Recently in Nuclear Energy Category

As the Eastern United States suffered through record-breaking triple-digit temperatures threatening brownouts and blackouts, the nation's nuclear power plants posted an average operating capacity of 97 percent July 4-7.

Eighty-five reactors across the country ran at 100 percent operating capacity during the entire week. One hundred two of the nation's 104 nuclear power plants were operational this week, with two plants offline for refueling and maintenance work.

"The reliability of nuclear energy facilities in not only powering America's economy, but also in cooling homes and offices in extreme conditions, was vital to the stability of our electric grid," said Alex Marion, vice president of nuclear operations for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Data on plant operating capacity is reported in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's daily power reactor status reports every morning. Specific plant operating status can be found on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/2010/index.html.

The nation's 104 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states have a combined generating capacity of 100,755 megawatts of electricity, enough to meet the electricity needs of more than 60 million Americans.

Westinghouse Electric Company LLC co-hosted a conference on the current and future potential of nuclear energy in Italy under the ongoing co-operation with the Italian energy foundation EnergyLab. Westinghouse sponsored the event, titled "AP1000™ is on schedule for 2013," which was held at the Chamber of Deputies in Rome.

The event highlighted the successes of current AP1000 projects, principally that all four AP1000 plants are on schedule in China with the first commercial operation date due in 2013. The event also discussed Westinghouse's 10 AP1000 plants under contract with Chinese and US customers and how Italian industry is playing a large role in the success of current AP1000 projects. Presentations were made by representatives of major Italian Industries describing their participation with Westinghouse on current AP1000 projects.

Gary Shuttleworth, Director of International Business Development, says that Westinghouse continues it commitment in support of the Italian nuclear program.  "Westinghouse welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with EnergyLab in promoting nuclear energy in Italy.  We firmly believe that the Westinghouse AP1000™ plant is the solution for providing the people of Italy with safe, secure and economically responsible energy, and we look forward to taking part in the overall discussion relative to Italy's energy needs."  

The AP1000 plant design is certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the only Generation III+ reactor to receive such certification.  Additionally, the European Utility Requirements (EUR) organization certified that the AP1000 plant is compliant with European Utility Requirements, confirming that it can be successfully deployed in Europe.

The Westinghouse AP1000 plant offers additional benefits through its simplified modular construction methods and greater ability to involve Italian industry through localization of manufacturing and construction, known as the Buy Where We Build™ program.  

In addition to four AP1000 plants that the Westinghouse/Shaw Consortium is providing in China, Westinghouse and its AP1000 plant have been identified as the supplier and technology of choice for no less than 14 plants that have been announced in the United States, including six for which engineering, procurement and construction contracts have been signed. Additionally, Westinghouse and China are currently in discussion on plans for additional AP1000 plants to be sited inland of China's coastal areas.

Westinghouse believes the AP1000 design is ideally suited for the worldwide nuclear power marketplace. The AP1000 nuclear power plant is:

• Based on standard Westinghouse pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology that has achieved more than 2,500 reactor years of highly successful operation
• An 1100MWe design that is ideal for providing baseload generating capacity and fits within the constraints of the Italian electrical grid
• Modular in design, promoting ready standardization and high construction quality
• Economical to construct and maintain (less concrete and steel and fewer components and systems mean there is less to install, inspect and maintain)
• Designed to promote ease of operation (features most advanced instrumentation and control systems (I&C) in the industry)

For more information about the Westinghouse AP1000 plant, visit its Web site at www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com.

EnergyLab, founded in 2007, is a cross-organizational collaboration of government and academic institutions, including the Lombardia regional government, AEM Foundation and the Edison Foundation, the municipality of Milan, the University of Milan, the University of Milan-Bicocca, the Catholic University, Milan Polytechnic, Bocconi University and the research center ERSE.

Westinghouse Electric Company, a group company of Toshiba Corporation (TKY: 6502), is the world's pioneering nuclear energy company and is a leading supplier of nuclear plant products and technologies to utilities throughout the world.  Westinghouse supplied the world's first PWR in 1957 in Shippingport, Pa.  Today, Westinghouse technology is the basis for approximately one-half of the world's operating nuclear plants, including 60 percent of those in the United States.

SOURCE Westinghouse Electric Company LLC

Contrary to some prevailing opinion, reprocessing would not eliminate the need for a deep geologic disposal program to replace Yucca Mountain. It aggravates waste, proliferation, and cost problems. The volume of waste to be disposed of in deep geologic repository is increased about six times on a life-cycle basis in the French approach compared to the once-through no-reprocessing approach of the United States.

A new report by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a nonprofit scientific research group, shows that France uses less than 1 percent of the natural uranium resource, contrary to an impression among some policy makers. The report has several recommendations for President Obama's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, which was created to address U.S. nuclear waste issues after the administration's cancellation of the Yucca Mountain program.

IEER President Dr. Arjun Makhijani, the author of the report: "In recent years, a 'French fever' has gripped the promoters of nuclear power in the United States. Praise of France's management of spent fuel by reprocessing, including its use of the extracted plutonium as fuel in its nuclear power reactors, is now routinely heard. But it is a fantasy on the scale of the 1950s "too cheap to meter" mythology about nuclear power to imagine that 90 or 95 percent of the "energy value" of U.S. spent fuel can be extracted by reprocessing."

Key IEER report findings include the following:

• On a life-cycle basis, French-style reprocessing and recycle increases the volume of waste that would have to disposed of in a geologic repository. Reprocessing results in high-level radioactive waste and large volumes of Greater than Class C waste, both of which must be managed by deep geologic disposal. Their combined volume on a life-cycle basis is estimated to be about six times more than the no-reprocessing approach that is current U.S. policy, according to Department of Energy estimates. Low-level waste volume and waste transportation shipments are also estimated to increase several-fold.
• France spends about two cents per kilowatt-hour more for electricity generated from reprocessed plutonium compared to that generated from fresh uranium fuel.
• Attempting to combined reprocessing with breeder reactors to convert uranium in U.S. spent fuel in plutonium will create intolerable costs and risks. Reprocessing plus breeder reactors are much more expensive than light water reactors today, which are themselves expensive. Such a system is required to convert most of the uranium in spent fuel into a reactor fuel. Even a single penny in excess generation cost per kilowatt-hour in a breeder reactor-reprocessing system would lead to an added $8 trillion in costs to convert nearly all of the uranium in the 100,000 metric tons of U.S. spent into usable fuel. It would take hundreds of years to accomplish the task and require separation of tens of thousands of bombs equivalent of fissile material each year. The proliferation risks will be far greater than today.
• Adoption of French-style reprocessing program would not eliminate the need for a deep geologic repository. Even complete fissioning of all actinides - an unrealistic proposition - will leave behind large amounts of very long-lived fission and activation products like iodine-129, cesium-135, and chlorine-36 that will pose risks far into the future -- much beyond the 24,100-year half-life of plutonium-239. In fact, France needs a geologic repository and opposition to one has been intense there. The French appear to dislike nuclear waste in their backyards as much as people in the United States.
• Proliferation risks are inherently part of the French (and any other) approach to reprocessing. Even advanced reprocessing technologies will not significantly reduce proliferation risks. For instance a study authored by scientists from DOE laboratories, including Los Alamos and Sandia, concluded that it would take only a few days or a few weeks for proliferant country to make material for nuclear bombs once it had reprocessing plants. It found that new technologies, including electrometallurgical processing, resulted in "only a modest improvement in reducing proliferation risk over existing PUREX technologies and these modest improvements apply primarily for non-state actors." The IEER report concluded that electrometallurgical increases risks in other ways. For instance, it is far less difficult to conceal a plant than the present PUREX technology.

Other key findings include the following:

• Six decades of sodium cooled breeder reactor development has so far resulted in failure. Historical experience indicates no learning curve for the sodium cooled fast breeder reactor, which is the breeder technology that has received the most development. In fact, the two most recent large scale demonstration reactors, Superphénix in France and Monju in Japan, have been failures. Superphénix had a cumulative capacity factor of less than 8 percent before it was shut. Monju has been closed for almost 15 years, following a sodium fire, and has not generated a significant amount of electricity. Sodium cooled breeder reactors are not commercial today despite global expenditures on the order of $100 billion over six decades. They face a host of safety, proliferation and cost hurdles to overcome, some arising from the fact that they use liquid sodium for cooling. They are unlikely to be commercial in the near future. For instance, Japan's estimated date for commercialization of the sodium cooled fast breeder is 2050.
• Storage of liquid high-level wastes creates some risk of catastrophic releases of radioactivity. For instance, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority has estimated that a severe accident at the liquid waste storage facility in Sellafield, Britain, could result in cesium-137 contamination between 10 percent and 5,000 percent of that created in Norway by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor accident, which is the worst commercial accident to date, by far. A catastrophic release of radioactivity from a military high-level waste tank occurred in the Soviet Union in 1957.
• Using more than 1 percent of the uranium resource in a light water reactor system is technically impossible even with reprocessing and re-enrichment. In light water reactor systems, almost all the uranium resource winds up as depleted uranium or in spent fuel. Even with repeated reprocessing and re-enrichment, use of the natural uranium resource cannot be increased to more than 1 percent in such a system. A corollary is that the use of 90 to 95 percent of the uranium resource or of the material in the spent fuel is impossible in a light water reactor system even with reprocessing.

These are physical constraints that go with the system and also apply to France's system.

The IEER report also sets out a number of recommendations for the Blue Ribbon Commission on

America's Nuclear Future appointed by Energy Secretary Steven Chu:

• Spent fuel from existing reactors should be slated for direct geologic disposal without reprocessing of any kind; a suitable path for a scientifically sound program should be set forth.
• In the interim, spent fuel should be stored on site as safely as possible - in low density configurations while in pools and in hardened storage when moved to dry casks.
• Breeder reactors and reprocessing are not commercial after six decades of development of sodium cooled breeder reactors, and enormous expenditures. Given the long time frame for commercialization estimated even by some promoters, the proliferation risks, and efforts already made, it does not appear to be a good investment to spend more R&D money in that direction. Rather energy supply R&D resources should be focused on development and deployment of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency.
• The Commission should request the French company AREVA and/or the French government to supply it with data on the present use of the natural uranium resource purchased for French nuclear reactors, including, specifically, the increases in fission fraction that have actually been achieved by reprocessing and recycling.
• The Commission should also request official data on Greater than Class C waste equivalent expected to be generated on a life-cycle basis in France, and the total volumes and heat generation of packaged waste expected to be disposed of in a deep geologic repository, including estimates of decommissioning waste.
• The Commission should investigate the public support or lack thereof for repository programs in France and Britain, the countries with the longest history of commercial spent fuel reprocessing.
• The Commission should make the same requests regarding the British reprocessing program.
• Official analyses of the mechanisms, probability, and consequences of large accidental releases of radioactivity to the atmosphere from liquid high-level waste storage in tanks should be requested from the French and British governments.

As predicted based on a survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the nonpartisan and nonprofit Civil Society Institute, the vast majority of Vermont Town Halls deliberating this week the fate of the Vermont Yankee came out in support of closure of the controversial nuclear reactor by 2012.  The final tally of Town Halls in Vermont opposing the relicensing of Vermont Yankee was 14-1.  

The town of Rockingham was alone in passing a pro-Vermont Yankee resolution and, even then, only by a margin of three votes, according to reports.  Towns voting in favor of shutting down Vermont Yankee were:  Thetford, Bristol, Fayston, Brookfield, Montgomery, Woodstock, Moretown, Waitsfield, Danville, Cabot, Huntington, Sharon and Jamaica.  Additionally, Cambridge elected to table the issue.

Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said:  "Our survey pointed to the likelihood that the Vermont Town Halls would come out along the lines of the earlier Vermont Senate vote to close Vermont Yankee by 2012.  With literally dozens of other reactors plagued with similar tritium leaks, we see a clear message here for a U.S. nuclear power industry:   You can't sell Americans on the notion that you are providing 'clean and safe' power at the same time that you are leaking a radioactive substance into wells and other bodies of water.  Citizens in other states may not be able to intervene as directly in reactor issues as Vermonters can, but the Town Hall votes and our survey findings suggest that Americans are unlikely to remain silent about tritium leaks and other legitimate safety concerns."

The Civil Society Institute's scientific survey of 802 adult Vermont residents was based on Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) polling that took place February 19-22nd immediately before the Vermont Senate vote on Vermont Yankee relicensing.   CSI believes that the findings resonate nationally in that a main driver of deteriorating public support for Vermont Yankee centered on the leaking of radioactive tritium, a problem that also is playing out at 27 or more of the nation's 104 reactors across 31 states.

Key survey findings reported by Opinion Research Corporation included the following:

• About two thirds of Vermont residents (65 percent) say "reports about Vermont Yankee leaking radioactive tritium into testing wells and surrounding water" make them "more likely to support the 2012 closure of the reactor."  That includes 44 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Independents.  
• Of those Vermont residents who heard about the radioactive tritium leak at Vermont Yankee, nearly four in five (79 percent) said they are concerned about it, including more than half (52 percent) who are "very concerned."  Only about one in five (21 percent) of this group said that they were not concerned, with just 6 percent saying they were "not concerned at all."  Even when the 20 percent of state residents who have not heard about the tritium leak are added, the percentage of all state residents who are concerned about the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee still accounts for 63 percent of the state's adult population.  
• Overall, 71 percent of state residents are "less supportive now of Vermont Yankee, the nuclear reactor, than [they] were six months ago."  That includes 57 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and two thirds of Independents.  
• Given a choice, fewer than one in 10 Vermont residents (9 percent) would ask their power company to use nuclear energy to power their homes, compared to 71 percent who selected "wind, solar and other clean-energy technologies."
• The fact that Entergy has been unable to find the source of the tritium leaks makes more than three out of four Vermont residents (76 percent) "less confident in the company's ability to safely manage a nuclear reactor".
• About half of Vermont residents (49 percent) see nuclear power as a "power source of yesterday," compared to compared to 94 percent for solar, 92 percent for wind and 78 percent for hydroelectric as "power sources of tomorrow" that should play a bigger, rather than smaller, role in the U.S. energy supply picture.  
• Nine out of 10 Vermont residents (89 percent) say that Entergy -- not Vermont taxpayers -- "should have to foot the bill for decommissioning Vermont Yankee."  That includes 83 percent of Republicans, 94 percent of Democrats and 90 percent of Independents.
• 68 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of Vermont Yankee in 2012 "assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar and natural gas could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor."  That includes 48 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents.  
• 71 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of Vermont Yankee in 2012 "assuming that many new jobs could be created through investments in new clean energy technologies, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar." That includes 47 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Independents.  
• Only 46 percent of state residents trust Entergy to clean up the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee, compared to 47 percent who do not.
• Two thirds of Vermonters now give Entergy a low rating for "trustworthiness" -- with 37 percent saying "very low" and 29 percent "somewhat low." Only about one in four state residents (26 percent) give Entergy high marks for trustworthiness.
• Nearly three out five state residents (58 percent) give Entergy low marks for "competence" -- with 26 percent saying "very low" and 33 percent "somewhat low." Fewer than one in three (29 percent) give Entergy high marks for competence.
• Four out of five state residents (79 percent) have heard about the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee.  Only 20 percent have not.

For complete survey findings, go to http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org on the Web.

The so-called "nuclear renaissance" is finding few friends among state lawmakers in the United States. The nuclear power industry has been shut out across the board in 2009 in its efforts in all six states -- ranging across the nation from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii -- where it sought to overturn what are either explicit or effectively bans on construction of new reactors, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Efforts to overturn bans also have failed to advance in Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Beyond failing to reverse a single state-level ban on new reactors, the industry also suffered a wide range of major defeats, including an effort to repeal a ban on "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) payments that would have been imposed on Missouri ratepayers to finance a new nuclear power plant, which was then promptly mothballed. Industry efforts to get nuclear declared "renewable" by the states of Indiana and Arizona also failed to achieve results. Also going nowhere is a California bill to lift the state's pioneering law banning new reactors until a high-level waste dump is in place. That follows a 2008 California statewide referendum drive with the same focus that failed for lack of sufficient signatures to get it on the ballot.

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said: "While the nuclear power industry and a few members of Congress claim the U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power resurgence, the industry looks more like a critical patient struggling to get by on life support out in the real world beyond the Beltway. No one seriously expects the industry to go away. But the truth is that things will be even tougher for their state lobbyists in 2010 now that the freeze on Yucca Mountain has taken long-term waste disposal off the table and also in the wake of new evidence of runaway construction costs that make nuclear power even more of a boondoggle."

Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL., said: "Authorizing construction of new nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal facility is like authorizing construction of a new Sears Tower without bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety."

Jennifer Nordstrom, Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free coordinator, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Madison, WI., said: "Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight: There are too many other serious downsides that cannot be ignored. Fortunately, it is both technically and economically feasible to go both carbon-free and nuclear-free by 2050. Here in Wisconsin, we have a carbon-free, nuclear-free coalition in support of Wisconsin's current law on nuclear power, and a 100 percent renewable Wisconsin."

Commenting on the defeat of an industry-sought CWIP repeal in the Missouri Legislature this year, Mark Haim, chair, Missourians for Safe Energy, Columbia, MO., said: "New nuclear plants are far too risky and expensive to attract investor funding. Utilities will only build them if they can transfer the risk to the taxpayers or their ratepayers. Here in Missouri AmerenUE attempted to repeal a voter-enacted state law that bans Construction Work in Progress charges. Their goal was to get the ratepayers to assume the risks. When our legislators heard from consumer, senior, low-income and industrial groups all opposing CWIP, the CWIP repeal went nowhere. Once Ameren realized they couldn't get CWIP, they announced that they were abandoning efforts to build a new nuclear reactor. The pattern is clear, investors find nuclear too risky and utilities will only go down the nuclear path if their customers or the taxpayers underwrite the project."

NIRS provided this overview of the six states where industry efforts to overturn what are explicit or effective bans on new reactors failed:

MINNESOTA. The 1994 law in Minnesota provides that the state will not approve "the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant..." The Minnesota House voted 70-62 on April 30, 2009 to keep the state's nuclear moratorium in place. Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, has stated publicly that the issues that led to the 1994 law are still not resolved. "We hear about advancement in technology, but we haven't solved the issue of waste -- a million-year radioactive toxic legacy that we'll pass on to untold generations," said Hornstein.

Since then, Minnesota has seen the launch of a group calling itself "Sensible Energy Solutions for Minnesota" including a retired power company CEO and the self-proclaimed head of a wildlife group who also headed up an organization called "Sportsmen for Bush." According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the new organization was founded by "three veteran Republican operatives": Matt Burns, spokesman for the 2008 Republican National Convention; Ben Golnik, who last year was Midwestern manager of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign; and Tom Steward, a campaign spokesman for McCain and communications director for former Sen. Norm Coleman. By contrast, the Minnesota House's upholding of the moratorium was supported by the Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota, Environment Minnesota, Izaak Walton League of America-Minnesota Division, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club North Star Chapter.

WEST VIRGINIA. In 1996, section 16-27A-2 of the West Virginia State Code was enacted, stipulating that any nuclear facility must be approved by the Public Service Commission, comply with environmental requirements, be economically feasible for in-state rate payers, and, most importantly also that "a functional and effective national facility which safely, successfully and permanently disposes of any and all radioactive wastes associated with operating any such nuclear power plant, nuclear factory or nuclear electric power generating plant has been developed and that such facility has been proven safe, functional and effective by a minimum of twenty-four months' operation or experience." This spring, a bill to repeal West Virginia's effective ban on nuclear power plants died in the 2009 Legislature.

WISCONSIN. Wisconsin law sets two conditions that must be met before new nuclear power plants can be built in the state. One is that there must be "a federally licensed facility" for high-level nuclear waste. In addition, the proposed nuclear plant "must be economically advantageous to ratepayers." As the Center for Media and Democracy noted on March 26, 2009: "Given the near-death of the planned waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, and the estimated $6 to $12 billion cost of building one nuclear reactor -- not to mention the lack of interest from private investors and the tanking economy -- Wisconsin's law effectively bans new nuclear plants in the state. The major industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) registered four lobbyists in Wisconsin. NEI is lobbying state legislators on issues related to 'nuclear generation... engineering education and other issues related to state policies on energy, job creation, and environmental law,' according to disclosure forms. It's the first time that NEI has had lobbyists in Wisconsin since at least 1996, though the group has organized public and media events here, especially in recent years."

As the Milwaukee Journal reported on April 21, 2009: "Supporters of nuclear power made a big push earlier this spring to overturn the state's ban on construction of nuclear reactors. The supporters included (Patrick Moore) a co-founder of Greenpeace who now is working for an energy coalition funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute... [A] coalition of environmental groups and others concerned about nuclear power responded, saying the high cost of nuclear power and the challenge of radioactive waste -- the spent fuel left over from production of electricity from reactors -- make nuclear the wrong choice for the state. 'Given nuclear power's high costs and its legacy of nuclear waste, expanding the use of nuclear power is not a responsible choice for meeting future electricity needs in Wisconsin,' Physicians for Social Responsibility and other groups said in a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle and members of the Legislature.

HAWAII. Hawaii's ban on nuclear reactors dates back to the state's 1978 Constitutional Convention, which added Article XI, Section 8 to the State Constitution: "No nuclear fission power plant shall be constructed or radioactive material disposed of in the State without the prior approval by a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature." Industry-supported bills to lift this constitutional requirement failed in the 2009 Legislature.

ILLINOIS. Illinois' law requires either a federally-approved waste disposal strategy or the state legislature's approval for a new reactor project. According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service, the repeal attempts of the Illinois nuclear construction moratorium did not move in the 2009 legislative session in the Capitol. Bills introduced in the Illinois House and Senate died in both chambers. These restrictions may be linked to the fact that Illinois is described as "the Most Nuclear State in the USA". Illinois has 11 operating power reactors, three power reactors prematurely closed, and hearings underway for a new plant. Illinois also has a waste closed and leaking dump for "low level" radioactive waste, a storage facility for spent fuel, and Manhattan Project waste buried in a forest preserve.

KENTUCKY. Kentucky's law not only requires a high-level nuclear waste facility "in actual operation" by the time the new nuclear reactor would require it, but also insists on detailing "the cost of [waste] disposal... with reasonable certainty." A combination of industry-backed bills designed to remove these restrictions died in the 2009 Legislature.

According to NIRS, the nuclear industry's 2009 defeats in 10 or more state capitols -- including all six efforts to overturn bans on new reactors -- were offset by only one win. Georgia state lawmakers approved CWIP, empowering a subsidiary of the Atlanta-based Southern Co. to collect $2 billion from its customers before a single watt of power is produced from two planned nuclear reactors. Outside of the South, CWIP bail-outs for the industry have made little headway to date.

SOURCE Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Washington, DC

A new national poll of 800 residents by the Sacred Heart University Polling Institute found a nearly even split between those suggesting nuclear energy was very or somewhat safe (46.1%) and those who said somewhat dangerous or very dangerous (44.7%).

"Americans are split about whether nuclear power is safe or not, and many people have specific security concerns about nuclear power. The two dangers that concern a majority of Americans are the problems with radioactive waste storage, a top criticism of nuclear power, and possible plant meltdowns," says Dr. Josh Klein, assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Sacred Heart University.

A majority of Americans (58.4%), however, indicated that nuclear energy's radioactive waste is a danger that humans will face for thousands of years to come.

Over one-third of respondents, 36.8%, expect the number of nuclear weapons to increase worldwide as a result of building more nuclear power plants.

Poll respondents did consider other energy sources as significantly more safe than nuclear energy. A large majority, 94.6%, saw wind energy as very or somewhat safe. This was followed by river and tidal energy (80.0%), geothermal energy (68.5%), fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas (56.1%), and biofuels (55.6%).

While over half of those surveyed, 53.6%, were concerned about the danger of future nuclear energy plant meltdowns, nearly the same percent (54.2%) suggested that nuclear power plants will be safer in the future because of newer technologies making plants meltdown-proof.

And, 36.8% did not see a proliferation of nuclear weapons because nuclear energy and nuclear bombs utilize significantly different technologies.

Three-quarters of Americans (76.5%) were aware the United States Environmental Protection Agency had begun the process of listing carbon dioxide emissions as pollution that endangers public health. And, 77.0% of all survey respondents strongly or somewhat supported the EPA's decision to regulate carbon emissions.

According to Dr. Klein, "The survey mixed pro and anti nuclear statements in equal measure. As a result, we found that about the same proportion expressed concern about future meltdowns (53.6%) as said that nuclear energy will be safer because they will be meltdown-proof (54.2%). Similar splits occurred in this survey regarding other nuclear safety concerns. These reflect some confusion, which is to be expected, given the limited information in major media."

EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT

• Dr. Josh Klein is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Sacred Heart University. Prior to his full-time academic career, he worked in survey and public opinion research. His current research is about organized violence and state-corporate crime.
• Jerry Lindsley, director, Sacred Heart University Polling Institute

To speak with these experts, please contact Funda Alp at 203-396-8241 or alpf@sacredheart.edu" target=_new>alpf@sacredheart.edu or Tracy Deer-Mirek at 203-371-7751 or deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu" target=_new>deer-mirekt@sacredheart.edu.

How the Poll Was Conducted

The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute completed 800 surveys nationally. All telephone interviews were conducted between May 27 and June 9, 2009. One survey instrument was used to elicit information from all respondents. Statistically, a sample of 800 completed telephone interviews represents a margin for error of +/-3.5% at a 95% confidence level.

SOURCE Sacred Heart University

DTE Energy Chairman and CEO Anthony F. Earley, Jr. said today that for the U.S. to achieve ambitious targets of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, nuclear energy will be one of the most effective climate control strategies for the nation's electric utilities.

Speaking at The National Summit, a three-day meeting in Detroit featuring prominent business, government and academic leaders, Earley said that nuclear energy will play a crucial role not only in addressing global climate change, but also in meeting the country's growing electricity needs.

"Nuclear energy provides clean, reasonably priced electricity at extremely high levels of safety and reliability," he said. "In 2008, the U.S. fleet of nuclear plants operated at just over 90 percent capacity - the highest level ever. Nuclear power has proven itself safe, clean, reliable and affordable. And that's with a generation of plants designed in the 1960s and 1970s."

Earley said today's nuclear power plant designs are much improved and more standardized, making them simpler, more compact, safer and less costly to build and operate. But he said there currently is a shortage of suppliers to provide the materials necessary for the construction of new nuclear plants.

"One of the challenges we'll face with the resurgence of nuclear energy is also one of our biggest opportunities," he said. "The number of U.S. nuclear suppliers has shrunk and global competition is already heating up for the limited material and manpower now available.

"There's no doubt we need more suppliers, as well as highly-skilled construction workers to build nuclear units, and more qualified operators to run new plants," Earley said. "At the peak of construction, a nuclear plant will employ an estimated 2,300 skilled workers. And upon completion, approximately 700 skilled workers will be required to operate and maintain the plant - at wages 36 percent above those for workers in similar jobs at non-nuclear facilities."

Each year the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income, Earley said. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average nuclear plant generates state and local tax revenue of almost $20 million each year and federal tax payments of approximately $75 million each year. These tax dollars benefit schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure.

While nuclear energy will play a significant role in meeting the country's growing demand for electricity, Earley cautioned that there is no single solution to the nation's energy challenge.

Most utilities are working to increase their mix of renewable energy - and this is an area where the country will see incredible growth over the next decade, he said. Wind power is now the fastest-growing renewable energy source in the nation, accounting for about 30 percent of all new power generating capacity added in the U.S. last year.

"But windmills and solar panels will never power an auto assembly line or a cold-rolled steel mill," Earley said. "You need big baseload coal-fired and nuclear plants to keep them running and to form the reliable backbone of a national grid."

Earley also warned that the nation's energy infrastructure is nearing "the end of its useful life," noting that the average age of a power plant in Michigan is 48 years. Given that the useful life of a plant is usually 60 years, and that it can take a decade to plan and build a new plant, change is definitely on the horizon.

"To accommodate our growth, cope with plant retirements and deal with environmental concerns, we'll need to make massive investments to our infrastructure - as much as $2 trillion by 2030," he said. "And that doesn't include the unknown costs of potential climate change legislation and state or federal renewable portfolio requirements.

"The road to a clean, safe and secure energy future will require creative thinking, hard choices and huge investments," Earley continued. "And it will require adaptability - to shifting government policy, advancing technology, an uncertain economy and fickle consumer preferences.

"Buckle your seat belts. It's going to be an exciting ride."

Source: DTA Energy

Entergy Chairman and CEO J. Wayne Leonard today issued a statement in response to President Barack Obama's newly released fiscal year 2010 budget, which includes the revenues from a comprehensive carbon dioxide, or CO2, cap-and-trade reduction program starting in 2012. Leonard, an early and leading industry advocate of comprehensive climate change legislation, issued the following statement:

"We agree with the President that the time for climate change action is now. We support an economy-wide cap-and-trade approach with an aggressive CO2 reduction trajectory, consistent with an 80 percent reduction by 2050. We support auctioning, rather than allocating, 100 percent of the CO2 allowances, as the President has proposed. We also support his proposal for recycling the auction revenues back into the economy with a significant portion used to protect families, particularly of low and moderate incomes. Study after study has demonstrated that an allowance auction with revenue recycling is the most effective policy for minimizing the economic impacts of a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. We are pleased that the President's budget proposal is so specific on this very important provision.

"Finally, we support funding for significant research, design and demonstration investments as the President has proposed, particularly in those areas which have the potential for a big global payoff such as coal retrofit carbon capture and electric vehicle battery technology. CO2 reduction is a global problem, and coal plant emissions and automobiles are two very large sources of global CO2 emissions. If the United States can develop affordable technologies to reduce emissions from these sources, we will dramatically improve the odds that the developing world will join in the emission reduction effort and we will also benefit from green technologies to export into a huge global market.

"I applaud President Obama's leadership, and look forward to working with his Administration on this initiative."

Entergy Corporation is an integrated energy company engaged primarily in electric power production and retail distribution operations. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, and it is the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. Entergy delivers electricity to 2.7 million utility customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy has annual revenues of more than $13 billion and approximately 14,300 employees.

SOURCE Entergy Corporation

A year after Israel conducted a mysterious air- raid on Syria claiming to have destroyed nuclear reactors that the country had managed to build surreptitiously, the IAEA, which is conducting a probe into the incident, is finding it hard to find satellite images validating Israel's claims.
A chief nuclear inspector of the U.N. said on Thursday that his agency's probe had been considerably hindered because key satellite images of the alleged nuclear reactor site are surprisingly unavailable on the international market.
International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei has not put the blame on anyone for his organization's apparent failure but diplomats familiar with the investigation said agency officials were not ruling out the possibility that Syria or other nations with an interest in covering up the truth, had bought the photos and all the rights to them, from commercial satellite companies.
To read the complete article click here.
 

Iran is causing worry for the leaders of the world. It has produced the minimum amount of low- enriched uranium that is required to make a bomb if it was processed to weapons grade. Such a scenario would only take place in the event of the expulsion of the UN inspectors stationed there.
The uranium is stored at the Natanz plant which is constantly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the UN created to watch over the adherence of countries to the nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). At its current level of enrichment, the uranium could fuel a power station. The NPT prohibits further enrichment of uranium.
The growing alarm of the rest of the world is evident from the fact that since March 2007, the IAEA has made 20 unannounced visits to Natanz where it has remote surveillance equipment.
Iran has been fighting to retain its right to produce uranium to fuel its power stations. After the U.S. and major allies around the world alleged that Iran was enriching uranium to create nuclear weapons in 2003, Iran has been put under three sets of UN sanctions.
To read the whole article on the Bloomberg website click here.

UN inspectors suspect that a Syrian complex, destroyed in the air raid conducted by Israel in September last year, was actually a nuclear reactor. They base their assumptions on the significantly high traces of uranium that they found at the site.
The International Atomic Energy Agency on the other hand reported that these finding were not enough to conclude that a reactor was there. They stated that further investigations needed to be conducted in the area and that for this greater transparency from the Syrian administration was needed.
Syria has dismissed as fabricated the satellite imagery and other intelligence that establishes the presence of a nuclear reactor in that region. Damascus has stuck to its stance that the site was a disused military building and that the uranium traces almost certainly came with the weapons used to bomb the buildings.
The IAEA has requested the Syrian government to cooperate with the investigation process. The Syrian government has not produced the required documentation to support its claims.

The half year earning of British Energy has fallen by 49.7% (almost half) owing to the shutdown of its nuclear power plants.
Just last month, British Energy agreed to be taken over by French energy company, EDF, in a £12.5billion deal. The energy corporation, which owns eight nuclear stations in the UK, has seen a reduction of 27% in its nuclear output since September after it closed 2 of its power stations for maintenance and repair work.   
Their deal with EDF, which is 85% owned by the French government is still pending shareholder and regulatory approval.
The French company plans on building four more nuclear generators in the UK thus expanding British Energy's share of domestic the market.

Finland is gearing up to meet the European Union's climate change goals for 2020 by trying to reduce power consumption and by increasing the percentage of renewable energy they produce. They have stated that their priority in the years to come would be to build a zero or low emission energy economy.  They would also focus on increasing the efficiency of energy consumption in the areas of housing, construction and transport.
EU countries agreed last year to cut emissions that contribute to global warming by 2020 since greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020 were projected t be 20 percent more than what it was in 1990. Apart from this EU countries are also committed to use 20 percent of renewable energy sources in power production and 10 percent biofuels from crops in transport by the same date.
It will be an uphill task to achieve this aim. Government officials admitted as much by saying that, on paper, their goals could be met only if growth in their energy consumption could be reversed. To supplement energy production from renewable sources the Finnish government is planning on building more nuclear power plants.

To read the complete article by Brett Young on The Guardian website click here.

Raza Bashir Tarar, the Pakistani delegate to the United Nations General Assembly recently stressed on the importance of evolving a universal and non discriminatory policy towards nuclear energy. At the recent conference in New York, Tarar also stated that a non- discriminatory approach for the promotion of civil nuclear cooperation was required as it would reinforce confidence and credibility in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards system. As a solution Tarar said that the agency could make a big difference in helping countries meet the energy needs of this century by ensuring equitable access to nuclear materials, technology and equipment. Tarar was careful in stressing that the nuclear energy would only be used for peaceful purposes drawing the attention of members to Pakistan’s immaculate record of safeguards as well as their commitment to non proliferation.
After India’s nuclear agreement with America, Pakistan, its neighbor, is all the more keen to initiate a nuclear agreement for the development of its own country. However, with the increase in terrorist activity in some of the regions of Pakistan, it may prove to be an uphill task for its diplomats to convince the UN or the IAEA of the safety of civilian nuclear instalments in their country.

Japan may have lent support to the Inited States- India civil nuclear initiative at the IAEA and NSG conferences but that does not indicate their willingness to start any form of nuclear cooperation with India.
For its part, the Indian government is just thankful that Japan lent them support when the nuclear deal was put to vote at the IAEA and the NSG.

Taking advantage of a 55 percent drop in the share prices of NRG Energy Inc, Exelon has made an offer to buy the company for $6.2 billion. One of the biggest operators of nuclear facilities in the U.S, Excelon will pay $26.43 for each NRG Energy share. NRG has said that it will review the bid and has urged it's shareholders not to take any drastic action.

To read the original article on bloomberg.com click here.

Pic courtesy Toucanradio on flickr.com

The Indian government has announced that the recent nuclear cooperation agreement with USA will add 40,000 MW of nuclear power by the year 2020. The government plans to increase the per capita availability of electricity to 1000 units by the year 2012.

A minister of the government said that there are plans to reduce the energy intensity of the economy by changes in the regulatory framework and by adopting best practice programs.

At the G-8 summit in Russia, President Bush and Prseident Putin announced that they would cooperate in the rapid expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. The Bush government feels that the future energy security of the US depends on increasing reliance on nuclear energy and the agreement with Russia was the latest in a long line of initiatives to promote nuclear power.

A technology that brought about the horrific Chernobyl meltdown and the Three Mile island accident and that lay for years in scientific purgatory has been resurrected in today's high oil prices age by a well planned public relations campaign touting it as the energy of choice.
While PM Tony Blair, famed scientist Sir James Lovelock and even some environmentalists have jumped on the nuclear power bandwagon, a sober look at the consequences of re-nuclearizing the world needs to be taken.

The first consideration is the high cost of setting up nuclear power plants. With a minimum price tag of $2 billion each, the plants are 50 percent more expensive than coal-fired power plants up and far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's current 20 percent share of US electricity generation could well exceed half a trillion dollars.
With the country facing record consumer and government debt, the idea of nuclear power generation is well nigh unaffordable.

Secondly, the safe transport, disposal or storage of nuclear waste is still an unsolved matter for our scientists. A vault that cost the government $8 billion and 20 years to build is supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep to hold radioactive materials. It's supposed to be leak free for 10,000 years but the Environmental Protection Agency already suspects that the storage facility will leak.

Thirdly, an International Atomic Energy Agency study shows that uranium resources could fail to meet demand as early as 2026. Discovery of new deposits or technological breakthroughs that reduce uranium requirements are possibilities but as of now they are speculative.

Fourthly, nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On the one hand, the US is worried that Iran might use enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a bomb. On the other hand it is advocating nuclear power all over the world. This would mean uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to populated urban areas.

In 2005, the Australian government foiled a terrorist attack on its single nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities!

Finally, nuclear power seems old fashioned and obsolete in today's age when distributed technologies are undermining hierarchies, decentralizing power and giving rise to networks and open-source economic models. These technologies are also giving people the chance to become active participants while nuclear power will be controlled by a few.

An aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass needs to be brought online. Hydrogen storage infrastructure is required to ensure a steady supply for electricity and transportation.

The future lies with the sun and not with uranium.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Crude oil dipped to below $60 a barrel at $59.80 after Iranian President Ahmadinejad said that Iran is open to discussing "everything" if the US stops its threats against the country.

Crude oil for November delivery fell by 61 cents, or 1 percent, to $59.94 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the Nymex.

Hedge-fund managers and other large speculators cut their long positions, or bets prices will rise, by 39 percent in the week ended Sept. 19. Traders with long positions outnumbered short positions by 22,498 contracts on the Nymex.

BP's announcement that it expects to resume production of about 150,000 barrels a day from the eastern field in a week's time is also expected to have helped in the price drop.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

If Iran worries about sanctions at all, it should be concerned over those that the US is drawing up and not those than the UN is still deliberating over.

There have been hints that the US may enforce its current sanction laws against foreign companies dealing with Iran and the Congress may further tighten the noose.

Now that the EU has dropped its insistence that Iran stop the controversial nuclear work before talks, US and Eu are not on the same negotiating page. The permanent members of the UN Security Council are expected to meet to thrash out methods to put pressure on Iran but hopes for a resolution aren't high.
Maybe some coherent sanctions will come out of the contrary opinions, most likely the travel bans on the political elite, but it will be seen as the empty diplomatic gesture it is with hardly any actual effect.

US efforts on the other hand are looking tougher. Henry Paulson, the Treasury Secretary called for help in choking off funds to Iranian companies that the US suspects of trading in weapons or nuclear components.
He said that there are reports suggesting that more than 30 front companies are part of a suspected network and have duped Western banks into helping them.

For ten years the US has enforced the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, which bars non-US oil and gas companies from investing more than $20 million a year in Iran. US companies are banned separately from any dealing with Iran by presidential directive.
With Libya's decision to give up its nuclear program, the Act has been redrafted to excise the part about Libya and will expire on September 29. But a new version, dealing with just Iran is sure to be passed.
There are signs that the US may enforce this version more aggressively, and interpret its provisions more widely than in the past. Under the US’s separate Iran Non-Proliferation Act 2000, there has been much action targeting companies from Russia, North Korea, India and Cuba for allegedly supplying banned equipment.

While some energy companies have been deterred by ILSA from investing in Iran, many have flouted it. But if the US takes a tougher approach, with the Congress producing a much more stringent piece of legislation then these companies will have to be more wary.

A much tougher sanctions package on energy companies investing in Iran, The Iran Freedom Support Act, was passed by the House of Representatives early this year. The White House objected on the grounds that the Bill could harm diplomatic relations.
The Bill languishes so far with the Senate not having passed this version. But the bitter elections could revive it, as well as collapse in diplomatic efforts or the furor created in Iran by the Pope's supposed slur on Islam.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

China is getting incentive to become a global player in the nuclear power industry from Pakistan's growing nuclear energy needs and the country's determination to look to China for investment and knowledge in the field.

Though China is still in the process of seeking foreign aid to expand its nuclear sector, government officials have made it clear that an internationally competitive nuclear power industry is the ultimate goal.

During meetings in Pakistan last month, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan sought more Chinese input requesting new plants to help boost Pakistan's nuclear power capacity.
China has already completed a 300 megawatt nuclear power plant in Pakistan using its domestically built reactors and has started construction on another plant there.

Beijing aims to sign an agreement with Pakistan to help build 6 nuclear power plants with an installed capacity of 300MW each. Pakistan aims to have 8000MW of nuclear power capacity by 2025.

Pakistan had pledged cooperation in the global fight against terrorism and invited the US to set up nuclear power plants in the country but Washington has chosen to deal with Pakistan's arch-rival India instead.

Relations between Pakistan and the US suffered when it was revealed that the forerunner of Pakistan's nuclear weapon's program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, had helped Iran, Libya and North Korea develop their nuclear programs. He has been under house arrest since then.

This episode resulted in the US advising Pakistan to look to Iran for its energy needs. At the same time, the Us has discouraged India from sourcing Iranian gas.

The nuclear deal with India has been tailored to suit the civilian industry but could still allow India to boost its nuclear warheads using US nuclear fuel and technology. It has been passed by the US House of Representatives but still needs the Senates sanction.

China is eagerly stepping in to the breach in Pakistan, hoping to generate markets for its own burgeoning nuclear power industry.
China has revealed ambitious plans to have 4 percent of its electricity needs met by nuclear power by 2020. This would mean that China needs at least 2 reactors annually, each with a capacity of 1,000MW.

China's State Council approved a plan for the country's long-term nuclear devlopment which highlights the nuclear solution as a clean energy option and as the most practical choice for reducing dependence on Middle Eastern oil and heavily polluting coal-fired plants.

Initially, the prospect of a huge rollout of new plants had delighted foreign investors anticipating bolstered demand for their technology considering that only three of China's nuclear reactors were domestically designed and built. But the Chinese goverment has been repeartedly delaying the announcement of the bidding result for four new nuclear reactors causing foreign companies' hopes to dim.

Chen Hua, a senior official of the China National Nuclear Corp, the country's major nuclear conglomerate, argued that the purpose of foreign cooperation is to help China develop its technology so that its nuclear power industry is self sufficient and competitive. He said that in the present tendering process, only 2 reactors should be awarded to foreign companies and two should be reserved for domestic companies.

The CNNC has begun to portray the the planned increase of nuclear power generation as an oportunity for China's domestic industry to test and improve its indigenous second-generation-plus reactors. The CNNC officials claim that this would help China eventually export its home-grown technology making it a global player.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Iran said that it is ready to consider a temporary freeze in uranium enrichment on the assurance that it would not be attacked by the United States during negotiations with the 6 world powers on enrichment and other nuclear issues.

The progress was welcomed by top US envoys but the UN Security Council is expected to go ahead with sanctions if Tehran does not halt enrichment.
IAEA Chief, El Baradei, said that "the window of oppurtinity is not very long" - an implicit warning that the standoff was on the brink of escalating.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Key European nations warned that Iran is trying to split up the international community over its contentious nuclear program by stalling and giving unclear responses to the terms set by world powers for negotiations.

A closed meeting was held in Berlin of the 5 UN Security Council nations plus Germany to coordinate strategy over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment.

Javier Solona, the EU's foreign policy chief, is expected to hold nuclear talks with Iranian envoy Ali Larijani on Saturday in a final effort to find common ground for negotiations between Iran and the 6 powers.
Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, said that the Saturday meeting is not likely to resolve the disagreement over the scope and agenda of the broader negotiations.
Britain's UN ambassador said that "unless Solana is able to get Iranian movement on suspension of enrichment quickly, then the prospect of sanctions against Iran will be on the (Security) Council agenda soon.”
He also said that the 6 powers agree on the ultimate goal of denying Iran nuclear weapons and the strategy.

The assessment of Iran's response to incentives from the Western powers was a one and a half page document labeled "In Confidence". It summarized the technical, economic and political rewards offered to Iran and warned of punishments including UN sanctions if Tehran doesn't halt uranium enrichment.
Though Iran's response has been kept confidential, US and its allies have described it as inadequate and a document drawn up by Britain, France and Germany highlights that the Iranian response is along previous lines in that it neither accepts nor rejects outright.

Iran's goal is thought to be to involve the international community in talks about talks while continuing on its enrichment program. Its unyielding stance appears to be powered by the belief that China and Russia, both veto-wielding Security Council members will oppose the sanctions.
Besides Iran's no suspension before negotiation stance, it has also demanded the "termination" of Security Council involvement in its nuclear file.
While Iran continues to insist that its enrichment program is for generation of nuclear power, the Western powers are focused on imposing sanctions following the deadline.

Russia averred that any sanctions must exclude military force giving rise to the opinion that Moscow was contemplating the possibility of sanctions. The US and European diplomats have said that initially they will use low-level punishments such as travel bans and bans on the sale of dual-use technology to get backing from Russia and China.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

US Secretary of State Christopher Hill, is set to visit Beijing to discuss reviving stalled negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program and has accused Pyongyang of boycotting mulitlateral talks on its nuclear ambitions.

Reports of a simulataneous visit of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to China are uncertain.
An anonymous official said that China has decided to invite Mr. Kim amid speculation that North Korea may be planning an underground nuclear test. An armored train known to be used by Mr. Kim for long travels has been spied at the border with China prompting speculation about his visit to China.
Mr. Hill said he had "no information on Kim Jong-il's travels."

Tensions have been high since early July when North Korea conducted missile tests. They are not yet thought to have tested a nuclear bomb though have admitted to nuclear capabilities.

Christopher Hill and his Japanese counterpart have agreed to work with the other partners to revive talks with North Korea, advocating concrete action to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program amid talks of North Korea planning more tests.

Mr. Hill maintained that the Us position has not changed. The September 2005 agreement which promised economic aid in exchange for Pyongyand scrapping its nuclear program is still on the floor. The agreement fell apart over disagreements on how to implement it.

International concerns were raised when North Korea launched 7 missiles in July, including a long-range weapon capable of hitting parts of the US.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Tehran ignored its second deadline for halting uranium enrichment and the foreign ministers of the European Union have agreed to give Tehran 2 more weeks to clarify its stance on the country's nuclear program.
At a meeting in Finland, Philippe Douste-Blazy spelt out the position held by the EU - if Iran suspends enrichment, the Eu will suspend the sanctions process in the UN. Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief will meet up with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in a week to clarify the Iranian stance on its enrichment program as well as its offer of cooperation on nuclear energy.
On the other hand, Iran's stance has remained defiant with President Ahmadinejad reiterating that Tehran will not abandon its nuclear program since it is for a peaceful purpose.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

The US has carried out its 23rd subcritical nuclear experiment since 1997 successfully at an underground test site in Nevada.

It was the tenth test under the Bush administration, despite persistent criticism by anti-nuclear groups and amid intensifying efforts to curb the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

The US government denies that the tests violate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons saying that these tests do not involve a nuclear chain reaction and are designed to "examine the behaviour of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives".

The government denied allegations that it was carrying out tests to boost its efforts to develop new nuclear arms and that they are fully consistent with the nuclear test moratorium it has maintained since 1992.

The administration said the tests were conducted to gather "scientific data that provides crucial information to maintain the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests."

The government stance is that the tests are essential to ensure the safety of nuclear stockpiles.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

As US demand for energy is consistently increasing, there is a strong possibility of the government seriously stepping up its reliance on nuclear power.

20 percent of US electricity supply comes from nuclear power. The last nuclear power opened in the US ten years ago.

Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that several things make nuclear power an attractive option, primarily that it does not emit carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming and the unpredictability of fossil fuel costs.

He said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications for 27 new nuclear power plants in the US and some of them were "very, very strong" expressions of interest.
To adjust with the increasing number of applications, the agency has created a new office of new reactor operations so that the individuals that are monitoring the existing fleet are not distracted.

Past history including the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear plant disasters have underscored public concerns over the safety of a nuclear plant.

Klein said he is confident that existing and new nuclear energy plants in the US are and will be safe and secure.

France, Japan, Russia and Germany have significant nuclear energy generating programs.

Read

Iran responded to the incentive package given by the Western powers on Tuesday and said that it had offered positive signals in its proposal to resolve the standoff over its nuclear program.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said that if the Europeans paid proper attention to the positive and clear signals in Iran's response, then the nuclear standoff can be solved through negotiation and without tension.
But key UN Security Council members differed in their responses.

The US State Department agreed that Iran was sincere in its proposal but it fell short of the conditions set by the UN - the mainone being that Iran halt nuclear enrichment.
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said that only if Iran suspends enrichment can negotiation continue.
German Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger said that the UN demand for suspension of enrichment indicated that Iran has lost the confidence of the international community that its nuclear program is civilian.
On the other hand Russia's Foreign Ministry said that talk of sanctions was premature before the Aug. 31 deadline was met and that they would continue to seek a negotiated solution.

China urged United States and its allies to be patient and Iran towards "constructive measures".

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

In the face of Iran's defiant stance on its nuclear program, Israel has signed a contract with Germany to buy 2 more submarines capable of firing nuclear missiles.

The one billion deal was signed last month and Germany has agreed to take up costs of upto a third of the value. The submarines will be operational shortly and add to Israel's expanding military resources.

It already has 3 Dolphin-class submarines which can fire nuclear missiles, but the newer models can stay submerged for longer.
Israeli security sources said that in the light of Iran's nuclear ambitions and an Iranian President who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map", the submarines are needed to counter long-range threats.

Owing to Israel's small land area, its military planners have a clear preference for submarine-launched nuclear weaponry. US Defence Intelligence Agency has estimated that Israel has about 60-85 nuclear warheads. Submarine-based missiles give the country a credible nuclear deterrent.

The semi-official news agency Mehr said that Iranian authorities would announce a "very important achievement" in an area of nuclear technology.
In its response to the western incentives package, Iran has offered to address the issue of suspension while reminding the world of its "stablizing role" by offering to its influence with Hezbollah to organize an exchange of prisoners between Israel and Hezbollah.

Iran will be further encouraged in its stance by the divided responses from the international community to its proposal. While China and Russia prefer to puruse negotiations, France will have none of it till the suspension of uranium enrichment and ironically America's war on terror has "severely compromised" its attempts to curb Iranian nuclear amibitions.

With the war on terror eliminating Iran's two main regional rivals - the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq without replacing them with stable structures has given Iran regional supremacy. Iran's links with its neighbors need to be understood to see why "Iran feels able to resist western pressure". If the US uses military force to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions, it would open itself up to retaliatory destabilizing intervention by Iran for its forces in Iraq.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Iran turned away UN inspectors from its underground facility at Natanz. This action comes in concert with the country's supreme leader's avowal that Tehran will not give up its contentious nuclear technology.

Hopes that Iran will accept the UN Security Council demand to halt its enrichment by Aug. 31 have deflated in the face of Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the underground site.
This action hampers UN attempts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to produce nuclear weapons.

Signs of Iran's defiance have been noted with the country denying entry visas to 2 International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors in the last few weeks after similar denial to Chris Charlier, the expert heading the UN agency's team to Tehran earlier this year.

Iran's reported actions could lead to heavy sanctions including a ban on missile and nuclear technology sale to Tehran, a ban on investments in the country and international refusal to grant entry visas to people involved in Iran's nuclear program and a freezing of their assets.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

On the eve of a self-imposed deadline for responding to economic and technological incentives offered by Western powers in lieu of their uranium enrichment program, a spokesman from the Iranian Foreign Ministry said that suspension of uranium enrichment is not on the agenda.

The proposed incentives package includes provisons for direct talks between Washington and Tehran and the offer of nuclear technology and the easing of some trade restrictions. Iran said that it would give a multi-faceted response to the incentive package tomorrow.

United Nations may move fast on its threat to impose sanctions against Iran because of the country's inflexibilty. Nothing less than the suspension of the enrichment program is likely to appease the UN.

After its proxy militia in Lebanon, Iran emphasized its stand by conducting military exercises over the weekend including the televised launch of ground-to-ground short range missiles. These were to showcase "Iran's new defensive doctrine."

After the Israeli failure in disarming Iranian-backed Hezbollah, the country clearly feels it has a strong position and has warned that it would be prepared to use oil as a weapon.
Though Iran insists its uranium enrichment program is permitted under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and is peaceful, western concerns over nuclear Iran have increased after the Lebanon war.

Iran may feel that it can play for time because any further decisions to be taken by the UN would have to be discussed by the Security Council and Russia and China who have veto-holding powers in the Council have been supporters of Iran.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

With the prospect of Iran standing defiant on its nuclear work and disregarding UN sanctions, U.S. light crude for September delivery went up by 49 cents to $71.63. London Brent crudefor October climbed to $72.73 a barrel.

The UN has proposed a second deadline of Aug. 31 for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment or face punitive action, but it seems that with the survival of Hezbollah, Iranian confidence has been bolstered setting the stage for a confrontation over nuclear development.

Traders fear that Iran could withhold exports of as much as 2 million barrels per day in retaliation to any sanctions imposed by the UN.

The production boost from the Prudhoe Bay oil field to half its normal capacity and the cease-fire in Lebanon have helped knock over 7 percent off oil prices but concerns remain over the fragility of the cease-fire and now the added worry over Iran's intentions.

Read

Lawmakers in India have accused Washington of trying to curb New Delhi's atomic program with the controversial nuclear deal.
Detractors of the deal in India feel that it is attempting to cap the country's nuclear weapons program and also impinging on India's right to pursue atomic reserach for peaceful purposes.

The civilian nuclear cooperation deal gives India access to US atomic fuel and equipment on the agreement of allowing international inspections of its civilian nuclear reactors and segregation of its civilian and military programs.

The opposition came to the fore in a parliament debate just weeks before the US Senate is to vote on it after the House of Representatives passed it with an overwhelming majority.
The deal also needs the backing of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and has to be jointly aproved by the two houses after technical details of the pact have been finalized.

Yashwant Sinha, a lawmaker from the main opposition party said that the deleterious effect of the deal has never been in any doubt as it aims to suppress the country's strategic nuclear weapons program.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Britain tried to prevent Nobel Laureate for Peace, El Baradei from getting a third term in charge of the UN's nuclear inspectorate.

El Baradei is the man leading the international campaign to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Though El Baradei was elected unopposed with overwhelming international support in the absence of any credible rivals, classified documents reveal that Blair's government refused to commit itself to supporting his bid for another term at the helm of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

A source at the Department of Trade and Industry said that the government was following the Americans in the belief that El Baradie was not being tough enough on the Iranians.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

In a TV program, Iran formally defied UN's nuclear resolution.

The UN Security Council had asked for Iran to stop enriching uranium but Iran is going to go ahead and increase its program.
Despite failure to secretly import uranium from the Congo, Iran plans to brazenly pursue its nuclear proliferation plans.
Ali Larijani said that all of Iran's nuclear technology will be expanded including the centrifuge cascades for uranium enrichment.
When questioned about the balance of power in the Middle East with fears of the region breaking into a wider war and apprehensions that Iran does not plan to use its enrichment program merely to power fuel stations but to make nuclear weapons, Iranian President declared that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries.

Tehran assures that it would not like to use the oil weapon and that the measure is being forced upon them by the double standards of countries that allow nuclear technology to some and not to others.
Iran being OPEC's second largest oil exporter states it should be allowed to defend its rights in proportion to its stance.

It is to be noted that the elimination of nuclear weapons features no where in international plans.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani has said that Iran will continue with its nuclear program keeping within the bounds of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and called the UN resolution imposing curbs on Iran illegal.

Read

Picture Courtesy: www.flickr.com

US Energy Secretary announced that that the governemnt will provide risk insurance against bureaucratic and legal issues to spur companies on to construct 6 nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants have not been built in the US sine 1973, and a partial plant meltdown in 1979 put an end to costruction of new ones.
The new incentive plan will provide $500 million in coverage for the first 2 plants and another $250 million for the remaining 4.

Read

Despite the Iran-US face off on the nuclear issue and the threat of sanctions against Iran, the country is not having trouble finding buyers in the present climate of rising world demand and strain of supply from some regions like Nigeria.

While India and Royal Dutch have supplied their need for oil by buying from Iran, Japan has trimmed its purchases from Tehran in lieu of the nuclear standoff by buying about 40 percent less from the previous quarter.

Other importers though have not been so picky during this oil shortage and detrimental repercussions of dropping a supplier have also stopped hands.