---sbs---
*
French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'
Michael Smith, London Daily Telegraph (also published in Washington Times)
Copyright 2003 Telegraph Group Limited
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON), July 14, 2003, p. 4
French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'
By Michael Smith Defence Correspondent
THE French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans
"credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US
intelligence sources said yesterday.
MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was
attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to
them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing
co-operation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.
US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the
French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run
by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.
A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the
US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence could lead to sources being
inadvertently disclosed.
US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with
Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the
intelligence.
British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a row between MI6 and the CIA on the issue.
However, they admitted being surprised that George Tenet, the CIA director, had apologised to
President George W Bush for allowing him to cite the British Government and its claim that
Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech last October.
The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Authority's dismissal of documents given to
it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as fakes.
Those documents have been widely identified with last September's British dossier on Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction, which said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an
unnamed country in Africa.
British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind
it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were
sticking with it, the officials said.
They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the
claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they
said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our
assessment."
The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they
were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the
Americans that they were fakes.
There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents
- which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But
this was not true.
"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't
have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to
anyone else."
Michael Smith's new book The Spying Game, which examines the intelligence behind the September
dossier, is published by Politico's.
---sbs---
*
Pyongyang reprocessing nuclear fuel
UPI
Pyongyang reprocessing nuclear fuel
PYONGYANG, North Korea, July 14 (UPI) -- A U.S. government source confirmed North Korea has
begun reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods.
The Kyodo news service said the evidence was obtained at the Yongbyon facilities, where
monitors detected krypton 85, a reprocessing byproduct, in air samples.
It is almost certain that the new finding will heighten the already tense relationship between
the United States and North Korea over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program because the
reprocessing will enable the North to make more nuclear arms.
The latest move will also make it difficult to resolve the nuclear standoff through
U.S.-proposed five-way talks also involving Japan, China and South Korea.
This is the first physical evidence indicating North Korea has begun the reprocessing work.
Krypton 85 is released into the atmosphere when spent fuel rods are reprocessed into
weapons-grade plutonium.
At China-brokered talks with the United States in Beijing in April, North Korea claimed to
possess nuclear weapons and have reprocessed spent fuel rods.
copyright 2003 News World Communications, Inc.
---sbs---
*
White House in damage control bid over Iraqi nuclear claim
Agence France Presse
Monday July 14, 5:25 AM
White House in damage control bid over Iraqi nuclear claim
The White House launched a damage-control drive as it reeled from mounting criticism over its
erroneous claim Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Africa for its nuclear program to justify
war to oust Saddam Hussein
"It has become an enormously overblown issue," White House national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice told CNN. "The president of the United States did not go to war because of the
question of whether or not Saddam Hussein sought the uranium in Africa," she said. Earlier, on
"Fox News Sunday", she dismissed the notion as "ludicrous."
On Friday, CIA director George Tenet took responsibility for the now-discredited allegation in
the president's State of the Union speech in January.
One leading Republican senator said Tenet should quit over his role in the matter.
"Somebody ought to be accountable," Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the powerful
Senate Intelligence Committee told CNN. "If I were the president, he wouldn't be there."
The White House admitted Tuesday that the remark by Bush, stating that Baghdad had sought
"significant quantities of uranium from Africa," overstated Saddam's alleged efforts to obtain
uranium for nuclear arms.
Other congressional lawmakers meanwhile said they would await the findings of an investigation
into the matter before taking a position on Tenet's future. The Senate, by voice vote, has
approved a probe into the matter.
"Well, I would like to wait for the end of the investigation to reach a conclusion as to
whether Tenet should go. I'm obviously dissatisfied with him in this regard, but also in other
aspects as well," Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, told CNN.
Levin directed fire, however, at how the remarks came to be included in a presidential speech
to the nation.
"That is highly misleading. It is intended to create a false impression. And someone in the
White House was pushing the CIA," the Democratic senator said.
In January's State of the Union speech, Bush attributed the claim to the British government.
White House officials said Sunday the intelligence information backing the statement was not
strong enough to include in a major presidential speech.
The controversy has sparked a spirited debate in the United States over the reasons given by
Bush for going to war, as well as over the quality of US intelligence and whether it was
manipulated for political purposes.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also took pains to explain that while the statement should
not have been included in the speech, it was tec hnically correct in referring to British
intelligence that London has not refuted.
However, he also admitted that the statement should not have been included in the speech, as US
intelligence had not confirmed it.
The "National Intelligence Estimate" said Iraq tried to purchase up to 500 tons of uranium
oxide for its nuclear program from the west African country of Niger.
The White House admitted the charge stemmed from documents since discovered to be forgeries
alleging that Iraq sought uranium "yellowcake" from Niger.
Officials insisted that Bush made the statement in good faith at the time.
A new poll, published by Newsweek, found only 53 percent of respondents approve of Bush's
handling of Iraq, down 21 percent since April.
The furor over the uranium claim only deepens the skepticism caused by US forces' failure so
far to find any definitive proof of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, which were one of
Bush's main justifications for the war.
Copyright 2002 AFP. All rights reserved.
---sbs---
*
No evidence to confirm North Korea's reprocessing claim: South Korea
Agence France Presse
Monday July 14, 1:51 PM
No evidence to confirm North Korea's reprocessing claim: South Korea
South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young-Kwan said Seoul and Washington had no direct evidence
to confirm that North Korea had finished reprocessing spent fuel rods for nuclear weapons.
"There have been no scientific data and evidence to confirm North Korea has finished
reprocessing spent fuel rods," Yoon told a domestic radio program.
South Korea's Yonhap news agency said Sunday that North Korea had told the United States it had
completed reprocessing of 8,000 spent fuel rods to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons.
UN-based North Korean envoys confirmed at talks with US officials last week in New York that
the reprocessing was completed on June 30, the agency said.
It quoted Chang Sung-Min, a former South Korean ruling party lawmaker, as saying the informal
meeting was attended by North Korea's UN Representative Park Gil-Yon and US State Department
official Jack Pritchard.
Yoon confirmed that the New York meeting had taken place and said Washington has briefed Seoul
on what transpired during the talks.
However, he refused to elaborate on the meeting and expressed doubt over the North's claim.
"South Korea and the United States have until now failed to secure evidence despite efforts
through various channels," he said.
In Washington, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told NBC Sunday that it was unclear whether
North Korea's claim was true.
"They have told us they have nuclear weapons, they have also made assertions with respect to
the pace at which they're reprocessing," he said.
"Some people believe what they are saying, other people don't believe what they are saying,"
the defense secretary added.
US and South Korean officials say North Korea may have one or two nuclear bombs and believe
reprocessing would yield enough plutonium for around six more.
Japan's Kyodo news agency said Saturday that the White House had received fresh intelligence
indicating the reprocessing of fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear complex north of Pyongyang.
Krypton 85 has been detected in air samples from Yongbyon's vicinity, according to Kyodo.
Krypton 85 is released into the atmosphere when spent fuel rods are reprocessed into
weapons-grade plutonium.
N orth Korea has never tested a nuclear device, but indicated last month that it possessed
atomic weapons when it said in a foreign ministry statement that it intended to "build up its
nuclear deterrent."
The nuclear crisis erupted in October when Washington said the North Koreans had admitted
running a nuclear program based on enriched uranium in violation of a 1994 nuclear freeze
accord.
The pact collapsed after North Korea expelled UN nuclear inspectors and began to revive its
mothballed nuclear plants to protest a US halt to fuel oil supply for the energy-starved state.
The United States says the crisis should be resolved through negotiations but is insisting on a
multilateral approach while North Korea wants one-on-one talks with Washington.
The United States and North Korea held talks, also attended by China as a host, in Beijing in
April to discuss the nuclear crisis but failed to agree on a follow-up meeting.
Copyright 2002 AFP. All rights reserved.
---sbs---
*
The Underpopulation Problem ["...nuclear energy offers essentially limitless energy forever..."]
Paul M. Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation), TooGoodReports.com
The Underpopulation Problem
By Paul M. Weyrich
Toogood Reports [Monday, July 14, 2003; 12:01 a.m. ET] URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
An editorial in the Washington Post called "The Baby Bust" got me to thinking about the late
1960s through the 1970s when there was hysteria in this country concerning population control.
Then- Senator Bob Packwood, Republican of Oregon, spoke about the "population problem" whenever
he had the opportunity. To hear him tell it, the United States was just going to run out of
space. Moreover there might not be appropriate resources for those who were born. The late
Senator Jacob Javits, Republican of New York, suggested that the situation was so bad perhaps
the government should consider licensing parents, giving them the chance to have only two
children.
Vice President Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson's number two man from 1965 to 1969, had a stock
speech he gave about looking at the Northeast Corridor from the air at night and seeing no
break in the lights from Boston to Washington. People were scared. There were too many people
for the resources that were available.
About the same time a group of academics and political figures, largely from Western Europe,
formed something called The Club of Rome. Their purpose was to warn governments that if they
didn't get their populations under control, there would be widespread famine and economic
collapse. The Club's Chicken Little assessment came out in a book entitled "Limits to Growth,"
which was very favorably reviewed in the Washington Post.
This was all nonsense. We have no population problem. We might have, as George Will put it, a
population distribution problem, because people poured out of the rural areas in favor of large
cities. But as the United States has demonstrated, we have the resources to feed much of the
world and our increased productivity has permitted us to do so on ever-decreasing areas of
farmland.
In the 1970s, respected energy analysts told us that we were going to run out of oil and other
fossil fuels in about 15 years. Now we know better. Even if we continue to consume oil and
natural gas at an ever-increasing pace, there is enough to accommodate everyone for all of this
century and way beyond. There is even more coal, if the environmentalists would let us burn it,
and nuclear energy offers essentially limitless energy forever .
Our greatest resource is people. The Post, which back then was sympathetic to the population
controllers, now is concerned because our birthrate is below the replacement level for the
first time in our history. Of cours e, in Europe and Japan, the situation is so drastic that it
is literally possible to chart the disappearance of some of the wealthier nations a few
generations from now.
The Post notes that ".... countries with shrinking populations may stagnate economically,
intellectually and militarily. If future generations are to carry on the American vibrancy and
dynamism, the country must be prepa red to embrace more babies, and more adults from around the
world."
I seldom compliment the Post, but well said! And welcome to the real world!
In light of these facts, which have always been there for those who would see, what is the
United Nations doing? Why, it is busy preparing for its once-in-a-decade conference on
population. In past decades, this conference was at the forefront of promoting population
control. Much of the utter nonsense being taught in the public schools about this issue
originates from the UN. I've got news for the UN. There is a population problem but it isn't
the overpopulation the UN has preached, at least not in the non-Muslim states. The states of
Western Europe, Japan and the good old USA, which have traditionally paid the bill so the UN
could preach its false doctrine, aren't going to have the money for that luxury anymore. Even
in China the population has stabilized, for all the wrong reasons, but the fears expressed
about China are no longer valid. What is of great concern in China is too many boys. Where the
one child policy is brutally enforced, couples choose boys over girls. Perhaps the UN can
pontificate on that subject.
If the UN is to retain any credibility at all, it must admit its past mistakes and use its
conference next year to, once and for all, smash the ideas of the Club of Rome. Then it can
prepare new materials for the public schools reflecting the reality of the situation. If the
Washington Post can come around to a sensible point of view, so can the UN.
The problem, of course, is that the UN has a whole bureaucratic structure tied up with the
other point of view. Bureaucrats almost never admit they are wrong. Moreover, they most often
keep pushing in the same direction even when all the data point to the need for an abrupt about
face.
If indeed we have another UN population conference warning us of the dangers of overpopulation,
perhaps Russia would like to explain to the bureaucrats that she risks going out of existence
if the current birthrate is not reversed. Perhaps the village in Spain, that offers a pig to
each set of new parents as an incentive for them to have babies, can explain to the UN why they
feel they need to do so. Maybe the nations of Europe can make presentations on their welfare
state programs aimed at getting young people to have children. These governments know the
truth. It is high time for the UN to acknowledge it and to tell the world what is really
happening or we should never support a conference on population again.
---sbs---
*
Why America is Running Out of Gas
Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Time magazine
Time, July 21, 2003, published July 13
Why America is Running Out of Gas
Inflated oil prices and natural gas shortages are wiping out jobs
and savings, thanks to three decades of bungled energy policy.
Get ready for more bungling
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE
If all goes according to plan, the U.S. Senate in the next few weeks will follow the House and
approve the latest in a long line of national energy policies. This one incorporates a favorite
initiative of President George W. Bush'sthe hydrogen-powered car. In his State of the Union
address in January, the President proposed "$1.2 billion in research funding so that America
can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles." As the President
explained, his goal was "to promote energy independence ... in ways that generations before us
could not have imagined."
Democrats joined euphoric Republicans in signing on to the proposal. "The supply of hydrogen is
inexhaustible," Senator Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, told his colleagues. "Hydrogen is
in water. You can take the energy from the wind and use the electricity in the process of
electrolysis, separate the hydrogen from the oxygen and store the hydrogen and use it in
vehicles. The fact is, hydrogen is ubiquitous. It is everywhere."
Was this a rare instance of the two parties working together in Washington for the good of the
country? Far from it. They've been doing this energy dance off and on for 30 years.
At the time of the first energy crisis, in 1974, President Richard M. Nixon put forth Project
Independence to end American reliance on foreign oil through a series of energy programs, among
them "hydrogen-fueled vehicles" that could be developed "to enable a shift away from oil."
Takeoff date for the new technology: 1990. Members of Congress were enthusiastic about the
hydrogen car then too. "Hydrogen offers us great potential as a fuel for the future," said
Representative Charles Vanik, Ohio Democrat. Representative Robert Wilson, a California
Republican, was equally excited: "We can now look forward to running our automobiles on water."
But hydrogen power went nowhere then, just as it went nowhere when it was trumpeted nearly a
century ago. It will probably go nowhere today, for many reasons, most notably a chronic case
of short attention span among American politicians when it comes to energy policy. With great
fanfare, lawmakers and Presidentsboth Democrats and Republicansannounce sweep- ing plans to
end or ease American dependence on foreign oil and find other stable sources of energy. When
the headlines and television sound bites fade away, however, they scrap the programs, which
then are often reintroduced to an unsuspecting public as new in later years by another
generation of lawmakers and Presidents. But changing anything as deep-seated as America's
habits of energy use calls for consistency and follow through, so the failure of Washington to
stick with hardly any of its plans has wound up making the U.S. more dependent than ever on
foreign sources.
Now Congress is about to enact yet another doomed energy policy that promises more of the same.
Take hydrogen. Ideally, the gas would be extracted from water using fusion technology. But that
won't be available for decades. In the interim, a substitute energy source would be
usednatural gas. Yes, the same natural gas already in short supply.
Then there's coal. The Senate bill would authorize spending $200 million a year to study and
develop "clean coal" technologies. But that's a substantial comedown from the billions spent in
the 1970s and 1980s to encourage development of an industry that would turn coal into oil and
synthetic gas, enabling the U.S. to dramatically curb imports. It never came about.
The Senate bill also contains an assortment of goodies. It would hand out $3.5 billion to
revive America's moribund nuclear power industryeven though the last order for a plant that
actually went online was placed in 1973. It would parcel out nearly $10 billion in tax breaks
and subsidies to oil and gas companies that will not erase falling production but instead
enrich oilmen and investors. At the same time, the President's proposed budget slashes spending
on wind research by 5.5%, zero-energy buildings by 50% and biomass by 19%. To add to the
insult, the Administration took the money to print its 170-page 2001 National Energy Policy out
of the budget for renewable fuels.
This comes at a time when Americans are heading into their first big energy squeeze since the
1970s: a shortage of natural gas, the invisible resource used to heat homes, fuel kitchen
appliances, generate electricity and manufacture many of the chemicals we use. The shortage has
triggered a sharp rise in prices that is likely to exact a heavy toll on low- and middle-income
Americans, especially those living on fixed incomes. Home heating bills last winter more than
doubled in some areas, and they are expected to go up at least another 20% this winter.
Electric bills also will spike because generating plants are increasingly gas-fueled. And in
places like Louisiana, where the petrochemical industry makes up a big part of the local
economy, the shortage is causing a loss of jobs, with at least 2,000 layoffs so far. The entire
industry may be forced to move offshore over the next few years if there is no relief.
Beth Wilson, a stay-at-home mom in Hobart, Ind., 35 miles southeast of Chicago, is still
seething over last winter's bills from Northern Indiana Public Service Co., known as NIPSCO. In
March 2002, Wilson paid the utility 33(cent) a heating unit for the family's two-bedroom home.
By March of this year, the price had shot up to 86(cent), an increase of 161%. If the price of
new cars had risen at the same pace, a midrange Ford Taurus would sell for $54,000 today. Says
Wilson: "I never turn my heat up past 68. I didn't want to turn my ceiling fan on." (NIPSCO
also furnishes her electricity.) "How can other people on fixed incomes pay if I can't?"
For consumers, the second part of this one-two punch is exaggerated oil prices. While the world
is swimming in crude oil, it already trades at an inflated price of $30 a bbl., a level
essentially dictated by Saudi Arabia with the approval of the U.S. government. This translates
into swollen prices for gasoline, home heating oil and other petroleum products. What's worse
is that because of Congress's three decades of fumbled energy legislation, Americans have
become more vulnerable than ever to an interruption in foreign supply that would truly send
prices into orbit and cripple the U.S. economy. More than 53% of America's daily consumption of
oil and petroleum products comes from foreign sources, compared with 35% in 1973.
Why are Congress and the White House responsible? As part of a long-standing ritual involving
Democrats and Republicans, lawmakers and Presidents have devised energy plans that add up to no
plan at allnot deliberately but by default. In pursuit of different agendas, competing
interests tend to cancel one another out over time, leaving the nation with no coherent
direction on energy. Lawmakers launch programs to develop alternative-energy supplies but later
quietly cut or eliminate the funding so there are no realistic alternative sources. They enact
legislation offering incentives to stimulate crude-oil production in the U.S., when the
politicians knowor should knowthat the programs will not do so in any significant way. They
encourage utilities, businesses and industries to shift to natural gas, then fail to ensure
sufficient supplies of the fuel. The lawmakers refuse to make the tough choices on energy
supplies and consumption, while they cater to the demands of campaign contributors and special
interests. Worst of all, when politicians craft a conservation program that actually works,
they abandon it. As a result, after three decades and dozens of energy bills, Congress has
helped position Americans so they may be closer to an energy crisis than at any time since the
oil shocks of the 1970s. And this time, the U.S. is finally beginning to run out of domestic
oil and easily recoverable natural gas. Here is how it happened:
NATURAL GAS: THE CONGRESSIONAL FLIP-FLOP.
A quarter-century ago, Congress enacted the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, which
banned after 1990 the burning of natural gas by power plants to generate electricity. The
reasoning: because that fuel was in short supply and was most widely used to heat homesit goes
to half of all residencesit should be preserved for that purpose. Pete Domenici, the
Republican Senator from New Mexico, told his colleagues that year, "Almost since we found
natural gas we have been busy finding ways to abuse it, waste it, literally throw it away on
uses that we are now finding are absolutely the wrong thing to do, and basic among those that
are wasteful are ... the use of natural gas to generate electricity."
As the years slipped by, Congress reversed course. Prodded by the Reagan Administration,
lawmakers repealed the ban in 1987 and opened the door to construction of natural gas-guzzling
power plants. Three years later, they amended the environmental rules to discourage the burning
of coalAmerica's most plentiful fuelto produce electricity. Predictably, the generation of
electricity with natural gas, which had fallen 17% from 1979 to 1987, has shot up 151% since
then, reaching a record 686 billion kW-h last year. Nearly a fifth of all U.S. electricity is
now generated with natural gas, and 88% of all new generating plants built in the past decade
use the fuel. Meanwhile, U.S. production of natural gas has remained stagnant at 19 trillion
cu. ft. a year, about the same as a decade ago. But the U.S. consumed 22 trillion cu. ft., up
8% during that time. Because natural gas moves more efficiently by pipeline than tanker (for
which it needs to be liquefied), the difference comes mostly from Canada. Now the Canadians are
running low, and exports to the U.S. are expected to be flat, or possibly even decline.
During these same years, Congress prohibited drilling for natural gas offshore for
environmental reasons. Earlier, in the 1970s, it had studied and then rejected building a
natural-gas pipeline from the Arctic, where there are substantial gas reserves, south through
Canada to serve the U.S. The worry was that Canada would hold the U.S. economic hostage; in
fact, Canada has become the largest
This time around, the energy bill calls for taxpayer subsidies to build a needlessly longer and
far more costly pipeline that follows a roundabout path. Called the Southern Route, it starts
at the North Slope and heads south along the Alaskan highway before turning east into Canada. A
far more direct path, called the Northern Route, would have cut across the north coast of
Alaska and hooked up in Canada with the recently announced Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Both
lines ultimately would feed into trunk lines in Alberta and serve the U.S. market.
Why the meandering route? In 2001 the Alaska state legislature enacted a law blocking the
cheaper northern pipeline. Lawmakers wanted a pork-barrel project to keep construction and
supplier jobs in the state. State representative Jim Whitaker, a Fairbanks Republican who
sponsored the measure, summed up the state's attitude: "The legislature has a responsibility to
ensure that Alaska gas goes to market in a manner that is in the maximum best interest of the
people of the state of Alaska." Congress has agreed. In the years that it will take North Slope
gas to reach the lower 48 states, natural-gas prices will keep moving up. In the short run,
high temperatures this summer could produce spikes in prices and regional brownouts. In June
natural gas sold for an average of $5.83 per 1 million btus, up 169% from the same week in
1998. Higher prices already are taking their toll on energy-dependent industries, like those
that produce ammonia, the key ingredient in fertilizer. In June 1998 the Louisiana Ammonia
Producers trade association had nine corporate members with 3,500 employees. Today it has one,
CF Industries. "We've lost 2,000 employees," says Jim Harris, a spokesman for the producers,
who accounted for 40% of America's ammonia output. "It's been devastating. The high natural-gas
costs have been the overwhelming reason plants have closed. It's completely depressed the whole
area."
Other businesses have sounded the alarm, among them a consortium of nearly two dozen companies,
including pharmaceutical makers (Abbott Laboratories), brewers (Coors), chemical companies
(Dow) and makers of building materials (Owens Corning). They have urged President Bush "to
declare war on high natural-gas prices." Heading a list of recommendations: "Maximize use of
other energy sources for power generation."
At the same time that Louisiana factories are laying off workers because of gas prices, the
U.S. is shipping gas to Mexico to generate electricity there. While the volume is still
comparatively small, exports nonetheless have swelled 674% over the past seven years, to 263
billion cu. ft. last year. El Paso Energy, for one, pipes gas directly to the new Samalayuca II
power plant, about 25 miles south of Ciudad Juarez. It serves 1 million people and some 300
factories south of the border. The potentially chronic natural-gas shortage and its impact on
the economy and employment have even Alan Greenspan worried. Talking about the many industries
dependent on natural gas, the Federal Reserve chairman told the Senate Energy Committee last
week that "we do see the obvious loss of jobs ... because it has made us largely uncompetitive
in a number of industries in which gas is a critical input." He also saw little hope that
prices would fall. "We are not apt to return to earlier periods of relative abundance and low
prices anytime soon," he said.
LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS: BACK TO THE FUTURE.
To meet the surging demand for natural gas in the short term, Greenspan does see a solution:
liquefied natural gas (lng). He has told Congress that "given notable cost reductions for both
liquefaction and transportation of lng, significant global trade is developing. And high gas
prices projected in the American distant futures market have made us a potential very large
importer."
Translation: Because natural-gas prices are going upand are going to stay upit's now time to
bring in more expensive lng from the Caribbean, the Middle East, Africa and possibly Russia. To
import natural gas, it must be chilled to minus 260(degree)F, which converts it to a liquid and
reduces its volume. An amount that would normally fill a beach ball can fit inside a Ping-Pong
ball. When the liquid arrives at terminals in the U.S., it is slowly warmed up, returned to a
vapor form and sent through pipelines.
The U.S. tried to build an lng supply line once before but, in typical fashion, abandoned it.
During the last natural-gas shortage in the 1970s, when lawmakers voted to ban its burning to
generate electricity, they also encouraged the establishment of the lng industry with taxpayer-
guaranteed loans and grants. Special tankers, the most expensive ships in the world at the
time, were built along with four terminals and re-gasification facilities at Cove Point, Md.,
near Baltimore, as well as in Georgia, Louisiana and Massachusetts. The first lng shipments
arrived in 1978. In April 1980, Morris Udall, the Democratic Representative from Arizona, told
the House that a Congressional Office of Technology Assessment report concluded that lng
imports, "if encouraged, could double by 1990 and meet as much as 7% to 13% of U.S. natural-gas
needs." It was not to be. A series of events conspired to derail the policy. The Algerians, who
shipped the lng, jacked up the price. The Carter Administration and the natural-gas and
pipeline companies balked at paying more. After months of fruitless negotiations, the deal
unraveled. The ships went elsewhere. Cove Point and two other plants closed. It was the end of
the lng experiment. But the shortage has triggered a scramble to reverse course. Today Cove
Point is being expanded and will reopen soon. The plants in the three other states are already
open, and plans are on the drawing board for two dozen more.
OIL PRODUCTION AND IMPORTS: PROMISES, PROMISES.
In 1973, with the country importing 6 million bbl. of crude oil and petroleum products daily,
President Nixon pledged that by virtue of his Project Independence "in the year 1980, the
United States will not be dependent on any other country for the energy we need to provide our
jobs, to heat our homes, and to keep our transportation moving." He advanced a catalog of
energy proposals that covered everything from drilling on the outer continental shelf to
building more nuclear power plants, from expanding the use of coal to conducting research on
potential new sources. In the end it didn't work, and the U.S. failed to come close to his goal
of energy independence. While the yearly numbers rose and fell, by 1980 net oil imports had
increased 400,000 bbl. a day over 1973.
After the second oil shock hit America in 1979, Washington's wandering attention was focused
again on energy. Following Nixon's lead, President Carter pushed development of synthetic fuels
as part of his strategy to slash imports. When he signed the Energy Security Act into law in
June 1980, Carter said it would "encourage production of 2 million bbl. a day of synthetic
fuels by the year 1992." That didn't work either: synthetic-fuel production ended up slightly
in excess of zero, and oil imports totaled 6.9 million bbl. a day that year.
Throughout the years, in one energy debate after another, lawmakers and Presidents insisted
that if they handed out enough incentives, U.S. oil production would rise, and there would be
less need for imports. In each instance, legislation was accompanied by extravagant forecasts
not only by lawmakers but by energy-company officials as well. In 1974 policymakers predicted
that U.S. oil production "could increase to more than 17 million bbl. a day, which is more than
sufficient to be at zero imports by 1985." The Reagan White House shared the optimism. A
spokesman said that "the ranges that any reasonable person is considering include zero
(imports) by 2000." By that year, however, imports were at their highest level ever, and
domestic production had declined to levels not seen since 1950. Now President Bush has his own
plan to jump-start oil production. He wants to begin drilling in a portion of the 1.5
million-acre arctic coastal-plain area of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (anwr), which
covers a total of 19 million acres. According to the White House, the President "believes that
opening this small area to environmentally responsible exploration would provide the resources
necessary to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and provide for greater energy
security."
The reduction would be modest. Even if the anwr would yield 1 million bbl. daily of crude oil,
as suggested by the President, by the time pipelines are built and production gets under way,
the oil would displace less than 10% of U.S. imports. And there are no guarantees for the 1
million bbl. In the early days of the North Slope project, politicians predicted that consumers
would get 3.8 million bbl. of crude oil daily out of Alaska "by the end of the century."
Instead production hit a high of 2 million bbl. in 1988the only year at that leveland then
began to trail off, dropping to 984,000 bbl. last year.
To make matters worse, the U.S. is confronted with a refinery gapjust as it was in the 1973-74
oil crisis. The U.S. consumed 19.8 million bbl. a day of petroleum products last year, but its
refineries could process only 16.6 million bbl. of crude oil. The 3.2 million barrel difference
was made up through imports of finished products like gasoline and jet fuel, which are even
more susceptible to supply disruptions than crude oil. Following the energy debacles of the
1970s, the industry began adding refinery capacity. By 1980, it could process all the crude oil
required to meet demand, but that lasted only until 1985. The gap has been widening ever since.
CONSERVATIONBUT NOT FOR REAL MEN.
After the 1973-74 energy crisis, when gas stations closed on Sundays and motorists waited in
lines for hours to fill up, Congress enacted a series of tough conservation measures. The
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 imposed stringent mileage requirements on
automakersan average of 27.5 m.p.g. on passenger cars by model year 1985to curb gasoline
consumption. It worked.
In the decade before the act's passage, gasoline consumption had risen 48%, to 6.5 million bbl.
a day in 1974. In years to follow, even with millions more cars on the highways, consumption
remained largely unchanged. Beginning at 7 million bbl. a day in 1976, demand went up and down
in a narrow range and by 1991 was at just 7.2 million.
During the 1980s, as it became clear gasoline conservation was working, aided by a nasty
recession, one energy forecast after another anticipated ever better mileage. The American
Petroleum Institute, swept up by auto-industry fervor, announced in September 1981 that
"forecasts of fuel efficiency for new cars now exceed those mandates (27.5 m.p.g.), suggesting
an industry-fleet average of 30 m.p.g. by 1985." Not exactly: this year the average is still
27.5 m.p.g. for vehicles officially labeled as passenger cars, but for the entire fleet of
vehicles, including suvs and trucks, it is much worse. The best overall fuel economy of 22.1
m.p.g. (for U.S.-made vehicles) was achieved in 1987-88. Aside from an occasional upward tick,
that figure has inched steadily downward, to 20.4 m.p.g. last year.
That's because Congress lost interest in conservation and failed to keep the pressure on the
car companies. Lawmakers refused to set new mileage goals. Worse, they excluded from the
existing requirements light trucks and suvs, the fastest-selling vehicles and the ones that use
the most gasoline. Contributing even more to the trend, they extended an extraordinary tax
benefit to the gas guzzlers, so drivers who used a vehicle for work could write off the cost on
their tax returnseven as much as $38,200 toward a new Hummer H2 that gets only 10 m.p.g. As
might be expected, consumption rose 1.5 million bbl. a day over the past decade, to 8.8 million
last year. But for owners of pricey vehicles like the Hummer, it keeps getting better. The
tax-cutting bill signed into law in May expanded the write-off to $100,000.
For its part, the Bush Administration is dismissive of serious conservation. Vice President
Cheney, who headed an Administration task force to devise an energy strategya group whose work
was carried out in secret and whose papers remain secretexpressed the attitude two years ago
in a now infamous way: "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Representative Raymond Green, a
Texas Democrat, was more blunt when the House earlier this year beat back an attempt to raise
mileage standards. While allowing that he was for "better gas mileage," said Green: "We come
from a big state that wants big trucks and big cars."
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: HERE COMES THE SUN, AND THERE IT GOES
AGAIN. No alternative-energy source has captured the imagination of lawmakers and Presidents
like the sun. For three decades, solar energy's champions on Capitol Hill have insisted that
the harnessing of this free and unlimited supply of energy was just around the corner.
Representative Charles Mosher, Ohio Republican, was among the ardent supporters in 1974. "Much
of the technology needed to utilize this nonpolluting source of power is nearly at hand,"
Mosher said in a speech on the House floor. "In fact, the consensus is that there are no major
technical barriers to the widespread application of solar energy to meet U.S. energy needs."
With that notion in mind, President Carter in 1980 pushed legislation that he said would help
"us to reach our goal of deriving 20% of all the energy we use by the end of this century
directly from the sun." The forecast proved breathtakingly overreaching. Last year solar energy
accounted for about seven one-hundredths of 1% of all U.S. energy consumption. The Bush energy
package includes a $2,000 tax credit for individuals who buy and install photovoltaic or solar
water-heating equipment in their residences.
Nothing new here: the government has been selling solar for years with generous tax incentives.
Most of the public, though, isn't buying. And people who do often have memorable experiences. A
quarter-century ago, the owners of a 13-story, 64-unit co-op at 924 West End Avenue on New York
City's Upper West Side erected a steel framework on the rooftop, welded it to the building's
steel beams and attached 117 solar-collector panels. Water heated by the sun flowed through
pipes into a 5,000-gal. storage tank in the building's old coal bin and from there into the
building's hot- water system. The project was funded in part with a $112,000 federal grant.
Today the solar experiment is long gone. A building workman told Time that the collectors
behaved like sails, swaying back and forth so much that water leaked into apartments below. It
cost several million dollars to repair the roof, he said.
But solar is hardly the only alternative energy source that has failed to live up to the
promises of its congressional supporters. Just as both parties have embraced President Bush's
hydrogen initiative, they have also signed on to another of his long-shot proposals, one he
says will provide "clean, safe, renewable and commercially available fusion energy by the
middle of this century."
Unlike nuclear fission, the splitting of uranium atoms that powers nuclear reactors, fusion
joins hydrogen atoms to unleash far more energy. The trick is to control the fusion reaction to
generate electricity. It has been an elusive goal for half a century and probably will be for
many decades to come. Even so, according to the President, "commercialization of fusion has the
potential to dramatically improve America's energy security while significantly reducing air
pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases."
That's about what President Carter envisioned more than 20 years agoalbeit with a different
timetablewhen he signed into law the Magnetic Fusion Engineering Act in 1980. Said Carter:
"Fusion power offers the potential for a limitless energy source with manageable environmental
effects." The law established as a national goal the successful operation of a magnetic
fusion-demonstration plant in the U.S. by 2000.
The cost was put at $20 billion. As Congress is given to do after announcing grand projects, it
slimmed down appropriations to less than $10 billion. U.S. researchers eventually teamed up
with colleagues in several countries, but in 1998 Congress pulled the plug on the consortium,
contending that it was too expensive. President Bush, however, reversed that decision. The
White House announced last January that the U.S. "will join ... an ambitious international
research project to harness the promise of fusion energy, the same form of energy that powers
the sun. America will join negotiations with Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and China to create
the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (iter). This will be the largest and most
technologically sophisticated fusion experiment in the world." Actually, it's the same
consortium to which the U.S. had been party in the 1990s and from which it then bailed out.
So it is that the U.S. is likely to be faced with recurring oil and natural-gas crises for some
years to come. Their duration and severity remain to be seen. But volatile pricesas with
gasoline during the Iraqi war, natural gas last winter and electricity in 2000are all but
guaranteed. The result is a hidden tax of tens of billions of dollars on American consumers.
Just how many billions depends on a catalog of variables ranging from the harshness of the
weather to unfolding events in the Middle East. More important, it depends on whether Congress
and the White House, Democrats and Republicans, come up with a thoughtful energy policy that
imposes tough conservation and efficiency measures, promotes research to develop one or two
realistic alternative energy forms in commercial quantities and encourages production from a
mix of existing energy sources. But none of this will be worth the effort unless the U.S.
sticks with a plan long enough for it to pay off.
With reporting by Laura Karmatz/New York and Eric Roston/Washington, with research by Joan
Levinstein/New York
Copyright 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
---sbs---
*
Bush 'Bundlers' Take Fundraising to New Level [including "insurance protections for nuclear energy producers"
Thomas B. Edsall and Mike Allen, Washington Post
washingtonpost.com
Bush 'Bundlers' Take Fundraising to New Level
By Thomas B. Edsall and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2003; Page A01
As chairman, president and chief executive of Safeway Inc., the world's 11th-largest grocery
chain, Steven Burd is the nexus of a wide network of subordinates and suppliers, as well as
friends in corporate suites. And that is why he will play a critical role in President Bush's
effort to raise the largest amount of money ever spent on a presidential campaign -- not by
giving a lot of money himself, but by finding a lot of people to give relatively little.
In the jargon of political fundraising, Burd is a bundler.
At two Bush fundraising events in California last month, Burd filled 10 tables with Safeway
suppliers, including rice farmers, strawberry growers and a cheese manufacturer, plus
representatives of Breyers ice cream, Sunkist produce and Del Monte canned goods who paid
$2,000 to hear Bush talk. Each donor wrote a four-digit "solicitor tracking code" assigned to
Burd on his check so that the Safeway CEO will receive credit from Bush campaign officials and
they can keep a running tally of his efforts. The possible rewards, depending on how much money
he can bring in, include cocktails with campaign architect Karl Rove, dinner with Commerce
Secretary Donald L. Evans and photo opportunities and sessions with the president.
Bush did not invent bundling, an old practice in fundraising designed to give a collection of
small donors more bang for their buck by combining their efforts. But the Bush campaign has
refined it and made it the central focus of its money strategy because of the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance law and its goal of reducing the role of mega-donors in political campaigns.
Under the law, large "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and individuals are
banned and the limit on legal "hard money" contributions from individuals to candidates was
raised from $1,000 to $2,000 -- rules that at least initially were thought to have leveled the
playing field for traditionally outspent Democrats. But the quick success and ambitious goals
of Bush's fundraisers, who have said they want to raise $170 million but expect to easily
surpass that, show the law can work to the decisive advantage of the Republican Party. The GOP
can solicit a greater number of $2,000 donations as a result of wide support in a corporate
community eager to repay the Bush administration for its pro-business policies. Democrats, in
contrast, have depended on trial lawyers and wealthy liberals who do not have large
constituencies to draw on.
Bush campaign officials have tried to play down the role of $2,000 donors and the network of
affluent fundraisers backing the president. In interviews, the officials stress that the
Republican Party has added more than 800,000 small direct-mail donors over the past 30 months.
In fact, however, donors who give the maximum or close to it and the people who solicit them
have provided the bulk of the money for Bush's campaigns.
Internal campaign documents show that the bundling organization is dominated by corporate CEOs,
lobbyists, energy company executives, venture capitalists and investment bankers who can reach
tens of thousands of subordinates, customers and subcontractors. The biggest source of new
bundlers has been the universe of doctors, corporate defense lawyers and others who favor the
Bush administration's proposal to limit lawsuits and to limit the amount that can be recovered
for medical malpractice -- legislation that is part of the broad Republican effort known as
tort reform.
In New York, the campaign can draw on the chairmen and chief executives of Merrill Lynch and
Co., Bear Stearns Cos. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. In Georgia, top executives at Coca-Cola
Co., the Southern Co. and AFLAC insurance are on board. In Florida, sugar barons, real estate
developers and the chairman of Wackenhut Corrections Corp., a major federal and state prison
contractor, have all joined the Bush bandwagon. And in Washington, the elite of the Republican
lobbying community, 116 strong, signed up to raise a minimum of $20,000 each to help win four
more years for Bush.
Becoming part of the Bush money machine starts with a pledge card and a commitment to raise a
specific amount, from $20,000 to $250,000 or more. A highly successful innovation of Bush's
first campaign, which raised a record $101 million, was the designation of "Pioneer" for
someone who raised at least $100,000. That designation is also available this campaign, with
the promise -- in writing -- of benefits that include "a special Pioneer event with the
President," special events at the Republican National Convention in New York and "regular
reports" from top campaign officials. But becoming a Pioneer will be tougher.
Last time, Pioneers were given credit for checks collected by people they recruited. Aspiring
Pioneers this time around receive credit only for the checks they personally collect. The
credit system has touched off fierce jockeying for the contributions of well-known Republicans.
Longtime party strategist Rich Galen said that before last month's Bush reception in
Washington, he was inundated with requests from Bush fundraisers to write their number on his
check.
"I hadn't heard from some of these people in years," he said. Galen chose the number of one
longtime friend for his own check, and the number of a second friend for the check written by
his wife.
In addition, Pioneer will no longer be the top designation. Those who produce at least $200,000
will be awarded the status of "Ranger," evocative of the Texas Rangers, the baseball team Bush
once owned.
The Rangers and Pioneers recruit other Bush supporters as vice chairs, sponsors and host
committee members for specific events. These people raise smaller amounts, perhaps $20,000 or
$50,000, depending on the event. At the base of the pyramid are the people who write the
checks, usually at the behest of an aspiring Ranger or Pioneer.
In an indication of how Bush's network has grown, 17 people signed up to raise $200,000 each as
"general chairs" for his June 23 cocktail party at a Manhattan hotel. That amount qualifies
each of them as a Ranger. Nine of those prospective Rangers represent new blood for the Bush
campaign. The other eight were Pioneers in 2000 and have doubled their commitment from $100,000
to $200,000.
In the 2000 campaign, nearly 60 percent of the money Bush received was in $1,000 donations, the
maximum allowed then. He received 59,279 $1,000 donations, or $59.3 million of his $101 million
total. The 59,279 donors more than tripled the number of any competitor, according to the
Campaign Finance Institute, which is affiliated with George Washington University. Al Gore, who
was second in the competition for $1,000 donors, had only 19,298 when running as a sitting vice
president. The crucial importance of drawing on a network of colleagues or subordinates was
also apparent in that campaign.
Charles M. Cawley, CEO of MBNA, the world's largest independent credit card issuer, for
example, was a Bush Pioneer. MBNA employees gave Bush a total of $240,675, according to an
analysis by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. Similarly, members of Vinson & Elkins
-- the law firm of Pioneer Joe B. Allen -- gave $202,850. Les Brorsen, another Pioneer, is
chief lobbyist for Ernst & Young, where employees gave Bush $179,949.
Rove, who remains on the White House payroll for the campaign and has been an energetic
promoter of Bush's fundraising events, helped recruit bundlers by holding "pre-sale events" in
New York, California and Texas. Before Bush's reception in Los Angeles, Rove chatted up
bundlers during a dinner at the ranch of David H. Murdock, the billionaire chairman of Dole
Food Co. Attendees said Rove went from table to table, asking for ideas and sharing insights
about Bush behind the scenes, then spoke to the group about the campaign's political plans.
The mechanics of the money collection are being run by one of Bush's most loyal political
aides, Jack Oliver, who is deputy finance chairman of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. and who was the
chief fundraiser of Bush's last campaign. In between, Oliver stayed in touch with donors as
deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Oliver and the Bush campaign have tapped into existing money organizations created by past and
present Republican governors, including Bush's brother Jeb Bush in Florida, George E. Pataki in
New York, Ohio's Bob Taft, and former California governor Pete Wilson.
The single factor virtually all such donors have in common is that they, their clients, their
corporations, their suppliers and their subcontractors are major beneficiaries of the Bush
administration's tax-cutting and deregulatory policies.
Almost all of the top Bush fundraisers are in the top 1 percent of the nation's incomes, and
many are in the top one-tenth of the top 1 percent. Consequently, they are among those who
benefit the most from administration legislation reducing the top income tax rate, the capital
gains rate and the elimination of taxation on dividend income.
For instance, four of the chairs for the $2,000-a-person cocktail party in New York were E.
Stanley O'Neal, chairman and CEO of Merrill Lynch; James E. Cayne, chairman and CEO of Bear
Stearns; Henry A. McKinnell Jr., chairman and CEO of Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug
company; and Henry M. Paulson, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. McKinnell, O'Neal and Paulson
committed to raising $200,000 each, and Cayne agreed to raise $100,000.
Looking at salaries and bonuses in 2002 ranging from McKinnell's $5.3 million to Cayne's $10.2
million, Citizens for Tax Justice estimated their 2003 tax savings resulting from
Bush-sponsored tax cuts will range from $300,000 to $610,000, and become significantly higher
as the decade progresses, particularly if their pay packages grow.
In some instances, the bundlers' employers have also benefited from White House policies. Take
Dwight H. Evans, who was on the host committee for a June 20 Bush fundraiser at the
Ritz-Carlton Lodge at Reynolds Plantation in Greensboro, Ga. Evans is the executive vice
president and president of the external affairs group for the Southern Co., which describes
itself as "a super-regional energy company." Southern's holdings include five electric
utilities: Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power and Savannah Electric.
Evans's responsibilities include directing environmental policy, regulatory affairs and
legislative affairs.
Few companies have done as well during the current Bush administration as the Southern Co. The
Environmental Protection Agency has curtailed tough regulatory requirements governing
improvements at old power plants, and the electricity industry strongly supports the
administration's Clear Skies Initiative to change the pollution reduction goals in the Clean
Air Act. The administration backs a wide range of subsidies and insurance protections for
nuclear energy producers.
2003 The Washington Post Company
---sbs---
*
[UKAEA financial software] LogicaCMG to support UKAEA's nuclear decommissioning and environmental restoration activities, providing cost savings and reduced risk
LogicaCMG (press release)
LogicaCMG
07/14/2003 09:45:41 AM GMT
LOGICACMG AWARDED MYSAP AND MANAGED SERVICES
CONTRACT BY THE UNITED KINGDOM ATOMIC ENERGY
AUTHORITY (UKAEA)
LogicaCMG to support UKAEA's nuclear decommissioning and environmental restoration activities,
providing cost savings and reduced risk
LogicaCMG today announced it has signed a six year managed services contract with the United
Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA). LogicaCMG will support the organisation’s nuclear
decommissioning and environmental restoration activities through a mySAP implementation. UKAEA
will benefit from accurate financial reporting, improved cost control, project management, and
integrated procurement processes.
LogicaCMG will replace UKAEA’s existing financial software suite to enable better financial
reporting and cost control. LogicaCMG will also implement additional SAP functionality,
including timesheet and expenses for employees; and an e-Procurement solution to support
processes for planned and unplanned web-based procurement of direct and indirect goods and
services. Once the new system is in place, LogicaCMG will support it under a managed service
agreement, which will involve hosting both hardware and applications on behalf of UKAEA. This
will allow UKAEA to reduce cost and risk throughout the six-year contract period, and will
ensure that the SAP solution continues to fit the organisation’s changing business needs.
With the imminent introduction by the UK Government of a new body to oversee the UK’s civil
nuclear liabilities and a greater emphasis on competitive procurement of decommissioning and
support services, it has become crucial for UKAEA to operate with an integrated, effective IT
infrastructure. UKAEA has recognised that the new mySAP system, delivered by and outsourced to
LogicaCMG, will provide the tools and integration it needs to meet these challenges.
Paul White, Finance Director at UKAEA commented, “Throughout the selection process, LogicaCMG
demonstrated that not only could it meet UKAEA’s current requirements, but, with its
significant SAP expertise, could also provide a solid platform to support business change
within UKAEA. Having the right partner to deliver and support the right solution is essential
for UKAEA as we embark on a period of change and challenge.”
Rob Wallis, sales & marketing director at LogicaCMG Enterprise Solutions commented, “As a
global SAP services partner, LogicaCMG is ideally placed to ensure that UKAEA reaps the
benefits of the SAP solution, both now and over the long term. This contract with UKAEA
reflects our partnership approach, where we ensure that we work closely with our customers,
realising their transformational business goals through the innovative application of
state-of-the-art technology.”
Ian Swann, Director, Services Industries, at SAP said, “We are very pleased to be working
with LogicaCMG to deliver UKAEA a solution and service that will help the authority manage
their business requirements.”
NOTES TO EDITORS
About LogicaCMG
LogicaCMG is a global solutions company providing management and IT consultancy, systems
integration and outsourcing services. With additional expertise in wireless technology, the
company supports clients across diverse markets including telecoms, financial services, energy
and utilities, industry, distribution and transport and the public sector. Formed in December
2002 through the merger of Logica and CMG the company employs around 21,000 staff in offices
across 34 countries and has nearly 40 years of experience in the IT service arena .
Headquartered in Europe, LogicaCMG is listed on both the London and Amsterdam stock exchanges
(LSE:LOG; AEX:LOG). More information is available from www.logicacmg.com
About the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was incorporated as a statutory corporation
in 1954 and pioneered the development of nuclear energy in the UK. Today it is responsible for
managing the decommissioning of the nuclear reactors and other radioactive facilities used for
the UK's nuclear research and development programme in a safe and environmentally sensitive
manner. Its objective is to essentially restore the sites for conventional use.
It is also responsible for the UK’s input to the European fusions research programme and for
maximising the income from the land and buildings at its sites.
UKAEA is a non-departmental public body, funded mainly by its lead department the Department of
Trade and Industry.
About SAP
SAP is the world's leading provider of business software solutions. Through mySAP™ Business
Suite, people in businesses around the globe are improving relationships with customers and
partners, streamlining operations, and achieving significant efficiencies throughout their
supply chains. Today, more than 19,600 companies in over 120 countries run more than 62,000
installations of SAP® software. With subsidiaries in over 50 countries, the company is listed
on several exchanges including the Frankfurt stock exchange and NYSE under the symbol "SAP."
(Additional information at http://www.sap.com) Copyright © 2003 SAP AG
SAP, the SAP logo, mySAP.com, mySAP, and all other SAP products and services mentioned herein
are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and several other countries. Other
product or service names mentioned herein are the trademarks of their respective owners.
Press Contacts
Jennifer Peters
Marketing and Public Relations Campaigns Manager
LogicaCMG
Tel: +44 (0) 207 446 4813
Email: jennifer.peters@logicacmg.com
This material has been produced by LogicaCMG. It is delivered by Pressi.com in its original form.
Copyright © 2003 Pressi.com. Terms of use. Send feedback to Pressi.com. Privacy policy.
---sbs---
*
Bill could mark shift to nuclear energy
Marta Hummel, Medill News Service/York Daily Record (PA)
York Daily Record (PA), July 14, 2003
Bill could mark shift to nuclear energy
A Senate proposal would allow for as many as six new nuclear reactors to be built the first
in the country since 1973.
By MARTA HUMMEL, Medill News Service
WASHINGTON The Senates proposed 2003 energy bill, which is widely expected to pass, could
signal a nationwide shift to nuclear energy already a key electricity source for
Pennsylvania.
The Senate voted 50-48 in mid-June to provide loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors as part
of wide-ranging legislation aimed at making the United States more energy independent.
Both Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum voted to include the provision authorizing loan
guarantees for up to six new plants which could cost U.S. taxpayers as much as $14 billion to
$16 billion if the new sites fail, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the accounting
arm of Congress.
Any effective national energy policy should be balanced and part of that balance should
include a nuclear component, said Erica Clayton Wright, Santorums spokeswoman.
Specter agrees, said Bill Reynolds, Specters press secretary. The nuclear provision is one
piece of the puzzle in addressing the larger energy needs of the state and the country, he
said.
The state is home to nine reactors, second only to Illinois, with 11 reactors, and relies on
nuclear-generated energy for 36 percent of its electricity needs, compared with a national
average of 20 percent.
Until this year, no plants have been ordered in the United States since 1973. But Exelon Corp.,
Entergy Nuclear and Dominion Energy, three of the largest nuclear operators in the country and
major political contributors, have filed requests with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to set
aside land for new plants outside of Pennsylvania, including in Illinois and Virginia.
Exelon and Entergy were among the top 20 donors in their industry, which collectively gave a
total of $56.4 million to political campaigns in 2002 $15.4 million to Democrats, and $41
million to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Exelon, which co-owns and operates Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
does not plan on building a new facility in Pennsylvania in the next few years, according to
Dave Simon, spokesman for the firms Mid-Atlantic nuclear operations.
Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industrys trade group, said he
did not think Pennsylvania would see any immediate changes in policy if the bill passes, but
said it would increase nuclear energys role nationwide.
What the bill says is that nuclear energy has to play a key role in the energy mix of this
country for security and environmental reasons, Singer said.
Critics charge the subsidies are a form of corporate welfare and should have been cut from the
energy bill.
If left on their own, there wouldnt be any nuclear reactors because the private sector wont
finance building them. If you believe in a free market, this bill is a huge boondoggle for
taxpayers, said David Masur,executive director of PennEnvironment, an environmental advocacy
group.
Safety concerns
But its not just the cost that bothers opponents like Masur.
Any bill that continues our reliance on unsafe or non-renewable resources is not a good idea,
he said.
His organization estimates that Pennsylvania will ship 21,000 truckloads of nuclear waste to
sites across the country over the next 30 to 40 years. Do you want to drive next to a highly
toxic substance on I-83? he asked.
Currently the state stores its own waste, but plans to start hauling it outside of the state in
coming years. Despite the potential dangers of toxic spills in transport, nuclear energy has
had a great track record for almost 25 years.
The 1979 Three Mile Island partial meltdown, however, which released radiation into the
surrounding area, still looms large in the United States and especially in Pennsylvanias
collective memory. Still, given the consistent track record, Santorum sees nuclear energy as a
viable part of the countrys overall energy plan.
If existing plants close and are not replaced, it means turning to natural gas and coal, which
means emissions. Sometimes the cost of those emissions are even more significant than building
plants, said Wright, his spokeswoman.
Copyright York Daily Record 2003
---sbs---
*
Americas Lack-luster Energy Policy Is Now Coming Home To Roost
Lloyd Weaver, Energy Pulse (CO)
Energy Pulse, July 14, 2003
Americas Lack-luster Energy Policy Is Now Coming Home To Roost
by Lloyd Weaver, Mechanical Engineer
Whether you mine or burn coal, or engineer and install coal systems, a market leader clean-coal
pressurized gasification technology is still needed more than ever today. And, despite nearly
18 years of DOE struggles and $billions spent to perfect such a technology, it doesnt exist.
Only two working IGCC (Integrated gasification Combined Cycle) power plants have been installed
in the U.S. since then. Their performance is considerably less than coals conventional
steam-power technology, while costing much more. Thus, stakeholders need to re-visit this
problem and arrive at a better solution than has been offered by DOE, who is presently off in
CO2 sequestration and Hydrogen dreamland (see Postscript).
One invention technology that may solve the problem of lack of a cost-effective and
market-leader gasification technology is PCPG (Pulverized Coal Pressurized Gasifier). It has
rapidly evolved into a series of cutting edge inventions, the latest of which involved moving
the pulverized fuel burners and uniform fuel distribution mechanisms to the top of the gasifier
with burners facing down. In this arrangement, the pulverized coal fuel mix is now elevated by
pressurized screw conveyors to feed the fuel distribution space. This is advantageous when
using PCPG burners in low-cost air-blown gasifiers or with the lower gas volume (nitrogen
removed from the air) O2-blown technology for petrochemical purposes, but still using the same
low temperature PCPG process. The basic pending patent (the recent improvements are a separate
pending patent) is now published by the U.S. Patent Office.
Why is PCPG a critical need? As a leading power executive said at a national gasification
conference two years ago, to paraphrase, if we cant do any better on pressurized gasification
front-ends, we should stop having these meetings The high-temperature gasification spoken of
lacks in reliability and efficiency. Its expensive to build, and has higher carbon loses than
desired. Therefore, pressurized gasification and/or IGCC power systems are not being specified
by the utility industry, let alone gasification for low-cost petrochemical feeds. In short,
high temperature gasifying processes are continually failing to achieve a market-leader
pressurized gasification technology. Thats why only a handful of such power plants have been
built in 20 years. If it were a successful technology, as some imply, there would be dozens of
them installed by now. Indeed, coal steam technology appears to be the main consideration by
power executives now. Its clearly time to look elsewhere for success.
PCPG takes low-temperature gasification principles so successful in the early 1900s and brings
them into the modern age to meet IGCC and petrochemical needs of low-cost and reliability (see
PCPG reliability analysis at www.pcpg.us ). Its the needed better idea to accomplish
national objectives with coal gasification; its boiling down to who is right, high-temperature
or low-temperature gasification process advocates. The 1900s gasification technology was
low-temperature, highly reliable and successful, reaching hot gas efficiencies of 94% as a
counter-current flow technology. Counter-current is not the most efficient process flow
arrangement as it forces the hot gas up though the fresh coal just added to plague the final
gas with tars and excessive ash, making hot gas filtering difficult if not impossible with the
fine filtration demanded by IGCC systems. Co-current flow PCPG can do better by making a dry
tar-free gas while solving the vexing pressurized gasification fuel feed, burner, and process
design problems with its 2-stage gasification principles. In fact, its well known that
co-current processes (all material flow is in the same direction) are the best way to make the
dry and filterable hot gas needed by IGCC processes.
Present U.S. energy policy is self-defeating. It relies too much on natural gas we dont have
and on coal for which there is no ready clean-coal gasification technology. According to EIA
(Energy Information Administration) data results, using only our own oil and gas, the U.S. has
only 3 years in oil reserves and 8 for natural gas) resulting in high oil imports and rapidly
evolving LNG importing infrastructure. Yet 52% of our electricity is from coal. Fed Chairman
Greenspan recently made it clear by saying importing large LNG quantities are necessary, and we
must solve coal and nuclear energy problems and increase their use if we are to maintain our
present lifestyle. Its critical to explore the low-temperature gasification process region
were PCPG should excel.
Globally, coal for power is only 25% efficient according to the World Coal Institute. PCPG
gasification systems should enable IGCC systems to easily reach 50% efficiency and
simultaneously solve coals pollution problems. Thus, breakthroughs in pressurized coal
gasification are not only needed to spur investment in coal, but to solve its global
cleanliness problem represented by the intolerably low 25% average global power plant
efficiency. Also, the same front-ends that will feed power plants today will be our lifesavers
tomorrow by feeding petrochemical plants hydrocarbon gases for all the products we rely on from
such plants, including liquid fuels.
Finally, its inevitable surface transportation is going to be fueled in part with electricity
through night-charging hybrid-drive battery packs in vehicles. This could dramatically increase
electricity needs and, ultimately, coal use. The auto industry is quickly gearing up to mass
produce hybrid-drive vehicles with battery packs. Saturn will sell its first hybrid vehicle in
2005 and Toyota and Honda have two on sale now with more coming. While imported hybrids dont
feature night-charging yet, such features are inevitable to maximally save on oil use. For
example, according to EPRI studies, night-charging a 20 mile battery pack can reduce oil
consumption 65% and smog pollutants 37% in a mid-sized SUV. Larger battery packs result in even
more dramatic oil savings. While the auto industry appears ready with the battery/electric
motor hybrid-drive technology they need, the power industry is not ready with the practical
IGCC clean-coal technology needed to produce low cost electricity let alone extra electricity
for transportation.
The above amply illustrates the great need for a cost-effective market-leader pressurized coal
gasification technology. Can we wait on DOE to get it together and achieve this technology? I
say just do it.
Postscript:
Is it true that climate change is caused by the accumulation of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2)?
The short answer is no. But what facts can help us understand the causal relationships
involved?
In Bill Brysons new book A Short History of Nearly Everything, he states that 20,000 times
more CO2 is tied up in rocks, principally limestone, than in the atmosphere. Limestone is from
shell-type marine life fed by ocean phytoplankton absorbing CO2 (its estimated oceans absorb
about 50% of all CO2) which then die and sink to the bottom of the ocean to be thrust up later,
a cycle estimated at * million years. The atmosphere is now estimated to be a 360 or so parts
per million CO2 (from previous 280). He states 30 times more CO2 is on average emitted every
year by natural causes than burning fuels (this is a key fact to keep in mind). Also, he noted
that molecule for molecule, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are 10,000 times more effective in
causing greenhouse effects than CO2, one pound of CFCs can consume several thousand pounds of
ozone in the stratosphere and that the ozone layer is only about 1/8 inch thick. He wrote U.S.
companies are still making CFCs, 60 million pounds per year, but outside the U.S. since it is
illegal to manufacture them here. Also, it was recently stated elsewhere that hydrogen readily
escapes containers (20%) and directly attacks the ozone layer.
Given the magnitude of the change in atmospheric CO2, a more likely hypothesis is that the
absorption side of CO2 is slowing down, thus causing increased CO2 accumulation in the
atmosphere. That is, atmospheric CO2 accumulation = production (1/30th is industrial + natural
causes of CO2) absorption (ocean and land plants). A likely cause for a slowdown in CO2
absorption, some researches believe, is the depletion of the ozone layer by CFCs and hydrogen
which increases the amount of ultra-violet light reaching the surface with negative effects on
the plankton. This, and 30 times more CO2 naturally created, invalidates the industrial CO2
hypothesis for increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Indeed, its highly likely that even if
industrial CO2 production totally ceased, the greatly larger natural releases of CO2 coupled
with ozone destroying CFCs and hydrogen would cause atmospheric CO2 increases to continue.
Therefore, the correlation (but not cause and effect) of CO2 increase with fossil fuel use
occurs because both hydrogen (for petrochemical uses) and CFC production effectively mimic
increased fossil fuel use.
Thus, building a new infrastructure for a sustainable energy future requires investment in
energy efficiency and environmental friendliness (both the central focus of PCPG technology for
coal), conservation, and economical alternative energy sources. However, all evidence indicates
present DOE energy policy with its emphasis on the hydrogen economy will very likely have the
opposite environmental effect than as asserted. Based on whats known now, its prudent to stop
implementing the hydrogen economy idea, create a world-wide ban on CFCs and figure out ways to
restore former stratospheric ozone levels.
Copyright 2003 CyberTech, Inc.
---sbs---
*
European NGOs support separation of Euratom and EU treaties
Cordis News (EU)
European NGOs support separation of Euratom and EU treaties
[Date: 2003-07-14]
The Presidium of the European Convention has decided to drop its initial proposal to include
the Euratom treaty in the future EU constitution.
The decision to introduce an annex, stipulating a legal separation between the EU and Euratom,
was made on 10 July. European NGOs have responded positively, saying that the decision
underlines the growing opposition to the promotion of nuclear energy via the Euratom treaty.
'This is a recognition that the Euratom treaty is so outdated and undemocratic that it has no
place in a modern constitution,' said Mark Johnston of Friends of the Earth Europe.
Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth believe that leaving the Euratom treaty out of the
constitution will enable Member States to opt out of Euratom without having to leave the EU
altogether.
Environmentalists are hoping that politicians will consider a complete abolition of Euratom at
the forthcoming intergovernmental conference (IGC) 'Retaining nuclear promotion in the primary
law risks greater unpopularity of the EU amongst its citizens,' said Bridget Woodman of
Greenpeace European Unit.
A total budget of 1.23 billion euro has been allocated for Euratom activities under the Sixth
Framework Programme, of which around 60 per cent will be used to fund research into
thermonuclear fusion.
For further information, please consult the following web address:
ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/fp6/docs/euratom_challenge_21stcentury.pdf
Category: Miscellaneous Data Source Provider: Greenpeace Document Reference: Based on information from Greenpeace Programme or Service Acronym: FRAMEWORK 6C; FP6-EURATOM Subject Index : Environmental Protection; Nuclear Fission; Nuclear Fusion
RCN: 20571
CORDIS RTD-NEWS/ European Communities, 2002.
---sbs---
*
Ukrainian reactor shuts down
AAP/The Age (Australia)
Ukrainian reactor shuts down
AAP, 14 July 2003, 10:05 PM
A malfunction forced operators to shut down one of six reactors at Europe's largest nuclear
power plant, Ukrainian officials said.
Reactor No 1 at the Zaporizhia plant was disconnected from the electric grid at after the motor
in the reactor's main circulation pump malfunctioned, the state nuclear energy company
Energoatom said. Radiation levels remain normal, it said.
The reactor is expected to be off-line until July 19. Repairs underway on reactor No 2 at the
same plant are expected to be completed in September.
The Zaporizhia plant generates some 20 per cent of Ukraine's electricity needs and 45 per cent
of the country's nuclear power.
Minor malfunctions at Ukraine's four remaining nuclear power plants occur frequently. Four of
the country's 13 reactors are undergoing repairs.
Ukraine was the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster in 1986, when a reactor at the
Chernobyl plant in the then-Soviet republic exploded. Chernobyl was closed for good in 2000,
but disassembly work continues.
Work on a $US768 million ($A1.17 billion) project to build a new containment structure at
Chernobyl is to start next year.
2003 AP
---sbs---
*
Iranian, Italian FMs discuss Tehran's peaceful nuclear programs
IRNA (Iran)
Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), July 14, 2003 07:16:12 PDT
Iranian, Italian FMs discuss Tehran's peaceful nuclear programs
Rome, July 14, IRNA -- Italian Foreign Minister Franco Fratini on Monday telephoned his Iranian
counterpart Kamal Kharrazi to discuss Tehran's peaceful nuclear programs as well as taking up
EU dialogue with the Islamic Republic from where it was left off.
According to the Italian Foreign Ministry, Fratini called for Iranian cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency which demands that Tehran sign an additional protocol to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Kharrazi told the Italian foreign minister, whose country took over as the new rotatory head of
the European Union this month, that 'constructive dialogue between the European Union and Iran
in order to fight terrorist groups and cooperate on economy and trade must continue'.
On Sunday, the Iranian foreign minister discussed Tehran's nuclear energy program with his
German counterpart Joschka Fischer on the phone.
Kharrazi criticized Fischer's 'unhelpful' statements recently, when he had reportedly said that
his country wanted the European Union to put more pressure on Iran to halt developing nuclear
technology.
The German foreign minister said Berlin welcomes Tehran's cooperation with the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Kharrazi briefed Fischer on IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei's one-day visit to the Islamic
Republic, during which he discussed further cooperation between his office and Iran's Nuclear
Atomic Organization.
ElBaradei had said the visit was part of IAEA's efforts to persuade Iran to sign the Additional
Protocol which could allow the international atomic watchdog more intrusive inspection of the
Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.
Tehran says it would sign the protocol provided that nuclear powers lift their sanctions on
Iran and help the country acquire the know-how for peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Iran says its nuclear program is intended for producing 7,000 megawatts of electricity in the
next 20 years, when the country's oil and gas reserves become overstretched.
BH/AH/AR
2000 Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). All rights reserved
---sbs---
*
Dry storage of fuel rods won't happen at Crystal River
*
Progress Energy rethinks nuclear waste [spent fuel at Robinson, Brunswick, Harris and Crystal River]
*
Clearing the air over Wyle labs [Editorial]
*
Seoul Plays Down NK Claim
Louis Hau, St. Petersburg Times
St. Petersburg Times, July 14, 2003, p. 1E
Dry storage of fuel rods won't happen at Crystal River
By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer
Progress Energy Inc.'s willingness to consider "dry-cask" storage for spent nuclear fuel at two of its nuclear power plants in the
Carolinas doesn't extend to its nuclear reactor in Crystal River.
Environmentalists and some industry experts say dry storage is safer than traditional water-filled cooling pools. But Crystal River
reconfigured its pools two years ago to store more spent fuel in the same amount of space, which should meet the reactor's storage
needs through 2014. By contrast, Progress' plants in Hartsville, S.C., and Southport, N.C., are mulling dry storage because their
cooling pools have run out of space and can no longer be reconfigured, according to Progress spokesman Keith Poston.
Increasing the density of cooling pools is a common practice in the nuclear industry, which relies on pools for most long-term storage
of spent fuel. Due to a lack of off-site storage facilities for spent fuel, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed high-density
storage in pools that were designed to hold far smaller inventories, according to a report published this year in the Princeton
University research journal Science and Global Security.
Because of the intense thermal heat generated by spent fuel newly removed from a nuclear reactor, increased storage density heightens
the risk that the fuel could catch fire, which could lead to a catastrophic release of radiation, the report said. Given these risks and the
added concerns about terrorist attacks, the report's researchers recommended that all spent nuclear fuel be transferred from cooling
pools to dry storage within five years after being removed from a reactor.
Some of the waste in Crystal River's cooling ponds has been there for as long as 25 years.
Dry storage entails placing spent fuel rods in reinforced concrete casks, which can be dispersed and stored above ground, sometimes
in bunkers. In addition to reducing the storage density of spent fuel, dry storage involves no moving parts and so is less susceptible to
potential problems, according to David Lochbaum, nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. He
notes that cooling pools must continuously monitor water levels and circulate the water in the pools to prevent evaporation.
Because dry casks are more dispersed, a terrorist attack would cause less damage than an attack on a cooling pool, says Jim Warren,
executive director of the Durham, N.C., environmental group N.C. Warn. "It's a matter of scale," Warren says.
Progress' possible shift to dry storage at some of its nuclear plants has nothing to do with safety concerns but is motivated by simple
economics, Progress' Poston said.
Once cooling pools can no longer be reconfigured to increase storage capacity, building dry storage makes sense economically
because it's simpler and less expensive to build than additional pools, Poston said.
"Dry storage and wet storage are equally safe," he said. "In fact pool storage is the industry standard."
- Louis Hau can be reached at hau@sptimes.com or 813 226-3404
Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
----sbs---
Louis Hau, St. Petersburg Times (FL)
St. Petersburg Times, July 14, 2003, p. 1E
Progress Energy rethinks nuclear waste
By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer St. Petersburg Times published July 14, 2003
HARTSVILLE, S.C. - This small town is a long way from the Nevada desert.
But delays in the opening of a national nuclear waste repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain
could affect Hartsville, home to 7,800 residents, Coker College, the corporate headquarters of
global packaging company Sonoco Products Co. and Progress Energy Inc.'s H.B. Robinson nuclear
power plant.
The Robinson plant could soon start keeping its highly radioactive waste instead of shipping it
away. While that might prompt concern in other places, it doesn't appear to generate much fuss
among the citizens of Hartsville, Mayor Bill Gaskins says.
"We have a very good working relationship," Gaskins says of Progress Energy as he leans back in
a black swivel chair at his storefront real estate and small loan business on N Fifth Street.
"They just do a good job of maintaining their facilities, and they have an excellent safety
record."
Under the latest version of a much-revised timetable, the nation's commercial nuclear power
plants aren't scheduled to start shipping high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain until at
least 2010. Instead, they store spent nuclear fuel - which is many times more lethal than
low-level waste, such as irradiated reactor pipes and filters - on the same grounds as their
generating units.
The lone exception has been Progress Energy.
Progress does use on-site storage at its Crystal River nuclear plant in the Tampa Bay area,
which the utility inherited when it acquired Florida Power Corp. of St. Petersburg. But for the
past 14 years, it has been loading sealed containers of spent nuclear fuel from two of its
nuclear pl ants in the Carolinas on rail cars. The fuel is then transported from the Robinson
plant in Hartsville and from the company's Brunswick nuclear plant in Southport, N.C., which
are short on storage space, to the company's newer Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh
for long-term storage.
Now in a surprising about-face, Progress is considering an end to its railcar shipments of
spent fuel, at least until Yucca Mountain opens. The move is attracting attention because
Progress is a major player in the nuclear power industry, and its corporate leaders are strong
advocates of the controversial energy source. Chairman and chief executive Bill Cavanaugh,
president and chief operating officer Robert McGehee and Progress Florida president Bill
Habermeyer are all former officers in the Navy's nuclear submarine program.
Progress is considering installing above-ground "dry-cask" storage facilities at the Robinson
and Brunswick nuclear plants, and the move is being applauded by environmentalists who had long
pilloried the company for its storage practices. Some industry experts think dry storage is
safer and more secure than the crowded cooling pools, a point the company disputes. Robinson
and Brunswick currently use pools for "cooling off" new waste awaiting shipment and for the
permanent storage of older waste.
Progress has received proposals from dry-cask storagemakers and expects to reach a decision on
the matter by the end of summer, according to senior vice president and chief nuclear officer
Scotty Hinant. If Progress decides to go with on-site dry storage, it would start phasing out
nuclear shipments from Robinson by the end of the year and from Brunswick by the end of 2005,
Hinant says.
Such changes appear to run counter to the future that the nuclear industry is gearing up for,
in which spent nuclear fuel will be routinely transported from across the country to Yucca
Mountain. But Progress' moves come amid continuing worries about the safety of shipping
high-level nuclear waste, concerns that have mounted since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and
the war in Iraq.
That's also translated into increasing political pressure in Progress' home state of North
Carolina. Officials in Chatham, Durham and Orange counties and the municipalities of Carrboro
and Chapel Hill, all of which are near the Harris nuclear plant, have called on the company to
stop importing waste to their area, according to Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Warn, a
Durham environmental group.
"They had planned to ship that stuff for decades and they gradually realized that the public is
very concerned about the shipments and the growing stockpile at Harris," Warren said. "It was
going to continue to be a major (public relations) problem."
U.S. Rep. David Price, a Democrat who represents Progress' home turf in the Research Triangle
area, alerted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March about a new study highlighting the
security advantages of above-ground nuclear waste storage over spent fuel pools. He wrote,
"Many constituents in my district are particularly concerned with the vulnerability of nuclear
plants and spent fuel pools in particular."
But Hinant, the Progress executive, says political pressure had nothing to do with Progress'
decision to consider different options for its nuclear waste. Rather, he insists it has more to
do with the need to prepare for the 2005 relicensing of the rail containers the utility uses to
transport spent fuel, which isn't a sure thing and requires that the company consider other
options.
Besides, Hinant says, the Harris plant, which didn't begin operating until 1989, is one of the
newest nuclear plants in the country. As a result, it would be one of the last permitted to
ship waste to Yucca Mountain, which will receive waste from nuclear plants by order of the
relative age and available storage facilities of each plant. So Hinant says it makes more sense
for Progress to preserve what storage is left at Harris for that plant's own needs.
Finally, there's the continuing uncertainty over when Yucca Mountain will open. The project is
years behind schedule. The facility was originally supposed to open in 1998. That has created
waste-storage headaches for utilities that operate nuclear power plants. The utilities have
collected and passed on to Department of Energy more than $20-billion in fees from ratepayers
to defray the costs of an eventual centralized waste site.
Nevada officials continue to fight in the courts to block the Yucca project from moving
forward. In testimony before a House subcommittee in May, an official from the General
Accounting Office expressed concerns that the energy department's efforts to correct nagging
problems in Yucca Mountain's quality-assurance program "have been less than favorable" and
could delay its application for an NRC license to build the repository.
Despite such concerns, Hinant argues that extensive studies at Yucca Mountain have demonstrated
the safety and security of the site.
"Politics is the reason why Yucca Mountain isn't open today," he says. "It's not technical
issues. The technical issues have been looked at, have been addressed, have been studied. It's
one of the most studied sites in the world."
None of this has raised much of a stir in Hartsville, where there's a high level of trust in
Progress, formerly Carolina Power & Light. The Robinson plant is one of Hartsville's largest
employers. Former CP&L employees serve as the town's chief building inspector and as
surrounding Darlington County's chief deputy sheriff, while Sonoco Products chairman Charles
Coker, whose grandfather founded Coker College, sits on Progress' board.
Still, not everyone shares in the enthusiasm for Progress Energy or its nuclear plant.
"We've got too much (nuclear waste) in South Carolina," says Steve Ford, a gardener at Kalmia
Gardens of Coker College. "We should take our fair share but we've got more than our share."
Billy Pierce, an electrical engineer with a local polyester fiber company, says his biggest
concern is that, "nationally, we're not doing anything with nuclear waste. We keep putting it
off and yet people want nuclear power."
But local officials expect that community concerns about potential changes at the Robinson
plant will remain minimal.
"The company has ingratiated itself and become a part of the community," says Hartsville city
manager Jim Pennington, a former city manager for the South Florida towns of Lauderhill and
Delray Beach. "It's been this feeling of comfort."
-Louis Hau can be reached at hau@sptimes.com or 813 226-3404
Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
---sbs---
-- July 13
Riverside Press Enterprise
Clearing the air over Wyle labs
07/13/2003
THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE
Here's the nature of the problem with fears of toxic pollution at the Wyle Laboratories complex
in Norco: The more we look into it, the less we know.
How can that be? A Press-Enterprise examination of regulatory agency documents dating to the
1960s reveals that authorities themselves seem to have had only dim awareness of what was going
on there. In 1988, regulators concluded the plant was of little environmental concern, but they
hadn't inspected it. In 1983, the state listed the plant as abandoned when in fact it was in
full operation, doing the secret testing of military weapons that has been a large part of its
work since the distant days when it had this landscape all to itself. Meanwhile, assurances
from such agencies were being offered to allay public concerns about the plant's safety.
Now there's a cloud of uncertainty over the plant. It's time to start clearing that up.
The uncertainty doesn't mean there's a big problem at the Wyle plant. But it means too much has
been taken on faith. It means we can't know what to make of all the anecdotal evidence; it
means we can't have confidence that there hasn't been a problem.
More to the point, it means that the people who live in the shadow of the plant, or who work
there or attend high school across the street or drop their kids at preschool nearby can't
escape a fear of exposure to health risks. It means the 30 or so people this paper has
identified who have been around the plant and suffer serious illness can't escape the fear that
exposure was real. And yes, it even means that Wyle can't raise a convincing defense, or a
convincing assurance that another of its plants, in the Beaumont area, won't inherit problems.
There's only one antidote here: A hard pursuit of facts.
All the public agencies now hastening to take a closer look at this problem need to make a
clear demonstration that they're taking the work seriously. The public perception is that this
flurry of activity is badly belated. It's true. Indeed, more regulatory attention has been paid
to Wyle in recent years. But viewed against an emerging history with critical blank spaces, it
looks like too little, too late.
Further: It's not enough to involve agencies that deal in toxic regulation, water quality and
air quality. This is a public health issue, too, and it needs to be treated as such.
Patterns of serious illness seem apparent to the untrained eyes of common citizens. Conditions
like these demand more than featureless responses that, say, this doesn't count as a real
cancer cluster, or it's hard to tell about these things. They deserve careful pathological
examination.
Along the same lines, common sense should dictate that the expensive homes now planned for this
soon-to-be-vacated site should be put on hold for now. If we don't know the cause of health
problems of former or current residents of the area, why would newcomers want to hazard their
own health by moving in? There are enough potential liability issues hovering here already.
It's in no one's interest to create more.
Too much has been taken on faith here for too long. It's time for diligent inquiry.
It's time, at last, for real answers.
---sbs---
---sbs--next---sbs---
BBC Monitoring (subscription required)
Japan Economic Newswire (subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
(subscription required)
Search Terms: "nuclear plant" "nuclear energy" "nuclear power"
---sbs---
11. The Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 14, 2003, Monday, BC cycle, 8:25 AM Eastern Time, State and Regional, 511 words, Report: Utilities pay less in property taxes because of changing laws, deregulation, PHILADELPHIA
The Associated Press State & Local Wire
The materials in the AP file were compiled by The Associated Press. These materials may not be
republished without the express written consent of The Associated Press.
July 14, 2003, Monday, BC cycle
8:25 AM Eastern Time
SECTION: State and Regional
LENGTH: 511 words
HEADLINE: Report: Utilities pay less in property taxes because of changing laws, deregulation
DATELINE: PHILADELPHIA
BODY: Major utility companies across the state, including PPL Corp. and Exelon, are paying
about 85 percent less in property taxes on their plants than they did in 1997, and continue to
vigorously fight for lower tax assessments, according to a published report.
The utilities have benefited from deregulation deals that were formed in the mid-1990s and
allowed the utilities to pay significantly lower property taxes, according to an analysis by
The Philadelphia Inquirer in Sunday editions.
The tax payments once provided significant revenues for state municipalities and local school
districts, but deregulation and changing utility tax laws have produced far lower intakes for
many towns and counties in Pennsylvania.
The Inquirer analysis revealed that school districts in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as
counties including Allegheny and Montgomery, have suffered major tax revenue shortfalls since
1997.
For the previous 25 years, power companies had contributed property tax payments into a state
fund, known as the Pennsylvania Utility Realty Tax Act, and the total was distributed to local
taxing authorities based on their overall tax revenues. The utilities contributed a total of
$167.5 million in 1997, allowing Philadelphia and other large cities to receive generous shares
of the fund.
But beginning in 1998, with the deregulation of the electricity market, utilities were allowed
to appraise their own plants and subsequently contributed less to the fund, which dwindled to
$60 million. And in 2000, the plants were removed from the funds and were taxed by the
municipalities in which they were located.
"I can't imagine a deal where consumers and local taxpayers got kicked in the rear worse than
this one," Pittsburgh lawyer Ira Weiss, an expert on Pennsylvania real estate taxes, told the
newspaper.
The utilities have regularly challenged their tax assessments, arguing that their plants have
decreased in value because of increased competition.
The Limerick nuclear power plant in Montgomery County, for instance, was assessed by county
officials at $912 million. But PECO Energy Co., which owns the plant, has placed the value at
$10 million. The appeal has been pending for about two years.
Dauphin County has valued the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, site of the nation's worst
nuclear accident, at $64.9 million, while the company that owns it, AmerGen, has placed its
worth at $5 million.
"We appreciate the fact that (local) officials have an obligation to the taxpayers to ensure
that corporations like ours pay their fair share," PPL spokesman George Biechler said.
"However, we are reaching out to our plant neighbors to respect the fact that PP&L must also
look at the bigger picture. We also have a responsibility to (our) 1.3 million customers across
eastern and central Pennsylvania and to our more than 150,000 shareowners across the country,"
he said. "That responsibility includes opposing local taxes that are excessive and that
unfairly single out the company."
---sbs---
17. Korea Times, July 15, 2003, Tuesday, 530 words, Puan to Be Developed into High-Tech Industrial Cluster
Copyright 2003 Hankook Ilbo
Korea Times
July 15, 2003, Tuesday
LENGTH: 530 words
HEADLINE: Puan to Be Developed into High-Tech Industrial Cluster
BODY:
Puan-gun, a rural county in North Cholla Province, will be transformed into a proton
accelerator technology industrial cluster, in return for volunteering to provide its territory
for the future radioactive waste disposal facility.
The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) has been trying to win consents from
local governments for building the spent fuel storage facility in their territory by promising
a range of financial incentives.
The central government has been seeking sites for a nuclear repository along the western and
southern coasts for nearly two decades. But candidate sites other than Puan-gun shook their
heads, faced with fierce opposition from local residents who called out, ''Not in my backyard.
The candidate sites included Yonggwang in South Cholla Province, Kunsan and Kochang in North
Cholla Province, and Uljin and Yongdok in North Kyongsang Province.
When the decision to construct the radioactive waste disposal facility in Puan-gun is finalized
at the end of this month, the county would receive 160 billion won from the central government
to be developed into a proton accelerator industrial cluster by 2023.
The proton accelerator industry has far-reaching economic effects of over 1 trillion won
annually, as proton accelerator technology can be used in all high-tech industries, including
those of nanotechnology, biotechnology, aerospace and information, according to the Korea
Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI).
The KAERI predicts that when the proton accelerator technology industry gets on track, it will
create 4,200 jobs, and attract related industries and research institutes in the adjacent
areas. The prospective site that would be developed into the proton accelerator industrial
cluster would see its population increase by 20,000, it added.
The institute also said that the industry would generate a total of $913 million worth of
economic effects, including $52 million in import replacement effect and export revenues of $10
million.
The MOCIE said it plans to accept further requests from the Puan county government such as
constructing a techno park, residential complexes, and tourist and leisure complexes, and
relocating the Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power headquarters to the region.
The deadline for applications to be considered as sites for the projected facility is July 15,
but with no other local governments showing interest, it is highly likely that Puan county will
be selected. Other governments have been faced with strong opposition from their residents who
are concerned over safety of the radioactive waste disposal facility.
The Ministry of Science and Technology forecast that temporary spent radioactive fuel rod
storages at nuclear power plants will gradually reach their limits beginning in 2008, while
low-level radioactive wastes will pose no problem until 2014.
Presently 18 nuclear-powered electricity generation plants are operating in operation,
generating a combined amount of 15.71 million kilowatt of electricity, accounting for over 40
percent of the nations total required electricity. Six more nuke-powered generation plants are
under construction.
---sbs---
18. BBC Monitoring International Reports, July 14, 2003, 237 words, RUSSIAN EXPERT SURE NKOREA CANNOT PRODUCE LARGE QUANTITIES OF PLUTONIUM
Copyright 2003 Financial Times Information
All rights reserved
Global News Wire - Asia Africa Intelligence Wire
Copyright 2003 BBC Monitoring/BBC
BBC Monitoring International Reports
July 14, 2003
LENGTH: 237 words
HEADLINE: RUSSIAN EXPERT SURE NKOREA CANNOT PRODUCE LARGE QUANTITIES OF PLUTONIUM
Moscow, 14 July: North Korea can produce plutonium from available 8,000 irradiated nuclear rods
"only experimentally and in small quantities". This opinion was expressed on Monday (14 July)
in an interview with TASS by vice-president of the Russian research centre Kurchatov Institute
Nikolay Ponamarev-Stepnoy, commenting on information from an American spy satellite (circulated
by the press of various countries) on alleged discharges of krypton-85 gas in the area of the
Korean Peninsula. "This gas could get into the atmosphere from Russian Far Eastern regions,
conducting work with worked-out rods of nuclear power plants," the academician claimed.
According to the vice-president, laboratories, available to North Korean nuclear physicists,
can only hold experiments with radiated rods. "Industrial production of plutonium to
manufacture nuclear charges is virtually impossible under such conditions," he noted.
The Russian researcher claimed that "it is now impossible to estimate real volumes of work on
plutonium production in North Korea, since North Korea withdrew from the Nonproliferation
Treaty and does not permit IAEA inspectors to work at its nuclear facilities".
Ponamarev-Stepnoy said the Kurchatov Institute "has had no scientific contacts with North
Korean physicists for over a decade".
Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1327 gmt 14 Jul 03
) BBC Monitoring
---sbs---
19. Central News Agency - Taiwan, July 14, 2003, Monday, 159 words, REFERENDUM ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY A POSSIBLE OPTION: DPP, By Deborah Kuo, Taipei, July 14
Copyright 2003 Central News Agency
Central News Agency - Taiwan
July 14, 2003, Monday
LENGTH: 159 words
HEADLINE: REFERENDUM ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY A POSSIBLE OPTION: DPP
BYLINE: By Deborah Kuo
DATELINE: Taipei, July 14
BODY: Holding a referendum to decide several public affairs issues in tandem with the next
presidential election set for March 20, 2004, is a possible option, a Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP) official said Monday.
Chang Chun-hsiung, secretary-general of the ruling DPP, noted that President Chen Shui-bian,
who concurrently serves as DPP chairman, has on many public occasions said the administration
will push for a referendum to be held on the election day or the day before to decide three
public affairs issues.
The three public affairs issues are reform of the Legislature, Taiwan's bid to enter the World
Health Organization, and the fate of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.
Quoting a recent public opinion poll conducted by the DPP Poll Center, Chang said nearly 60
percent of the Taiwan people favor a referendum being held on the day of the presidential
election to save costs.
---sbs---
20. Central News Agency - Taiwan, July 14, 2003, Monday, 360 words, PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO PLEBISCITE WILL NOT BE STRIPPED: PRESIDENT, By Maubo Chang, Taipei, July 14
Copyright 2003 Central News Agency
Central News Agency - Taiwan
July 14, 2003, Monday
LENGTH: 360 words
HEADLINE: PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO PLEBISCITE WILL NOT BE STRIPPED: PRESIDENT
BYLINE: By Maubo Chang
DATELINE: Taipei, July 14
BODY: The people's right to plebiscite should not by stripped because of the absence of a law
governing its exercise, President Chen Shui-bian was quoted as saying Monday.
Chen, who threw a dinner party for a group of lawmakers of the ruling Democratic Progressive
Party (DPP) , of which he is concurrently chairman, was cited by DPP lawmaker Chen Chi-mai as
blaming the opposition for pulling the plug on the attempt to legislate a plebiscite bill even
though the Constitution provides for plebiscite as a basic civil right.
Noting that his administration will not deny the people their constitutional right to
plebiscite simply because of the lack of legislation to govern its exercise, Chen claimed that
"opinion polls show" that more than 57 percent of the public support a plebiscite held in
conjunction with the 2004 presidential election.
Chen was quoted as urging DPP lawmakers to support his idea of putting to plebiscite the
country's entry to the World Health Organization, reform of the Legislative Yuan and whether
the fourth nuclear power plant should be scrapped.
DPP lawmaker Chiu Chui-chen quoted the president as saying at the dinner party that DPP should
establish a national plebiscite promotion committee to woo public support for a plebiscite,
which he said is even more important than winning the next presidential election.
Meanwhile, Lin Chia-lung, a spokesman for the Executive Yuan, said that if a plebiscite law
cannot be put in place before October, then holding the plebiscite and the presidential
election simultaneously will be the only choice.
The Executive Yuan is studying the possible timing of a plebiscite before the March 20, 2004
presidential election, but the chances of a plebiscite before next March 20 are slim unless a
plebiscite law can be readied by October.
According to the Executive Yuan's estimate, Lin said, it will take the government between
NT$300 million and NT$500 million (US$8.8 million and US$14.67 million) to arrange a
plebiscite.
---sbs---
21. Central News Agency - Taiwan, July 14, 2003, Monday, 254 words, By Maubo Chang
Copyright 2003 Central News Agency
Central News Agency - Taiwan
July 14, 2003, Monday
LENGTH: 254 words
BYLINE: By Maubo Chang
BODY: PD5K7602.CEP REFERENDUM
KMT WARNS GOVERNMENT NOT TO CONDUCT PLEBISCITE WITHOUT
LEGISLATION
Taipei, July 14 (CNA) Lawmakers of the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) warned the ruling Democratic
Progressive Party (DPP) administration Monday not to attempt to conduct any kind of plebiscite
before the relevant legislation is passed, amid reports that President Chen Shui-bian will hold
a referendum on three topics in conjunction with 2004 Presidential election.
Legislator Liu Cheng-hung, secretary-general of the KMT legislative caucus, claimed that the
president is trying to plant another time-bomb by floating the idea of organizing a plebiscite
on the issues of Legislative Yuan reform, entry to the World Health Organization, and whether
the fourth nuclear power plant should be scrapped.
"As a lawyer-turned-president, Chen should know the principle of governance by law, " Liu said,
adding that all government policy should based on law.
Liu said the KMT will continue to press for the enactment of a plebiscite law and is ready to
force a vote at the legislature in November if the ruling party and the opposition parties
cannot work out a version acceptable to both sides after four months of negotiations.
Meanwhile, ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Ching-chun said his party
will make the legislation of a plebiscite law the top priority of the next legislative session.
---sbs---
22. Daily Record, July 14, 2003, Monday, BUSINESS; Pg. 34, 396 words, BUSINESS: HI-TECH PARK IS FULL OF LIFE, John Mceachran
Copyright 2003 Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd.
Daily Record
July 14, 2003, Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 34
LENGTH: 396 words
HEADLINE: BUSINESS: HI-TECH PARK IS FULL OF LIFE
BYLINE: John Mceachran
A VIBRANT business park has received another major boost thanks to the leading international
consultants Sinclair Knight Merz.
The firm have moved onto the Scottish Enterprise Technology Park in East Kilbride.
The company, which currently has 70staff at East Kilbride, has just taken a 10 -year lease on
10,550 square feet at Prism House, representing half of the total accommodation in the building
developed by Neilstra Ltd. A further 5000 square feet of the single-storey space was earlier
let to Reliance Monitoring Services, leaving just 5000 square feet left. Sinclair Knight Merz
will use their new Scottish headquarters to spearhead their work in the power sector ranging
from the operation and maintenance of wind farms to nuclear power station decommissioning.
The company, whose head office is in Australia, was also involved in preparing the
recently-released report on rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports.
Julie Campbell, director of Colliers CRE, who are joint agents for Neilstra, said the deal was
another boost for the park.
She said: "Prism House was designed to provide high-quality open-plan space for hi-tech users
such as Sinclair Knight Merz on a prestigious technology campus with university links.
"The park provides a range of quality office and workshop space within a security-controlled,
landscaped environment.
There is an excellent telecom infrastructure with a soon-to-be-installed fibre optic link as
well as on-site conference and catering facilities."
KENNY GRIFFITH, business development manager at Sinclair Knight Merz, said:
"We moved into temporary premises in East Kilbride last autumn. Our first task was to relocate
into a purpose-built office.
"Prism House is ideal for us.
It provides us with first-class accommodation and we are surrounded by like -minded companies.
"We have around 70 staff at East Kilbride, but that figure will increase. The company also have
offices in Edinburgh, Thurso, Newtown, Swindon, Manchester and London."
Julie Campbell added : "Increased demand in recent months means that only limited accommodation
is available at the technology park.
"This ranges from 180 square feet to 20,000 square feet.
These are available to let on a variety of terms from flexible leases on an all-inclusive
occupancy cost basis to longer term FRI leases."
---sbs---
Korea Times
By Kim Ki-tae,
Staff Reporter -- kt-kim@koreatimes.co.kr
Copyright Hankooki.com
07-14-2003 18:09
24. Korea Times, July 15, 2003, Tuesday, 373 words, Seoul Plays Down NK Claim
Copyright 2003 Hankook Ilbo
Korea Times
July 15, 2003, Tuesday
LENGTH: 373 words
HEADLINE: Seoul Plays Down NK Claim
BODY:
Seoul diplomats and scientists are skeptical of a report that North Korea has completed
reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel rods into weapons-grade plutonium, a main component for
atomic bombs.
Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kown yesterday said there is not sufficient scientific evidence to
prove the North has either started reprocessing the rods or completed the work.
''South Korea and the United States are trying to secure related data though various cannels,
but the evidence has not shown up yet, Yoon said during an interview with a local radio
program.
The minister said he was aware of a report that the North had formally notified Washington of
its completion of reprocessing spent reactor fuel rods.
It was revealed Sunday that the North's ambassador to the United Nations, Park Gil-yon, met
Jack Pritchard, the U.S. special envoy on the North, in New York on July 8 and claimed his
communist country has finished reprocessing some 8,000 spent fuel rods in storage.
Professor Kang Chang-sun from Seoul National University expressed a negative view over the
Norths claim. ''It is very suspicious that the North has completed the reprocessing in such a
limited time, he said.
The nuclear physics professor admitted the North may have reprocessed a portion of the rods but
''not all 8,000 units.
According to the news report, the U.S. detected krypton-85 gas in the vicinity of the Yongbyon
nuclear plant, which suggests reprocessing of the material is underway at the facility.
''Even if the North defies all probability and has processed all the rods, the amount of
plutonium produced would be no more than 24 kilograms, barely enough to make four bombs
considering their technology level, Kang said.
News reports state the North may have processed enough plutonium to manufacture four to six
nuclear bombs.
However, Kang said his estimate is based only on given data and is open to change.
The reprocessing has been considered a ''red line that the North should not cross in the
standoff over its nuclear weapons program.
Washington supports a peaceful resolution of the situation but has not ruled out the use of
force, including sanctions. The North says sanctions would trigger a war.
---sbs---
25. The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario), July 14, 2003 Monday Final Edition, BUSINESS; Pg. D8, 447 words, Ontario, Quebec energy plans expected to boost wind power, CALGARY
Copyright 2003 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario)
July 14, 2003 Monday Final Edition
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D8
LENGTH: 447 words
HEADLINE: Ontario, Quebec energy plans expected to boost wind power
SOURCE: Canadian Press
DATELINE: CALGARY
BODY: With Canada's largest wind farm newly completed on the Alberta Prairie and strong
commitments for more renewable power to be generated in Ontario and Quebec, wind energy appears
poised for large-scale expansion.
Nestled in the wind corridor that blows out of the Crowsnest Pass in southern Alberta, the
McBride Lake wind farm sports 114 new turbines that can produce up to 75 megawatts of
electricity. One megawatt is enough power for about 5,000 homes.
Once the permits and investment dollars are in place, wind farms can pop up like weeds --
McBride took only 200 days to assemble.
Vision Quest Windelectric Inc., a wholly owned arm of independent power giant TransAlta,
celebrated the completion of McBride with plans to build an even larger project nearby. Called
Summerview, the site will have 75 turbines, larger windmills and produce up to 120 megawatts if
the required permits are granted.
Glen Estill, the Ontario-based president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, says
southwestern Alberta has the "absolute perfect combination" of outstanding winds, a deregulated
industry, high provincial power prices and a developing consumer market for premium "green"
electricity.
"I certainly think the industry is poised for takeoff," he says. "The neat thing about Canada
is we have an awful lot of wind. We're the second-largest land mass with the longest coastline
and there are some good winds in every province of the country."
Currently, wind power makes up about 311 megawatts countrywide. When comparing that with an
installed electricity capacity of about 110,000 megawatts in Canada, it's clear how small a
role wind generation now plays.
But the wind energy association has an ambitious target of 10,000 megawatts installed by 2010
-- and Ontario and Quebec are poised to lead the way.
In May, Hydro-Quebec issued a call for tenders to build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm between 2006
and 2012.
In Ontario, where aging nuclear power facilities, dirty coal-fired plants and electricity
brownouts have plagued the ruling Tories, a new strategy was unveiled this month to
dramatically increase renewable energy.
Backbencher Steve Gilchrist, Ontario's commissioner of alternative energy, says the plan will
create at least 3,000 megawatts of clean power by 2014. The province believes the bulk of that
will come from hydro and wind sources.
Gilchrist says wind power is cheaper than natural gas-fired electricity, and adds that the
economics of building expensive cogeneration (electricity and steam) natural gas-fired power
plants has changed as gas prices are mired in "absolute uncertainty" and expected to stay high
for years to come.
GRAPHIC: Photo: CANADIAN PRESS; A cow grazes near a wind turbine at McBride Lake near Fort
Macleod, Alta. McBride Lake windfarm boasts 114 turbines which produce 75 megawatts of
electricity.
---sbs---
26. Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), July 14, 2003 Monday Final Edition, BUSINESS; Pg. D09, 747 words, Wind turbines stirring more interest; Air power gaining ground, James Stevenson, CALGARY
Copyright 2003 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada)
July 14, 2003 Monday Final Edition
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. D09
LENGTH: 747 words
HEADLINE: Wind turbines stirring more interest; Air power gaining ground
SOURCE: The Canadian Press
BYLINE: James Stevenson
DATELINE: CALGARY
BODY: With Canada's largest wind farm newly completed on the Alberta Prairie and strong
commitments for more renewable power to be generated in Ontario and Quebec, wind energy appears
poised for large-scale expansion.
Nestled in the wind corridor that blows out of the Crowsnest Pass in southern Alberta, the
McBride Lake wind farm sports 114 new turbines that can produce up to 75 megawatts of
electricity. One megawatt is enough power for about 5,000 homes.
Once the permits and investment dollars are in place, wind farms can pop up like weeds. McBride
took only 200 days to assemble.
Vision Quest Windelectric Inc., a wholly owned arm of independent power giant TransAlta,
celebrated the completion of McBride by moving on to its larger project nearby, called
Summerview.
Summerview will have 75 turbines, but following an industry trend they will be significantly
larger windmills and produce up to 120 megawatts if the permits are granted.
Glen Estill, the Ontario-based president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said
southwestern Alberta has the "absolute perfect combination" of outstanding winds, a deregulated
industry, high provincial power prices and a developing consumer market for premium "green"
electricity.
"I certainly think the industry is poised for takeoff," said Estill.
"The neat thing about Canada is we have an awful lot of wind. We're the second-largest land
mass with the longest coastline and there are some good winds in every province of the
country," he said.
"And that, at end of day, is a vital ingredient," said Estill, who is also president of tiny
wind development company Sky Generation Inc.
Another vital ingredient is the political will for wind power, which currently makes up about
311 megawatts countrywide. Compare that with a total installed electricity capacity of about
110,000 megawatts in Canada and it's clear how small a role wind generation now plays.
But the wind energy association aims to have 10,000 megawatts installed by 2010. It says
massive wind energy expansion in Germany over the past eight years proves that goal is entirely
attainable. Ontario and Quebec are poised to lead the way.
In May, Hydro-Quebec issued a call for tenders to build a 1,000-megawatt wind farm between 2006
and 2012. It will dwarf the existing 102-megawatt facilities now in place in the Gaspe.
"We want to make it 10 times bigger," said spokesman Marc-Brian Chamberland.
In Ontario, where old nuclear power facilities, dirty coal-fired plants and electricity
brownouts have plagued the ruling Tories in recent years, a new strategy was unveiled this
month to dramatically increase renewable energy. Backbencher Steve Gilchrist, Ontario's
commissioner of alternative energy, said the plan will create at least 3,000 megawatts of clean
power by 2014. The province believes the bulk of that will come from hydro and wind sources.
Gilchrist said wind power is cheaper than natural gas-fired electricity and he expects
windmills to begin popping up along the shores of the Great Lakes very soon. Toronto's Lake
Ontario waterfront already sports a giant municipally owned windmill on the grounds of the
Canadian National Exhibition.
"By next spring, you'll see dozens," he said.
"Three years from now, we'll start talking in the hundreds."
Gilchrist said the economics of building expensive co-generation (electricity and steam)
natural gas-fired power plants has changed as gas prices are mired in "absolute uncertainty"
and expected to stay high for years to come.
Meanwhile, wind power costs have come down with technological advances. After the upfront
construction costs, the price per kilowatt remains very low since no fuel is required.
"If you want to make your multi-hundred-million investment on the basis of pure speculation,
idle musings and crystal balls, you may still choose natural gas," Gilchrist said.
Mike Crawley, president of Toronto-based Aim Powergen, said the big driver for wind power
expansion will be purchase agreements with the province.
"The biggest question has always been: Who's going to buy your power? Who's going to buy the
output from the plant?"
Crawley said power purchase deals for wind farms need to be at least 15 years long to cover
nearly the entire term of the debt, so investors will feel comfortable enough to get into the
new sector.
"It's a great way to get private-sector financing for new electricity supply which is for the
greater good."
GRAPHIC: Photo: Adrian Wyld, the Canadian Press; A wind turbine at McBride, Alta., Canada's
largest wind farm.
---sbs---
34. The Independent (London), July 14, 2003, Monday, BUSINESS; Pg. 17, 587 words, GOVERNMENT SIGNALS POUNDS 6BN WINDFARM EXPANSION, MICHAEL HARRISON BUSINESS EDITOR
Copyright 2003 Newspaper Publishing PLC
The Independent (London)
July 14, 2003, Monday
SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. 17
LENGTH: 587 words
HEADLINE: GOVERNMENT SIGNALS POUNDS 6BN WINDFARM EXPANSION
BYLINE: MICHAEL HARRISON BUSINESS EDITOR
HIGHLIGHT: Britain's first offshore wind farm off the Northumberland coast, near Blyth. The
Government wants a further 6,000 megawatts of capacity
A HUGE expansion of the Government's renewable energy programme involving the construction of
enough offshore wind farms to power 15 per cent of British homes will be announced today.
Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of