NucNews - October 16, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia No alternative to NT nuclear dump site: PM Sunday, October 16, 2005 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1483225.htm Prime Minister John Howard says he has been given no choice but to push ahead and build a nuclear waste facility in the Northern Territory. Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has written to Mr Howard, saying the Territory will continue to fight the move, despite legislation being tabled in Federal Parliament last week aimed at overriding the Territory's ability to oppose the dump. Ms Martin accused the Prime Minister of failing to meet his assurance that Territory rights would be treated equally to the rights of the states. Mr Howard says a site simply has to be found. "In the end we can't have the waste float out into the stratosphere, it's not as simple as that and there has to be a solution," he said. "Now if the Chief Minister can pursue all of her Labor colleagues to put the repository somewhere else then I'd be prepared to listen." Mr Howard says he has been given no choice. "We started as a country 13 years ago to try and solve the issue of a nuclear waste dump, we had an agreement and then when it came for that to be located in a particular part of Australia, all of the states and territories just ran away from it and this issue has got to be brought to a head and it will be," he said. -------- depleted uranium THE IRAQ WAR - PART I by Bill Bonner Sunday, October 16, 2005 Mens News Daily http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/money/2005/10/iraq-war.html The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: There is much controversy surrounding the war in Iraq...but most who speak out against it, miss the true geopolitical importance of the war. Bill Bonner explains... "We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery and degradation to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East,'" said yesterday's winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. "But as we all know, we have not been welcomed with the predicted flowers. What we have unleashed is a ferocious and unremitting resistance, mayhem and chaos." Invading Iraq was a "bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept for International Law. An arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public. And act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort (all other justifications having failed to justify themselves) - as liberation." Harold Pinter is a playwright. That he should fail to see the geopolitical importance of the war is hardly surprising. But Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security advisor, ought not to miss it. Quoting Arnold Toynbee, he accuses the Bush administration of "suicidal statecraft...the ultimate cause of imperial collapse." What neither man seems to realize is that 'suicidal statecraft' is just what the situation calls for. The great Anglo-Saxon empire has reached its 'sell by' date. Its imperial advantage - its lead in the Industrial Revolution - has disappeared. It now counts on the savings of foreigners to keep going. But while its homeland bound citizens groan under the burden of debt, its military and political leaders still talk tough. 'You got terrorists with a grudge against the United States?' asked the Commander-in-Chief. Well "bring 'em on." He might as well have put a gun to his head. Now, with the curiosity of a reporter watching a hanging, we wait to see if he pulls the trigger. Iraq is full of potential terrorists with grudges. Had the Anglo-Americans bothered to look before they leaped they would have seen a country that is a mix of tribes, clans, families, and religious groups - all of whom loathe each other and all of whom take it as an inherited obligation to avenge any wrong done to any of their own group by any member of any other group back to five generations. But there is one thing these people despise more than each other - a foreign invader. Patrick Cockburn, writing in the Independent, reminds us of the insights of a British civil servant, Arnold Wilson. Mr. Wilson wrote this in 1919, two years after the British took Baghdad from the Turks: "Wilson...warned that the creation of a new state out of Iraq was a recipe for disaster. He said it was impossible to weld together Shia, Sunni and Kurd, three groups of people who detested each other. Wilson told the British government that the new state could only be 'the antithesis of democratic government.' This was because the Shia majority rejected domination by the Sunni minority, but n 'no form of government has yet been envisaged which does not involve Sunni domination.'. The Kurds in the north, whom it was intended to include in Iraq, 'will never accept Arab rule.'" All of this was correct. But what they would accept even less was rule by the British. The whole country soon rose up against British forces; there were more than more than 10,000 dead before it was over. This was the world into which the Bush administration bumbled. Every great empire - from the Assyrians to the Mongols to the British had taken Baghdad. America had to do it too. "Nobody likes armed missionaries," said Robespierre when the French tried to export their democracy, at the point of a gun, throughout Europe. That too was an insight missed by the Bush team, but that is why the Bush bunch are so perfectly suited to the present circumstance. They seem to have no knowledge or apparent interest in history; they get to relive every bit of it as if for the very first time. There is hardly an error chronicled in any history of imperial wars that American forces have not committed. They went into Iraq on bad information. Where were the WMD? Where were the rose petals upon which they expected to tread? Where were the happy new democrats, ready to shop at Wal-Mart for backyard barbecues and granite countertops? Then, of course, they went in preaching democracy and freedom - about which the Iraqis were as indifferent as Americans themselves. What Iraqis really wanted at first was just a chance to steal something; later they would welcome a chance to kill someone. The desert tribes are looters. They climb gleefully through the ruins of a tank or a hotel, looking for something that might be useful. But their new rulers are little better. Soldiers have a license to kill. A video aired on American TV showed a U.S. soldier gunning down a helpless prisoner. "This one is still alive." Sounds of gunfire. "Now he's dead." A poll taken days later signaled just how far the public had gone in its descent into imperial madness - most people said they thought the killing was justified. This attitude goes down badly in a place with 100,000 Iraqi casualties...and where revenge is such a serious matter. Pretty soon, talk of 'insurgents' and 'foreign fighters' was beside the point. The average Iraqi now jumped for joy when an American soldier went down...and rushed to give the man a kick before his compatriots came to his rescue. More to come... Bill Bonner The Daily Reckoning Editor's Note: Bill Bonner is the founder and editor of The Daily Reckoning. He is also the author, with Addison Wiggin, of The Wall Street Journal best seller Financial Reckoning Day: Surviving the Soft Depression of the 21st Century (John Wiley & Sons). -------- europe German poll result hinders nuclear revival By Hugh Williamson in Berlin Published: October 16 2005 19:25 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ff12c128-3e71-11da-a2cb-00000e2511c8.html This was meant to be party time for Germany's nuclear power industry. After seven years of a centre-left government that was proud to be anti-nuclear, industry executives had hoped last month's election would provide a new lease of life for atomic power. The reality is turning out otherwise. Angela Merkel, the conservative leader, failed to win the decisive victory that had been predicted, and that would have been necessary for her to implement her manifesto pledge to lengthen the operational life of the country's 18 nuclear power plants beyond 2020, when they are due to be shut down under a law adopted by the government of the outgoing chancellor, Gerhard Schröder. Ms Merkel is due on Monday to open coalition policy negotiations with Mr Schröder's Social Democrats, with the latter under pressure to give ground on nuclear power. Yet Sigmar Gabriel, who is expected to become the next environment minister stressed last week, that the SPD “would not accept” the need for a review of nuclear policy. Yet while executives at utility giants such as Eon and RWE have packed away the champagne glasses, there remains a sense of change in the air in the German energy sector. “The high oil price has had many knock-on effects, such as pushing up the price of gas, increasing demand for coal, and encouraging many people to re-examine the wisdom of phasing out nuclear power,” says Claudia Kemfert, energy specialist at Berlin's DIW economic research institute. Nuclear power generates about 30 per cent of Germany electricity. Renewable energy sources (10 per cent of electricity generation), natural gas (8.5 per cent) and new, environment-friendly coal-fired power stations are expected to gain in importance, according to government plans. Coal and lignite currently account for about 50 per cent of electricity needs. Germany's business associations have this year been at the vanguard of efforts to rethink this energy mix, citing the severe impact of high oil prices on transport and industry costs. BDI, the leading industrial association, wants the nuclear plants to be allowed to run for at least an extra decade. The DIHK association of chambers of commerce has called for Germany to pull back from its leading role in implementing the Kyoto climate change protocol, by scaling down emission reduction targets for 2020, in order to avoid a competitive disadvantage against businesses operating in less Kyoto-friendly countries. The new government is unlikely to be very receptive to these demands, although experts argue that some action is needed, if only to damp electricity price rises. The price of electricity supplied to industry has risen 38 per cent since early 2002, and further increases are likely next year. It was the Greens, the SPD's junior partner since 1998, who really pushed the anti-nuclear issue. Yet the Social Democrats are determined to stand by the Kyoto accord and by the nuclear exit plan, says Rolf Hempelmann, parliamentary energy spokesman. “We will have to negotiate [with the CDU], but the exit from nuclear power is a key part of our political platform.” Ms Merkel environment minister from 1994 to 1998 and the CDU have called for greater flexibility. Peter Paziorek, parliamentary energy spokesman, said Germany needed a broad-based approach to energy provision and “a limited extension to the operation lives of nuclear plants could play an important role in this”. The nuclear industry hopes to influence the new government's policy agenda while it is still in flux. Walther Hohlefelder, a senior Eon executive and president of a pro-nuclear business alliance, told Financial Times Deutschland this month: “If the nuclear option is to be re-opened, it should happen now. It is clear that an energy mix with nuclear power is more economical than one without.” Ms Kemfert sees advantages in allowing nuclear plants to operate longer, assuming security concerns are addressed. “We are not talking about new power stations. Longer operating times would fill the time gap before other energy sources, such as clean coal, come fully on stream.” Christian Hey of SRU, the government's independent advisory commission on the environment, disagrees. “A new focus on nuclear power would mean a distraction from investing in more important energy sources.” He argues that the new government should build on achievements since 1998 in promoting renewable energy sources, and notes the leading position in international markets of many German wind and solar technology companies. Despite a CDU manifesto pledge to rein in government subsidies offered to renewable energy producers, experts say big cuts are unlikely, not least because the renewable energy industry now employs more than 130,000 people. The high oil price, and the resulting emphasis on more energy efficiency, mean it makes economic sense to continue to invest in such energy sources. “The days when there was contradiction between environmental and business priorities are behind us,” Mr Hey concludes. -------- india US moving forward on nuclear deal with India By Carol Giacomo Sun Oct 16, 2005 1:08 PM ET (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051016/wl_nm/nuclear_india_usa_dc_1 WASHINGTON - The Bush administration this week is expected to begin laying out in more detail its plans to change U.S. and international rules so India can acquire restricted nuclear materials under a controversial deal some say undermines non-proliferation standards. India improved its chances of having new rules approved when it voted with the United States and key European states last month to threaten Iran with referral to the U.N. Security Council for its nuclear activities. But some members of the U.S. Congress remain deeply concerned that the U.S.-India deal, agreed in Washington on July 18, is too permissive and will advance, not stem, the spread of nuclear weapons. There also are doubts about whether India, which has a burgeoning strategic relationship with Tehran, ultimately will vote to send Iran's case to the Security Council, where sanctions could be imposed. Several experts and congressional sources said New Delhi has not made a commitment on that issue, which could come before the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors next month. U.S. officials are expected to present ideas for international rule changes when the 44-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which seeks to control nuclear exports, meets in Vienna, beginning on Monday, U.S. officials and experts said. On Tuesday, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, lead negotiator on the India nuclear deal, will speak on U.S.-India relations to the Asia Society in New York. He later travels to New Delhi for further negotiations with Indian officials. For nearly 30 years the United States led the global fight to deny India's access to nuclear technology because it developed nuclear weapons and tested them. India's program lies outside the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which recognizes only five nuclear weapons states -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France -- and requires other states to forsake such arms. NEW PARTNERSHIP But on July 18, President George W. Bush announced a new partnership and commitment to "work to achieve full energy cooperation with India," whose importance as an economic and geo-political counterweight to China is growing. The deal was a defacto acceptance of India's nuclear status and a promise to support India's acquisition of many banned items, including much-needed nuclear fuel. But it first requires approval by the NSG and the U.S. Congress, which permit nuclear exports to non-nuclear weapon states only if facilities are under "full-scope safeguards," including international monitoring of facilities. India does not meet those standards. Experts and congressional sources said the administration seems inclined to ask the NSG for a specific exception for India. But some countries would prefer a broad exception with criteria that other states could also aspire to meet, a European diplomat said. Pakistan, which like India tested a nuclear weapon in 1998, has asked for similar treatment. The United States opposes this but experts predict China will use an India exception to justify new nuclear cooperation with Pakistan. A European diplomat said most European governments expect "a way will be found to accommodate India" but this week's NSG meeting is unlikely to take a firm decision. NSG decision-making usually is by consensus and while Britain, France and Russia are open to nuclear ties with India, some wonder how China will vote. In Congress, there is broad support for better ties with India. But some lawmakers are considering tougher demands on India -- like a cutoff of fissile material production -- as a condition of the nuclear deal going forward. Congressional committees are planning at least two more hearings on the U.S.-India deal in the next few weeks. The United States and key European allies say Iran's nuclear programs are aimed at producing weapons but Tehran insists it only wants to make peaceful energy. The NSG meeting this week is also expected to discuss Iran. -------- iran Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Focus of Rice's Meetings in Moscow Rice, Russian leaders also discuss Central Asia, "post-Gaza" Middle East By Michael O'Toole Washington File Staff Writer 16 Oct 2005 http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051016175005521elootom0.9570734&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html Washington -- Iran’s nuclear ambitions were at the forefront of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s agenda during talks in Moscow October 15 with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Rice said she came away from the talks believing that, despite Russia’s abstention in the September 24 vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that found Iran in violation of its nonproliferation obligations, Moscow was "very clear that they believed that this could still be resolved within the IAEA framework and that there was time for and a prospect for negotiations with the Iranians in order to do that." "This is a diplomatic process," Rice said in remarks to reporters en route to London from Moscow. She added that, despite some divergence of views, "I am confident that we and the Russians do not want to see the Iranians with the capability to build a nuclear weapon." "[T]he Russians and the Europeans and the IAEA are concerned … that Iran has lost the confidence of the international community because of past behavior …." she said. (See related article.) NUCLEAR FUEL DISPOSAL Rice elaborated further on this point in an interview with CNN after her arrival in London, when she was asked if there was any discussion with the Russians about the disposal of fuel generated by the Bushehr civil nuclear plant that the Russians are under contract to build for the Iranians. The secretary responded by describing the "fuel take-back" arrangement in which material that otherwise might be used for weapons would instead be taken back to Russia, which she said would "seriously reduce the proliferation risk." Russia continues to discuss with Iran how to pursue civil nuclear power in a way that would assure the international community such technology would not be used for weapons, Rice told reporters. While asserting that the United States prefers that Iran abandon its nuclear ambitions altogether, she acknowledged that she expected the Russians would "continue to pursue those ideas." Currently the Iranians are not enriching and reprocessing uranium for potential weapons use, "which is extremely important," Rice told CNN. She added that the Iranians were now under "extreme pressure," and despite their threats to "walk away from everything" and "start enriching again ... none of that has happened." The Iranians "seem to have reconsidered their options and have now declared that they want to go on a course of negotiation rather than on a course of confrontation." Rice said. "We are prepared to let that course proceed." At the same time, however, the secretary told reporters "we have to prepare for the possibility that that course might not lead to fruitful negotiations," at which point "we have the option of referral to the [United Nations] Security Council." The secretary looked ahead to the next meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on November 24, which she called "very crucial" because "we will know by that time whether or not the Iranians are prepared to enter into negotiations that might lead to an acceptable outcome." CENTRAL ASIA During her meeting with Putin, Rice said she also discussed her visits to Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan. The secretary said she recalled that the United States and Russia agreed in 2001 that fighting the War on Terror meant supporting operations in Afghanistan from Central Asia, and "that was the point that I'd made to the Central Asian leaders about our military and coalition military activities there." (See Central-Asia-Caucasus.) In response to a reporter’s question, Rice responded that Putin "supports what we're doing in Afghanistan and fighting the war on terrorism ... he therefore supports our access in Central Asia." The leaders also discussed "the need to integrate Afghanistan economically into the region," and the importance of sending to Uzbekistan "a clear message that the international community expects behavior different than that behavior in which Uzbekistan is currently engaged," according to the secretary. Uzbekistan has rejected calls from the international community for an independent investigation into the May 13 shootings in Andijan. (See related article.) LEBANON, SYRIA, ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS With respect to Lebanon, Rice said she and the Russian leaders discussed the upcoming United Nations report by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. When asked about the implications of the prosecutor’s focus on officials in Syria, she responded that "The Russians have said they're going to let the chips fall where they may ... I don't know that he has requested anything specific from Russia, but they have been backing the investigation." (See related article.) "Lavrov and I [also] had some discussions also of the Palestinian-Israeli situation," the secretary said, adding that both believed that "the post-Gaza period has been one in which the Israelis and the Palestinians are continuing to work together, and what we need to do is to help Abu Mazen create an atmosphere in which calm can be maintained, in which the Palestinians can build [their] democratic institutions." (See The Middle East: A Vision for the Future.) Transcripts of Rice’s briefing en route to London and CNN interview are available at the State Department Web site. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) ---- Rice enlists support for Syria, Iran showdowns By Saul Hudson Reuters Sunday, October 16, 2005; 8:55 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/16/AR2005101601053_pf.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mobilized support among major powers for diplomatic showdowns over the next few weeks with Syria and Iran on a trip that ended on Sunday. Over three days, Rice held talks with the leaders of France, Russia and Britain -- all holders of vetoes at the U.N. Security Council - on how to make the two U.S. foes meet U.N. security demands. In a show of diplomacy that reflected the Bush administration's efforts this year to consult partners more, Rice crisscrossed Europe seeking to build a common front against Syria's suspected support for militants in Lebanon and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Rebuffed by Russia on Iran, she did not win all the support she wanted. Rice used several one-on-one meetings to prepare the ground for concerted pressure at the Security Council this month against Syria and at the U.N. nuclear watchdog in November against Iran. A U.N. investigator is due to report his findings in the assassination of an anti-Syrian ex-prime minister of Lebanon on Friday. Diplomats and Lebanese political sources expect some Syrian officials to be named in the report -- and Rice wants a robust response. After a roughly 40-minute meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that focused on Syria, Rice said the council must "let the chips fall wherever they may." Lavrov's fluent English would have allowed him to understand the U.S. message: Russia must not block action against Syria, with which it has military and commercial ties, if the report shows that Damascus has responsibility in the February car bomb. Lavrov said Russia had agreed to cooperate with the United States in its response to the report. Rice signaled she will also pressure Damascus over what the United States says is its support for militants in Lebanon. She repeatedly warned that she wanted the full implementation of a U.N. resolution whose main outstanding issue is the disarming of the armed groups. After talks in Paris, her counterpart, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said France as a co-sponsor with the United States supports the resolution "more than ever." Syria denies it supports militants or that it was involved in the assassination. TIME FOR TALKS But Rice needs more time if she is going to build support against Iran. Russia rejected her appeal that Moscow back a U.S. drive to have the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency report Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions over suspicions that it is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear programs are solely to generate electricity. With the international appetite for a council referral unclear, Britain and France prefer to wait for wider support before pressing for the move, said a diplomat familiar with the discussions. Faced with an IAEA vote November 24 on Iran that could involve referral to the council, Rice said there was time for Iran to show negotiations with Britain, France and Germany could work. Her spokesman Sean McCormack said the countries were "unified" on Syria but they were "at a different stage" with Iran, watching for signs that Tehran wanted to resume talks. "We'll see what they do between now and the end of November," he said. ---- U.S. warns Iran over Iraq bomb attacks, Rice says 16 Oct 2005 12:20:26 GMT Source: Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16622578.htm LONDON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - The United States has issued a stern warning to Iran over the Islamic republic's possible involvement in helping insurgent bomb attacks in Iraq, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday. Washington has backed accusations from its closest ally Britain that there is evidence insurgents laying roadside bombs, or improvised explosive devices (IEDs), in southern Iraq might be using sophisticated technology linked to neighbouring Iran. The United States has no formal diplomatic ties with Iran but occasionally talks to the government through Swiss diplomats in Tehran or through the Islamic republic's ambassador to the United Nations in New York. "We have -- let me emphasize -- we have had limited contacts with the Iranians when it is necessary," Rice told reporters in London ahead of talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. "We have tried to deliver a message ... about this issue of IEDS in southern Iraq," she said. "We have channels with which to do it. But we use them sternly and pretty specifically to deliver messages." Her remarks underscore how Britain's accusations have fuelled tensions with Iran at a time when London and Washington are seeking U.N. action over Tehran's nuclear programme. This month, Blair said there was evidence which linked Iran or its Lebanese Hizbollah allies to roadside bombs that often target British troops, although he added there was no proof. He said the bombs may have been an attempt by Iran to intimidate Britain over its tough stance in talks to limit Tehran's use of nuclear technology. Iran and Hizbollah have denied any links to the bombs. -------- russia Russia Insists on Iran's Right to Nuclear Energy Oct. 16, 2005 (Xinhua) http://www.rednova.com/news/science/273805/russia_insists_on_irans_right_to_nuclear_energy/index.html?source=r_science MOSCOW -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Sunday repeated the country's support for the nuclear rights of Iran, whose nuclear program has sparked Western concerns of nuclear proliferation and prompted a US-driven push for referral to the UN Security Council for sanctions. Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy like any other country and Russia would continue nuclear energy cooperation with Iran, Lavrov said in a television interview. "No one, including the United States, calls into question our right to continue the construction of the nuclear power plant in Bushehr," he said. I would also like to be informed of special contests and offers from pch.com and their partners. Please notify me by email if I win. PRIVACY POLICY Russian support for the Iranian claim to nuclear energy underlined the split it has over Iran with the United States, which accuses Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear program. Iran says its nuclear program is dedicated exclusively to power generation. Talks between the European Union (EU) and Iran over its controversial nuclear program collapsed after Iran ended a freeze on uranium conversion in August. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Moscow briefly over the weekend to persuade Russia into backing a referral to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions on Iran. The rift between the two sides remained everything but small after Rice headed off to London to continue her European tour. "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should continue considering the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to cooperate with the IAEA, and it is important that the agency is ready to carry on the work," Lavrov said. "This is the best way to clear all questions and suspicions. It is necessary to agree on transparent development of the Iranian nuclear energy industry in line with international law and in a manner that will not arouse international suspicions," he said. Source: Xinhua News Agency - CEIS -------- u.n. IAEA plans to share Nobel wealth Sunday, October 16, 2005 Buenos Aires Herald http://www.buenosairesherald.com/the_world/note.jsp?idContent=215486 VIENNA — The UN nuclear watchdog’s governing board met yesterday to discuss the impact of winning the Nobel Peace Prize and said the agency would spend the award money on the developing world. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california Pristine land to open near nuclear plant in Central California TIM MOLLOY Associated Press Sun, Oct. 16, 2005 http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/business/12919019.htm http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/regstate/articles/1908797.html LOS OSOS, Calif. - For two decades, Pacific Gas & Electric has preserved a three-mile stretch of pristine coastal land bordering the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant - an ecological haven in the shadow of a seaside facility environmentalists deride as a major threat to California's coast. Now the state's coastal protection agency wants to open the land to the public. PG&E has agreed, but says it wants to limit public access for fear that hikers will pose security threats or simply love the open space to death. On the surface it looks like a rare situation in which a power utility is taking a more cautious approach to preservation than professional preservationists. But some environmentalists in this area midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco say appearances are deceiving. They accuse PG&E of trying to choreograph an elaborate dance in which the utility offers the same piece of land to two sets of state regulators so it can avoid possible environmental fines from one agency while limiting the public access it has already promised another. No matter what happens, those involved say the dealmaking will end with increased public access to the land located north of the plant, which provides electricity to 1.6 million homes without the air pollution often involved in energy production. The question is how open the land will be. Located near the small town of Los Osos and separated by a barbed wire fence from a state park, the unnamed stretch of grassland, creek beds, and bluffs seems like an isolated paradise. Steelhead trout climb the gurgling Coon Creek to spawn and endangered southern sea otters frolic on rocky outcroppings beyond sea caves. Cattle, sheep and goats graze the grasslands. Peregrine falcons, golden eagles and gray-horned owls feed on abundant rabbits, rodents and smaller birds. Since the plant opened in 1985, PG&E has used the land, which begins a mile north of the facility, as a safety buffer between residents and Diablo Valley's two nuclear reactors. The company also monitors the environment to gauge how areas closer to the plant are affected by its operations. In recent years, PG&E has offered up the same land in different negotiations as the utility sought to win state approval for two aspects of its operations that alarm regulators and environmental groups. Regional water regulators wanted the utility to offset environmental damage caused by a process called once-through cooling, in which the plant ingests ocean water to produce steam, then spits it back into the ocean at higher temperatures. That kills up to 15 percent of the eggs of some species of fish for several miles of coast. The state Coastal Commission, meanwhile, was concerned by the utility's request to permit dry cask storage, in which nuclear waste is enclosed in thick containers to prevent radiation leaks - a technique used at 25 plants nationwide. The casks are kept on the site because there is no national nuclear waste repository. To win a cask storage permit, the company agreed to the Coastal Commission's demand that it open the land. Before that deal, however, PG&E had been negotiating with the regional water board to set aside the land as open space to be run by a conservancy - a tradeoff for killing marine life in once-through cooling. If PG&E can't agree with the water board on how to mitigate harm to fish, the board could fine the company, said assistant executive director Michael Thomas. No deal has been reached with the water board, but that could happen if the Coastal Commission changes its mind and lets PG&E open the land to the public while keeping access limited. One way to do that: guided tours. PG&E says hikers should only be allowed on the land when accompanied by guides who could keep them on trails. "If you simply allow people out there willy-nilly, there would be damage to the land, damage to this pristine area," company spokesman Jeff Lewis said. "If people were simply allowed out there we wouldn't have any record or way to know who was out there on our property, which creates safety and security concerns." Andrew Christie, coordinator of the local Sierra Club chapter, said PG&E wants guided tours so it can claim the land is still protected even as the public uses it. Limiting public access to guided tours appeals to staff of the water board. "We think it's possible to have access and conservation at the same time," Thomas said. But the Coastal Commission isn't going for it, saying its deal requires the company to open the land to everyone, without restrictions. The commission believes that can be done without jeopardizing plant security. "There will be a monitor there," said Peter Douglas, the Coastal Commission's executive director, "so we can see who goes in and who comes back out." -------- florida Costs surge for utilities Facing higher fuel prices, FPL seeks rate increase -- and it likely will win BY SCOTT BLAKE FLORIDA TODAY October 16, 2005 http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051016/BUSINESS/510160315/1003 Producer. Florida Power & Light, the state's largest utility company, has more than 272,000 customer accounts in Brevard County and more than 45,000 in Indian River County. FPL operates the 801-megawatt Cape Canaveral power plant in Port St. John. Michael R. Brown, FLORIDA TODAY When faced with more than $6 billion a year in fuel costs, what's a giant utility company to do? Try raising rates for millions of customers. As Florida Power & Light Co. seeks state approval to increase customer electric bills by 16 percent to 36 percent next year to pay for rising fuel costs, consumer advocates and others say it is likely the company will get what it is asking for. That's because it is relatively easy for utility companies to prove how much more they're paying for fuel, said Florida Public Counsel Harold McLean, whose office represents consumers in utility rate cases before state regulators. "The problem with fuel recovery is it's largely an auditing function," McLean said. "They show the bill of what they paid for it, and they get it" from the Florida Public Service Commission, which regulates utility companies. "If we win every battle in this fuel case, it's still very likely that they'll get at least 90 percent of what they're asking for," McLean said. One item in FPL's fuel-recovery case that probably will be challenged is $30 million the company wants for improvements at one of its nuclear plants in Port St. Lucie. McLean said his office feels that such items are "inappropriate" for fuel-recovery cases, and he usually challenges them. Mike Twomey, an attorney for AARP who also represents consumers in utility rate cases, said he plans to challenge the $30 million nuclear plant item. Twomey said his office will be limited in its argument against FPL's overall fuel-recovery case because of the state's deadlines for filing arguments, which gives him about 21 days after FPL files its arguments. "We will not argue strongly against it," Twomey said. "We don't have the time to prepare." Bad news Last month, FPL said it would seek approval for fuel recovery charges in 2006 and 2007 that would raise monthly electric bills during that time by 15 percent for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. Commercial and industrial customers would see 20 percent to 36 percent increases. On Friday, the utility indicated the residential increase it needs may be closer to 16 percent because of higher energy costs related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. McLean said those are the largest proposed increases by FPL that he remembers. "What we're facing is the same bad news with the electric company as we do at the gas pumps, for the same reasons," McLean said. FPL, the state's largest utility company, has more than 272,000 customer accounts in Brevard County and more than 45,000 in Indian River County. Some customers already are concerned about increases in their electric bills. Ruth Rodriguez of Satellite Beach said she recently called FPL about her monthly electric bill, which she said has risen to about $260 a month for her 1,900-square-foot home, when it used to be only about $110 a month several years ago. "They told me I need to put down my thermostat and change the air filter on the air conditioner every month," Rodriguez said. Rodriguez, who lives with her husband and their three children, said their high electric bill is affecting her family's budget. It cuts our expenses for "eating out, activities for my son and saving for college," she said. The proposed FPL fuel-recovery increases -- which would go into effect Jan. 1 -- would bump up a monthly electric bill to $106.36 from $92.01, for a home using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, according to FPL. On average, the company said, its residential customers now use 1,168 kilowatt-hours a month. Fuel costs grow Fuel recovery charge is the single largest part of a typical FPL bill, accounting for more than half a residential bill. FPL said it doesn't make any profit on fuel-recovery charges. The company said it needs more money because its fuel costs for this year will exceed what it currently collects on fuel charges from customers by nearly $770 million. The shortfall primarily stems from rising oil and natural gas prices, especially after Hurricane Katrina, as well as fuel price projections for 2006, FPL said. FPL relies on natural gas for 37 percent of its energy needs to produce electricity -- the company's single-largest energy source. Next is nuclear power, which provides FPL with 21 percent of its energy, followed by oil (18 percent), power bought from other utility companies (18 percent) and coal (6 percent). Twomey said natural gas plants are less expensive to build than other types of power plants, but natural gas itself has become an expensive energy source, prompting criticism that FPL and some other utilities companies rely too heavily on natural gas. "The thinking is that FPL has too many eggs in the natural gas basket," Twomey said. FPL, on the other hand, describes itself as "a firm believer in the value of fuel diversity" to help stabilize fuel costs. "We make maximum use of our nuclear-generating units to provide low-cost power from these non-oil and gas-fired units as possible," the company said in a statement. "While coal prices have been increasing as well, coal prices are far lower than oil and natural gas, and, subsequently, we've been maximizing our use of the limited coal-fired generation that we own and increasing coal-fired purchases whenever possible." # Natural gas prices have increased from $1.69 per million British thermal units in 1999 to estimated average cost of $10.55 for August through December 2005, according to FPL. # In addition, residual oil prices are projected to increase from $8.76 per barrel in 1999 to an average of $49.86 a barrel in 2006. # Crude oil, from which residual oil is refined, climbed from $12.34 a barrel in 1999 to estimated average of $65.05 for August through December 2005, FPL said. Little debate The four-member Florida Public Service Commission is scheduled to take up FPL's fuel-recovery request during a hearing in Tallahassee starting Nov. 7. The commission's staff is not likely to take a position on the request, although commissioners could ask for the staff's opinions during the hearing, said Public Service Commission spokesman Kevin Bloom. However, Bloom said fuel-recovery cases usually are not highly debated. "These are normally bench decisions -- when the commission makes a decision right there at the bench," without requesting legal arguments that could draw out the process, Bloom said. This is the time of year when Florida utility companies submit their requests for fuel-recovery charges, and virtually all of them do it each year, he added. Ken Silverstein, a columnist who follows the energy industry, said FPL is known in the industry as a "well-heeled" utility that serves its shareholders and customers well. The company is "very polished" when it comes to making its case before state regulators, he said. "They know their way around the halls of the state Capitol and have all their ducks in a row," Silverstein said. "They're very formidable." "I don't think the consumer groups on the other side have the resources" that FPL has, Silverstein said. FPL "knows how to play the game. They have the access. They have the preparation. They have the knowledge. They just know how to get the job done. But that's OK, because that's what they do." Contact Blake at 242-3644 or sblake@flatoday.net -------- indiana ABC's nuclear over-reaction By Lefteri Tsoukalas For the Lafayette, IN, Journal and Courier October 16, 2005 http://www.lafayettejc.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051016/OPINION03/510160305/1144/OPINION As a nuclear engineer, I believe deeply that nuclear energy has vast potential to make our lives better: through generation of electrical power, through creation of new and better procedures to diagnose and treat disease, through development of enhanced scientific processes, through industrial applications. I also understand and respect the enormous destructive power of this form of energy. I appreciate the fact that many people have a deep-seated fear of the dangers nuclear power presents when it is used for hostile purposes or mishandled. However, I know that when properly managed, nuclear power is safe and efficient, and I believe the American public will benefit from acquiring a better understanding of the science to which I have devoted my life. That is why I am deeply disturbed by an ABC news report aired by the network on Oct. 13. The report cynically exploited people's instinctive fear of nuclear energy by misrepresenting both the threat from, and the nature of, research reactors, such as the one for which I am responsible at Purdue University. ABC sent college students who were working as journalism interns to a number of university reactor facilities, including the one at Purdue. The idea was to see whether they could get into the facilities and to assess security measures. The interns had no trouble gaining access because we welcome visitors to the reactor. In fact, our Web site and printed literature invite the public to schedule tours, which are conducted by staff trained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's security measures. The ABC interns saw what any visitor would see. If they had identified themselves as investigative journalists, they would have been given the same tour and the same information -- no more, no less. By the time they had been to two universities, the interns' behavior had given them away, and all the subsequent sites they visited knew who they were and their purpose. They still were given escorted tours. Yet ABC's report maintained the fiction that the interns had duped those responsible for security at each of the reactors. It also accepted at face value the interns' evaluations of security measures -- evaluations they were not qualified to make. The network's premise was that the American public is threatened by the ease with which research reactors can be accessed. This is patently false. In Purdue's case, the reactor utilizes a tiny amount of fuel. At full power, it can produce roughly the energy needed to illuminate 10 100-watt light bulbs. While there is no such thing as complete safety in any endeavor, Purdue's reactor is as safe and secure as any laboratory can be. Located three stories underground, it is entered through an academic building, which is easily accessible to the public. However, the reactor itself is behind two locked doors and can be accessed only in the company of authorized staff fully trained in NRC security procedures. While nuclear fuels are by nature hazardous, the possibility of an accidental or deliberate threat to public safety from this facility is close to zero. In fact, a corner gas station or the fuel tank for a backyard barbecue grill presents a greater danger than this reactor. When research reactors operate, they do so well below boiling conditions, instead of the very high pressures and temperatures found at nuclear power plants. Research reactors operate safely with simple, easily supplemented cooling systems. Possible incidents involving research reactors have been analyzed many times, and the consequences would be confined to very small areas, usually within the research reactor facility itself. If a terrorist set off an explosion in the reactor, it would be unlikely to endanger anyone who was not inside the facility. An Oklahoma City-style truck bombing -- graphically suggested by ABC as a threat -- would cause a great deal of damage and human suffering, but would release no radiation from the underground reactor. Theft of the nuclear material from a research reactor would be virtually impossible. The extremely heavy construction of the facility and nature of the installation make removing the fuel a major construction project requiring heavy equipment and the supervision of engineers. It could not be done covertly. There are much easier ways to get nuclear materials, including from medical facilities, delivery trucks and the smoke detectors sold at any discount store. ABC -- a network with enormous power and responsibility -- chose to ignore an enormous amount of factual information in the interest of sensationalism. In the process, they have misled the American people and many public officials. Only time will tell whether this irresponsible report has done permanent damage to an academic discipline that America needs to nurture and further develop. I have the benefit of the knowledge gained from a lifetime of study, so ABC has not shaken my faith in the value of continued study of nuclear energy. My confidence in ABC's national news is another matter. Tsoukalas is head of Purdue's School of Nuclear Engineering. -------- MILITARY -------- space Final frontier for lawyers -- property rights in space Land claims, commercial schemes and dreams have legal eagles hovering Keay Davidson, San Francisco Chronicle Science Writer Sunday, October 16, 2005 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/16/MNG7EF96GN1.DTL Space buffs are dreaming about vast land developments on the moon, planets and asteroids -- and wherever people start making land claims, the lawyers can't be far behind. Consider this: This year, in a virtually unnoticed decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco dismissed a lawsuit by a Nevada man who claims he owns asteroid 433, a mountainous celestial rock also known as Eros. After NASA landed a robotic spaceship on Eros in 2001, online entrepreneur and space enthusiast Gregory W. Nemitz of Carson City, hoping to set a legal precedent for future cosmic exploration, informed the space agency that he owned Eros. He had previously filed his claim to ownership of the asteroid at an online registry for celestial land claims, which a Seton Hall University School of Law professor started in the 1990s to stir discussion of space-related legal issues. After NASA landed its probe on Eros, Nemitz asked NASA to pay a "parking/storage fee" of $20 for one century, plus late-payment fees. The agency refused. NASA general counsel Edward Frankle informed Nemitz that his property claim "of a celestial body ... appears to have no foundation in law." In response, Nemitz sued NASA and the U.S. State Department. In April 2004, the U.S. District Court in Reno tossed out Nemitz's suit "for lack of a recognizable legal theory" behind his claims. On Feb. 10, the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit issued a terse ruling, without explanation, that upheld the district court decision. Disillusioned by the decision, Nemitz -- a nonlawyer who argued the case himself without the aid of an attorney -- plans no further legal action. But he's pretty mad about what he regards as a federal transgression of his rights. "I have a right as a human being to make a claim for anything that is not owned," Nemitz told The Chronicle on Thursday. "I think claiming a single asteroid is a reasonable claim -- (Eros) is about the size of Lake Tahoe in dimension. It's not like you're claiming a planet, and you're not claiming you're ruler of the universe." Bizarre though it sounds, the case of Nemitz vs. United States is just one of the odder sideshows in an emerging circus known as "space law." Space is new legal terrain, just as the air was in the early days of aviation and as the seas were in the dawn of ocean voyaging. For space buffs, the stickiest legal issue is property rights in space, the question of whether a private person can lay claim to property where there is no constituted government. And it involves not only land, but also the airless void of space. Entrepreneurship is the driving force. Space enthusiasts look forward to an age of space commercialization on a grand scale, ranging from orbital hotels with zero-gravity swimming pools that float in the middle of a room to lunar factories that mine nuclear fuel for terrestrial fusion reactors. They fear such dreams might be stillborn if the legal niceties -- especially property rights -- aren't worked out in advance. The legal status of property claims in space remains uncertain partly because of the ambivalent wording of the U.N. Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which called space "the province of all mankind." A subsequent U.N. document, the so-called Moon Treaty of 1979, was less ambiguous, as it implied that space resources should be commonly owned by all nations. The United States signed the first treaty but not the second one. Most space fans vehemently opposed the Moon Treaty, believing that its assertion that the moon could not become "property of any state, international intergovernmental or nongovernmental organization" was socialistic and would force space entrepreneurs to share their profits with all nations. In a potentially groundbreaking article on space property rights, space law expert Rosanna Sattler recently argued that an overhaul of current treaties and laws is needed to "stimulate commercial enterprise on the moon, asteroids and Mars." A major corporation "is not going to invest millions and millions of dollars for a communications system on the moon if there's no law up there to protect their assets," said Sattler, whose article, titled "Transporting a Legal System for Property Rights: From the Earth to the Stars," appeared in the summer issue of the University of Chicago Law School's Chicago Journal of International Law. Another lawyer trying to rewrite space law, UC Davis-educated Wayne White of Boulder, Colo., advocates revising space law via a legal theory that he calls "property rights without territorial sovereignty." White, who served on the U.S. State Department's legal subcommittee at a United Nations conference on space exploration in 2003, proposes that the United States pass a domestic law that recognizes the right of individuals to own and operate space industries, as long as they obey a "use it or lose it" provision: If they abandon the industry, they give up rights to it. In this way, he says, the United States could awaken other countries to the necessity for revised space laws and encourage them to negotiate a new international treaty that, he hopes, would clarify the legal status of property rights in space. "Space development and settlement will not happen if it's internationally taxed and controlled," White said. "I think space settlement is a social 'release valve' that we desperately need. ... It's only going to get more crowded here on Earth." Whether legally protected or not, space commerce is becoming a reality. Last week, wealthy entrepreneur-scientist Gregory Olsen returned to Earth after a trip aboard a Russian rocket to the international space station. The journey cost him $20 million, making him the third private citizen who paid for a space voyage. In 2004, Burt Rutan, designer of the private SpaceShipOne rocket launched from the Southern California desert, won a $10 million award from a private foundation for the achievement. The trip could presage tourist flights to orbit. Meanwhile, President Bush is pushing for renewed human missions to the moon. There, space entrepreneurs speculate, future astronauts could drink water that private firms have extracted from the Hetch Hetchys of the solar system: fallen icy comets entombed in the eternally dark deep-freeze of the lunar south pole. Also, the Chinese and Russians are talking about establishing lunar mining operations that would ship "helium 3" fuel to future nuclear fusion reactors on Earth. On Wednesday, China launched its second manned space capsule, the Shenzhou 6, carrying two "taikonauts," from a rocket site in remote northwest China. This summer, Nikolai Sevastyanov, president of the Russian aerospace corporation Energiya, announced plans to mine helium 3 on the moon. "We should go about developing the moon step by step, from circumnavigation to landing to the construction of an energy base," said Sevastyanov, as quoted by the RIA Novosti news service. "After that, we'll go on to create a powerful electricity plant," he said. There are conferences aplenty: For example, on Nov. 21-24, the United Nations is holding a "Workshop on Space Law" in Abuja, Nigeria. Also, on Oct. 26 in Washington, D.C., the National Academy of Sciences is holding a free public symposium titled "Property Rights and the Moon," which poses questions including "the degree to which land on the moon may be privately owned." The scheduled speakers include Jim Dunstan, a prominent space lawyer with the law firm Garvey Schubert Barer in Arlington, Va. "If we are able to go out into space and harness the incredible resources that are out there -- unlimited energy, precious metals -- then you open up the entire Earth-space system," Dunstan told The Chronicle. "You don't have limits to growth, and you can sustain unlimited Earth population." Unlike some space lawyers, Dunstan takes a more relaxed view of the present legal situation in space. He doesn't think that existing laws or treaties need to be seriously revamped, at least not right away, in order for space entrepreneurs to plan for commercial exploitation of the heavens. Still, space lawyers agree on one thing: They're mighty miffed by online sites that sell low-budget "deeds" to terrain in space -- say, a few acres at a specified latitude and longitude on the moon. This summer, a space lawyers' professional organization, the International Institute of Space Law, issued a statement cautioning that "the deeds they sell have no legal value or significance, and convey no recognized rights whatsoever." Space law promises to be a burgeoning enterprise for future lawyers. By contrast, "when I went to law school (in the 1970s) ... there was only one paragraph in one book that mentioned space law," said law Professor Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz of the University of Mississippi, who is editor in chief of the Journal of Space Law. However, for nonlawyer and asteroid-claimer Nemitz, the Ninth Circuit decision was the last straw: It so disheartened him that he decided against pursuing further legal action. Instead, he's poured his efforts into developing his private business -- selling beef jerky online. "Maybe I'll get the beef jerky business to make me millions of dollars, and then I'll be able to get back into the space business again." E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. -------- spies Australia to double spy personnel Sunday, 16 October 2005 BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4347352.stm Australian Prime Minister John Howard says he will double the staff at the main intelligence agency to counter the threat of domestic terrorism. Staff at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will rise from 980 to 1,860 over five years. Mr Howard said July's London bombings had driven home the fact that terrorist attacks could also happen in Australia. The move comes amid controversy over plans to increase police powers as part of new anti-terrorism laws. Leaked draft Mr Howard said the best means to counter terrorism was good intelligence. "London drove home, more than any other terrorist attack, drove it home to us that it could happen here," he said. Fifty-two people were killed in London in July. "It's one thing to have the capacity to respond effectively in the event of a terrorist attack... it's entirely of another order to have the capacity to anticipate events," Mr Howard said. The premier has already doubled the budget of the intelligence agency since the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. Mr Howard's announcement follows the leaking of government plans for tough new anti-terrorism laws. According to the leaked draft, Australian police would be authorised to use lethal force if they believed a terrorist attack was imminent and they would be able to detain suspects without charge for up to 14 days. Some Muslims have expressed fear that the measures could be targeted at their community and spread intolerance. -------- ENERGY Costs surge for utilities Facing higher fuel prices, FPL seeks rate increase -- and it likely will win BY SCOTT BLAKE FLORIDA TODAY October 16, 2005 http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051016/BUSINESS/510160315/1003 When faced with more than $6 billion a year in fuel costs, what's a giant utility company to do? Try raising rates for millions of customers. As Florida Power & Light Co. seeks state approval to increase customer electric bills by 16 percent to 36 percent next year to pay for rising fuel costs, consumer advocates and others say it is likely the company will get what it is asking for. That's because it is relatively easy for utility companies to prove how much more they're paying for fuel, said Florida Public Counsel Harold McLean, whose office represents consumers in utility rate cases before state regulators. "The problem with fuel recovery is it's largely an auditing function," McLean said. "They show the bill of what they paid for it, and they get it" from the Florida Public Service Commission, which regulates utility companies. "If we win every battle in this fuel case, it's still very likely that they'll get at least 90 percent of what they're asking for," McLean said. One item in FPL's fuel-recovery case that probably will be challenged is $30 million the company wants for improvements at one of its nuclear plants in Port St. Lucie. McLean said his office feels that such items are "inappropriate" for fuel-recovery cases, and he usually challenges them. Mike Twomey, an attorney for AARP who also represents consumers in utility rate cases, said he plans to challenge the $30 million nuclear plant item. Twomey said his office will be limited in its argument against FPL's overall fuel-recovery case because of the state's deadlines for filing arguments, which gives him about 21 days after FPL files its arguments. "We will not argue strongly against it," Twomey said. "We don't have the time to prepare." Bad news Last month, FPL said it would seek approval for fuel recovery charges in 2006 and 2007 that would raise monthly electric bills during that time by 15 percent for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month. Commercial and industrial customers would see 20 percent to 36 percent increases. On Friday, the utility indicated the residential increase it needs may be closer to 16 percent because of higher energy costs related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita. McLean said those are the largest proposed increases by FPL that he remembers. "What we're facing is the same bad news with the electric company as we do at the gas pumps, for the same reasons," McLean said. FPL, the state's largest utility company, has more than 272,000 customer accounts in Brevard County and more than 45,000 in Indian River County. Some customers already are concerned about increases in their electric bills. Ruth Rodriguez of Satellite Beach said she recently called FPL about her monthly electric bill, which she said has risen to about $260 a month for her 1,900-square-foot home, when it used to be only about $110 a month several years ago. "They told me I need to put down my thermostat and change the air filter on the air conditioner every month," Rodriguez said. Rodriguez, who lives with her husband and their three children, said their high electric bill is affecting her family's budget. It cuts our expenses for "eating out, activities for my son and saving for college," she said. The proposed FPL fuel-recovery increases -- which would go into effect Jan. 1 -- would bump up a monthly electric bill to $106.36 from $92.01, for a home using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity, according to FPL. On average, the company said, its residential customers now use 1,168 kilowatt-hours a month. Fuel costs grow Fuel recovery charge is the single largest part of a typical FPL bill, accounting for more than half a residential bill. FPL said it doesn't make any profit on fuel-recovery charges. The company said it needs more money because its fuel costs for this year will exceed what it currently collects on fuel charges from customers by nearly $770 million. The shortfall primarily stems from rising oil and natural gas prices, especially after Hurricane Katrina, as well as fuel price projections for 2006, FPL said. FPL relies on natural gas for 37 percent of its energy needs to produce electricity -- the company's single-largest energy source. Next is nuclear power, which provides FPL with 21 percent of its energy, followed by oil (18 percent), power bought from other utility companies (18 percent) and coal (6 percent). Twomey said natural gas plants are less expensive to build than other types of power plants, but natural gas itself has become an expensive energy source, prompting criticism that FPL and some other utilities companies rely too heavily on natural gas. "The thinking is that FPL has too many eggs in the natural gas basket," Twomey said. FPL, on the other hand, describes itself as "a firm believer in the value of fuel diversity" to help stabilize fuel costs. "We make maximum use of our nuclear-generating units to provide low-cost power from these non-oil and gas-fired units as possible," the company said in a statement. "While coal prices have been increasing as well, coal prices are far lower than oil and natural gas, and, subsequently, we've been maximizing our use of the limited coal-fired generation that we own and increasing coal-fired purchases whenever possible." # Natural gas prices have increased from $1.69 per million British thermal units in 1999 to estimated average cost of $10.55 for August through December 2005, according to FPL. # In addition, residual oil prices are projected to increase from $8.76 per barrel in 1999 to an average of $49.86 a barrel in 2006. # Crude oil, from which residual oil is refined, climbed from $12.34 a barrel in 1999 to estimated average of $65.05 for August through December 2005, FPL said. Little debate The four-member Florida Public Service Commission is scheduled to take up FPL's fuel-recovery request during a hearing in Tallahassee starting Nov. 7. The commission's staff is not likely to take a position on the request, although commissioners could ask for the staff's opinions during the hearing, said Public Service Commission spokesman Kevin Bloom. However, Bloom said fuel-recovery cases usually are not highly debated. "These are normally bench decisions -- when the commission makes a decision right there at the bench," without requesting legal arguments that could draw out the process, Bloom said. This is the time of year when Florida utility companies submit their requests for fuel-recovery charges, and virtually all of them do it each year, he added. Ken Silverstein, a columnist who follows the energy industry, said FPL is known in the industry as a "well-heeled" utility that serves its shareholders and customers well. The company is "very polished" when it comes to making its case before state regulators, he said. "They know their way around the halls of the state Capitol and have all their ducks in a row," Silverstein said. "They're very formidable." "I don't think the consumer groups on the other side have the resources" that FPL has, Silverstein said. FPL "knows how to play the game. They have the access. They have the preparation. They have the knowledge. They just know how to get the job done. But that's OK, because that's what they do." Contact Blake at 242-3644 or sblake@flatoday.net -------- ACTIVISTS 'Last Best Chance' To Save World Oct. 16, 2005(CBS) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/16/sunday/printable947893.shtml It all seems so Hollywood. Central character: the President of the United States, a role very much in vogue these days, portrayed by a familiar actor, a one-time real-life senator, Fred Thompson. Movie: someone is trying to acquire Russian tactical weapons. The plot of "Last Best Chance" is chilling: al Qaeda terrorists steal nuclear material to make bombs more destructive than the one which destroyed Hiroshima, CBS News correspondent Thalia Assuras reports. "Well, this isn't Hollywood. This is a movie made totally from the facts," says former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean. A Republican, Kean co-chaired the 9-11 commission and sees "Last Best Chance" as a wake-up call. "This to me is the number one scary scenario facing the country," Kean says of the film's plot. "There is nothing in my mind more worrisome than a terrorist with a nuclear device getting across the border of the United States." It's a fear shared by the man behind the movie. Former Sen. Sam Nunn. The four-term Georgia Democrat thinks the world is taking too long to "lock down" nuclear material vulnerable to theft. "Yes this is a race and we're not running. We've got to greatly accelerate the pace," Nunn says. "We have just returned from a trip to the four republics that still have nuclear weapons." Nunn fought nuclear proliferation for years in the Senate. "We need to begin to delegitimize highly-enriched uranium all over the globe," Nunn explains. He now heads the nonpartisan Nuclear Threat Initiative. The organization works with governments around the world to control dangerous weapons material and thwart terrorist ambitions. "We don't have to inevitably face a nuclear disaster. We can keep weapons grade material out of the hands of terrorists," Nunn says. Nunn's group produced "Last Best Chance" to dramatize what it believes are scary, but plausible scenarios: # A Russian military officer stealing small nuclear weapons for money. # Terrorists taking weapons-grade material from research centers and corrupt scientists helping those terrorists make nuclear bombs. # The bombs are then smuggled into major cities. "Most of those research reactors literally don't have more than a chain-link fence and a night watchman as their security," warns Matthew Bunn, who studies nuclear proliferation at Harvard University. Bunn served as a technical advisor for "Last Best Chance." Bunn says he believes the film accurately portrays just how easily terrorists could get their hands on nuclear material. In the movie, the terrorists take stolen highly-enriched uranium and turn it into a bomb. "We know about more than 18 cases, really highly-enriched uranium or plutonium has gotten stolen and then seized. What we don't know is of what iceberg are we seeing the tip," Bunn says. "The CIA has officially assessed, that's CIA-speak for guessed, that thefts have occurred that we haven't detected," Bunn says. "Last Best Chance" also shows just how easily nuclear bombs can be moved once they're assembled, and how very difficult the weapons are to detect; which is why it's so important for terrorists to be stopped from getting the material in the first place. Bunn says, "We know how to secure valuable and important things. Human beings have been doing that for thousands of years. We never lose anything from Fort Knox. The Russians never lose anything from the Kremlin armory." In the last presidential debates, both candidates agreed on the nation's top security concern. But Nunn believes rhetoric is not enough. "I think the political will has not been as strong. We have had some actions. We have had the right words. But converting words to deeds is enormously important," Nunn says. In the movie, the American and Russian presidents work well together. And, at a summit earlier this year, the real presidents Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin did make some progress. "We agreed to accelerate our work to protect nuclear weapons and material in our two nations and around the world and I want to thank you for that," Mr. Bush said to his Russian counterpart. Nunn says that only about half of the nuclear sites in Russia and other former Soviet states meet U.S. security standards. He blames bureaucracy, tight money and a general lack of urgency. "It ought to be on the front burner every day with President Bush. It ought to be on the front burner with President Putin. So is it on the agenda? Yes. But is it on the front burner? In my opinion it has not been and it must be," Nunn says. Asked if the film was a way to pressure the leaders into action, Nunn laughed and said, "That's right." It cost a $1 million to make "Last Best Chance." The movie has been screened more than 20 times, in Washington, Moscow and elsewhere around the world. The Nuclear Threat Initiative offers free DVD copies on its Web site. So far, more than 50,000 have gone out and Monday night, the movie airs on HBO. The hope is that appealing directly to the public will force politicians to act. "When you can get the public involved, the public officials move faster," Kean believes. Nunn, who came up with the title "Last Best Chance," believes terrorists would probably have used a bomb if they already had one. "The reality is we don't know what the odds are, but we do know we can make the world a lot safer. And we do know we can reduce towards zero the risk that any nuclear weapon would be used by anyone at anytime. "Are we there yet? No we have a long way to go," Nunn says. "Will it ever be zero? Probably not. But we can dramatically reduce the risk. We do have a last best chance." ---- Doctor Atomic, Mohamed ElBaradei and the Bunker Buster October 16, 2005 08:50 PM - Kyeann Sayer, San Francisco TreeHugger.com http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/10/dr_atomic_at_th.php In the last couple of weeks there have been two widely examined events related to the recent 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First, Bay Area residents have been filling up Doctor Atomic, an edgy opera focusing on scientists' moral agony during the build up to the first atomic bomb test. Second, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, jointly won the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for their work to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Much has been written about the meaning of both events. Critics have wondered whether opera is capable of taking on a topic of the bomb's magnitude. Are the overwhelming issues too simplified? Does the image of the bomb hovering over a baby carriage become too familiar by the end of Act Two? In the case of ElBaradei and the IAEA, is the award a slap to the Bush administration and its attempts to oust ElBaradei? Among other critical stances, he has called the administration on claiming to support nonproliferation while simultaneously itching to produce the inevitably environmentally devastating "bunker busting" "mini nukes". The average person may not be an opera aficionado or be up on the nuanced meanings of Nobel Prize picks. However, U.S. residents who haven't learned to stop worrying and love the bomb can encourage their senators to eliminate bunker buster funding. In the coming weeks, the Senate will decide whether to include their development as part of the 2006 defense bill. Senator Kennedy (MA) will offer an amendment to eliminate the funding.