NucNews - June 12, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Nuclear plant to close for months The leak is thought to have began last August Sunday, 12 June, 2005 BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/4084758.stm Part of the nuclear reprocessing plant at Sellafield in Cumbria may be closed for months following a leak of highly radioactive material. The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) stopped production in April when the leak, which went undetected for up to eight months, was discovered. Sellafield's managing director, Barry Snelson, admitted to the BBC that the plant may remain closed for months. Safety regulators claim the discharge could result in criminal charges. Mr Snelson described the incident as "a stumble, not a fall". The accident happened when a narrow pipe fractured, spewing nitric acid onto the floor of a concrete-lined cell in the Thorp reprocessing complex. The acid contained 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium. It is thought the pipe may have fractured in August, but the leak was not discovered until eight months later due to a combination of a faulty gauge and human error. No staff were contaminated. Last week, Sellafield was told to improve the way it discharged low level radioactive waste water into the Irish Sea. Environment Agency inspectors issued an enforcement notice after finding its filtering system needed to be improved. Operators British Nuclear Group said no discharge limits had been breached and it was "committed" to improvements. ---- Legal threat over Sellafield leak The leak is thought to have began last August BBC June 12, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4085224.stm Investigators are continuing to examine the cause of a leak of highly radioactive material at part of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant. The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) stopped production in April when the leak was discovered. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is compiling a report before a decision on any prosecutions is taken. Investigations are focusing in part on how long the leak had lay undetected and reliability of monitoring systems. A clean-up operation is continuing and similar pipework elsewhere in the plant has been checked. Sellafield's managing director, Barry Snelson, admitted to the BBC that the plant may remain closed for months. Waste warning Safety regulators have claimed that the discharge could result in criminal charges. The accident happened when a narrow pipe fractured, spewing nitric acid onto the floor of a concrete-lined cell in the Thorp reprocessing complex. The acid contained 20 tonnes of uranium and 160kg of plutonium. It is thought the pipe may have fractured in August, but the leak was not discovered until eight months later due to a combination of a faulty gauge and human error. No staff were contaminated. Last week, Sellafield was told to improve the way it discharged low level radioactive waste water into the Irish Sea. Environment Agency inspectors issued an enforcement notice after finding its filtering system needed to be improved. Operators British Nuclear Group said no discharge limits had been breached and it was "committed" to improvements. -------- europe UKRAINIAN PM ARRIVES IN FRANCE TO BOOST TIES ON NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY, AGRICULTURE Received Sunday, 12 June 2005 13:53:00 GMT (AFP) http://www.ttc.org/200506121353.j5cdrju25160.htm PARIS, June 12 - Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko arrived in Paris Sunday for a three-day working visit to discuss with top French officials better cooperation in the fields of nuclear technology and farming. She met with her French counterpart, Dominique de Villepin, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, and the speaker of the French parliament, Jean-Louis Debre, during the trip. "The goal of the prime minister's visit is to launch a new stage in relations between Ukraine and France in the spheres of economy, education and culture," a Ukrainian foreign ministry spokesman told AFP. "Topping the agenda will be discussion of economic cooperation in nuclear energy, agriculture and space," he said. Tymoshenko was also due to attend the biennial Le Bourget air show, which kicks off north of Paris on Monday. Some 15 Ukrainian firms have stands at the show, including the manufacturer of the giant Antonov cargo airplane. The Ukrainian prime minister was scheduled to hold meetings with leading French business leaders with an eye to boosting investment in her country and doing deals with French companies. She was also to give a speech before students at the Paris Institute for Political Science on Ukraine's role in modern Europe and meet with the Ukrainian diaspora in Paris. It will be a second visit by a senior member of the Ukrainian government in less than a week, following last week's trip by Petro Poroshenko, the chief of the national security council. Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko, who appointed Tymoshenko as prime minister in February following last year's "orange revolution" that brought him to power, is due to visit France on June 22. -------- india Atomic centre upbeat after breakthrough Anil Kakodkar, chairman of Atomic Energy Commission, announced a technical breakthrough by scientists at Kalpakkam. NT Bureau Chennai, June 12: http://newstodaynet.com/12jun/rf1.htm Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) at Kalpakkam has made a breakthrough in reprocessing the indigenously developed uranium - plutonium mixed carbide driver fuel of the fast breeder test reactor (FBTR) by achieving the peak burn up of 147.8 GW d/t (giga watt day per tonne), say scientists. A driver fuel reaching such high burn up levels is an international landmark considering the unique nature of the fuel, Anil kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission told a press conference yesterday. Congratulating scientist and engineers of IGCAR, he said, 'we are now moving closer to the set target value of 150 GW d/t in burn up of carbide fuels.' Terming it as a bold step for their decision to use carbide fuels in the FBTR, Kakodkar said, reprocessing of carbide fuel is more complex comparing to that of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Countries like United States, Russia, Japan, France and the United kingdom has reprocessed MOX fuel, but not the carbide fuel, he noted. India is the first country to reprocess the spent carbide fuel, he said. Advanced PUREX (plutonium - uranium extraction) process is developed in the reprocessing development laboratory at the IGCAR for reprocessing of spent mixed carbide fuels, the Chairman said. For reprocessing FBTR spent fuels and also to establish process and equipment for high burn up plutonium rich fuels, a compact hot cell facility was constructed and commissioned in 2003, Baldev Raj, Director, IGCAR said. Research and development at IGCAR is set to focus on developing of FBR that can run on oxide and carbide fuels, Kakodkar said. 'Our ultimate goal is to develop reactors which can run on metallic fuel that would provide the much needed energy security to the country, he noted. At present the cooling period for reprocessing of spent carbide fuel is 16 months which we like to reduce to eight months, he said. He added, Homi Bhabha National Institute will be a deemed varsity and department of atomic energy will administer it. ---- India leads in reprocessing carbide fuel Kalpakkam | June 12, 2005 5:27:24 PM IST http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=87807&cat=India Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) has achieved success in reprocessing the spent Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) plutonium-rich carbide fuel for nuclear power generation. Baldev Raj, Director of IGCAR considers the achievement "A real benchmark" because "nobody has reprocessed carbide fuel, India is the first country to do that." This is a milestone in the history of Indian Atomic Power project and an international record of touching a peak burn-up to 147.8 GW d/t (Giga Watt day per tonne) in the Fast Breeder Test Reactor (FBTR) using the indigenously developed Plutonium mono-carbide driver fuel. nil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission said, "I am happy that the scientists have risen to the occasion to overcome a technological challenge of achieving a record burn-up for carbide fuels in India for the first time in the world." Dr. Kakodkar called the Indian nuclear power programme "a unique programme, dictated by our own requirements." The carbide fuel was more difficult to reprocess than the mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and Japan have reprocessed the oxide fuel [but not the carbide fuel]. The development is significant, as it would help India in conserving the scarce energy resources such as uranium and plutonium for the future generations, Kakodkar said. The reprocessing of 25,000, 50,000 and one lakh MWd/t burn up FBTR fuel have been successfully carried out at the FBTR facility with stage-wise clearances from the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board. Reprocessing is a high-level technology because of the high radioactivity and high plutonium associated with the spent fuel. This pure plutonium and uranium can again be used as fuel in the FBTR or the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR), which is under construction at Kalpakkam. The PFBR will start generating 500 MWe from 2010. India's spent fuel reprocessing was started in 1965 when the Plutonium Plant went into operation in Trombay. Reprocessing of this unique nuclear fuel with a high plutonium content and to such a high burn-up was a technological challenge and it was achieved in September 2002. Since spent fuel needs two to three years of cool-off period for reprocessing so that the radiation level comes down over a period of time, the scientists have announced it only now. With this morale boosting success, IGCAR scientists are now looking forward to attain their ultimate goal that is to use metallic fuel, which according to Kakodkar would help them to attain better burn-ups for the spent fuels. "The use of Metallic fuel is the next aim of IGCAR. We are not setting a time limit for achieving this. But we are working committedly towards that and once achieved this will provide energy security for the country," jubilant Kakodkar said. The MOX fuel would be used in India's first commercial Fast Breeder Reactor-the 500 MWe FBR, which would be commissioned in 2010, he said. "We are also planning to reduce the cooling period of the spent fuel. The carbide fuel, which was presently reprocessed, had a cooling period of two years. We will work to achieve a maximum cooling period of 8 months to speed up the reprocessing," Baldev Raj said. India's power requirements are ten times more than what we can produce, he added. Dr Baldev Raj, Director, IGCAR, said: "The department is committed to efficiently closing the fast reactor fuel cycle by safely reprocessing future discharges of spent fuels with increasing burnups and in achieving the energy security for the country". Asked how much plutonium was extracted, Mr Kakodkar said: "I have no answer for such questions and you should know which questions not to ask". The extraction of plutonium or uranium is one of the country's top secrets as it will give away the stocks and also indicate how much of it was being diverted for manufacturing nuclear weapons. He said: "We have a plan to rapidly go on to the second phase of our nuclear power plan which will consist of more FBRs. They will be designed to meet India's request which is different from rest of the world. The modest quantity of uranium in our soil was enough to meet the requirement". "Our nuclear programme is unique dictated by our own conditions. We are placing very high emphasis on research. We will take more steps to strengthen domestic research and technology," he added. He said now that the Indian scientists had set "an international benchmark", plans were on to develop the second stage of fast breeder test reactors which can reprocess fuel to a burn up level of 5 lakh mega watts per day. -------- japan Japan planning to ship radioactive soil to US: reports TOKYO (AFP) Jun 12, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050612111413.br04rj85.html Japan plans to ship radioactive soil left behind by a government nuclear fuel development body to the United States for disposal, reports said Sunday. About 290 cubic meters (377 cubic yards) of soil with a relatively high surface radiation level are likely to be shipped from the western Japanese town of Yurihama, Jiji Press and Kyodo news agencies said. The soil is part of the 3,000 cubic meters left by the Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute. According to the institute's plan, a US firm will dispose of the soil in the United States at a total cost of more than 600 million yen (5.6 million dollars), Kyodo quoted sources as saying. It remains to be seen what will be done with the remaining soil, it said. The plan, if realized, will open the way for a solution to a long-standing legal row between the local community and the institute, the sources were quoted as saying. The soil originated from test-drilling of uranium by the institute's predecessor, the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation, or Donen, in the 1950s and 1960s, it said. It was revealed in August 1988 that the soil had been left behind in Yurihama, triggering an outcry from the local community which demanded the contaminated soil, it said. -------- korea The Kims' Obsession Archives Show Their Quest To Preserve the Regime By Robert S. Litwak and Kathryn Weathersby Sunday, June 12, 2005 Washington Post; B01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100179_pf.html The anger and irony dripped from the mouth of North Korea's foreign minister: "The Americans have a large stockpile, and we are forbidden even to think about the manufacture of nuclear weapons?" The question was put to a Soviet ambassador more than 40 years ago -- in August 1962 -- but it sends a powerful message today to U.S. officials grappling with the acute security challenge of North Korea's mature nuclear program. We've learned of that decades-old diplomatic encounter -- and others that reveal much about the North Korean mindset regarding nuclear weapons and what motivates the father-son regime that has ruled that country for more than a half-century -- through a remarkable set of documents recently collected from the archives of North Korea's former Soviet-bloc allies by researchers associated with the Woodrow Wilson Center's Cold War International History Project. They involve contacts between North Korean officials and their Soviet and East European counterparts from the 1950s to the 1980s. Perhaps no other nation remained as closed to Western eyes as North Korea under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, who ruled the country from 1948 until his death in 1994. Since then, his son, Kim Jong Il, has engaged in an on-again, off-again series of diplomatic negotiations with the United States and others. The country's scant diplomatic history with the West has often left analysts in the noncommunist world operating largely in the dark in assessing North Korea's intentions. The documents have come to light at a particularly sensitive and important time in the discussions over North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The Bush administration has adopted a get-tough stance in its effort to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program; six-party talks, which include China, have been stalled for a year. Just last week, North Korea issued a statement suggesting that it is willing to resume negotiations. But as is often the case, Western diplomats aren't sure on what basis: In late March, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the agenda must include "the nuclear threat posed by the United States." Of all the revelations in the documents, two seem especially telling: North Korea's effort to acquire nuclear weapons has been driven by deep-seated fear of both a U.S. military attack and abandonment by the communist great powers. What's also telling, if less explicitly, is how the regime's near-obsession with its own survival colors its political decision-making. The papers make clear that, as far as the Pyongyang regime is concerned, the Korean War has never ended. After the uneasy ceasefire reached in 1953, Kim Il Sung expected a renewed American and South Korean attack. The North had sustained three years of heavy U.S. bombing and had been threatened with the use of atomic weapons. This experience initially produced an unrealistic confidence that North Korea could survive a nuclear attack. In February 1963, Kim Il Sung told the Soviet ambassador that "geographical conditions . . . give a certain advantage to [North Korea] in case of an atomic war, for the mountains ward off the explosions to a substantial extent. A lot of such bombs would be needed to wreak large-scale destruction in the country." By the 1980s, both U.S. nuclear weapons technology and Kim's views had evolved. Still charging the United States with sinister ulterior motives on the Korean peninsula, Kim said to East German leader Erich Honecker in May 1984, "It is very plain that we are not militarily superior to them. But they use the pretext that we are stronger militarily [on the Korean peninsula] to build up their weapons even more. . . . This is all just a pretext for them to continue to occupy South Korea. South Korea is nothing more to the Americans than a colony. [They] never intend to leave." But Kim appeared more resigned than defiant, suggesting that the U.S. nuclear policy of deterrence was working. Speaking again to Honecker two years later, in October 1986, Kim stated that North Korea "does not intend to attack South Korea, nor could it. More than 1,000 U.S. nuclear warheads are stored in South Korea, ostensibly for defense, and it would take only two of them to destroy the [country]." For most countries, a record of conversations from decades past would be regarded largely as history -- fascinating in its own right, but not necessarily valuable in today's diplomatic world. No one would dream of analyzing the thinking behind the Bush administration's current foreign policy by looking at what was said during Dwight Eisenhower's time or even the more recent administration of Ronald Reagan. American journalists might talk of Bush 41 and Bush 43, but as often as not, they do so to contrast the policies of father and son. North Korea, however, has been ruled by only two men, Kim I and Kim II, and the archival records reveal a striking continuity on security issues and the pursuit of nuclear weapons. North Korea's efforts to acquire nuclear know-how from its Soviet-bloc allies began in the early 1960s but were consistently rebuffed. In 1963, the East German ambassador informed his Soviet counterpart that the Koreans were seeking "any kind of information about nuclear weapons," while Soviet uranium specialists working in the North reported that the Koreans, "despite all odds, want to develop the mining of uranium on a broad scale." The Kim Il Sung regime repeatedly pressed for the construction of a nuclear power plant, which the Soviets suspected would be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. In 1976, angered that the Soviets had rejected yet another request for nuclear technology as "inopportune," the North Korean deputy premier charged the Kremlin with not making appropriate "allowances" for his country's "front-line situation." The Soviet leadership even tried to convince Kim Il Sung's regime that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was in its interest. According to a 1969 cable by the Hungarian ambassador to Pyongyang, Soviet diplomats asked the North Koreans about Japan obtaining nuclear weapons. In this particular case, the Koreans found ample justification for nuclear nonproliferation, though it was not something they generally favored in other contexts. The archives provide fascinating insights into Kim's complicated relationships with the two great communist powers. During the Korean War, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin sharply restricted the role of the powerful Soviet air force as Kim's country suffered devastating bombing from U.S. forces. Yet, according to the archival records, Kim clearly preferred to rely on Soviet aid rather than accept direct military involvement by the Chinese. Even though China was then a fraternal communist country and had aided Kim in the Korean War, Kim acted as a Korean nationalist highly sensitive to his country's history of occupation by imperial China and fearful of Beijing's potential for domestic interference. This wariness toward China in the heyday of international communism is particularly significant given the current pivotal role that China plays in the Bush administration's strategy to induce, or coerce, North Korea to abandon its nuclear program. Kim had another reason for concern: We learn from Russian documents that Nikita Khrushchev tried to extend his sweeping de-Stalinization policy to North Korea. Kim survived a serious political challenge instigated by the Soviet leader, which stalled only when the Hungarian uprising in October 1956 distracted the Kremlin. A feeling of betrayal, fed over the years by events such as the Sino-American rapprochement and the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist rule in Eastern Europe, led the Pyongyang regime to conclude that it could not rely on any other country -- even a communist one -- for protection.Do these documentstruly portray perspectives and attitudes that continue to shape North Korean policies? A strong case can be made that they do. The conditions that define North Korea's strategic position -- external isolation and internal economic crisis -- remain unchanged since Kim Jong Il took over in 1994. Kim Il Sung's cult of personality (once criticized as "idolatry" by a Soviet party official) was extended to his son and perpetuated through inheritance. That transfer of power is perhaps the most conspicuous sign of how North Korea's past resonates in the present. Has North Korea made an irreversible decision to acquire nuclear weapons? The new information does not answer that fundamental question. But it does help explain the core motivation behind Pyongyang's nuclear saber rattling: Regime survival. Almost 50 years ago, Kim Il Sung complained bitterly about U.S. intentions. So it comes as no surprise that his son's first reaction to President Bush's rhetoric about North Korea -- that it's part of an "axis of evil" -- would be fear and belligerence. The Bush administration appears to be wrestling with the mixed message of its North Korean policy. Do we want to change the regime, or do we want to change merely the behavior of the regime? The statements of U.S. officials can be read both ways. During the Iraq war, Kim Jong Il evidently believed that the United States was also planning decapitating air strikes against his regime and disappeared into a bunker for 50 days. The new archival materials strongly suggest that the North Koreans would perceive and respond to a U.S. attack on their nuclear infrastructure not as a limited "counterproliferation" action but as the beginning of a general war on the Korean peninsula meant to bring down the regime. The Bush administration cannot ground its negotiations with North Korea on the assumption -- or vain hope -- that the regime is in danger of imminent collapse. Despite economic implosion and famine, that regime has proved far more durable than anyone expected. However unpalatable we may find the prospect of this regime's survival, the documents suggest that the crux of any nuclear deal may be a credible assurance from the United States that the regime itself is not in danger. Authors' e-mails : litwakro@wwic.si.edu weathersbyk@wwic.si.edu Robert Litwak, a National Security Council staff member in the mid-1990s, is director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. Kathryn Weathersby is a senior associate of the center's Cold War International History Project and coordinator of its Korea Initiative, which obtained the documents cited in this article. The documents have been translated and posted online athttp://wilsoncenter.org/cwihp. ---- UW professor organizes academic conference in North Korea 6/12/2005, 11:04 a.m. PT The Associated Press http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/washingtonstate/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1118598354139260.xml&storylist=orwashington SEATTLE (AP) — University of Washington professors joined international scholars in North Korea last week to discuss a political stalemate that has stalled official talks on the country's nuclear weapons program. East Asia professor Donald Hellmann, who visited North Korea for three days, called the summit the first international academic conference ever held in the communist state. "Our policy regarding North Korea has simply not worked," he told The Seattle Times in a phone interview from South Korea. "I wanted to do by example what I thought ought to be done: to assemble people from the negotiating parties and get their views on the table." The conference that concluded Saturday involved more than 20 scholars from the United States, China, Japan, Russia and South Korea. They met in a North Korean mountain resort near the South Korean border, surrounded by armed North Korean soldiers. No U.S. government officials or North Koreans participated, though North Koreans listened in on the proceedings, Hellmann told the Times for a story published Sunday. North Korea is widely believed to have enough weapons-grade plutonium for a half-dozen nuclear bombs. It has sent mixed signals about whether it will return to nuclear negotiations with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. On Friday, President Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun pressed North Korea to rejoin the discussions, which the North has boycotted for a year. Hellmann said the United States' focus on terrorism has ignored the economic and security efforts necessary to avoid a crisis on the Korean peninsula. Anand Yang, director of the Jackson School of International Studies, called Hellmann's project "an attempt to keep (the same) engagement going at an academic level that we're struggling to do diplomatically." "Academic institutions in general have to be more involved in the wider world," Yang said. Hellmann, 70, teaches in the Jackson School of International Studies and directs the UW's Institute for International Policy. Among those joining him in North Korea last week were UW associate professor Clark Sorensen, UW instructor Darryl Johnson, and Portland State University professor Melvin Gurtov. On the Net: Institute for International Policy: www.iip.washington.edu -------- russia First enriched uranium disposal unit operates in Ozersk Ural Press, Ozersk, June 12, 2005 12:42 http://www.uralpress.ru/english/show_article.php?id=939 This summer Russia has to process 250 tons of enriched uranium extracted from Russian nuclear weapons into fuel meant for atomic power stations. Ten years ago, in May of 1995, Russia had started the supply of atomic fuel for the US nuclear power plants. Due to the Russian fuel these plants produce 10% of electric power generated in the United States. In the course of the project’s implementation $4 billions have been already assigned to Russia’s budget. One of the first enriched uranium disposal units was made and operates at production association “Mayak” (Ozersk, Chelyabinsk region). -------- security Are These Towers Safe? Why America's nuclear power plants are still so vulnerable to terrorist attack—and how to make them safer. A special investigation By MARK THOMPSON Posted Sunday, Jun. 12, 2005 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1071194,00.html Photo: http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2005/0506/nnukes0611.jpg The first hint of trouble would probably be no more than shadows flitting through the darkness outside one of the nation's nuclear power reactors. Beyond the fencing, black-clad snipers would take aim at sentries atop guard towers ringing the site. The guards tend to doubt they would be safe in their bullet-resistant enclosures. They call such perches iron coffins, which is what they could become if the terrorists used deadly but easily obtainable .50-cal. sniper rifles. The saboteurs would break through fences by using bolt cutters or Bangalore torpeDOEs, pipe-shaped explosives developed by the British army in India nearly a century ago. The terrorists would blast through outer walls using platter charges, directed explosives developed during World War II, giving them access... (To get immediate access to this complete story, you must be a TIME Magazine subscriber.) ---- Students To Help Thwart Global Nuclear Threats Posted by Patriot on 2005/6/12 10:51:56 http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-11406-PHPSESSID-32c21925c15e7264c0bff050142c6b30.html RICHLAND, Wash – Seventeen graduate students will spend the next year helping the U.S. government prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The program kicks off this summer as they train for internships in the field of nuclear nonproliferation. Graduate students from schools across the country arrived this week at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for orientation and technical briefings in the Nonproliferation Graduate Program. PNNL administers the program for the National Nuclear Security Administration. At PNNL, the interns, who have degrees in subjects such as international affairs, political science or traditional science and engineering, learn about technical innovations that can help reduce the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Orientation includes participating in technical briefings on nuclear weapons and physics, observing science and engineering work performed for NNSA and touring the Hanford B Reactor, which produced plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan in World War II. Later this month, following comprehensive training at PNNL and in Washington D.C., the students will be deployed to various NNSA program offices in the United States and overseas. They will work with NNSA experts in the agency's Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation gaining practical experience to prepare for careers in national security and nonproliferation. Interns will assist in the development and implementation of NNSA's global nonproliferation programs and may prepare briefing materials for senior policy advisors, draft policy papers and participate in meetings, conferences and workshops. Interns selected for foreign assignments in Ukraine or Kazakhstan will support NNSA sponsored programs in those countries. "The training and the practical experience give us a much broader understanding of the challenges facing the nonproliferation community in the post-Cold War era," said Reuben Sorenson, an intern from last year's class who last week completed his assignment in Washington, D.C. Sorenson is a doctoral candidate in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. Since many of the technical and policy experts who fought the Cold War are retired or nearing retirement, the internship program offers the U.S. government a new talent pool from which to grow the next generation of nonproliferation experts. "We recruit some of best and brightest students who have amazing enthusiasm for careers in nonproliferation," said Susan Senner, who manages the program at PNNL. "This program enables them to receive invaluable hands-on training and career direction for their talent and energy." "We all win in this program." More information on the program can be found on the Internet at http://ngp.pnl.gov. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for maintaining and enhancing the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; working to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; providing the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responding to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S. and abroad. PNNL (www.pnl.gov) is a DOE Office of Science laboratory that solves complex problems in energy, national security, the environment and life sciences by advancing the understanding of physics, chemistry, biology and computation. PNNL employs more than 4,000 staff, has a $650 million annual budget, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab's inception in 1965. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new jersey NJ Groups call for merger hearing Sunday, June 12, 2005 By TERRENCE DOPP Trenton Bureau http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-0/111856443277350.xml&coll=9 TRENTON -- A coalition of consumer groups and unions is calling for both state and federal regulators to hold public hearings on the proposed merger of Public Service Enterprise Group and the Exelon Corporation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is scheduled to rule by July on a bid from the company to speed up the $12 billion deal by avoiding public hearings. In exchange for the expedited approval, the two companies have agreed to fund $25 million in upgrades to the regional electrical grid and make other concessions, according to a joint statement. Public Service Enterprise Group is the parent company of PSEG Nuclear, operator of the Salem 1, Salem 2 and Hope Creek nuclear power plants on Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township. Dena Mottola, director of the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, opposes the merger. "It would create the largest electricity utility in the nation," she said, with control of about 30 percent of the market. Groups demanding more public hearings include New Jersey Citizen Action, Public Citizen and several unions that represent workers. Calling the deal backroom and secretive, the activists plan to launch a media campaign on Monday dubbed "Fight the Power Grab." An Exelon management team has already taken over day-to-day operations at Artificial Island. When word of the merger plan was made public in December, it was also announced that PSEG had contracted with Exelon to provide management services of its nuclear fleet which is under heightened scrutiny from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Officials said the contract, would remain in effect regardless of what happened with the merger. Nationwide, the Chicago- based Exelon has nearly 5.2 million customers and brings in $14 billion in revenue each year, according to company statements. "We think this will lead to higher prices for consumers, and we think it creates a monopolistic environment," added Mottola, whose group was given "intervener" status by state regulators for this transaction. Paul Rosengren, a spokesman for PSEG, denied that the merger would create a monopoly. Exelon's only current New Jersey holding is the Oyster Creek nuclear plant. He said the company has met federal filing requirements and has agreed to scale back operations in New Jersey. Federal regulations prohibit one company from gaining "market power" or the ability to affect prices. Concessions include a company offer to sell off generation plants or to set aside for sale by other distributors an agreed amount of electricity generated at the company's nuclear facilities in New Jersey. Those points were not in the original filing, the spokesman said. "We think we've answered all the substantive issues that have been raised," Rosengren said, adding that a hearing would mean the company reverts to its original proposal. "If they force us to go to a hearing, that's what we'll defend," he said. Gloria Montealgre, spokeswoman for the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, said Exelon's bid to circumvent public hearings cannot succeed at the state level. Montealgre said the state board has already scheduled public hearings for October at the Office of Administrative Law. A rate-payer advocate will represent the public at the hearings, said Montealgre. ---- Oyster Creek power plant losing support Published in the Ocean County Observer 6/12/05 By LEDYARD KING Gannett News Service Published on June 12, 2005 http://www.injersey.com/observer/story/0,2554,1289602,00.html WASHINGTON -- When Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station first hummed to life in 1969, it provided hundreds of jobs in Ocean County and the promise of a reliable source of energy. But as the nation's oldest commercial operating reactor prepares to seek permission to run until 2029, it isn't finding much of a cheering section. Communities near the Lacey plant, then rural but now much more populous, want it closed. Scientists are raising safety questions about its design. And the local congressman is asking the government to take a thorough look before extending its life. Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, long derided by critics as an industry lapdog, has questioned whether the plant can properly respond to emergencies. And the NRC has suspended review of a license extension application of a similarly aging plant in upstate New York: Nine Mile Point near Oswego. Still, industry experts said they're not aware of any issues that would prevent the NRC from granting Oyster Creek the 20-year license extension its owner, AmerGen Energy Inc., is seeking. "Just because they say it's an old plant, that's not an adequate enough reason unless they can demonstrate something about an older plant that is no longer safe," said Forrest Remick, a former NRC commissioner who has toured Oyster Creek. "A lot of components can be replaced just like a car if a battery goes wrong." NRC inspectors said the plant, overall, operated safely last year despite concerns that employees did not respond properly to relatively minor malfunctions. And NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the delay of Nine Mile Point's application review had more to do with insufficient details than the plant's operation. Many active reactors were approved more than 30 years ago and are now coming up for renewal. The NRC already has approved 15 extensions and rejected none since 2000, though it has asked for more information from Nine Mile Point and Beaver Valley near Pittsburgh. Oyster Creek, which supplies about 9 percent of New Jersey's power needs, is one of 24 plants that have either applied for an extension or announced they will. Among those in line are the Salem and Hope Creek plants, both in Salem County, and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, site of the 1979 accident that stoked widespread fear about the safety of nuclear power. Concerns over safety have prompted Rep. Jim Saxton, R-3rd, to introduce a bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences to assess Oyster Creek's performance. It also would require the NRC to evaluate facilities requesting license extensions on some factors now reviewed periodically, including evacuation plans, security and the impact of a nuclear accident. "I want to make sure in this re-licensing process that we take every possible precaution to make sure the citizens of Ocean County and South Jersey are as absolutely safe as possible relative to any threat that may be posed by a nuclear power plant," he said. Saxton, who represents Ocean County, said he's waiting for more information before deciding whether to support or oppose the license extension. Gina Scala, a spokeswoman for Oyster Creek, said $1.2 billion has been spent over the past 35 years modernizing the plant. Last year, NRC inspectors logged some 6,600 hours examining the plant, she said. "We meet all the federal safety regulations," she said. "If we didn't meet those regulations, we wouldn't be operating today." David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said Oyster Creek would have to meet tougher design standards if it were built today. Still, it rates in the "middle of the pack" compared with other nuclear plants when it comes to operating safely, and Lochbaum believes it will get its extension. "You have to make a strong technical case on why (any) safety issue, if left unresolved, poses an undue hazard," Lochbaum said. "If the NRC agrees with you, they'll make the company address it. They won't allow a bona fide safety problem go unresolved." Saxton is concerned about security as well as safety. Nuclear plants have spent fuel pools that help cool reactors. If terrorists can damage the pools, an intense fire could result in the release of radiation, according to the National Academy of Sciences. The academy in a recent report said the 32 reactors, including Oyster Creek, that elevate their pools in the structure housing the reactor are particularly vulnerable to airborne attack. Saxton has asked that Oyster Creek be one of the five plants that the NRC inspects as part of a congressionally mandated review of the spent fuel pools issue. Citing security reasons, Sheehan said the NRC would not disclose which plants it will inspect. But he said that in general the pools "are robust structures equipped with a stainless-steel liner and walls (and a bottom) consisting of several feet of steel-reinforced concrete." He also noted that the report mentions there would be "ample time" to inject additional water into a pool in the event of a rupture. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-6th, has expressed similar concerns about the spent fuel pools at Oyster Creek. And many of the plant's neighbors -- 17 of Ocean County's 33 towns -- have passed resolutions either opposing re-licensing or seeking an immediate shutdown of Oyster Creek. Pallone spokesman Andrew Souvall said the congressman opposes a license renewal for Oyster Creek. Neither the state's two U.S. sen-ators, Democrats Frank Lau-tenberg and Jon Corzine, said they have a position on wheth-er Oyster Creek should be reli-censed. from the Ocean County Observer -------- tennessee Inside the Oak Ridge plants Published in the Asbury Park Press 06/12/05 Ann Witmer http://www.app.com/apps/pbcsdll/article?AID=/20050612/LIFE02/506120328/1006/LIFE The business end of Oak Ridge — the wartime plants — is not easy to explore. But where there's a will, there's sometimes a way. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory housed in the old X-10 plant, offers weekday tours. X-10 was the prototype for the Manhattan Project's plutonium processing plant in Hanford, Wash., where controlled chain reactions produced the plutonium that fueled the second atomic bomb, Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima was bombed. X-10's original graphite pile that controlled nuclear reactions now sits alongside some of the world's fastest computers that do heavy-haul work like climate modeling and nano-scale chemistry. K-25, where uranium gas was forced through membranes to separate out the uranium needed for bombs, was closed to the public after Sept. 11, 2001. You can't get in, but you can get near. The Secret City Excursion Train chugs along 14 miles of track through the K-25 compound. "K-25 was the world's largest building," said Bart Jennings, a University of Tennessee professor who narrated the 90-minute journey. "It was a half-mile long and a quarter-mile wide. Managers used bikes to get around." The third plant, Y-12, is closed up like a clam. Its 1152 calutrons once produced uranium that was carried by thimblefuls in briefcases to Los Alamos, N.M., another Manhattan Project site, where they were used to build the bomb. Today, Y-12 is a massive national defense facility operated by the U. S. Department of Energy. The complex of 500 buildings occupies an area the size of 736 football fields. Y-12 is the country's storehouse for highly enriched uranium, like Fort Knox is for gold. It's also where nuclear weapons, including those recently surrendered by Libya, are dismantled. -------- us nuc waste Nuclear Waste Outpaces Solutions "Plants use outdoor storage casks while waiting for the government to find a longer-term solution. Some fear it won't." By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 12, 2005 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-waste12jun12,1,3704797.story?coll=la-headlines-nation MORRIS, Ill. — Along the headwaters of the Illinois River, engineers at the Dresden nuclear power station have erected two dozen steel and concrete silos that rise 20 feet above the Midwest plain. The gray structures are unremarkable except for what is loaded inside: Each contains roughly 13 tons of high-level nuclear waste that has been accumulating at the plant since the Eisenhower administration. With nowhere to go, the waste will most likely remain in place for decades. Dresden's reactors have produced one of the largest stockpiles — 1,347 tons — of civilian nuclear waste in the nation. With the plant churning out nearly 48 tons more waste each year, engineers are preparing to double the size of the outdoor storage pad this summer. The plant has the same problem as nearly all of the nation's 103 commercial reactors: They were never designed to store waste long-term and are now forced to deal with large quantities of spent uranium fuel rods that produce high levels of radiation. The problem reflects decades of miscalculations and missteps by the federal government, which promised at the dawn of the nuclear age to accept ownership of the waste. The plan to build a waste repository at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert has faced so many political, legal and technical problems that it's impossible to project when — or even if — it will be built. As a result, the most lethal waste product of industrial society is being handled outside any federal policy and without any roadmap for how it will be managed in the future, according to industry officials, nuclear waste experts, lawyers and academicians. "It is a statement of reality," acknowledges Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy. "Is it the right policy? No." The deep storage pools traditionally used to safely keep nuclear waste are filling up at most plants. Utilities have turned to outdoor storage in so-called dry casks as the de facto standard for dealing with waste. From California to South Carolina, utilities have loaded 700 of the steel and concrete casks, and scores of additional casks are scheduled to be filled this year. It is a stopgap measure that has averted a shutdown of the nuclear power industry. But it means leaving all of the roughly 50,000 tons of civilian nuclear waste spread across the nation for the next half-century or more. And storing the waste at power plant sites is creating significant economic, environmental, legal and security challenges — including the potential for it to become a terrorist target. A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences found that the waste stored in pools was most vulnerable, but the outdoor casks also were potential targets. Such an attack could trigger an environmental catastrophe. "These are the ultimate dirty bombs," said Bob Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies and a former Energy Department official. "Let's not pretend the way we are storing this waste is safe and secure in an age of terrorism." Utility executives and government officials sharply dispute such allegations, saying the plants have multiple layers of protection from any attack. Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear utility, has erected heavy barriers and security towers at Dresden that are staffed around the clock by guards with automatic weapons. Though the nuclear industry has a good record for preventing radiation leaks during normal operations and dry casks are widely regarded as safe, many outside experts say their biggest fear is that future generations may lack the willpower and financial capability to safeguard tons of radioactive waste dispersed across the nation. Waste is already stored in casks at five shuttered nuclear plant sites. "We are muddling into an alternative plan by default," says Joe Egan, a longtime attorney for the nuclear industry who now represents Nevada in fighting Yucca Mountain. Nuclear waste has also created a legal mess. The Energy Department is facing more than four dozen lawsuits by the utility industry for its failure to take the waste. Damages could reach $56 billion over the next three decades, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a powerful trade group for nuclear utilities. At the Department of Energy, Sell argues that deep geologic storage of the waste at Yucca Mountain would be the best technical solution. He believes the project will eventually be completed. But the loss of a key court case last year and political resistance in Congress have put the dump at least 14 years behind schedule. Without a dump, utilities have few options short of shutting down their reactors and eliminating 20% of the U.S. electricity supply that comes from nuclear power. And without a solution to waste, the proposal by President Bush to start a new era of nuclear plant construction could go nowhere. Indefinite storage of nuclear waste at current reactor sites is a bitter pill for many politicians, particularly those from environmentally fragile areas such as Lake Michigan, which is ringed by nuclear plants. "I want the waste off the shores of Lake Michigan," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose district includes two nuclear plants built on the lake's eastern boundary. "Ultimately, there is a safety problem." -------- MILITARY -------- britain Brits skeptical of U.S. postwar planning for Iraq Posted 6/12/2005 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-06-12-brits-report_x.htm WASHINGTON — A staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion of Iraq concluded that U.S. military officials were not planning adequately for a postwar occupation, The Washington Post reported. "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," authorities of the briefing memo wrote, according to the Post. "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden." The eight-page memo was written in advance of a July 23, 2002, meeting at Blair's Downing Street offices, the Post said in Sunday editions. It said the memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith of the London Sunday Times and that excerpts made available to Post were confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. The Post said the introduction to the memo — "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" — said U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it." The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session. According to those minutes — known as the Downing Street Memo — British officials who had just returned from Washington said the Bush administration believed war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Blair denied at a news conference with President Bush last week that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Go Solar, Be Secure By Terri Suess and Cheryl Long June 12, 2005 Mother Earth News http://www.motherearthnews.com/top_articles/2002_Febuary_March/Go_Solar__Be_Secure This story is about a choice that can make you and the world more secure. It's about how you can install a solar photovoltaic (PV) roof, which will generate your electricity from the free, unlimited supply of sunshine. With your very own solar-electric roof, you'll be protected from rising electricity prices. You'll also be taking a major step away from our national dependence on polluting, unsustainable fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear reactors. "Solar PV is too expensive," you're probably thinking. Or maybe, "Our neighbors might think solar panels are ugly." Well, advances in solar PV technology are rapidly resolving both of those concerns. A new kind of PV panel, called thin-film amorphous silicon, is dramatically bringing costs down. Government rebate programs are also cutting homeowners' costs by as much as 60 percent in some states. And in some cases your solar roof can generate excess power during peak daylight hours that you can sell back to your utility company (or use to recharge an electric car or bike). Regarding aesthetics, the thin-film PV panels are now being produced as shingles and standing-seam roofing panels that closely resemble regular roofing materials, so you don't even realize the home's roof is actually a solar-electric power plant! These new solar-electric systems are called building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), because the photovoltaic panels become the roof itself. BIPV installations eliminate the need for expensive racks and trackers, as well as the additional labor costs associated with them. Ready to sign up? To get started, all you need is a few hundred square feet of south-facing roof that receives full sun all day. You can start small if you want and add more panels later. A solar roof system is actually simple-the right number of panels to produce the number of watts you want, wired to an instrument called an inverter. The inverter changes the solar direct current (DC) into the alternating current (AC) used by most household appliances. Unless you already know a lot about electricity, you will want to find a local solar dealer or contractor to install your system. If possible, obtain bids like you would for any other home construction project. If you want to install the system yourself, or just want to learn as much as possible before you choose a system, we highly recommend the magazine Home Power; (800) 707-6585; www.homepower.com. The Home Power Web site also lists renewable energy dealers in a database that can be searched by state. Another excellent resource is www.renewables.com, a Web site written by sustainable-energy pioneer and solar designer Stephen Heckeroth. He estimates a typical home requires about two watts of PV power per square foot of floor area, but that amount can be cut in half, to about one watt per square foot, by using energy-saving appliances, such as compact fluorescent lightbulbs. So let's say you have a 2,000-square-foot home and you've taken full advantage of energy-conserving options. This means a 2,000-watt (two kw) PV roof should be able to satisfy your electricity needs (not counting heating, cooling or hot water-there are better non-electric options for these functions; see www.renewables.com). So what will it cost to install two kw of PV panels? Current Costs Heckeroth says a basic PV system in a net-metered grid-connected system (see "PV System Types"), costs about $8 to $12 per installed watt, so a two kw system would come to $16,000 to $24,000. But if you are lucky enough to live in a state that offers rebates (see below) that cost can be cut in half to just $8,000 to $12,000. So there it is: Right now it can cost as little as $8,000 to install enough solar roofing to meet the long-term electricity needs of a small, efficient home. (By the way, "long-term" means a 20- to 25-year warranty; there are no moving parts and these solar PV panels are very durable.) And the great thing is, the more of us who buy solar roofs, the faster the costs of production and prices will come down. All new technologies become less expensive as demand grows and production costs improve. Within the next two to three years, Heckeroth predicts the installed costs of thin-film BIPV roofs (see "Advantages of Thin-Film") will drop to as little as $6 per installed watt for reroofing projects, and costs could fall to $5 or less per watt in new homes designed specifically to maximize the advantages of this exciting new technology. In areas where electric rates are already high, solar PV systems are a pretty good bet at $8 per installed watt, even without a rebate and without adjusting for future electricity rate hikes or declining costs per PV watt. Government Incentives Some states need solar electricity so badly they're not waiting for the costs to come down naturally. They are offering cash rebates and other incentives that will slash the price tag for residential solar roofs by up to 60 percent. More states may join in this year, as policy-makers work to meet increased electricity demand by promoting clean renewables and distributed generation-installing many small power-generating systems close to where the energy is needed. These officials understand people don't want polluting coal plants or dangerous nuclear plants near their homes, and people do not much like living next door to high-tension wires or natural gas pipelines, either. For information about rebates, loans and grants available in your state, consult the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE) at www.DSIREUSA.org, or call your local utility or state energy office. (If your state isn't yet offering rebates, we strongly suggest you get on the phone and make an appointment to have a chat with your state legislators.) Here are summaries of solar energy incentives available in three leading states: New York, New Jersey and California. New York "In New York state, we are facing an energy crisis that is not going to go away simply because demand is exceeding supply," says Linda Anne Burtis, director of NY Shines, an organization dedicated to educating homeowners about solar and renewable energy systems. "There is a thirst for energy that is difficult to meet, particularly in New York City and Long Island, where the electricity infrastructure is old and pushed to its capacity." Burtis says New York currently offers some of the best rebates in the country when homeowners purchase residential solar, grid-connected solar-electric systems. "Most people in the industry will tell you that it costs about $10 per watt to install a solar-electric system on your home without batteries," she said. "In New York State, when homeowners tap into an array of rebate programs, they can cut that price by almost one half." New Jersey's Clean Energy Program In New Jersey, small solar-electric systems of fewer than 10 kw qualify for a rebate of $5 per watt. The rebate covers up to 60 percent of the system costs under a program funded by the state and administered by utility companies. New Jersey also provides a sales tax credit for solar-electric system installations. By fall 2001, there had been little publicity about this program, with most applicants finding out about it by word-of-mouth. One of the major utilities in the state reported in late August only 16 applications had been processed. Some of the impediments to the program included lack of publicity and early difficulties homeowners had locating solar contractors. Now a short list of utility-qualified contractors is provided to interested homeowners. California's Rebate Programs California has myriad state, local and utility-sponsored rebate programs, state property tax exemptions and other incentives to help homeowners install solar electric rooftops-and they are being used. Some solar programs in California reported receiving 250 inquiries a week. The "Emerging Renewable Buy-Down Program" and "Self-Generation Program" both offer rebates of up to $4.50 per watt or 50 percent off the price of purchasing the system, whichever is less. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) offers even more generous rebates as part of an effort to install 100,000 solar rooftops in the city of Los Angeles by 2010. Under the LADWP program, financial incentives include a maximum $3 per watt for systems manufactured outside of Los Angeles, and a maximum of $5 per watt for systems manufactured within the city. To Find a Solar Roof Dealer The fastest way to learn what rebates are available in your area is to contact a local solar roof dealer. The dealer will know what's currently available and probably will know if any additional legislation is pending in your state. The dealer can explain, in detail, various solar roofing options and give you a bid on whatever system you choose. To find a dealer check your yellow pages, state energy office, electricity regulatory agency or local utility. Or check Home Power magazine's dealer Web page at www.homepower.com. Making a Difference "Each of us can decide how to make our own contribution to reduce our impact on the Earth," says Bill Lord, who lives with his wife, Debbi, in a custom-built solar house in southern Maine "Ours happens to have been investing in a solar house. We have found that there can be a free lunch and dinner, but you need to pay for breakfast," he says, referring to the initial planning and investment needed to integrate solar technologies into one's home. The Lords integrated passive solar design principles, solar thermal and solar electric technologies into their custom-built home in Maine more than five years ago. Since then they have been reaping the benefits of free sunlight that falls on their roof every day, reducing their utility bills to zero. Working with Solar Design Associates of Harvard, Massachusetts, the Lords built their home to include super insulation, energy-efficient appliances, and a passive-solar design that welcomes the warm sun in the winter and shades the interior of the house in the summer. This reduced the energy load of the home while offering comfort levels exceeding those found in a comparable conventional home. With a full south-facing solar rooftop comprised of a solar thermal system for radiant heating and hot water, and a solar-electric system to produce electricity, the home's solar systems provide nearly all the energy the Lords need. "It takes some planning, but it is possible to make these investments incrementally to reduce the cost of living on Earth," says Lord. "The beauty of solar electricity is it is modular, so you can install some to meet a portion of your electricity needs and then expand the system as your budget allows." If this story inspires you to buy a solar roof, please send your Firsthand Report to letters@motherearthnews.com. -MOTHER Advantages of Thin-Film Solar PV Panels Most people know solar photovoltaic (PV) panels as large, heavy, rectangular panels mounted onto a roof or sometimes on a special rack with a tracking system that turns the panels to keep them facing the sun. These older style panels are made of crystalline or polycrystalline silicon modules. In contrast, a new kind of PV panel is now available, called thin-film amorphous silicon. Here's how the new thin-film panels compare to the crystalline modules: * The older crystalline and polycrystalline modules are fragile and need to be mounted in an aluminum frame between a layer of glass and a stiff-bottom material. In contrast, the newer thin-film amorphous PV panels use a thin stainless steel foil and a weatherproof plastic "elastomer polymer" coating. As a result, thin-film panels are unbreakable, much lighter and less expensive than the crystalline products, since they don't require glass covers and metal framing. * The crystalline panels lose efficiency and produce less electricity when temperatures rise, while thin-film panels are not bothered by hot, sunny conditions. * Crystalline panels stop producing electricity when even one portion of a panel is shaded, while thin-film panels still produce energy when partially shaded. Thin-film panels are also more efficient than crystalline in indirect or diffuse light, making expensive tracking systems unnecessary. * The production process for the thin-film panels requires much less energy (and thus cost less) than crystalline panels. * When used as roofing shingles, thin-film panels actually are the roof, so you can save the otherwise additional cost of regular roofing. New quick-connect features and large panels are making thin-film roofing faster, and thus less costly, to install. 8 Compelling Reasons to Buy a Solar Roof 1. Personal and national security. The more we tap solar and other renewable energy sources, the less dependent we are on utility giants and nonrenewable fossil fuels. Solar roofs can even be used to charge electric vehicles, which will reduce pollution and decrease our need for foreign oil. 2. Protection against price increases. Electricity prices in many states are increasing. In California a combination of deregulation, population growth, increased consumer demand and construction of fewer new power plants caused electricity costs to skyrocket. Other states are watching similar trends and expect prices to increase in the coming years. With nuclear power plants being decommissioned or phased out because of the high costs and high risks related to nuclear waste disposal, and with the best hydroelectric sources tapped, new sources of electricity are needed. Even though many new gas-fired power plants have been constructed, some analysts see natural gas shortages emerging that will require expensive drilling and pipeline construction. This points to higher natural gas prices rippling across to electricity prices. 3. Rebates. Some states are finally getting serious about supporting renewable energy options. Government rebates, tax credits and grants can cut the cost of your solar roof by up to 60 percent in some areas. To learn what's available in your state, go to the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE), www.DSIREUSA.org. 4. Selling back peak power to the grid via net-metering. Net-metering rules and regulations are in place in 34 states, allowing homeowners to run their electrical meters backward when they send electricity to the grid from a solar-electric rooftop. When the homeowner uses electricity from the grid at night or on cloudy days, the meter runs forward. The monthly bill is based on the net difference. Distributed electrical generation provides more security for homeowners and for the electrical network (the grid). Generating cleaner, locally produced electricity reduces the load on the grid and can also jump-start the formation of local public utilities. These nonprofit utilities are run by a locally elected board for public benefit, in contrast to investor-owned utilities that are run for private profit. 5. Global warming reductions. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), electric power plants emitted 40 percent of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States in 1999, making them the largest single-source contributor to global warming. Fifty-one percent of all the electricity produced in the United States in 1999 was generated by coal-fired plants, yet these plants produced 80 percent of all the CO2 emissions resulting from electricity power generation. DOE also reports one-quarter of all types of air pollution emissions nationwide are caused by burning fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and oil) to generate electricity. 6. A response to "Not in my back yard" Conventional power plants and transmission lines take years to plan, site and build-and most people do not want them in their back yards. Power distribution systems feeding metropolitan areas are operating near capacity during peak demand periods. Onsite power production via home solar-electric installations, part of a "distributed generation" scenario, offers a positive solution for elected officials seeking to prevent blackouts and brownouts, improve air quality and enhance the economy by producing jobs. 7. A beautiful, distinctive, high-tech, home design element. Technological developments have resulted in more appealing and affordable systems, designed to complement a home's architecture. With Building-Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV), the solar-electric system is the roof. 8. Supporting the future of solar power. The PV market is worth $2 billion today, and is expected to grow to $10 billion by 2010. The annual growth rate of solar PV products has increased by 20 percent annually and is expected to double every three years for the next 20 years. This growth should spur additional investment, contribute to economies of scale in the industry and help make systems even more affordable. Types of PV Systems There are several ways a solar photovoltaic (PV) roof system can be designed: Grid Connected, without battery backup. In this system, the PV roof is connected directly into the commercial utility grid. When the PV roof generates more electricity than the house needs, the electric meter spins backward, and the power flows into the utility grid. At night or on cloudy days when the PV roof can't produce enough power for the home, the system draws electricity from the grid. (See "About Net Metering") Without batteries, these systems do not provide homeowners power when grid power goes out. Grid Connected, with battery backup. This is identical to the system above, except it includes a bank of batteries that can be used when the utility grid power goes down. Special switches must be included to assure the home is completely disconnected when the grid power goes down and battery backup is used. While batteries can be installed to supply power when the grid is down, they are expensive and require more maintenance than a simple grid-connected system. Stand-Alone, Independent or Off-Grid System. In this design, surplus power from the PV roof is stored in a group of batteries, and the system is not connected to the grid. Although the battery component of this system increases the cost and requires more maintenance, a complete off-grid system is usually a competitive choice in remote locations where new and extremely expensive power lines would need to be installed. How Much Will Electricity Cost in 2026? Nobody knows exactly how much utilities' electricity rates may increase over the 25-year life of a solar roof, but they will certainly increase in most regions, while costs for solar roofing are expected to decline. Here are a few numbers to help you estimate the probable cost benefits of a solar roof: 1. An energy-efficient, 2,000-square-foot home needs about two kilowatts of solar roofing. 2. The cost to install two kw of roof: Current cost: $16,000 With rebate: $8,000 (in some areas) With predicted cost reductions: $4,000 to $6,000 3. Amount of electricity the roof will produce during its 25-year lifetime: 100,375 kwh (2kw x 5.5 hours/day x 365 days x 25 years) 4. Value of 100,000 kwh from the grid, if average electricity rate for 25-year period was: 8 cents/kwh: $8,000 20 cents/kwh: $20,000 40* cents/kwh: $40,000 *Rates in some areas of California hit 35 cents/kwh in 2001. About Net Metering Net-metering is a "win-win" for the utility and the homeowner. The utility adds more clean power to its network from a power source located close to demand centers, reducing not only the need to build new plants to meet peak demands but also reducing the load on distribution lines. The process is a win for the homeowner, who doesn't need a bank of batteries to store electricity to power the household at night or during overcast days. Instead the system uses the utility grid as a storage battery. When the solar-electric rooftop produces more electricity than the household needs (at midday when the family is away at work and school), electricity is sent to the utility grid and the home's meter runs backward. When the household needs more electricity than the system produces (at night), it is drawn from the utility grid and the electrical meter runs forward. The net difference between electricity exported to the grid and grid-electricity used forms the basis for the homeowner's electric bill. In many states, net metering is annualized. The utility credits solar electricity produced by the rooftop system during the summer against electricity needed from the grid during the winter.