NucNews July 16, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR G8 backs nuclear power development July 16, 2006 Australia Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1687834.htm Eight of the world's most powerful countries have pledged to promote open, transparent energy markets and pursue alternative energy sources, including nuclear power. The statement is aimed at addressing record high oil prices and limited fossil fuel reserves. The Group of Eight (G8), which includes Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US, is meeting in Russia to try to salvage a global trade liberalisation campaign and discuss energy security. The say the application of fair and competitive responses to energy problems "will help preclude potentially disruptive actions affecting energy sources, supplies and transit". "Ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals is a challenge for our countries and for mankind as a whole," they said. The G8 nations have singled out nuclear energy as an important component of any strategy to increase global energy security. They say access to nuclear power should be available to any country that wants it but needs to be based on "a robust regime for assuring nuclear non-proliferation". The statement takes account of Germany's aim to phase out nuclear energy by the early 2020s, saying "we are committed to further reduce the risks associated with the safe use of nuclear energy". It also acknowledges complaints from producer countries that refinery capacity development is important in solving the surge in the price of oil. "We encourage construction and development of hydrocarbon-processing facilities to increase energy market flexibility and confidence," it said. Russian market The step to promote open, transparent energy markets may ease friction between Russia and the European consumers of its vast energy resources, as well as open Russia's energy sector to foreign investment. The G8 countries have agreed in the statement to support the principles of the Energy Charter, a framework of rules governing energy markets that the European Union has been pushing Moscow to ratify. Ratification would compel Russia to open, for example, its natural gas pipeline network to domestic and foreign companies that would compete with the state gas monopoly Gazprom, a notion that Moscow has so far flatly rejected. Russian President Vladimir Putin has argued that greater access for foreign firms to Russia's energy resources must be matched by reciprocal access for Russian companies to European assets. The G8 statement addresses this point. Russia put energy security at the top of the agenda after coming under fire early this year for cutting gas to Ukraine, resulting in supply disruptions in Europe. WTO deadline The European Union Commission President says the G8 leaders have also given World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiators one month to reach agreement on a broad outline for liberalising world trade. Jose Manuel Barroso calls the effort to restart stalled WTO trade negotiations "an ambitious goal". He says the G8 leaders have ordered their WTO negotiators to hammer out a "broad agreement on key figures" in plans for carrying the trade talks forward. The leaders will tomorrow meet with counterparts from five key emerging market countries - South Africa, Brazil, China, India and Mexico - to mount yet another bid to salvage the Doha Round of trade talks. Agreement on the round has eluded trade ministers ever since the process got under way in the Qatari capital in late 2001. - AFP -------- depleted uranium Firms convert uranium Power plants cleared for use ASSOCIATED PRESS July 16, 2006 http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060716/BUSINESS/607160314/1003 WASHINGTON - A milestone has been reached in the campaign to reduce the stockpile of weapons-grade uranium left over from the Cold War years. Two private companies announced Thursday they have finished converting 50 metric tons of weapons-suitable highly enriched uranium to uranium that can be used by commercial nuclear power plants but not in weapons. The conversion by mixing the highly enriched uranium with depleted uranium was conducted by BWX Technologies at its facility in Lynchburg, Va., for the USEC Inc., the uranium enrichment company that supplies reactor fuel for the nuclear industry. USEC obtained the 50 metric tons -- enough for 800 nuclear warheads -- when the government's two enrichment facilities were privatized in 1998, resulting in the creation of USEC. The uranium conversion began a year later and was completed earlier this year, the officials said. Linton Brooks, head of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration, said the conversion of the uranium was an important part of the government's nonproliferation effort. "We have successfully turned weapons material into something people can use to turn the lights on in their house," Brooks said. -------- iran Iran calls Western incentives acceptable Posted 7/16/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-07-16-iran-nuclear_x.htm TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Sunday that Western incentives to halt its nuclear program were an "acceptable basis" for talks, and it is ready for detailed negotiations. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded that Iran should talk directly to negotiators if it wants to discuss the six-nation proposal. Frustrated world powers agreed Wednesday to send Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible punishment, saying Tehran had given no sign it would bargain in earnest over its nuclear ambitions. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran that, "We consider this package an appropriate basis, an acceptable basis (for talks)." "Now is an appropriate opportunity for Iran and Europe to enter detailed negotiations," he said. "Sending the dossier to the U.N. Security Council means blocking and rejecting talks." Asefi called on the eight major world powers meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, to choose dialogue with Iran. "We can achieve acceptable results in this path," Asefi said. Rice said at the Group of Eight meeting that Iran should contact European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the envoy who delivered the proposal last month and has been meeting with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani. G8 leaders were expected to discuss Iran's nuclear program at the summit but none directly addressed Asefi's comments. "If the Iranians want to respond positively, I would hope that they would do so through the channel that is established between the six and the government of Iran, and that is Mr. Solana," Rice said. "There is, indeed, a very good proposal on the table that could be a basis for negotiations ... There is also a path ahead to the Security Council on which we are now launched." Iran has said specialized committees in key state agencies are studying the June 6 offer by the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany, and that it will formally respond in late August. Diplomats have said recent meetings with Iran have gone nowhere, and that it appeared Tehran hoped to buy time or exploit potential divisions among the six powers. The package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce civilian reactor fuel or fissile bomb material. The United States and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran has denied the charges, saying its program is aimed at making electricity, not bombs. Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions. Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev, the Kremlin-linked chairman of the international affairs committee of the lower house of parliament, greeted Tehran's announcement with guarded optimism. "On the one hand we must hail any readiness by Tehran at least to discuss the proposals of the six nations," he told The Associated Press. "Unfortunately, we have already witnessed such signals in the past, which then were not followed up." He suspected Iran of "dragging its feet" to avoid unnecessary concessions. "Iran is playing with fire," he warned. "The international community may one day run out of patience and unfortunately, the point of view of those who call for maybe a tougher stance on Iran may prevail. Iran must clearly understand that." ---- UN's Iran nuclear referral "not constructive" By Alireza Ronaghi Sun Jul 16, 9:48 AM ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060716/ts_nm/nuclear_iran_talks_dc TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Sunday sending its nuclear file back to the U.N. Security Council undermined prospects for talks over its atomic dispute with the West. Iran's case was referred back to the council after Tehran failed to respond to a set of proposals backed by six world powers which called for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment in return for economic and diplomatic incentives. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said talks could take place if Iran responded positively to the offer. Tehran publicly insists it wants to talk but has refused to give up enrichment. Western diplomats said Iran's top nuclear negotiator gave no sign he was interested in negotiating when he met the European Union foreign policy chief on Tuesday. "We believe that the proposed package is a suitable and acceptable basis to work on, but we believe that this package ... should be developed through talks," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told a weekly news conference. "The path of the Security Council is not a constructive path. The constructive path is holding talks ... If they refer the case to the Security Council, no matter what the (U.N.) resolution will be, it means that they have not adopted the path of talks," he said. World powers have agreed to discuss Iran's failure to respond to the package at the Security Council next week. Iran says it will respond by August 22. "There is, indeed, a very good proposal on the table that could be a basis for negotiations. There is also a path ahead to the Security Council on which we are now launched," Rice said, adding Iran had failed to respond positively. "If the Iranians want to respond positively, I would hope that they would do so through the channel that is established between the six (nations) and the government of Iran," she said in the Russian city of St Petersburg. Rice said Iran should give a "concrete and authoritative answer." EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana presented the proposals to Iran in June and has acted for the six nations. He last met Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani on Tuesday, a meeting the European Union said was disappointing. Britain, France and the United States, as well as non-permanent Security Council member Germany, support economic sanctions if Iran fails to cooperate, but such measures are not backed by veto-wielding Russia and China. "Everything is on the table now. We certainly expect Russia and China to defend the ... legal rights of Iran," Asefi said. When asked whether Iran was relying on China and Russia's support to prevent the Security Council intervening, the Foreign Ministry spokesman said:" Our hopes are invested in God, our people and our own diplomatic capacity." The West says Iran wants to enrich uranium to produce atomic bombs, a charge Iran denies. Tehran insists its nuclear ambitions are purely civilian. The head of parliament's Foreign Affairs and National Security commission Allaeddin Boroujerdi reiterated Iran had no intention to abandon enrichment work. "It is our right to enrich uranium. Iran will never give it up," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying. -------- korea Security Council Rebukes N. Korea Nations Agree To Demand End Of Missile Program By Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 16, 2006; A13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500565_pf.html UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve a resolution demanding that North Korea cease its ballistic missile program and requiring states to help prevent Pyongyang's import or export of ballistic missiles. The 15 to 0 vote ended an 11-day diplomatic deadlock that pitted the United States, Japan and Europe against Russia and China. The vote represented the strongest international rebuke of North Korea since 1993, when the council adopted a resolution urging North Korea to reverse a decision to withdraw from the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The accord, Resolution 1695, came after President Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who are attending the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, yielded to Chinese and Russian pressure to drop an explicit reference to a provision in the Charter of the United Nations that has traditionally been cited to impose sanctions and authorize military force. The accord also followed a failed Chinese diplomatic initiative to persuade Pyongyang to halt its program. The Bush administration hailed the council's decision to condemn Pyongyang's July 4 launch of seven missiles, including the unsuccessful launch of the long-range Taepodong-2 missile. U.S., Japanese and European officials asserted that the unanimous vote sends an unambiguous message to North Korea that it must stop developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, or face more isolation and punishment. Council diplomats said it would also strengthen the United States and its allies in interdicting missile shipments in international waters. In 2002, the White House was compelled to order the release of a seized vessel in the Arabian Sea that was transporting 15 Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen, because there was no provision under international law prohibiting it. John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, warned after the vote that the United States will press for stronger Security Council action if Pyongyang fails to abide by the council's demands. "We look forward to North Korea's full, unconditional and immediate compliance with this Security Council resolution," he said. "We hope that North Korea makes the strategic decision that the pursuit of WMD programs and threatening acts like these missile launches make it less, not more, secure. We need to be prepared, though, that North Korea might choose a different path." It remained unclear whether Saturday's vote would bring an end to missile tests by North Korea, which has previously ignored Security Council demands to stop its nuclear weapons program and submit to U.N. inspections. North Korea's ambassador, Pak Gil Yon, rejected the council's decision as an "unjustifiable and gangsterlike" abuse of power. He denied that Pyongyang had violated any international laws or agreements by launching missiles. North Korea "resolutely condemns the attempt of some countries to misuse the Security Council for the despicable political aim to isolate and put pressure on the DPRK, and totally rejects the resolution," he said using the abbreviation for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "The latest successful missile launches were part of the routine military exercises staged by the Korean people's army to increase their military capacity for self-defense," he added. The resolution demanded that North Korea suspend ballistic missile activities and abide by a 1999 moratorium on missile tests. It urged the government to return to six-nation talks aimed at eliminating Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. And it expressed "grave concern" at the launches, given that they "could be used as a means to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological payloads." The resolution negotiations nearly collapsed this week after China threatened to veto any resolution invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, a mandatory provision that has been enforced through economic sanctions or military force. The United States and Japan overcame Chinese opposition by agreeing to include language offered by France and Britain that only implicitly referred to Chapter 7. ---- UN Demands End To North Korea Missile Program As Pyongyang Says No by Giles Hewitt United Nations (AFP) Jul 16, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UN_Demands_End_To_North_Korea_Missile_Program_As_Pyongyang_Says_No_999.html The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Saturday a resolution condemning North Korea's missile tests that was promptly rejected by Pyongyang as it vowed to carry out further launches. The resolution, which North Korea's UN ambassador Pak Gil Yon described as "gangster-like," demanded the immediate suspension of Pyongyang's ballistic missile program and imposed sanctions preventing it from buying and selling missile technology. "We totally reject the resolution," Pak said immediately after the vote by the 15-member Security Council, adding that the North Korean army would continue missile launch exercises in the future as part of its efforts to bolster its military deterrent. He also warned that North Korea would have no option but to "take stronger physical actions" should any other country "dare take issue" with the exercises. Pak's remarks drew a wry response from the US Ambassador John Bolton. "This has been a historic day," Bolton said. "Not only have we unanimously adopted resolution 1695, but North Korea has set a world record in rejecting it 45 minutes after his adoption." In order to prevent a Chinese veto, the co-sponsors of the resolution, including the United States, were forced to drop a reference to Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, which could have opened the door to the use of military force in the event of North Korea's non-compliance. Bolton rejected suggestions that the compromise had resulted in a weakened text, insisting that the resolution sent an "unequivocal, unambiguous and unanimous message" to Pyongyang. While stressing the need for North Korea's unconditional and immediate compliance, Bolton warned Council members that they should be prepared for the communist nation "to choose a different path." In the event of non-compliance, Bolton said it was important that the United States and others would have the opportunity at any point to return to the Council "for further action." It took 11 days of intense negotiations to reach agreement on the resolution, with China and Russia insisting that an overly harsh text would only serve to box North Korea into a corner and further destabilise the region. "We are against any acts that will lead to further tension on the Korean peninsula," said Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya, adding that China hoped the resolution would help all concerned parties "to act calmly." China, the main provider of aid to North Korea, had sent a high-level diplomatic mission to Pyongyang earlier this week, but it failed to secure any concessions that might have warded off the Security Council vote. Pyongyang outraged the international community by test-launching seven missiles on July 5, including a long-range Taepodong-2 believed to be capable of striking US soil. The communist state's previous long-range tested missile was the Taepodong-1 which flew over Japan into the Pacific Ocean in 1998. The Security Council resolution was drafted by Japan which welcomed its unanimous adoption. "Japan strongly urges North Korea to implement the measures based upon this resolution," Foreign Minister Taro Aso said in a statement released at the G* meeting in Saint Petersburg. As well as demanding the cessation of North Korea's missile tests, the resolution requires all member states to prevent missile and missile related items, materials, goods and technology being transferred to Pyongyang's missile or weapons of mass destruction programs. Bolton stressed that the United States expected all other nations to "immediately act in accordance" with those requirements. The text also underlines the need for North Korea to show restraint and refrain from any action that might "aggravate tension" and urges its return to six-nation talks on abandoning its nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic and security incentives. Pyongyang has shunned the talks since November and demanded direct discussions with Washington. Some analysts have suggested that the missile tests were intended to be used as a bargaining chip with the United States over the course of future negotiations. The South Korean defense ministry's 2004 Defense White Paper said North Korea started developing its own ballistic missiles in the 1970s. The impoverished and isolated state is believed to trade missiles and missile technology for hard currency or crude oil from the Middle East. -------- u.n. UNSC unanimously adopts resolution on DPRK missile launches 2006-07-16 06:31:24 (Xinhua) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-07/16/content_4838562.htm UNITED NATIONS, July 15 -- The UN Security Council(UNSC) on Saturday unanimously approved a resolution on the missile tests of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), calling for the early resumption of the six-party talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue. After days of wrangling over the language of the resolution, the council members finally reached agreement to remove any reference to the Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which authorizes sanctions or even military action. The resolution strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the six-party talks without precondition, abandon all nuclear-related weapons and programs and return to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It requires all UN members to prevent missiles and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to DPRK. The resolution demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program, and in this context re-establish its preexisting commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told the council that China is ready to make joint efforts with all the parties concerned to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. "The Chinese side is ready to make joint efforts with all the parties concerned to overcome difficulties, create conditions, promote the six-party talks, and jointly maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the Northeast Asia," he said. Wang stressed that China has adopted a responsible attitude and firmly opposed to forcing through a vote on a draft resolution that is not conducive to unity and will further complicate and aggravate the situation, cause grave consequences for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula, and create enormous obstacles for the six-party talks and other important diplomatic endeavors. The DPRK's UN Ambassador Pak Gil Yon told reporters after the council meeting that his country "totally rejects" the resolution adopted by the UN Security Council. The DPRK "remains unchanged in its will to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula in a negotiated peaceful manner just as it committed itself in the September 19 joint statement of the six-party talks," Pak told the council. The Russian envoy to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, said the resolution "sends an appropriate signal to the DPRK to display restraint and abide by its obligations regarding missiles." Churkin called on the DPRK "to work in favor of continuing the negotiating process in the interest of strengthening the security and stability of the region." U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the United States looked forward to the DPRK's full, unconditional and immediate compliance with the resolution. "It sends an unequivocal, unambiguous and unanimous message to Pyongyang: suspend your ballistic missile program; stop your procurement of materials related to weapons of mass destruction, and implement your September, 2005 commitment to verifiably dismantle your nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs," he told the council. The 15-member council had tried for days to decide how to react to the missile launches by the DPRK on July 5, which raised concerns of the international community. Japan and the United States had earlier pushed for a resolution with a clear reference to Chapter 7. But China and Russia opposed any mention of Chapter 7 in that it could be used to justify possible future military action. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- maine Could Maine Yankee become a regional nuclear waste site? By BART JANSEN, Washington D.C. Correspondent Sunday, July 16, 2006 Portland Press Herald http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/060716nuclear.shtml WASHINGTON — A Bush administration proposal to reprocess nuclear waste and store it at sites across the country has sparked concerns that the site of the dismantled Maine Yankee nuclear power plant could become a regional magnet for radioactive waste. The administration's proposal - called Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - aims to reprocess waste so that less is stored permanently at a proposed dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Legislation awaiting a Senate vote also envisions temporary storage at sites across the country because Yucca Mountain is years behind schedule to open. But critics, including House members who cut funding for the proposal in their version of the spending bill, contend that supporting the program would divert resources and support for Yucca Mountain. The concern among Maine lawmakers, municipal officials and advocacy groups is that Maine Yankee could become a magnet for New England waste. The Wiscasset site already has 600 metric tons of nuclear waste that the federal government was supposed to cart away for federal storage in 1998. "I think it could lead to a situation where Maine might be stuck holding the bag here," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Lyman's advocacy group is part of a coalition effort that includes Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Sierra Club to urge Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to oppose the program in a spending bill. Snowe and Collins, both Republicans, haven't said how they will vote on the bill awaiting action in the Senate. But each opposed storing nuclear waste at Maine Yankee for the 25 years that the legislation allows. "Having led the charge to defeat the potential placement of a second national nuclear repository in Maine in the 1980s, I will unequivocally oppose any legislation that could open up the state of Maine to either a nuclear fuel reprocessing site or an interim storage facility," Snowe said. "I would vigorously oppose any effort to store outside waste in Maine," Collins said. "I will also continue to push the federal government to ensure that the waste that we have currently is removed from Maine in a safe and secure manner." Congress has grappled for decades with how and where to store waste from nuclear power plants that generate 20 percent of the country's electricity. The federal government collects a tax for waste storage and was supposed to open Yucca Mountain by 1998 - a year after Maine Yankee's board agreed to close. About 55,000 metric tons of waste has accumulated nationwide, with another 2,000 piling up each year. At Maine Yankee, nuclear waste is sealed in 64 casks, which are concrete and steel silos designed to last for decades. The federal government was supposed to create a permanent repository for nuclear waste by 1998. But political opposition and technical concerns have prevented the Energy Department from even applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission yet to open Yucca Mountain. President Bush proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership in his State of the Union speech Jan. 31. The goal is to sift uranium from spent fuel roads for use again to spur production of nuclear power around the world. One problem, however, is that reprocessing also yields plutonium that could be used in nuclear weapons. The Energy Department contends the program will render plutonium unsuitable for weapons. Bush proposed spending $250 million this year on research and development of such a program. But a skeptical House voted May 11 to cut $96 million. In an accompanying report, the Appropriations Committee expressed "serious reservations" about the program for lack of details about how the program would work. "Unfortunately, it appears that the department has decided to put . . . Yucca Mountain on the back burner," the House report said. In contrast, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted June 29 to increase the project's $250 million by $36 million. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he was "impressed" with the program because Yucca "is a long way off." He is chairman of both the Energy Committee that sets policy and the Appropriations subcommittee on energy that sets spending priorities. "These provisions are the next logical step to managing our spent nuclear fuel," Domenici said. "I hope we can finally unclog this drain." Critics note that the Senate bill allows the energy secretary to take title to closed plants such as Maine Yankee and take responsibility for the storage of high-level nuclear waste until it can be moved. Another provision calls on the energy secretary to designate a consolidation site for waste within any state with a reactor for 25 years. Governors could nominate an eligible site, but the federal secretary would make the decision. "The state has no power to stop this," said Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Maine, in particular, might be seen as a good candidate for this by proponents as a New England regional facility." Maine officials vowed to oppose interim storage or reprocessing at Maine Yankee. "I'm very concerned," said Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine. "It'll adversely affect Yucca Mountain and that will mean that we'll have nuclear waste in Maine for years, if not decades, longer." Wiscasset Town Manager Andrew Gilmore said the town has no interest in increasing storage at Maine Yankee or hosting a reprocessing center. The power plant once provided $12 million in taxes to the town, but now pays only $1.2 million. The community is focused on maritime economic development. "We would adamantly oppose it," Gilmore said. "Expanding the storage facility in any way, shape or form we would view that as very adverse." Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group representing 275 power plants, said the federal government wouldn't foist storage on a state that didn't support it. He expected the federal government to deal with states that sought reprocessing plants because they create economic growth in communities and at universities. "I think those are coveted projects," he said. "If you look at what the government does with other projects, I think they'll look at federal facilities first, or at least partners that would like to participate cooperatively in that kind of a venture." Something needs to change, however, either in the creation of waste or its disposal. The government faces 60 federal lawsuits, including one from Maine Yankee, for failing to meet its obligations for permanent waste storage by 1998. The government estimated it will spend $2 billion to $3 billion if Yucca opens in 2010, and an additional $500 million each year after that. Meanwhile, since 1985, the federal government collected 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour from nuclear plants to pay for permanent storage. But, after collecting $24 billion, the government has spent only $7 billion - and Yucca Mountain still isn't open. "The nation's debt to these customers is long past due," Robert Garvin, a Wisconsin Public Service commissioner representing the National Association of Nuclear Regulatory Utility Commissioners, told a House hearing March 10. Yucca Mountain is limited by law to accept 70,000 metric tons of waste. Even though administration advocates say the site could be expanded to accept 120,000 metric tons, industry advocates contend reprocessing would slow the need for finding more permanent storage locations. "Our objective is to expand the use of nuclear energy in the United States, period," Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of energy, told a House hearing April 5 in support of the reprocessing program. "And this is one thing we can do to remove one of the perceived roadblocks." - Staff researcher Julia McCue contributed to this report. Washington Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at 202-488-1119 or at: bjansen@pressherald.com -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Strikes Are Called Part of Broad Strategy U.S., Israel Aim to Weaken Hezbollah, Region's Militants By Robin Wright Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, July 16, 2006; A15 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071500957_pf.html Israel, with U.S. support, intends to resist calls for a cease-fire and continue a longer-term strategy of punishing Hezbollah, which is likely to include several weeks of precision bombing in Lebanon, according to senior Israeli and U.S. officials. For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him. For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say. Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants -- with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike. "What is out there is concern among conservative Arab allies that there is a hegemonic Persian threat [running] through Damascus, through the southern suburbs of Beirut and to the Palestinians in Hamas," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity because of sensitive diplomacy. "Regional leaders want to find a way to navigate unease on their streets and deal with the strategic threats to take down Hezbollah and Hamas, to come out of the crisis where they are not as ascendant." Hezbollah's cross-border raid that captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others has provided a "unique moment" with a "convergence of interests" among Israel, some Arab regimes and even those in Lebanon who want to rein in the country's last private army, the senior Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing conflict. Israel and the United States would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill -- Hezbollah neutralization." White House officials said Friday that Bush has called on Israel to limit civilian casualties and avoid toppling the Lebanese government but has not pressured Israel to stop its military action. "He believes that the Israelis have a right to protect themselves," spokesman Tony Snow said in St. Petersburg, where Bush is attending the Group of Eight summit. "The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel." Specifically, officials said, Israel and the United States are looking to create conditions for achieving one remaining goal of U.N. Resolution 1559, adopted in 2004, which calls for the dismantling and disarming of Lebanon's militias and expanding the state's control over all its territory. "We think part of the solution to this is the implementation of 1559, which would eliminate that [armed group operating outside the government] and help Lebanon extend all of its authority throughout the whole country," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley told reporters with Bush in Russia yesterday. The other part of the resolution calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which was completed in April last year -- after the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri, which was widely linked to Syria. If Lebanon as a first step takes over Hezbollah's stockpiles, which included more than 12,000 rockets and missiles before the current strife began, then cease-fire talks could begin, the Israeli official said. "The only way a cease-fire will even be considered is if 1559 is fully implemented," said the senior Israeli official. Lebanese troops must be deployed to take over positions in Hezbollah's southern Lebanon strongholds to ensure that there are no more cross-border raids or rocket barrages into northern Israel. There are no guarantees, however, that this strategy will work. Israeli airstrikes could backfire, experts warn. "Hezbollah was risking alienating not only the Lebanese public at large but, incredibly, its very own Shiite constituency. But if Israel continues with its incessant targeting of exclusively civilian targets, and, as a result, life becomes increasingly difficult for the people, I would not be surprised if there is a groundswell of support for Hezbollah, exactly opposite of what Israel is trying to achieve," said Timur Goksel, an analyst and former spokesman for the U.N. force in Lebanon who lives in Beirut. The Bush administration's position -- and diplomacy -- are the opposite of what happened during the Clinton administration. The last Hezbollah-Israel cease-fire was just before dawn on April 27, 1996, after the United States brokered a deal to end a punishing 16-day Israeli offensive designed to end Hezbollah's rocket barrages. More than 150 Lebanese, mostly civilians, were killed; more than 60 Israelis were injured. Tens of thousands on both sides of the border had fled or gone into bunkers. Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher shuttled for a week between Jerusalem and Damascus to mediate a written agreement, a sequel to a similar oral deal he negotiated after skirmishes in 1993. For now, that is not a viable option to end the current conflict, U.S. officials say. With its diplomacy redefined by the war on terrorism, the Bush administration has opted for a course that plays out on the battlefield. Pressed on whether a cease-fire was possible soon, the Israeli official said it was "way, way premature" to consider an end to hostilities. "There is no sense to have a cease-fire without a fundamental change," he said. "That change is to make sure the explosiveness of the situation cannot carry over to the future. That means neutralizing Hezbollah's capabilities." The Bush administration is also using Resolution 1559 as a barometer, U.S. officials say, acknowledging that the Lebanese government has shown neither the ability nor the willingness to deploy its fledgling army to the southern border. U.S. officials have cautioned Israel to use restraint, particularly on collateral damage and destruction of infrastructure, which might undermine the fragile government. There was some U.S. concern about attacks on the Beirut airport, but otherwise Washington is prepared to step aside and defer diplomacy unless there is a dramatic break, U.S. officials say. "They do have space to operate for a period of time," the U.S. official said about Israel. "There's a natural dynamic to these things. When the military starts, it may be that it has to run its course." Israel and the United States believe that the Israeli strikes in Gaza, following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier, have undermined Hamas. "There is no Hamas government -- eight cabinet ministers or 30 percent of the government is in jail, another 30 percent is in hiding, and the other 30 percent is doing very little," said the senior U.S. official. -------- ENERGY G8 Energy Security Plan Relies on Oil, Nuclear and Renewables STRELNA, Russia, July 16, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-16-01.asp "The need to protect the environment and to tackle climate change" is front and center in the Global Energy Security statement jointly issued today by the world's eight largest industrial nations, the G8, meeting here for their annual summit. "Ensuring sufficient, reliable and environmentally responsible supplies of energy at prices reflecting market fundamentals is a challenge for our countries and for mankind as a whole," the leaders said. Among the "serious and linked challenges" they face, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia the United Kingdom and the United States, joined by the European Union, put high and volatile oil prices and increasing dependence on petroleum imports at the top of the list. They also are confronting a growing demand for energy - estimated to rise by more than 50 percent by the year 2030. The leaders predict that by 2030 approximately 80 percent of world energy demand will still be met by fossil fuels, which they acknowledge are limited resources. The leaders anticipate having to make "enormous investment requirements along the entire energy chain" and to deal with "the vulnerability of the critical energy infrastructure" in the face of "political instability, natural disasters and other threats." To meet these challenges, the G8 leaders called for "strengthened partnership between all stakeholders to enhance global energy security." Market-based responses are the most effective way to avoid potentially disruptive actions affecting energy sources, supplies and transit, the leaders said. "We agree that development of transparent, efficient and competitive global energy markets is the best way to achieve our objectives on this score," they declared. The G8 leaders pledged to improve sustainable access to fuels for the 2.4 billion people and to electricity for the 1.6 billion people currently without such access in developing countries. "They cannot be forgotten or marginalized," the leaders said. It will require "trillions of U.S. dollars in investment through the entire energy chain by 2030," to ensure an adequate global energy supply, "a substantial share of which will be needed by developing countries," the G8 leaders said. Recognizing that the private sector will supply the majority of that investment capital, the G8 leaders pledged to "create and maintain the conditions to attract these funds into the energy sector through competitive, open, equitable and transparent markets." The 55 section St. Petersburg Plan of Action for Global Energy Security includes pledges for enhancing energy efficiency and energy saving, and for addressing climate change and sustainable development. To combat global warming the G8 leaders said they would encourage the development of "zero emission power plants" and clean coal technologies. They also will support carbon sequestration projects to remove the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere where it is raising the planetary temperature and place it in the ocean or deep underground. Natural gas should be used and not flared off into the atmosphere, the leaders said. They stated support for the the efforts of Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership and Methane-to-Markets Partnership to implement projects on the production of marketable methane from landfills, agriculture waste and coal-bed methane, particularly in developing countries. Hydrogen is viewed as the fuel of the future for the longer term. "We support the transition to the hydrogen economy," the leaders stated, "including in the framework of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy. A critical part of this effort is to develop common international standards in the field of commercial development of hydrogen power, infrastructure and security requirements." Looking even farther into the future, the G8 leaders mentioned support for construction of advanced electricity networks, superconductivity, nanotechnology, including nanobiotech. They supported nuclear fusion research by mentioning the recent initialing ITER agreement by the participating countries and take this opportunity to encourage R&D programs on fusion energy within its framework. Many of the G8 countries are partners in the ITER nuclear fusion demonstration project now being built in France. Earlier this month, President Vladimir Putin promised a meeting of nongovernmental organizations that he would present their objection to any further development of nuclear power to the other G8 leaders, this viewpoint did not emerge in the G8's joint energy statement. Instead, the G8 statement reaffirms the objective set out in the 2004 G8 Action Plan on Non-Proliferation "to allow reliable access of all countries to nuclear energy on a competitive basis, consistent with non-proliferation commitment and standards." Building on that plan, the leaders stated today, "we intend to make additional joint efforts to ensure reliable access to low enriched uranium for power reactor fuel and spent fuel recycling, including, as appropriate, through a multilateral mechanisms provided that the countries adhere to all relevant international non-proliferation commitments and comply with their obligations." In this respect, we take note of recent potentially complementary initiatives put forward in the IAEA framework regarding multilateral fuel supply assurances, as well as the proposals made by Russia and the U.S., aimed at further development of peaceful nuclear energy, in a manner that promotes proliferation resistance of the nuclear fuel cycle, including preventing the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. This section refers to the agreement signed by Presidents Vladimir Putin and President George W. Bush Saturday in a bilateral meeting ahead of the summit. The two presidents agreed to control the spread of uranium enrichment by creating one central enrichment system that will supply client countries with fuel for nuclear power plants. The plan is known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. "We believe that this will be possible in the case of the creation of a system of international enrichment centered into a single network, and of course, under strict control on the part of the IAEA," Putin said Saturday. Renewable energy received continued G8 support, although no new measures were announced. This year, the G8 leaders relied on last year's statement on climate change, which British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a central concern of the G8 summit at Gleneagles. It was the first time that G8 leaders reached an agreement on the role of human activity in global warming and the need for urgent action. This year, they said, "A large-scale use of renewable energy will make a significant contribution to long-term energy supply without adverse impact on climate. The renewable solar, wind, hydro, biomass, and geothermal energy resources are becoming increasingly cost competitive with conventional fuels, and a wide variety of current applications are already cost-effective." They agreed to support the ongoing work of existing renewable energy networks and partnerships, and mentioned enhancing international cooperation in using the potential of biomass, and advanced sustainable forest management practices. The St. Petersburg Plan of Action links efforts to combat climate change with "addressing deforestation and forest degradation, the trade in illegally harvested timber and forest fires." "We note that deforestation has a significant impact on climate change - resulting, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in an actual 25 percent increase in yearly greenhouse gas emissions," the leaders said. "We reaffirm the importance of tackling illegal logging and agree to take further action, with each country taking steps where it can contribute most effectively. This should include the promotion of sustainable forest management and the incorporation of appropriate measures to address illegal logging in relevant national policies of both timber-producing and consuming countries," they said. All the G8 leaders except the United States are committed to the Kyoto Protocol that sets binding targets for reduction of six greenhouse gases. The energy statement says, "Those of us committed to making the Kyoto Protocol a success underline the importance we attach to it." All the G8 leaders reaffirmed the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and said they look forward to its 2007 report. The next step is a ministerial meeting in Mexico in October 2006, where the G8 countries "will continue to identify opportunities for greater collaboration to tackle climate change, while pursuing energy security and sustainable development through deployment of cleaner, more efficient and low-carbon energy technologies, finance and market mechanisms, including, as appropriate, Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, emissions trade, and adaptation," the leaders stated. The Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, and emissions trading are all authorized under the Kyoto Protocol as ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Friends of the Earth International said G8 plans to address global energy security are "dirty, dangerous and will continue to fuel climate change." Reacting to an early draft of the G8 Plan of Action, the environmental organization said world leaders have forgotten last year's G8 efforts in Gleneagles to tackle climate change. Despite G8 pledges to take action against climate change, the plan includes "backwards" proposals for major investment in finding new oil and gas reserves, for increased oil refining capacity and for greater reliance on nuclear power. Friends of the Earth International climate campaigner Catherine Pearce said, "Last year, heads of state at the G8 summit in Gleneagles recognized the urgent need for decisive action against climate change whilst "eradicating energy poverty" around the world. But this action plan is a backward step which will mean a return to dinosaur-like dependence of fossil fuels. "If the world's richest countries are serious about tackling climate change and energy security, they must look to the solutions and heavily invest in energy efficiency and the clean, renewable energies," said Pearce. Friends of the Earth is particularly concerned by recent attempts to revive the nuclear industry despite what the group calls its economic failures over the past 50 years. Friends of the Earth Europe climate campaigner Jan Kowalzig said, "It is unbelievable to see how our leaders are holding the world in the grip of dirty energy, feeding our addiction to oil instead of overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels." "At a time of high oil and gas prices, political instability in producer countries, the threat of climate change and rising mountains of nuclear waste, common sense dictates cutting energy waste and investing in renewable energies like solar and wind," he said. "This will ensure a long-term sustainable energy supply." ---- G-8 gives some support to nuclear energy By ALEX NICHOLSON, AP Business Writer Sun Jul 16, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060716/ap_on_bi_ge/russia_g8_energy_3 ST. PETERSBURG, Russia - With high demand and worries about supply driving oil near $80 a barrel, the Group of Eight offered cautious support Sunday for nuclear energy as an alternative. While the leaders of the world's most industrialized nations endorsed the use of nuclear power, they hinted at a disagreement with Germany, which has opposed renewed interest in it. In an otherwise upbeat joint statement — which delegates privately suggested was out of synch with reality — the leaders acknowledged differences over the question of nuclear power. "We recognize that G-8 members pursue different ways to achieve energy security and climate protection goals. ... Those of us who have or are considering plans for the use and/or development of safe and secure nuclear energy believe that its development will contribute to global energy security," the statement said. Defending the statement, Russian Energy and Industry Minster Viktor Khristenko said that the inclusion of a section on nuclear power was "a significant event" giving countries the opportunity to work actively toward developing nuclear energy in the future, "which we plan to do," he said. He conceded that there were differences, however. "Yes, its true that different countries view the prospects for nuclear energy differently. Some of them continue active internal discussions on whether it is possible or not to develop nuclear energy." Energy security was a focal theme of this year's G-8 summit, after hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico drove global oil prices to new highs last year and Europe was caught short of gas after a price fight between Russia and Ukraine this winter disrupted supplies. Since then, Iran's standoff with the West over its nuclear program and renewed violence in the Middle East have sent oil prices even higher. In their statement, the G-8 leaders said they were committed to transparency, competition and increased investment in the energy sector. "Development of transparent, efficient and competitive global energy markets is the best way to achieve our objectives," they said. They identified 11 key issues, among them diversification of supply and demand, energy efficiency and the safeguarding of critical energy infrastructure, including against possible terror attacks. Delegates, however, suggested that the statement was out of step with the real situation, not least because of concerns over the openness of Russia's vast energy markets. "In terms of language, it's extremely positive — it's the reality that's lacking," an EU official said Sunday on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make a public statement. The official said he was glad for the political attention paid to the issue, but said that much investment and diversification were necessary. "There's not a lot that has changed on the ground," he said. Diplomatic officials with the French delegation said of the statement: "We wanted it to go much further." Worries over Russia's reliability as a supplier were highlighted by the price fight with Ukraine that saw supplies to Europe disrupted when Moscow temporarily switched off the gas to its neighbor. That led to criticism that Russia had destabilized European energy supplies by using its vast energy clout to punish Ukraine's western-leaning government, and highlighted Europe's dependence on Russia for a quarter of its oil and gas. Just last week, Britain unveiled its energy plan for the coming decades and said nuclear power could make a "significant contribution" to the country's needs as it seeks to reduce dependence on imported fuel. Prime Minister Tony Blair has claimed that without new nuclear power plants, Britain will rely on gas for 55 percent of its energy needs by 2020 — up from 38 percent now. As much as 90 percent of that gas would be imported, he has said, leaving Britain dangerously dependent on the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. But nuclear power has numerous opponents, notably Germany. Under an agreement with industry negotiated by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Germany plans to phase out nuclear power completely by about 2020. Some members of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives are pressing for a rethink, but her Social Democrat coalition partners are opposed. -------- alternative energy -------- -------- energy -------- -------- OTHER -------- environment -------- -------- genetics -------- -------- health -------- -------- imf / world bank / wto (economics) -------- poverty -------- ACTIVISTS -------- --------