NucNews July 11, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain Nuclear power plants get go-ahead Tuesday, 11 July 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5166426.stm The go-ahead has been given for a new wave of UK nuclear power stations. Industry secretary Alistair Darling told MPs nuclear power needed to be part of the mix of energy supply for the UK over the next 40 years. The Conservatives say nuclear power should only be a "last resort". The Liberal Democrats accuse ministers of "surrendering" to the nuclear lobby. Tony Blair says new nuclear power stations will reduce future reliance on imports and help tackle climate change. In a Commons statement on the Energy Review, Mr Darling said: "The government has concluded that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to meeting our energy policy goals. "It would be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the costs of decommissioning and their full share of long term waste management costs." "Safety and security" would be "paramount" with nuclear plants, he promised. "Nuclear does mean we can generate electricity without carbon emissions. It does provide a consistency of energy which wind power cannot," he said. Mr Darling stressed that "a mix of energy supply is essential and we should not be over dependent on one source". The plans would help meet the government's target of cutting carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, he said. And they would ensure the UK had secure energy supplies rather than relying increasingly on foreign gas imports. The review also proposes: * That electricity companies provide 20% of energy from renewables - up from the current 15% * Storing carbon dioxide in old oil fields - the UK is working with Norway to develop this * New incentives to make homes more energy efficient and to cut energy waste by businesses * Measures to cut the 7% of electricity currently used by domestic appliances left on standby * Encouraging smaller scale electricity generators, and combined heat and power plants, to be sited close to where the power is used For the Conservatives, shadow trade and industry secretary Alan Duncan said Mr Darling's statement contained "no real policies, no real action, no real decisions". He said the review showed Mr Blair was "out on a limb" in his backing for new nuclear power stations - a position, he claimed, that was not shared by the Cabinet. Fresh look Edward Davey, the Lib Dems' trade and industry spokesman, warned: "By caving into the nuclear industry lobby, you have destroyed the possibility of cross-party consensus." London Mayor Ken Livingstone said it was "a colossal mistake" to head down the nuclear path again. "We need a solution to the climate change that protects the environment rather than threatens it, and one that does not literally cost the earth," said Mr Livingstone. Green Party Principal Speaker Keith Taylor said: "Alistair Darling has today led the UK down a dirty and dangerous path, that of a fresh round of astronomically expensive nuclear power stations." An Energy White Paper in 2003 said better efficiency and investment in renewable forms of energy was the way ahead for the UK. But the prime minister ordered a policy review last November, saying a fresh look was needed at how the UK could ensure it had a secure energy supply and meet its targets for fighting global warming. The review has been criticised for purely "rubber stamping" Mr Blair's own wish for developing nuclear. But the prime minister told BBC Two's Newsnight: "If we're going to go from being self-sufficient in gas to importing it, if prices are rising, if we know that climate change is an even more serious problem than we thought a few years ago, how can we take nuclear out of the mix?" During a visit to an offshore wind farm near Whitstable, Kent, Mr Blair said he wanted to see renewables grow by five times in the next 15 years. "It's not a question of either/or - it's everything that's got to be done to make a difference," he said. As well as opposition from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, the nuclear power proposals have also come under fire from a number of Labour MPs. Former environment minister Michael Meacher asked: "Why are we going down the nuclear route at all? Nuclear is more expensive and decommissioning costs are enormous." Members of SERA, the Labour environment campaign, said nuclear power could not contribute to tackling climate change over the next 10 years. ---- Fight against stations plans 'only starting' By Debra Douglas 11 July 2006 Belfast Telegraph UK http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=698351 Anti-Nuclear campaigner Eddie McGrady today vowed the fight against nuclear energy was only just beginning. Speaking after it emerged a new generation of nuclear power stations will be given the go-ahead, South Down MP Mr McGrady criticised the development. "This move by Tony Blair comes as a surprise and a shock and goes against public opinion across the UK and almost unanimous opposition here in Northern Ireland," he said. "A recent independent report stated nuclear energy is not economical or viable. "It is a difficult problem and one which requires earnest and open debate before the matter is settled. "The fight is only just beginning." Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain today vowed nuclear stations will not be built in the province but Mr McGrady, who has been a long-term opponent of the nuclear power, said his stance was irrelevant. "The new green image of the Secretary of State in respect of nuclear power provision is a total contradiction to Tony Blair in terms of Labour party policy," he added. "It is irrelevant in that it won't be his wishes carried out but those of the Prime Minister." Meanwhile, Dr Peter Doran, a lecturer on Sustainable Development at Queen's University, said the decision to go nuclear was "a failure of leadership". He said: "Tony Blair's determination to commission a new generation of nuclear power plants as part of his political legacy flies in the face of common sense and sound advice. "The Secretary of State, Peter Hain, is just one of the members of the Government who harbours misgivings about Blair's decision to go nuclear. "Hain is right to warn that the nuclear issue is a distraction from the pressing question of investing in a sustainable mix of renewable energy technologies and fuel sources, not to mention investment in driving down energy demand through energy efficiency." ---- Sure, nuclear power is safer than in the past - but we still don't need it It's true that another Chernobyl couldn't happen in a new reactor, but the case against is as strong as ever George Monbiot = http://www.monbiot.com Tuesday July 11, 2006 The Guardian http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1817537,00.html If someone had worked out how to cause a war within the environment movement, they could not have developed a better means than nuclear power. In public we will line up to attack the energy review published by the government today. But in private we will reserve some of our venom for each other, as we start to ask ourselves whether we have made the right decision. The UK's dying nuclear power stations are, at the moment, its principal source of low-carbon energy. Electricity produced by a pressurised light water reactor, when all its carbon costs have been taken into account, emits around 16 tonnes of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Gas produces 356 tonnes and coal 891. If our nuclear power stations are replaced by thermal plants, the UK's annual output of CO2 will rise by roughly 51m tonnes, or 8% of the total. Zac Goldsmith, arguing against new nukes, calls this percentage "miniscule". This is breathtaking. We campaign to prevent electrical appliances being left on standby, hoping to save some 4m tonnes of CO2 a year. How can we then dismiss a cut 13 times as great? Some groups, such as Greenpeace, the New Economics Foundation and the Sustainable Development Commission, have produced reports showing that we can meet the government's target - a 60% cut in carbon emissions by 2050 - without recourse to atomic power. They are right, but the target is now irrelevant. In the book I am publishing in September, I will show that when you take into account both human population growth and the anticipated reduction in the biosphere's ability to absorb carbon, we require a worldwide cut of roughly 60% per capita by 2030. If emissions are to be distributed evenly, this means that the UK's need to be cut by 87% in 24 years. In seeking the best means by which this cut can be made across all sectors (transport, electricity, heating and construction), I have been forced to set aside my prejudices. I hate nuclear power, but do we need it to help prevent the planet from cooking? Answering this question means challenging people on both sides of the debate. Anti-nuclear campaigners have a tendency to believe anything that casts the industry in a bad light. Last month's edition of The Ecologist magazine, for example, contends that 14m tonnes of concrete are required to build a nuclear power station, resulting in a massive release of carbon dioxide. Specifications are notoriously hard to come by, but I have managed to find the figures for Calder Hall A, opened in 1956. It used 72,500 cubic yards of concrete, which equates to 108,000 tonnes, or less than 1% of the Ecologist's estimate. Modern power stations are smaller. We have made similar mistakes over the global supplies of uranium. Noting that the world possesses "assured reserves" of high-grade ores sufficient to last for 40 or 50 years at current rates of use, some environmentalists have argued that if new nuclear plants are built, they will run out of fuel before they reach the end of their lives. But they have confused assured reserves with total global resources. In other words, they have assumed that no further discoveries will ever take place. Forty to 50 years is in fact a very high level of assurance. There's little doubt that extracting these ores kills. Last month New Scientist reported that the 400,000 uranium miners working in East Germany between 1946 and 1990 were exposed to an increased risk of lung cancer of about 10%. But it didn't say whether this is the case elsewhere, or how it compares to other kinds of mining. One tonne of uranium, according to government figures, produces as much energy as 75,000 tonnes of coal. It is impossible to believe that coal has the lesser impact. I am forced to admit that an accident like Chernobyl's could not take place in a new nuclear power station. Secondary containment of the reactor core and new safety systems make a total meltdown impossible. Nor do I believe that new reactors would present a useful target for terrorists. It would not be difficult to make the containment buildings strong enough to resist an impact with an airliner. But there are other arguments that do stand up. The most fundamental environmental principle - one that all children are taught as soon as they are old enough to understand it - is that you don't make a new mess until you have cleared up the old one. To start building a new generation of nuclear power stations before we know what to do with the waste produced by existing plants is grotesquely irresponsible. The government's advisers have determined only that it should be buried. No one yet knows where, how or at what cost. This is just one of the factors that make a nonsense of the economic projections. How on earth can we say what nuclear power stations will cost if we don't even know what their decommissioning entails? The government will assure us today that there will be no subsidies and no guaranteed prices for the nuclear industry. This should allow us to forget about the cost, and leave the market to determine whether nuclear power stations should be built. But in order to guarantee public safety, the government must be ready to rescue our power stations or their waste piles if the nuclear operators are in danger of going bankrupt. To ensure that the operators don't fudge their figures, the government must make it clear that it is not prepared to rescue them. It is a paradox that cannot be resolved. And how does any system - political or technological - cope with the timescales involved? If, as a result of slow leakage into the groundwater, radioactive materials from a burial site were to kill an average of only one person a year for one million years, those who made the decision to bury them will - through their infinitesimal and unrecorded impacts - be responsible for the deaths of a million people. It has also become clear that we will never rid the world of nuclear weapons if we do not also rid it of nuclear power. Every state that has sought to develop a weapons programme over the past 30 years - Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq and Iran - has done so by manipulating its nuclear power programme. We cannot deny other states the opportunity to use atomic energy if we do not forswear it ourselves. But perhaps the strongest argument against nuclear power is that we do not need it, even to reach the extraordinarily ambitious target that the science demands. With similar levels of investment in energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage, and the exploitation of the vast new offshore wind resources the government has now identified, we could cut our carbon emissions as swiftly and as effectively as any atomic power programme could. In North America, where natural gas supplies have already peaked and are in long-term decline, this is a much tougher challenge than in Eurasia; but while our supplies of gas persist we should use them, and bury the carbon dioxide that our power stations produce, while developing the electricity storage systems that will eventually replace them. Some of our arguments against nuclear power have collapsed, but it seems to me that the case is still robust. ---- Nuclear power stations to be fast-tracked through planning By Jenny Booth and agencies, July 11, 2006 UK Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2264655,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=Britain The Government today revealed plans to change the planning laws to ensure that some at least of Britain's ageing nuclear power stations can be replaced - sparking a huge row with "green" campaigners. Announcing the Government’s Energy Review in Parliament today, Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said that nuclear energy could make a significant contribution to Britain's future energy security. It is understood that this could entail the building of a new generation of up to six nuclear power stations. Mr Darling told MPs that the amount of electricity generated by nuclear power would fall from the current 20 per cent to 6 per cent in the next 20 years. He made no specific policy commitments, promising further consultation and a White Paper this winter, but said that decisions must be made "in the next few years". If measures were not taken now to fill the gap left by the closure of ageing nuclear power stations, Britain would become dependent on costly overseas gas imports, often from unstable parts of the world. The process of commissioning new nuclear plants - and indeed wind farms - has been until now greatly delayed by the planning process. In future, the Energy Review promises, the Government will be able to make a declaration of need, stating that the country requires a nuclear power station - reducing the scope for lengthy objections at public inquiries. Mr Darling told MPs however that nuclear power was only a part of the solution, and announced that in future, 20 per cent of Britain's energy should come from renewable sources. The current target is 15 per cent. The building of new renewable energy plants has however also been prone to planning delays, so today's review proposes to create the post of specialist planning inspector whose role will be to ensure that applications for offshore windfarms and turbines to harness the power of the tide should not get bogged down. Mr Darling also said that coal-fired power generation - which last winter was providing up to a half of Britain's energy needs - had a future role to play, so long as technology could cut the heavy toll of carbon it released into the atmosphere. The Trade and Industry Secretary said that exhausted North Sea oil fields could be used for "carbon capture" - safely storing potentially polluting carbon emissions - thus cutting carbon emissions by millions of tonnes. There was a raft of proposals for encouraging businesses to reduce their energy usage and emissions, and cutting pollution by road transport by, for example, greater use of biomass fuels as alternatives to fossil fuels. The Energy Review says that individuals too can play their part in preventing climate change. It proposes that new applications to site solar panels or wind turbines on the roofs of domestic properties should become virtually exempt from planning laws, in order to encourage homeowners to become more actively involved in generating their own power. In most cases there would be a presumption that such planning applications should be accepted, the review says, and technology should be developed to allow excess power generated in this way to be fed into the national grid. Power generation firms should also be given incentives to help homeowners make their homes more energy efficient, rather than simply trying to sell them as much power as possible. Measures such as smart metering and better and clearer fuel bills would help consumers to understand how to reduce their energy usage, Mr Darling told the Commons. The Government wishes to cut dramatically the 7 per cent of all power used in the UK which is used keeping computers, videos, televisions and other electrical appliances on standby. Mr Darling said that talks would be held with manufacturers and other bodies in order to cut the amount of effectively wasted energy. Despite the many green initiatives in the Energy Review, the issue that has enraged Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Green Party and other anti-nuclear groups is the proposal to invest once more in nuclear power. Green groups claimed today that there was no public support for nuclear power, and no need to replace ageing nuclear power stations. "We can tackle climate change and meet our energy needs by cutting energy waste, harnessing the power of renewables and using fossil fuels more efficiently," said Tony Juniper, the director of Friends of the Earth. "And we can do this without wasting more money on dirty and dangerous nuclear power. The world is already a dangerous place. Encouraging countries around the world to build nuclear power stations will make it even more so." Instead, he said, the Government should pass a new climate change law committing Britain to annual cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. Stephen Hale, the director of the Green Alliance and a former Defra special adviser, said that Mr Blair's public support of nuclear power had skewed the debate and was draining investment away from renewable energy. Taxing flights would be a better way of tackling climate change, he said. "As long as this Government identifies nuclear power as essential, it will discourage potential investors in other sectors," he said. "Climate change is the pretext for the Government’s position on nuclear. But a rethink of the aviation White Paper would be far more effective as part of a climate strategy than a new wave of nuclear power stations." The Conservatives mocked Mr Darling's statement as short on specifics. Alan Duncan, the shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, said: "He proposes six new consultations and a new forum, but there's no real policies, no real action, no real decisions, no energy review at all. There's nothing there." Earlier, David Cameron said the Government was right to prioritise cutting carbon emissions "to save the planet" and make sure that Britain's power supplies were secure. "What they’ve got to do is allow a revolution in green energy," he said. "You’ve got to allow that market to explode. Nuclear can be there as a last resort." There was strong support from the unions for the idea of Britain guaranteeing a stable, domestic source of energy. Gary Smith, national officer for the energy industry for the GMB union, said: "Thank goodness someone has taken a forward looking view so that we will not have to rely on anyone but ourselves to meet our energy needs in the years to come. GMB welcomes the commitment to a balanced energy policy." But consumer experts said that the debate should take more account of the high energy prices that British households are being forced to foot. "One way or another, we are going to be left with higher household energy bills, and if the pricing trends we have seen over the past five years continue, we could see prices increase by a further 80 per cent by 2011, taking the average household energy bill from its current level of £915 to £1,647," said Ann Robinson, of consumer advice firm uSwitch.com. "There are already three million households in this country who are struggling to pay their energy bills, and this figure could rise to over six million in the next five years unless the Government incorporates specific, targeted measures to tackle this problem when it unveils its final proposals." Anna Shepard: ten steps to save energy http://timesonline.typepad.com/eco_worrier/2006/07/carrying_out_a_.html ---- Darling gives nuclear assurance Hunterston B nuclear power station in Ayrshire is due to close by 2011 Tuesday, 11 July 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/5167974.stm Scottish ministers will have the final say on whether to build more nuclear power plants in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Industry has said. Alistair Darling outlined the UK Government's energy review on Tuesday and said planning was a devolved issue. Mr Darling said nuclear power stations could make a "significant contribution" to meeting "energy policy goals". In its submission to the review, the Scottish Executive promoted Scotland's role in developing green energy. The prime minister ordered the energy review last November to decide how the UK would meet its targets for fighting global warming and ensuring energy security. Outlining the energy review, Mr Darling also said: ""Far from getting rid of the renewables obligation, as some have proposed, we intend to increase it from 15% to 20%." Mr Darling said no nuclear power stations could be built in Scotland without the executive's consent. He said: "Of course we recognise in Scotland planning is devolved and Scottish ministers also get to decide whether or not to give consent to any large plant, nuclear or otherwise." Scotland's two nuclear power stations, Hunterston B, in Ayrshire, and Torness, East Lothian, are earmarked for closure by 2011 and 2022 respectively. Mr Darling called for a "grown-up debate" on the country's energy requirements and said developments had been hamstrung in the past by local planning objectors. Oil and gas "I think the important thing for people to focus on is the two big problems we've got: one is the need to tackle climate change, we cannot go on pumping carbon into the atmosphere," he said. "Secondly is in relation to security of supply. We've largely been dependent on North Sea oil and gas for the last 30 years. "While it's still plentiful, we will become increasingly dependent on importing oil and gas, so those are the two big challenges and we have to make sure we've got the right mix." Mr Darling said the energy review would make a strong case for renewable energy sources like the 49-turbine wind farm being built at Braes of Doune, near Dunblane, which will generate enough electricity for 55,000 homes. Scottish Green Party nuclear spokesman Chris Ballance said it was "absurd" to suggest nuclear power should be included in a balanced energy mix. He said: "There's nothing balanced in expanding nuclear energy and leaving the clean-up bill for future generations. "Greens and others - including the government's own Sustainable Development Commission - have thoroughly assessed nuclear power and have concluded that the industry has offered no genuine case that can be taken seriously." Climate change Mr Ballance said the prime minister should be assessing the best way of reducing global tensions and taking the most effective route to tackling climate change. "Trident and a new generation of nuclear reactors will do neither," the MSP added. Friends of the Earth (FoE) Scotland said the review must make Scotland and the rest of the UK "world leaders" in developing a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy. The group said the UK could meet its energy needs without building more nuclear power stations. FoE Scotland chief executive Duncan McLaren said: "Despite the first minister's apparent opposition, Scotland may yet be saddled with the white elephant of more unsafe and unnecessary nuclear power. "It's hard to see any reprieve lasting beyond the next election unless the Scottish Executive locks-in future support for renewables and energy saving, with tougher targets and a planning system that enables public participation. "This must include provisions for debating any objections against nuclear facilities on grounds of need at a full public inquiry." CBI Scotland director Iain McMillan welcomed the review and said it recognised the need for swift action to ensure the UK was able to meet its future energy demands. 'Not enough money' "Ministers are correct to include both nuclear and renewable power in their thinking," he said. "In exercising their powers of planning consent in Scotland, Scottish ministers must not discriminate against any form of energy provision, including nuclear." Dr Richard Dixon, of WWF Scotland, said the government's promises to do more to maximise energy efficiency and renewables were "not credible". "These promises are not credible because there is not enough money, engineering talent or political will to deliver on both nuclear and clean energy," he said. Dr Dixon described nuclear power as "a costly red herring". Maf Smith, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, said the government clearly understood that renewable energy was clean, affordable and secure. "Our experience in Scotland shows us that renewables can deliver on government targets, provided that the planning system is fit for purpose, and we have an electricity network fit for the 21st Century," he added. ---- New wave of nuclear power fired up by 2016 By Katherine Griffiths (Filed: 11/07/2006) UK Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/07/11/ccnuc11.xml Tony Blair wants the first in a new generation of nuclear power stations to be fired up in 2016. The target, considerably earlier than has been expected, underlines how important Downing Street believes the nuclear element is in its drive to meet the twin needs of increasing energy supplies while cutting carbon emissions by 60pc by 2050. Mindful of the widespread opposition to nuclear energy, the twin targets of having perhaps four new nuclear reactors up and running 10 years from now, and of building a total of 12 reactors, are unlikely to be mentioned explicitly in today's 120-page Energy Review. But they are the key goals of the Government's blueprint of energy policy for the next half a century. As such, after the much-trailed Energy Review is published today, Downing Street wants to crack on with plans to start licensing designs for nuclear reactors this autumn. Well aware of the Government's ambitious timetable, giants of the nuclear industry are talking to utility firms about forming partnerships to build and deliver the power. Major players among the utilities include France's EDF, owner of London Energy - which is becoming EDF Energy - as well as Germany's Eon and RWE. On the nuclear side, France's Areva, Toshiba-owned Westinghouse and General Electric of the US are all keen to get a slice of the nuclear building programme. At the same time as getting the ball rolling on licensing, the groups will have to start finding the money to finance their plans because it has been made clear that the Energy Review, presented in the form of a Green Paper, will not include any government subsidies for nuclear energy. Financing will, therefore, have to come entirely from the private sector, probably in the form of consortia including the utility and nuclear companies along with financial investors. This could be quite a tall order. Even the new reactors, which will be less expensive than the current generation of ageing power stations they will replace, are likely to cost between £2bn and £2.5bn each to build. As the Government wants 12 new reactors, that means up to £30bn needs to be found from private investors. Mark Spelman, an energy analyst at the consulting firm Accenture, believes the money can be raised in the City, but only if the Government has listened to the concerns of the nuclear industry about planning and the disposal of nuclear waste. "It is not a question of whether the money is there. It is there. But the Government will need to go into a lot of detail about the ground rules as people will want to know whether they can make a return," Mr Spelman said. On planning, the nuclear industry is keen to avoid a repeat of the process that led to the building of Britain's newest nuclear reactor - Sizewell B in Suffolk - which opened in 1995. Running for six years, the investigation into whether the plant should be built was Britain's longest-ever public inquiry. The Energy Review will detail a streamlined plan. There will be just one public inquiry to look at all of the nuclear reactor designs, which will start late this year or early next. It is understood that a High Court judge will be appointed to oversee the process. There will also be an official called an advocate general or counsel to the inquiry who will decide who can make representations to the inquiry, with any two groups not allowed to argue the same point in an attempt to speed up deliberation. Even this streamlined process is likely to take three or four years. Local planning permission will still be needed for each site. However, the Government wants the plants to be built on the sites of the existing power stations, which is likely to smooth the planning permission process. And as an additional fail-safe, the Government is considering taking back many of these sites under its own control from their owner, British Energy. The Government owns two-thirds of British Energy and could strike a deal to pay the private shareholders a sum of money in return for ownership of the sites, such as Sizewell, Dungeness in Kent and Hinkley Point in Somerset. Ministers will try to reassure the nuclear industry on the issue of radioactive waste by allowing companies to charge from day one for the price of delivering the energy and for the future price of decommissioning. All of this will not eradicate risk. Clean-up costs of the current fleet of reactors has dramatically over-run and now stands at £70bn. There is also a worry that, while the new reactors will last for 40 to 50 years and require huge up-front investment, it is very difficult to know whether today's high energy prices will continue. Indeed, in the case of British Energy falling prices forced the Government to bail it out in 2002. These risks not withstanding, there will be plenty of interest in the nuclear building programme. Indeed, the Government can expect cut-throat competition and lobbying between the various utility and nuclear companies to grab as much of the business as they can. EDF, a major player in the UK electricity market, has Gordon Brown's brother, Andrew, as its head of media relations in the UK. The company is likely to team up with its compatriot, the nuclear engineering company Areva. Nuclear industry sources believe the duo might even try to persuade the Government to grant exclusive rights to allow it to build the whole nuclear fleet in return for a considerable discount in the price of energy delivered. Such a plan is unlikely to be successful. The Government is keen "not to put all of its eggs in one basket", one source said, adding that both the Westinghouse and Areva designs would probably be approved. Westinghouse was owned by the Government until this year, when it was bought by Toshiba for $5.4bn (£2.9bn). It has yet to decide which utility to take on as a partner. Not all of the Energy Review will be on the future of nuclear. When the Department of Trade and Industry saw a draft recently, it is understood to have insisted that more was put into the document on renewable energy in order to present a balanced picture and to minimise criticism from the anti-nuclear lobby. As a result, the Energy Review is likely to unveil plans for a five-fold increase in energy generation from wind, solar, tidal and agricultural sources. There might even be something to pleasantly surprise the oil and gas industry, which is not expecting much from this Energy Review. That could be in the form of incentives to increase drilling in the North Sea in an attempt to limit the reliance on volatile parts of the world for oil and gas. ---- The Government's report on the Energy Review is released today 11th July 2006 Energy Review http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/review/index.html This work aims to put us in a position to meet the two major long-term challenges in UK energy policy: * we need to tackle climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and * we need to deliver secure, clean energy at affordable prices, as we move to increasing dependence on imported energy The remit of the Review was to examine the UK's progress against the medium and long-term 2003 Energy White Paper goals and consider options for further steps to achieve them. We remain committed to the UK's competitive energy market as the best way to deliver secure energy supplies and competitive prices. Our aim is to set the right regulatory framework to enable the market to move in the right direction to meet the long-term challenges. Below is a link to the Government's report on the Energy Review: The Energy Challenge, together with links to supporting documentation. These will go live on this site in the afternoon of Tuesday 11th July. Energy Review: The Energy Challenge - Full report (PDF, 3,262Kb) Foreword, Preface and Introduction (PDF, 98Kb) Executive Summary (PDF, 131Kb) Chapter 1: Valuing Carbon (PDF, 110Kb) Chapter 2: Saving Energy (PDF, 239Kb) Chapter 3: Distributed Energy (PDF, 139Kb) Chapter 4: Oil, Gas and Coal (PDF, 1,263Kb) Chapter 5: Electricity Generation (PDF, 273Kb) Chapter 6: Transport (PDF, 73Kb) Chapter 7: Planning for Large-scale Energy Infrastructure (PDF, 113Kb) Chapter 8: Meeting Our Goals (PDF, 72Kb) Chapter 9: Implementation (PDF, 59Kb) Annexes: Annex A: Consultation on the Policy Framework for New Nuclear Build (PDF, 896Kb) Annex B: Overview of Modelling of the Relative Electricity Generating Costs of Different Technologies (PDF, 309Kb) Annex C: UK CO2 Emissions Projections (PDF, 109Kb) Annex D: Renewables Statement of Need (PDF, 187Kb) Annex E: Renewable Grid Issues (PDF, 66Kb) Annex F: Energy Review Consultation and Responses (PDF, 75Kb) Supporting Documentation: Summary of responses to the Energy Review consultation (PDF, 541Kb) and Annex (PDF, 810Kb) Synthesis of cost benefit analysis (PDF, 181Kb) Strategic storage and other options to ensure long-term gas security (PDF, 637Kb) Maximising the UK's oil and gas resources: background (PDF, 18Kb) UK Energy and CO2 Emissions projections, July 2006 (PDF, 150Kb) Study on future network technologies (PDF, 495Kb) Study on the dynamics of UK generation investment (PDF, 584Kb) plus executive summary (PDF, 236Kb) Study on accommodating distributed generation (PDF, 2,301Kb) Study on UK Carbon reduction potential from technologies in the transport sector (PDF, 700Kb) -------- china China rejects UN resolution on NKorea by Cindy Sui Tue Jul 11, 2006 (AFP) http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fafp%2F20060711%2Fts_afp%2Fnkoreamissile_060711102032%26printer%3D1%3B_ylt%3DAkvLo4C12LTBhRkYLztfVb.ROrgF%3B_ylu%3DX3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- BEIJING - China has rejected a proposed UN resolution on possible sanctions against North Korea, dashing US and Japanese hopes for quick action over Pyongyang's missile tests. A foreign ministry announcement that the draft Security Council resolution was an "overreaction" came amid another flurry of shuttle diplomacy to address the crisis in the wake of last Wednesday's missile launches. Separate talks between North and South Korea, and China and the United States, were held a day after a vote on the resolution was postponed by the Council -- where China holds the veto power to block it. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu did not mention any veto but said the legally binding Council resolution would "undermine the progress" on North Korean disarmament talks and needed to be thoroughly re-worked. "China believes this draft resolution represents an overreaction and, if adopted, it will cause a further escalation of the problem," Jiang said on Tuesday. The resolution could "undermine the progress made in the six-party talks. There should be a substantial revision of the draft," she said, referring to stalled talks on persuading Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear program. "China is gravely concerned about the current situation and we have expressed our position to the North Korean side," she said. The secretive North Korean state test-launched seven missiles last week in the direction of Japan, which has since pressed for a Council resolution that would clear the way for sanctions and in theory even military action. North Korea in response said that sanctions would be an "act of war." The volleys of rhetoric have been accompanied by intensive diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Pyongyang, which has boycotted the six-nation disarmament talks since November. At the Security Council on Monday, Japan said it had decided to postpone a vote and instead await word from a high-level Chinese delegation currently holding six days of negotiations in the North Korean capital. China, the North's main ally, countered with a so-called presidential statement -- a Council document that carries no legal force -- that was rejected. "It did not respond sufficiently robustly to actually what the present threat is," said Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, Emyr Jones Parry. "Indeed it did not recognize that there was a threat." Meanwhile the top US envoy on North Korea, Christopher Hill, returned to Beijing on Tuesday for the second time in a week, making another stop on a busy tour trying to muster diplomatic consensus. "Obviously we are in a rather crucial period," Hill told reporters on arrival. "The Chinese government has an important diplomatic mission going on, so we want to be in close consultation with the Chinese government," he said. A US embassy official said Hill would stay at least overnight. State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday that China still placed its hopes in the six-party talks, the official Xinhua news agency reported. North Korea has announced it has nuclear weapons and the talks were intended to get the North, one of the most isolated and impoverished nations in the world, to abandon its atomic programmes. But an agreement in September to do that in exchange for energy and security guarantees was never implemented before the North began boycotting the talks less two months later to protest US financial sanctions. Japan's push for further sanctions has also run into opposition from South Korea -- which, like China, often criticises what it sees as a Japanese failure to apologise for its wartime behaviour in the 20th century. Top Japanese spokesman Shinzo Abe on Monday suggested a possible pre-emptive strike on North Korea, drawing more criticism on Tuesday. "It is a serious development that Japanese cabinet ministers have made a series of comments that justify a possible pre-emptive strike and the use of military power against the Korean peninsula," said a spokesman for South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun. South Korea in 2000 launched a "sunshine policy" of reconciling with its longtime Northern adversary, and the North sent a delegation to South Korea for new talks on Tuesday. -------- depleted uranium Diabetes and Depleted Uranium Italian Embassy Cover up Continues by Bob Nichols Tuesday Jul 11th, 2006 (San Francisco Bay View) http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/07/11/18287057.php Dr Mishra described June 29th to June 6 as "A week from Hell." International radiation expert Leuren Moret talked to Dr Mishra, a famous surgeon from India, the afternoon of July 7, 2006. Dr. Mishra's report was grim. I had tried to reach him by phone and email for a week. I was concerned about his safety. On July 10 Dr Mishra stated "I will not be cowed down." Mishra reported "Threats at the hospital, three weird phone calls claiming 'we have you under surveillance,' one each in American, Italian and Indian accents." Dr. Mishra said he was advised by someone in the [Indian] government to "leave town for three days because of the danger." Mishra said he did and "unidentified Government agents blocked my computer, blocked my phone and email and harassed my family." Dr. Mishra said it started on his visit to the Consul at the Italian Consulate on June 29th regarding his earlier request for an Italian Visa. A Visa is an entry and travel permit and can only be issued in Bombay by Italian Consul Baeceloni. Mishra was called back without an explanation. The Consul asked Dr. Mishra 1) Who is your sponsor in Italy, 2) What is your hotel in Italy and 3) what is your interest in Leuren Moret, in diabetes and depleted uranium? Dr. Mishra had said nothing about diabetes, depleted uranium or Leuren Moret. Depleted uranium is a genocidal radioactive metal used for bullets, bombs and missiles by the United States and Great Britain as munitions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia. Millions of pounds of weaponized radioactive uranium gas and dust have been dispersed by US/UK military forces in Iraq and Central Asia. The use of uranium weapons has caused a global diabetes epidemic since 1991, according to scientist Leuren Moret. It is enough uranium dust to cause an estimated twenty five million additional cancers in Iraq in the next decade. The US and UK military still use uranium munitions. There are only 24 million Iraqis. Many Iraqis now have multiple cancers. On his visit to to the Consul at the Italian Embassy Dr Mishra answered the three questions by stating he would bring the email invitation to the Consul, his reservation and stated "I am going to meet with a scientific colleague, Leuren Moret, an old family friend who works for the good of humanity, about matters of interest to international public health." Mishra continued his statement "I am a scientist and a medical doctor. I have an interest in diabetes and public health links to depleted uranium. There are big unexplained increases in diabetes in India, China and Jakarta since 1990. I am participating in a meeting about these issues." The US, Italian and Indian governments had no way of knowing about the planned international meeting about the diabetes and depleted uranium cause and effect link. The suspicion is that the University of California's Nuclear Weapons Labs and factories tapped Leuren Moret's calls; then, went through the US State Department or the Defense Department to the Italian government and the Indian government. That is the most probable way the words "diabetes and the link to depleted uranium and Leuren Moret" came out of the Italian Consul's mouth in Bombay, India. Scientist Leuren Moret formerly worked at two Nuclear Weapons Labs run by the University of California. Moret and Mishra concluded with this statement "Denial of Dr. Mishra's Visa is an academic, scientific, political and social issue. We are not against any government. We would like the Italian government to understand the importance of this issue of global public health as an indicator and result of depleted uranium pollution. This position is stifling scientific investigation and is censorship." Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award Winner. He is a correspondent for the San Francisco Bay View newspaper and a frequent contributor to various on line publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear war in Central Asia. Nichols is a former employee of the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant. Nichols can be reached by email. You are encouraged to write bob.bobnichols [at] gmail.com -------- europe Finland's 5th Nuclear Reactor Delayed -- by 1 Year Tuesday July 11, 2:14 pm ET By Matti Huuhtanen, Associated Press Writer http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060711/finland_nuclear_plant_delay.html?.v=2 HELSINKI, Finland (AP) -- The completion of Finland's fifth nuclear reactor will be further delayed, by a year, because of complications with planning, the Finnish power company TVO said Tuesday. The 1,600-megawatt reactor is now expected to be in operation in the second quarter of 2010, a year later than previously planned, TVO project director Martin Landtman said. Areva-Siemens, the French-German supplier of the 1,600-megawatt reactor, is unable to complete the construction on time because of the size and demands of the project, Landtman said. "TVO is not satisfied with the time schedule. The individual designs and plans have taken longer than earlier expected," he said. "The timetable has also been affected by the fact that such a sizable and demanding project has not been carried out for many years." Construction of the euro3-billion (US$3.7-billion) atomic reactor, the first to be built in the European Union in more than 10 years, began last year after the government gave it final approval. Earlier this year, TVO announced a delay of several months after construction was stopped for eight weeks because of faulty concrete. "TVO will work hard together with the supplier" to speed up the construction, Landtman said, but added that all safety requirements will be "strictly fulfilled." "It has taken quite some time for the related industry to reach the enhanced performance level required for the new generation of nuclear power plants," he said. Some 60 Finnish companies are involved in the project, Olkiluoto 3, the country's largest to date. It is situated 250 kilometers (155 miles) northwest of the capital, at the site of two 750-megawatt nuclear units. Besides the Olkiluoto units, there are two 500-megawatt reactors at Loviisa, 90 kilometers (55 miles) east of Helsinki. The four produce more than a quarter of Finland's electricity. -------- japan Chubu Electric cuts profit by 100 bil. yen on nuke plant accident TOKYO, July 11,2006 KYODO http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=258911 Chubu Electric Power Co. said Tuesday it has lowered its pretax profit projection for the current fiscal year by 100 billion yen to about 95 billion yen due to losses that resulted from an accident earlier this year involving a nuclear reactor at its Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture. Japan's third-largest electric power company also slashed its group net profit projection for the year through next March by 63 billion yen to 57 billion yen. -------- korea Pyongyang Seeks Help From Seoul To Fend Off Calamity From Outside by Park Chan-Kyong Busan, South Korea (AFP) Jul 11, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Pyongyang_Seeks_Help_From_Seoul_To_Fend_Off_Calamity_From_Outside_999.html North Korea, facing threats of international punishment for its missile tests, urged South Korea Tuesday to show solidarity but the South said the launches had damaged relations. Their high-level meeting in the southern city of Busan had been uncertain until the last minute as South Korea walked a tightrope between maintaining its policy of engaging its communist neighbor while condemning the launches. South Korea has ruled out discussing the North's requests for further fertilizer and rice aid at the talks, saying it would instead tackle the launch of seven missiles on July 5 that heightened security fears in the region. North Korea's chief delegate Kwon Ho-Ung called for "solidarity and reconciliation" between the two Koreas in line with the spirit of a joint declaration made on June 15, 2000, at a historic summit. "No matter how the situation and circumstances change, the North and South must not leave this road of June 15, chosen by the Korean nation," Kwon said at a dinner speech. Earlier, he drew an apparent parallel between this week's typhoon that hit the Korean peninsula and the furious Japanese and Western reaction to the missile tests. "Typhoons do not distinguish the South from the North. If the North receives damage, the South also sustains damage," Kwon said when he was received by his Southern counterpart Lee Jong-Seok. "Calamities do not stem only from within. They also come from the outside... we need to make best efforts to prevent calamities that may come from the outside," he said. Kwon's comments come amid regional tension, with South Korea strongly criticizing calls by former colonial power Japan for tough action against the North over its launches. A strongly worded statement from Roh's office on Tuesday accused Japan of returning to its past militarism after Japanese officials said they were examining if a pre-emptive strike would violate the 1947 constitution. Japan, the United States and European nations have proposed a United Nations resolution to include sanctions. The North has said such a resolution would be a declaration of war and China, which holds veto power, opposes it. Lee, South Korea's unification minister, said at the same dinner that the missile tests "caused instability in the region and damaged inter-Korean ties." "I hope that we will have a good discussion to meet the expectations of the 80 million (Korean) people who are concerned about the current situation and anxious to see peace and co-prosperity of the North and South," Lee said. Lee said last week the South would use the talks, which continue until early Friday, to condemn the missile launches and urge the North to return to the six-party talks on ending its nuclear weapons drive. Pyongyang has boycotted these since November over US financial sanctions against it. South Korea has been the North's biggest donor since the start of the "sunshine policy." President Roh Moo-Hyun's government was left embarrassed by the missile tests, including a new long-range Taepodong-2, as it had played down weeks of US and Japanese warnings of an imminent launch. But the government went ahead with the Busan meeting, which is the highest-level standing dialogue between the Koreas. Experts said North Korea may have chosen to talk to the South to show it is open to dialogue and eased tensions since Western countries, and especially Japan, are reacting strongly to the launches. South Korea has shipped 350,000 tonnes of fertilizer to the North this year. North Korea had requested another 100,000 tonnes of fertilizer and 500,000 tonnes of rice. North Korea has relied for the past decade on outside help to feed its 23 million people. But it is believed to have spent millions of dollars on last week's missile launch, which it said was aimed at boosting its defenses in the face of US hostility. ---- US Military Exercise Violates North Koreans Sovereignty by Jean-Jacques Cornish Pretoria (AFP) Jul 11, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Military_Exercise_Violates_North_Koreans_Sovereignty_999.html North Korea on Tuesday accused the United States of running a "massive" military exercise off the Korean Peninsula, which Pyongyang's vice foreign minister said was a "serious violation of the principles of sovereignty". But Kim Hyong Jun repeated in Pretoria, where he is on an official visit to South Africa, that North Korea would return to six-party disarmament talks if Washington agreed to drop economic sanctions against the secretive state. "At the moment the US is conducting massive military excercises in the waters off the Korean peninsula... with South Korea and Japan," Kim said after talks with his South African counterpart, Aziz Pahad. "These exercises are a serious violation of the principles of sovereignty, equality, reciprocity and non-interference," Kim said. His comments came amid another flurry Tuesday of shuttle diplomacy to address the crisis in the wake of last week's seven missile launches. Separate talks between North and South Korea, and China and the United States were held, a day after a vote on a United Nations Security Council resolution on possible sanctions against Pyongyang was postponed. The North Korean official defended the missile launches, saying his country "has to defend its rights". "The latest missile launches are part of routine military exercises to increase our capability for self-defence," Kim said. "Our military is involved in these missile launches as part of an exercise to contain aggressive threats from the outside and increase the nation's military capability." He repeated Pyongyang's willingness to return to the negotiating table should the United States drop economic restrictions, instituted last year. Washington had slapped sanctions on a bank with North Korean accounts that was suspected of counterfeiting and laundering money. US special envoy Christopher Hill on Saturday spurned Pyongyang's offer, saying "to be very frank, I think this is not a time for so-called gestures of this kind." Kim told reporters: "It is our intention to respect the six-party talks. "As soon as the US lifts financial sanctions... (North Korea) will be ready to participate in these talks," he said. He called on the 116-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to increase efforts to resolve the missile dispute, saying "all the problems in the Korean peninsula and east Asia are created by the heavy-handed and arbitrary behaviour of the United States and other major powers." South Africa's deputy minister Pahad said his country was not in favour of UN sanctions being imposed on North Korea, a position also held by North Korea's closest ally, China. "We want this matter to be resolved through normal diplomatic consensus. We want to see a situation where all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted before the situation is taken to the UN," Pahad told reporters. The South African official had met with his Japanese counterpart Yasuhisa Shiozaki last week, who told Pahad that South Africa was "well placed" to discuss the missile tests with Pyongyang. -------- russia Russia says no plans to store foreign spent nuclear fuel 11/ 07/ 2006 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060711/51174005.html MOSCOW, July 11 - Russia does not have any plans to reprocess and store spent nuclear fuel from foreign countries, including the United States, an adviser to the federal nuclear agency official said Tuesday. Several U.S. media sources earlier said Russia and the U.S. had been considering an agreement on the civilian use of nuclear energy that would see a global center for reprocessing and storing high-level radioactive waste from foreign countries set up in Russia. But Igor Konyshev, a representative of an advisory body working with the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, said: "Russia has never imported, does not import and is not planning to import spent nuclear fuel. Officials who stated otherwise either do not understand the essence of the matter or are attempting to purposefully mislead the public." The official said Russia and the U.S. planned to discuss the signing of an agreement on the civilian use of nuclear energy during the summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in St. Petersburg on July 15-17. "This document must serve as the basis for comprehensive cooperation between the two nuclear powers in the development of the nuclear energy industry," Konyshev said, adding that the lack of a document was an obstacle in the further development of Russia-U.S. relations. He said the preparation of the agreement, which includes joint efforts in the development of a new-generation reactor in the framework of the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), could take up to a year. The GIF is an 11-member nuclear energy research and development consortium established in January 2000 to develop innovative nuclear energy system concepts to meet future energy challenges. GIF members include Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Euratom, France, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the U.S., with the OECD-Nuclear Energy Agency and the IAEA as permanent observers. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- louisiana The Lowdown on the Louisiana Energy Services Uranium Enrichment Facility Leave no stone unturned. That's how professionals execute a program to get a project launched. The turnaround of Louisiana Energy Services (LES) is nothing short of spectacular. Resurrected from the dead, the LES enrichment facility is quickly moving forward. After being shunned by two states, in a grueling saga lasting fifteen years, LES finally found a home in New Mexico for its uranium enrichment plant. Our brief encounter with LES President Jim Ferland and his right hand man, Marshall Cohen, Vice President of Communications, demonstrated they are serious players with a no-nonsense approach to making the LES uranium enrichment facility operational. How did we reach that conclusion? It began with a story we wrote. July 11, 2006 InvestorIdeas.com http://miningsectorstocks.com/Articles/071106a.asp While vacationing in Maine, an alert Marshall Cohen phoned StockInterview's offices, within hours after the publication of our Market Outlook Journal article, entitled, "Will Cameco Supply the Uranium for New Mexico's Proposed Enrichment Facility?" He believed we got the story wrong and quickly scheduled an afternoon interview with Jim Ferland, President of LES to clarify the matter. It would have been even sooner, but Mr. Ferland was on an airplane at the time. When we finally talked, we didn't mince words that Thursday afternoon. Ferland wanted to make it perfectly clear there was no secret deal between Cameco and LES. "Cameco thought, at one time, about investing in the project," Ferland explained. "Cameco had a memorandum to basically investigate whether or not it made sense to invest, and chose not to." Still, Ferland agreed Canada would be the likely source of the uranium, "The majority of the uranium mined today is coming from either Canada or Australia." He admitted, "I don't know exactly where it is going to be coming from, I'm just guessing, because obviously no utility is delivering anything to us at this point, that most of it is coming from Canada or the (ConverDyne, Illinois) Metropolis facility." Another eye caught our article. Julian Steyn, head of DC-based Energy Resources International and co-author of U.S. Senator Pete Domenici's book, "A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy," fired us an email. He wrote, "The uranium to be enriched in the Lea County LES plant will be provided by that plant's utility customers, who are all expected to be U.S. utilities. It will be the U.S. utilities that enter into supply arrangements based strictly on commercial considerations." Steyn pointed out, "Yes, Cameco will undoubtedly be one of those producers, but so too will Hydro Resources (a subsidiary of Uranium Resources, Inc.)." Steyn also didn't believe there were any unusual deals cut between Cameco and LES. Other potential producers might also include Strathmore Minerals, Energy Metals Corporation and U-R Energy. They are aggressively moving forward with their In Situ Recovery operations in New Mexico, Wyoming, and/or Texas. Hydro Resources (HRI) President Craig Bartels told us, "With so much uranium left in northwestern New Mexico, we certainly hope it helps supply LES." HRI's In Situ Recovery (ISR) uranium projects have undergone intense regulatory scrutiny, over many years. As was found with LES, HRI's projects have also been found safe for the environment. Bartels heartily endorsed the LES project, saying, "It is not only good for New Mexico, but also for the United States." Which Countries Could Source Uranium for the New Mexico Facility? We asked Ferland if the uranium could come from Kazakhstan, Niger, Namibia or elsewhere. He couldn't say from where, "Again, it's coming from the U.S. utilities. I'm sure the U.S. utilities will comply with whatever laws or regulations that are out there, about where the source material can come from." Julian Steyn shed some light on the subject, "The uranium that gets sent to New Mexico's LES plant for enrichment will probably come from many countries around the world, including the US, Canada, Australia, Niger, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan. The last named country is fast becoming a major supplier." Based upon what both are saying, uranium to be enriched could come from anywhere. In fact, on January 27th of this year, John Borshoff, managing director of Australian-based Paladin Resources (TSX: PDN), announced securing a sales contract from an unspecified U.S. utility for the purchase of more than 2 million pounds of U3O8 for delivery between 2007 and 2012. The uranium would come from the company's Langer Heinrich uranium mine in Namibia, which has been scheduled to be opened this September. Some thirty kilometers away is Rio Tinto's Rossing uranium mine, in which ironically the country of Iran continues to own a minority interest. Could Namibian uranium be heading for the New Mexico's future uranium enrichment facility? As Ferland reminded us, "I don't know at this point." Ferland added, "As far as LES is concerned, it is being delivered by the utilities to our site." When we asked Uranium Producers of America Executive Director Jon Indall about the LES entry into New Mexico, he told us, "They're welcome in New Mexico, as long as it is U.S. uranium they are enriching." Indall, a highly respected attorney who is based in Santa Fe, is eager to help rebuild the U.S. uranium industry. We posed his comments to Ferland, who responded, "There is very little uranium mined in the U.S. But, I sure hope that there will be, whether it is mined in Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, or wherever. If the U.S. wants to be energy independent, and we want nuclear to be a part of that, then we probably need to have some mines re-opened in this country." Strathmore Minerals President David Miller was quick to respond, "We are through the prefeasibility phase on some of our uranium properties. By the time LES reaches full capacity in 2013, we could be producing more than two million pounds per year." Miller pointed out the speed of the permitting process will mainly determine how quickly his company surpasses the two-million production level. Other companies, developing properties in New Mexico, Wyoming and Texas, would also contribute between one and two million pounds of uranium in the years leading up to the National Enrichment Facility reaching full capacity. Will Uranium Enriched in New Mexico End up in Foreign Hands? Boldly, we asked Jim Ferland for a guarantee that LES-enriched uranium would not be shipped to rogue nations, which may have their own opinions on proliferation issues. He explained, "We certainly will comply with every rule and regulation that's out there. Certainly, we will not sell any of our material to places it's not supposed to go. That includes Iran, Pakistan, North Korea - the list could be very long." But, he could not guarantee it. Ferland added, "Will our enriched uranium end up outside the United States? Certainly, there is no restriction on that as long as it goes to the right place. For example, the Japanese buy enriched uranium from the U.S." Steyn, who has consulted for numerous countries, including Taiwan, disagreed, "After the enriched uranium leaves New Mexico, it is expected to be totally consumed in the U.S." The problem with the incoming uranium is that it could conceivably come from any uranium-producing country. Its source and final destination is decided by fuel managers, fuel traders and utilities, who resell or consume the enriched uranium. As Ferland reminded us, "We are simply taking what the utilities deliver to us." At no time do we suggest Ferland is neither patriotic nor involved in anti-American activities. He explained his position, "If the U.S. utilities can find U.S.-sourced uranium, that makes perfect sense to us. An important element that we add to the nuclear fuel cycle is we are a domestic enricher. The piec e that is missing right now, not entirely but almost entirely missing, is U.S. sourced, U.S. mined, uranium. I think the country needs it. I think it would be good for the industry. We would love to take U.S. sourced uranium. If there just was some, it would be great. A very small percentage of the uranium that's mined in the world today comes from the U.S. as I understand it." Ferland may get his wish. On Monday, SXR Uranium One announced the company had been named as the preferred bidder for Wyoming's Sweetwater Uranium Mill, owned by the U.S. subsidiary of Rio Tinto plc. As part of the acquisition SXR may also purchase the subsidiary's Green Mountain properties in south central Wyoming's Great Divide Basin. In 1992, one consulting firm confirmed the Jackpot Deposit on these properties might contain more than 57 million pounds of U3O8. With the number of pounds such uranium juniors as Strathmore Minerals, Energy Metals and UR-Energy hope to bring onstream before 2013, Ferland may need to depend less upon non-U.S. uranium than he currently imagines. What about the Uranium Tailings? After the uranium is enriched, about 90 percent becomes waste. "Initially, it will be stored on site in the form of depleted UF6," Ferland explained. "Obviously, the majority of the U-235 will be taken out of the tailings at that point. Certainly, there will be a little bit left." But where will the tailings go? Ferland didn't skip a beat in his answer, "We have two options for disposing of the tails. Where we are headed right this minute, and I would anticipate this is where we will end up, is we will build a private deconversion facility. Or someone else will build one for us, a private entity." And who would build the deconversion facility? "As far as who builds and operates that plant, it might be us or somebody else," Ferland answered. "We do have a Memorandum of Understanding in place with Areva, which would allow us access to their technology. They have a running deconversion plant in France that we could well choose to copy." According to Ferland, the plant won't be built in New Mexico, "Part of the settlement agreement with Governor Richardson and (New Mexico) Attorney General Madrid was we agreed to not build a deconversion plant in the state." Ferland suggested the plant site could be in Texas, but possibly elsewhere. He believes it could take a couple of years to build, and would cost between $100 and $200 million to construct. Ferland added, "It would create between 50 and 80 new jobs." Ferland said LES would begin the licensing process for the deconversion plant over the next couple of years. "You have to go through the entire NRC licensing process in order to build one of those," he pointed out. "We're looking at two to three years, roughly. And then we would start construction and start operation at that facility. That's where we are headed with deconversion." That meshes with the enrichment facility's operational plan. "I wouldn't be surprised to see the deconversion plant online within a year or two after we reach full capacity (with the enrichment facility)," Ferland said. Failing to provide us with a more accurate forecast as to how long the tailings will remain in storage in New Mexico, at the LES enrichment facility, Ferland suggested a few possible destinations for the waste, "You simply send that to any of a variety of low-level waste disposal sites that are around the country. The closest one is in Utah. There could someday be one in Texas at Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility. They are in the process of getting licensed." Will the deconversion plant be located in Texas? "It could well be," he answered. "The facility is only a few miles from our site. Inherently, it makes some sense. The missing link is obviously that the WCS facility is not licensed today." Strolling Down the LES Memory Lane Who better than to explain the LES puzzle than Jim Ferland? As president of Louisiana Energy Services, Ferland came onboard nearly three years ago. At the time, the LES project was still in Tennessee, but rapidly losing traction. Ferland admits the situation had gotten so bad in Tennessee that his management team had to look elsewhere. First, we wanted to clarify exactly who owns LES. Conflicting news reports, found in the news items after LES was awarded the first NRC license for a nuclear facility in nearly thirty years, confused us. Ferland straightened us out on this point, too. "LES is incorporated in Delaware. It's a limited partnership. I'll give you a quick rundown on the ownership. It is confusing." Six month ago, Westinghouse Electric owned 24.5 percent of LES. British Nuclear Fuels, which owns a one-third stake in Urenco, owned Westinghouse. On March 3rd of this year, Urenco bought Westinghouse's minority interest in LES. Wait, it gets more confusing. "Back in the original LES, which was back in Louisiana in the early 1990s, the utilities did have an equity share at that time," Ferland explained. "When the Urenco picked the project back up, to restart it in 2002, the utilities tagged along. The utilities, though, did not have an equity ownership share." According to Ferland, Urenco bought out the three U.S. utilities - Entergy, Exelon and Duke - in exchange for some cash and more cash payments going forward. "All that is happening now is the utilities earn the rest of their money back as LES meets certain milestones going forward," said Ferland. "One of those milestones was (achieved) the day LES received the NRC license. As of 2002, these three utilities had no management say and no equity participation. They simply had some rights to some future cash flows, depending upon whether or not LES was successful. Essentially, we're paying the utilities back for the investment they made in the early 1990s." The upshot is simple. Louisiana Energy Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of Urenco Ltd. But then again, get ready for a tad more confusion on the ownership issue. Urenco's British partner wants to sell its one-third stake in the company. We asked Ferland if perhaps British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) was unhappy with the New Mexico enrichment facility. "I don't think so," he answered. "This is my personal opinion because I'm certainly not a member of management of BNFL. BNFL is looking to get out of the nuclear business completely. Recognize that BNFL is a government-owned entity. I think the government has decided they don't need to be in the nuclear business. They've done many things. They are in the process of closing the transaction of selling Westinghouse. Their nuclear decommissioning group is up for sale. The last major piece of the BNFL nuclear business is the one-third ownership they have in Urenco. Naturally, given that they're selling the other two, they have some interest in divesting that ownership piece as well." Who will finally own BNFL, and thus become one-third owner of Urenco, and indirectly an owner of the New Mexico enrichment facility? Last week, London's Daily Telegraph reported the French nuclear power firm, EDF, had offered to buy the BNFL stake for about two billion pounds sterling. An EDF spokesman denied an offer had been made. According to Reuters, both the German and Dutch stakeholders would oppose EDF's participation. This latest wrinkle is just one in another of several disruptive episodes as LES moves forward into operations. We talked with Ferland about charges of environmental racism in Louisiana, where LES first began its long journey to obtain an NRC license. As with every question and concern we voiced, Ferland did not dither or back down, but instead methodically responded, "Urenco and its partners did begin the licensing process for LES around 1990. Come 1997, they still did not have the NRC license. Seven years pursuing a license is a long time. There were a variety of issues. One of them was environmental justice." Ferland hadn't yet arrived at the time, but he had studied the charges. "Here's my take as to why they took so long," he began. "Environmental justice, at that time, was a relatively new concept. There were not a lot of rules or regulations in place about how you approve whether or not environmental racism was going on. They spent a long time, arguing back and forth about how to make that decision. How do you do those calculations?" So what happened? "It is my understanding, at the end of all that, LES was found to be in the clear on that particular issue." What took so long and why the unusual accusation? "I think it was," Ferland started, but paused for a moment. "Anti-nuclear opponents will do whatever they can to slow down the licensing process. It was a successful effort by the anti-nuclear folks to put massive delay into the licensing process to the point where the owner finally walked away." Finally, how did Louisiana Energy Services end up in New Mexico? Abandoning the project in Louisiana, the company moved to Tennessee. Some report the locals chased LES out of the state. Ferland surprised us with his answer, "LES never submitted the license application to the NRC." But what's the real story, here? "I'll be very blunt about it," Ferland warned us. "Management credibility was lost with the local population in Tennessee. A company like ours doing a project like this, even though it's extremely safe and extremely environmentally friendly, it's a nuclear project." And this is advice to anyone hoping to cash in on the nuclear renaissance, "And if you don't have the credibility and trust of the public, in all honesty, you can not proceed with the project." Ferland cleared the air, "Management had some issues in the way they addressed the public and the press in Tennessee that caused them to lose credibility, and probably rightly so." The situation had gone so bad, Ferland admitted, "We could not turn that around." Based upon our interviews with state senators and representatives, New Mexico's reaction was magical compared to what LES endured for the past 16 years. "Marshall Cohen and his team did a ve ry good job in New Mexico," Ferland explained. "We have, if it is done correctly, a relatively good project to sell. We can take folks to see the operating enrichment facility in Europe, which we are essentially copying." LES did that just that. We interviewed New Mexico State Senators Leavell and Kernan, who both gave Urenco's Almelo facility their blessing. "It's ultra clean, ultra high tech and has an extremely good environmental record for as long as it's been in existence, which is 25-plus years." Ferland said with steel in his voice, "If you do it right, it's a pretty easy project to sell, and if you do it wrong, you can drive it into the ditch very quickly." CONCLUSION The LES project has gone past the "selling phase." Ground breaking is in late August. Ferland told us construction began this past week. LES will provide Lea County, New Mexico and Andrews County, Texas with more that 800 construction jobs to build the National Enrichment Facility (NEF). "We expect the first cascade to go online in late 2008," said Ferland. Because this is a modular design, more cascades will go online through 2013, when the plant reaches its full capacity. "We hope to deliver our first product in early 2009," he added. This will be a relatively small amount. "Ballpark, we'll roughly come up with 20 percent of our output per year," Ferland explained. This comes to about 600,000 SWU (Separative Work Units). It takes about 10 pounds of U3O8, which utilities provide to the enrichment facility, to create one SWU. "It's a three million SWU facility," Ferland told us. Three million SWU is about 25 percent of the U.S. requirement, he added. From all indications, Ferland is running a tight ship. Urenco appears to be solidly behind this tenacious, but level-headed corporate executive. He knows how to run this business, he's built his team, and they've created a miracle in New Mexico - the first step in New Mexico's nuclear renaissance. James Finch contributes to StockInterview. com and other publications. The entire article can be read at StockInterview's website - http://www.stockinterview.com -------- MILITARY -------- arms WMDs in Slow Motion The US and other states have scuppered a deal to control the deadly trade in small arms by Mary Robinson Tuesday, July 11, 2006 by the Guardian/UK http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0711-31.htm Last week, Pyongyang test-fired seven missiles in defiance of international opposition. The response has been justifiably high, but far less attention has been given to an equally dangerous threat to security around the world - the spread of small arms. The UN small arms review conference, which ended last Friday, was aimed at advancing international efforts to control the small arms trade. Small arms may get less press attention than other weapons, but they are no less deadly. Kofi Annan has described them as weapons of mass destruction in slow motion, and with good reason: small arms kill more people every year than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. The small arms trade is not subject to a comprehensive global agreement. Instead, there is a patchwork of national export laws, which unscrupulous arms dealers can easily circumvent. As a result, small arms fall into the wrong hands every day. During the two-week conference most governments said that they supported an agreement to control sales, but instead of fighting to secure a deal that would protect the millions of people worldwide living in daily fear of armed violence, they stood by while the conference was scuppered. It collapsed without agreement after a small number of countries, most prominently the US, blocked key issues. In the first week of the conference, a group of countries led by Kenya and Britain proposed a set of guidelines for small arms sales based on international human rights and humanitarian law. These principles would have prevented weapons from being sold if there was a risk they could be used to kill or terrorise innocent people. The proposal was not a radical one. Five years ago, governments met for the first time to address the problem of small arms violence and agreed they should regulate sales in line with their existing responsibilities under international law. This proposal merely elaborated what those responsibilities were under human rights and humanitarian law. Because the conference agreement had to be approved by all 192 countries attending, any government was able to veto any part of it. Cuba, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan all opposed global controls. And while the US had said at the beginning of the conference that it would consider controls, it objected to so many parts of the draft that it in effect blocked agreement of the entire document. Even before the final collapse, a handful of states succeeded in blocking the crucial proposal for controls and in removing references to human rights and humanitarian law. They made it clear they saw small arms control solely as a national security issue. The link between the uncontrolled small arms trade and human rights abuses could not be clearer on the ground. I have seen it myself many times - for example when I visited Rwanda just after the 1994 genocide. There, supplies of small arms allowed the Hutu militia to take an estimated 800,000 lives while the world stood by. A resolution is likely to be put forward at the UN general assembly in October for governments to start negotiations on an international arms trade treaty, which could be based on states' existing responsibilities under human rights and humanitarian law. Several governments have indicated they want a resolution to start work on such a legally binding instrument. Governments must not let the setback of the review conference stop them winning the battle against the unregulated trade of small arms. Mary Robinson, a former UN high commissioner for human rights, is president of Realising Rights: The Ethical Globalisation Initiative and honorary president of Oxfam International. Email to: info@eginitiative.org -------- POLITICS -------- investigations Italian Probe of CIA Abduction Broadens to Domestic Spying Scandal and "Black Propaganda" Misinformation Campaign by Italy Intel Tuesday, July 11th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/11/144215 Two Italian intelligence officers have been arrested on charges they helped CIA agents abduct a Muslim cleric off the streets of Milan three years ago. Italian investigators are now widening their probe into whether Italian intelligence agents were engaged in illegal domestic spying and a "black propaganda" campaign of misinformation. [includes rush transcript] We turn now to Italy where two high-ranking intelligence officers have been arrested on charges they helped CIA agents abduct a Muslim cleric off the streets of Milan three years ago. Mauro Mancini, the deputy head of Italy's military intelligence service, has been jailed. His predecessor, Gustavo Pignero, is under house arrest. The arrests marked the first time Italian officials have been linked to the abduction of Hassan Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. Nasr was seized as he walked from his home to a local mosque. He was taken to a joint U.S.-Italian base and eventually flown to Egypt. There, Nasr says he was beaten and given electrical shocks on his genitals. He was never charged with a crime and has never appeared in a court of law. Meanwhile, Italian prosecutors say they've obtained new warrants for three CIA agents and one employee of the local US air base. The new warrants bring to twenty-six the number of Americans charged in the case since last year. In a new development in the case, investigators are now widening their probe into whether Italian intelligence agents were engaged in illegal domestic spying. Police uncovered what appeared to be a massive secret archive of surveillance on journalists, judges and businesspeople in Italy. Police also found evidence to suggest that the intelligence agency - known as Sismi - had been recruiting some Italian journalists and illegally wiretapping others as a way of keeping track of the investigation into Nasr's abduction. * Stephen Grey, British journalist who been closely following the story. He joins us on the line from London where he recently returned from Milan. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Stephen Grey, a British journalist who has been closely following this story. He joins us on the line from London, recently returned from Milan. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Stephen Grey. STEPHEN GREY: Hi, Amy. AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Why don't you lay out this story? STEPHEN GREY: Well, we've been following it for some time. Last year, we had the first arrest warrants against the alleged CIA agents, who were accused of organizing this abduction. He disappeared on February 17, 2003. He was an Islamic cleric who was accused of being involved with terrorism. He was under investigation by police. And then, he just disappeared. And the police didn't get any further information from him, except for a bogus report that was sent by the CIA, saying that they thought he had moved to the Balkans, until about a year later, when he actually phoned home to his wife and some friends in Milan. And he laid out what had happened to him. And the Italian police were actually listening to that phone call, and they then found out that he had actually been snatched from the street by what he described as people speaking Italian and English. And he was then flown from an air base, Aviano Air Base, via Germany to Egypt, where he said he was interrogated and tortured. This is an example, it seemed, of rendition, the CIA program of transferring people to third countries. The real big difference here was that it took place in a country which is a great ally of the U.S., and apparently without any legal authority. That seemed to break all the rules. Now, initially, the investigators focused on the Americans. They managed to identify them really from phone records of phones that had been used in and around the kidnap scene. They tracked them down, and they identified that some of them were indeed CIA agents. That's what they believe. And they issued those arrest warrants. But there was always that question: would the CIA really have carried out this operation, this alleged operation, without the involvement of some Italian intelligence officers, as well. And it looks like they've found some evidence, certainly the prosecutors say that, which links very directly the Italian military intelligence into the whole affair. And that's very serious, because even if they've got the approval of Italian intelligence, it doesn't remove the fact that it’s a crime, because no official in Italy has the right to organize what amounts to a kidnap. AMY GOODMAN: And they caught these two top Italian military intelligence officials by their own use of cell phones? STEPHEN GREY: By their own use of phones. Yeah, it all seems to boil down to telephones again. What they did was they tracked a phone that was used near the scene of the kidnap, and that followed to a local police officer, a Carabinieri officer. And he said, oh -- he admitted to it. He was the first person to provide a witness statement, who was actually there at the time. And he said, “Yeah, I was doing this for the CIA.” And he also said that he had approval of the military intelligence, its Italian intelligence. But then, followed that trail, had some suspects, at the top-levels of the SISMI, Italian intelligence, and then they started listening to the phone calls of these Italian intelligence officials. And they started discussing the whole case. And, in fact, one of them gave a statement to the prosecutor, in which he denied being involved in anything to do with an illegal kidnap. The first thing he did when he came out of that interview, the prosecutor, was phone this other official, and they were listening in, and he started saying how, effectively, how they had made a fool of the prosecutor. And they had indeed been asked by the CIA, he said, to take part in an illegal seizure of this person, and he admitted this was an illegal activity. He said they actually refused to take part in it, but he had acknowledged that he had advance knowledge of this kidnap. And even knowing of a crime that's about to be committed, which it's alleged this rendition was, is quite a serious offense, particularly for a senior law enforcement official, that this intelligence official is. AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the evidence of what the CIA agents, now numbering, what, 26, or all the individuals involved, one from a U.S. military base, what they were doing, how they were tracking Abu Omar, the sheikh? STEPHEN GREY: Right. Well, there’s obviously a lot of people there involved, the 25 CIA alleged agents and another military official in Aviano Base. It seems that they were, and this is according to the prosecutor, there was a team that went out and put surveillance on Abu Omar for some weeks before the event. They even found a CIA surveillance picture of Abu Omar in one of the computers of one of these alleged -- it’s at the station chief in Milan. And then there was another team that actually carried out the abduction. They stopped him in the street, and then they took him across to Aviano Air Base, and then another one actually followed across to Egypt. Well, we don't know why, but obviously the Italian prosecutors allege that he perhaps even took part or witnessed the interrogation of Abu Omar. That obviously remains to be proved. But what there is, is very clear evidence that all of these American citizens -- we don't know many of their real names, because they were obviously using cover names -- were out there and were being -- you know, were using their cell phones, were staying in hotels, were renting cars, and all of those pieces of evidence were gathered by the prosecutors to pinpoint their involvement in this abduction. AMY GOODMAN: Now, Italian prosecutors have named these CIA agents and want them, is this right, extradited to Italy? STEPHEN GREY: That's right. They've asked for their extradition from Italy. They're going to put them on trial, though, even if they don't get the extradition. I think that so far the previous Italian government, under Silvio Berlusconi, blocked their extradition request. There has been no extradition request yet. The prosecutors will try again, because there's been a change of government in Italy, will ask the new government to approve their extradition request. But even if it's refused, under the Italian system, they can put these people on trial in their absence. So one way or another, it looks like there will be a trial of these American citizens in an Italian courtroom. AMY GOODMAN: Now, can you talk, Stephen Grey, about the part of the story that has come out with investigators coming into this apartment, or this office, that turns out to be a major site of Italian intelligence and how they've discovered this whole illegal surveillance operation? STEPHEN GREY: That's right. They were listening to these senior Italian intelligence officials talking to each other. They then realized they were talking to an official who seemed to be helping them with their inquiries. And what they were doing was they were actually monitoring the investigations by the prosecutor in Milan against them. And they were getting some information. It appeared to be coming from journalists, who the Italian intelligence were actually recruiting, it's alleged, and sending to the prosecutor, to sort of do a rather bogus interview and find out what he was up to and how he was getting on with his inquiries. And that operation centered in a flat, an 11-room flat, an attic, actually, apartment in the center of Rome. And last week, last Wednesday, they actually raided this place to find out what was there. And not only did they find evidence of this operation to monitor the Milan inquiry, but also boxes and boxes of files, which, according to investigators, contained information about magistrates, prosecutors, politicians and other journalists. It seems like a whole surveillance network they've uncovered in this way. It all remains to be proved, but that's what they're looking at at the moment. AMY GOODMAN: And so, they have journalists' names there. Journalists who they investigated? Journalists who apparently were on the payroll? These were conservative journalists from the newspaper, Libero? STEPHEN GREY: They allege that there's a rightwing newspaper, where they actually recruited journalists from. And they were used to plant -- they planted articles in their newspaper. And they were used to go and find out information. They also were monitoring the activities of other journalists who were perhaps more not so sympathetic, and they were actually putting wiretaps on them and tailing them. That's what they allege, and that's what they're investigating now. It seems like quite a -- the Italian newspapers refer to this as a center of black propaganda, of misinformation. It’s caused quite a scandal in Italy, well beyond the actual investigation into rendition. AMY GOODMAN: And the investigators have also found what they said were drafts of articles, including one suggesting a smear campaign against Prime Minister Romano Prodi, which was published in Libero? STEPHEN GREY: That's right. And it accused Romano Prodi of complicity in the CIA rendition program. This article was written after Prodi became prime minister. If that is true, that would amount to a gross disloyalty against the prime minister, because these people were supposedly working for this new prime minister. AMY GOODMAN: And this all implicates the former prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi? STEPHEN GREY: Well, it doesn't yet, but it's going very high up in the Italian intelligence service. That intelligence service reports to Berlusconi. These people are deputies, who’ve been arrested, are deputies to the head of the Italian intelligence service, and it remains to be seen whether they will claim -- they’re still being interviewed -- they will claim they were under orders from people high up. So the trail is getting higher and higher. We don't yet know if it will implicate Berlusconi. AMY GOODMAN: And, finally, the response in Italy to all of this news, to the exposure of the high-level military intelligence and Italy's involvement in this, what the U.S. calls, extraordinary rendition of the sheikh? STEPHEN GREY: Well, they're pretty scandalized, but obviously, there is quite a debate. Some people think it's wrong to expose the activities of their intelligence service. America remains an important ally of the U.S., but there are many who think that even if the U.S. is an ally, that there are certain things which are illegal, and kidnapping is illegal, and if they're going to abduct someone and send them to Egypt, they have to go through a courtroom and actually approve that extradition, not simply disappear someone without a warrant. AMY GOODMAN: And the exposure of the surveillance, which is happening in a country where more than 100,000 phone lines a year are tapped, Italy? And the involvement of the journalists? STEPHEN GREY: Absolutely, it's causing quite a scandal. People are waiting to see the full details. The investigation is going on. The files are being examined. But it certainly seems to most people a pretty worrying development. But there’s a lot going on there, as you know, in Italy, so we'll see what comes up in the next few days. AMY GOODMAN: Well, Stephen Grey, I want to thank you very much for being with us. British journalist who has been closely following this story, joining us on the line from London, where he recently returned from Milan investigating this story. -------- voting Lopez Obrador Releases Video of Apparent Ballot Stuffing Tuesday, July 11th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/11/144208 The campaign for Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has released preliminary video of what it says proves he was cheated out of last week’s Presidential election. In a video shot in the central state of Guanajuato, the footage shows an apparent supporter of conservative candidate Felipe Calderon’s National Action Party stuffing a ballot box on the day of the elections. Lopez Obrador’s campaign says the footage is the first among many it has received from across Mexico. Calderon was declared the winner by just over half a percentage point. Meanwhile, Lopez Obrador’s campaign is criticizing foreign governments who are already backing Calderon as the winner. President Bush is among a handful of foreign leaders who have called the conservative candidate to congratulate him. Calderon cannot be declared president-elect until Mexico’s electoral court rules on the case. * Jesus Ortega, campaign manager for Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador: "It's possible that the embassies aren't clear on Mexican electoral legislation and it's probable that there has been an error and a lack of information, but we want to better inform the embassies about what phase we are in in our process and that now there is not a president elect and that there is no reason to congratulate anyone." -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Wind Could be Third of French Energy Mix Story by Muriel Boselli REUTERS FRANCE : July 11, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/37189/newsDate/11-Jul-2006/story.htm PARIS - France's wind power share in electricity consumption could jump to 30 percent by 2030 provided the government removes bureaucratic hurdles, France's wind power association said on Monday. Wind power makes up 0.25 percent of French electricity consumption with a production capacity of 1,000 MW. A 2001 European Union directive requires EU members to bring their green electricity share to 21 percent of their power mix by 2010. "The potential we have in France and the government-set tariffs allow us to believe that wind power could make up 30 percent of French electricity consumption by 2030," Jean-Yves Grandidier, head of the FEE union, told Reuters. He said that the newly-set government's aim to reach 13,500 MW of wind power by 2013 was realistic provided Paris acts to remove administrative obstacles blocking the sector's progress. "The biggest hurdles in developing wind power in France are the delays in granting building permits, the price rise of turbines and the acoustic laws which are badly adapted to our industry," Grandidier said. He said that local authorities were taking up to two years to grant building permits of wind farms that should normally take five months. "Local authorities are struggling to position themselves with regards to wind power projects," he said. "In some regions we are experiencing unofficial moratoriums," he added. Wind power has come under fire in many regions where turbines are blamed for destroying landscapes and for noise. "But recent opinion polls show that 80 percent of the public now supports the development of wind power so I'm confident we will progress fast," Grandider said. The French government has set since 2001 fixed rates for land-produced wind power to incite companies to invest in the renewable energy. The government on Monday fixed the new purchasing of land-produced wind power tariff at 82 euros (US$104.8) per megawatt hour (against 83.6 euros previously) and a newly-set offshore wind power tariff of 130 euros. "Fixed tariffs provide a real incentive to produce but the lowering of the land-produced wind power tariff could harm units based in low wind areas," Grandidier said. "But wind power is the electricity sector growing the fastest in the world so we are very optimistic," he said. Grandidier said he believes that France could soon catch up with Germany and Spain, which have Europe's largest wind power sectors. "Spain has 10,000 MW already installed and a target to double that figure by 2010," he said. "So I don't think our forecast is unfeasible," he concluded. -------- ACTIVISTS Environmentalists arrested in Russia after anti-nuclear protest Tue Jul 11, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060711/sc_afp/g8summitenergynuclear_060711204227 SAINT-PETERSBURG, Russia - Thirteen environmental activists were arrested in Russia after staging an anti-nuclear protest in Saint Petersburg, where leaders of G8 nations will debate energy policy at a weekend summit. Protest organizers Bellona, a Norwegian environmental group, said the activists had been roughed up by Russian police at the rally, which was held to demonstrate against the storage of nuclear waste in Russia. "Thirteen environmentalists including the deputy head of Ecodefense (a Russian group), Vladimir Slivyak, and a Bellona member, Vera Ponomaryova, were beaten and arrested by police in central Saint Petersburg," it said in a statement. Local police confirmed the arrest to AFP but declined to comment on the reported rough treatment of the group. They did not say whether the 13 were still in custody late Tuesday. The unauthorized protest was broken up only minutes after it started. Russia stores considerable amounts of nuclear waste. On Tuesday it denied that it would use the Group of Eight nations summit this weekend to negotiate taking in nuclear waste from the United States.