NucNews - August 15, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa 'Pebble bed project will cost SA R25-billion' Melanie Gosling Cape Times on August 15, 2005 August 15 2005 at 10:04 AM http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20050815071107475C776387 South Africa will have to spend a massive R25-billion on the proposed pebble bed nuclear power project before it will be economically viable. This has emerged from an international report on the economic impact of the proposed pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) which says that if the project goes ahead South African consumers could end up paying for "a series of expensive white elephants". The cost of a PBMR demonstration plant to be built at Koeberg has risen from R2-billion in 1999 to R14-billion today. This excludes the decommissioning costs, which would be at least another R5-billion. The economic report was written by Steve Thomas, of the Public Service International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich and commissioned by the Legal Resources Centre. It is to form part of a submission by Earthlife Africa to the department of environment affairs. The department was ordered by the Cape High Court six months ago to reopen the environmental impact process for the pebble bed, but has not yet done so. The economic forecasts by PBMR are 'implausibly optimistic' The National Environmental Management Act requires that the state ensure development is economically sustainable. Thomas writes that South Africa plans to build several of the nukes for export but, after years of negotiations, has no overseas orders. The developer, PBMR, is pressuring Eskom to commit, unconditionally, to buying 24 of the units at a cost of R25-billion. This would allow "economies of scale" to kick in and only then could the company produce a commercially competitive product. Thomas says the PBMR's huge escalating costs and the long time delays show that the developers have failed to understand the nature or scale of their task. Their poor track record gives little confidence that they would be able to control costs and time schedules in the next, more expensive, phase. The pebble bed's economic forecasts by the PBMR company have not been updated since 1998 and are "implausibly optimistic". Thomas points out that, as the demonstration plant itself would only incur costs, not create profits, building it would make sense only if there were a high probability of a "stream of orders" from overseas. Beijing has made no commitment to buy PBMRs. The company had been "very vague" about its target markets. Its analysis of the world nuclear market was simplistic and its assumptions about who would buy the exported PBMRs had no basis. There was "nothing remotely close to a firm order" from overseas for a pebble bed nuke reactor. The main expected export market was China but, despite several years of discussions, Beijing had made no commitment. South Africa has not been able to find another international partner for the nuke project since the US company, Exelon, pulled out in 2002. John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon, said the reason for the withdrawal was that "the project was three years behind schedule and was too speculative". The French nuclear company Areva has also indicated it is not prepared to fund the demo plant. Britain's BNFL, the only foreign partner, is in financial difficulties. Thomas says the PBMR project has always been high-risk and the risks were likely to fall squarely on the shoulders of the South African public. As South Africans would have to be the major underwriters for the pebble bed project, it was "reprehensible" that most of the economic information needed to evaluate it had been withheld from the public. "It is particularly regrettable that a report by an international panel of experts, commissioned by the department of minerals and energy to review the overall project, has not been made public," Thomas wrote. Thomas, a member of the panel, said the panel had been "required to promise not to disclose any information" about the report. The Legal Resources Centre has tried, under the Access to Information Act, to get the department of minerals and energy to release the report, but it has refused to do so. Peter Bradford, former commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, peer-reviewed Thomas's report this month and his only criticism was that Thomas had been "conservative" in his concerns about the pebble bed. Bradford said Thomas had not considered the negative impact on the South African economy that would flow from electricity bill increases or tax increases to fund the pebble bed project. He also had not considered that the Chinese pebble bed design or the Areva prismatic nuclear design were likely to be effective competitors for whatever market developed for the pebble beds. Earthlife Africa is to make its presentation to the environmental portfolio committee on the PBMR on Tuesday. -------- australia Uranium mining debate will subside, company says Monday, August 15, 2005. 9:27pm (AEST) http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1438173.htm The head of the world's largest uranium producer says it could take up to 10 years to develop a mine in the Northern Territory, once it makes a discovery. Canadian-based Cameco president Jerry Grandey says it is spending $6 million a year on exploring in the NT, mainly in Arnhem Land. Mr Grandey last week appeared before a federal parliamentary inquiry into uranium and called for a clear policy direction for the industry. Speaking during a visit to Darwin today to meet with the Northern Territory Mining Minister Kon Vatskalis in Darwin, Mr Grandey says he is confident the political debate surrounding uranium mining will subside. "This business is plagued by lots of mythology - if you strip that away and you get to the facts, how's Ranger behaved and operated over the years, what is the true impact on Kakadu National Park - all those facts should be open and transparent and when people look they'll see that it's insignificant," he said. Mr Grandey says the political debate in other countries has long disappeared and Australia is behind. But he says the lack of debate locally was because low prices meant there was little push for development. "So there really hasn't been much of a reason to go through the debate, so now all of a sudden uranium prices have tripled or quadrupled, there is a huge potential for uranium development in Australia and the Northern Territory - that has caused the Federal Government and the provincial government to begin to talk about uranium again," he said. -------- business Ionics Fabricated Products Division Joining GE Energy's Nuclear Business 8/15/2005 SOURCE: GE Energy http://www.poweronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=%7B2BCF6DFC-31C8-4163-AF5C-069E14FD9763%7D&VNETCOOKIE=NO Wilmington, NC — In a move designed to further expand GE’s offerings to the global nuclear industry, Ionics Fabricated Products Division will be integrated into GE Energy’s nuclear segment, based in Wilmington, N.C. Ionics Fabricated Products Division, a leading fabricator of spent fuel canisters and nuclear replacement equipment, was part of Ionics Inc., which GE acquired earlier this year. Ionics Fabricated specializes in manufacturing highly engineered components to nuclear industry specifications, operating under tight schedules, and meeting Nuclear Regulatory Commission and customer quality requirements. "Adding Ionics' skills and experience to our nuclear team will enable us to offer our customers expanded services and a more diverse product line," said Andy White, president and CEO of GE Energy's nuclear business. "Ionics' manufacturing capabilities in the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and spent fuel segments will complement GE's experience in the boiling water reactor (BWR) segment." White added, "The integration enhances our dry fuel storage services solution with a more complete and complementary offering, and will use GE's technological capabilities with Ionics' manufacturing expertise to provide superior products." Ionics Fabricated Products Division employs approximately 150 people at two manufacturing facilities in the Pittsburgh, Pa. area. The integration into GE Energy's nuclear business will be completed in 2006. GE's nuclear business develops advanced light water reactors and provides a wide array of technology-based products and services to help owners of both boiling and pressurized water reactors safely operate their facilities with greater efficiency and output. -------- europe Protest over '100,000 years of nuclear waste' at Romanian plant BUCHAREST (AFP) Aug 15, 2005 http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050815171352.04u2j3nk.html About 30 Greenpeace activists in rubber dinghies sailed up a canal linking the Danube to the Black Sea on Monday to protest against the expansion of Romania's sole nuclear power station, the group said. Romania still had not tackled the problem of storing nuclear waste and the situation would worsen with a second reactor due to start operations in 2006, the global environmental activist body said. About 30 protesters unfurled a banner reading "Cernavoda, 100,000 years of nuclear waste" at the state-owned plant in the country's southeast. "Greenpeace demands investment in the nuclear sector be halted and calls on the government to give more consideration to renewable energies," it said. "Cernavoda annually produces 90 tonnes of extremely dangerous waste that are now stored inside the facility and no one knows what will become of it in the 100,000 years to come." The first nuclear reactor -- out of a total of five planned for the plant -- began operations in 1996. Built by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Italian company Ansaldo, the Canadian Candu 6 reactors use natural uranium and heavy water. The power station supplies 10 percent of Romania's electricity and heating for the town of Cernavoda. -------- iran Larijani takes over as Iranian atomic negotiator Mon Aug 15, 2005 6:35 AM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticleSearch.aspx?storyID=107085+15-Aug-2005+RTRS&srch=nuclear TEHRAN, Aug 15 - Ali Larijani, a conservative with close ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has formally taken over as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, state television reported on Monday. Larijani, a former head of state radio and television, takes over from cleric Hassan Rohani at a tense period, with Iran's nuclear programme on the brink of referral to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. "In a decree from President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Ali Larijani is appointed secretary of the Supreme National Security Council," state television said. Iran has rejected a resolution from the International Atomic Energy Agency calling on it to reverse immediately its resumption of uranium conversion -- a process that can lead to the production of atomic reactor fuel or bomb grade material. Washington accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran insists its ambitions are limited to seeking fuel for nuclear power stations such as the one it is building with Russian help at the Gulf port of Bushehr. European diplomats have expressed fears over the replacement of the pragmatic Rohani. Reformists criticised Larijani's stint as head of state media for censoring their views and for excessive religious programming. When he stepped down from that post last year, he became an aide to the Supreme Leader. He voiced an uncompromising line on the Islamic Republic's atomic programme, saying that taking European Union incentives in return for giving up the nuclear fuel cycle would be like exchanging "a pearl for a candy bar". Larijani, the scion of an influential hardline family, was the official presidential candidate of the conservative camp, but won little public support, coming sixth out of seven candidates with about six percent of votes cast in a June election. ---- How Bush would gain from war with Iran The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved Dan Plesch Monday August 15, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1549335,00.html President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support. A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration. America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran. A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan. The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced. Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq. The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire". Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base. It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters. New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation. As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves. We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack. · Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival dan@... ---- Is this Iran crisis for real? By Patrick J. Buchanan 08/15/05 "WND" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9771.htm Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer to both is no. By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants. Why, then, this talk of confrontation and pre-emptive strikes? Even if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity by a regime that, no matter how militant, has shown no desire for war with America. What is the worry? Just this. If or when Iran goes nuclear, she has a deterrent to intimidation. U.S. freedom of action in the Persian Gulf comes to an end. We would have to behave as gingerly with the mullahs as we do with Kim Jong Il, something intolerable to our neoconservatives and President Bush. For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's invulnerability would come to an end. She would enter the world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the better. But herein lies the problem for President Bush. Britain, France and Germany do not want to take the first step to confrontation by asking the U.N. Security Council to vote sanctions on Iran for restarting the enrichment process. And even if the Europeans agree to go to the Security Council, a resolution calling for sanctions would face vetoes by Russia and China. If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. It would be interesting to see how many U.S. allies are willing to support sanctions on the third-largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel. Moreover, if the present negotiations end in sanctions on Iran, then, just as North Korea sped up its nuclear program when talks broke down, Iran might do the same. That would leave the United States with the final option: air and missile strikes to destroy all of Iran's known facilities for the enrichment of uranium. But as Iran is permitted such facilities as long as it allows absolute freedom for U.N. inspectors, how could we justify such acts of war? After all, we give a $160 billion trade surplus to China, though she is targeting our cities with nuclear missiles. President Bush cut a deal to help India develop nuclear power, though she has tested bombs. We give foreign aid to Pakistan and Israel, which had clandestine and successful programs that built atomic weapons. And we have a basket of goodies on offer to Kim Jong Il if he will shut down his nuclear facilities and hand over any bombs. Where is the consistency here? There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S. strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik demonstrator. As Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War College writes in the New Republic, Iran's best strategy might be to lash out in retaliation. What could Iran do? Plenty. Send Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S. troops. Incite Hezbollah to launch rockets on Israel to widen the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the Shias in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring terror home to the United States. In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy into instant cardiac arrest. And as the United States lacks the ground forces to invade Iran and topple the regime, U.S. retaliation would be restricted to air and cruise missile strikes. But just as 9-11 united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime, enhancing its prestige as it fought America to protect Iran's equal right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear technology, an issue upon which almost all Iranians agree. President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. ---- How Bush would gain from war with Iran The US has the capability and reasons for an assault - and it is hard to see Britain uninvolved Dan Plesch Monday August 15, 2005 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1549198,00.html President Bush has reminded us that he is prepared to take military action to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. On Israeli television this weekend, he declared that "all options are on the table" if Tehran doesn't comply with international demands. In private his officials deride EU and UN diplomacy with Iran. US officials have been preparing pre-emptive war since Bush marked Iran out as a member of the "axis of evil" back in 2002. Once again, this war is likely to have British support. A plausible spin could be that America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack. The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration. America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran. A US attack is unlikely to be confined to the suspected WMD locations or to involve a ground invasion to occupy the country. The strikes would probably be intended to destroy military, political and (oil excepted) economic infrastructure. A disabled Iran could be further paralysed by civil war. Tehran alleges US support for separatists in the large Azeri population of the north-west, and fighting is increasing in Iranian Kurdistan. The possible negative consequences of an attack on Iran are well known: an increase in terrorism; a Shia rising in Iraq; Hizbullah and Iranian attacks on Israel; attacks on oil facilities along the Gulf and a recession caused by rising oil prices. Advocates of war argue that if Iran is allowed to go nuclear then each of these threats to US and Israeli interests becomes far greater. In this logic, any negative consequence becomes a further reason to attack now - with Iran disabled all these threats can, it is argued, be reduced. Iraq is proving an electoral liability. This is a threat to the Bush team's intention to retain power for the next decade - perhaps, as the author Bob Woodward says, with President Cheney at the helm. War with Iran next spring can enable them to win the mid-term elections and retain control of the Republican party, now in partial rebellion over Iraq. The rise in oil prices and subsequent recession are reasons some doubt that an attack would take place. However, Iran's supplies are destined for China - perceived as the US's main long-term rival. And the Bush team are experienced enough to remember that Ronald Reagan rode out the recession of the early 1980s on a wave of rhetoric about "evil empire". Even if the US went ahead, runs the argument, Britain would not be involved as Tony Blair would not want a rerun of the Iraq controversy. But British forces are already in the area: they border Iran around Basra, and will soon lead the Nato force on Iran's Afghan frontier. The British island of Diego Garcia is a critical US base. It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's. In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it. In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US. Tory votes might provide sufficient "national unity" to see off Labour dissenters. New approaches are needed to head off such a dismal scenario. The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation. As the Iran debate unfolds, we will no doubt again hear about the joint intelligence committee. We should follow the advice of a former head of the committee, Sir Paul Lever, to remove US intelligence officials from around the JIC table, where they normally sit. Only in this way, argues Lever, can the British take a considered view themselves. We need to be clear that our MPs have no mandate to support an attack on Iran. During the election campaign, the government dismissed any suggestion that Iran might be attacked as ridiculous scaremongering. If Blair has told Bush that Britain will prevent Iran's nuclear weapons "come what may", we need to be equally clear that nothing short of an election would provide the mandate for an attack. · Dan Plesch is the author of The Beauty Queen's Guide to World Peace, about which he is speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival dan@danplesch.net ---- Iran: A Crisis Of Choice Thomas Graham August 15, 2005 TomPaine.com http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050815/iran_a_crisis_of_choice.php Ambassador Thomas Graham is currently senior counsel at the law firm of Morgan Lewis. He served as a senior U.S. diplomat negotiating every arms control agreement over the last 30 years. The controversy over the Iranian nuclear program is neither a new issue nor is it a crisis. But if the United States does not handle this issue carefully, the result could be that Iran would leave both the negotiating table and the Non-Proliferation Treaty and all parties would be worse off. Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the first day it was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, and was an Original Party when it entered into force in 1970. However, for at least the last 15 years, there have been suspicions among some in the NPT community about the real objective of the Iranian nuclear program—is it for peaceful electricity or nuclear weapons? The United States, with some justification, has been especially skeptical. In late 2003, Iran confirmed some of those suspicions when it declared that it had been in violation of its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for many years. In essence, Iran had been developing uranium enrichment technology without disclosing this to the IAEA. At the same time, however, Iran denied any intention of building nuclear weapons and pledged cooperation with the IAEA in the future. Iran also promised to join the IAEA’s expanded inspection agreement and to temporarily halt uranium enrichment related activities. This temporary suspension was terminated in June, 2004 but was subsequently reinstated. And early in 2004, Iran began negotiating with Britain, France and Germany—representing the European Union—over the future of its program. The objective of the negotiations has been for the Europeans to develop a package of inducements sufficient to persuade Iran to give up that part of its nuclear program that involves an effort to acquire nuclear fuel cycle technology (uranium enrichment and nuclear waste chemical-reprocessing equipment). All along, Iran has asserted that it has a right as an NPT non-nuclear weapon party to acquire the entire nuclear fuel cycle, as implied by Article IV of the treaty. But it was clear from the beginning of the negotiation that Iran was interested in not only economic and trade concessions and peaceful nuclear technology cooperation, but also security guarantees—sometimes referred to as non-aggression commitments. The United States did not believe that this process would be successful,although after a time it, did express its support for the European effort. Showing its seriousness during the course of these negotiations, Iran maintained its voluntary suspension of enrichment activities, and the Europeans asserted that resumption of such activities could prevent the negotiations from continuing. Last week, the Europeans put their offer on the table and it was promptly rejected by Iran saying that it did not meet minimum expectations. Based on news reports describing the European offer, it appears to have been quite a good deal in the economic area but vague on security guarantees. Yet the talks are structurally flawed. As long as the United States stays out of the negotiations, the security guarantee, obviously, cannot include any commitment by the United States—the country of greatest concern to Iran. So it should not be a surprise that the offer was rejected. Immediately, Iran recommenced uranium conversion—but not actual enrichment activities—with IAEA inspectors present. This situation is certainly quite serious, but should not be viewed as a crisis. Last week, an article in The Washington Post disclosed the findings of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. That highly classified report included the intelligence community’s consensus judgment that Iran remained six to 10 years away from the threshold of a nuclear weapon capability. With this kind of calendar, there remains time for diplomacy to work. Indeed, immediately after Iran rejected the offer from the EU-3, Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in a telephone call to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan that he wants to continue negotiations with Europe over the fate of Iran’s nuclear program and that he is working on a new set of ideas. President Bush cautiously greeted this as “a positive sign,” while the French foreign ministry said that “we think it is still possible to negotiate.” And on August 11, the IAEA Board adopted a resolution urging Iran to re-establish “full suspension of all enrichment related activities.” The resolution charged the IAEA Director General, Mohammed El Baradei, to report to the board on September 3 on whether Iran was carrying out the terms of the resolution. But the diplomatic opportunities that remain would likely collapse if the West pushes for the case of Iran to be brought before the U.N. Security Council in an effort to have sanctions imposed. In any case, it is likely that Russia and China would use their vetoes to scuttle an Iran sanction proposal. But even if the Security Council somehow could be persuaded to adopt sanctions, this would seem unlikely to change Iran’s behavior and the negotiations would no longer exist. Indeed, sanctions could have the effect of actually further weakening the international non-proliferation regime. This is so because Iran might, under such circumstances, consider withdrawal from the NPT so that it had no more nuclear obligations. A daily newspaper reported as close to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khameni, said last week in its lead editorial that Iran should withdraw from the NPT if its case was simply sent to the Security Council. There has been one recent withdrawal from the NPT—North Korea—another, especially Iran, would be most unfortunate. But America is sending mixed signals. Reports that India may have obtained a better deal from the United States with respect to cooperation in nuclear technology outside the NPT than Iran could ever obtain inside the treaty could make officials in Tehran wonder what the NPT is doing for Iran. This is not the kind of message that we should be sending. Thus, it is difficult to see how U.N. sanctions could be a practical course of action. The best chance for favorable resolution of this issue remains at the negotiating table. Director General El Baradei said last Thursday that the only way forward “is through negotiation.” In conclusion, it is very much in the interest of the United States and the world community to pursue diplomatic measures to find an arrangement with which all parties to this dispute can be comfortable and that will give strong incentives to Iran to stay within the non-proliferation community. As a nation, we have the time and capacity to do this right. ---- Is this Iran crisis for real? By Patrick J. Buchanan 08/15/05 "WND" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9771.htm Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer to both is no. By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants. Why, then, this talk of confrontation and pre-emptive strikes? Even if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity by a regime that, no matter how militant, has shown no desire for war with America. What is the worry? Just this. If or when Iran goes nuclear, she has a deterrent to intimidation. U.S. freedom of action in the Persian Gulf comes to an end. We would have to behave as gingerly with the mullahs as we do with Kim Jong Il, something intolerable to our neoconservatives and President Bush. For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's invulnerability would come to an end. She would enter the world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the better. But herein lies the problem for President Bush. Britain, France and Germany do not want to take the first step to confrontation by asking the U.N. Security Council to vote sanctions on Iran for restarting the enrichment process. And even if the Europeans agree to go to the Security Council, a resolution calling for sanctions would face vetoes by Russia and China. If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its backers on the other. It would be interesting to see how many U.S. allies are willing to support sanctions on the third-largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel. Moreover, if the present negotiations end in sanctions on Iran, then, just as North Korea sped up its nuclear program when talks broke down, Iran might do the same. That would leave the United States with the final option: air and missile strikes to destroy all of Iran's known facilities for the enrichment of uranium. But as Iran is permitted such facilities as long as it allows absolute freedom for U.N. inspectors, how could we justify such acts of war? After all, we give a $160 billion trade surplus to China, though she is targeting our cities with nuclear missiles. President Bush cut a deal to help India develop nuclear power, though she has tested bombs. We give foreign aid to Pakistan and Israel, which had clandestine and successful programs that built atomic weapons. And we have a basket of goodies on offer to Kim Jong Il if he will shut down his nuclear facilities and hand over any bombs. Where is the consistency here? There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S. strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik demonstrator. As Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War College writes in the New Republic, Iran's best strategy might be to lash out in retaliation. What could Iran do? Plenty. Send Revolutionary Guards into Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S. troops. Incite Hezbollah to launch rockets on Israel to widen the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the Shias in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring terror home to the United States. In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy into instant cardiac arrest. And as the United States lacks the ground forces to invade Iran and topple the regime, U.S. retaliation would be restricted to air and cruise missile strikes. But just as 9-11 united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime, enhancing its prestige as it fought America to protect Iran's equal right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear technology, an issue upon which almost all Iranians agree. President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would be no -------- ukraine Ecologists stand against the reduction of buffer zone round Chernobyl forUm (Ukrainian Internet Newspaper), 15 August 2005 http://eng.for-ua.com/news/?id=1666 The ecological organizations put to a criticism the plans of reduction of buffer zone of Chernobyl polluted territory. In particular, Sergey Fedorinchik, the chief of the information center of "Green World" association, reckons that the buffer zone must be adequate to the borders of radioactive pollution but not to the radius around Chernobyl nuclear plant. The construction of the storage of nuclear waste must be based upon the accurate calculations because this object, according to the expert, will be potentially dangerous for the next 20 thousands years. The further exploitation of reactors of Ukrainian nuclear power plants is the great danger for the environment because the term of exploitation runs of in the current year. "It is a pure adventurism. It is vicious way typical for all Ukrainian governments, new power of Ukraine included," stated Fedorinchik. The current decision has no basis and was passed because of the lack of knowledge concerning the technology of terminating the old reactors, Fedorinchik reported. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- arizona Palo Verde Generators start crawl from Mexico August 15, 2005 Associated Press http://www.kpho.com/global/story.asp?s=3721173&ClientType=Printable PHOENIX Drivers are advised to avoid a king-size caravan carrying nuclear-plant equipment through southern Arizona this week. Two gigantic flatbed trucks are each carrying an 806-ton steam generator. They're already headed north through Mexico from Puerto Peqasco (pee-KAHS-co), where they were delivered by barge. At a snail's pace, the convoy will travel along Arizona 85 from Lukeville to Gila Bend, then on local roads west of 85 heading north toward the plant. The convoy is expected to reach the border as early as today, but will take another two weeks to reach Palo Verde near Tonopah (tone-AH'-pah). D-P-S officers will be on the scene far ahead and behind the caravan to advise motorists to detour the area. -------- south carolina Study finds agency should delay storage plans at SRS By LAUREN MARKOE Mon, Aug. 15, 2005 The State Washington Bureau http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/12385490.htm WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Energy should postpone plans to leave nuclear waste in storage tanks at the Savannah River Site, a new study commissioned by Congress recommends. Environmentalists are praising the findings by the National Academy of Sciences, but they predict the Energy Department won’t accept a key recommendation. “We’re vindicated; this is what we’ve been saying all along,” said Dell Isham, director of the S.C. chapter of the Sierra Club. “But it may be a hollow victory because they may do whatever they want anyway.” The Energy Department — which owns SRS and wants to leave up to 5 percent of the waste at the site in some of the 49 tanks and mix it with grout — confirmed Isham’s prediction. “We believe that for human as well as environmental health, the wisest course of action is to proceed with tank closure,” department spokesman Mike Waldrin said. “Doing otherwise puts the cleanup in the position of always waiting for the next technological development to come along and would hamstring tank closure without providing a clear benefit.” But Isham and other environmentalists question whether the tanks will hold up. They say all waste should be removed and sent to a deep nuclear waste vault — such as the one at yet-to-open, controversial Yucca Mountain in Nevada. They point to the report’s conclusion that new technologies developed during the next five to 10 years could make it easier and cheaper to remove all waste from the tanks, so grouting and sealing should be delayed. The Department of Energy has indicated the report likely won’t change its tank closing schedule. Two tanks already have been sealed, and the department wants the remaining 49 closed by 2022. SRS, the 310-square-mile nuclear campus near Aiken that produced much of the nuclear fuel for the nation’s Cold War arsenal, is now primarily a nuclear waste reprocessing, research and storage facility. The nuclear waste addressed in the study sits in carbon steel tanks buried a few feet below the ground. They can hold 36.4 million gallons of waste. From each, the bulk of the waste can be removed and “vitrified” — turned into glass logs for burial at Yucca Mountain. The disagreement is over the fraction of waste that lies at the bottom of the tanks — the hardened “heel” of the sludge, which is more difficult to remove. The Department of Energy estimates it could cost $500 million to remove this sludge and argues that it is safer to leave it and seal the tanks. Environmentalists in 2003 won a lawsuit that demanded complete removal. But subsequent federal legislation allows the Energy Department to reclassify the sludge as low-level waste — meaning it could stay in the tanks. U.S. Rep. John Spratt, D-York, inserted language into a defense bill earlier this year directing the independent, Washington-based National Academy of Sciences to take a year and $1.5 million to study the storage of such waste at three sites, including SRS. The just-released study, which focuses only on SRS, is the Academy’s interim report. “The NAS panel suggests that we can have our cake and eat it, too — that we can allow research into other technologies to ensure that we are removing as much waste as feasible,” Spratt said. Mal McKibben, executive director of Aiken-based Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, and a former SRS scientist, said the Energy Department and SRS officials are willing to consider new technologies that could remove even more waste from the tanks — but must balance that with the need to seal the tanks. “The longer we take to close those tanks, the greater the possibility of having leaks,” he said. Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com. -------- us nuc waste Nuclear dump site far from opening, experts say David Sneed Mon, Aug. 15, 2005 The San Luis Obispo Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12389707.htm As the state of California launched its first major assessment of nuclear power issues in almost 30 years Monday, experts blasted the Yucca Mountain waste disposal project and questioned whether the site will ever open. If such a dump isn't developed, the spent fuel from Diablo Canyon would continue to pile up at the plant and would remain there -- potentially for decades into the future. A representative of the state of Nevada and a former member of a California task force on nuclear waste both spoke forcefully on the subject before members of the California Energy Commission. A representative of the nuclear industry did not contradict their points, but said simply that some kind of storage must be found. The federal Department of Energy, which is responsible for the Yucca Mountain project, declined an invitation to attend the hearings, which will continue into the afternoon and resume tomorrow. -------- MILITARY -------- biological weapons US paid for Japanese human germ warfare data Monday, August 15, 2005. 0:19am (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437314.htm The United States gave money and other benefits to former members of a Japanese germ warfare unit two years after the end of World War II to obtain data on human experiments the unit conducted in China. The Imperial Japanese Army established Unit 731 in 1936 to develop biological weapons using plague, anthrax and other bacteria. Headquartered in the suburbs of Harbin in China's Heilongjiang Province, the unit conducted germ warfare in various places in China and used Chinese, Russians and others as subjects in human experiments. The US-led allied powers that occupied Japan offered to waive war crime charges at the war tribunal for officers of Unit 731 set up by the Imperial Japanese Army in exchange for experiment data. But two declassified US Government documents reveal Washington's eagerness to obtain such data extended to providing monetary rewards, despite the awful nature of Unit 731's activities, in an apparent attempt to beat the Soviet Union in the arms development race. Historians believe that some 3,000 people died in the human experiments conducted in China by the unit led by military doctor Shiro Ishii before and during the war. The total amount paid to unnamed former members of the infamous unit was somewhere between 150,000 to 200,000 yen, equivalent to about 20 million ($2.37 million) to 40 million yen today. The two declassified documents were found in the US National Archives by Keiichi Tsuneishi, professor at Kanagawa University and an expert on biological and chemical weapons. One of the top-secret documents was a "report on bacteriological warfare" for the chief of staff of the Far Eastern Commission, dated July 17, 1947, compiled by Brigadier General Charles Willoughby, head of the "G2" intelligence unit of the US-led occupation forces in Japan. The other was a letter dated July 22 the same year that Brig Gen Willoughby sent to Major General SJ Chamberlin, director of intelligence of the US War Department General Staff, to illustrate the need for continued use of confidential funds without restrictions to obtain such intelligence. In the documents, Willoughby described the achievements of his unit's investigations, saying the "information procured will have the greatest value in future development of the US BW (bacteriological warfare) program". Citing a US War Department specialist in charge of the investigation, Brig Gen Willoughby wrote in the report that "data on human experiments may prove invaluable" and said the information was "only obtainable through the skilful, psychological approach to top-flight pathologists" involved in Unit 731 experiments. The US side provided money, food, gifts, entertainment and other kinds of rewards to the former Unit 731 members, according to the report. "All of these actions did not amount to more than (150,000-200,000) yen, netting the (United States) the fruit of 20 years' laboratory tests and research," the report says. Brig Gen Willoughby described the cost as a "mere pittance" in his letter to Maj Gen Chamberlin. Professor Tsuneishi said it had been thought that the US had gathered the information high-handedly by making unit members choose between cooperating or facing war crime charges, "but it has become clear that this was done by winning (unit members') hearts with money and rewards". The General Headquarters (GHQ) of the US-led occupation forces started interrogating senior officers of Unit 731 soon after the end of war but the members denied having conducted human experiments. The truth did not come to light until the latter half of 1946 when senior Japanese army officers detained in the Soviet Union confessed about the experiments. In 1947, the GHQ moved to gather experiment data but because war crime charges against the Unit 731 officers had been waived by then, the GHQ was apparently forced to offer monetary rewards to access the information. -Kyodo -------- pacific Okinawa governor: Moving all Marines from island is ultimate goal By Chiyomi Sumida, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Monday, August 15, 2005 http://stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=30946 NAHA, Okinawa — Gov. Keiichi Inamine on Saturday said he hopes a realignment of U.S. forces in Japan will lead to closing all Marine Corps bases on Okinawa. During a forum held to discuss a coming realignment plan and Okinawa’s future in the post-realignment era, Inamine said moving all Marines from the island is a top goal for him. “Why do I want all the Marine bases [to] be moved out of Okinawa?” Inamine asked an audience of about 300 people. “It is because the Marine Corps on Okinawa is the chief symbol of the American military presence here.” But the major hurdle to reducing that presence on Okinawa is a “perception gap” existing between Okinawa and the rest of Japan, he said. “They don’t realize this is an issue for the whole of Japan,” Inamine said. “The most important question we have to ask ourselves is if we want to remain under the umbrella of the United States.” The United States and Japan are negotiating a realignment of the U.S. military presence in the country. U.S. officials have said they are aware they must ease what has been called “Okinawa’s burden.” In 1996, the United States and Japan agreed to reduce the footprint of U.S. bases on Okinawa by 20 percent. That process is under way. The prefecture’s main island is host to more than half the U.S. troops and 75 percent of the land is used solely for U.S. bases in Japan. But U.S. and Japanese leaders also agree the U.S. military presence is necessary to ensure regional stability, especially with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. No U.S. officials were invited to speak at the forum. After Inamine spoke, five Okinawa political and academic leaders discussed realignment and its effect on Okinawa’s 1.3 million people. Masaaki Gabe, an international relations professor at the University of Ryukyus, said the military transformation in Japan would not bring much change. “The strength of U.S. forces in Japan will remain almost unchanged,” he said. “But what will happen is that the role of Japan in the security alliance is about to change.” In February meetings in Washington, he said, both governments agreed to reduce the U.S. military footprint on Okinawa while maintaining a deterrence. “However, maintaining a deterrence power is the principal priority and reducing the military presence is secondary,” Gabe said. The forum was held on the anniversary of a crash of a Marine CH-53D Sea Stallion helicopter on the campus of Okinawa International University, adjacent to Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. “The crash illustrated the fact that the air station is too dangerous to operate,” said Yoshihiko Higa, senior political counselor for the Inamine administration. Ginowan Mayor Yoichi Iha, who recently visited the United States, said bases there are less of a danger to nearby communities. “When I visited San Diego, I saw that a buffer zone is set up at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar so that the air operations do not affect the local community,” he said. “If the same buffer zone was set up here at the air station Futenma, it would cover the entire city of Ginowan.” After the forum, some people who attended said the biggest problem they face is convincing the rest of Japan the U.S. troops on Okinawa need to be reduced. “I truly feel the gap between Okinawa and mainland Japan,” said Yuri Kinjo, a sophomore of Okinawa International University. “When the helicopter crashed at our college, not many people in the mainland knew about it. “And no knowledge means no concern,” she added. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE --------- homelessness Atlanta puts heat on panhandlers By Larry Copeland and Charisse Jones, USA TODAY 8/15/2005 11:24 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-15-atlanta-panhandlers_x.htm ATLANTA — Many cities trying to revitalize their downtowns have wrestled with the problem of homeless beggars. But those cities are not the celebrated birthplace of Martin Luther King Jr. Their names are not synonymous with black political power, and their leaders have not pinned hopes for revival on a giant new aquarium whose owner wants a ban on aggressive panhandling. So it was Monday that a City Council hearing on a proposal to limit begging in parts of downtown carried a special resonance. The fiery, revival-style meeting exposed raw passions that led to accusations of racism and elitism by the proposal's opponents and charges by its supporters that some of the most aggressive beggars aren't even homeless. The proposal, which the council adopted Monday night on a 12-3 vote, is supported by Mayor Shirley Franklin, the downtown business establishment and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who is building the $200 million Georgia Aquarium downtown without public money. Opponents include advocates for the homeless and residents and businesses in some other sections of the city, who fear that a crackdown in the central business district will push homeless people into other neighborhoods. Atlanta police arrested two opponents and escorted several others from the chamber after the council's vote. A sharp dispute At Monday's hearing, speakers on both sides of the proposal invoked King's name and offered starkly different assessments of the issue. "Downtown today can be hostile," said Greg Jones, a spokesman for Georgia State University who supports the ban. "Around any corner and along any stretch of sidewalk, you likely will be accosted by a man, woman or group." Some advocates for the homeless said complaints about panhandlers are overblown. "There is no data to back up any of the fear-mongering," said Anita Beatty, executive director of the Metro Atlanta Task Force for the Homeless. "The real issue here is the business community exaggerating people's fear in order to sweep the city clean of poor African-American males. It's a racist, classist agenda." Anti-panhandling measures like Atlanta's have been on the rise around the nation, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless, based in Washington, D.C.: • In April, city commissioners in Miami Beach upheld a law barring panhandlers from asking for money within 20 feet of a restaurant. • Portland, Ore., tried in December to deal with downtown panhandlers by enforcing a law restricting where people can sit and place their belongings on sidewalks. • A push to rid downtown San Francisco of aggressive panhandlers and people who sleep on sidewalks has pushed some homeless people into parks and onto beaches. "The most common law that targets homeless people is some version of a panhandling law, whether it's aggressive panhandling or saying you can only panhandle in certain areas of a city," says Michael Stoops, acting executive director of the national homeless coalition. Such measures are often pushed by businesses that don't want panhandlers to scare away customers and by city officials who want to draw visitors to such attractions as sports arenas or entice the affluent to move downtown and into gentrifying areas. That's the case here. The city has launched a tourism-based effort to revive a moribund downtown. Its centerpiece is the Georgia Aquarium, which will boast 100,000 fish, two beluga whales and guest dining directed by celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck when it opens Nov. 23. Officials have tried for decades to find the magic formula that will lure people downtown. Several ventures — including Underground Atlanta, now a faded shopping mall — have been unable to consistently draw people. Marcus has said the revitalization plan's success depends on banning begging. "If we don't make a dent in the aggressive panhandling, it's all for nothing," said A.J. Robinson, president of the downtown business group Central Atlanta Progress. "We think we have crafted an ordinance that is balanced in its approach and is constitutional. People in the community are just tired of (panhandlers)." Targeting tourism area The proposal makes it illegal to ask for money or valuables in a "tourist triangle" that includes most downtown hotels and tourist sites. The city has an estimated 7,000-12,000 homeless, most of them African-American men, according to Crossroads Community Ministries, which works to move Atlanta's homeless of the streets and toward self-sufficiency. Some supporters of the ordinance said it is not directed at all homeless people. "I'm just asking that the council separates their good and legitimate concern for homeless people from the ban on offensive, aggressive panhandling," said Jones of Georgia State. Opponents said the proposal is mean-spirited. "Why do we need to keep on criminalizing people who are poor?" asked Atlanta resident Steve Carr. Clarence Davis, who is homeless, invoked the Bible: "All through the Bible, they were begging. Begging was way back there in the Bible days." Robinson of Central Atlanta Progress said the proposal is aimed at "about 100 hard-core, aggressive panhandlers" who aren't even homeless. Indeed, Stoops said, panhandlers are not necessarily homeless. But he said ordinances fail to address the larger circumstances that may prompt people to panhandle. "Making it illegal to panhandle is not the solution," he said. "Maybe we should ask why someone is on the streets begging for spare change in the first place." Jones reported from New York -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy China to Build Offshore Wind Power Complex August 15, 2005 — By Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8515 SHANGHAI, China — China plans to construct its first offshore wind power complex next year in hopes of easing chronic electricity shortages, the official Xinhua News Agency reported Monday. The complex, to be built in the Bohai Sea off the northern province of Hebei, is designed to have a generating capacity of 1 million kilowatts when completed in 2020, Xinhua said. An initial phase to begin construction late next year will generate 50,000 kilowatts, it said, citing Gao Xihai, a vice manager of the Huanghua Port Development Zone which is promoting the project. The plans come as Chinese cities struggle with power shortages that have forced scheduled blackouts and required industries to close or shift production to weekends or other times when demand is weakest. Officials announced last week that China plans to add 70 million kilowatts annually to the power grid through 2007 for a total of 650 million kilowatts. They said China could by then have an electricity surplus. China is heavily reliant on coal burning thermal power plants, but reportedly has set a generating target of 20 million kilowatts from renewable energy sources such as hydropower, solar power and wind power by 2020. China's government says wind power potentially could generate 253 million kilowatts, although only a tiny fraction of that has so far been exploited. Xinhua said the Hebei project would cost a total of $1.1 billion, split between the Huanghua Port Development Zone and the Guohua Energy Investment Co. ---- Engineers Modify Hybrid Cars To Get Up To 250 MPG August 15, 2005 — By Tim Molloy, Associated Press http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8516 CORTE MADERA, Calif. — Politicians and automakers say a car that can both reduce greenhouse gases and free America from its reliance on foreign oil is years or even decades away. Ron Gremban says such a car is parked in his garage. It looks like a typical Toyota Prius hybrid, but in the trunk sits an 80-miles-per-gallon secret -- a stack of 18 brick-sized batteries that boosts the car's high mileage with an extra electrical charge so it can burn even less fuel. Gremban, an electrical engineer and committed environmentalist, spent several months and $3,000 tinkering with his car. Like all hybrids, his Prius increases fuel efficiency by harnessing small amounts of electricity generated during braking and coasting. The extra batteries let him store extra power by plugging the car into a wall outlet at his home in this San Francisco suburb -- all for about a quarter. He's part of a small but growing movement. "Plug-in" hybrids aren't yet cost-efficient, but some of the dozen known experimental models have gotten up to 250 mpg. They have support not only from environmentalists but also from conservative foreign policy hawks who insist Americans fuel terrorism through their gas guzzling. And while the technology has existed for three decades, automakers are beginning to take notice, too. So far, DaimlerChrysler AG is the only company that has committed to building its own plug-in hybrids, quietly pledging to make up to 40 vans for U.S. companies. But Toyota Motor Corp. officials who initially frowned on people altering their cars now say they may be able to learn from them. "They're like the hot rodders of yesterday who did everything to soup up their cars. It was all about horsepower and bling-bling, lots of chrome and accessories," said Cindy Knight, a Toyota spokeswoman. "Maybe the hot rodders of tomorrow are the people who want to get in there and see what they can do about increasing fuel economy." The extra batteries let Gremban drive for 20 miles with a 50-50 mix of gas and electricity. Even after the car runs out of power from the batteries and switches to the standard hybrid mode, it gets the typical Prius fuel efficiency of around 45 mpg. As long as Gremban doesn't drive too far in a day, he says, he gets 80 mpg. "The value of plug-in hybrids is they can dramatically reduce gasoline usage for the first few miles every day," Gremban said. "The average for people's usage of a car is somewhere around 30 to 40 miles per day. During that kind of driving, the plug-in hybrid can make a dramatic difference." Backers of plug-in hybrids acknowledge that the electricity to boost their cars generally comes from fossil fuels that create greenhouse gases, but they say that process still produces far less pollution than oil. They also note that electricity could be generated cleanly from solar power. Gremban rigged his car to promote the nonprofit CalCars Initiative, a San Francisco Bay area-based volunteer effort that argues automakers could mass produce plug-in hybrids at a reasonable price. But Toyota and other car companies say they are worried about the cost, convenience and safety of plug-in hybrids -- and note that consumers haven't embraced all-electric cars because of the inconvenience of recharging them like giant cell phones. Automakers have spent millions of dollars telling motorists that hybrids don't need to be plugged in, and don't want to confuse the message. Nonetheless, plug-in hybrids are starting to get the backing of prominent hawks like former CIA director James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney, President Reagan's undersecretary of defense. They have joined Set America Free, a group that wants the government to spend $12 billion over four years on plug-in hybrids, alternative fuels and other measures to reduce foreign oil dependence. Gaffney, who heads the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, said Americans would embrace plug-ins if they understood arguments from him and others who say gasoline contributes to oil-rich Middle Eastern governments that support terrorism. "The more we are consuming oil that either comes from places that are bent on our destruction or helping those who are ... the more we are enabling those who are trying to kill us," Gaffney said. DaimlerChrysler spokesman Nick Cappa said plug-in hybrids are ideal for companies with fleets of vehicles that can be recharged at a central location at night. He declined to name the companies buying the vehicles and said he did not know the vehicles' mileage or cost, or when they would be available. Others are modifying hybrids, too. Monrovia-based Energy CS has converted two Priuses to get up to 230 mpg by using powerful lithium ion batteries. It is forming a new company, EDrive Systems, that will convert hybrids to plug-ins for about $12,000 starting next year, company vice president Greg Hanssen said. University of California, Davis engineering professor Andy Frank built a plug-in hybrid from the ground up in 1972 and has since built seven others, one of which gets up to 250 mpg. They were converted from non-hybrids, including a Ford Taurus and Chevrolet Suburban. Frank has spent $150,000 to $250,000 in research costs on each car, but believes automakers could mass-produce them by adding just $6,000 to each vehicle's price tag. Instead, Frank said, automakers promise hydrogen-powered vehicles hailed by President Bush and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, even though hydrogen's backers acknowledge the cars won't be widely available for years and would require a vast infrastructure of new fueling stations. "They'd rather work on something that won't be in their lifetime, and that's this hydrogen economy stuff," Frank said. "They pick this kind of target to get the public off their back, essentially." -------- ACTIVISTS Hundreds join anti-war protest at Bush ranch Monday, August 15, 2005. 0:19am (AEST) Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1437313.htm Several hundred people have joined a protest near US President George W Bush's holiday ranch in Texas to demonstrate against the war in Iraq. The two-week-old protest organised by Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq last year, is being held to call for the withdrawal of the 138,000 US troops deployed there. The protest has been addressed by veterans of the military action in Iraq who now oppose the war. "I joined because of September 11. I thought I was going to make a difference and help the situation but after experiencing war, seeing the death and seeing that violence only begets more violence. an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," veterans like Hart Vigus said. A counter-protest by supporters of Mr Bush has been held nearby. "They're getting our troops killed because they make us look like a bunch of cowards over here, you see," said a Bush supporter. "I don't want the enemy watching this thinking we're ready to cut and run because America will fight these people." Standing outside the gates of Mr Bush's Prairie Chapel ranch, where he is taking a five-week break from Washington, Mrs Sheehan is demanding to see the President. She has said she will follow him back to Washington and camp out in front of the White House if he refuses. On Friday, the President was forced to run a gauntlet of demonstrators as he ventured from his ranch for a political fundraiser. As Mr Bush's motorcade sped past, Mrs Sheehan clutched a sign that read, "Why Do You Make Time for Donors And Not For Me?" The demonstrators planted some 500 white wooden crosses on the road to the ranch, each with the name of a US soldier killed in Iraq. With a recent spike in US casualties in Iraq, support for the war is flagging in the United States. As the number of US troops killed since the war began in March 2003 rose to over 1,800, about 61 per cent of Americans disapproved of how the President is handling Iraq, according to a recent Newsweek magazine survey. Mr Bush in his weekly radio address on Saturday argued that the situation was improving. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself," he said. He made no direct mention of the protesters or the decline in support for his policies among Americans generally.