NucNews January 2, 2007 -------- NUCLEAR -------- australia Australian PM Says Nuclear Power Inevitable Story by Fayen Wong REUTERS AUSTRALIA: January 2, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39665/story.htm SYDNEY - Prime Minister John Howard said on Friday nuclear energy was an inevitable option for Australia after the release of a report which found that 25 nuclear reactors could significantly cut greenhouse gases. Howard said the government would respond officially to the report's recommendations early in 2007, but added that the final decision on nuclear power would be made on a commercial basis. "Given our uranium reserves and given our energy needs are to double by 2050, we would be crazy in the extreme if we didn't allow for the development of nuclear power," Howard told reporters in Sydney. The government-commissioned report said Australia, with about 40 percent of the world's uranium, could have 25 nuclear reactors producing about one-third of the nation's electricity by 2050. Nuclear power could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by between 8 to 17 percent, the 287-page report said. Howard, a close ally of US President George W. Bush, has refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is one of the world's biggest exporters of coal, used widely in power generation, and Howard has strongly supported coal companies despite calls for more renewable energy. Howard only recently conceded that global warming was a reality and his critics say he is now pushing nuclear energy in a bid to bolster his environmental credentials ahead of a national election due by the end of 2007. "The government is now scrambling to create a perception that it is doing something, knowing full well that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to provide any answer to global warming," Greens Senator Christine Milne said in a statement. Environmental group Greenpeace said Howard's nuclear push was "charging down an expensive, irresponsible pathway". "If the government is really serious about reducing Australia's greenhouse emissions, they should get out of coal, support energy efficiency and renewable energy...which could cut Australia's emissions by 30 percent by 2020," said Stephen Campbell, head of campaigns at Greenpeace Australia. CARBON TAX ESSENTIAL Australia's demand for electricity was expected to more than double before 2050, said the nuclear report, and over two-thirds of existing power generation facilities would need to be upgraded or replaced and new capacity added. The nuclear report put the cost of each nuclear plant at between A$2 billion (US$1.58 billion) to A$3 billion and said that the cost of nuclear power would be between 20 percent and 50 percent higher than coal- or gas-fired power at current prices. The report said nuclear power would only be competitive with coal-fired power if pollution and carbon emissions were taxed, while enrichment could add A$1.8 billion (US$1.4 billion) to the value of uranium exports. Howard has consistently ruled out a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, saying it would adversely affect the coal industry, which is a major employer. For Australia to embrace a nuclear power industry it would need bipartisan political support, which is currently lacking. The centre-left Labor opposition opposes nuclear power and while Howard's conservative coalition is the national government, the country's six states are ruled by Labor. (US$1=A$1.27) ---- PM's power plan wrong: Garrett Michelle Grattan, Canberra January 2, 2007 The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pms-power-plan-wrong-garrett/2007/01/01/1167500062309.html?from=rss LABOR has painted the Federal Government as having a split personality on nuclear energy, asking how its supposed free-marketeer Prime Minister could support an industry likely to need state aid. The ALP has also accused the Federal Treasurer of having stayed quiet on nuclear power because he doubted its viability. Labor's environment spokesman, Peter Garrett, has homed in on the apparent contradiction of a Government "led by a supposedly devout believer in the free market" pushing hard for a nuclear power industry that will "only stand up if subsidised". In an attack on the nuclear option's viability, Mr Garrett writes in today's Age that it would be economically smarter to allow investment in clean technologies to be determined by the market, rather than by a bias for a particular industry. Shadow treasurer Wayne Swan, meanwhile, claimed yesterday that Treasurer Peter Costello was hiding from the nuclear issue because he knew the economics did not stack up. Mr Swan said the Switkowski report on the prospects for Australian nuclear power, a final version of which was released last week, made heroic assumptions about the viability of new-generation reactors. These included assumptions about the private sector's willingness to invest, the costs of storing radioactive waste, security from terrorism and the relative cost of renewables. But, Mr Swan said, nuclear power would "only be viable in Australia if there are massive government subsidies". "Peter Costello knows it and his department knows it, so why are they silent?" Mr Garrett says Prime Minister John Howard has hailed the Switkowski report by saying it proves nuclear power is "clean and green" and "increasingly economic" — claims Mr Garrett seeks to refute by saying electricity generation accounted for less than half of the globe's greenhouse-gas emissions and reactors in Australia would eliminate less than a fifth of the nation's contribution. Mr Swan said it was difficult to believe Treasury would not regard a massive nuclear program as exposing Australia to "huge financial risk" and had not made a submission to the Switkowski inquiry because "it would have been highly embarrassing" for Mr Howard. "The Treasurer must come out now and rule out a large-scale Australian nuclear power industry as too big an economic risk for the Australian taxpayer to bear," Mr Swan said. ---- Nuclear power is the story of the past By Peter Garrett January 2, 2007 The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/nuclear-power-is-the-story-of-the-past/2007/01/01/1167500057942.html On Saturday night, TV news bulletins carried breathtaking satellite photographs of a massive ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields breaking off from Ellesmere Island, in Canada's remote north. Scientists labelled it a dramatic and disturbing incident that may signal the onset of accelerated climate change. As our own drought may be indicating, our planet's climate appears to be heating up and changing faster than previously thought. Given this urgency, can we afford to wait decades for the slowest and riskiest alternative to fossil fuels - nuclear power - to come on line when faster, greener and more affordable solutions already exist? Prime Minister John Howard's hand-picked pro-nuclear panel led by Ziggy Switkowski has released a report that says Australia can meet a third of its electricity generating needs by 2050 by building 25 nuclear reactors. Howard has hailed the report by saying it proves that nuclear power is "clean and green" and "increasingly economic". He has been repeating this obviously focus-tested mantra for some time, believing that repetition will make it true. But I suggest the mantra has as much credibility as his other claim, that he and his neighbours on Sydney's North Shore would be happy to have a nuclear reactor close by to destroy their property values. It's important to put the Prime Minister's claims into their proper perspective. They certainly don't stack up environmentally. In reality, electricity generation accounts for only about 40 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. So even if we accepted the far-fetched scenario that up to 25 reactors could be built, nuclear power potentially addresses only a maximum of 17 per cent of Australia's contribution to the heating up of our planet. Clearly, nuclear power cannot take the place of serious efforts to reduce our greenhouse emissions. But even this 17 per cent is based on a set of heroic and implausible assumptions that make Switkowski and Howard into the proverbial kings of wishful thinking. They fail to include a number of important calculations relating to waste disposal and decommissioning, making the whole risk much more expensive than we are being led to believe. They assume the viability of a cheaper and safer so-called "new generation" of nuclear power plants and enrichment technologies that are currently nothing more than a set of theoretical assumptions - and, of course, history tells us that previous new generation reactors, like the failed "fast breeder" reactors, have failed to live up to their promise. They assume it will be possible to achieve economies of scale by building 25 reactors, starting just a decade from now, despite our lack of existing nuclear skills and infrastructure. And, most reckless of all, they canvass the removal of legal and regulatory "impediments" that protect the environment and affect the nuclear industry's economic viability - which we can take as code for massive taxpayer subsidies and protection. The spectre of public subsidies hangs over the Switkowski report, and this explains the reluctance of Treasurer Peter Costello and the Treasury to make a submission to it. In fact, as the British House of Commons' Audit Committee on the Environment reported earlier this year, half a century of failed predictions from the nuclear industry inspire little confidence in their claims of affordability and efficiency. How strange then, that a Government led by a supposedly devout believer in the free market is pushing hard for a nuclear power industry that will only stand up if subsidised. What we need is a fair system in which cleaner energy alternatives are allowed to compete within an international market for carbon emissions. Surely it's economically smarter to allow investment in clean technologies to be determined by the market than by a bias for any one particular industry. Australia needs to act now, not 20 years from now, and we already have the technologies to do it. We need to improve our use of gas, which is far cleaner than coal at present. We also need to raise the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target to encourage investment in wind, geothermal, wave and solar technologies. It's easy to forget that until recently Australia was a world leader in solar power. Renewable energy is one of the fastest-growing industry sectors in the world, making it, not nuclear power, which is stuck in a rut, the logical place to start. And we need fair dinkum energy efficiency measures that would make the sort of savings the Switkowski report says are possible through the creation of a nuclear industry - all without making us a repository for much of the world's radioactive nuclear waste, another part of the Prime Minister's dream to make Australia an energy superpower. I believe that once people read the Switkowski report and see for themselves that it's based on little more than rubbery figures and superhuman assumptions, they will see through the Prime Minister's claim that nuclear power is clean, green, affordable and futuristic. In reality, nuclear power is an old, dirty and vulnerable technology that will require massive subsidies and come online only when it will be too late. Nuclear is not the way of the future, it's the way of the past. It's the lazy, risky alternative to real energy reform. Combating climate change is one of the biggest environmental, economic and political challenges we have ever faced, so it is vital that we get the answer right. Peter Garrett is the federal member for Kingsford Smith, and Labor's spokesman on climate change, environment and heritage and the arts. ---- False future parades a green sheen Peter Garrett January 2, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/false-future-parades-a-green-sheen/2007/01/01/1167500060557.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1 * Nuke power economics do not add up: Labor * PM bets house on uranium * No nukes yet, says PM On Saturday night TV news bulletins carried breathtaking satellite photographs of a huge ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields breaking off from Ellesmere Island in Canada's uninhabited far north. Scientists labelled it a dramatic and disturbing incident that might signal the onset of accelerated climate change. As our own drought may be indicating, our planet's climate appears to be heating up and changing faster than previously thought. Given this urgency, can we afford to wait decades for the riskiest alternative to fossil fuels - nuclear power - to come into use when faster, greener and more affordable solutions exist? John Howard's hand-picked pro-nuclear panel, led by Ziggy Switkowski, has released a report that says Australia can meet a third of its electricity generating needs by 2050 by building 25 nuclear reactors. Howard has hailed the report by saying it proves nuclear power is "clean and green" and "increasingly economic". He has been repeating this mantra for some time, believing that repetition will make it true. But the mantra has as much credibility as his other claim, that he and his neighbours on Sydney's North Shore would be happy to have a nuclear reactor close by - it would destroy their property values. It's important to put Howard's claims into proper perspective. They certainly don't stack up environmentally. In reality, electricity generation accounts for only about 40 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we accepted the far-fetched scenario that up to 25 reactors could be built, nuclear power potentially addresses a maximum of only 17 per cent of Australia's contribution to the heating of our planet. Clearly, nuclear power cannot take the place of serious effort to reduce our greenhouse emissions. But even this 17 per cent is based on a set of heroic and implausible assumptions that fail to include a number of important calculations relating to nuclear waste disposal and the decommissioning of nuclear plants, making the risk much greater and the cost much higher than we're being led to believe. They assume the viability of a cheaper and safer so-called new generation of nuclear power plants and enrichment technologies that are at present nothing more than theoretical. History tells us that new-generation reactors, such as the failed "fast breeder" reactors, fail to live up to their promise. They assume it will be possible to achieve economies of scale by building 25 reactors, starting just a decade from now, despite our lack of existing nuclear skills and infrastructure. And, most recklessly of all, they canvass the removal of legal and regulatory "impediments" that protect the environment and affect the nuclear industry's economic viability. We can take this as code for taxpayer subsidies and protection. The spectre of public subsidies hangs over the Switkowski report, and this explains the reluctance of Peter Costello and the Treasury to make a submission to it. In fact, as the British House of Commons audit committee on the environment reported last year, half a century of failed predictions from the nuclear industry inspire little confidence in claims of affordability and efficiency. How strange, then, that a government led by a supposedly devout believer in the free market is pushing hard for a nuclear power industry that will only stand up if subsidised. What we need is a fair system in which cleaner energy alternatives are allowed to compete within an international market for carbon emissions. Surely it's economically smarter to allow investment in clean technologies to be determined by the market and not a bias for any particular industry. Australia needs to act now, not 20 years from now, and we have the technologies to do it. We need to improve our use of gas, which is far cleaner than coal. We also need to raise the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target to encourage investment in wind, geothermal, wave and solar technologies. It's easy to forget that until recently Australia was a world leader in solar power. Renewable energy is one of the fastest growing industry sectors in the world, making it, not nuclear power, the logical place to start. And we need fair dinkum energy efficiency measures that would in themselves make the sort of savings the Switkowski report says are possible through the creation of a nuclear industry. All this would avoid making us a repository for much of the world's radioactive nuclear waste, another part of Howard's dream to make Australia an energy superpower. Once people read the Switkowski report and see that it is based on little more than rubbery figures and superhuman assumptions, they will see through the Prime Minister's claim that nuclear power is clean, green, affordable and futuristic. In reality, nuclear power is an old, dirty and vulnerable technology that will require massive subsidies and come online only when it will be too late. Nuclear isn't the way of the future; it's the way of the past. It's the lazy, risky alternative to real energy reform. Combating climate change is one of the biggest environmental, economic and political challenges we have ever faced, so it is vital that we get the answer right. Peter Garrett is the federal Member for Kingsford Smith and the Opposition spokesman for climate change, environment and heritage, and the arts. -------- britain Britain to Close Two Oldest Nuclear Power Stations Story by Jeremy Lovell REUTERS UK: January 2, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39669/story.htm LONDON - Britain will on Sunday turn off its two oldest nuclear power plants as part of a process that will retire all but one of the country's ageing nuclear fleet within 16 years. The large Magnox Sizewell A and Dungeness A reactors respectively on England's east and south coast have generated electricity for the past 40 years but have now reached the end of their extended design life. "Combined we produce 1.2 percent of the nation's electricity, but we have been assured by the National Grid that even on New Year's Eve no one's televisions or lights will flicker when we switch off," a spokesman told Reuters on Friday. Nuclear power supplies some 20 percent of Britain's electricity, but that will have slumped to just four percent when the Torness station closes in 2023 leaving just Sizewell B operating until it too closes in 2035. The government, anxious to plug the power gap and at the same time meet its own and international commitments to combat climate change by cutting carbon emissions, wants a new generation of nuclear power plants to be built. The nuclear industry, resurgent worldwide as countries seek to reduce reliance on fossil fuels in the face of the global warming crisis, has indicated its eagerness but insisted on price guarantees -- a plea the government has so far rejected. Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, putting millions of lives at risk from floods and famines. Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said in October that urgent action on global warming was vital, and that delay would multiply the cost 20 times. Nuclear power enthusiasts say it emits no carbon dioxide -- the main global warming culprit -- is a stable source of power and its fuel can be stored for years so helping guarantee energy security. Opponents say it is not a clean power source and that its waste not only remains lethal for generations but is a target for attacks by terrorists. They propose alternative renewable power sources like wind, waves and biomass, and far greater energy efficiency in generation, transmission and usage. Underscoring the point, while Sizewell A and Dungeness A will go off line for good on Sunday it will be up to 100 years before the sites will be declared clean for new uses. -------- canada 'Dirty bomb' attack could cripple economy: CSIS Tue. Jan. 2 2007 Canadian Press http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070102/dirty_bomb_070102/20070102?hub=Canada OTTAWA -- Canada's spy agency says it is "quite surprising" that terrorists have not detonated a crude radioactive bomb, given the availability of materials and ease with which they could be made into a weapon. A newly released Canadian Security Intelligence Service study concludes a so-called dirty bomb is the most likely means of deliberately spreading deadly radiation. But the CSIS study cautions that "a determined and resourceful terrorist group" could execute more elaborate forms of nuclear or radiological attack. It says extremists could conceivably acquire an existing nuclear explosive device, fashion an improvised weapon from black-market material or sabotage a nuclear facility with the aim of triggering a radioactive release. A copy of the October study was obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. CSIS relies mainly on previously published research and analysis in assessing the threats, though brief passages were deemed too sensitive to disclose. The Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States raised fears that extremists could crash a jetliner into a nuclear reactor or get their hands on material to craft a rudimentary dirty bomb, or radiological dispersal device. "The technical capability required to construct and use a simple RDD is practically trivial, compared to that of a nuclear explosive device or even most chemical or biological weapons," the CSIS study says. A homemade radiological weapon could consist of a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material commonly found at universities, medical and research laboratories or industrial sites. Several isotopes used in applications including cancer treatment and industrial radiography have been identified as possible sources. However, CSIS notes, much would depend on the material's half-life, the amount of radioactivity present, the portability of the source and the ease with which it could be dispersed. Experts say such an explosion, while claiming few initial casualties, could spread radiation over a wide area, contaminating several city blocks, sowing panic and wreaking economic havoc. Canadian organizations have quietly spent hundreds of millions of dollars since 9-11 to secure nuclear reactors, mines, research facilities and laboratories that handle radiological material. CSIS contends detonation of a crude bomb is "undoubtedly the most likely" terrorist scenario involving radioactive sources. "Indeed, it is quite surprising that the world has not yet witnessed such an attack," the study says, adding "it appears that we are positively overdue for one." The intelligence service points to the notion terrorist thinking has shifted from the desire to inflict mass casualties to "one of inflicting severe economic damage." Despite the assessment, the study provides little sense of the actual likelihood of a radiological or nuclear strike, said Prof. Wade Deisman, a criminologist and director of the University of Ottawa's national security project. A more detailed CSIS analysis would be needed to develop such a measuring stick, Deisman said. "They need to have an idea of how to prioritize their responses to threats based on their probabilities. And I still am far from convinced that they have any sense of that." Security agencies need to assure the public they have a grasp of the risks, systems in place to protect key facilities and the resources to respond to emergencies, Deisman added. -------- depleted uranium Enforcement tops environmentalists' agenda By Tara Godvin Associated Press Tuesday, January 2, 2007 http://starbulletin.com/2007/01/02/news/story05.html Invasive species, the Superferry, carbon dioxide and depleted uranium are all items environmentalists plan to take up with the Hawaii Legislature in its 2007 session. But one issue rises above all others: the need for more enforcement. "We can have all the rules in the world. If they're never enforced, it's ... kind of pointless," said Cha Smith, executive director of KAHEA, an advocacy group for environmental and native Hawaiian causes. After suffering years of low funding, money to the Department of Land and Natural Resources has been increasing in recent years -- reflecting the state's changing fortunes and more support for the environment from both the Democrat-controlled Legislature and the Republican governor, some advocates say. Included in this year's expanded budget from Gov. Linda Lingle is $5 million to boost the number of officers enforcing Hawaii environmental laws by 40 to 150 over two years. Overall, Gov. Linda Lingle wants to expand funding for the state agency to $102 million in fiscal year 2008, which begins July 1, and $103 million in 2009. That's about a 72 percent increase over 2002's budget of $60 million. KAHEA, The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii and the Sierra Club's Hawaii Chapter all said they plan to push for strong support of the administration's effort to increase law enforcement for Hawaii's land and nearshore waters. Conservationists, fishermen and other competing interests may have disagreements, but, "I think we all agree that enforcement is an area that really has been lacking," said Mark Fox, director of external affairs of The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Smith said her group is also looking to have a bill introduced to make sure ammunition coated with depleted uranium is not used by the military in its Hawaii training. The armor-piercing shells leave behind a fine radioactive dust with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. "Once the horse is out of the barn, it's kind of too late to even deal with it. So it's really important the we are assertive and say, 'We don't want it used here,' " Smith said. The Army has said it found depleted uranium at a base in Central Oahu in the remains of training rounds used in the 1960s. It said the material had a low level of radioactivity and was not dangerous. KAHEA also will support pushes for an environmental impact statement for the Superferry, tougher reviews for building permits and removing authority over Mauna Kea from the hands of the University of Hawaii. The Nature Conservancy is looking into legislation that would make it easier for coastal towns to establish community-based management plans for their nearshore waters. For now, the process usually requires that each town petition the Legislature individually. The group also plans to urge lawmakers to shore up funding for efforts to combat invasive species in the islands. Hawaii passed a handful of energy bills last session but more needs to be done to lessen the state's contribution to global warming, said Jeff Mikulina, director of Sierra Club of Hawaii. Like KAHEA and The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club is still ironing out its strategies for the 2007 session. The Sierra Club will get behind the effort to require an environmental impact statement for the Superferry as well as some issues that have come up in years past, such as creating a program to allow people to redeem their bottle deposits at local stores rather than redemption centers. Among the other possibilities that Sierra Club is looking into are bills to limit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases produced in the state. It would be similar to California's landmark law signed last year. ECOLOGY AND THE LEGISLATURE THE SESSION: In the final weeks before the 2007 legislative session begins Jan. 18, legislators, the administration and Hawaii's special interest groups are polishing their legislative plans for the year. THE ENVIRONMENT: Environmentalists will urge lawmakers to pass a variety of conservation-focused plans including requiring an environmental impact statement for the Superferry. But one of the biggest deals of the session appears to be Gov. Linda Lingle's plan to boost funding to the state Department of Land and Natural Resources up 72 percent compared to 2002. WHEN WILL WE KNOW: Many of the details of the state's two-year budget aren't worked out until the final days of the session, which this year ends May 4. And the fate of any law is uncertain until Lingle issues her vetos after the session and lawmakers later decide whether they will override them. On the Net: » KAHEA: http://www.kahea.org » The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii: http://www.nature.org » Sierra Club, Hawaii Chapter: http://www.hi.sierraclub.org -------- europe German Co. Reopens Debate on Nuclear Phase-Out Tue, Jan 02, 2007 Iran Daily http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2748/html/energy.htm#s199776 One of Germany’s leading energy companies wants to extend the lifetime of one of its nuclear plants in a move that anti-nuclear campaigners describe as an attack on plans to phase out nuclear energy in Germany. German energy giant EnBW presented a rather unwelcome Christmas gift to the government end of last week when it sought to transfer part of the life span of one of its more modern nuclear reactors to an older one which was due to shut down in 2009 under a six-year-old phase-out plan. EnBW’s request provoked strong reactions over Christmas, including a stern rebuff from environment minister Sigmar Gabriel. But the Social Democrat minister’s word may not have been the last on the issue as conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel is a staunch advocate of nuclear energy and now hopes for political tailwind from the European Commission, Dw-world.de reported. Greens Expect Backpedaling on Nuclear Phase-Out Germany’s nuclear phase-out plan was adopted by the previous red-green government, and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s current government of Social Democrats and Conservatives have decided to leave it untouched for now. But senior members of the opposition environmentalist Greens such as Fritz Kuhn believe that EnBW’s move is a thinly veiled attempt to salvage its old reactor beyond 2009. They hope, Kuhn argues, that Merkel’s CDU would then be stronger after general elections and could finally ditch the nuclear withdrawal plan. “It’s an absurd idea to transfer part of the remaining lifetime of a modern reactor to an older one,“ Kuhn said. “Quite obviously German energy companies want to undo the accord they signed in 2000. This must not be tolerated by politics.“ Chancellor Angela Merkel is indeed increasingly unhappy with the plan to shut down all 17 nuclear plants in Germany by 2021. In the light of rising energy prices and Germany’s huge dependency on foreign energy, mainly from Russia, she wants a broader energy mix. She believes Germany should use the edge in nuclear technology it has acquired over the years. But anti-nuclear campaigners say nuclear plants are primarily money machines for the energy industry. EnBW’s CEO Utz Claasen defends his company’s move saying it’s perfectly in line with legal provisions. “We abide by common international standards regarding the lifetime of nuclear reactors,“ Claasen said. “And what’s more important we do not violate the stipulations laid out in the nuclear accord between government and industry.“ EU May Urge Rethink on Nuclear Energy Social Democrat environment minister Sigmar Gabriel is an opponent of nuclear energy. But he has grudgingly admitted that he cannot throw out the application so easily. He is likely to come under added pressure from a European Union review of nuclear energy which is due to be published in early January. Parts of the report have already been leaked to the press and stress that nuclear power is important if the EU is to meet its ambitious climate protection policy goals. Volker Hoff, a liberal member of the European parliament from Germany also argues that stopping nuclear power makes no sense anymore. “It’s foolish to adhere to our national phase-out plan and at the same time promote an EU energy strategy that includes nuclear power,“ Hoff said. “In that way we are forcing our neighbors to increase their nuclear energy production for the entire EU to be able to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.“ Germany generates one third of its energy needs from nuclear power. Germans still overwhelmingly back a nuclear-free energy policy with a strong emphasis on renewable energies. But in view of skyrocketing electricity and heating bills that have angered Germans this year, the tide appears to be slowly turning. -------- india India And Pakistan Swap Nuclear Site Lists by Staff Writers Islamabad (AFP) Jan 02, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/India_And_Pakistan_Swap_Nuclear_Site_Lists_999.html Pakistan and India on Monday exchanged lists of their nuclear sites under an agreement to swap such information annually on New Year's Day to prevent attacks against each others nuclear facilities, the foreign ministry said. The agreement signed in 1988 between the South Asian arch rivals came into force in 1991 and the first such exchange of information was on January 1, 1992. Under the agreement both Pakistan and India are to refrain from attacking each other's nuclear facilities in the event of a war. "Lists of nuclear sites were exchanged between Pakistan and India today," foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told AFP. India conducted nuclear weapons tests in May 1998 and Pakistan, in a tit-for-tat response, detonated its own devices a few days later. The rivals have fought three wars, two of them over the Himalayan region of Kashmir which is divided between them and claimed in full by both. After coming close to another war in 2002, in January 2004 they began talks to resolve all their disputes including Kashmir. In October 2005 the two countries formalised an agreement on pre-notification of ballistic missile tests. They have also set up a telephone hotline to prevent accidental nuclear conflict. The India-Pakistan peace process was put back on track after foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi in mid-November, during which the two sides agreed to set up a new anti-terror panel. India had put on hold the nearly three-year-old talks in the face of public outrage over July's deadly attacks on Mumbai's commuter network, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan's spy agency and a Pakistan-based militant group. Islamabad denied any involvement in the blasts, which killed 186 people. New Delhi accuses Islamabad of arming and training Islamic militants battling its rule in Muslim-majority Indian Kashmir and sponsoring attacks elsewhere in the country. -------- iran Iran Warns West Of Historic Slap Over Nuclear Drive Jerusalem (AFP) Jan 02, 2007 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Warns_West_Of_Historic_Slap_Over_Nuclear_Drive_999.html President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Tuesday kept up his defiance over Iran's nuclear programme, saying Tehran would deal an "historic slap" to Western nations if they launched military action. Ahmadinejad also vowed that Iran would press ahead with its atomic drive despite the UN Security Council's decision to impose its first ever sanctions against the Islamic republic. "Even if all powers who stood behind Saddam Hussein during the sacred defence war are resurrected again against Iran, the Iranian nation will give them an historic slap in the face," Ahmadinejad said in a speech broadcast live on state television. The president was addressing thousands gathered in Ahvaz, the capital of the western Khuzestan province which Saddam Hussein invaded in 1980 and sparked a devastating eight year war with the Islamic republic. "The Iranian nation stands by its nuclear rights and will do its best to defend them," said Ahmadinejad. The president shrugged off a resolution passed last month by the UN Security Council imposing sanctions over the Iranian nuclear programme, saying it was illegal and in any case would not hurt the Islamic republic. "The resolution lacks validity and is completely political and unlawful," he told the cheering audience. "It is a political resolution adopted under pressure from the United States and Britain, although the content of the resolution is not very significant. "It was adopted with two objectives. Firstly, to create psychological war and propaganda against Iran and also to give an opportunity to scare some people inside the country under the pretext of a hollow resolution." Western powers want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that they fear could be used to make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its atomic programme is entirely peaceful and it has every right to the nuclear fuel cycle. "The Iranian nation seeks the complete exploitation of nuclear energy as its undeniable right," Ahmadinejad said. "The nuclear issue is even more important to us than the nationalisation of oil that they (the West) opposed," he said, referring to the nationalisation of Iran's oil resources by the Iranian government in the 1950s. Ahmadinejad did not reveal how he would respond to a bill passed by parliament that obliges the government to revise its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog in retaliation to the resolution. Iran does not rule out quitting nuclear treaty But his government spokesman said Tehran was keeping open the option of quitting the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if Western countries step up pressure on the Islamic republic over its atomic programme. "If we are put under pressure and deprived of our rights we can use our capacity to decide whether to stay within the treaty or to quit it, Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters. Elham said the government would decide how to revise its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog based on the attitude taken by the international community over the Iranian nuclear programme. "We want to move within the framework of the treaties that we have accepted in a transparent way but being part of a treaty is a neutral thing based on duties and rights." An Israeli newspaper, meanwhile, reported that Israel was on Tuesday to test an underground installation in the Negev desert designed to monitor any attempt by Iran, its arch-foe, to test nuclear devices. The daily Yediot Aharonot reported that the test will consist of three strong explosions Israel will deliberately set off in the northern Negev using 15 tonnes of liquid explosives, to see how they register on equipment at the underground site. The facility is equipped with seismographs and other equipment able to detect earth tremors and transmits the data directly to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, the paper said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nevada Is the Yucca Dump Doomed? January 02, 2007 — By Lisa Friedman, Daily News, Los Angeles http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11948 WASHINGTON -- While supporters vow to plow forward with plans for a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Nev., critics hope Democrats will be able to kill the project -- which would take highly radioactive material transported through the Southland -- when they take control of Congress this month. Led by incoming Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who already has declared the federal nuclear waste repository "dead," congressional Democrats are expected to severely decrease funding for the dump. That, opponents say, is good news for Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and other communities through which approximately 70,000 tons of radioactive waste would likely be shipped on its way to the site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "All of us in the Inland Empire will be safer if shipments of nuclear waste are not traveling through our communities on local highways or railroad tracks," said Democrat Rep. Joe Baca, whose San Bernardino district lies smack in the middle of the proposed shipment route. "An accident could have deadly consequences," Baca said. "We are fortunate that Harry Reid will be the Senate majority leader and in a better position to block the Yucca Mountain project." First proposed in 1982, the Yucca Mountain depository has been strongly supported by President George W. Bush and the nuclear energy industry. Proponents say it is a secure alternative to storing waste at nuclear plants and hundreds of other sites around the country. Originally targeted to open in 1998, Yucca Mountain has been repeatedly set back by lawsuits, money shortfalls and scientific controversies. The Department of Energy's best-case opening date is now 2017. Southern Californians are concerned about proposals to ship spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County -- a trek that could take it by train through Ventura County and the San Fernando Valley. There have also been discussions about a rail line through the Antelope Valley and across the High Desert; multiple rail links through the San Gabriel, Pomona and San Bernardino valleys; and a truck route from the San Onofre nuclear power plant along the Santa Ana, San Gabriel and San Bernardino freeway corridors. The DOE is poised to submit a license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in mid-2008 that will allow it to proceed. But activists on both sides of the issue acknowledge that the DOE is quietly preparing for the likelihood of reduced funding and political support for Yucca. "I'm getting the sense there may be some reluctance to submit a sizeable, needed budget if Mr. Reid is just going to have it reduced," said Brian O'Connell, director of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners' nuclear waste program. He and other supporters of the repository have accused Reid of overstepping his power by refusing to allow Yucca legislation to come for a vote, and they argue that safety concerns have been blown out of proportion and politicized. "The typical representation of nuclear waste is a 50-ton cannister with green goo hanging out the sides," O'Connell said. "It is well-protected. And the reality is that it has been shipped safely for over 30 years." Annual federal funding for Yucca Mountain has ranged from $450 million to $550 million in recent years. O'Connell predicted that Reid and other lawmakers will "drastically reduce" that amount. Michelle Boyd, legislative director at Public Citizen, agreed, saying Yucca officials "are hobbling along, and they're going to be hobbling even more when they have less money. It's certainly on its last legs." She and others also noted that the newly empowered anti-Yucca coalition in Congress has vowed to block bills like the one introduced last year by Sen. Pete Dominic, R-N.M., and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, to guarantee funding for the repository. "No legislation will occur as long as Reid is there," said Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects. "We believe this project has been on life support anyway for the last several years. This may be the final nail." O'Connell disagreed that the death of Yucca is near. "I don't think so," he said. "(Reid) will do everything he can to impede it, but he can't kill it outright." Argun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research agreed. Though an opponent of Yucca Mountain who calls it a "badly botched project," Makhijani said he expects plans for the repository to move ahead with shrunken resources. "I don't think the project can be stopped altogether without setting in motion some larger scheme for the management of spent fuel," he said. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Source: McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Experts fear journalist testimony in CIA leak case will erode freedom of press 1/2/2007 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-02-cia-leak-reporters_x.htm WASHINGTON — Some journalists who made careers out of questioning government officials and bearing witness to history may soon find themselves answering questions from prosecutors as key witnesses in the CIA leak case. Ten or more reporters from some of the most prominent news organizations could be called to testify in the perjury and obstruction case of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. It's rare enough for reporters to become witnesses. But the Libby case is even more unusual because journalists will be dueling witnesses — some called by the defense team, some by prosecutors. "It will be unprecedented and, as far as I'm concerned, horrifying," Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said of the case, for which jury selection begins in two weeks. Prosecutors want to show that Libby lied to investigators about his conversations with journalists regarding outed CIA officer Valerie Plame, and they are expected to rely on former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert to make their case. Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, has said he had no reason to lie and simply didn't remember those conversations. His attorneys have said they will call as many as seven unidentified journalists to testify about their conversations with Libby to bolster his case. The Libby case has rankled news agencies for nearly three years, since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald began subpoenaing journalists to testify before a grand jury. Fitzgerald said it was the only way he could thoroughly investigate whether any laws were broken. After a lengthy court fight that included an 85-day jail term for Miller, Fitzgerald won cooperation from journalists. When Libby was indicted, it was clear reporters would be key witnesses. That puts them in the awkward position of aiding a criminal investigation, something journalism groups say erodes the wall between the government and an independent press. Plame's identity was first revealed by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. She believes she was outed as retribution for her husband's criticism of the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Jurors likely won't hear much about the leak itself because the original source, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, has already confirmed his role and Libby is not charged with the leak. But the trial is certain to renew questions about whether the administration used reporters to drum up support for the war. Roy Peter Clark, a scholar at the Poynter Institute, a school and resource center for working journalists, said he worries about the fallout from the trial. If it's perceived that reporters grant anonymity to officials engaged in political gamesmanship, prosecutors might be more likely to subpoena them in cases where anonymity was granted in serious issues of public importance. "This case, it's magnified by the fact that it's in Washington and the status of the players," Clark said. "It's a bizarre and I'd say dangerous case." Justice Department policies require prosecutors to exhaust other remedies before sending subpoenas to reporters, and each decision is reviewed by the attorney general, although U.S. investigators and prosecutors occasionally have violated these rules. In the past 15 years, only 13 media subpoenas have been granted involving confidential sources, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty told Congress in September. "This record reflects restraint," he said. "We have recognized the media's right and obligation to report broadly on issues of public controversy and, absent extraordinary circumstances, have committed to shielding the media from all forms of compulsory process." Libby's attorneys have not publicly named the reporters they expect to be defense witnesses. Two reporters have said they will fight subpoenas, but defense attorney William Jeffress said he expects that will be resolved before trial. Because Libby is calling them to testify about his own conversations with reporters, Jeffress said there should be no confidentiality concerns. President Bush did not include Libby on his list of pre-Christmas pardons, and the Justice Department said he does not have a pending pardon application on file. -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Hy-Drive Bridge to Hydrogen Future Tue, Jan 02, 2007 Iran Daily http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2748/html/energy.htm#s199776 Tom Brown didn’t exactly have a Eureka! moment when he was first shown in 1998 how a Calgary-based company planned to use water to help the world. But like Archimedes--the ancient mathematician who is said to have discovered the principle of buoyancy and leapt from his bath shouting the Greek word for “I have found it!“--Brown knew he was on to something big. The former management consultant was so impressed with Hy-Drive Technologies Ltd. that he went from being an investor to becoming the president and CEO. Since moving from Calgary to Mississauga in 2003, Hy-Drive has quietly developed its revolutionary technology into a product slowly being adopted around the world. And Brown’s convinced it’s only a matter of time before the Hy-Drive unit becomes as common as the water that runs it, Thestar.com said. The technology is used with any internal combustion engine, creating hydrogen gas from water and then injecting it into the engine to drastically improve fuel efficiency and reduce harmful pollutants that damage air quality. Trucks, cars, generators, buses, trains and anything else that uses a traditional engine can easily be fitted with one of the compact units that only require a couple liters of distilled water to run. HreinOrka, an Icelandic company, just signed a contract with Hy-Drive to help that country reach its goal of becoming a hydrogen-based economy by 2050. Distribution agreements for India, China, Japan and Hong Kong have been signed and existing contracts have already helped Hy-Drive sell its units in Canada, the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Up to now the company has focussed on units for long-haul trucks, but a partnership with Vaughan-based auto-parts manufacturer Martinrea International Inc. has been established to get the Hy-Drive technology into cars. Sitting behind the desk of his spartan office, Brown explains that while fuel and hydrogen -cell technology might one day replace the need for oil completely, it probably won’t happen in his lifetime. “It may be the future, but we’re the bridge to that future.“ Brown’s philosophy is that until the infrastructure evolves to help the world make the transition from a fuel-based economy, the best approach is to work with what we have. “There are over 480 million cars on the road today (world-wide). Instead of waiting years and years and years for completely new technology and infrastructure, we can make a big impact right now.“ Hy-Drive says its units increase fuel efficiency by at least 9 percent and by as much as 40 percent. A California study of the Hy-Drive unit showed emission reductions of 74 per cent in hydrocarbons and 80 per cent in particulate matter. “It’s a no-brainer for me,“ says Glenn Windrem of Peterborough-based Windrem Trucking, which has a fleet of 19 trucks. “Seven of them have the Hy-Drive units. We’ve been using them for almost four years. We’ve seen fuel efficiency improve by at least 10 percent and up to 20, depending on the load, weather conditions, the route. “You make your money back just on that, and then there’s the added bonus of having lower emissions.“ Windrem says his engines with the Hy-Drive units get almost no carbon build-up and burn “way cleaner than ever before. And you get better horsepower too.“ And that’s why Brown feels his decision to take over the company was the right one. “I knew the technology would work,“ he says. “I was quite happy to see the company start making an impact on the world, to help make a cleaner Earth.“ --- Ethanol-Driven Vehicle Under Test in Malawi Tue, Jan 02, 2007 Iran Daily http://www.iran-daily.com/1385/2748/html/energy.htm#s199776 A Malawi project investigating ethanol-based fuels is conducting road tests on an ethanol-propelled vehicle. Supporters of the project argue that a switch to ethanol fuel would not only benefit the environment but also increase employment in the country’s sugarcane industry and save on foreign exchange spent on fuel imports. According to Freeman Kalirani, a lead researcher on the project--based at Lilongwe Technical College and conducted jointly with the department of science and technology--a modified Mitsubishi Pajero will be tested over a 350 kilometer route from Lilongwe to Mzuzu. The five-year, US$1 million project, backed by the Malawi government, is investigating the practicability of flex-fuel vehicles that use either 100 per cent locally manufactured ethanol, or a combination of ethanol and petrol, Scidey.net said. Until February 2006, all cars in Malawi used leaded petrol blended with 20 per cent ethanol. Since then, the country has switched to unleaded petrol blended with 10 per cent ethanol. Proponents of ethanol use argue that continued over-dependence on fossil fuels has economic, social, climate and biodiversity impacts for humans and the entire ecosystem. Kendron Chisale, Malawi’s deputy director of science and technology, said a switch to ethanol would allow Malawi to comply with procedures aimed at emission reduction, as agreed by parties at the 2006 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November. “This will eventually mitigate climate change related disasters,“ he says. Charles Mtonga, an economic analyst, told SciDev.Net that one advantage of using ethanol as a renewable energy source is that it can increase employment in the sugarcane industry. “It can also save on foreign exchange lost through importation of petroleum products,“ he said. But Mtonga cautioned against over-enthusiasm, calling for continued research on how vehicles previously propelled by petrol can best be modified to use ethanol. He also warned that huge investments in production and installation of additional pumps would be required to make ethanol fuel available throughout the country. Malawi produces ethanol from sugar molasses in bulk amounts at Dwangwa, in the central region lakeshore district of Nkhota-kota. -------- OTHER -------- environment Belarus Deal Signals Russia's Growing Clout Gas Monopoly Won a Price Doubling By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 2, 2007; D01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100720_pf.html Belarus looked headed for a cold New Year's Day until the former Soviet republic's prime minister walked into the offices of Russia's natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, just before a midnight deadline and agreed to most of Gazprom's terms for continued supplies. "There was a tense atmosphere among the Belarusan delegation since we have agreed to and signed a contract whose conditions for the delivery of gas are not at all favorable," Belarusan Prime Minister Sergei Sidorsky said at a news conference at Gazprom's headquarters late Sunday night. Under the agreement, Belarus will pay more than twice its current price for natural gas for its 10 million people and -- to keep from paying an even higher price -- will sell Gazprom a 50 percent interest in its gas pipeline network. The terms are similar to what Gazprom has been extracting from other neighboring former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine and Georgia. The Russian energy giant wants higher prices for its natural gas, and it is using its leverage as sole or principal supplier to get a share of other countries' domestic pipeline networks and transit lines to the West. "[Russian President Vladimir] Putin's mission has been to regain the energy assets and export infrastructure that [former Russian President Boris] Yeltsin lost when the Soviet Union broke apart," said Michael Lelyveld, a senior analyst on Russia at PFC Energy, a Washington consulting group. The new deal is the latest instance of Gazprom playing hardball with its neighbors. Exactly a year ago, it cut off supplies to Ukraine, which had a newly elected West-leaning government, in what was widely seen as politically inspired move. That crisis ended when Ukraine agreed to a sharp price increase, to $95 per thousand cubic meters, while the price to Belarus remained at $47. Recently, Ukraine agreed to another hefty price increase to $130, but it kept the price well below Western European levels of $230 by giving Gazprom a stake in its pipeline system. Now that Gazprom has treated the authoritarian, pro-Moscow government of Belarus in a similar way, it lends some credibility to Gazprom's claim to have not political but commercial motives, namely the end of heavily subsidized gas prices that date to when its neighbors were all Soviet states. Belarus will now pay $100 per thousand cubic meters, with prices rising to market levels by 2011. A portion of that price will be paid in shares of the national pipeline company. "There have been absolutely no political demands from the Kremlin, only financial ones," said Jonathan Stern, director of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Stern said that though this year's gas price in Belarus will be half that paid by Georgia, the differential may be more a reflection of the bargaining power Belarus had over the transit line to the rest of Europe than a political distinction between the pro-Moscow Belarus and the pro-West Georgia. Gazprom originally sought a price of $230 per thousand cubic meters from Belarus, then demanded $105; the implied price, $2.5 billion, it will pay for the Belarusan pipeline system is also more than it originally offered. Still, in Western Europe, Gazprom's brinkmanship has raised alarms about its power and expansionism. Western Europe is heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies, which account for a quarter of Europe's needs and 40 percent of its imports. That share is expected to rise over the next 15 years, according to an analysis by Deutsche Bank Securities. About 80 percent of the Russian gas crosses Ukraine, and the rest crosses Belarus. Both price disputes threatened to cut off or curtail those supplies; Belarus threatened to siphon the gas it needs from supplies destined for other countries, and a year ago, Gazprom's two-day cutoff to Ukraine crimped supplies elsewhere. That has spurred talk about Europe's energy security and its need for supply diversification. "All of a sudden, Russian supplies, which seemed so reliable during the Cold War, seem unreliable," said Stephen O'Sullivan, emerging-markets oil and gas analyst for Deutsche Bank. He said that is driving Europe to look at nuclear power and liquefied natural gas imports from other countries. Even though the Belarus dispute was settled before supplies were disrupted, O'Sullivan says: "It gives more momentum to a search for alternatives to Russia . . . You never know what might happen down the line." In addition, Gazprom has been trying to use its leverage as the biggest supplier of natural gas to Europe and its control over access to oil and gas exploration prospects in Russia to acquire stakes in pipeline networks in countries such as Italy, France and Germany. But those countries have been reluctant to put their private firms under the control of a state-owned company, especially because Russia strictly limits foreign acquisitions within its borders. "Putin has told the Europeans that Russia's strategy is only aimed at enhancing their mutual energy security, but it's really all about expanding Russian power," Lelyveld said. "The assertive tactics may frighten the Europeans, but in the near term, there's very little they can do to reduce reliance on Russia." The new agreement with Belarus, which is set to last four years, will alleviate some of Europe's concerns about supply interruptions. "The brinkmanship aspect is significant for Europe, but now that everything seems settled -- at least for the moment -- people will relax again," Stern said. "This four-year deal means that we should not be going through this again next year." But as long as the state-owned Gazprom controls Russia's natural gas supplies and most of the exploration prospects in Russia, and with high energy prices pumping cash into its coffers, the company will remain powerful. It controls about a quarter of global gas output and reserves. Last month, Gazprom used that power to pry its way into Royal Dutch Shell Group's oil and gas exploration and production project on Sakhalin Island, off Russia's east coast. Threatened with delays for environmental reasons, the project got the go-ahead the day Shell and its Japanese partners agreed to halve their share in the project, delay cost recovery and sell Gazprom a controlling interest. One area in which Gazprom has been barred from using its muscle is domestic Russian gas prices. Those prices are rising but remain far below market levels. Domestic sales account for 70 percent of Gazprom's gas volume but only 30 percent of its revenue, according to a Deutsche Bank analysis. Raising Russian prices to global levels and domestic efficiency measures could cut Russia's consumption by an amount equal to a fifth of Europe's imports, enabling Gazprom to expand its exports or decrease its reliance on Central Asian nations, such as Turkmenistan, for a portion of its supplies. But the Russian government recently said that domestic gas prices would remain subsidized for at least the next five years. ---- Huge Ice Shelf Breaks Free in Canada's Far North Story by Jeffrey Jones REUTERS CANADA: January 2, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39667/story.htm CALGARY, Alberta - A chunk of ice bigger than the area of Manhattan broke from an ice shelf in Canada's far north and could wreak havoc if it starts to float westward toward oil-drilling regions and shipping lanes next summer, a researcher said on Friday. Global warming could be one cause of the break of the Ayles Ice Shelf at Ellesmere Island, which occurred in the summer of 2005 but was only detected recently by satellite photos, said Luke Copland, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa's geography department. It was the largest such break in nearly three decades, casting an ice floe with an area of 66 square km (25 square miles) adrift in the Arctic Ocean, said Copland, who specializes in the study of glaciers and ice masses. Manhattan has an area of 61 square km (24 square miles). The mass is now 50 square km (19 square miles) in size. "The Arctic is all frozen up for the winter and it's stuck in the sea ice about 50 km (30 miles) off the coast," he said. "The risk is that next summer, as that sea ice melts, this large ice island can then move itself around off the coast and one potential path for it is to make its way westward toward the Beaufort Sea, and the Beaufort Sea is where there is lots of oil and gas exploration, oil rigs and shipping." The break went undetected when it happened due primarily to the remoteness of the northern coast of Ellesmere island, which is only about 800 km (500 miles) from the North Pole. The speed of the crack and drift-off shocked scientists. Satellite images showed the 15-km long (9-mile long) crack, then the ice floating about 1 km (0.6 miles) from the coast within about an hour, Copland said. "You could stand at one edge and not see the other side, and for something that large to move that quickly is quite amazing," he said. Copland said the break was likely due to a combination of low accumulations of sea ice around the mass's edges as high winds blew it away, as well as one of the Arctic's warmest temperatures on record. The region was 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees F) above average in the summer of 2005, he said. Ice shelves in Canada's far north have decreased in size by as much as 90 percent since 1906, and global warming likely played a role in the Ayles break, Copland said. "It's hard to tie one event to climate change, but when you look at the longer-term trend, the bigger picture, we've lost a lot of ice shelves on northern Ellesmere in the past century and this is that continuing," he said. "And this is the biggest one in the last 25 years." ---- China's 2006 Weather -- Warm and Disastrous REUTERS CHINA: January 2, 2007 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/39666/story.htm BEIJING - China experienced its warmest year in 2006 since 1951, packed with an unusually high number of natural disasters, Xinhua news agency said on Sunday, putting the blame on global warming. Dong Wenjie, director of the Beijing Climate Centre, said there was less rain, higher temperatures and a series of storms and typhoons followed by drought. The annual meteorological report released by the China Meteorological Administration said the amount of damage was "rare" in the country's history. "Typhoons, floods and droughts claimed 2,704 lives and inflicted economic losses of 212 billion yuan (US$27 billion) in 2006, second only to 1998 when an extremely severe flood swept the country," Xinhua quoted the report as saying. Every year 50 million hectares (125 million acres) of farmland and 400 million people are affected by natural disasters in China with economic losses reaching 1 to 3 percent of gross domestic product.