal plus clean coal technology," he said. "My instinct is that it would be sensible for us to be producing more of our own energy, home-growing our own energy."
Some analysts predict coal is set to become world's most popular energy source, accounting for up to 40 per cent of global power generation.
"Whatever the most fierce environmentalists may say and wish, the world is going to be burning lots of carbon, particularly loads and loads of coal, for 100, 200 years to come. The environmentalists may not like that but tough, it's going to happen," Mr Wicks said.
Since coal will remain an important fuel, he said, Britain should lead work to make it more environmentally friendly.
"In the UK, we've been pretty good at energy - look at Aberdeen," he said. "Why shouldn't we be equally good at some of these emerging technologies?"
PATIO HEATERS
THE energy minister yesterday made an outspoken attack on gas-powered patio heaters, calling the devices "environmental obscenities".
Gas heaters have become a common sight outside pubs and in private gardens. But with some figures showing a single heater produces more than a small car, they are the target of a growing political backlash.
Malcolm Wicks told The Scotsman people who used the devices should "go inside, wear a jumper, get a life".
WASTED POWER
MANUFACTURERS could be forced to remove standby settings from televisions and other electronic devices to save energy, the energy minister said yesterday.
Government figures show that household electronics on standby consume two power stations' output every year.
"A poor little innocent button on your TV, but it epitomises the challenge we've got with global warming," Malcolm Wicks said. "There's far more we could do and if necessary make manufacturers do."

Francia se propone relanzar la energ�a nuclear para reducir su dependencia del petr�leo

2006-02-23T02:44:00.000-08:00

LA VANGUARDIA DIGITAL - Francia se propone relanzar la energ�a nuclear para reducir su dependencia del petr�leo

Chirac, al igual que Bush, defiende la necesidad de promover energías alternativas y limpias
El debate energético está a la orden del día. Estados Unidos encabeza la reflexión sobre el modo de reducir progresivamente la dependencia del petróleo, pero Francia no le va a la zaga. Jacques Chirac propone promover las energías alternativas, pero sobre todo la energía nuclear, de la que Francia es el segundo productor mundial.
Un tercio de los vehículos de la administración pública funcionará con biocarburantes de aquí al 2007

LLUÍS URÍA - 23/02/2006Corresponsal PARÍSLa dependencia del petróleo no sólo se ha convertido en insostenible para el clima, sino también en inconveniente desde el punto de vista geopolítico. La inestabilidad creciente en Oriente Medio, sumada a la reciente crisis del gas ruso, ha puesto en evidencia en muchas capitales occidentales la necesidad de reducir la dependencia energética. Y aquí, Washington y París caminan al mismo paso. Si el presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush, se ha lanzado a una vigorosa campaña en favor de las energías alternativas, el presidente francés, Jacques Chirac, pone el acento en el desarrollo de la energía nuclear. Chirac expuso recientemente, en un acto con las fuerzas vivas del país celebrado en el Elíseo, los ejes principales de su política energética. El presidente francés abogó, como Bush, por potenciar la investigación y producción de energías sustitutivas del petróleo, como los biocarburantes - cuya producción se quintuplicará, dijo, en el plazo de dos años-, el hidrógeno o las pilas de combustible, así como desarrollar nuevos modelos de vehículos eléctricos o híbridos en diez años. En este terreno, se comprometió a que, de aquí al 2007, un tercio de los vehículos de la administración pública utilicen biocarburantes. Ya suprimir, en veinte años, todo consumo de petróleo en las flotas de las grandes empresas públicas de transporte colectivo: la RATP de París y la compañía ferroviaria SNCF. El presidente francés también aludió a la necesidad de desarrollar las centrales de carbón limpias.Pero, por encima de todo, defendió el relanzamiento de la energía nuclear. Francia, con 59 reactores en funcionamiento, es el segundo productor mundial de energía nuclear, por detrás de Estados Unidos. El 78,2% de la electricidad que se produce en el país tiene origen nuclear. El proyecto estrella de Chirac es el prototipo de un nuevo reactor nuclear de cuarta generación, que debería poder entrar en servicio en el año 2020 y que será más seguro y más limpio que los actuales. Esta nueva generación de reactores, además de generar energía eléctrica, permitirá también producir hidrógeno y desalar agua del mar. La Comisaría para la Energía Atómica (CEA) francesa trabaja ya sobre tres tipos posibles de reactor, en concertación con un foro internacional del que forman parte diez países. El Gobierno francés, con todo, considera necesario abordar la política energética a escala europea, y por ello presentó el pasado 24 de enero en Bruselas un memorando en el que plantea la conveniencia de potenciar desde la UE la investigación sobre la energía nuclear, además de otras energías alternativas. La seguridad del aprovisionamiento energético y la lucha contra el calentamiento climático son los dos principales argumentos expuestos por París para pedir una mayor implicación económica comunitaria.

Global Partnership Aims To Change Nuclear Power Arrangements

2006-02-22T03:15:00.000-08:00

Global Partnership Aims To Change Nuclear Power Arrangements

Partners will offer incentives, assurances to poorer countries, U.S. officials say
By Andrzej ZwanieckiWashington File Staff Writer
Washington -- The United States seeks to work with other countries on an initiative that would reorder international nuclear power arrangements to reduce the weapons proliferation threat and encourage sustainable development, U.S. officials say.
Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph told reporters February 16 that international participation is "absolutely essential" to the success of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) initiative, requiring the sharing of nuclear-power expertise, experience and costs.
Clay Sell, under secretary of energy, said at the same briefing that the Bush administration has requested $250 million from Congress for the initiative for the fiscal year that begins October 1. Sell said he hopes that level "will be matched in a very significant way by international partners."
The goals of the international technology initiative were laid out at a February 16 briefing in Washington. (See related article.)
POWER FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
GNEP aims not only to expand the nuclear-power industry but also to make nuclear energy available to less developed countries in a way that would prevent the spread of sensitive fuel enrichment and reprocessing technologies. These technologies can be used to build nuclear weapons.
Joseph said that the initiative addresses the weapons proliferation threat "not by denying any state its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but rather by providing incentives."
Under GNEP, developed countries with nuclear capabilities would provide affordable nuclear fuel to developing nations and then take back spent fuel for reprocessing and ultimate disposal. In addition, simpler, smaller and less costly reactors would be promoted for use in developing countries.
John Deutch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said such an offer would be very attractive to less developed countries that care more about meeting energy needs than acquiring nuclear technology.
"They will believe this is a godsend because an offer for enrichment, reprocessing and waste disposal by nuclear-supplier states is likely to be economically quite attractive," Deutch, former U.S. director of central intelligence, said in a February 17 interview with the Washington File.
He was less certain about the reaction of larger, emerging-market countries -- such as Brazil and Iran -- that either have tried or plan to develop nuclear power on their own.
Demonstrating as early as possible that the new arrangement can create benefits for developing countries would be crucial, he said.
"The people are going to evaluate it not in the abstract but how it is really working in practice," he said.
Joseph said that the United States already has been working to assure non-nuclear countries that they can have access to nuclear fuel while discouraging them from investing in very expensive and sensitive technologies.
He said the GNEP concept would advance nonproliferation and would be "intended to prevent future Irans, future contingencies."
ADVANCED REPROCESSING AND NONPROLIFERATION
Some environmental groups and energy experts question the nonproliferation value of the initiative. They argue that, with a wide global network of temporary storage sites and transportation routes, terrorists would have more opportunities to steal nuclear materials and build devices dispersing radioactive materials.
Deutch said reprocessed spent fuel must be transported with the greatest care to prevent any accidents or hijacking by terrorists. He added that the proposed arrangement would be much less risky than having pure plutonium stored and transported around the world.
"So while there are risks and very serious matters that require attention [in this arrangement]," Deutch said, "they are preferable to more serious risks associated with the existing closed fuel cycle and reprocessing activities."
Sell said new technologies will allow GNEP partners to build a sophisticated system to monitor and control any diversions of nuclear materials as well as promote best practices in handling those materials worldwide.
For additional information on U.S. policy, see Arms Control and Nonproliferation.
(The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Generation gap

2006-02-20T13:54:00.000-08:00

Guardian Unlimited Business Generation gap

Tony Blair's plan for an EU-wide power grid has won the support of one of Europe's top power executives. It could lead to a single market for Europe's electricity, writes David Gow Thursday February 16, 2006
Tony Blair has received support from a top European executive for an ambitious EU energy plan to meet the challenges of high oil prices, secure supplies and climate change.
Gérard Mestrallet, the chief executive of the French energy group, Suez, says the EU should invest €1,000bn (£682.7bn) in new unified grids for both electricity and gas transmission under a common energy policy.
Mr Mestrallet's comments come ahead of next month's EU spring summit to discuss a European commission paper on the contentious roles of renewables and nuclear power within Europe's energy supply.
The summit will also discuss how the EU's 25 national regulators can create the right policy framework for private sector investment. It is expected to endorse the common grid concept.
Meanwhile, Neelie Kroes, the EU competition commissioner, is today set to warn governments and energy groups in several big countries that they face sanctions after their failure to open up their energy markets in time for full-scale liberalisation in July next year.
But Mr Mestrallet said last week: "Opening markets to competition is not enough, and Europe has not thought enough about long-term security of supply, and the need for investment in new production facilities and sources of energy and transmission infrastructures."
With EU energy consumption expected to rise by 15%, including a 50% leap in electricity use, by 2030 when imports amount to 70% of the primary market, the Suez chief said Europe would require an extra 750 gigawatts (billion watts) of power plants or 1,500 new stations - at an estimated cost, according to the International Energy Agency, of € 650bn.
In addition, electricity grids would have to be upgraded to prevent the current bottlenecks, which led to power blackouts in Italy in 2003, and to create a genuine single market. This would cost an additional €100bn.
With 45% of EU natural gas already coming from Russia, an increasingly fractious supplier, the EU would need to spend €155bn on new production facilities and a further €100bn on developing a common grid - and on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities to ease imports from other countries such as Algeria and Qatar.
Suez, Europe's fifth-largest provider of gas and electricity, acquired the Belgian operator Electrabel last year and runs Europe's largest LNG terminal at Zeebrugge, Belgium, on the North Sea coast - home to the gas interconnector (pipeline) with Britain in which it holds a 16% stake.
Mr Mestrallet said: "Europe is fragile and so is its electricity supply system ... Europe's own hydrocarbon reserves will run out in ten to 15 years and it has invested almost nothing in new generating capacity. If we don't wake up Europe will have one of the highest dependencies on imports of energy in the world, facing permanently high prices."
Creating unified electricity and gas grids does not require large-scale state intervention, Mr Mestrallet argues, and can be financed entirely by the private sector without a penny of public funding - provided the 25 national regulators act in common.
"These grids are natural monopolies and the regulator(s) have to give the correct signal. One can dream of coordinated activities by the regulators which would spur Europe's need for a modern infrastructure with a proper reward for capital and tariffs," he said, calling for a single regulator.
Suez, which has 58,000 megawatt of capacity globally, including two nuclear power stations in Belgium it acquired via Electrabel, believes Europe cannot survive without the nuclear option. It is a supplier to the third generation European Pressurised Reactor being built by the French manufacturer Areva in Finland.
Mr Mestrallet said: "It is up to each country to decide but collectively it's a solution which can't be avoided. Nuclear has to have a place in Europe's energy mix to combat global warming."
His group is considering plans to build its own pressurized reactor in France or to join forces, as a minority partner, with part-privatised energy company EDF to build a series there.
But he is less sanguine about the prospects for renewables, despite his group's investment in hydropower as well as wind power, biomass and solar energy, and a target of 18% of installed capacity by the end of the decade.
The group, which delivered a cargo of LNG to the Isle of Grain terminal in Kent last autumn to help ease the then UK shortage of gas, has dismissed as pointless the current inquiry by Ofgem, the British energy regulator, into the alleged failings of the interconnector.
Executives argue flows under the Channel were normal and, anyway, Suez had long-term contracts with continental purchasers it had to meet. Alain Janssens, the chief executive of Distrigas Suez, which holds the interconnector stake, points out capacity has been doubled to 16.5bn cubic metres of gas, and will be upgraded by the end of this year to 23bn.
The executives argue that Britain, which reported its first trade deficit in hydrocarbons (€96bn) last week for 26 years, miscalculated the speed at which North Sea reserves were being depleted - and failed to secure enough long-term contracts or invest in adequate gas storage.
For Mr Mestrallet the UK is a no-go area for large-scale acquisition of the kind being considered by energy groups such as Russia's Gazprom.
He insists that Suez is opting for organic growth, notably by expanding its LNG terminal at Everett, Massachusetts, the biggest US importer, and will only contemplate smaller acquisitions in, say, France and Belgium - despite the urgings of some of his advisers.

Nuclear Energy Initiative Holds Uncertainties

2006-02-20T13:42:00.000-08:00

Nuclear Energy Initiative Holds Uncertainties

Bush Plan Could Cut Dependence on Oil but Relies on Unproven Technologies
By Guy GugliottaWashington Post Staff WriterSunday, February 19, 2006; A09
President Bush's new nuclear energy initiative is supposed to help cure America's "addiction to oil" by redesigning a taboo technology, originally used to obtain plutonium for bombs, to reuse spent nuclear fuel.
Unlike past reprocessing methods, the administration says, the new technique would make it prohibitively difficult for would-be proliferators to extract weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel, and it would drastically reduce the volume of radioactive waste to be stored at repositories such as Nevada's Yucca Mountain.
The result, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said early this month, would be increased use of nuclear power, reduced oil consumption and fewer hydrocarbon emissions, "making the world a better, cleaner and safer place to live."
If it works. Both supporters and opponents of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership agreed that although it marks a radical change in U.S. nuclear energy policy, it also relies on unproven technologies that will take decades to mature, and it does not guarantee success.
Bodman, in congressional testimony last week, acknowledged that the $250 million requested for the program this year will be used to design a test reprocessing plant so that Bush over "the next two or three years" can make "a go or no-go decision as to whether this is something that makes sense."
But one problem with this calculation, opponents say, is that even a toe-wetting start-up requires that the United States reverse nearly 30 years of opposition to reprocessing at a time of increasing concern about weapons programs in North Korea, Iran and other nations. That "is the wrong signal to send," said Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which opposes reprocessing.
Also, Lyman and others challenged the administration's view that the new technology does not produce "proliferation proof" plutonium, and suggested that would-be proliferators would almost certainly find new ways to handle the spent fuel by the time the new system is ready.
Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell acknowledged these concerns but noted that the U.S. refusal to reprocess spent fuel has been a stance "that virtually no one [else] followed." The world "has moved on without us," he added, and a new technology that makes it harder to obtain plutonium "will make the United States a leader rather than a spectator."
Still, there are other misgivings. Experts in both science and industry doubt that the plan could meet what Sell called an "admittedly aggressive time schedule" to have commercial reprocessing up and running by 2025.
If development drags on, these experts say, reprocessing would have little immediate effect on nuclear waste storage. Meanwhile, the government will be spending billions of dollars developing a fuel that probably will be too expensive to buy in the foreseeable future, except with a government subsidy.
"I'm not dogmatic -- the claims may not ultimately be wrong," said Richard K. Lester, a nuclear scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "But on the time scale that's going to matter, it's very difficult to come close to achieving the objectives that have been set."
Reprocessing technology was first developed by the United States in the 1950s as a way to obtain plutonium for nuclear warheads, but President Jimmy Carter banned it in 1977 because of proliferation concerns. President Ronald Reagan rescinded the ban in 1981, but even then, reprocessing was so expensive and technologically daunting that no U.S. power company ever sought to develop it.
France, Japan, Russia, India and the United Kingdom do reprocess commercially, and all use the old U.S. technology, called purex, which derives plutonium oxide from spent fuel and then combines it with uranium to create a mixed-oxide fuel, called MOX, that can be used in some power plants. MOX is much more expensive than the uranium fuel in conventional reactors.
The conventional plants, which include all 103 nuclear generators currently operating in the United States, use "once through" fuel rods in a controlled reaction to produce steam that drives turbine generators. The rods are replaced every 18 to 24 months, and the spent fuel -- about 2,000 metric tons annually -- is put into temporary storage on the reactor sites.
Eventually, the spent fuel is supposed to go to Yucca Mountain, which will open, at the earliest, in 2012. By that time, the industry will have 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel waiting to ship to it.
"We need to solve a couple of big problems," said Phillip J. Finck, deputy associate director for applied science technology and national security at Argonne National Laboratory. "We have to deal with the waste and destroy plutonium."
The new technology, as described by Finck in a telephone interview, begins with a new reprocessing technique called urex-plus, which, like purex, dissolves spent fuel rods in a bath of nitric acid. The used fuel rods are composed of uranium, plutonium, heavy radioactive metals called "transuranics" and lighter radioactive elements known as "fission products."
Unlike purex, which separates out the plutonium, urex-plus leaves the plutonium and transuranics mixed together, making the resulting product unsuitable for weapons and much more difficult to handle for anyone trying to build a bomb.
The new fuel would be used in a "fast reactor," where neutrons move about much more energetically than in conventional reactors, breaking down the long-lived transuranics into lighter fission products with shorter half-lives.
The spent fuel from the fast reactor would then be reprocessed using another new technology known as "pyroprocessing," which separates the fuel by dissolving it in molten salt and running an electric current through it. The fuel could be recycled several times until the long-lived transuranics all but disappear.
If successful, the new reprocessing method would replace purex, the stockpile of civilian plutonium would stop growing, and the whole cycle would become much more proliferation resistant, Finck said. Also, he added, Yucca Mountain's storage capacity "would increase by a factor of 100." Instead of filling up by 2030, or earlier, the repository would last beyond the end of the century.
That is if the new reprocessing system is ready by 2025. Steven Kraft, senior director of used fuel management for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry policy group, voiced doubts: "This is a matter of developing future technologies, and those technologies are 50 to 60 years away."
Kraft endorsed Bush's plan as a worthy long-range goal, but nonproliferation advocates said impurities in reprocessed plutonium are not likely to dissuade would-be proliferators from stealing it.
Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, an energy think tank, said: "You can get a one-kiloton explosion with impure plutonium, and if you're a terrorist the most important thing is to have the capability. Such a blast would be the equivalent of 1,000 tons of dynamite. "You don't care whether you destroy the tip of Manhattan or the whole island," he said.

A Shift Based on Science and Politics - New York Times

2006-02-20T13:27:00.000-08:00

A Shift Based on Science and Politics - New York Times

February 18, 2006
A Shift Based on Science and Politics
By MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — As a naval officer, Jimmy Carter helped design nuclear reactors for submarines. But as president, Mr. Carter banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract material that would be useful in reactors and bombs. Thirty years later, President Bush has proposed a new version of reprocessing.
The reversal can be traced mainly to uneven progress in technology over the last three decades, and to a lesser extent to political and economic factors.
Today, it is much less expensive to manufacture uranium for nuclear weapons, reducing the likelihood that a country with weapons ambitions would reprocess spent fuel for that purpose. And the failure to find an acceptable way to dispose of the fuel after use — including burying it — has made reprocessing look better by comparison.
Recently the Energy Department admitted that it no longer had any schedule or cost estimate for the planned spent-fuel repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and that without reprocessing, it would soon have to find a second repository site.
In one way, it seems counterintuitive that the United States is considering reprocessing now, when the number of reactors has been growing slowly, compared with the Carter era, when experts expected hundreds of reactors to be built. Back then, uranium was expensive and thought to be scarce, and demand was growing. Mr. Carter's suspension precluded the production of potentially cheaper fuel.
On the other hand, by reintroducing reprocessing, President Bush is trying to develop a different source of fuel for reactors when the uranium they use is plentiful.
Nuclear advocates say, though, that hundreds of new reactors will eventually be built, and that there is no reason to deny the world the value of resources that are locked in spent fuel for fear of weapons proliferation, since reprocessed fuel is no longer the easiest route to a bomb.
"A key part of the logic behind the U.S. decision to forgo reprocessing is now perversely incorrect," said Per F. Peterson, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.
It is still possible to make a bomb from reprocessed material from civilian power plants — the United States did it on an experimental basis decades ago. But as the current argument with Iran shows, the preferred route is to make bomb material from virgin uranium, because the technology that enriches the uranium for use in a bomb has advanced so much faster than the technology for disposing of spent fuel.
There are other reasons for the shift, too, including ideology. President Carter, who had been an engineering officer in Adm. Hyman G. Rickover's nuclear submarine program, had a decidedly modest view of what nuclear technology could accomplish. But President Bush's approach to energy, ranging from fuel cells to ethanol to a new generation of nuclear reactors and reprocessing factories, is highly optimistic.
The energy secretary, Samuel W. Bodman, told a Senate committee last week that the administration's solution to energy problems was "transformational technologies."
There are also political problems that favor radical approaches like a new reprocessing plan. While the Bush administration has slogged toward preparing to ask for a license to open a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, the 20-year-old law under which it is looking to open a site has a far more onerous task.
The administration will soon be required to tell Congress what it is doing about finding a site for the next repository, which must go in the eastern United States. If there is no other solution, like reprocessing, the administration could find itself at the beginning of the next presidential primary season scouting out the granite formations of New Hampshire as waste burial sites. (The Energy Department actually looked there in the 1980's.)
Hence the move to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, announced as part of the administration's budget. Under the program, countries that already have enrichment technology would lease reactor fuel to countries that lack production means. The producing country would take back the fuel after it was used.
This would mean that countries like Iran could have reactors without fuel technology. Countries that already have nuclear weapons or, like Japan, do not want them would reuse the plutonium and other nuclear fuels for civilian purposes and reduce the volume of waste.
That is not to say the plan is feasible. Turning ideas about nuclear physics into commercially viable technology is notoriously difficult.
When the Bush budget was released, Clay Sell, the deputy energy secretary, was asked what price uranium would have to reach before a recycled product could compete. He had no answer except to say that the value of reducing the waste's volume and toxicity should be figured in.
The commercial industry applauds the Bush administration's support for new reactors that are modifications of the current designs, but is silent on new reprocessing plants and a new generation of reactors that would use reprocessed material. Congress has not embraced reprocessing, either.
"If the raw material is still cheaper, nobody buys the recycled product," said a federal energy official, who insisted on anonymity because he did not want to hurt his ties with the White House. "Why would you want to pay more for fuel?"
The global partnership, the official said, is not impossible, but "it's not something that is going to be driven by the industry."
It is also opposed by some experts in nuclear proliferation, who say America's 30-year pledge not to take bomb-usable plutonium out of spent fuel has made it harder for other countries to do that.
But the plan still appeals to people who put faith in technology. Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, spoke warmly of the idea. He said it would help the United States regain leadership in the nuclear field.
President Carter, he said, had stopped reprocessing on the theory that others would follow, but Britain and France still reprocess, and Japan wants to. "We stopped, and the world didn't," Mr. Domenici said.

Bush budget seeks to recycle spent nuclear fuel

2006-02-15T09:45:00.000-08:00

Science News Article Reuters.co.uk

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush asked the U.S. Congress on Monday for $250 million in research funds to restart a controversial program that would reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
The United States abandoned the technology in the 1970s because it was too expensive and there was fear terrorist groups or rogue nations could get access to the plutonium and make nuclear bombs.
However, the administration said it wants to phase-out the old recycling methods that separated plutonium from the spent fuel and created a nuclear proliferation risk.
Using new technology, the plutonium would "remain bound" with other highly radioactive materials, making it less useful for nuclear weapons and reducing security concerns, according to the administration.
The money for its "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" was included in the administration proposed budget for the 2007 spending year. The program would be part of the Energy Department.
Under the recycling program, the administration said the United States would partner with other countries, such as Russia, France and the United Kingdom, to establish the infrastructure necessary to supply nuclear fuel to other nations.
U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said the plan "brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the globe, in an environmentally friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation."
The United States and the European Union are concerned that Iran's plan to enrich uranium could result in its development of nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying it wants the uranium to fuel nuclear power plants.
NUCLEAR WASTE
The administration said its plan would eliminate the need for foreign countries to build their own uranium enrichment and recycling facilities, because the United States and its partners could send those countries the nuclear fuel they need to run plants for electricity generation.
The recycling plan would also reduce the thousands of tons of nuclear waste sitting at U.S. nuclear power plants and encourage the building of more reactors to expand domestic electricity supplies, the administration said.
The amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel destined for disposal at the Yucca Mountain storage site near Las Vegas would be reduced by 80 percent under the program, the White House said.
Reprocessing separates uranium and plutonium from spent fuel so the elements could be used further.
Twelve of the 33 nations that generate electricity from nuclear power plants practice reprocessing, but it has not been done in the United States for more than 20 years, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute trade group.
President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing because of concerns it could spread nuclear weapons. President Ronald Reagan lifted the ban and President Bill Clinton reinstated it.
The administration said it would pursue creating a permanent nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, where the used reprocessed spent fuel would be sent. The 2007 budget includes $545 million for the storage project.
Separately, the administration proposed spending $54 million to help the country's major utilities make it feasible to order the first new U.S. nuclear power plant by 2009 and have it in operation by 2014. Energy companies have not placed an order for a nuclear power plant in three decades.

The Impact of Emerging Technologies: Biomass: Hope and Hype - Technology Review

2006-02-15T09:05:00.000-08:00

The Impact of Emerging Technologies: Biomass: Hope and Hype - Technology Review

Biomass: Hope and Hype
President Bush thinks weeds can supplant oil from the Middle East. Is he out in left field?
By Kevin Bullis
Our dependence on foreign oil has researchers and policymakers taking another hard look at weeds and corn stalks as sources of home-grown fuel.
President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, announced last month, calls for research into biofuels from "cellulosic" plant waste, "to displace up to 30 percent of the nation's current fuel use." Indeed, in his State of the Union address, the president suggested that one solution to the nation's "addiction" to oil could be fuel derived from switchgrass, a tall plant native to U.S. prairies. Reinforcing that vision, more than one recent study has suggested that biomass could eventually play a significant role in U.S. transportation energy needs, and do so without adding to the carbon in the atmosphere.
But are these realistic scenarios -- or just wishful thinking? The idea of using biomass for energy isn't new of course. Already, about four billion gallons of ethanol are produced yearly in the United States by fermenting corn and distilling out its energy-rich alcohol. But the amount that can be produced is limited by the land required to grow the corn. What's more, the process for producing ethanol is inefficient, requiring nearly as much energy to make as is available in the final product.
Advances in genetic engineering, however, now have many experts feeling optimistic about dramatically increasing the amount of biomass that can be harvested from an acre of land, by using microbes to convert leaves and stalks, not just corn, into liquid fuels. They believe this can be done efficiently, too, without exhausting available land and water, and also predict that production costs could be competitive with gasoline.
A recent report by the National Resources Defense Council and researchers at Dartmouth and Princeton projects that by 2050, in part through harvesting both protein and cellulose from corn and switchgrass, existing agricultural land could both supply our food needs and replace gasoline with ethanol.
Unless it's done carefully, however, deriving fuels from biomass could destroy crop lands through erosion, increase air pollution -- and even increase our dependence on fossil fuels. For example, one of the steps in processing biomass, distillation, requires heat. In the short term, inexpensive coal may appear to be a good energy source for this, says John Reilly, associate director for research at MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. But this would cancel out one of the primary benefits of biomass: carbon released by burning biofuels is offset by the carbon captured by growing crops, leading to near-zero total carbon emissions. Using coal for distillation would destroy this balance. In one scenario, Reilly says that "68 percent of the carbon you think you're saving is actually being emitted through other processes." Likewise, using gasoline or diesel to transport biomass from widespread farms and other agricultural facilities to processing centers would change the overall carbon equation.

What's more, models that show biomass supplying a significant amount of the nation's transportation fuels tend to lean heavily on projections that vehicles will use half as much fuel as they do today, or even less. Without this increase in efficiency, however, there's not enough land to provide a supply of biomass sufficient to put a dent in the demand for foreign oil.
"High vehicle efficiency is an essential factor for all sustainable transportation scenarios," says Lee Lynd, engineering and biology professor at Dartmouth and co-author of the NRDC study that said biomass could replace gasoline by 2050. His model assumes two and a half times the current fuel economy for vehicles, as well as sophisticated crop rotations and other land-use decisions to make it possible to supply both food and energy from existing agricultural and pasture lands.
If the past is a guide, such models are extremely optimistic. In fact, although technology has improved fuel efficiency, the average number of miles per gallon for vehicles today is actually less than it was in the late 1980s, according to a recent EPA report. While engines have become better at extracting energy from fuel, cars have also become faster and heavier, cancelling any gains.
Lynd's optimistic scenario also assumes that the conversion of stalks to ethanol can be done much more efficiently than it is today, by combining existing metabolic pathways from organisms such as fungi and bacteria. A recent white paper from a group of biomass researchers at MIT says that existing pathways will also need to be fine tuned to provide adequate yields. Creating these pathways will depend on continued research, even as less-efficient technologies begin to come online.
Experts look at biomass and see the potential to significantly improve our energy security while helping the environment. Certainly, the vision of vast fields of switchgrass and other crops replacing troubled oil fields in the Middle East is an attractive one. But turning biomass into more than a fuel for niche applications will require a strong R&D effort to bring the technology to fruition.

Ignalinsk Nuclear Power Station Linked with Al-Qaeda

2006-02-13T14:15:00.000-08:00

Kommersant: Ignalinsk Nuclear Power Station Linked with Al-Qaeda

Viktoria Zakurko, a Lithuanian citizen, was arrested in the UK last weekend suspected of links with al-Qaeda. British and Lithuanian law enforcement agencies are particularly apprehended since the detainee’s father works in the security of the Ignalinsk nuclear power station.
The Lithuanian, who now resides in Liverpool, has been arrested on the grounds of her relations with Lebanon’s citizen Mohammed Benhammedi who is believed to be a financier of al-Qaeda. The 19-year-old met the Lebanese businessman through mutual friends and left for Liverpool where she “met him every second night”, she says.Benhammedi was detained last Wednesday and charged with violations of migration regulations. His accounts were frozen as suspected to be financing al-Qaeda. Viktoria Zakurko told the British press that she does not believe the accusations and ready to wait for her lover all her life.The British police got apprehended as they learnt that the girl’s father, Sergey Zakurko, works in Lithuania as a security man at the Ignalinsk nuclear power station.

Tories move away from nuclear power

2006-02-13T14:10:00.000-08:00

Party Politics news : Tories move away from nuclear power

Alan Duncan has today indicated that the Conservatives may end their traditional support for nuclear power, as he launched the party's energy review. The shadow trade and industry secretary said the Tories under David Cameron now have "no fixed opinion about nuclear energy". Mr Duncan's comments are the latest effort by the party to persuade voters of their green credentials, which began with the launch of the quality of life policy group headed up by editor of the Ecologist, Zach Goldsmith. Last month, the Tories joined forces with the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the DUP to form a climate change coalition, committed to introducing annual targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Although the government is not part of this coalition – Tony Blair believes these targets would be too restrictive – it has made much of its record on environmental issues, and in particular of keeping the issue on the international agenda. However, ministers' refusal to rule out building more nuclear power plants in their forthcoming energy review has enraged green campaigners. Today's announcement by the Conservatives is a clear step into traditional Labour ground. "The days when it was the left wanting renewables and the right wanting nukes aren't as simple and clear-cut as that," Mr Duncan told The Daily Telegraph. He said that any decision about nuclear power would have to take into account costs of decommissioning power stations, adding: "Some people in the party are very pro-nuclear, some are very anti. We are going to look at the facts." Britain currently has 12 nuclear power stations, providing 22 per cent of electricity, but this will fall to just three stations by 2020 unless they are replaced. A decision must be taken soon, as stations take up to a decade to build. The new Conservative energy review will look at how fossil fuels can be made cleaner, the role of energy efficiency measures in reducing demand, and the environmental impact and economics of renewable energy and nuclear power. "Energy represents one of the greatest challenges facing politicians today," Mr Duncan wrote in the foreword of the review's website, www.energyreview.co.uk. "The UK must take urgent decisions to ensure the future security of our supplies and the protection of our environment while dealing with affordability against a backdrop of rising fuel prices."

World has 200 years of uranium reserves - Germany

2006-02-09T13:20:00.000-08:00

World Reuters.co.in

BERLIN (Reuters) - There are enough global reserves of uranium to generate nuclear power for the next 200 years at least, Germany's Economy Ministry said on Thursday.
"An objective view shows that global uranium resources will allow it to be used to generate nuclear power gloabally for the next 200 years at least," the ministry said in a statement.
Germany Economy Minister Michael Glos, a member of the conservatives, favours a rethink of the country's plans to phase out nuclear power by 2020, and has clashed openly with Social Democrat Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel on the issue.
Gabriel has in the past questioned how long uranium supplies will last.

Russia ready to build 60GW of nuclear power capacity worldwide

2006-02-08T15:03:00.000-08:00

RIA Novosti - Russia - Russia ready to build 60GW of nuclear power capacity worldwide

MOSCOW, February 8 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is ready to build nuclear power plants throughout the world with a total capacity of up to 60GW, the country's top nuclear power official said Wednesday.
"We must set ourselves a goal of taking 20% of the market [for nuclear energy], which would be around 60GW," Sergei Kiriyenko, the head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, told members of the Kurchatov Institute for nuclear research.
Kiriyenko estimates the global market for nuclear energy at 600GW.
He noted that 50% to 70% of demand is located in closed markets, while about 300GW is in countries that are not in a position to build their own nuclear power plants.
Within the next 25 years, Russia should reach capacity of 40GW to 60GW, he said.
At the meeting, Kiriyenko also reiterated his view that Russia should restore the nuclear power infrastructure that existed during the Soviet period, uniting the elements of the complex situated in former Soviet countries into one system.

Bush Budget Plan Could Slow Down Nuclear Projects | newratings.com

2006-02-08T03:05:00.000-08:00

Analyst:Bush Budget Plan Could Slow Down Nuclear Projects newratings.com

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Bush Administration's proposed funding cuts to the U.S Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 initiative could hamper efforts to advance new nuclear projects, according to Stanford Washington Research Group analyst Christine Tezak.
The Nuclear Power 2010 initiative is a joint government-industry program aimed at identifying sites for new nuclear power plants based on advanced nuclear technologies.
The industry sees the program as a way to reduce the technical and regulatory uncertainties associated with nuclear projects.
In its fiscal year 2007 budget request released Monday, the Bush Administration highlighted nuclear power as a clean way to produce electricity and proposed a major $250 million initiative to revive nuclear waste reprocessing in the U.S.
However, the administration also proposed cuts to the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, proposing to reduce funding from $65.3 million in fiscal year 2006 to $54 million in fiscal year 2007.
"We are a bit disappointed by this set of budget priorities that seems to send the signal that administration is putting the cart before the horse at a moment when the nuclear project pipeline is just forming critical mass," said Tezak in her most recent research report, adding that industry sources were hoping to see the funding level for the program jump to $90 million. "The message now being sent to market participants is not one of enthusiastic support."
She voiced concern that the funding cuts could "slow down" the ability of DOE and project sponsors to move forward on nuclear projects funded by the Nuclear 2010 program, which are being pursued by companies such as Dominion Resources Inc. (D.NYS), Entergy Corp. (ETR), Exelon Corp. (EXC), and Southern Co. (SO), among others.
Still, she noted that the U.S. Congress could increase the funding level.
Meanwhile, John Kane, the Nuclear Energy Institute's senior vice president of governmental affairs, also called for increased funds for the Nuclear Power 2010 program as well as a university research reactor and education program.
He noted that the DOE budget request seeks a 55% increase in funding for nuclear energy-related research, but it also zeroes out funding for the university research program and cuts funding for the Nuclear Power 2010 program by 17%.
"The two programs are critical to keep the new nuclear plant momentum up and to support mathematics and science education to ensure a highly-trained work force to support our future," said Kane.

Germany rethinks phasing out nuclear power

2006-02-07T14:12:00.000-08:00

United Press International - Energy - Germany rethinks phasing out nuclear power

By STEFAN NICOLAUPI Germany Correspondent
BERLIN, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Germany's grand coalition is still bickering over the country's future energy mix despite an already agreed-upon plan to phase out nuclear energy.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives are increasingly unhappy with the plan to shut down by 2021 all 17 nuclear plants still active in Germany. The previous coalition government of Social Democrats, or SPD, and Greens struck a deal with the German energy industry in 1999 to gradually phase out the production of nuclear energy.
Germans overwhelmingly backed the plan, but the tide may slowly turn, observers say. Skyrocketing electricity and heating bills have angered the population, and Germany's four main energy companies, E.on, RWE, Vattenfall Europe and EnBW, in the past month introduced repeated price increases. At the end of January, Vattenfall announced some 3 million households in Berlin would have to pay up to 6 percent more for electricity in 2006.
Merkel argues she wants a broad mix that includes solar and wind energy, two renewable sources the past government heavily subsidized. Critics say building the hundreds of rather inefficient wind energy turbines cost German taxpayers billions. Merkel also wants to keep coal and nuclear energy in the mix.
The conservatives argue that in light of Germany's dependency on foreign energy (it has virtually none of its own resources), the country could use the edge in technology it has acquired over the years, especially as China is building new plants every year.
Companies are also looking at the possibility of keeping nuclear energy, but for different reasons, an energy expert said.
"It's a political topic. Atomic energy plants are money machines for Germany's four large energy companies, which dominate the market," Markus Duscha, head of the energy program at the Institute for Energy and Ecological Research at Heidelberg University, told United Press International in a telephone interview. "They have been slow to improve energy efficiency and modernize in terms of renewable energy sources."
The Social Democrats have so far stood tight by the agreement, with several SPD lawmakers reminding Merkel and her conservatives to abide by the coalition treaty. Nuclear energy is safe in case of no emergency, but what if a plant blows up, and what to do with nuclear waste? That calls for getting rid of nuclear energy, they argue.
Consumers have their own way of dealing with the price increases: Those who have one have fired up the old tiled stove with dead wood collected in forests.
But the Russian-Ukraine energy row earlier this year and the instability in the Middle East is beginning to unsettle leading German politicians, even Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat.
"Global security is directly connected with energy security," Steinmeier said Sunday at the 42nd Munich Security Conference, which drew some 300 high-ranking politicians and security experts from all over the world. He said he was in favor of European nations working together to secure supplies in the future.
When Russia's state-controlled energy giant Gazprom shut off natural gas delivery to Ukraine after the country refused to pay higher prices, leading conservatives in Germany used the incident to call for keeping nuclear energy.
"Of course (instability in the Middle East and Russia) is ammunition for them," Duscha said. "Yes, you can technically heat with atomic energy, but the dependency factor is similar. Only a few countries in the world produce the fuel needed."
Other energy experts have said Germany needs to become less dependent on foreign oil, but should do so by fostering cooperation with other countries, such as building solar power plants in Portugal or North Africa.
Some countries in Europe do not have Germany's problems: Finnish consumers pay roughly half the German prices. The bills are held down by an unconventional energy mix of bio mass (with wood garbage from Sweden) and nuclear energy (from domestic plants).
As oil prices are set to go up, renewable energy sources are the way to go, Duscha said.
"We should hold tight to the plan to phase out nuclear energy," he said. "If we keep questioning and weakening that plan it will hurt security in the energy sector in the long run."

Bush budget seeks to recycle spent nuclear fuel

2006-02-07T07:10:00.000-08:00

Stock Market News and Investment Information Reuters.com

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday asked the U.S. Congress for $250 million in research funds to restart a controversial program that would reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
The United States abandoned the technology in the 1970s because it was too expensive and there was fear terrorist groups or rogue nations could get access to the plutonium and make nuclear bombs.
However, the administration said it wants to phase-out the old recycling methods that separated plutonium from the spent fuel and created a nuclear proliferation risk.
Using new technology, the plutonium would "remain bound" with other highly radioactive materials, making it less useful for nuclear weapons and reducing security concerns, according to the administration.
The money for its so-called "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" was included in the administration proposed budget for the 2007 spending year. The program would be part of the Energy Department.
Under the recycling program, the administration said the United States would partner with other countries to establish the infrastructure necessary to supply nuclear fuel to other nations.
The White House said its plan "will help meet the growing demand for electricity in the developing world through an international framework that will promote emissions-free, safe nuclear energy and eliminate the need for foreign countries to build enrichment recycling capabilities."
The United States and the European Union are concerned that Iran's plan to enrich uranium could result in its development of nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, saying it wants the uranium to fuel nuclear power plants.
The administration said it recycling plan would also reduce the thousands of tons of nuclear waste sitting at U.S. nuclear power plants and encourage the building of more reactors to expand domestic electricity supplies.
The amount of commercial spent nuclear fuel destined for disposal at the Yucca Mountain storage site near Las Vegas would be reduced by 80 percent under the program, the White House said.
Reprocessing separates uranium and plutonium from spent fuel so the elements could be used further.
Twelve of the 33 nations that generate electricity from nuclear power plants practice reprocessing, but it has not been done in the United States for more than 20 years, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute trade group.
President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing because of concerns it could spread nuclear weapons. President Ronald Reagan lifted the ban and President Bill Clinton reinstated it.

Russia and US as global nuclear waste collectors? | csmonitor.com

2006-02-06T15:18:00.000-08:00

Russia and US as global nuclear waste collectors? csmonitor.com

By Fred Weir and Howard LaFranchi
MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON - Against a backdrop of global efforts to address peacefully the concerns raised by Iran's nuclear power program, the US and Russia are proposing an international "partnership" for controlling the flow of weapons-grade uranium to those who might harbor military ambitions.
The plan, announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin last week and included in President Bush's budget sent to Congress Monday, would provide energy-starved countries with the fuel they need for generating nuclear power, while taking back the dangerous waste created in its production.
But some experts and critics say the proposal raises many questions for Congress to address, and the science behind the idea of breaking down spent fuels is unproven and dangerous. In any case, they add, the initiative would do little to make the world safer in the case of proliferating nuclear power generation.
In its description of the "Global Nuclear Partnership," the Department of Energy says the fuel supply and handling aspect of the proposal would be addressed "once technologies are proven" for nuclear plant reprocessing.
"What seems rather fanciful about this project is that the fuel-supply aspect appears contingent on proving some highly advanced technology," says Daryl Kimball, executive director the Arms Control Association in Washington. "They're using this as a way to sell reprocessing technology rather than as a way to solve the problem of fuel supply, and that's troubling."
Other experts worry the proposal may simply be using heightened concerns over nuclear security and weapons of mass destruction as a way to get the US back into uranium-processing research - research the US gave up decades ago as uneconomical and dangerous.
"If the idea is to promote a sense of security at the same time that the development of large reactors to a long list of countries is promoted, then it's very misguided," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center in Washington. "They're trying to sell this as a nonproliferation initiative, but we shouldn't be so quick to cede that point."
The project, as described by President Putin, would confine the vulnerable stages of the nuclear fuel cycle - uranium enrichment and radioactive waste disposal - to a few specialized centers located in Russia, the US, and perhaps other countries such as France. That would plug a loophole in the current nuclear nonproliferation regime, allowing countries to enrich uranium on their own for "peaceful" purposes, which is the nub of the world community's current worries about Iran's intentions.
A significant problem with the proposal, according to nuclear experts in the US, is that the technology required for the plan to work remains unproven.
The idea of recycling or reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has been around since the Ford administration, but was put on hold then and under the subsequent Carter administration.
"The US decided three decades ago that [reprocessing] was not economical and not helpful for nonproliferation," says Mr. Kimball. "This would constitute the US giving up the long-term policy of disavowing reprocessing technology."
Under the plan, a version of which has already been offered by Russia to Iran, access to civilian reactor technology would be expanded for those countries willing to comply with the rules.
"We propose setting up a network of nuclear cycle centers for enriching uranium, and ensuring equal access for all who desire to share in the work of developing nuclear technology," Mr. Putin said in his annual news conference. "We're talking about access without discrimination.... Russia is an obvious partner for resolving tasks of this kind, given the country's advanced nuclear power engineering, its scientific base, skilled personnel, and developed nuclear infrastructure," he said.
At a Saturday meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Russia voted with much of the world community to report Iran's suspected nuclear misconduct to the UN Security Council, but the resolution provided that any action be postponed for at least a month. Negotiations over Moscow's offer to transfer Iran's uranium enrichment to Russian facilities are set to resume on Feb. 16.
Experts say that if Tehran agrees to the plan, it could end the current crisis and improve chances for a broader tightening of the existing nonproliferation regime, which has been badly strained by nuclear breakouts by Pakistan, India and North Korea in recent years. "Russia is hoping to to turn this situation from confrontation to compromise, and thus maintain its good relations with both the West and Iran," says Nikolai Kozyrev, an expert at the official Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, which trains Russian diplomats. "A great deal is at stake."
Russia has major economic interests, especially in the nuclear sphere, that would be threatened by any international sanctions regime or military action against Iran. The state-owned AtomStroiExport Co. is building an $800 million, 1,000-megawatt light reactor power station at Bushehr in southern Iran, which the Russians insist is a purely civilian project under legal supervision by the IAEA.
"Iran is a major business partner, a good ally, and a big buyer of our nuclear equipment," says Viktor Kremeniuk, deputy director of the official Institute of USA-Canada Studies in Moscow.
"In fact, Iran's purchases are one of the only things keeping Russia's nuclear industry afloat. Russia's policy establishment will face a serious dilemma if the current crisis with Iran worsens: Should we side with the West, or with Iran? I'm afraid the answer of many in Russia's elite would be to take Iran's side. In that case, our relations with the West - which are already under strain - could slide into a new cold war."
Experts say success with Iran will be crucial if the international community is to develop the means to head-off other countries that might want to develop nuclear weapons in future. The question becomes especially acute in a world of energy shortages, where clean and reliable nuclear power is starting to look like an attractive alternative to costly fossil fuels.
"The time of skepticism about nuclear energy - the Chernobyl syndrome - is over, and in coming decades we will probably see a renaissance of nuclear energy around the world," says Anton Khlopkov, deputy director of the independent PIR Center in Moscow, which specializes in nuclear issues.
"In several years there could be as many as 20 countries with the basic know-how, that could give them the possibility to develop nuclear weapons. So, the kind of cooperation being proposed between the US and Russia could be an important tool for strengthening the nonproliferation regime."
For the Kremlin, which assumed chairmanship of the Group of 8 leading industrial democracies this year on a pledge to promote global "energy security," the diplomatic standoff over Iran presents a tough challenge and a huge opportunity.
"Putin has a grand energy strategy, which includes making Russia a reliable supplier of oil and gas to the world market, and putting it at the center of developing the global nuclear power industry," says Mr. Kremeniuk. "Tightening the nuclear non-proliferation regime through greater cooperation, if it succeeds, is one thing that can be good for Russia, and good for the world."
Others note that the idea of providing fuel to - and taking spent fuel back from - energy-seeking countries is not new, and is one way of dealing with the reality that fuel enrichment technology - a process that can lead to material needed for development of nuclear weapons - has become more available.
That explains the growing interest in dealing with the spent fuels of nuclear power production. The International Atomic Energy Agency under director Mohamed ElBaradei has also proposed a program to supply fuel and take in spent fuels for storage.
"With about a 10-year supply of uranium there's a glut of fuel for ... reactors, and that's what's driving proposals like ElBaradei's," says Kimball. The IAEA proposal includes a five-year freeze on construction of fuel enrichment facilities while the international community works out the details of a fuel supply program - one the IAEA would administer.
The least objectionable part of the proposal, experts say, is the idea of a few secure fuel suppliers taking spent fuel back in for storage. But US experts look back at the domestic controversy over the Yucca Mountain storage facility and say such a plan for internationally produced fuels would require changes in US law - and would certainly raise new protests.

DOE unveils nuclear power initiative

2006-02-06T15:00:00.000-08:00

United Press International - Energy - DOE unveils nuclear power initiative

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- The Energy Department on Monday announced an initiative to expand the use of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell outlined the Greater Nuclear Energy Partnership, which was allocated $250 million in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.
"The world energy demand is expected to double by 2050," he said in a news briefing. He said that demand can't be met with existing fossil fuels because of the greenhouse gas effects and pollution concerns.
"Nuclear power must a play a significant role in meeting this demand," he said.
The GNEP strategy is made up of several elements, including: building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the United States, developing new nuclear recycling technologies and finding a way to store spent nuclear fuel in the United States.
Sell said members of DOE met with representatives from Britain, France, Russia, China and Japan to discuss plan. He said the United States hopes to work with those nations to develop a fuel services program that would provide nuclear fuel and recycling services to nations in return for their commitment not to develop enrichment and recycling technologies.
In turn, these nations would work with developing nations to lease them clean nuclear fuel in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and reprocessing activities.
Under GNEP, Sell said there would be significant nuclear safeguards against proliferation of expanded nuclear power.
"The scale of what we are trying to undertake is massive," Sell said, noting the $250 million allocation was only the beginning of the funding.

BP CEO save climate with nuclear

2006-02-06T13:20:00.000-08:00

Cloudy With a Chance of Chaos - Jan. 17, 2006

To do that, carbon emissions would have to be reduced ultimately by seven gigatons a year. A gigaton, or a billion tons, is even bigger than it sounds. Eliminating just one, argues Browne, would mean building 700 nuclear stations to replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants, or increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700.

Climate change may bring more violent weather swings -- and sooner -- than experts had thought.

By Eugene Linden
January 17, 2006: 5:07 PM EST
(FORTUNE Magazine) - A disturbing consensus is emerging among the scientists who study global warming: Climate change may bring more violent swings than they ever thought, and it may set in sooner. Lately John Browne, the CEO of BP, has been jolting audiences with a list of proposed solutions that hint at the vastness of the challenge. It aims at stabilizing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about double the pre-industrial level while continuing economic growth. To do that, carbon emissions would have to be reduced ultimately by seven gigatons a year. A gigaton, or a billion tons, is even bigger than it sounds. Eliminating just one, argues Browne, would mean building 700 nuclear stations to replace fossil-fuel-burning power plants, or increasing the use of solar power by a factor of 700, or stopping all deforestation and doubling present efforts at reforestation. Achieve all three of these, and pull off four more equally large-scale reallocations of capital and infrastructure, and the world would probably stabilize its carbon emissions.
There's just one catch: Even change on this vast scale might not stop global warming.
What if the secret behind civilization is that we've had really good weather? Humankind has prospered and multiplied during one of the most benign climate eras in the history of the planet. And the past two centuries -- which witnessed the great expansion of the Industrial Revolution, a sixfold increase in human population, the triumph of the consumer society, and the rise of the integrated global economy -- have been particularly stable. One would have to go back 115,000 years to find a time as tranquil and warm as the present.
Even so, during the relative calm of recorded history, climate has periodically turned angry. And while this moodiness is but a shadow of the cataclysmic weather violence of the Ice Ages, it has been sufficient to shake or destroy civilizations. A sudden cooling and drying 8,200 years ago set back the development of the first cities in the Fertile Crescent. Some 4,000 years ago, decades of drought accompanied by howling winds scoured the Mesopotamian plain of the Akkadians, the most powerful civilization of the region. The Mayans never recovered from intense drought in the first decade of the tenth century A.D. And were it not for the Little Ice Age that thwarted the expansion of Viking civilization just six centuries ago, Europeans living in Canada and the U.S. might be speaking Norse rather than English.
Now climate is changing again. Most scientists recognized the reality of global warming more than a decade ago; most also agree that humans play a role in the changes. The consensus on climate change has solidified to rival the medical consensus on the dangers of smoking--but in the matter of climate, public perception has yet to catch up. Like the tourists on Phuket beaches who stood and gazed at an oncoming tsunami because it was outside their experience, society is reacting to the coming wave of climate change without urgency. People still believe that the science is controversial and the threat of climate change far off in the future; and while a few businesses, notably major insurers, have begun to adapt, governments are responding only slowly, as the lack of progress at this fall's international forum in Montreal showed.
The wave is coming, though. The last decades of the 20th century saw an unmistakable and extraordinary warming. During this same period, we suffered by some measures the strongest El Niño in 130,000 years and a swarm of statistically extraordinary droughts, floods, and other weather extremes. In 2005 precedents continued to fall, as wave after wave of tropical Atlantic storms continued right through the end of the year. The hot ocean waters that helped nurture storms in 2005 may also play a role in an intense drought in the Amazon rain forest, normally one of the wettest places on earth.
These and other weather surprises make scientists uneasy because they resonate with a new understanding of how climate changes. Just 40 years ago the consensus was that climate shifted from warm to cold and vice versa, smoothly and over many centuries. Since the early 1990s, however, scientists have been coming to see climate change as less like a dial and more like an on-off switch. The transition from, say, warm to cold is far more abrupt--taking decades, not centuries--and far more chaotic than previously supposed (though still not as fast as in The Day After Tomorrow, the 2004 disaster flick in which a new Ice Age arrived in a matter of days). Scientists now compare such transitions to the flickering of a flame or a fluorescent bulb--where the "flickers" may be quite violent, marked by fluctuations in temperatures of more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit in just a few years, as well as extreme variation in wind speeds and precipitation.
The Earth's heat-distribution system has already begun shifting massively in response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Precipitation patterns, the change of seasons, storm intensity, sea ice, glaciers, temperatures on the tundras--all are in flux. As scientists nervously monitor sea and air currents for signs of major shifts, many believe that today's proliferation of weather extremes may be the prelude to another epochal transition--a possibility first flagged by the great oceanographer Wallace Broecker in the journal Science in 1997.
How bad could it get? Imagine Europe suffering floods and heat waves on a vastly greater scale than those endured in 2002 and 2003, while northern regions experience intermittent deep freezes as atmospheric and ocean circulations struggle to find new equilibrium. At the same time, droughts and floods not seen since ancient times would afflict some of the most densely populated regions on earth. The probability of drought in the American breadbasket would rise, and along with it the possibility that the U.S. grain surplus--which accounts for the dominant share of world grain exports--would disappear.
A flickering climate wouldn't just clobber countries with the wealth and technological resources to try to cope. It would affect every part of the planet, and in so doing reduce the resiliency of the global community. With every nation dealing with local emergencies, it would be more difficult to mobilize resources to aid victims in other areas, and there would be fewer resources to mobilize.
Municipalities around the world would struggle under the burden of greatly increased demands on funds to maintain and repair basic infrastructure. Forget about safety nets--FEMA and its ilk would be bankrupt. In the world's tightly coupled markets, financial tsunamis would surge through the system, leaving banks and corporations insolvent. Financial panics, largely absent for more than 70 years, would return with a vengeance.
Here at home, a flickering climate would impose an enormous tax on every individual and business. Property values in most places would plummet as buyers disappeared and costs of insurance and maintenance soared. The upper-middle-class American family, today so well protected against external shocks, would find its layers of insulation gradually stripped away as fuel, food, jobs, and social order became less certain. Katrina's aftermath exposed how quickly extreme weather can reduce an orderly society to dysfunction.
Some of the calamities that may happen--droughts that last more than a century, an advance of arctic zones southward, incessant and epic storms--simply overwhelm the imagination when we try to envision them in a world of six billion people depending on an exquisitely balanced food system. Earlier civilizations destroyed by climate did not have modern technologies or markets as a bulwark against nature's stresses. But changing climate won't challenge only markets and economies; it will stress the environment too, and by decimating ecosystems, we have undermined crucial buffers against weather extremes.
INEVITABLE SURPRISES
The storms, floods, and other weather calamities of recent years are just a start.
Consider the "500 year" floods in the Midwestern U.S. that caused $27 billion of damage in 1993. Decades of development had channeled and otherwise altered the Mississippi and other great rivers of the Midwest, reducing their access to floodplains that had absorbed and moderated the effects of extreme rainfall. Without those buffers, the rivers in 1993 rose higher than they might have in years past. When they breached dikes and other barriers, they spilled into the old floodplains, now largely occupied with farms and homes, amplifying the damage. We saw this pattern repeated in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and in the Christmas tsunami of 2004. While the tsunami killed more than 280,000 people and destroyed settlements over a swath of several thousand miles, a series of powerful tsunamis in that part of the world during the 19th century passed with far less damage and loss of life. They took place before protective buffers of mangroves were destroyed, before hundreds of millions of people moved into the potential path of the waves, and before cars, trucks, and other contrivances proliferated only to become projectiles when the 2004 tsunami swept them up.
Around the world, humanity has reduced nature's capacity to dampen extremes to an astonishing degree: more than 59% of the world's accessible land degraded by improper agriculture, deforestation, and development; half the world's available fresh water now co-opted for human use at the expense of other species and ecosystems; more than half the world's mangroves destroyed; half the world's wetlands drained or ruined; one-fifth of the world's coral reefs (including crucial barrier reefs) destroyed and one-half damaged--the list goes on and on.
Nature does not alert us to all her tripwires. Perhaps that's why in recent years the unprecedented has become increasingly ordinary. When pushed past a certain magnitude, the damage of natural events increases exponentially, and that threshold falls as natural buffers are eliminated. Research led by MIT climatologist Kerry Emmanuel suggests that hurricanes have doubled in intensity during the past 30 years as the oceans have warmed. Hurricane Katrina surged to its immense power when the storm passed over a deep layer of 90-degree Fahrenheit water in the Gulf of Mexico. Hurricane Rita transfixed meteorologists when it strengthened from Category 2 to 5 in less than 24 hours while moving over those same hot seas. And in October, Wilma bested that by strengthening from tropical storm to Category 5 hurricane in a single day.
Since we are dismantling natural buffers just at the point when we really need them, it's tempting simply to conclude that humanity has a self-destructive streak. The explanation, of course, is not masochism but a collective failure of imagination--compounded by the fact that we are only now learning to weigh the threat. There are no models to estimate the economic impact of rapid changes in temperatures, storm tracks, precipitation, and so on. In a 2001 report entitled "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises," the National Research Council, the principal operating unit of the National Academy of Sciences, noted that most modeling of impacts has been confined to cases in which changes are gradual and moderate. Modeling the effects of abrupt change is a lot harder, but the study makes a couple of important points.
First, economies can minimize the effects of a gradually changing climate if people recognize the threat and respond. With abrupt climate change, however, things happen so rapidly that neither markets nor ecosystems have time to adapt. Moreover, a dynamic market economy with capacity to respond to intermittent crises by spreading risk and reallocating assets may be unable to respond when crisis is ubiquitous and risks loom everywhere.
Second, even gradual climate change would pose immense challenges. Tim Barnett, an oceanographer at Scripps Oceanographic Institution, took part in a study of the likely effects of climate change on the Los Angeles area. Surprisingly, he says, even modest decreases in rainfall during what he called a "best-case scenario for future climate change" (a gradual and small change, decades in the future) could reduce available water for the area by 50% by 2050. The region has limited storage capacity for water and relies on the winter snowpack that builds up in the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies for water during the dry summer months. Under even modest climate-change scenarios, however, the snowpack would be smaller and would melt earlier. The region would dry up before its driest months.
Angelinos wouldn't necessarily go thirsty. California has plenty of agricultural water that could be diverted to human needs. The ancillary effects would be harder to manage. Farm output would be reduced, and water shortages could idle hydroelectric plants. Drought also makes trees more vulnerable to pests, such as the pandora moth that afflicts ponderosa pine. Dead trees are tinder for wildfires, like the ones that destroyed hundreds of homes in Southern California in 2003. Such impacts would roil the economy. Consider how increased fire risk and other effects of acute water scarcity might affect housing prices or the job market.
Keep in mind that the 50% reduction of available water was a best-case scenario. And while the richest state in the world's richest nation has some ability to weather a drought, such shifts would not be occurring in isolation. The changing climate that brought drought to Southern California would also be affecting weather throughout the American West and beyond--damaging property, disrupting agriculture, and spurring migrations.
PREMIUM HELL
You're in unsure hands.
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 opened insurers' eyes to a catastrophic risk that they had been assuming for free. Their reaction provided a foretaste of how the global market might react to abrupt climate change. Following 9/11, insurers stopped writing policies that automatically included coverage of terrorist attacks. A number of major construction projects had to halt because banks would not finance them without terrorism coverage. Ultimately Congress passed and President Bush signed a law shifting responsibility for $100 billion in damage from future terrorist attacks to the U.S. government, and the construction projects got rolling again.
As climate change starts inflicting losses, insurers will again pull back, shifting financial risk to businesses and homeowners, the banks that finance them--and finally to taxpayers. In Florida, huge increases (up to 40%) in insurance rates are already making it harder for people to sell homes, according to the South Florida Sun Sentinel.
More than 1,000 miles from New Orleans, in Cape Cod, Mass., a far-flung echo of Katrina has been the 20% rise in reinsurance costs (reinsurers are financial institutions that backstop insurance companies). The increase prompted Hingham Mutual Group, a property and casualty insurer, to drop coverage for 6,500 commercial properties. Customers left in the lurch have a fallback in FAIR (short for Fair Access to Insurance Requirements), a program mandated by various states and run by insurers. But Massachusetts's FAIR plan recently requested big rate increases, arguing that past weather patterns may no longer be a guide to estimating future climate risks. That rationale was "unprecedented," a team of industry experts noted in a report entitled "Availability and Affordability of Insurance Under Climate Change"; it's a vivid example of how insurance has difficulty adapting to changing climate.
For insurers the hazards of climate change become more concrete each year. Andrew Dlugolecki, a risk analyst at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research in Britain, recently estimated that if climate gradually warms, the chances of the industry getting wiped out by weather-related catastrophes will rise from about one in 100 worldwide today to nine in 100 by 2050. A ninefold increase in the risk of collapse places a heavy burden on insurers, but the risks may be far greater than that. Asked in 2003 how climate change that's abrupt and chaotic might affect those odds, Dlugolecki speculated that the risk of catastrophic weather-related losses rises to about nine chances in 100 by as early as 2010. To insure a property or business affected by that degree of risk, a carrier would have to charge annual rates as high as 12% of insured value--most businesses and individuals start self-insuring (industry-speak for dropping their coverage and taking their chances) when premiums reach 3% of value.
Already the pain of weather-related insurance risks is being felt by owners of highly vulnerable properties such as offshore oil platforms, for which some rates have risen 400% in one year. That may be an omen for many businesses. Three years ago John Dutton, dean emeritus of Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, estimated that $2.7 trillion of the $10-trillion-a-year U.S. economy is susceptible to weather-related loss of revenue, implying that an enormous number of companies have off-balance-sheet risks related to weather--even without the cataclysms a flickering climate might bring.
Corporate leaders could soon feel the heat too. In 2004, Swiss Reinsurance, a $29 billion financial giant, sent a questionnaire to companies that had purchased its directors-and-officers coverage, inquiring about their corporate strategies for dealing with climate change regulations. D&O insurance, as it is called, insulates executives and board members from the costs of lawsuits resulting from their companies' actions; Swiss Re is a major player in D&O reinsurance.
What Swiss Re is after, says Christopher Walker, who heads its Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions unit, is reassurance that customers will not make themselves vulnerable to global-warming-related lawsuits. He cites as an example Exxon Mobil: The oil giant, which accounts for roughly 1% of global carbon emissions, has lobbied aggressively against efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. If Swiss Re judges that a company is exposing itself to lawsuits, says Walker, "we might then go to them and say, 'Since you don't think climate change is a problem, and you're betting your stockholders' assets on that, we're sure you won't mind if we exclude climate-related lawsuits and penalties from your D&O insurance.' " Swiss Re's customers may be put to the test soon in California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing to restrict carbon emissions, says Walker. A customer that ignores the likelihood of such laws and, for instance, builds a coal-fired power plant that soon proves a terrible bet could face shareholder suits that Swiss Re might not want to insure against.
TURNING DOWN THE HEAT
How business can take action--and why it needs political backup.
As businesses begin to recognize the dangers of climate change, markets will help economies adjust, pricing the risks and shifting resources. Yet markets have blind spots: They typically underprice long-term or novel risks. In the case of climate change, where large-scale actions must be taken lest change hit with full force, a purely market-based response would be too little, too late. To address the risks, governments need to get involved.
With the Earth's atmosphere already warming dramatically, we are probably stuck with some form of climate change. Yet the energy economy is still in the process of squeezing rather than easing the pressure on the trigger. China and other emerging economies are ramping up their consumption of fossil fuels, while the U.S., which is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases, continues to resist international efforts to rein them in.
In November and December, delegates from scores of nations convened in Montreal to negotiate emissions-control goals for greenhouse gases in the years following the expiration of the Kyoto treaty in 2012. But days of haggling produced nothing more than a resolution to discuss the issue further in coming years. (The U.S. and Saudi Arabia were the last to agree even to that.)
By itself, the Kyoto treaty will have minimal impact on the global-warming threat. Very few of the 160 countries that ratified the treaty (which went into force last February) will meet the targets of reducing emissions 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. The U.S. rejected the treaty, and China, which is likely to surpass the U.S. as a greenhouse-gas producer in the coming years, is not governed by its provisions. Says Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center for Climate Change: "Unless there is continued action after Kyoto expires, it will have been nothing more than a blip" in the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere.
Up to now, the primary objection by the Bush administration and other opponents of reducing greenhouse gases has been economic impact. The unknowns of climate change have made projecting costs and benefits an economist's guessing game. For instance, in 2002 the White House Council on Environmental Quality cited estimates by the federal Energy Information Administration that achieving Kyoto's goals would erode U.S. economic output by $400 billion in 2010. That estimate was the worst of seven scenarios examined by the EIA; another put the cost at only $7 billion to $12 billion by 2010. Other studies, like a recent one sponsored by HSBC and entitled "Carbon Down, Profits Up," cites dozens of companies, cities, and regions that have found reducing carbon emissions to be profitable, in part because carbon reduction is often synonymous with increased efficiency.
But as the weather grows worse, such exercises will become moot. The ambitious proposals that BP's John Browne has been talking about--building nukes by the hundreds, for example--would stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 500 parts per million by 2050, vs. 380 ppm today. Yet even that might not be enough to prevent climate chaos. Says Chris Mottershead, a distinguished advisor at BP: "Nobody knows whether climate's tipping point is at 400 ppm, 700 ppm, or if there is a tipping point." Science does know, however, that today's concentration of carbon dioxide is higher than any in 650,000 years; past climate flips took place with far less carbon in the air. What's more, BP developed its proposals with physicist Robert Socolow and ecologist Stephen Pacala, professors at Princeton University who worked with models of gradual, not abrupt, climate change.
Despite the daunting gap between present actions and what's required, plenty more can be done. Politics enables markets: An international agreement limiting carbon that includes the U.S. and the developing nations would supply the discipline necessary for carbon markets to flourish. (Carbon trading lets developed countries achieve emissions-reduction targets by paying to reduce emissions in developing countries.) According to an upcoming study of carbon markets by Ecosystem Marketplace, a website devoted to popularizing environmental derivatives, the carbon market in Europe has already surpassed $4 billion in trading value as utility, industrial, and insurance companies experiment with this new tool.
If U.S. politicians eventually conclude that action on the scale of the BP plan is necessary, they could jump-start change by redirecting the purchasing power of federal, state, and local treasuries--more than $1 trillion a year. Once government at all levels commits to purchasing clean technologies, making efficiency improvements, and using alternative energy where possible, this massive spending would provide economies of scale that would help speed the commercialization of new technologies as well as prepare society for the shift away from fossil fuels. Equally sensible would be to reduce subsidies and tax advantages that abet the waste of fossil fuels.
Such proposals have been on the table since the early 1990s. Many are even more salient today. By not taking action on greenhouse emissions, we are betting our well-being that climate change poses little threat. If we are wrong, we will meet our fate.
This article has been adapted by the author from his new book, The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations (Simon & Schuster); see also eugenelinden.com.

BP says 4900 nuclear stations

2006-02-06T13:13:00.000-08:00

Guardian Unlimited Business Business latest Winds of climate change are about to make their impact felt in many a boardroom

The expertise of John Browne, the chief executive of BP, is interesting here, though. Browne says that building enough capacity to deliver seven gigawatts of energy could put a ceiling on emissions at around 500 ppm. That doesn't sound much, but one gigawatt is the equivalent of 700 nuclear power stations. That's a heck of a lot of nukes, and by the time we've built them rising sea levels may mean they're a few feet under water. At the very best, it will mean that the lights stay on in the UK as darkness descends in the rest of the world.

Top science adviser sounds death knell for theory that insists growth is good Larry Elliott, economics editorMonday February 6, 2006The Guardian
The old economics is dead. Its death knell was sounded last week, not by a practitioner of the dismal science but by Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser. Sir David King said concentrations of greenhouse gases were already at a level where the warning signs were flashing red: a comment that starkly illustrates the impending clash between economic orthodoxy and environmental sustainability.
Economics is a discipline in which the factors of production - capital and labour - are supposed to be harnessed to maximise production at the cheapest price. By this yardstick, an economy is doing twice as well if it is growing at 4% rather than 2% and disastrously badly if consumers are not in the shops from dawn till dusk. Globalisation is seen as the ultimate form of a market economy, according to the prevailing model, because a more efficient use of the factors of production leads to lower prices and therefore permits higher levels of consumption. In a globalised world, you're only as good as your last GDP number.

But think about it for a minute. Concerns are frequently being raised about the fact that many developed countries are about to see - or are already seeing - a decline in their populations. This will have an impact on their trend rate of growth, which is a function of population and productivity. Stories about falling population are always couched in terms of demographic time bombs, suggesting that they are clearly a bad thing. But fewer people in Germany, Italy or Japan will mean more space, less pressure on resources and a more pleasant life.
Take another example. Globalisation has meant clothes in the UK are cheap. The inflation figures show that women's outerwear is less expensive now than it was in the late 1980s. And we're not talking about the inflation-adjusted price either; the average sterling price of a skirt or a dress is lower than it was two decades ago.
There's no longer the need to wear a top several times to get your money's worth: they can be worn once and tossed in the bin. Likewise, stores now sell jeans at below £5 a pair and market them to manual workers on the basis that if they get them filthy in the course of a week they can simply throw them away and buy anew. According to the present model of economics, this is progress, just as it is to be welcomed that flights as low as £2.50 mean stag and hen weekends in Tallinn or Prague.
But are these developments really positive? Orthodox economics says they are, because they raise the real incomes of consumers. But, according to Sir David's analysis, they are potentially very bad indeed. Currently, greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are around 380 parts per million, compared with around 220 ppm during the last ice age. Climatologists estimate that 400ppm - of thereabouts - is the tipping point and if we push concentrations much above that the process of climate change could become irreversible.
Seduced
Sir David says climate change is a threat to our civilisation, and he's right about that. There is no cast-iron guarantee that societies - no matter how smart or technologically advanced - persist. Think of the Romans in the last days before the collapse of the empire ushered in the Dark Ages. But Sir David thinks it is unrealistic to limit concentrations to the levels that scientists say would be safe. He thinks about 550 ppm is the limit and, sadly, given the current configuration of politics - domestically and globally - he is probably right about that too.
One problem is that as individuals we lack the incentives to do the sensible thing. If you are seduced by the idea of a cut-price flight, you get 100% of the benefit but only assume a tiny fraction of the cost to the environment. Another problem is that we lack the institutional framework for coping with climate change; instead, we have national governments fearful of doing anything that would damage international competitiveness. A more damaging mindset you could not hope to find, since it sends out the clear message that action on the environment comes a long way second to policies that foster growth.
The attempt in Britain to have our cake and eat it will mean - almost inevitably - that the government goes ahead with its plan to build more nuclear power stations. The expertise of John Browne, the chief executive of BP, is interesting here, though. Browne says that building enough capacity to deliver seven gigawatts of energy could put a ceiling on emissions at around 500 ppm. That doesn't sound much, but one gigawatt is the equivalent of 700 nuclear power stations. That's a heck of a lot of nukes, and by the time we've built them rising sea levels may mean they're a few feet under water. At the very best, it will mean that the lights stay on in the UK as darkness descends in the rest of the world.
Nor will the technical solution to climate change be feasible unless governments use their power to change behaviour. That means tougher building regulations, emission controls that force car manufacturers to get serious about vehicles that don't run on petrol, a range of new economic indicators that look beyond traditional methods of assessing growth, subsidies for environmental industries. The argument that business would not be able to cope with curbs on greenhouse gases is a fallacy; the longevity of capitalism is due almost entirely to its ability to adapt to any regime. What business lacks now is a clear steer; it has the expertise.
Peet Osta, the author of The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilisations, puts it this way: "Once government at all levels commits to purchasing clean technologies, making efficiency improvements, and using alternative energy where possible, this massive spending would provide economies of scale that would help speed the commercialisation of new technologies as well as prepare society for the shift away from fossil fuels. Such proposals have been on the table since the early 1960s. By not taking action on greenhouse emissions, we are betting our wellbeing that climate change poses little threat. If we are wrong, we will meet our fate."
Unleashing
Governments are almost certainly wrong to believe that action on climate change means economic stagnation. On the contrary, it would probably lead to an unleashing of a new clean industrial revolution based on green technology. They are also wrong to believe that the Kyoto process - rather than a new, comprehensive global solution - is the way to cut carbon emissions in any meaningful way.
If the initiative does not come from governments, it may eventually come from business itself. In particular, the insurance industry sees itself facing ruin if climate change leads to more hurricanes on the scale of Katrina. The executives of companies in the US have what is known as directors' -and officers' - insurance, which indemnifies them against lawsuits arising from their companies' actions. But they are going to be very wary indeed about writing insurance for companies that are at risk from lawsuits arising from climate change.
Exxon Mobil looks vulnerable in this respect. It accounts for around 1% of carbon emissions globally but has lobbied long and hard against efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Christopher Walker, head of the greenhouse gas risk solutions unit at Swiss Re, says his company may be forced to approach Exxon Mobil and say: "Since you don't think climate change is a problem, and you're betting your stockholders' assets on that, we're sure you won't mind if we exclude climate-related lawsuits from your D&O insurance." That sort of talk, you can be sure, tends to concentrate minds in the boardroom.
Mamma may not know best
The myth of Italian men being mamma's boys is not such a myth after all, it appears. Where five out of every 10 men in Britain aged between 18 and 30 live with their parents, in Italy eight out of 10 men in the 18-30 group are expected home for a bowl of pasta every night.
It has been assumed that Italian parents are simply being altruistic: they allow their offspring to stay at home because they are unemployed or moving from one lowly paid, insecure job to another.
Research published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics suggests an alternative explanation; the Italians love having their children around them so much that they are prepared to bribe them to stay at home.
The study showed that an increase of 10% in the parents' income resulted in a 10% increase in the proportion of children living at home: the authors of the study, Marco Manacorda at Queen Mary College and Enrico Moretti at the University of California, Berkeley, say Italians give money to their children in the hope that they will stick around. Many do, but it is the cohabitation - paradoxically - that leads to higher youth unemployment because the children have less incentive to make their own way in the labour market.

Un problema nacional o europeo?

2006-02-06T07:56:00.000-08:00

CincoDias.com -

Miguel Ángel Lasheras (Economista y presidente de Intermoney Energía) (06-02-2006)
Publicado en: Edición Impresa - Opinión
Estos días escuchamos en Europa voces orientadas a que se reabra el debate sobre el peso de la energía nuclear en nuestra producción energética. Detrás está el riesgo a quedar desabastecidos o a pagar altos precios por el suministro de energías primarias que provienen de áreas geográfica y políticamente ajenas a la UE. La probabilidad de interrupciones en el suministro es preocupante, dada la inestabilidad política de las zonas productoras, la escasez creciente de unos recursos agotables y las tasas de crecimiento de la demanda mundial apoyada en los procesos de crecimiento de India y China.
La energía nuclear podría ser una solución; el desarrollo de energías limpias y renovables, también aunque más cara. En todo caso, la diversificación de tecnologías y fuentes geográficas, buscando una combinación que garantice la seguridad de suministro y la estabilidad de precios constituye la mejor forma para compensar esta dependencia del exterior. Visto desde España, hay dos vías de aproximarse a este problema que, en mi opinión, resultarían engañosas y equivocadas.
La primera es que mediante el control público de los precios o tarifas de la energía eléctrica y del gas natural, cada Estado miembro va a ser capaz de controlar y modular los efectos que las alzas de precios en las fuentes primarias de energía pudieran tener sobre sus consumidores. Confiar en mantener los precios controlados en un único Estado miembro de la Unión es no sólo contrario a las Directivas europeas, sino además inútil a medio plazo. Lo único que se conseguiría con esta política sería evitar que la demanda reaccionase adecuadamente a la nueva situación de precios y costes relativos, impidiendo así que éstos guiasen las decisiones de los consumidores, imprescindibles para alumbrar un nuevo modelo energético sostenible.
El control mediante tarifas o precios regulados esconde el verdadero valor de la energía en general y de cada fuente en particular, incluidas las interconexiones en las redes europeas, lo que obstaculiza la consolidación de un mercado interior energético adaptado a una combinación de tecnologías de generación más sostenible que el actual. En esta línea, plantear el debate nuclear como un debate nacional, guiado por los intereses de cada Estado miembro para mantener bajos los precios o las tarifas de la energía que pagan los consumidores es inducir a la confusión y a la ineficiencia.
Los costes materiales de la energía nuclear afectan a colectivos que viven y votan mas allá de las fronteras nacionales de cada Estado miembro y resulta absurdo (e ineficiente) que los beneficios directos sean disfrutados en exclusiva por los consumidores de un Estado miembro. El debate tiene que ser europeo.
La segunda equivocación es pensar que las exportaciones de energía debilitan la seguridad de suministro del Estado miembro exportador. Parece que reforzaríamos la seguridad de suministro si cada Gobierno obligase a los operadores eléctricos y gasistas a destinar la energía que entra en un país, preferente y exclusivamente a ese Estado miembro. En realidad, el resultado puede ser exactamente el contrario. Como recientemente se ha demostrado en el corte de gas de Rusia a Ucrania, la capacidad de respuesta de los compradores ante una interrupción es mayor cuando estos se agrupan en conglomerados amplios, extensos y poderosos. Son los compradores de la Unión Europea los que han acelerado la solución al abastecimiento de Ucrania. En España sería un error considerar que dificultar el acceso al gas de Argelia, el del proyecto Medgaz o el de Sonatrach, a compañías que lo destinaran a otros países de la Unión, contribuiría a afianzar nuestra seguridad de suministro.
En mi opinión, la mayor fortaleza de los consumidores españoles frente a las empresas argelinas que extraen este gas se encuentra en juntar nuestros intereses con los de otros consumidores europeos para que, en caso de problemas de suministro, tengamos suficiente capacidad de reacción y de presión política. Nuevamente el incremento de la capacidad de interconexión es una de las mejores respuestas a la garantía de suministro.
En definitiva, ante el probable cambio de modelo energético que se nos avecina, nada peor que reavivar en Europa el nacionalismo energético y las respuestas unilaterales. En energía deberíamos construir una política común, adaptada a las expectativas, preferencias y necesidades del conjunto de los ciudadanos europeos. En este sentido lo más sensato es reforzar las interconexiones de gas y de electricidad y construir un conglomerado de intereses que desborden las fronteras de cada Estado miembro y consoliden un interés europeo común. De lo contrario retrocederemos, aunque, eso si, por la decisión libre de cada Estado miembro.

La dependencia energética de Europa

2006-02-06T07:52:00.000-08:00

CincoDias.com -

Bernardo de Miguel (06-02-2006)
Publicado en: Edición Impresa - Opinión
Como ocurre con otras adicciones de riesgo, lo primero que debe hacer la Unión Europea para afrontar el problema energético es reconocer su peligrosa dependencia. Los últimos acontecimientos internacionales, desde la breve interrupción en el suministro de gas procedente de Rusia hasta la reivindicación del Gobierno boliviano de Evo Morales de sus reservas de gas natural, han puesto de manifiesto que Europa dispone cada vez de menos margen para influir en la oferta de los mercados energéticos.
Incluso su condición de cliente insaciable y buen pagador empieza a perder atractivo ante la aparición de nuevos adictos como China, con una gigantesca capacidad de absorción y unas ingentes reservas de divisas para convertirse en el mejor postor.
En esta tesitura, la UE empieza a plantearse la política energética como un ejercicio de introspección más que como una estrategia para la escena internacional. Bruselas explora las alternativas que existen dentro de los confines de los 25 socios para garantizar la fiabilidad del suministro. Y aunque no hay ninguna solución a corto plazo, aparecen tres hipótesis viables en el horizonte.
En primer lugar, la recuperación de dos fuentes de energía como el carbón y las centrales nucleares que parecían condenadas a desaparecer. En segundo lugar, la promoción de energías renovables, que en 2002 sólo aportaban el 3,5% de la electricidad consumida en los 25 países de la UE. Y, por último, la opción siempre pospuesta de racionalizar el consumo para reducir la dependencia.
Las dos primeras soluciones cuentan con adeptos entusiastas y enemigos irreconciliables, mientras que la tercera vegeta entre la indiferencia y la irresponsabilidad de la ciudadanía y las instituciones.
Ninguna de las tres opciones basta por sí sola para diluir los riesgos de suministro que afronta la UE. Pero los expertos señalan que la eficiencia energética y el reconocimiento de la energía como un recurso que no conviene despilfarrar ayudarán a Europa a sobrellevar la actual crisis energética. Y, sobre todo, las venideras.
Incluso EE UU, un país que a diferencia de la UE cuenta con importantísimas reservas de petróleo y gas, empieza a preconizar una racionalización del consumo. Y hasta el presidente, George Bush, que como buena parte de su equipo proviene de los consejos de administración de las petroleras, defendió la semana pasada la necesidad de 'superar la economía basada en el petróleo'.
La racionalización del consumo, sin embargo, parece todavía la opción más impopular, como en todos los hábitos fuertemente enraizados. No obstante, el énfasis en la eficiencia energética puede ganar partidarios si se aclara que gastar menos energía no supone renunciar a las comodidades que disfruta ahora el hogar medio europeo.
La mejora en los aislamientos o la modernización de los electrodomésticos contribuyeron el año pasado a que los hogares españoles ahorrasen un 2% de energía, según los datos del índice de eficiencia publicado por Unión Fenosa. El ahorro equivale a 27 millones de euros, pero según Fenosa la factura energética española podría reducirse en 939 millones de euros si las medidas de eficiencia se generalizasen en las viviendas.
El ahorro podría ser aún más descomunal en servicios (oficinas, superficies comerciales, etcétera), que en la economía de deslocalización de producción industrial se ha convertido en el sector con mayor crecimiento del consumo energético. El segundo lugar lo ocupa el transporte, donde el margen de reducción del consumo también es considerable.
La Comisión Europea calcula que hasta 2030 aumentará un 50% el número de kilómetros recorridos per cápita en la UE, mientras que el transporte por carretera aumentará en paralelo al incremento del PIB.
Bruselas ya está tomando medidas, empezando por el sector público, para impedir que esas tendencias disparen el consumo energético. En diciembre de 2005, la CE aprobó un proyecto de directiva que obligará a los organismos públicos y a las empresas concesionarias de transporte a cubrir el 25% de su flota con vehículos que cumplan las normas comunitarias más estrictas sobre medio ambiente. Un primer paso para sanear los 35.000 camiones y 17.000 autobuses que poseen las Administraciones públicas europeas, y que después podría extenderse a sus casi 220.000 automóviles.
La UE cuenta también con normas sobre eficiencia energética para edificios y Bruselas no descarta su endurecimiento en un futuro próximo.
Estas medidas sobre la demanda, sin embargo, sólo darán fruto a largo plazo y necesitarán el complemento de intervenciones en el área de generación y suministro. El sector husmea tiempos de cambio y vive una reordenación empresarial en toda Europa, con los antiguos monopolios públicos intentando tomar posición. La semana pasada surgían rumores de una posible opa sobre el operador británico Centrica por parte del gigante estatal ruso Gazprom. Y el viernes, en España, el Gobierno aprobaba la opa de Gas Natural sobre Endesa para crear un gran conglomerado energético nacional.
Pero la convulsión afecta también a las fuentes de energía. Las vetas de carbón y la fisión nuclear, que no encajaban con la agenda medioambiental europea, se presentan ahora como posibles alternativas.
Durante la próxima década, el 40% de las turbinas eléctricas que salgan al mercado mundial utilizarán el carbón como fuente de energía, según los datos de los grandes fabricantes del sector (Alstom, Siemens y General Electric) recogidos por Financial Times. El gas, que hace cinco años alimentaba hasta el 70% de las nuevas centrales, bajará al 20%-30%.
Los defensores de las centrales nucleares anhelan un revival similar al del carbón. Francia, cuya generación eléctrica procede en un 54% esa fuente de energía, ha aprovechado los recientes desencuentros con Moscú para instar a la UE a incluir la energía atómica entre las respuestas a los problemas de suministro.
Europa está tan inquieta por la fragilidad del suministro que ni siquiera la energía nuclear es ya un tabú en el debate. Aún así, tampoco ese recurso, que sólo se utiliza para generar electricidad, bastaría para solventar el problema.
Lo cierto, por el momento, es que la dependencia energética (48% en la UE y 78,3% en España) amenaza la sostenibilidad de la mayor concentración de riqueza del planeta que es Europa. En un continente sin apenas materias primas, las multinacionales europeas dominan extraterritorialmente mercados como el del litio o el cacao, el café o los diamantes. Europa puede perder ese control sin ver peligrar su modelo de vida. Pero la energía resulta imprescindible para mantener en marcha la maquinaria económica de los Veinticinco.

The case for nuclear power

2006-02-06T03:34:00.000-08:00

The case for nuclear power The case for nuclear power / Economists, environmentalists and energy consumers find incentives to start building new plants

A quarter-century ago, I spent many months shuttling back and forth to a small town near San Luis Obispo, joining thousands of protesters opposed to a nuclear power plant named Diablo Canyon that was being built on an earthquake fault on a picturesque stretch of Central California's coastline.
Although far more expensive than anticipated, the plant was put into service by its owner, Pacific Gas and Electric Co., in 1985. Repeated shakers, including a large quake last year, never interfered with the plant's electricity output, which has steadily improved through the years. Diablo, once dismissed by critics as superfluous, is now an essential part of the state's energy mix. The only other nuclear plant in the state is San Onofre in San Diego County, near San Clemente.
I don't regret my youthful opposition to Diablo. Back then, nuclear plants were badly run and uneconomical, and the near-disaster at Three Mile Island exposed nuclear regulations as a sham. But much has changed in the past 25 years, and for a variety of reasons I think nuclear power deserves another chance.
So does President Bush, who on Tuesday night in his State of the Union address highlighted the nation's need to boost nuclear power generation.
I know I've lost a lot of readers already, so let me immediately introduce an important qualification: We can only push an expansion of nuclear power, which today supplies 20 percent of America's electricity, as part of a comprehensive program to limit the production of greenhouse gases, promote renewable energy sources, and dramatically raise the cost of burning fossil fuels in automobiles. Expanding nuclear power is only one piece of the energy puzzle. But it is a piece we cannot afford to dismiss.
The reason is clear. Electricity demand is rising -- some say by as much as 50 percent during the next 30 to 50 years. Demand might even increase more with the spread of electric cars. Without a crash program to expand nuclear power, America's new electricity needs will be satisfied chiefly by new coal-burning plants. Coal is a remarkably democratic resource, spread fairly evenly around the globe. Scores of new coal plants are planned for the United States, where they already generate about half of the nation's electricity. Many hundreds are likely to be constructed around the world before the end of the decade.
Coal does burn cleaner in new power plants than in older ones, but the goal of "clean coal" remains many years off and relies on unproven technologies. For the moment, burning coal to create electricity is sure to accelerate climate change. And coal isn't as cheap as it once was. Prices are soaring, narrowing coal's cost advantages over nuclear.
The safety of new nuclear plants, in which computers run virtually all complex machinery, has vastly improved in the quarter-century since the partial meltdown of the reactor core at Three Mile Island. Still, plant safety is a concern, as are waste storage and possible terrorist threats.
But these issues should not stop nuclear power from helping the United States reduce reliance on coal and other fossil fuels. There are good reasons to support a sharp expansion in new plants, and many reasons to believe these plants would be operated well and safely.
Nuclear power has long been derided as too expensive, and new plants still carry multibillion-dollar budgets. The most optimistic estimates from reactor-makers Westinghouse and General Electric is that a single nuclear power plant, running one reactor, will cost from $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion But with natural gas in short supply and increasingly expensive, and gas prices at the pump unlikely to fall significantly, the costs of nuclear power seem less daunting then before.
In recent years, several electric utilities have emerged as nuclear-power specialists, reaping economies of scale and building expertise that enables them to run safer, more secure operations.
The shift, which began 10 years ago, caught critics of nuclear power by surprise. Historically, the U.S. government never encouraged a small group of utilities to specialize in nuclear power but rather encouraged many utilities to dabble in the technology.
PG&E was typical, building only a single nuclear plant (with two reactors) at Diablo Canyon. This on-off tendency made it more difficult and costly for utilities to gain the expertise in nuclear power or to run plants properly. Vastly different in nature than coal-, gas- or oil-fired plants, nuclear power at first proved beyond the capacity of utility executives, a fact that became shockingly clear after Three Mile Island.
Utilities only mastered the technology in the 1990s, when a few of them -- notably New Orleans-based Entergy and Chicago-based Exelon -- started buying "orphan" plants and assembling them into "fleets," seeking the benefits of economies of scale. Exelon, a Chicago-based utility, today owns 20 commercial reactors, one-fifth of the nation's total of 104.
With a concentration of owners came a concentration of expertise, better nuclear plant performance across the United States, fewer safety hazards and higher profits. The unlikely result is that nuclear plants have become among the most sought-after industrial properties in the country. The most recent plant to change hands, the Ginna facility in New York, sold for $800 million, or 50 times what Entergy paid for the first reactor it bought. Says Michael Wallace, a top executive of Constellation, which bought the Ginna plant, "Nuclear plants are becoming incredibly valuable."
So valuable are nuclear plants that none is for sale today. Indeed, scores of nuclear plants, once thought to be candidates for closure, are pursuing and receiving licenses to operate for at least an additional 20 years. So far, the NRC has extended the life of about 30 plants. Because these plants are fully bought and paid for (and even the money required to de-commission them sits safely in bank accounts), utilities are leaning on them, because they only incur operating expenses, guaranteeing that nuclear-generated electricity is by far the cheapest part of their energy mix.
So far, electric utilities, while happy to harvest existing plants, are reluctant to build new ones.
"I'm the biggest nuke operator in the country, but I have to get the timing exactly right if my company is ever going to build (another) one," says John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon. Other utilities are also biding their time, waiting until they get a clearer signal that new projects won't be delayed into oblivion by Bleak House-style lawsuits.
And even when they resume building nuclear plants, "we will exhaust other opportunities" to generate electricity through wind and solar, Rowe says.
Entergy, Exelon and a few other nuclear specialists are pressing the federal government for more guarantees against the many risks faced in building a plant, not the least of which are the inevitable legal challenges. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the chief regulator, has responded by imposing a one-stop approval process, but the process has never been tested in court.
Arguably the biggest economic hurdle for nuclear power is short-term: who will bear the risk of being the first mover?
To get past the economic penalties for being first, a consortium of utilities including Exelon and Entergy, has formed a clever joint venture. The group, called NuStart Energy Development LLC, is filing a single application for a combined operating and construction license, in effect testing the regulatory and legal environment as a group so that no one utility gets stuck holding the bag if the process goes awry.
NuStart has yet to choose a site, though it hopes to do so by September. If all goes to plan, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will approve the plant (using either a Westinghouse or a General Electric reactor) by 2007, allowing for construction and operation by about 2015.
Utilities are holding out hope that Uncle Sam will give more help, and Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday provided encouragement. They want more money for development of reactor designs, especially those cooled with gas. Such designs are considered inherently safer than today's light-water reactors and figure to be smaller, too, reducing costs and allowing more flexibility in deployment. What's more, they may be able to produce hydrogen as well as electricity -- hydrogen for a new generation of cars powered by fuel cells.
A new generation of nuclear reactors -- especially the so-called "pebble bed" technology that promises far smaller, cheaper and safer reactors -- could help ease what will only be growing pressure on energy supplies, and rising costs of electricity. The trouble is, without a major push by the public and the U.S. government, improved reactors won't ever get built. Or by the time they are ready, America will have so gone so heavily into burning coal for electricity that the environmental damage may be irreversible.
We need to encourage the few utilities that are pacesetters in nuclear power, notably Entergy and Exelon, to build new plants fast. We need to use tax dollars to make it happen. We need to stop using citizen activism and the legal system to stymie nuclear power and rob the country of one clear path toward energy independence.
At the same time we need to push wind, solar and other renewable technologies. We need to promote mass transit and curtail automobile use by sharply raising taxes on gasoline and restricting cars altogether from some areas. We need to campaign more vigorously for conservation. And, yes, we need nuclear power. The coming energy crises are likely to be too painful and costly for Americans not to embrace nuclear.

America warms up to nuclear power | csmonitor.com

2006-02-06T03:25:00.000-08:00

America warms up to nuclear power csmonitor.com

By David R. Francis
The cure for the United States' "addiction" to oil is more nuclear power. That's becoming a more popular view. Even a few environmental groups see nuclear power as a necessity to maintain America's lifestyle.
A public opinion survey late last year sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Paris found that, in America, 40 percent of the people see nuclear power as safe and support new plants; 29 percent say existing plants are OK, but oppose building new ones; and 20 percent say the plants are dangerous and want all of them closed.
Curiously, the survey of 18 nations, rich and poor, found that nuclear power is seen more favorably in the US than it is in any other country surveyed except South Korea. Yet US utilities have not ordered a new atomic plant since 1978.
Even in France, highly dependent on nuclear power, only 25 percent support more plants, and 50 percent say enough is enough - don't build more.
Regardless of opinion, nuclear power is reviving around the world. Eight new nuclear plants came on line last year. One in Ontario, Canada, was restarted after a long shutdown. Globally, 443 "nukes" are in operation today.
Last week, President Bush proposed an "Advanced Energy Initiative" that involves investing more "in zero- emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy."
To Patrick Moore, who cofounded Greenpeace, nuclear power is the only realistic solution to future power needs.
"You can't solve this problem with windmills and photo panels alone," says the chairman of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., a Vancouver, B.C., environmental consulting firm. These two power sources tend to be expensive. More important, they are "intermittent." They work only when the wind blows or the sun shines. Economies need "baseload" power that operates all the time.
Coal can provide an around-the-clock power stream. But the 1,300 coal-fired plants in the US already belch out 10 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. Do we want more climate-changing gas?
With encouragement and subsidies from the Bush administration and Congress, US utilities are further along with new nuclear plants than most Americans probably realize. Frank Bowman, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C., recently noted that nine companies, consortiums, or joint ventures have firm plans for at least 12, and perhaps as many as 20, new plants.
The first application for a combined construction and operating license - a new procedure the industry hopes will avoid delays - should be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year and win approval by 2010 or so, Mr. Bowman reckons. Assuming construction takes four years, the plant could come on line by 2014.
By 2025, 30,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity will be operating in the US, with more plants on the way, Bowman guesses. That might displace 30 to 50 coal plants.
Other nations are seeing a need for additional nuclear power. Last November, British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked of taking a "serious look" at new nuclear reactors. Ontario recently decided to restart two mothballed units at the Bruce nuclear power facility - in addition to the Pickering plant put back into operation last year. Pakistan wants to buy six to eight 600-megawatt nuclear-power reactors from China in the next decade. Germany had planned to shutter all its nuclear power sites by 2020. But the recent fuss over Russian natural gas supplies to Ukraine makes that less likely. China plans to add 27 new plants to its existing nine by 2020. And so on.
Is this risky? Yes, but all power sources have problems. Coal mining is dangerous. Dams can clobber the environment. Natural gas is explosive. Oil is costly. All fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases. Windmills are noisy and can kill birds.
To Dr. Moore, the dangers associated with nuclear power are exaggerated.
Fewer than 60 people have been killed by nuclear power accidents worldwide, none in the US. An international team of 100-plus scientists, reviewing the worst nuclear power-plant accident (Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986), estimated last September that up to 4,000 people may eventually die from radiation exposure. That compares with earlier predictions of 300,000.
Terrorists might succeed in crashing an airplane into a nuclear plant. But a modern containment structure is unlikely to be penetrated. It consists of six feet of reinforced concrete, with one-inch steel plates on both sides. Even if such a suicide mission succeeded in penetrating the dome, the plant would not explode. Radiation might be spread, but most of it would weaken rapidly and is less dangerous than many think, says Moore.
More at risk in an aircraft attack is a liquefied natural-gas plant. It could create "one massive fireball," he warns.
Moore supports energy conservation, energy efficiency, and alternative energy sources. But to him, the "mathematics" indicate that nuclear power is essential to the future provision of adequate electricity.
Nuclear proliferation is a separate issue. It requires "real" attention, he says.

Bush Messages: America Addicted to Oil

2006-02-01T04:04:00.000-08:00

Bush Messages: Defeat Terror and 'Keep America Competitive' - New York Times

January 31, 2006
Bush Messages: Defeat Terror and 'Keep America Competitive'
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 – President Bush said tonight that the United States must remain a leader on the world stage and not retreat from challenges at home and abroad, but that Americans must break a national "addiction" to oil to preserve their country's prosperity and security.
"In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting, yet it ends in danger and decline," Mr. Bush told members of the House and Senate, other high officials and a television audience of millions watching his fifth State of the Union address. "The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership – so the United States of America will continue to lead."
Mr. Bush, who has said he wants to be remembered as the "education president," proposed a program to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science and bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in the classrooms. The education proposals stood out in a speech otherwise marked by reiteration of the goals and ideas that Mr. Bush has embraced throughout his presidency.
"We must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity," he said. "Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our educated, hard-working, ambitious people — and we are going to keep that edge."
Mr. Bush welcomed Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., along with other members of the Supreme Court. The 58-42 Senate vote earlier in the day confirming the Alito nomination was, for the White House, a refreshing triumph for the president, whose support has been sagging in public-opinion polls and whose Republican Party has been hobbled by a lobbying scandal.
Mr. Bush offered a muscular defense of his administration's domestic and foreign policies and sought to dispel any suggestion that he was slipping toward "lame duck" status as members of Congress look to their own political futures in this fall's off-year elections and, in the case of at least a few, to the 2008 presidential contest.
The president said again that the United States would stay the course in Iraq, decreasing troop levels as field commanders see appropriate, and in Afghanistan, where he said a vibrant democracy was taking hold. He vowed to maintain pressure on Iran, "a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite," and said he envisioned a free and democratic Iran one day. And he called on leaders of the radical group Hamas, fresh from their victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, to reject terrorism and recognize Israel.
As presidents before him have, Mr. Bush addressed the United States' reliance on foreign oil. "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world," Mr. Bush said. "The best way to break this addiction is through technology."
As expected, he proposed more use of alternative fuels for automobiles, like corn-based ethanol, and suggested a revival of nuclear-powered projects.
Mr. Bush said the United States' goal should be to replace more than 75 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. The United States gets less than 20 percent of the oil it consumes from the region, and altogether, about 60 percent of the oil Americans consume comes from abroad.
The president prodded Congress again to make the "temporary" tax cuts of his first term permanent, asserting that the cuts would be a collective engine of prosperity.
Democrats seized on the tax-cut issue, as well as other aspects of the president's speech. In comments before the president spoke, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, chosen by his party as the point man for tonight, said the Bush administration had failed to manage "our staggering national debt," and indeed had helped to cause it. "Why should we allow this administration to pass down the bill for its reckless spending to our children and grandchildren?" Mr. Kaine asked.
Democrats also pounced on the Iraq issue. Governor Kaine asserted that "the American people were given inaccurate information about the reasons for invading Iraq," and that the administration's whole approach to that country has made America less secure.
The president's emphasis on oil was no surprise. Oil consumption and availability have implications for the nation's security and economic well-being, and have personal relevance for virtually all American citizens, whose gasoline and home-heating costs have risen drastically in recent months.
The president called again for the United States to stay on the offensive in fighting terrorism, and to do so not just by military means but by "encouraging economic progress, fighting disease and spreading hope in hopeless lands."
Mr. Bush also reiterated his defense of the administration's program to monitor telephone calls and e-mail between the United States and abroad. He said Congress should re-enact the USA Patriot Act, which broadened government surveillance powers and is to expire in early February.
In warning against isolationist tendencies, Mr. Bush said: "In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attacks alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."
Mr. Bush took care to describe his White House and his party as fonts of compassion. "Our government has a responsibility to help provide health care for the poor and the elderly, and we are meeting that responsibility," he said. "For all Americans, we must confront the rising cost of care, strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, and help people afford the insurance coverage they need." The president has often blamed "frivolous lawsuits" by greedy malpractice lawyers for driving up the cost of health care.
The president, who is known to have gone through dozens of drafts of the speech with its writers, dwelled on one of his favorite themes, what he has called the character and compassion of the American people.
"Our greatness is not measured in power or luxuries, but by who we are and how we treat one another," he said. "So we strive to be a compassionate, decent, hopeful society."

Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force - Physics Today May 2005

2006-02-01T00:59:00.000-08:00

Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force - Physics Today May 2005

A high-profile US government task force says it is in the national interest to use nuclear power as a clean and increasingly economical way to meet the growing demand for electricity.
Citing economics, climate change, and the projected growth in global energy demand, a US Department of Energy (DOE) task force cochaired by former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman Richard Meserve and former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu has recommended that the federal government help revitalize the US nuclear power industry by sharing the up-front costs of the first few of a new generation of nuclear power plants. After citing three decades of increasing efficiency, decreasing operating costs, and solid safety records at the 103 existing US nuclear power plants, the task force noted that "despite this . . . achievement, and the fact that nuclear power generation does not result in greenhouse gas emissions, no new US nuclear power plants have been ordered and subsequently built since 1973."
Economic case
To restart the nuclear industry, the authors of the report—the nuclear energy task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB)—say "there should be government-supported demonstration programs and financial incentives to overcome the uncertainties and economic hurdles that would otherwise prevent the first few new plants from being built." Their key recommendation is a cost-sharing program for "first-of-a-kind engineering" (FOAKE) costs "inherent in building the first facility of a new design."
The task force recommended fifty-fifty cost sharing up to a maximum of $200 million in government money "for each of three major competing design types, with the secretary of energy being given discretion to select the types to be supported." While the report does not call the cost-sharing program a government loan to industry, it does say that much of the money could be repaid from the profits of future nuclear power plants built using the designs.
Although the report is essentially a document making an economic case for government subsidies to restart the US civilian nuclear power industry, task force member C. Paul Robinson, the former director of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said the economic arguments "are just becoming very timely in terms of electrical needs. We have looked at all the alternatives and certainly if you believe in the threats of greenhouse gases, then it is important to have something that can produce electricity with good efficiency and cost, and be emission free."
Another task force member, physicist Burton Richter, former director of SLAC, said that the FOAKE recommendation for cost sharing came because it "looks very much as if, once you get past the extra costs of a first-of-a-kind plant, then the costs of nuclear power are competitive with coal. That's a surprise to most people. If you can replace coal, you do good for air pollution, the economy, energy supply, and competitiveness."
Richter noted that the US, along with the rest of the globe, is "due for a big expansion in electricity demand, and we're better off for environmental and other reasons if we do it with nuclear power instead of coal. Government should lead industry to do the right thing rather than the wrong thing."
In addition to urging legislative support and funding for FOAKE, the task force made two other recommendations to help rejuvenate the nuclear power industry:
Early site permit and combined construction and operating license demonstration programs jointly funded by DOE and industry. In the past, one of the more significant barriers to new nuclear power plant construction was the two-step licensing process. The NRC issued a construction permit, and only after construction was substantially completed was an operating permit issued. Outside parties had numerous opportunities to intervene and delay or halt a project, which made the process of building a nuclear power plant a risky, high-stakes affair. The NRC has established a streamlined combined licensing procedure that significantly cuts the financial risk of building a nuclear plant, but the procedure has never been tested. The report recommends that DOE share the licensing costs with early applicants so that a real-world model can be developed.
A "basket of support programs for the first few reactors of each new supported design to provide efficient financial options." This basket would include secured loan guarantees, tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and other economic incentives from which a nuclear power plant builder could pick and choose. The incentives package could not exceed $250 million in government money for each nuclear reactor.
In the leadership issues section of the report, the task force warns nuclear-industry leaders that they must "recognize that the federal government should not and cannot eliminate all the risks and vagaries of the energy markets for them." The nuclear industry, the report says, "must clarify its needs and prioritize its requests" and "must also convey information to federal policymakers in clear, sharply defined terms with specific recommendations."
Industry reaction
Richard Myers, senior director of business and environmental policy at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the task force report was a "well thought out piece of work." The nuclear industry, which NEI represents, is looking at $400 to $500 million as the FOAKE cost of a new nuclear plant, he said, so the report's fifty-fifty cost-sharing proposal with a $200 million limit was reasonable. "We think the report, on balance, is pretty sensible.. . . Once the first ones are done, we think Wall Street and the companies will recognize the licensing process is manageable, costs are predictable . . . and we can move forward from that point on and finance them conventionally."
Policymakers in both the administration and Congress must develop "a clear commitment to a national energy policy" that gives nuclear power a strong role, the report says. "We urge that the president identify this as a critical priority for the nation and that Congress take the necessary steps to meet this priority." The report doesn't mention the controversy surrounding the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage project in Nevada (see the story on page 32), but it does say the waste storage problem must be resolved. But the authors make clear that "the absence of a licensed repository is not a valid reason for postponing additional nuclear construction."
Another critical aspect of encouraging a new generation of power plants is the concern over nuclear proliferation, especially in the wake of September 11th. The task force's bottom-line conclusion is that the rest of the world is going to move forward with energy generation from nuclear power regardless of what the US does, and the US would be better off participating than sitting on the sidelines.
An increase in the use of nuclear power in the US would actually "serve our non-proliferation objectives," the report says, because "one of the most efficient and certainly the most thorough ways of disposing of that nuclear material is to burn it as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors."
Robinson said task force members "had several discussions with the folks over at the White House to understand what the traffic would bear" in terms of government support for the nuclear industry. "We've been getting the right words to do at least one such [reactor construction and startup]." That would shore up the confidence that all of the work that was done to speed up the regulatory process has worked, he said. "The object is . . . to show that nuclear power is a good investment."
And it is economics, not safety, that killed nuclear power development in the US, Robinson said. "Nuclear power was grossly overbuilt because of predictions that energy growth was going to double every seven or eight years," he said. When that didn't happen, it became uneconomical, especially with the uncertain licensing procedures, to invest in nuclear power, he said.
"So it's going to take a big infusion of courage for the next person in the finance community to take the first step," he said. That courage will be easier to find if it is bolstered by a federal cost-sharing program, the report concludes.
Jim Dawson

Funding US Nuclear Power Plants - Physics Today February 2006

2006-02-01T00:56:00.000-08:00

Funding US Nuclear Power Plants - Physics Today February 2006

The US has substantial precedence and rationale for governmental support of the next generation of nuclear power plants (see "Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force," PHYSICS TODAY, May 2005, page 28). The early commercial nuclear plants were built with direct federal subsidies and loan guarantees; an example is the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant built in 1960 under the Atomic Energy Commission's power-demonstration reactor program. The aim of those early demonstration plants was to prove to a fledgling industry that such facilities could be built and operated economically.
A significant era for US nuclear funding was the 1970s and 1980s, when nuclear units came in at costs often many times the original estimates. Some plants with billions of dollars invested were never completed. The overspending and stalled projects stemmed from government actions often in response to activists or legal maneuvering. Organizations and individuals with specific agendas took advantage of the Three Mile Island accident to exploit unrelated issues.1 Plants already under construction were stymied by new requirements that caused tremendous uncertainty both in building and in the actual start-up of power production. The Long Island Lighting Co's Shoreham nuclear plant, for example, was completed at a cost of $5.6 billion, brought briefly to criticality, and then decommissioned, all because of activism and political demagoguery.2
Today, the reasons for government loan guarantees and other support programs are somewhat different. Vendors having gained experience with overseas projects know how to build advanced nuclear plants, although some of their advanced designs have yet to be implemented. Not surprisingly, any vendor or electric utility, before investing huge amounts, would want some assurance that it would be allowed to complete the plant at a reasonable cost and then operate it. Particularly important is that safety rules and systems requirements not change drastically during construction without very compelling reasons. Given the way governmental entities contributed to the problems of past nuclear power plant construction, it is only fitting that the federal government share substantially in the investment risk. Building nuclear plants is in the nation's interest.
References
1. See, for example, R. Duffy, Nuclear Politics in America, U. Press of Kansas, Lawrence (1997).
2. For a discussion of the Shoreham plant's difficulties, see S. McCracken, [LINK].
Edwin A. Karlow
(ekarlow@lasierra.edu)
La Sierra University
Riverside, California

Stronger Future for Nuclear Power - Physics Today February 2006

2006-01-31T14:31:00.000-08:00

Stronger Future for Nuclear Power - Physics Today February 2006: "Lyman"

Nuclear reactor builders are jostling for business as energy utilities take another look at nuclear power.

Finland's new nuclear power plantSome two dozen power plants are scheduled to be built or refurbished during the next five years in Canada, China, several European Union countries, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa. In the US and the UK, governmental preparations are under way that may lead to 15 new reactor orders by 2007.
About 16% of the world's electricity supply comes from nuclear power, and energy demand is increasing (see PHYSICS TODAY, April 2002, page 54). Worldwide, nearly 80% of the 441 commercial nuclear reactors currently in operation are more than 15 years old. To maintain nuclear power's position in the overall energy mix, new reactors will have to replace decommissioned ones, says a report from the Paris-based International Energy Agency.
The new interest in civilian nuclear energy results from some heavy lobbying by groups involved in building reactors, says Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and from attempts to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs adds that there are also increasing concerns about energy security, particularly in light of the recent disruption of Russian gas supplies in Europe.
Most of the new reactor designs are third-generation pressurized-water reactors (PWR), although companies in China, France, and South Africa are looking to build a fourth-generation design called a gas-pebble-bed reactor (PBMR). The new reactors are supposed to be inexpensive to build, more powerful, and safer; and they can be operated for up to 60 years, according to nuclear-power trade groups.
The international view
Late last year, officials from Bruce Power, one of Canada's largest power companies, announced a Can$4.25 billion (US$3.6 billion) investment to rebuild two reactors that have stood idle for nearly 10 years on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, north of Kincardine, Ontario. Last December, the Ontario Power Authority proposed plans to build 12 new nuclear plants to help phase out Ontario's coal-fired power stations.
New 1600-MW European PWRs are being built, one in Finland and one in France, with respective power-up dates of 2008 and 2012. On 5 January, France's president, Jacques Chirac, announced plans for an expansion of renewable and nuclear energy sources for France, including a PBMR by 2020. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to announce this spring six to eight new reactors in the UK.
Russia is currently constructing several reactors, including an 800-MW fast neutron reactor, but financial difficulties may delay four of them, says the London-based World Nuclear Association. Iran is building two Russian-designed reactors, the first of which should go on line later this year. The first South African PBMR is set to be completed in 2012.
Nuclear-industry officials have long said that the majority of growth would come in Asia. Japan is building five new power plants by 2010, and China plans to build 30 nuclear reactors, based on domestic designs, by 2020. China also sees nuclear technology as a major export opportunity, say industry analysts, and is building its second of four power plants for Pakistan, which may lead to a larger order. India has nine power plants under construction, including a fast-breeder reactor that generates its own fuel.
Six countries—Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, the Czech Republic, and Turkey—may build two to five PWRs each, while Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland are now reevaluating plans to phase-out nuclear power.
US moves
The US nuclear power industry has been virtually frozen since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, but in the US Congress 2005 energy bill, tax credits worth $3.1 billion, along with liability protection and compensation for legislative delays, were added for the industry. On 30 December 2005, for the first time in years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certified the design of a new reactor—the 1000-MW Westinghouse advanced passive (AP) reactor.
Six US power-plant operators are preparing combined construction and operating license (COL) requests to the NRC that could restart construction in the next five years. NuStart Energy, a consortium of nine nuclear energy companies, submitted plans for a General Electric simplified boiling water reactor at the Grand Gulf nuclear station near Port Gibson, Mississippi, and an AP-1000 reactor at the Bellefonte nuclear plant near Scottsboro, Alabama.
Two AP-1000 reactors may be built in the Carolinas by Duke Energy, along with another reactor by Progress Energy. "Preparing this application provides us the option to continue using a diverse fuel mix in the future," says Brew Barron, Duke Energy's chief nuclear officer.
Constellation Energy of Baltimore, Maryland, is in partnership with AREVA, a large French–German engineering firm, to submit COL requests for a European PWR at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant site in southern Maryland and the Nine Mile Point nuclear plant in Oswego, New York. Entergy, another NuStart member, announced it was preparing its own COL request for a new reactor at its River Bend Station power plant in St. Francisville, Louisiana. On 6 December, two electric utilities, Scana Corp and Santee Cooper, filed a letter of intent with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new reactors north of Columbia, South Carolina, to meet growing regional power demands.
According to representatives of the electric utilities involved, the US government and the reactor technology suppliers are paying for most of the $150 million the certification process costs. "The utilities are waiting to see if they can get any more subsidies out of the government," says Lyman, "so it's still premature to say if any of them will go ahead." A satisfactory means for disposal of their radioactive waste products has not yet been announced.
But the nuclear power industry believes the first new US order is only two years away. Says NuStart Energy president Marilyn Kray, "Our country needs these advanced nuclear plants."
Paul Guinnessy

Blair issues blunt warning on climate change

2006-01-31T14:22:00.000-08:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics Special Reports PM issues blunt warning on climate change

Matt WeaverMonday January 30, 2006

Tony Blair warns that the impact of climate change may be more serious than previously thought in a new government report on global warming published today.
The report raises fears that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are likely to melt, leading to a devastating rise in sea levels.
It warns of large-scale and irreversible disruption if temperatures rise by more than 3C (5.4F) - well within the range of climate change projections for the century.

Article continues

Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change is published as a book and collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office last February.
The conference predicted that greenhouse gases would raise global temperatures by between 1.4C and 5.8C over this century.
"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," Mr Blair wrote in the forward to the book.
"It is now plain that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and economic growth from a world population that has increased six-fold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable."
The book includes concerns expressed by the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Chris Rapley, that the huge West Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate.
Scientists believe such an event would raise sea levels around the world by almost 5m (16 ft).
Prof Rapley writes that a previous report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dismissing worries about the ice sheet's stability had to be revised: "The last IPCC report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern."
The report also warns that the EU may have to adopt tougher climate change targets. It is committed to preventing global temperatures rising by more than 2C, but the report warns that such a rise would trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, prompting the extinction of the polar bear and the walrus.
The environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said today's report highlighted the "tipping point" beyond which climate change could be expected to become irreversible.
This made it even more urgent to halt the change quickly, and meant that current targets - such as reducing carbon emissions by 60% by the middle of the century - may not be ambitious enough, she said.
"What is disturbing about the Exeter report is that it suggests that what has been a long-term policy framework, maybe even that is something that is going to cause more major difficulties than people imagined," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Mrs Beckett said she hoped to publish the government's climate change strategy - initially pencilled in for last year - in the near future, and certainly by the end of 2006.
She denied that the government had already decided to invest in new nuclear power stations as a way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but said the option had to be considered because of the role it could play in meeting the UK's long-term climate change targets.
"The reason we need to look at it very seriously is that the one thing you can say about nuclear power is that, once you have put in all the energy required to construct the nuclear power stations, it is actually a low-carbon form of energy," she said.
Friends of the Earth called for urgent action to cut greenhouse gases.
"Despite Tony Blair's concerns about climate change, UK emissions have risen under Labour," said FoE's climate change campaigner, Roger Higman.
"He should now support mounting calls for a new law requiring the government to make annual cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, and make Britain a world leader in the development of a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy."

Scotsman.com News - UK - Scientists back nuclear power to help beat global warming

2006-01-31T04:50:00.000-08:00

Scotsman.com News - UK - Scientists back nuclear power to help beat global warming

JAMES KIRKUP WESTMINSTER EDITOR
NUCLEAR power must be part of attempts to address global warming, according to a government-sponsored study of climate change.
In an apocalyptic assessment endorsed by Tony Blair, an international group of scientists warned in the study published yesterday that increasing temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect pose a pressing threat to humanity.

"It is clear from the work presented that the risks of climate change may well be greater than we thought," the Prime Minister said of the study, which forecasts the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and a resultant rise in sea-levels of up to 16 feet over the next millennium. In response, the scientists argue, governments must use a wide range of tools, nuclear power included.
The document, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, brings together evidence presented at a conference hosted by the UK Meteorological Office at Exeter last February. In it, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Professor Chris Rapley, says the huge West Antarctic Ice Sheet may also be starting to disintegrate. He writes: "The last report characterised Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change. I'd say it is now an awakened giant."
The report comes as ministers consider authorising the construction of a new generation of nuclear reactors in Britain. Adding urgency to that review, the most recent official figures show that the UK's carbon emissions are rising again.
Many environmental groups and some Labour MPs are opposed to new atomic power stations, although the Prime Minister is understood to be leaning towards the nuclear option.
Unlike coal-power and gas-power plants, nuclear stations do not produce . "There are no magic bullets; a portfolio of options is needed and excluding any options will increase costs," the scientists conclude.
Governments should use a variety of means to cut emissions in "wedges", including increasing energy efficiency, nuclear energy, low-emission transport fuels and fossil-fuel power plants with carbon-capture technology, they said.
The scientists also recommend that poorer nations consider investing in nuclear power plants. "Efficiency improvements and alternative energy supply such as nuclear and renewables are of priority for developing countries to contribute [to attempts to cut emissions]," they conclude.
Nuclear energy is likely to prove the most contentious aspect of the Prime Minister's attempts to meet his targets to reduce Britain's carbon emissions. One criticism raised of nuclear power is that the relative scarcity of the uranium it relies on means it is not a long-term option.
But in another study published yesterday, Bert Metz and Detlef van Vuuren of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, dismiss those suggestions. "New discoveries of uranium resources, use of thorium [an alternative nuclear fuel], more efficient technologies and production of uranium from seawater could, at least in theory, imply that this option is almost without technical limits," the researchers write.
Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, has expressed doubts about the value of nuclear power, but yesterday insisted it has to be an option for Britain. "Once you have put in all the energy required to construct the nuclear power stations, it is actually a low-carbon form of energy," she said, although she conceded that nuclear has "other problems", especially how to dispose of waste.

The fallacy that nuclear energy will prove to be our saviour

2006-01-30T14:16:00.000-08:00

FT.com / By industry / Energy Utilities Mining - The fallacy that nuclear energy will prove to be our saviour

>By Andrew Simms>Published: November 4 2005 02:00 Last updated: November 4 2005 02:00>>
If Britain's energy policy was like the Grand National, nuclear power would fall at virtually every fence. But somehow, irrationally, race stewards from the sector and the Department of Trade and Industry seem to have dragged its prospects to within sight of government backing to build new generating capacity. How?
Nuclear power is promoted as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. It is neither. As a response to global warming, it is too slow, too expensive and too limited. In an age of terrorist threats, it is more of a security risk than a solution. Also, answers to the problems of waste and decommissioning are nowhere in sight.
In terms of the relative costs of reducing carbon emissions to tackle global warming, nuclear power comes at the end of a long list of options including: energy efficiency, combined heat and power, wind power, micro hydro, energy crops and wave power. Nuclear is also the least efficient at creating employment.
An analysis of figures relied on by the government suggests that they have underestimated the true costs of new nuclear power by nearly threefold. Starting from the British Energy/BNFL estimate of 3p/kWh, the price goes up 1.3p/kWh by using an average, rather than best, cost for new reactors. Using the International Energy Agency's construction estimates pushes the price up by the same again. So-called "first-of-a-kind" costs incurred with new reactor designs add about 0.1p/kWh.
Allowing for delays and cost overruns adds at least a further 1.8p/kWh. Lowering the assumed performance of new stations to what has been achieved adds 0.8p/kWh, taking the total to around 8.3p/kWh. These costs exclude risks and liabilities arising from under-insurance, pollution and terrorism.
There are also holes in the claim that nuclear provides energy security. The industry has a habit of losing radioactive material and a dirty little secret about how little high-grade uranium ore is left to fuel reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency said last year that "the key question is how long nuclear resources might last" and cited known conventional resources of uranium as enough to last only 85 years for the most common type of reactors at 2002 rates of use and slightly longer for others.
Also, a nuclear industry relying on hugely energy-intensive fuel extraction from low-grade ore is far from carbon- free. One of the only full life-cycle analyses of nuclear plants, by retired nuclear physicist and former nuclear advocate Philip Bartlett Smith, concluded that even in the best case nuclear required significant emissions. In the worst case, using low grade ores, it was less climate-friendly than a gas -fired power station.
The physical limitations of nuclear were also revealed in a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. It showed that to increase nuclear's share of world electricity by just 2 per cent by 2050 would mean an additional 1,000-1,500 new large nuclear plants. While even this looks impossible, there are several other reasons for caution.
There are already hundreds of tonnes of high-level radioactive material for which no inventory exists and blueprints for nuclear hardware are increasingly available on the international black market. An expanding sector would make nuclear proliferation - Iran - and terrorism not just more likely but almost inevitable.
Accidents, too, are expensive. Ukraine's bill more than a decade after the Chernobyl disaster was more than $120bn (£68bn). Swiss Re, the world's second largest reinsurer, concludes: "One of the most perilous shortcomings in traditional property insurance and reinsurance concerns inadequate nuclear risk exclusions."
We must also beware the law of unÃÂintended consequences. The energy review by the government's performance and innovation unit warned that investment in new nuclear power plants could adversely affect the development of other technologies. Finland, the only developed country with a new nuclear programme, has been criticised by the IEA for underfunding and missing the goals of its renewable energy plan and has seen its emissions rise. Nuclear power, perversely, could hasten global warming.
If the government concedes to the nuclear industry's demands to underwrite additional nuclear capacity it will be the biggest scam on the public since Enron discovered creative accounting or Nigeria discovered the internet. But then, there is always a danger that big races get fixed by the organisers.
The writer is policy director of the New Economics Foundation and author of Ecological Debt: The Health of the Planet and the Wealth of Nations

A Change in Climate - Newsweek

2006-01-29T12:32:00.000-08:00

A Change in Climate - Newsweek: International Editions - MSNBC.com

By William Underhill
Newsweek International
Feb. 6, 2006 issue - Martin Landtman is thinking big. As project director of Finland's next nuclear-power station, he's responsible for his country's largest-ever industrial investment. Over the next four years his work force will pour 250,000 cubic meters of reinforced concrete—enough to build 5,000 apartment blocks—at the Olkiluoto site on the Baltic coast. The goal: a structure tough enough to withstand a direct hit from the world's largest airliner or to contain a meltdown of its radioactive core. But his biggest challenge may have already passed. The project—the first new nuclear-power station in Europe since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986—now has majority support among his fellow Finns.

A nuclear plant with popular backing? And in one of those planet-loving Nordic states? Look no further for proof that the nuclear industry is losing its bugaboo status. Among voters, new anxieties have emerged to offset the old safety fears. Mounting evidence of climate change has refocused attention on an energy source that won't soil the atmosphere. Meanwhile, the cost of gas and oil is soaring. Europeans don't want to be dependent on supplies from Russia, especially after Moscow's recent show of arm-twisting with Ukraine. Japan wants to wean itself off of energy imports. U.S. citizens are fed up with relying on Middle Eastern states for their energy.
Nuclear power is increasingly seen as the only energy source that can square the needs of the environment and industry. More research is necessary before renewable sources will be able to provide energy in sufficient quantities at a realistic price. Olkiluoto's output alone will meet 10 percent of all Finland's requirements. Says Landtman: "We just can't hide from the problems anymore."
The turnaround is perhaps most startling in Europe. Most citizens remain wary, but a rethink is underway in almost every European country—even those most traditionally hostile to nuclear power. In Italy, which junked its nuclear program after a referendum 18 years ago, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi talks openly of reversing policy. In Germany, where the new coalition government is free of members of the Greens, conservative politicians are cautiously debating the state's legal pledge to phase out nuclear power by 2020. A recent poll found that more than one in three Swedes today supports nuclear power, even though their own government is committed to closing down the industry.
Some countries, like Finland, are going further with plans to build new nuclear plants, not just to retain the old. Poland is scheduled to begin design work this year on two reactors, the first in its history. "The building of any gas plants in Poland right now would be madness," says government spokesman Roman Trechcinski. "The only solution we have left are the nuclear-power plants." Britain, struggling to meet its Kyoto targets, looks set for a nuclear comeback. In his New Year message, Prime Minister Tony Blair promised to make "the big choice" whether to add nuclear capacity. Few doubt how he will decide. Britain depends on nuclear power for 20 percent of its electricity, but that share is set to fall as older plants are phased out.
America may be on the verge of the first new-plant construction in 20 years. During that time, the industry has kept output rising by upgrading nuclear plants, but many are operating at a better than 90 percent capacity. In August, President Bush signed an energy bill that gives the industry construction subsidies and incentives, which is stimulating a flurry of new plant proposals. How quickly these plants make it off the blueprints remains to be seen. Japan announced ambitious nuclear plans at the 1997 Kyoto conference—to build 20 new plants by 2010—but accidents and local opposition has cut that figure to five new facilities.
Cost overruns decimated nuclear power in the 1970s, but it is now seen as an essential ingredient to any country's energy portfolio, thanks to global warming. New reactor designs—particularly "light-water" reactors—also can reduce the frequency of accidents tenfold. The big question is whether public concern over climate change will trump fears over safety.
The necessity argument won't satisfy the diehards. The awkward issue of where to stow nuclear waste still has to be settled. And all that concrete won't dispel fears of a catastrophic breakdown or a terrorist attack. Antinuclear campaigners blame the resurgent interest in nuclear power on political laziness and a fear of squaring up to more difficult solutions. Cutting energy consumption is a no-no with the voters. "We live in a world where prime ministers don't have the time to look deeply at the issues; they just go for the solutions they have heard about," says Roger Higman, an energy campaigner with Friends of the Earth in London.
But high-minded critics must face an inconvenient reality. In practice, nuclear energy already meets more of the developed world's needs than its members would like to accept. Denmark, implacably opposed to nuclear power, is quite ready to buy nuclear-generated electricity from Sweden, just as the Italians survive on imported power from France, which looks to its nuclear plants for more than 70 percent of its energy. For good measure, France, always Europe's most enthusiastic champion of nuclear power, announced in January that it would build a new pilot reactor by 2020, adding to its tally of nearly 60 plants. The United States gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Norway and Austria, two more diehard anti-nuke nations, can afford a principled position only because of their plentiful supplies of hydroelectric power. Others have no such luxury. If the nuke revival had a slogan, it might go like this: Learn to love nuclear power—or turn off the lights.
With Kasia Kruszkowska
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.

UN chief asks US to give Iran reactors

2006-01-28T15:28:00.000-08:00

UN chief asks US to give Iran reactors

(AP)Updated: 2006-01-28 09:19
U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Friday called on the United States to provide Iran with nuclear reactors and urged Tehran to declare a moratorium on enriching uranium for at least eight years.
ElBaradei said that amount of time would enable the country to earn the confidence of the international community that it was really interested in nuclear energy ¡ª not nuclear weapons.
Iran provoked an international outcry on Jan. 10 when it ended a two-year freeze and resumed small-scale enrichment of uranium ¡ª a process that can be used to produce fuel for generating electricity or material for atomic bombs. To resume enrichment, Iran had to break the seals of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear monitoring body headed by ElBaradei.
Britain, France and Germany ¡ª who have been leading European Union efforts to get Iran to abandon uranium conversion and enrichment ¡ª succeeded in getting the IAEA's board to meet Feb. 2 to discuss action against Iran. The three countries ¡ª and United States ¡ª want Iran to be referred to the U.N. Security Council.
The Iranians argue that they need to develop an enrichment capability because they cannot be assured a guaranteed supply of fuel for a peaceful nuclear energy program, ElBaradei said at a panel at the World Economic Forum.
"I would separate the issues of using nuclear technology for energy and to produce weapons," he said. "I would call upon the United States to provide Iran with reactors, and I would call upon Iran to declare a moratorium on enrichment for at least eight or nine years" until the country can earn the global community's confidence.
On Thursday, ElBaradei said he was hopeful that a Russian proposal could help break the standoff over Iran's nuclear research and enrichment plans.
Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani said Friday that a plan to allow Iran to enrich its uranium in Russia was unacceptable in its present form but was worth taking further in negotiations.
"The capacity of Russia's proposal does not meet all the nuclear energy needs of Iran," Iranian state television quoted Larijani as saying.
However, Ivan Safranchuk, a Russian analyst, cautioned that Iran might be using the plan only to buy time as it fights to avoid potential U.N. sanctions.
Asked for his advice to Western officials, ElBaradei said: "You need to keep all options on the table."
But U.S. Sen. John McCain appeared to rule out negotiations.
"They're interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and dominating the Middle East," McCain, told a panel. "I don't know of any carrot that works."
Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in Washington that comments from Iran indicate that it appears "to be playing more games with the international community."
"We remain in discussions with our partners and others about the best way to send a clear message to the regime in Iran that it is unacceptable to have nuclear weapons," McClellan said.
Alyson Bailes, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in Sweden, called for new technologies and advanced reactors that would be built to rule out the high enrichment of uranium.
ElBaradei did not elaborate on having the U.S. build reactors for Iran, but presumably this would enable Washington to build in safeguards to prevent Iran from getting weapons-grade uranium.
The IAEA chief backed the quest for new technologies, but more immediately he called for international control over all nuclear activities and the creation of a nuclear fuel bank to ensure supplies of uranium to all countries.
"We need to worry because there's a lot of material that easily go into nuclear weapons that is all over the place. We know that the technology on how to weaponize is out of the tube. We know that terrorists are highly sophisticated and are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons or nuclear material ¡ª either to steal one or to make a crude bomb," he said.
"We are running in a race against time," he said.

La crise de l'énergie revigore le futur réacteur nucléaire de 4e génération

2006-01-27T13:29:00.000-08:00

Revue de presse

25/01/2006 : Le MondeLa crise de l'énergie revigore le futur réacteur nucléaire de 4e générationJean-François Augereau A quelles formes d'énergie l'humanité fera-t-elle appel pour assurer, dans quelques décennies, les besoins de 9 milliards d'individus ? A toutes, répondent aujourd'hui les experts. Aux renouvelables comme aux plus classiques. "Face au problème de l'énergie et du climat, le temps n'est pas à l'exclusion d'un système d'énergie par rapport à un autre. Tout est bon à prendre. Sans préjugé ni angélisme", insiste Philippe Pradel, directeur de l'énergie nucléaire au Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA), qui rappelle que "d'ici à 2050, la consommation mondiale d'énergie devrait doubler" pour atteindre 20 Gtep (milliards de tonnes équivalent pétrole). Dans ce contexte, le nucléaire pourrait bien retrouver une place dans le bouquet qui alimentera la planète en énergie. Certains estiment que la capacité électronucléaire mondiale, assurée par quelque 450 réacteurs répartis dans une trentaine de pays, pourrait quadrupler d'ici à 2050. Optimisme du lobby nucléaire ? Peut-être. Reste que quelques pays dont les programmes nucléaires s'étaient ralentis puis arrêtés après les accidents américain de Three Mile Island et ukrainien de Tchernobyl réfléchissent à nouveau à l'atome. A commencer par les Etats-Unis dont l'Energy Policy Act, signé en août 2005 par le président Bush, ouvre la voie à cette forme d'énergie. Le ministre français de l'économie et des finances, Thierry Breton, devait quant à lui présenter, mardi 24 janvier, à Bruxelles, un texte pour une politique européenne de l'énergie dont Paris souhaite qu'elle n'écarte pas le recours au nucléaire. Les récentes déclarations du président de la Commission européenne, José Manuel Barroso qui estime qu'une telle politique européenne ne doit exclure aucune option, vont dans le même sens. Que dire enfin des propos, tenus le 5 janvier par Jacques Chirac lors des voeux "aux forces vives de la nation", qui laissaient entendre qu'un réacteur prototype de "4e génération" pourrait être mis en service en 2020 ? Ce projet n'est pas complètement nouveau. Depuis plusieurs années, la France, malgré la crise du nucléaire, maintient, au CEA, une capacité de recherche dans ce domaine. De plus, elle participe à un Forum international, créé en janvier 2000, et qui s'est donné pour objectif de développer ces réacteurs de 4e génération pour remplacer demain une partie des parcs électro-nucléaires actuels. Dix pays (Etats-Unis, France, Japon, Argentine, Brésil, Canada, Afrique du Sud, Corée du Sud, Suisse et Royaume-Uni) et l'Union européenne appartiennent à ce Forum, que la Chine et la Russie pourraient rejoindre. Son but : étudier six nouvelles filières de réacteurs. Des machines très différentes de l'EPR, le réacteur de 3e génération dont un premier exemplaire sera mis en service en Finlande, à Olkiluoto en 2009, et un deuxième en France à Flamanville (Manche) en 2011-2012. Les six réacteurs que le Forum se propose d'étudier sont entièrement nouveaux. Trois d'entre eux sont des réacteurs à neutrons rapides refroidis soit par du gaz (hélium ou azote), soit par du sodium liquide - technique déjà explorée par la Françe avec Superphénix -, soit encore par du plomb fondu. Une autre filière concerne un réacteur à très haute température (1 000o C contre environ 300o C pour les réacteurs à eau pressurisée du parc EDF). Deux autres enfin ont trait au réacteur à sels fondus, dont le coeur nucléaire sera liquide, et au réacteur supercritique, dont l'eau de refroidissement est maintenue à des pressions et des températures très élevées. Derrière ces projets pour lesquels le Forum estime qu'un financement de 6 milliards de dollars sur quinze ans est nécessaire, se profile le remplacement, à partir de 2035-2040, des réacteurs les plus "jeunes" actuellement en service. Mais se profile aussi avec ces machines une autre manière de penser l'énergie. Car, outre la fourniture d'électricité, ces centrales pourront aussi dessaler l'eau de mer, produire de la chaleur et de l'hydrogène. Toutes potentialités qui n'auront de sens que si ces réacteurs de 4e génération sont plus économiques, plus sûrs, moins proliférants, moins gourmands en énergie et capables de se débarrasser d'une partie de leurs déchets. Pas question bien sûr pour les pays intéressés de développer seuls tous ces filières. La France, pour sa part, n'envisage de mener des recherches que sur les réacteurs rapides à gaz et à sodium ainsi que sur les réacteurs à haute température. De toute façon, les moyens du CEA - 40 à 50 millions d'euros par an et 400 chercheurs -, même épaulés par ceux d'autres organismes et des industriels, ne le permettraient pas. N'est donc prévue, sans doute à Marcoule ou à Cadarache, que la construction - et ce dans un cadre international - d'un réacteur prototype de 200 à 300 mégawatts qui pourrait entrer en service en 2020. Reste à choisir, parmi les trois filières explorées par la France, celle qui sera la bonne et à trouver le milliard d'euros nécessaire au financement de ses sept ans de construction. Ce n'est qu'ensuite, en 2030-2035, qu'un réacteur "tête de série" de taille industrielle (1 500 à 1 600 mégawatts) pourra être envisagé.

Energy � Romania, Nuclear Power | Jurnalul National

2006-01-27T08:20:00.000-08:00

Energy � Romania, Nuclear Power Jurnalul National

The natural gas’ crisis made the authorities go back to projects that were forgotten or postponed for wealthier or diplomatically better times. Money hunting is the priority, while solving other kinds of difficulties seems less dramatic.
The so-called (east) European of Gazprom natural gas delivery turned some great projects in priorities again. The most important seem to be the initiation of two new hydroelectric power plants on the Danube and the 3 and 4 Units of the Nuclear Plant in Cernavoda (NPC).
THE INVESTMENT. The making of the 3rd Unit in Cernavoda has been in the energetic strategy of Romania for a long time, but the 4th Unit has been taken into consideration seriously only in the last decade, with the occasion of the recent “Gazprom fever”.
“As soon as we receive the sketch of the feasibility plan, we will start the procedures that will finalize with the initiation of the project company, which is to build the 3 and 4 units from Cernavoda, according to a public-private partnership for turn-key plants”, Codrut Seres, the Minister of Economy and Commerce, stated for us yesterday. The multi-purpose company will be made of Transelectrica and the selected partners, their allotments being lands, cash capital or equipments.
“By building both the objectives at once, we reduce some costs”, Seres added. According to estimations in the field, the investment for the 2 Unit, which is to be finalized, would reach 900 million US Dollars. The cost of a simultaneous building of the two new groups could reach 1.5 billion USD, of a total of 6.85 billion USD, which is the cost for the modernization of the entire energetic sector between 2006 and 2015.
ASSEMBLING. The sketch of the feasibility plan for the 3 and 4 Units, made by Deloite&Touche, should be delivered not much after the 15th of January, and the shareholders of the project company might be established by the middle of June.
After the end of the discussions for the formation of the project company, the details of the financing of the investments scheme will be known, and this refers to the social capital and credit ratios from the partners and creditors. The negotiation margin for the social capital and the credit lines is not so big. The joint stock has to have a certain dimension to prove the creditors the force and the engagement of the company, and the credit lines for investments are sufficiently standardized in such a way not to allow many modifications. The discussions will be more laborious for the way in which the Nuclearelectrica partners will cash the profits in accordance to their investment ratios: money or energy.
THE CANDIDATES. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL, Canada) and Ansaldo Energia (Italy), the contractors of the first two NPC units, as well as the Italians from ENEL, the owners of Electrica Dobrogea and Electrica Banat Crisana, would like to take part in the new investments. LNM holding and Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power have also been accepted in a so-called first list of candidates, which remains open. The Romanian officials have also invited Korean company Doosan to get involved. The Czech group CEZ and the German one, EnBW, don’t say a definite no. They both compete for Electrica Muntenia Sud, the pearl of the sales subsidiaries of the Electrica Group, the money of which are the target of the Romanian authorities when talking about potential partners.
The works could start in 2006, and should be finalized in 2012, their complexity implying the reaching of other goals as well. These are the plant with Bunkie station in Tarnita-Lapustesti, which is to use during the night some of the energy produced by the 2 and 3 groups of the Cernavoda NPC, in order to assure the equilibrium of the energetic system.
FIVE REACTORS = 40% OF THE PRODUCED ENERGY. The Cernavoda plant has five Canadian CANDU 6 reactors with an installed power of approximately 700 MW each. The first reactor started functioning in 1996 and supplies 10% of the country’s need. The second one could deliver its first megawatts in the autumn. The first two units could support 18%-19% of the country’s consumption, and the third and the fourth one would get the Romanian energetic resources close to the 40% margin. The electricity in Cernavoda is the second in the table of the cheapest sources, with approximately 34 USD/MWh. By the fission of a gram of Uranium 235, one can obtain as much energy as from using two tones of petrol. The Romanian energy depends on the imports in ratio of 28% and will get to 40% until 2015. The electrical energy consumption will increase with 1.7% between 2005 and 2008. Now, we consume almost 50,000 MWh per year, obtained with an installed power of 18,000 MW.

Gazprom May Expand into Nuclear Power Generation�� Paper - COMPANY NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

2006-01-27T08:12:00.000-08:00

Gazprom May Expand into Nuclear Power Generation�� Paper - COMPANY NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

Russian state-controlled gas giant Gazprom could expand into nuclear power generation under a Kremlin plan, the Vedomosti business daily reported on Friday, Jan. 27.Under the plan, Gazprom would build and control the nuclear plants, while the fall in demand for gas-fueled electricity generation would enable the company to export more of its gas to lucrative foreign markets, the newspaper reported, citing unidentified officials in the Presidential Administration.Last week Russia’s new nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko has said that some US$60 billion needs to be invested in 40 new nuclear power plants over the next 25 years.While some managers see advantages in the plan, others say the money would be better deployed developing new, technically challenging, gas fields, the paper reported.Deutsche Bank’s Russian wing said on Jan. 27 that the managers of Gazprom, which has banking, media and machine tools divisions, should seek to concentrate on their core business of gas production.“We are concerned that the government and Presidential Administration are continuing to view Gazprom as an instrument for solving the country’s problems,” the bank said, quoted by the Associated Press agency.

French to cash in with nuclear UK | This is Money

2006-01-27T03:51:00.000-08:00

French to cash in with nuclear UK This is Money

FRENCH energy giant EDF is targeting Britain with a multi-billion pound programme to build nuclear power stations.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?
SWITCH & SAVE: Energy bills
OTHER STORIES
House prices could still crash
Banks warned over family debt
Market report: Friday 11.00
Chelsea's record £140m loss
Strong end to year for mortgages
THE EDITOR'S CHOICE
TOP STORY: Get £50k - no questions
TOP QUIZ: Take the 'finance exam'
MONEY BLOG: Credit card tips
EDF, which owns London Electricity and generates UK supplies with wind farms as well as coal and gasfired power stations, is ready to invest in a series of nuclear plants using its European pressurised water reactor. Each 1,000 megawatt power station, capable of lighting a million homes, costs about £1.1bn.
The French company, headed by Pierre Gadonneix, is the world's leading operator of nuclear power plants. There are 56 in France, all owned by EDF.
The plan to target Britain follows signs of a change in energy policy by Labour, which until now has blocked construction of new nuclear plants.
Soaring energy prices and fears of Britain becoming dependent on unreliable suppliers have forced Tony Blair to order another review of energy policy. He told business leaders at a CBI conference in London last November: 'Energy prices have risen and supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency.'
The latest energy crisis has heightened fears about security of supplies. It erupted when Russian gas giant Gazprom closed the pipelines to Ukraine in a row over prices.
• SWITCH & SAVE: Energy bills
All of Britain's 20 nuclear power stations and most of its coal-fired power stations will be closed by 2020. They account for 30 per cent of the country's energy needs and the Department of Trade & Industry now believes that a programme of renewable energy - wind farms and wave power - will not bridge the gap.
Paul McIntyre, a senior civil servant at the DTI, will begin a long-awaited review into energy policy this week. The Government has pledged it will be completed by June.
Planners at EDF estimate that it would take about ten years to build the first new nuclear plant, but first, there would have to be a Government decision to go for a balanced energy policy. If so, the German-owned companies Eon and RWE are expected to join the bidding.
Other stories: Private cash must fund nuclear power Gas crisis could shut factories Iran crisis to bring soaring oil costs

Private cash must fund nuclear power | This is Money

2006-01-27T03:35:00.000-08:00

Private cash must fund nuclear power This is Money

Robert Lea, Evening Standard27 January 2006
CHANCELLOR Gordon Brown has pulled the plug on any Treasury financial support for the building of new nuclear power stations, City bankers and energy executives will be told today.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?
SWITCH & SAVE: Cut your bills
POLL: Who should pay for nuclear power?
POLL: Who should pay for nuclear power?
OTHER STORIES
House prices could still crash
Banks warned over family debt
Strong end to year for mortgages
Market report: Friday 09.00
Pendragon bids to be car king
THE EDITOR'S CHOICE
TOP STORY: Get £50k - no questions
TOP QUIZ: Take the 'finance exam'
MONEY BLOG: Credit card tips
At a private meeting with around 50 financiers, top lawyers and the power industry, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks will make clear that, if the Government gives the green light to new nuclear build, the private sector will be made solely responsible for finding the financing.
Speaking ahead of the first formal presentation to the City of the Government's latest Energy Review, Wicks told the Evening Standard in an exclusive interview: 'There will be no writing of cheques by the Treasury in full or in part, if we decide to go down the route of building new nuclear power stations.'
Questioned on whether the review could see the Government prepared to underwrite the bondfinancing of new nuclear build - just as the Treasury supported Network Rail and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link - the minister was unequivocal.
'There will be no endangering of the public finances,' said Wicks. 'We will not be landing the Treasury with a large cheque.'
The decision leaves a big question mark over whether the Department of Trade and Industry can find private sector backing to build what would be the firstever non-state funded constructionof nuclear power stations in the UK.
Ageing nuclear power stations and the decommissioning of environmentally unclean coal-fired plants will, says the DTI, leave the UK with a 20,000-megawatt power black hole within two decades - almost a third of the UK's current capacity, and a shortfall equivalent to the output of up to 15 new major power stations.
Launching the Energy Review earlier this week, Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson made it clear the UK needs to get away from dependence on gas, which by 2020 will see Britain 80% reliant on imports.
Confirming that there have already been informal meetings with a number of international banks and major power companies-such as German nuclear generator E.On, Wicks said: 'There is significant interest in investing [in new nuclear stations].
'There is an investment appetite and significant interest in the investment opportunities. But we are not yet in a place where we have sat down with the big companies and asked. 'Are you willing to build new nuclear?''
Wicks further admitted that the hurdle of credible financing must be cleared before new nuclear can be included when the Energy Review is completed this summer.
Public worries about nuclear waste must also be resolved. The industry's past record of secrecy made it 'easy for demons to be conjured' if the public continues to confuse nuclear weapons issues with the safety of nuclear power.

No 'early nuclear waste solution'

2006-01-26T17:47:00.000-08:00

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - No 'early nuclear waste solution'

The Greens and the SNP have stepped up pressure on the Executive after an expert report said there could be no early solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
First Minister Jack McConnell has so far said there would be no new nuclear power stations in Scotland until the waste issue has been resolved.
RBS Retail MPU, advert_format=Video Rectangle, advert_id=5359, site=scotsman -->
' + tz_bit2 + 'script>';
document.write(tz_tag);
//-->

if(command.indexOf('tz')!=-1)eval(command);
But he has been under pressure to go further, and an extract of a draft report by expert advisors to the government - the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CORWM) - was seized on by opponents of nuclear power.
The extract said: "If ministers accept our recommendations, the UK's nuclear waste problem is not solved. Having a strategy is a start. The real challenge follows."
The committee's report on waste storage strategies is expected in July. It is examining four options - temporary storage above or just below the surface; deep geological disposal up to 2km underground; a phased version of this in which the waste would be monitored and retrievable for hundreds of years; and burying waste with short-lived radioactivity just below the surface within engineered barriers.
Green MSP Chris Ballance said: "The admission in this document reveals that Jack McConnell will never be able to justify a new nuclear reactor this side of the May 2007 election, and it exposes the arrant nonsense that proposals to manage the nuclear waste legacy could possibly be described as solving the problem.
"On top of the costs, dangers, risks and a failure to truly tackle climate change, nuclear power creates waste that is not going to be magicked away by the CORWM report."
And SNP MSP Richard Lochhead said: "Scottish ministers must now change their policy on nuclear to one of outright opposition. No solution for dealing with nuclear waste means no more nuclear for Scotland.
"Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and unwanted in Scotland, and this report only shows that our objections to nuclear power are totally justified."
An Executive spokesman said: "The final report from the committee will be with us in the summer. That's when we will give their report detailed analysis."
© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2006, All Rights Reserved.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=130672006

Discurs de Chirac

2006-01-26T16:37:00.000-08:00

Revue de presse

19/01/2006 : Jacques Chirac, président de la République"Protéger nos intérêts vitaux"C'est un réel plaisir de me retrouver aujourd'hui parmi vous, à l'île Longue. Je suis heureux de pouvoir rencontrer les femmes et les hommes, militaires et civils, qui participent à l'accomplissement d'une mission fondamentale pour notre indépendance et notre sécurité : la dissuasion nucléaire. La création d'une force nationale de dissuasion a constitué, pour la France, un véritable défi qui n'a pu être relevé que par l'engagement de tous. Elle a imposé de mobiliser toutes les énergies, de développer nos capacités de recherche, de trouver des solutions innovantes à de nombreux problèmes. La dissuasion nucléaire est ainsi devenue l'image même de ce qu'est capable de produire notre pays quand il s'est fixé une tâche et qu'il s'y tient. Je tiens ici à rendre hommage aux chercheurs et ingénieurs, du CEA et de toutes les entreprises françaises, qui nous permettent d'être toujours en pointe dans des secteurs vitaux comme les sciences de la matière, la simulation numérique, les lasers, et notamment le laser Mégajoule, les technologies nucléaires et celles de l'espace. Je veux prolonger cet hommage à tous ceux qui soutiennent, d'une façon ou d'une autre, nos forces nucléaires : personnel de la DGA, cadres et ouvriers des sociétés et groupes industriels, gendarmes du contrôle gouvernemental, militaires de toutes les armées. Mais mes pensées vont bien sûr en premier lieu aux équipages des composantes océanique et aéroportée qui, en permanence, dans la discrétion la plus totale, assurent la plus longue et la plus importante des missions opérationnelles. J'ai fixé un taux de posture exigeant qui correspond aux besoins de sécurité de notre pays. Je sais quelles contraintes il impose. On parle rarement de vous, mais je veux saluer votre valeur et votre mérite. La permanence de la posture de dissuasion, remarquablement tenue depuis quarante ans, est en soi un éloge. Je tiens à associer vos familles à cet hommage, et tout particulièrement les familles des équipages de sous-marins. Je mesure combien les patrouilles opérationnelles représentent d'éloignement, de solitude, et parfois de souffrances. Mesdames, Messieurs, cette mission, vous l'effectuez dans un environnement en constante mutation. Avec la fin de la guerre froide, nous ne faisons actuellement l'objet d'aucune menace directe de la part d'une puissance majeure. Mais la fin du monde bipolaire n'a pas fait disparaître les menaces contre la paix. Dans de nombreux pays se diffusent des idées radicales prônant la confrontation des civilisations, des cultures et des religions. Aujourd'hui, cette volonté de confrontation se traduit par des attentats odieux, qui viennent régulièrement nous rappeler que le fanatisme et l'intolérance mènent à toutes les folies. Demain, elle pourrait prendre d'autres formes, encore plus graves, impliquant des Etats. La lutte contre le terrorisme est l'une de nos priorités. Nous avons pris un grand nombre de mesures pour répondre à ce danger. Nous continuerons sur cette voie, avec fermeté et détermination. Mais il ne faut pas céder à la tentation de limiter l'ensemble des problématiques de défense et de sécurité à ce nécessaire combat contre le terrorisme. Ce n'est pas parce qu'une nouvelle menace apparaît qu'elle fait disparaître toutes les autres. Notre monde est en constante évolution, à la recherche de nouveaux équilibres politiques, économiques, démographiques, militaires. Il est caractérisé par l'émergence rapide de nouveaux pôles de puissance. Il est confronté à l'apparition de nouvelles sources de déséquilibres : le partage des matières premières, la distribution des ressources naturelles, l'évolution des équilibres démographiques notamment. Cette évolution pourrait être cause d'instabilité, surtout si elle devait s'accompagner d'une montée des nationalismes. Certes, il n'y a aucune fatalité à voir, dans le futur, la relation entre les différents pôles de puissance sombrer dans l'hostilité. C'est d'ailleurs pour prévenir ce danger que nous devons oeuvrer à un ordre international fondé sur la règle de droit et la sécurité collective, un ordre plus juste, plus représentatif. Que nous devons aussi engager tous nos grands partenaires à faire le choix de la coopération plutôt que celui de la confrontation. Mais nous ne sommes à l'abri ni d'un retournement imprévu du système international ni d'une surprise stratégique. Toute notre Histoire nous l'enseigne. Notre monde est également marqué par l'apparition d'affirmations de puissance qui reposent sur la possession d'armes nucléaires, biologiques ou chimiques. D'où la tentation de certains Etats de se doter de la puissance nucléaire, en contravention avec les traités. Des essais de missiles balistiques, dont la portée ne cesse d'augmenter, se multiplient partout dans le monde. C'est ce constat qui a conduit le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies à reconnaître que la prolifération des armes de destruction massive, et de leurs vecteurs associés, constituait une menace pour la paix et la sécurité internationale. Enfin, il ne faut pas ignorer la persistance des risques plus traditionnels d'instabilité régionale. Ils existent partout dans le monde. Mesdames, Messieurs, Face aux crises qui secouent le monde, face aux nouvelles menaces, la France a toujours choisi, d'abord, la voie de la prévention, qui demeure, sous toutes ses formes, le socle de notre politique de défense. S'appuyant sur le droit, l'influence et la solidarité, la prévention passe par l'ensemble des actions de notre diplomatie qui, sans cesse, s'efforce de dénouer les crises naissantes. Elle passe aussi par toute une gamme de postures relevant des domaines de la défense et de la sécurité, au premier plan desquelles se trouvent les forces repositionnées. Mais ce serait faire preuve d'angélisme que de croire que la prévention, seule, suffit à nous protéger. Pour être entendu, il faut aussi, lorsque c'est nécessaire, être capable de faire usage de la force. Nous devons donc disposer d'une capacité importante à intervenir en dehors de nos frontières, avec des moyens conventionnels, afin de soutenir ou de compléter cette stratégie. Une telle politique de défense repose sur la certitude que, quoi qu'il arrive, nos intérêts vitaux seront garantis. C'est le rôle attribué à la dissuasion nucléaire, qui s'inscrit dans la continuité directe de notre stratégie de prévention. Elle en constitue l'expression ultime. Face aux inquiétudes du présent et aux incertitudes du futur, la dissuasion nucléaire demeure la garantie fondamentale de notre sécurité. Elle nous donne également, d'où que puissent venir les pressions, le pouvoir d'être maîtres de nos actions, de notre politique, de la pérennité de nos valeurs démocratiques. Dans le même temps, nous continuons à soutenir les efforts internationaux en faveur du désarmement général et complet, et, en particulier, la négociation d'un traité d'interdiction de la production de matières fissiles pour les armes nucléaires. Mais nous ne pourrons évidemment avancer sur la voie du désarmement que si les conditions de notre sécurité globale sont maintenues et si la volonté de progresser est unanimement partagée. C'est dans cet esprit que la France a maintenu ses forces de dissuasion, tout en les réduisant, conformément à l'esprit du traité de non-prolifération et au respect du principe de stricte suffisance. C'est la responsabilité du chef de l'Etat d'apprécier, en permanence, la limite de nos intérêts vitaux. L'incertitude de cette limite est consubstantielle à la doctrine de dissuasion. L'intégrité de notre territoire, la protection de notre population, le libre exercice de notre souveraineté constitueront toujours le coeur de nos intérêts vitaux. Mais ils ne s'y limitent pas. La perception de ces intérêts évolue au rythme du monde, marqué par l'interdépendance croissante des pays européens et par la mondialisation. Par exemple, la garantie de nos approvisionnements stratégiques et la défense de pays alliés, sont, parmi d'autres, des intérêts qu'il convient de protéger. Il appartiendrait au président de la République d'apprécier l'ampleur et les conséquences potentielles d'une agression, d'une menace ou d'un chantage insupportables à l'encontre de ces intérêts. Cette analyse pourrait, le cas échéant, conduire à considérer qu'ils entrent dans le champ de nos intérêts vitaux. La dissuasion nucléaire, je l'avais souligné au lendemain des attentats du 11 septembre 2001, n'est pas destinée à dissuader des terroristes fanatiques. Pour autant, les dirigeants d'Etats qui auraient recours à des moyens terroristes contre nous, tout comme ceux qui envisageraient d'utiliser, d'une manière ou d'une autre, des armes de destruction massive, doivent comprendre qu'ils s'exposeraient à une réponse ferme et adaptée de notre part. Cette réponse peut être conventionnelle. Elle peut aussi être d'une autre nature. Depuis ses origines, la dissuasion n'a jamais cessé de s'adapter à notre environnement et à l'analyse des menaces que je viens de rappeler. Et cela dans son esprit comme dans ses moyens. Nous sommes en mesure d'infliger des dommages de toute nature à une puissance majeure qui voudrait s'en prendre à des intérêts que nous jugerions vitaux. Contre une puissance régionale, notre choix n'est pas entre l'inaction et l'anéantissement. La flexibilité et la réactivité de nos forces stratégiques nous permettraient d'exercer notre réponse directement sur ses centres de pouvoir, sur sa capacité à agir. Toutes nos forces nucléaires ont été configurées en conséquence. C'est dans ce but que, par exemple, le nombre de têtes nucléaires a été réduit sur certains des missiles de nos sous-marins. Mais notre concept d'emploi des armes nucléaires reste bien le même. Il ne saurait, en aucun cas, être question d'utiliser des moyens nucléaires à des fins militaires lors d'un conflit. C'est dans cet esprit que les forces nucléaires sont fréquemment qualifiées "d'armes de non-emploi". Cette formule ne doit cependant pas laisser planer le doute sur notre volonté et notre capacité à mettre en oeuvre nos armes nucléaires. La menace crédible de leur utilisation pèse en permanence sur les dirigeants animés d'intentions hostiles à notre égard. Elle est essentielle pour les ramener à la raison, leur faire prendre conscience du coût démesuré qu'auraient leurs actes, pour eux-mêmes et pour leurs Etats. Par ailleurs, nous nous réservons toujours le droit d'utiliser un ultime avertissement pour marquer notre détermination à protéger nos intérêts vitaux. Ainsi, les principes qui sous-tendent notre doctrine de dissuasion n'ont pas changé. Mais ses modes d'expression ont évolué, et continuent d'évoluer, pour nous permettre de faire face au contexte du XXIe siècle. Constamment adaptés à leurs nouvelles missions, les moyens mis en oeuvre par les composantes océanique et aéroportée permettent d'apporter une réponse cohérente à nos préoccupations. Grâce à ces deux composantes, différentes et complémentaires, le chef de l'Etat dispose d'options multiples, couvrant toutes les menaces identifiées. La modernisation et l'adaptation de ces capacités sont nécessaires. Notre dissuasion doit conserver son indispensable crédibilité dans un environnement géostratégique qui évolue. Il serait irresponsable d'imaginer que le maintien de notre arsenal actuel pourrait suffire. Que deviendrait la crédibilité de notre dissuasion si elle ne nous permettait pas de répondre aux nouvelles situations ? Quelle crédibilité aurait-elle vis-à-vis de puissances régionales si nous en étions restés strictement à une menace d'anéantissement total ? Quelle crédibilité aurait, dans le futur, une arme balistique dont le rayon d'action serait limité ? Ainsi, le M51, grâce à sa portée intercontinentale, et l'ASMPA nous donneront, dans un monde incertain, les moyens de couvrir les menaces d'où qu'elles viennent et quelles qu'elles soient. De même, nul ne peut prétendre qu'une défense antimissiles suffit à contrer la menace représentée par les missiles balistiques. Aucun système défensif, si sophistiqué soit-il, ne peut être efficace à 100 %. Nous n'aurons jamais la garantie qu'il ne pourra être contourné. Fonder toute notre défense sur cette unique capacité inviterait nos adversaires à trouver d'autres moyens pour mettre en oeuvre leurs armes nucléaires, chimiques ou bactériologiques. Un tel outil ne peut donc être considéré comme un substitut de la dissuasion. Mais il peut la compléter en diminuant nos vulnérabilités. C'est pourquoi la France s'est résolument engagée dans une réflexion commune, au sein de l'Alliance atlantique, et développe son propre programme d'autoprotection des forces déployées. La sécurité de notre pays et son indépendance ont un coût. Il y a quarante ans, la part d'investissements du ministère de la défense consacrée aux forces nucléaires était de 50 %. Depuis, cette part a constamment été réduite et ne devrait représenter que 18 % en 2008. Aujourd'hui, dans l'esprit de stricte suffisance qui la caractérise, notre politique de dissuasion représente globalement moins de 10 % du budget total de la défense. Les crédits qui lui sont consacrés portent sur des techniques de pointe et soutiennent l'effort de recherche scientifique, technologique et industriel de notre pays. 10 % de notre effort de défense, c'est le prix juste et suffisant pour doter notre pays d'une assurance de sécurité, crédible et pérenne. La mettre en cause serait irresponsable. En outre, le développement de la PESD, l'imbrication croissante des intérêts des pays de l'Union européenne, la solidarité qui existe désormais entre eux, font de la dissuasion nucléaire française, par sa seule existence, un élément incontournable de la sécurité du continent européen. En 1995, la France avait émis l'idée ambitieuse d'une dissuasion concertée afin d'initier une réflexion européenne sur le sujet. Ma conviction demeure que nous devrons, le moment venu, nous poser, ensemble, la question d'une défense commune, qui tiendrait compte des forces de dissuasion existantes, dans la perspective d'une Europe forte, responsable de sa sécurité. Les pays de l'Union ont commencé à réfléchir ensemble à ce que sont, ou ce que seront, leurs intérêts de sécurité communs. C'est une première et nécessaire étape. Mesdames, Messieurs, Depuis 1964, la France dispose d'une dissuasion nucléaire autonome. Ce sont les enseignements de l'Histoire qui avaient conduit le général de Gaulle à faire ce choix crucial. Pendant toutes ces années, les forces nucléaires françaises ont assuré la défense de notre pays et contribué à préserver la paix. Elles continuent aujourd'hui à veiller, en silence, pour que nous puissions vivre dans un pays de liberté, maître de son avenir. Elles continueront demain d'être le garant ultime de notre sécurité. En tant que chef des armées et au nom des Françaises et des Français, je veux exprimer la gratitude et la reconnaissance de la nation à toutes celles et ceux qui concourent à cette mission.

WSJ.com - Bush Seeks to Jump-Start Nuclear Power

2006-01-26T07:07:00.000-08:00

WSJ.com - Bush Seeks to Jump-Start Nuclear Power

Proposed Test of New Waste-Reprocessing MethodsAims to Ease Concerns Over Storage
By JOHN J. FIALKA Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALJanuary 26, 2006; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to announce a $250 million initiative to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, a first step toward reversing a 1970s policy that rejected reprocessing as too dangerous to pursue.
The administration's decision to put the money into its fiscal 2007 budget to test new technologies is part of an effort to jump-start the nuclear-power industry at a time when energy prices are high and concerns about global warming make nuclear power plants more acceptable.
According to nuclear industry officials and others briefed on the proposal in recent weeks, the program could be announced as early as next week in President Bush's State of the Union address. If the technology works, it could vastly reduce the amount of spent nuclear waste that would have to be buried in underground storage, such as at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, set to open after 2012.
The initiative will also explore using one or more temporary, above-ground nuclear-waste storage sites to relieve the logjam that has left thousands of tons of nuclear waste stored around reactors, many located near big cities. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Department of Energy experts have worried about the damage that could be caused by a terrorist attack on the spent fuel.
The heart of the initiative is reprocessing technology called UREX+ being developed by Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. It is a method of removing plutonium and other long-lived radioactive elements in spent nuclear fuel that makes the elements reusable in nuclear power plants, but difficult to use for making nuclear weapons.
The process, according to its scientific backers, would also save the bulk of other elements in spent nuclear fuel, primarily uranium, to be reused or disposed of in facilities that don't require thousands of years of storage, such as the plant being prepared at Yucca Mountain. Phillip J. Finck, an Argonne official, told the House Science Committee last summer that UREX+ would reduce the nation's eventual need for more nuclear-waste storage by "a factor of more than 100."
The technology involves burning plutonium and other long-lived byproducts in special "fast" reactors. However, Dr. Finck added: "The practicality of these schemes is not yet established and requires additional scientific and engineering research."
The Bush proposal, tentatively called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, would also give U.S. vendors, such as General Electric Co., opportunities to sell nuclear-power reactors and nuclear fuel to developing nations. It would promote the export of simpler, smaller and less-costly reactors and nuclear fuel on the condition that the U.S. would take back the spent fuel for reprocessing. While a safe way to reprocess nuclear waste also would remove a licensing hurdle to new nuclear plants in the U.S., building nuclear plants here will remain a costly and lengthy process.
The proposal is likely to renew a decades-old fight in Congress on U.S. nuclear-waste policy. "We're supportive of the concepts as a company and as an industry," said Christopher Crane, chief nuclear officer for Exelon Corp., which operates 17 nuclear reactors among the 103 running in the U.S. "We do agree that there is a good deal of unused energy in the fuel we have discharged from our reactors. We think it's positive that the U.S. Department of Energy and the administration want to look at ways to handle that."
Nuclear-industry officials said that without reprocessing, new nuclear plants called for by President Bush in his 2001 energy policy may not be licensed. Yucca Mountain will reach its storage limit -- 70,000 tons -- with waste produced by 2010 from existing plants.
The Department of Energy predicts that as many as eight more underground-storage sites may be needed by the end of the century if the current cycle for power plant fuel continues.
Thomas B. Cochran, a nuclear physicist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which promoted the earlier policy to ban nuclear reprocessing along with other environmental and arms control groups, called the new reprocessing technology "uneconomical, unreliable, unsafe and unworkable." He predicted the utility industry wouldn't support its long-term costs, particularly the "fast" reactors that transform spent fuel by bombarding it with neutrons -- powerful, subatomic particles -- that can further reduce the radioactive waste content.
Ernest Muniz, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former Clinton administration official at the Department of Energy, said he supports the renewed research and development of reprocessing, but predicts that it will require decades of research. Dr. Muniz said he also supports the idea of temporary above-ground waste-storage sites because it helps cool the heat-generating elements in the waste -- reducing a major complication for underground storage facilities.
Some of the changes the administration is proposing, particularly those that affect Yucca Mountain, will require action by Congress. A wild card in that debate is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has led his state's battle to stop the project, which is 90 miles from Las Vegas. He has regarded reprocessing as an alternative to long-term storage, but may have some interest in supporting a process that reduces the amount of spent fuel stored at Yucca Mountain.
The original reprocessing technique chopped up spent nuclear-fuel rods and dissolved them in acid, extracting plutonium in an almost pure form. It was derived in the 1950s from the U.S. nuclear-weapons program, which uses plutonium as the primary metal to make atomic warheads explode. Japan, Russia and France use variants of this process, called PUREX, for power-plant fuel recycling, but the U.S. stopped research on its use during the Carter administration.
President Carter, a former nuclear engineer, and other officials were persuaded that separating pure plutonium and encouraging recycling around the world might encourage developing nations to use the plutonium to make bombs. The UREX+ process is designed to reduce this problem by extracting plutonium along with other heavy and highly radioactive elements that make it too hot to handle without advanced robotics to remove and deal with the material.

Finland's fifth nuclear power station six months behind schedule

2006-01-25T07:24:00.000-08:00

NewsRoom Finland

25.1.2006 at 15:07
Framatome-Siemens, the Franco-German consortium, told the Finnish News Agency (STT) on Wednesday that Olkiluoto 3, Finland's fifth nuclear reactor, would be operational in the autumn of 2009, six months behind schedule because of delays in design and component manufacturing.
Martin Landtman, the project head at Teollisuuden Voima, the operator of the station, said the facility would start to produce power by the end of 2009.
"Quality, not the timetable, is the most important thing for us," Mr Landtman said.

Belarus may start building nuclear power plant in 2008

2006-01-24T11:23:00.000-08:00

Xinhua - English

MOSCOW, Jan. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- Belarus may begin building a nuclear power plant in 2008, a government official said on Monday.
"Construction of a nuclear power plant is planned to begin in 2008. The project's deadline is 2012," the unidentified official was quoted by the Inter fax news agency as saying. He added the site for the facility has yet to be selected.
The official noted concerns for the project in the country after the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear facility, but he said Belarus "cannot avoid taking this step, especially as modern nuclear power plants have much more reliable safeguards."
The nuclear power plant is expected to save up to 4 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually for Belarus and reduce the country's spending on energy by 200 to 300 million U.S. dollars a year.

Survey shows Europeans lukewarm on nuclear energy

2006-01-24T11:09:00.000-08:00

World Reuters.co.in

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European citizens want their governments to focus on developing solar and wind power and are less enthusiastic about nuclear energy, according to a survey released on Tuesday.
The Eurobarometer poll showed 12 percent of those surveyed favoured developing the use of nuclear energy, while 48 percent supported solar and 31 percent backed wind power development.
Solar and wind are two forms of renewable energy that the European Union hopes will help reduce its dependence on imported fuels, alleviating concerns about the security of supplies.
Nuclear energy use is divisive in the 25-nation EU, with some countries phasing it out and others, such as France, relying heavily on it for their power needs.
The European Commission said the survey showed 47 percent of those asked wanted more energy decisions to be made at a European level, lending support to calls by EU and national leaders for a common energy policy within the bloc.
"This gives us encouragement to work on this policy," Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told a news conference.
EU heads of state and government are expected in March to discuss the outlines of such a policy, which could cover issues from boosting renewable sources to harnessing the bloc's combined negotiating power for talks with foreign suppliers.
The survey, covering almost 30,000 people, was carried out in the 25 EU member countries as well as acceding and candidate states from Oct. 11 to Nov. 15 last year.

France warns EU on nuclear power vote

2006-01-24T11:03:00.000-08:00

France warns EU on nuclear power vote

By AOIFE WHITEAP Business Writer
France warns EU on nuclear power vote
•
var regex = new RegExp("_PG[0-9]*_");
myPage = location.pathname;
myPage = myPage.replace(regex,"_");
var magRegex = new RegExp("/print/magazine/content/");
myPage = myPage.replace(magRegex,"cgi-bin/register/archiveSearch.cgi?h=");
document.write ('');
document.write("Find More Stories Like This");
Find More Stories Like This
TODAY'S HEADLINESFinding Prosperity amid Uncertainty Disney-Pixar: It's a Wrap HP's Ultimate Team Player The Livermore Way at HP Exploding Pipelines, Damaged Credibility Will Bubble Burst a Hollywood Dogma?Is 3Com Meshing Yet?Nokia's Bare Essentials 2128i Nike's CEO Gets the Boot A Supermarket War in Store A New Blueprint for Autodesk Analysts' Stock Picks: Part 1 Analysts' Stock Picks: Part 2 Analysts' Stock Picks: Part 3 News Weighs Heavily on Stocks Smurfit-Stone: Chairman of the Board The Two Issues Haunting Carmakers An Auto Auction's Bumper Crop A Family Outfit vs. the Internet The Flavor of Korean Design Going Broke to Stay Alive The New Kingmakers of Executive Placement• More Headlines
JAN. 24 12:26 P.M. ET Shunning nuclear power will push up electricity prices for the entire 25-nation European Union, France warned EU finance ministers on Tuesday.
"The avowed aim of a number of member states to abandon nuclear power is leading them to opt preferentially for fossil fuel based production, the cost of which will be aggravated by incorporating the CO2 impact," the French government said in an energy policy paper circulated at a monthly ministerial meeting in Brussels.
"Owing to the existence of a European electricity market, the member states as a whole will then have to absorb the resulting price rises."
');

}
//-->
Advertisement
document.write('');

Germany has so far held firm to its commitment to phase out its unpopular nuclear power stations even though the recent Russia-Ukraine gas row highlighted its growing reliance on imported oil and gas.
Nuclear power has a bad name in Western Europe even though it is the EU's biggest single source of electricity. Thirteen EU member states use nuclear power, while several others are determined to shun it.
France -- which generates three quarters of electricity from nuclear -- pushed its view that nuclear power is of "strategic importance" to Europe as the 25-nation bloc aims to limit its dependency on energy imports and tackle greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear plants are emission-free, French Industry Minister Francois Loos told reporters in Paris. "Gas emits, nuclear doesn't emit," he said.
"We produce less than 50 percent of the emissions that Germany does, with not much less consumption," he said. "Nuclear is an important player here."
Germany and Sweden are saying no to nuclear, promising to phase out its unpopular atomic power stations even as France, Britain, Italy and Finland consider building more.
France said electricity prices will rise as Europe replaces a large number of energy generators over the next 20 years and introduces emissions trading to limit carbon dioxide pollution.
Paris called on the European Union to take nuclear power on board and invest more in nuclear research and development to boost security, safety and waste management.
"The positive contribution of nuclear power to the European electricity market, to the EU's security of supply goals, to electrical continuity of service at competitive prices and to combating climate change should be mentioned," the paper said.
It reminded EU countries that nuclear power generates 34 percent of European electricity "thus offering an independent and stable means of meeting a large share of European energy demand, while avoiding a rise in our greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the entire European automobile fleet."
If current trends continue, the European Commission says by 2030, almost 70 percent of the EU's energy will be imported. Energy demand is forecast to rise by 1 percent to 2 percent a year with fossil fuel use rising to almost 90 percent of the total energy supply.
France plans to discuss a new law on radioactive waste disposal before summer 2006, saying it will set up an independent authority to monitor nuclear safety this year.
An EU poll released Tuesday showed just 12 percent of Europeans saw more nuclear power as the best solution to reduce Europe's dependency on current energy sources. The most popular alternative was solar power, supported by 48 percent of citizens.
Support for nuclear power was highest in Sweden, where it was backed by 32 percent. In France, just 8 percent favored it, compared to 18 percent in Britain, where the government wants to debate building more nuclear power plants.
Overall, the nuclear option came bottom of choices offered to citizens by the Eurobarometer pollsters, which included solar power, more spending on research into new energy sources, wind power and regulation to reduce dependence on oil.

Kazakhstan planning to become biggest uranium producer

2006-01-24T09:56:00.000-08:00

ITAR-TASS

23.01.2006, 12.55
ASTANA, January 23 (Itar-Tass) -- Kazakhstan is going to become the world’s biggest uranium producer, Mukhtar Dzhakishev, President of Kazatomprom (the national nuclear company of Kazakhstan), said here on Monday.
According to his information, Kazakhstan’s uranium output was 4,300 tons in 2005 – 30 per cent up against the 2004 figure.
Kazatomprom is one of the three biggest uranium-producing companies. Its management has set itself the task of bringing annual uranium production to 15,000 tons by 2010. If the plan is put into effect, Kazakhstan will become the world’s leading producer of uranium.

Reactor policy to be made after 3-month public airing

2006-01-23T16:33:00.000-08:00

FT.com / World / UK - Reactor policy to be made after 3-month public airing

By Christopher Adams and James Blitz Published: January 23 2006 09:26 Last updated: January 23 2006 10:48
Alan Johnson, trade and industry secretary, on Monday annouced that the government's energy review will take a serious look at nuclear power but that no decision has been taken on replacing ageing plants. Employers' groups want a speedy outcome and incentives to encourage nuclear use.
//
ADVERTISEMENT

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

-->
Ministers will spend just three months canvassing public opinion before making a decision on whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.
The government is to publish a consultation document to set up what it says will be a rigorous evaluation of the economic costs of different energy sources, including fossil fuels as well as renewable and nuclear power.
Speaking at a launch event for the three-month consultation attended by representatives from the industry, business and environment bodies and other stakeholders in central London, Mr Johnson, said “I want the widest possible engagement in this vital debate. We need to look at the risks to security of supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to make sure we take the necessary action. There is not a do nothing option.”
He said: "The review is about looking long term on the basis of this changing environment of the fact that . . . we are now a net importer of gas and will soon be a net importer of oil; where do we stand in the UK, how can we prepare for that and how can we ensure we've got a sensible energy policy?"
He described himself as neutral on nuclear power, seeing arguments on both sides, but agreed that the government would "bite the nuclear bullet" soon, saying: "We are looking to produce proposals by late summer."
The review, led by Malcolm Wicks, energy minister, is due to report back to the prime minister in the early summer. A white paper setting out the government's thinking is expected soon afterwards. However, legislation is not needed to build nuclear plants, and it is unclear whether a bill would follow.
Some ministers and officials at Downing Street and the Department of Trade and Industry believe there is a strong case for at least some limited construction of nuclear plants. They want to look at what can be done to relax planning rules and speed up licensing of new plants. The government is to consider what incentives could encourage demand for nuclear power.
The EEF manufacturers' group has urged the government to move quickly, arguing that sharp increases in the price of gas have accentuated the need for urgency.
In its submission to the review, released today, it suggests exempting nuclear power from the climate change levy and replacing the renewables obligation subsidy with one that applies to all low-carbon forms of energy.

U.K. opens debate on nuclear power

2006-01-23T16:27:00.000-08:00

U.K. opens debate on nuclear power

LONDON, England (UPI) -- The British government launched a consultation on whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations Monday; but critics said the review was simply a smokescreen for a decision that had already been taken.
Ministers cited recent rises in energy prices and concerns over security as reasons for the renewed interest in the nuclear option, which comes just three years after officials concluded that replacing Britain`s ageing plants would be too expensive.
Speaking at the launch of the three-month consultation, Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson said the decision whether to invest in nuclear energy could no longer be delayed.
'In a world of heightened concerns about energy security, highlighted by the recent dispute between Russia and the Ukraine, we need to look carefully at the risks of this new situation,' he said.
By 2020, the coal and nuclear power plants generating some 30 percent of Britain`s electricity were expected to have closed, Johnson said. Decisions had to be taken on how to replace this capacity, he continued, asking: 'If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80 percent of our supplies?'
But opposition parties and environmental campaigners said the review was intended to do nothing more than justify Prime Minister Tony Blair`s opinion that nuclear energy was the best option.
Media reports have suggested Blair has already made up his mind on the issue; a claim Downing Street has denied.
Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary Norman Baker said this was an energy review 'without a purpose.'
'This review is simply a retrospective way of justifying the prime minister`s wish to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, something the earlier white paper did not recommend,' he said.
Britain could have an energy mix that both kept the lights on and secured supply without having to resort to nuclear power, he added.
Greenpeace Director Stephen Tindale said the review was 'a spin operation for nuclear power, a form of electricity generation that is the most expensive way to boil water ever devised.'
'The U.K. has an electricity grid designed seventy years ago that wastes most of the fuel we put into it,' he said. 'What we need is an energy revolution, a grid that lets renewable schemes and energy efficiency measures meet their full potential.'
Britain`s grid wasted enough energy to heat all the buildings and water in the country, Tindale continued.
'A new generation of nuclear power stations would cement this system in place, preventing the development of a decentralized grid and stifling renewable energy generation,' he said.
Nuclear power plants were also highly vulnerable to terrorist attack, he argued.
At the time of the government`s previous energy White Paper in 2003, ministers such as then Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt dismissed the nuclear option as unviable.
'There are real problems with nuclear power. The economics are not at all attractive at the moment... and of course there are huge problems with radioactive waste,' she said in February 2003.
Building a new generation of nuclear power stations would guarantee that the necessary investment in energy efficiency and renewables was not made, she added.
However the new consultation paved for the way for a U-turn, saying: 'The review will examine whether recent changes in energy prices have changed that assessment and at the other issues that would be raised by building new nuclear power stations.'

But Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, insisted there were no practical obstacles to a new generation of nuclear power.
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, he said: 'Some people suggest it`s all so complicated economically; it will cost so much; there are all sorts of difficulties about waste; that markets will not go anywhere near this. My judgment is they are dead wrong. A lot of major companies are very interested in investing in nuclear.'
Wicks said he could not understand the idea that investment in nuclear would negate the commitment to renewables. 'The environmental lobby should at least consider the possibility that the most effective way for energy supply to help us through climate change is nuclear, rather than somehow thinking being green is anti-nuclear.'
However he insisted the decision to go nuclear had not already been taken. The government was 'nuclear-neutral,' he said.
Copyright 2006 by United Press International

BBC NEWS | Business | BNFL to sell US power plant arm

2006-01-23T08:57:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS Business BNFL to sell US power plant arm

Bosses at British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) will meet this Thursday to agree the sale of its US subsidiary Westinghouse, which builds nuclear power stations.
According to the Financial Times, Japanese conglomerate Toshiba has won the auction with a $5bn (£2.8bn) offer.
It said Toshiba had beaten bids from US group General Electric and Japanese rival Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
More countries are looking at nuclear energy as they look to tackle rising fuel costs and cut carbon emissions.
Overseas contracts
Engineering group Toshiba makes a range of products from hi-tech memory chips and flat-panel TVs to heavy plant machinery.
It already designs and builds nuclear power stations in Japan, but a deal for Westinghouse would enhance its chances of winning contracts overseas.
"Nuclear power generation is said to be vital to support power demand in such fast-growing countries as India and China," said Takeo Miyamoto, an analyst at CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.
"The deal would help heighten Toshiba's chance to win contracts in those nations."
Toshiba is expected to invite a US partner to take a minority stake in Westinghouse, possibly engineering group Shaw.
Westinghouse was bought by BNFL for $1.1bn in 1999. It employs 9,000 people and has annual sales of about $1.8bn.
The Westinghouse sale will provide a windfall for the UK Treasury.
But industry experts have expressed concern that such an asset is being sold off when the demand for new nuclear power stations is set to surge.
The UK government has just launched a three-month public consultation into the UK's future energy needs and has asked the Health and Safety Executive to examine the safety, cost and suitability of the country's existing nuclear power stations.
State-owned BNFL operates four active UK power stations and seven that are being decommissioned.

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

2006-01-23T08:54:00.000-08:00

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

By Sam Knight and PA news
NI_MPU('middle');
Britain must decide this year whether or not to "open the door" to a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Government said today.
Launching a three-month public consultation to discuss the future of Britain's energy supply, the Trade and Industry Secretary, Alan Johnson, said that it was time to decide how to replace the waning coal-fired and nuclear power stations that supply up to 30 per cent of the country's energy needs.
With fuel prices increasing more quickly than expected and declining oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, Mr Johnson said the UK must decide whether to import up to 80 per cent of its energy supplies from abroad or to build new nuclear plants.
"I want the widest possible engagement in this vital debate. We need to look at the risks to security of supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to make sure we take the necessary action," he said. "There is not a do-nothing option."
Mr Johnson said the recent gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine and the general concentration of oil and gas reserves in the Middle East and former Soviet republics had raised the fears of those concerned about Britain's reliance on imported energy.
"If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80 per cent of our supplies?" he asked.
On the question of nuclear power, which the Government's 2003 Energy White Paper described as a possible but "unattractive option" to solve Britain's energy needs, Mr Johnson said that the door had been left "ajar" two years ago.
"It is now the time look at whether we need to close the door or open the door and also look at developments since 2003," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Power stations that supply around a third of Britain's energy are due to close by 2020. According to today's consultation document, renewable energy sources that currently provide 3.6 per cent of the country's needs will supply 20 per cent by 2020, but a huge deficit will remain.
Tony Blair launched a wide-ranging review of Britain's energy policy in November. Although the Government remains officially neutral on the outcome of the review, opposition MPs and environmental campaigners say that Mr Blair is convinced that building new nuclear power stations is the only way to secure future energy demands.
As it emerged today that the Health and Safety Executive had been ordered to study health concerns surrounding Britain's power stations - and the implications of new nuclear plants - critics insisted that the Government had already made up its mind.
But Mr Johnson insisted that the Government was approaching today's consultation with an "open mind" and stressed that the answer to the nuclear question was just one of many elements in securing the right mix for Britain's energy supply.
The 80-page consultation document said increasingly efficient coal-burning power stations, expensive oil and new techniques for storing carbon emissions underground could lead to a possible resurgence for coal-fired energy.
Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister in charge of the Government's review, added that day-to-day electricity savings could also contribute to controlling Britain's energy demand. Energy worth around £740 million is squandered every year by domestic appliances needlessly left on, said Mr Wicks.
But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, accused the Government of window-dressing a decision that has already been made.
"This review is simply a retrospective way of justifying the Prime Minister’s wish to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, something the earlier white paper did not recommend," he said.
"TheGovernment is all too aware that the UK can have an energy mix which keeps the lights on and secures supply that does not include nuclear power."
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said a new series of nuclear stations were unnecessary and that the answer to Britain's needs lay in increased efficiency and renewable energy.
"UK energy policy is at a crossroads," he said. "We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels more efficiently."
"The Government must set us on the path to a clean, safe and sustainable future and turn its back once and for all on the failed, dangerous and expensive experiment of nuclear power."
Greenpeace accused the Government of launching a "spin operation" rather than a substantive review of energy policy.
"The UK has an electricity grid designed 70 years ago that wastes most of the fuel we put into it. What we need is an energy revolution, a grid that lets renewable schemes and energy efficiency measures meet their full potential," said the group's executive director, Stephen Tindale.
"Instead the Government has launched a spin operation for nuclear power, a form of electricity generation that is the most expensive way to boil water ever devised."

'Decision time' on nuclear power

2006-01-23T08:50:00.000-08:00

BBC NEWS UK UK Politics 'Decision time' on nuclear power

It is time to decide to "close... or open the door" to nuclear power, Trade Secretary Alan Johnson has said.
He said the 2003 Energy White Paper "had rightly" focused on boosting renewable energy and energy efficiency, but left the door "ajar" on nuclear.
But, as a public consultation into UK future energy needs begins, he said it was time to take a decision on nuclear.
Critics say nuclear power is too expensive, is a terror threat and creates much radioactive waste.
'Crucial' issue
Mr Johnson spoke out as it emerged that ministers had asked the Health and Safety Executive to look at the safety, cost and suitability of existing nuclear plants.
Environmental campaigners fear the HSE study is a prelude to an expansion of Britain's nuclear network.
We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels more efficiently Tony Juniper Friends of the Earth
They believe the HSE review, set to take 18 months, has been requested to save time if the government does give the go-ahead for new power stations.
Mr Johnson says he still has an open mind, but adds that it is "crucial" to consider how Britain will meet its energy needs in the next 50 or 60 years.
He said the HSE would also look into the viability of other ways of generating power, such as wind turbines, gas transport and storage and carbon capture and storage.
And as he launched a three-month public consultation on the issue, he said: "We need to look at the risks to security of supply, our climate change commitments and, to the long term, to make sure we take the necessary action. There is not a do-nothing option."
Energy importer?
Mr Johnson said by 2020 coal and nuclear generating electricity plants producing 30% of UK electricity will have closed.
"Companies will need to decide how this capacity should be replaced. These are big investment decisions so the government needs to provide a clear framework," he said.
While renewable sources of energy would be an element towards filling that gap, he said the security of oil and gas supplies from overseas had to be considered, especially in the light of the recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine.
"If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80% of our supplies?" he asked.
HAVE YOUR SAY There is no time to lose in putting in place a long-term strategy that will provide a competitive, reliable and secure supply and generate significant reduction in emissions Martin Temple Engineering Employers Fed
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks, who is leading the review, said people could do more to conserve power, adding that more than £740m of energy was "squandered" by domestic appliances and gadgets being left on stand-by rather than switched off.
But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' environment spokesman, said: "This review is simply a retrospective way of justifying the prime minister's wish to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, something the earlier White Paper did not recommend."
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels more efficiently."
The Engineering Employers Federation, which represents thousands of companies, said the government had to quickly decide on a coherent energy plan and had to consider all options, including nuclear power.
The Energy Saving Trust said there was a pressing need to solve the "escalating demand for energy" while still keeping the UK's carbon emission quotas to Kyoto Protocol targets.

Review to consider new nuclear power stations

2006-01-23T08:47:00.000-08:00

Guardian Unlimited Politics Special Reports Review to consider new nuclear power stations

Matt Weaver and agenciesMonday January 23, 2006
A new generation of nuclear power station is to be considered as part of a review of energy policy, the government announced today.
The energy consultation paper comes three years after officials concluded that replacing nuclear plants would be too expensive.
In today's review, the government cited recent rises in energy prices as justification for the renewed interest in nuclear power. "The review will look again at the role of nuclear electricity generation," a statement said.

As part of the process, ministers have also asked the Health and Safety Executive to look at the risks of building new nuclear power stations. The review will examine concerns about fast-tracking new power stations through the planning system.
The nuclear industry is keen to build new plants in the UK without being held up by lengthy planning inquiries.
Today's review said nuclear generation accounted for 19% of UK electricity, but the figure was forecast to fall to 7% by 2020 as outdated existing plants were closed.
It acknowledged that, in 2003, ministers had concluded that replacing those plants was economically "unattractive" but paved for the way for a u-turn, saying: "The review will examine whether recent changes in energy prices have changed that assessment and at the other issues that would be raised by building new nuclear power stations."
Those other issues include the problem of how to deal with nuclear waste.
Ministers see nuclear power as a potential key technology in helping meet the UK's commitments to reducing carbon emissions.
Nuclear plants emit almost no carbon, but the review acknowledged that mining, refining and enriching uranium was "carbon-intensive", as was constructing and decommissioning plants.
It also said future plants would be built and run by the private sector, within regulations set by the government. In interview in today's Guardian, the energty minister Malcolm Wicks insisted the government was "nuclear neutral".
Launching today's review, the trade and industry secretary, Alan Johnson, said: "In a world of heightened concerns about energy security, highlighted by the recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine, we need to look carefully at the risks of this new situation.
"If gas, as well as renewables, were to fill the gap, how comfortable will we be relying on imports for 80% of our supplies?"
Environmental campaigners expressed alarm. "The government must set us on the path to a clean, safe and sustainable future and turn its back for once and for all on the failed, and dangerous and expensive experiment of nuclear power," Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, said.
However, the Engineering Employers Federation welcomed the review. "There is no time to lose in putting in place a long-term strategy that will provide a competitive, reliable and secure supply and generate significant reduction in emissions," the director general, Martin Temple, said.
"Failure to do so will mean relying on renewables and energy efficiency to come to our aid, which is unlikely to deliver on any of these fronts."

U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil

2006-01-22T12:38:00.000-08:00

McCain: U.S. Can't Be Held Hostage for Oil

By FOSTER KLUGThe Associated PressSunday, January 22, 2006; 12:20 PM
WASHINGTON -- A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela _ an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's populist president.
Sen. John McCain, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said recent action by "Mr. Chavez" and by Iran's leaders make it clear that the United States will be vulnerable as long as it remains dependent on foreign energy.

In this photo provided by FOX News, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., appears on "Fox News Sunday" in Washington, Sunday, Jan. 22, 2006. (AP Photo/FOX News Sunday, Freddie Lee) MANDATORY CREDIT: FREDDIE LEE, FOX NEWS Sunday (Freddie Lee - AP)
var technorati = new Technorati() ;
technorati.setProperty('url','http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200305_Technorati.html') ;
technorati.article = new item('McCain: U.S. Can\'t Be Held Hostage for Oil','http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/22/AR2006012200305.html','WASHINGTON -- A top Republican lawmaker said Sunday that America must explore alternate energy sources to avoid being held hostage by Iran or by "wackos" in Venezuela _ an apparent reference to Hugo Chavez, Venezuela\'s populist president.','FOSTER KLUG') ;
document.write( technorati.getDisplaySidebar() );
"We've got to get quickly on a track to energy independence from foreign oil, and that means, among other things, going back to nuclear power," McCain said on Fox News Sunday.
"We better understand the vulnerabilities that our economy, and our very lives, have when we're dependent on Iranian mullahs and wackos in Venezuela," said McCain, who challenged President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
Iran is OPEC's second-largest producer. Venezuela is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, with the largest proven oil reserves outside of the Mideast.
Chavez, a frequent U.S. critic, accuses foreign oil companies of having looted Venezuela. He has promised that his socialist "revolution" is freeing the country from "imperialist" interests and restoring its sovereignty.