Nuclear Energy For Peace

Introductory Statement to the Board of Governors

2009-03-02T04:39:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org
by IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBarade

Our agenda for this meeting includes topics related to nuclear safety, technology and verification.

Nuclear Safety and Security

As you can see from the draft Nuclear Safety Review for the Year 2008, we are pleased to report that nuclear safety performance worldwide is steadily improving. But the risk of nuclear accidents or malicious acts can never be eliminated and there can be no room for complacency. Vigilance and continuous improvement are key, both at existing nuclear facilities and at new facilities being planned in a growing number of countries. The drive to introduce, or expand the use of, nuclear power always needs to be matched by a strong commitment to safety and security as indispensable enablers of nuclear technology.

While substantial progress has been made in strengthening nuclear safety and security worldwide, much work remains to be done. For our part, I believe the Agency must focus on improving the Incident and Emergency Centre to enhance our capabilities to respond to a large accident, as well as to provide more effective support for capacity

building in Member States, especially for new entrants to nuclear power.

Nuclear Applications

You have before you the Nuclear Technology Review 2009. It highlights ways in which nuclear techniques can make real and lasting contributions to development.

In therapeutic nuclear medicine, progress continues to be made in developing radiopharmaceuticals which kill cancer cells without damaging healthy tissue. Nuclear imaging is playing a growing role in the development of new drugs. Radiotracer tools are being used to measure the impact of climate change on marine biodiversity, while isotope techniques are helping to improve freshwater management.

Molybdenum-99
There have been disruptions over the past year in the supplies of a vital medical isotope, molybdenum-99, needed for diagnostic imaging, which had a negative impact on patient services throughout the world. There is an urgent need for enhanced international cooperation to ensure that adequate supplies of this isotope are available for all.

Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy
The Agency´s Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT), now in its fourth year of operation, continues to build partnerships to help combat cancer more effectively in the developing world. We are grateful for continued Member State support for our initiatives in the cancer area. I am pleased to announce that an agreement between the IAEA and the World Health Organization for a new Joint Programme on Cancer Control will be signed shortly.

Food Security
I reported to the Board in March 2008 that the FAO had served notice of its intention to terminate the FAO/IAEA Joint Division. There have been extensive consultations by the Secretariat with the FAO Secretariat and with the Member States of both organizations, and I trust that the work undertaken by the Joint Division - an excellent early example of "Delivering as One" within the UN System - will be recognized as indispensable by our counterparts in Rome and will continue.

Nuclear Power

2008 was a somewhat paradoxical year for Nuclear power. It was the first year since 1955 in which not a single new power reactor came on line, but it also saw construction start on no fewer than ten new reactors, the highest number since 1985, the year before the Chernobyl accident.

As the Nuclear Technology Review shows, expectations for the use of nuclear power continue to rise. Growth targets for nuclear power were raised in China and the Russian Federation. The ending of restrictions on India´s nuclear trade should allow an acceleration of its planned expansion of nuclear power. Asia remains the focus of growth in nuclear power: of the ten construction starts in 2008, eight were in this region.

There were important developments elsewhere as well. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has now received combined licence applications for 26 new reactors, while the Department of Energy submitted a formal application to build and operate the long-planned high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The number of Agency technical cooperation projects on energy planning accelerated this year from 29 to 41 and there were also significant increases in the number of projects on uranium exploration and mining and on introducing nuclear power. Increased interest in Agency assistance from so-called "newcomer" countries is substantial and we have a special responsibility to help them ensure that their nuclear programmes are well designed, well run, safe and secure. In December, we held a successful workshop on methods for newcomers to evaluate their progress in nuclear infrastructure development against the milestones that the Agency published in 2007.

In April, China will host an International Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century, organized by the Agency with the support of the OECD/NEA. The conference will provide an opportunity to review the status and prospects of nuclear power, including the evolution of technology. It will also offer a forum for many countries considering the potential benefits of adding nuclear power to their energy mix to further assess its viability.

Assurance of Supply
You will recall that, for a number of years, I have been advocating the establishment of multinational mechanisms to assure access for all countries to nuclear fuel and reactor technology, as envisaged in the Statute. In September 2004, I asked an international expert group on multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle to consider ways in which the IAEA could facilitate guaranteeing the supply of nuclear fuel. One of the key recommendations of this expert group in February 2005 was to consider the possibility of the Agency becoming the administrator of a fuel bank. The Secretariat subsequently received several proposals concerning assurance of supply and international nuclear fuel centres, which were compiled in my report to the Board of 13 June 2007.

The report described some common themes for assurance of supply of nuclear fuel services and suggested a possible framework for discussion, which included a reserve of low enriched uranium under IAEA control. I am pleased to note important progress on two specific proposals that aim to establish a fuel assurance mechanism with the involvement of the Agency:

First, I have circulated, at the request of the Russian Federation, document GOV/INF/2009/1, which outlines a proposal for a low enriched uranium reserve for the use of Member States that Russia intends to present in detail, in the near future, for your consideration. It provides assured export licences and covers all long term costs. I trust that the Board will positively consider the detailed Russian proposal and give due consideration to other concrete proposals which may be forthcoming.

Second, I can report a positive initial response to the Nuclear Threat Initiative´s offer of $50 million for a low enriched uranium reserve, contingent on contributions of an additional $100 million by others by the end of September 2009 and on the Board choosing to establish such a fuel reserve of last resort under its auspices. To date, with the contributions and pledges made by Norway ($5 million), the USA ($50 million), the United Arab Emirates ($10 million) and the European Union (€25 million), the international community is quite close to meeting the target of matching contributions specified by the NTI. Once the remaining funding is secured, I intend, with the Board´s agreement, to develop a possible framework for this proposal for the Board´s consideration.

I remain convinced that a multilateral approach has great potential to facilitate the expanded safe and secure use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, while reducing the risk of proliferation. The ideal scenario, in my opinion, would be to start with a nuclear fuel bank under IAEA auspices, based on the following principles: 1) that any such mechanism should be non-political, non-discriminatory and available to all States in compliance with their safeguards obligations; 2) that any release of material should be determined by non-political criteria established in advance and applied objectively and consistently; and 3) that no State should be required to give up its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty regarding any parts of the nuclear fuel cycle. The next step would be to agree that all new enrichment and reprocessing activities should be placed exclusively under multilateral control, to be followed by agreement to convert all existing facilities from national to multilateral control.

This is a bold agenda and it is clearly not going to happen overnight. But bold measures, including assurances of nuclear fuel supply and multinationalizing sensitive parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, are vital if we are to enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world while curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and eliminating them altogether.

Verification of Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Status of Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols
You have before you a draft comprehensive safeguards agreement with a modified Small Quantities Protocol for Djibouti, and draft additional protocols for Djibouti, India and the United Arab Emirates. It is encouraging that a number of comprehensive safeguards agreements have recently entered into force, bringing the number of NPT non-nuclear-weapon States without the required safeguards agreement down to 27. This is a positive trend that needs to be maintained. For those NPT States without the required comprehensive safeguards agreements in force, the Agency cannot perform any safeguards activities or draw any safeguards conclusions. I also reiterate my call on all States that have not yet done so to bring into force additional protocols without delay, as these are central to the Agency´s ability to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. To date, additional protocols are in force for 90 States.

Application of Safeguards in the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea
In the DPRK, the Agency has continued to monitor and verify the shutdown status of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. All of the fuel rods discharged from the 5 MWe reactor remain under Agency containment and surveillance.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran
You have before you my report on Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, including all declared low enriched uranium. As the Report states, contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, or its work on heavy water related projects. Nor has Iran implemented the Additional Protocol, which, as with other countries with comprehensive safeguards agreements, is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Iran has not permitted the Agency to perform the required design information verification at the IR-40 reactor currently under construction, and it has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part on the early provision of design information.

The Agency regrettably was unable to make any progress on the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran´s nuclear programme because of lack of cooperation by Iran. For the Agency to be able to make progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals in connection with all of the outstanding issues.

Unless Iran implements the transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. I again urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date and to unblock this stalemated situation. At the same time, I urge the Member States which have provided information to the Agency to agree to the Agency´s sharing of this information with Iran.

Finally, I am hopeful that the apparent fresh approach by the international community to dialogue with Iran will give new impetus to the efforts to resolve this long-standing issue in a way that provides the required assurances about the peaceful nature of Iran´s nuclear programme, while assuring Iran of its right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic
The Agency has continued its analysis of all information available to it, including from the 23 June 2008 visit to the Dair Alzour site. Further analysis of the environmental samples taken from the Dair Alzour site has been carried out, revealing additional particles of uranium which had been produced as a result of chemical processing. These particles, and those identified as a result of the previous analyses, are of a type not included in Syria´s declared inventory of nuclear material. Syria has stated that the origin of the uranium particles was the missiles used to destroy the building. In response to a letter from the Agency, Israel denied that the uranium particles originated in Israel. The Agency´s current assessment is that there is a low probability that the uranium was introduced by the use of missiles.

In a letter dated 15 February 2009, Syria reiterated that the destroyed facility, and the current facility, on the Dair Alzour site were military installations and not involved in any nuclear activities. The letter did not address many of the questions raised by the Agency. Syria´s responses to some of the Agency´s questions were only partial and included information already provided to the Agency.

The Agency expects Syria to provide additional information and supporting documentation about the past use and nature of the building at the Dair Alzour site, and information about procurement activities. Providing additional access to other locations alleged to be related to Dair Alzour would be a welcome sign of Syria´s transparency. Such access, together with the sampling of destroyed and salvaged equipment and debris, is essential for the Agency to complete its assessment. I urge Syria to take these measures at the earliest possible date. I also urge Israel and other States that may possess relevant information - including satellite imagery - to make it available to the Agency and to agree to the Agency´s sharing of such information with Syria.

Programme and Budget

Two weeks ago, you received The Agency´s Draft Programme and Budget 2010-2011. I take this opportunity to emphasize that the proposed substantial increase in the budget was not taken lightly, particularly given the current financial climate. But the risks at hand - resulting, among other things, from years of zero growth policies - mean these critical needs can no longer be postponed. They must be addressed with a sense of urgency.

For example, with nuclear terrorism being the greatest threat to international peace and security, it is imperative that we begin, now, a process of providing adequate regular budget funding for our nuclear safety and security programme - parts of which are currently as much as 95% dependent on insecure extrabudgetary resources.

Increasing demands for energy, and concerns regarding both climate change and security of energy supplies, have led to some 50 countries turning to the Agency for help as they explore the possible introduction of nuclear power programmes. The Agency must have sufficient resources to help these countries to accomplish their objectives and to ensure that any new programmes are implemented with the highest regard for safety and security. And we are, of course, mandated to effectively safeguard the steadily increasing amounts of nuclear material worldwide and respond to the clandestine spread of nuclear technology.

At the same time, calls from Member States for help in meeting basic human needs - in disease treatment, food production and securing supplies of drinking water, for example - have never been more pressing or of a higher priority.

In addition to these operational requirements, the Agency needs to undertake long postponed capital investment in infrastructure and specialized equipment. The deteriorating conditions in our laboratories, for example, threaten both our ability to deliver our programme, as well as our independent analytical capability. And we need a mechanism - a major capital fund - that will facilitate rational planning and responsible resource accumulation for these longer term requirements. Major projects vital for improving the Agency´s efficiency and effectiveness include the ISIS Re-engineering Project (IRP) to upgrade our safeguards data systems and support the new State-level safeguards system. The Agency-wide Information System for Programme Support (AIPS) will also bring greater transparency to our financial and procurement operations.

So, yes - the needs are indeed critical and quite urgent. I therefore urge you to give the 2010-2011 Programme and Budget the earnest consideration that it deserves.

Nuclear Lunch The Dangers and Unknowns of Food Irradiation

2009-02-10T18:24:00.000-08:00

source: www.mindfully.org

MICHAEL COLBY / Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture / Island Press Jul02

SOON MORE THAN 90 PERCENT of the average American's diet could be eligible for irradiation. But government approval of this technology has been based on heavy industry pressure and bad science. As a result, the consumer has been made a guinea pig, testing these foods and facing potential health risks. Meanwhile leaks from irradiation facilities pose significant risks to public health and to the environment.

The corporate purveyors and beneficiaries of an increasingly contaminated world food supply are not only destroying indigenous and sustainable forms of agriculture, but are also propagating a destructive myth that agricultural problems largely created by issues of scale and an addiction to toxic technologies can be solved by more of the same. And perhaps nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in the new push to promote and implement the nuclear food irradiation technology as a so-called solution to a contaminated industrial food supply. Instead of addressing the known industrial causes of food contamination, irradiation proponents are, in effect, proposing to bathe the food supply in radiation as an alternative to preventing the contamination in the first place.

Beginning in 1986, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave a series of green lights that have led to the possibility that the vast majority of our food supply will be exposed to nuclear irradiation. The agency has made separate decisions legalizing the use of irradiation for fruit, vegetables, and spices (in 1986); poultry (in 1990); beef, pork, lamb, and horse (in 1997); and fresh shell eggs (in 2000). The FDA is currently considering expanding the use of irradiation to shellfish, unrefrigerated meat, and alfalfa and other sprouting seed. If these are approved it will mean that 90 percent of the average American's diet will be eligible for irradiation.

Staunch citizen opposition is still keeping the technology out of widespread use. However, events such as the E. coli-contaminated hamburger recalls, and incidences of contamination in imported fruits and vegetables have breathed new life into the struggling industry, as government regulators and corporate food interests aggressively promote food irradiation. As a result, the meat industry in certain locations is using the technology. Today, somewhere in the United States someone is biting into a hamburger that has been irradiated with the equivalent of 150 million chest X rays (perhaps garnished with a spice that has been "treated" with the equivalent of one billion chest X rays). Despite the hype, it is clear that irradiation does not in fact deal with the real and preventable causes of industrial food contaminants such as inhumane factory farming practices, corporate food monopolies with a single-minded fixation on profit, dramatic cutbacks in federal food safety inspectors, dangerous processing and slaughtering facilities, and a citizenry increasingly disconnected from local, sustainable food sources.

Food irradiation was the brainchild of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), now the Department of Energy (DOE), when, in the early 1950s, it became apparent that nuclear waste from military weapons production was (as it still is) a major problem. As a result, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the AEC's "Atoms for Peace" program designed to create "peaceful uses" for nuclear technologies and nuclear waste products such as cesium137, one of the most abundant isotopes in the waste from nuclear weapons production. And the DOE has never been shy about articulating its desire to create a commercial need for its cesium-137 waste through the promotion of food irradiation. Consider this 1983 congressional testimony from the DOE's Office of Defense Waste and Byproducts Management:

The strategy being pursued by DOE's Byproducts Utilization Program is designed to transfer federally developed cesium-137 irradiation technology to the commercial sector as rapidly and successfully as possible. The measure of success will be the degree to which this technology is implemented industrially and the subsequent demand created for cesium-137.

In addition to cesium-137, other methods of food irradiation include the use of radioactive cobalt-60 and high-energy electron beams, also known as linear accelerators. On average, when food is irradiated commercially, the food receives a radiation dose equivalent to tens of millions of chest X rays, more than enough to break up the molecular structure of the food, destroy essential vitamins and minerals, and create a host of new chemical substances known as radiolytic products. Some of these, such as benzene and formaldehyde, are harmful to human health. Benzene, for example, is a known carcinogen. Other radiolytic products, identified as "unique radiolytic products," are completely new chemicals that have not even been identified, let alone tested for toxicity.

In 1982, the FDA reviewed 441 toxicity studies to determine the safety of irradiated foods. Dr. Marcia van Gemert, the chairperson of the committee in charge of investigating the studies, has testified that all 441 studies were flawed. But in 1986, the FDA, led by political appointees, approved a number of food irradiation applications by declaring that five of the 441 studies were "properly conducted, fully adequate by 1980 toxicology standards, and able to stand alone in the support of safety." Thus, with the shaky assurances of just five studies, the FDA approved irradiation for the public food supply.

To make matters worse, the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health of the New Jersey Medical School has found two of those five studies to be methodologically flawed. In a third study, animals eating a diet of irradiated food experienced weight loss and miscarriage, almost certainly due to irradiation-induced vitamin E dietary deficiency. The remaining two studies investigated the effects of diets of foods irradiated at doses below the FDA-approved levels.

Irradiation facilities also pose serious worker-safety, public-health, and ecological threats due to potential radiation leaks, equipment failure, and the production, transportation, storage, installation, and replacement of radiation sources. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its state equivalents have recorded dozens of cases of nuclear mishaps, accidents, and administrative negligence at the relatively few irradiation facilities that currently exist in the United States today. To irradiate the food supply on a mass scale, hundreds of irradiation facilities would need to be built, thus dramatically increasing the likelihood of accidents.

In 1988, in what has been called the, "Three Mile Island of irradiation," Radiation Sterilizers, Inc. (RSI), in Decatur, Georgia, reported a leak of its cesium-137 capsules into the water storage pool, endangering workers and contaminating the facility. Workers then carried the radioactivity into their homes and cars. Cleanup costs exceeded $45 million and taxpayers footed the bill.

In 1986, the NRC revoked the license of a Radiation Technology, Inc. (RTI) facility in New Jersey for having 32 worker-safety violations, including throwing radioactive garbage out with the regular trash and bypassing a key safety device. As a result of this negligence, RTI's founder and chairman, Martin Welt, was eventually indicted and convicted on felony counts of misleading the NRC and filing false nuclear safety reports.

As a result of the numerous health and ecological threats, coupled with spirited grassroots initiatives, the irradiation industry has faced an uphill battle in its efforts to convince the public to embrace its risky technology. But the once emaciated industry is now being resuscitated by a wave of new government- and corporate-sponsored public relations initiatives that are seeking to "train" the public about the supposed benefits of food irradiation. In addition to the steady stream of dubious claims of safety and simplicity, irradiation proponents are working hard to confuse the public by lobbying Congress and petitioning the FDA to change the labeling of irradiated foods. Current regulations require that irradiated foods bear the label "Treated by Irradiation." Under pressure from the industry and Congress, FDA is considering changing the labeling to a misleading, and therefore less alarming, term for the technology, such as "cold pasteurization."

While such underhanded public relations stunts may make it more difficult for the public to recognize and avoid irradiated foods in the marketplace, one poll after another still indicates that citizens remain extremely distrustful of food irradiation. Putting an end to the irradiation madness will require a continued and tenacious grassroots presence that galvanizes citizen opposition to the technology and seeks to hold wholesale and retail food corporations accountable. But the ultimate nail in the food irradiation coffin will come as a result of a citizenry and culture that turns its back on industrial food and the false and dangerous technological gimmicks, like food irradiation, that continuously prop it up.

CO2 Threats to World´s Oceans Rising, Scientists Warn

2009-02-10T18:08:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org

Monaco Declaration on Ocean Acidification Cites Links to Climate Change
Staff Report
2 February 2009

In Monaco, scientists at the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories (IAEA-MEL) have joined more than 150 experts from 26 countries calling for urgent actions to halt rising levels of acidity in the world´s oceans.

"It is the other CO2 problem that must be grappled with alongside climate change. Reining in this double threat, caused by our dependence on fossil fuels, is the challenge of the century," the marine scientists say.

The leading scientists joined to back the Monaco Declaration on Ocean Acidification, directed at government leaders worldwide. The Declaration emphasizes that levels of acidity in oceans are accelerating and that the negative socio-economic impacts can only be limited by cutting back on the amounts of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.

"The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable," said James Orr, an IAEA research scientist at MEL´s Radiometrics Laboratory. "The questions are now how bad will it be and how soon will it happen."

Dr. Orr chaired the Second International Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World, held in October 2008, where scientists presented reports that form the Declaration´s basis. The Symposium summarized the state of the science and priorities for future research, while the Monaco Declaration implores political leaders to launch urgent actions to limit the source of the problem, he says.

Prince Albert II of Monaco, whose enviornmental foundation financially supported the 2008 ocean symposium, voiced support for the Declaration, and cited its importance in light of the forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Background:

Facts from the Declaration: The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate of more than 20 million tons per day, thus removing one-fourth of the anthropogenic CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year and reducing the climate-change impacts of this greenhouse gas. However, when CO2 dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid. As this "ocean acidification" continues, it decreases both ocean pH and the concentration of carbonate ion, the basic building block of the shells and skeletons of many marine organisms.

The rate of current acidification is much more rapid that past natural changes. Surface ocean pH has already dropped by 0.1 units since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This rate of acidification has not been experienced by marine organisms, including reef-building corals, for many millions of years. The future chemical changes that will occur in the ocean as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 are highly predictable.

According to the experts, ocean acidification may render most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050 if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase. It could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar fishing industry.

The IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories (IAEA-MEL) in Monaco were established in 1961 as today are part of the IAEA Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications. They are the only marine laboratories within the UN system.

India Safeguards Agreement Signed

2009-02-10T18:03:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org

Staff Report
2 February 2009

An Agreement between the Government of India and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards to Civilian Nuclear Facilities was signed today in Vienna by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and Ambassador Saurabh Kumar of India.

The safeguards agreement, which is the result of several rounds of consultations conducted between India and the IAEA since November 2007,

was approved by the IAEA Board of Governors in August 2008. The agreement will enter into force on the date the IAEA receives from India written notification that its statutory and/or constitutional requirements for entry into force have been met.

The IAEA currently applies safeguards to six nuclear reactors in India under safeguards agreements concluded between 1971 and 1994. In the future, additional reactors are expected to be under IAEA safeguards under the newly-signed agreement.

Third IAEA Report on Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant Published

2009-02-10T17:56:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org

Staff Report
29 January 2009

The safe performance of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant during and after the earthquake that hit Japan´s Niigata and Nagano prefectures on 16 July 2007 has been confirmed, according to a IAEA report published today.

The report is the third in a series issued by an IAEA-led team of international experts that completed its mission in December 2008. Two previous missions were carried out by the same team in August 2007 and January 2008. All missions were carried out at the invitation of the Government of Japan.

The consequences of the July 2007 earthquake on the plant were unique in the sense that the levels of seismic ground motion estimated in the design process were very significantly exceeded by the event. The mission found that there is consensus in the scientific community about the causes of those unexpectedly large ground motions experienced at the plant site and, consequently, it has been possible to identify the precautions needed to be taken in relation to possible future events and the newly calculated seismic hazard at the site is much higher than both the July 2007 event and the original design earthquake level.

These precautions were based on extensive studies and assessments conducted by a number of specialized institutions and experts in different fields. The necessary upgrades and actions were consequently defined and are being implemented by the Japanese utility for both safety and non-safety related components at the nuclear power plant.

The report made public today was also provided to the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA).

The lessons learned from the results of the plant integrity evaluation process applied to the July 2007 earthquake and used for the seismic safety re-evaluation to the new higher seismic input will improve the design and evaluation criteria and approaches currently used in Japan and worldwide. In the same way, these results are contributing to the ongoing review and revision of the related IAEA safety standards. These updated standards are expected to be released shortly.

Small reactor leak posed no peril: AECL

2009-01-27T20:51:00.000-08:00

source: www.ottawacitizen.com

Spill at Chalk River Nuclear Labs happened Dec. 5: Reports

By Tom Spears, Ottawa Citizen January 27, 2009

OTTAWA — There was a leak of mildly radioactive heavy water at Canada's oldest nuclear reactor in early December, but Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., said Tuesday almost nothing escaped and there's no danger.

The company says that 47 kilograms (fewer than 47 litres) of heavy water leaked from the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River, Ont., west of Ottawa, on Dec. 5. But the leak stopped of its own accord — before the source could be identified — and so AECL hasn't made any repairs.

"We didn't pinpoint it definitely. We had indication that it was coming from a seal," said Bill Pilkington, AECL's vice-president in charge of the plant.

"Losing 47 kg. of heavy water is not insignificant," he said. "At the same time, we wouldn't characterize it as a large, sustained leak." He said there was no danger to the public.

Most of the leaked heavy water was caught and the radioactive tritium in it will be recovered, he said. A few litres evaporated, but the amount was within one-thousandth of the amount permitted as air emissions under the plant's licence.

Tritium forms when heavy water is exposed to radiation, usually in a reactor. Heavy water is used as coolant in NRU, and also as a "moderator" — something that helps the process of breaking apart uranium atoms.

"In this case, the concentration was quite low," Pilkington said. "We don't consider that there's a safety issue here. There was no significant radiation exposure to workers, there was no release to the environment, there was no exposure to the public." The NRU has been working since 1957, producing medical isotopes.

Last year, AECL abandoned the two new reactors that were supposed to replace NRU. The twin MAPLE-1 and -2 reactors, also at Chalk River, were supposed to have been commissioned years ago, but both ran into repeated technical problems and breakdowns after hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs. Neither was ever brought into service.

"The NRU continues to operate safely and reliably," Pilkington said.

"However it is not going to operate indefinitely, so there do need to be plans to replace NRU for isotope production at some point."

During question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Geoff Regan asked why Canadians weren't told earlier about the leak.

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said in the House the incident had no "adverse effect on human health or on the environment."

"The reactor at Chalk River continues to operate consistently and meet(s) all safety regulations and security regulations and we continue to work with CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Comiission) to ensure safety requirements at Chalk River labs continue today," she added.

Also on Tuesday, the Conservative government committed $351 million to AECL. Part of that money, the government says in budget documents, would be to "maintain safe and reliable operations at the Chalk River Laboratories."

Ottawa Riverkeeper Meredith Brown is on an environmental stewardship council set up by AECL to deal with the plant's relationship to its surroundings. But she said she couldn't get anyone at the company to talk to her Tuesday.

"I've tried to get through," she said, but no one at the company would take her call. The council does have a meeting set for next week.

"I did receive a couple of convoluted messages from them (AECL) back in December," she said. "None of it say anything about a spill or a leak. It made it seem like it's ongoing maintenance."

Last year, a panel of experts said the federal government needs to find a replacement, as fast as possible for the aging NRU reactor.

"Canada needs reactors that are designed to expand their production capabilities quickly in response to an emergency," the panel says in a report it submitted to federal Health Minister Tony Clement.

The report, dated May 2008, was posted on Health Canada's website in July.

Clement convened the panel in December 2007 shortly after the Chalk River reactor was shut down by AECL.

AECL took that step because it believed it could not meet safety standards administered by the federal regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The shutdown sparked a global medical crisis and forced Parliament to take the extraordinary step of overruling the safety commission to allow AECL to start up the reactor.
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service

IAEA Plays Vital Role in Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis

2009-01-27T20:41:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org

26 January 2009

Nuclear contribution to food security is among the topics being discussed at the High-Level Meeting on Food Security for All taking place in Madrid, Spain from 26-27 January. The event is a gathering of UN officials and representatives of international agencies belonging to the High Level Task Force on Global Food Security Crisis set up by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 28 April 2008.

In a statement circulated to the participants of the Madrid event on behalf of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, Werner Burkart, Deputy Director General for Nuclear Sciences and Applications, said that scientific and technological innovation will play a crucial role in promoting global food safety and security.

"Applications of nuclear science and technology have much to contribute in improving the quality and variety of foods and in boosting crop and livestock production," he said.

Nuclear techniques are used extensively in agriculture to make food crops more resistant to disease, boost crop yields and combat pests and animal diseases. The IAEA has an extensive technical cooperation programme in around 100 countries to deliver Nuclear-based solutions to Member States.

Nuclear contribution to food security is among the topics being discussed at the High-Level Meeting on Food Security for All taking place in Madrid, Spain from 26-27 January. Dr. Chikelu Mba, Head of the IAEA Plant Breeding Unit, examines mutant banana samples at the IAEA´s Seibersdorf laboratory. (Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)

A small list of some of the successful IAEA-backed programmes include helping 24 African countries eradicating the deadly cattle disease rinderpest, combating the fruit fly in Latin America, and introducing a variety of wheat in Keya that is yielding 11 percent more, under drought conditions, than the best varieties available until now.

Much of the IAEA´s work in this area has been carried out through a partnership with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which was first established in 1964. The organisations founded what they called a Joint Division for Food and Agriculture, which pioneered the use of nuclear techniques in agriculture.

"The work of the IAEA-FAO Joint Division has been an excellent example of what the UN family now calls Delivering as One - since long before the term was invented," Burkart said.

"Requests for assistance from our Member States make it clear that the IAEA and its partners will continue to play a vital role in the coming years in the area of food security."

Background

The High-Level Meeting on Food Security for All, which is hosted and organized by the Spanish Government, is a follow-up event to the June 2008 "food summit" held in Rome, Italy.

In the 5 June Rome Declaration, 181 States and the European Community pledged to alleviate the suffering caused by the soaring food prices, stimulate agricultural development, food and small holder farmer production and address obstacles to food access and adequate nutrition.

US Additional Protocol Enters into Force

2009-01-27T20:22:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.org

An Additional Protocol to the nuclear safeguards agreement (AP) between the IAEA and the US entered into force on 6 January 2009.

US Ambassador Gregory Schulte formally handed over the notification of the completion of the US´ ratification procedures to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, marking the effective date for the entry into force of the AP for the country.

With the entry into force of the US AP, all five nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) have fulfilled their undertaking, assumed at the time of approval by the IAEA Board of Governors of the Model Additional Protocol in 1997, to conclude such APs.

The entry into force of the US AP brings the number of States with APs to 89 and contributes to efforts aimed at achieving universal application of APs.

See Story Resources for more information.

US Ambassador Gregory Schulte hands over to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei the communication of the US ratification of its Additional Protocol with the IAEA. (Photo: P. Pavlicek/IAEA)

IAEA Safeguards Agreements & Additional Protocols [pdf]
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) [pdf]

Marketsmonitor Releases Report on Nuclear Energy - a New Hope for India

2009-01-27T20:15:00.000-08:00

source: www.articlesbase.com

According to "Nuclear Energy - A New Hope for India", a new research report by RNCOS, the Indian nuclear power industry is set to boom post Indo-US nuclear deal.

High demand and low production pushed the power deficit in India to around 10% of the total requirement in the FY 2008. And this deficit is expected to widen further in future as India’s power requirement is growing faster than generation. This can put breaks on the seamless economic growth of the country. So the government, as a precautionary measure, is focusing on the nuclear power industry. The major reason for shifting to nuclear power is its potential to generate more power than any other energy source in a short period of time and with low fuel requirement.

In FY 2008, total nuclear power installation capacity in the country reached just over 4 GWe, and once India starts getting international cooperation, its installed capacity and plant construction will take off in a big way.

This report gives extensive analysis on the Indian nuclear power industry. It evaluates the growth prospects and market potential, underlines the issues related to the success of the industry, and provides a prudent analysis on its various aspects. It presents a comprehensive overview of the past and current performance of the industry and identifies the future direction of the market.

Industry Projections

- nuclear power plant installation capacity till FY 2018.
- Numbers of reactors that are planned to start operation in future.
- Evaluating the investment requirements for plant construction.
- Uranium requirements in Million Pound.
- Power generation in TWH.

Players Profiling

This section covers information on domestic companies that are playing an active role in the nuclear power industry. The companies discussed in the report are Larsen & Toubro Limited, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Walchandnagar Industries Ltd, Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd, Rolta, Gammon India, and Avasarala Technology Ltd.

France could order two nuclear power plants

2009-01-23T01:00:00.000-08:00

Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:55pm EST

By Benjamin Mallet and Emmanuel Jarry

PARIS, Jan 22 (Reuters) - France could build two new nuclear power stations or share the work on the one already planned between government-backed utilities EDF (EDF.PA) and Suez-GDF.

An official at the Elysee presidential palace said on Thursday that a decision on at least one new European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) nuclear power plant would be taken in the next few weeks.

He said the office was reviewing the location of the reactor and a possible joint investment by the two utilities.

Les Echos newspaper said on Thursday the government is considering two new reactors and would award one to EDF and the other to Suez-GDF, which would then team up with Germany's E.ON (EONGn.DE).

France has a leading position in the world for nuclear power stations. Both utilities, in which the state has a stake, could obtain big export orders if the EPRs are a success.

Big construction projects are also a way to create jobs.

The recent crisis over Russian gas supplies via Ukraine has highlighted the strategic importance of energy independence and France now generates about 15 percent of its total energy needs and 80 percent of electricity with nuclear plants.

State-owned electricity giant EDF (EDF.PA) is already building an EPR in the north of France, near Flamanville, which will have a capacity of 1,600 Megawatts. It will now cost 4 billions euros ($5.20 billion), at 2008 euros, after a upward revision of the 3.3 billion euro initial budget.

The government already has plans to order a second EPR for Flamanville. EDF and GDF Suez are contenders for that contract. Le Figaro said on its website that French oil company Total (TOTF.PA) would be part of the GDF Suez (GSZ.PA) bid.

A spokesman for Total did not confirm or deny the report, but said any role the oil major took would be a minority one. Total and GDF Suez are co-operating with state-controlled nuclear reactor builder Areva (CEPFi.PA) to offer two plants to the United Arab Emirates.

Areva is building an EPR in Finland and is facing cost-overruns and delays due to the complexity of the new type of station.

EDF had planned to team up with big electricity users such as building materials group Saint-Gobain (SGOB.PA) and steel group ArcelorMittal (ISPA.AS).

EDF bought almost all of British Energy (BGY.L) and assets from Constellation Energy (CEG.N) to be able to build nuclear stations in Britain and the United States.

EDF said that a $5 billion bond issue, designed in part to refinance its purchase of British Energy (BGY.L), had been oversubscribed, especially in the United States.

EDF stock ended flat on Thursday.

For a background story on the French EPR see[ID:nLC424054] (Additional reporting by Jean-Michel Belot)

Livni, Clinton agree to maintain close cooperation on Iran's nuclear issue

2009-01-23T00:54:00.000-08:00

Updated January 23, 2009 04:07 AM

JERUSALEM (Xinhua) - Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday agreed to maintain close cooperation on Iran's nuclear issue, local daily Ha'aretz reported on its website.

Shortly after Clinton officially took the helm at the US State Department yesterday, Livni and Clinton had a phone conversation and agreed to cooperate closely on the issue of Iran'snuclear program. The two also agreed to work together in order to exert more pressure on Tehran, according to Ha'aretz.

The United States and Israel have been accusing Iran of developing secretly nuclear weapons under the cover of civil nuclear program. Iran denies the charges.

Turning to situation in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, Livni told Clinton that Israel is involved in humanitarian efforts to reconstruct the Palestinian coastal enclave, which has been ravaged by Israeli army's 22-day Cast Lead Operation. The foreign minister said that Israel strongly opposes Hamas receiving a leading role in those efforts, adding that the international community must not grant Hamas any legitimacy.

"Hamas is the enemy of peace in the region," said Livni, "It threatens anyone who wants quiet in the Middle East."

Also yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a phone conversation with Clinton and congratulated her on assuming her important and central office.

According to a statement released by Olmert's office, Olmert told Clinton that Israel is interested in continuing to advance the Middle East peace process and intends to invest great effort in providing humanitarian assistance to Gaza residents.

Israel would also do its utmost in order to fight terrorism and prevent weapons from being smuggled to the militant groups in Gaza, vowed the premier.

Earlier yesterday, Clinton, who arrived at the US State Department for her first full day as secretary of state, promised a new era in US diplomacy but tough times ahead.

source: www.philstar.com

Ex-soldier backs nuclear veterans

2009-01-23T00:17:00.000-08:00

An ex-soldier with cancer is backing calls by veterans of nuclear tests in the South Pacific for compensation.

Barry Hands, 71, from Droitwich, Worcs, said he was ordered to stand on a beach during five nuclear explosions on Christmas Island in the 1950s.

Nearly 1,000 veterans have taken the Ministry of Defence to the High Court saying they suffered illness as a result of the tests.

The MoD says it compensates when liability is proven.

The three-week hearing will decide if a full hearing over the multi-million pound compensation claim will go ahead.

The ex-servicemen want compensation for illnesses, including cancer, skin defects and fertility problems, which they claim result from exposure to radiation during nuclear bomb testing.

But MoD lawyers are arguing the tests happened too long ago for compensation to be considered.

'Duty of care'

Mr Hands, who has malignant melanoma, said the servicemen did not have the resources to carry out "exhaustive medical tests" to back their case.

But he believed the numbers "would indicate that there is a connection between the young men who went out on these nuclear testing programmes who have come back with cancers" in relation to the general population.

Mr Hands added that other countries, including France and Australia, who were involved in the tests had paid out to their claimants.

He said: "I find it strange that the government doesn't accept it has a duty of care to the young men who were sent out there."

At Tuesday's hearing, Benjamin Browne QC, who is representing the ex-servicemen, said science had made a link between their health and role in the tests.

Mr Browne pointed to the Rowland study of a small group of New Zealand test veterans which "proved that most, if not all, of them suffered genetic effects due to radiation exposure".

An MoD spokesman said the government recognised "the vital contribution service personnel played in the UK's nuclear tests during the 1950s" and understood its obligation to veterans.

He added: "Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid."

source: news.bbc.co.uk

Reaching Out to the Next Generation

2008-12-14T04:05:00.000-08:00

source: www.iaea.or.at

IAEA Hosts Hundreds of Students at Vienna HQ, Among Other Initiatives

Staff Report

12 December 2008

The IAEA is extending its reach to the next generation of potential nuclear practitioners. Approximately 2,500 students from all over the world visit the Agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria each year.

Students from high school up to the graduate level have the opportunity to learn about the IAEA’s work in the areas of safeguards and verification, nuclear science and applications, and nuclear safety and security. During their visits students get insight into the IAEA's critical work in less known yet all-important areas such as food security, health and child nutrition.

For example, the IAEA recently hosted a group of 25 Hungarian high school students, who were chosen from 2 small towns - Paks and Komlo. They were enthusiastic about the visit, and also got the chance to report on their vision of nuclear power.

IAEA staff from the Nuclear Energy and Public Information divisions dedicated an entire day to explaining and expounding upon the IAEA’s work in developed and developing countries around the world.

Ambassador and Resident Representative of Hungary, Ms. Györgyi Martin Zanathy and representative of the Hungarian Atomic Energy Authority, Mr. Miklós Csuvár, both made presentations during the 28 October event. A Hungarian TV crew was also on hand and filmed the proceedings.

Oszvald Glöckler, Nuclear Power Engineer with the IAEA says, “This event is part of our effort to support education on issues of energy and international cooperation.”

The IAEA also has other outreach activities geared towards young people. It offers some job opportunities under a Junior Professional Officer programme, which gives young professionals a chance to gain work experience in an international environment.

The IAEA also accepts a limited number of interns each year. Internships are awarded to persons studying toward a university degree or who have recently received a degree. Interns are chosen from a number of fields including natural sciences, engineering, administration and management as well as the social sciences.

The IAEA has long been involved in the academic development of young people. Along with the Organisation For Economic Cooperation and Development´s Nuclear Energy Agency, the World Association of Nuclear Operators and the World Nuclear Association, the IAEA has supported the World Nuclear University (WNU) Summer Institute since its inception in 2005. Each year, the Institute invites about 100 WNU Fellows from approximately 35 countries. They are selected on several criteria, including leadership potential.

These young professionals are educated in a broad range of activities, which include nuclear energy issues, team-building and leadership exercises, where some of the world’s notable experts in the field will tutor and lead the Fellows through the programme.

Nuclear Safety´s Long Horizon

2008-11-18T05:00:00.000-08:00

Nuclear Installation Safety Takes Stage at Conference in India
Staff Report
17 November 2008
source: www.iaea.org

Potential newcomers to the world of nuclear electricity production are getting close attention this week in India. An international conference on topical nuclear safety issues in Mumbai will help them focus on what IAEA experts describe as "a hundred year horizon".

"Many new entrants are embarking on nuclear power," points out Mamdouh El-Shanawany, Head of the IAEA´s Safety Assessment Section. "It requires a 100-year commitment from the beginning to the end."

The conference provides an excellent opportunity for new and experienced nuclear power countries to learn about the infrastructure required for building and maintaining a safe and productive nuclear energy programme. The infrastructure includes legal, regulatory, technological, human and industrial support. The conference brings together top nuclear regulators from among the 145 IAEA Member States.

"You cannot design, construct, operate and eventually decommission a nuclear plant without proper safety infrastructure. Therefore, new entrants need to build their nuclear safety infrastructure 5-10 years before embarking on nuclear power," says Mr. El-Shanawany.

This year´s International Conference on Topical Issues in Nuclear Installation Safety will be held in Mumbai, India from 17-21 November 2008. The theme is Ensuring Safety for Sustainable Nuclear Development.

See Story Resource for more information.

Tvel pushes Russian nuclear energy with Slovak deal

2008-11-18T04:52:00.000-08:00

Russia's nuclear industry has boosted its influence in the heart of Europe following a deal to supply more than half of Slovakia's electricity. The EU electricity generator says Russian nuclear fuel's now not just cheaper but safer than Western rivals.

Russian nuclear fuel leader Tvel beat off America's Westinghouse in the $630 million deal which will supply Slovakia with 57% of its electricity.

Paolo Ruzzini, CEO of Slovanske Elektrarne said Tvel was cheaper and safer than the US offer.

“All the items - first of all the safety level, the reliability that we have built up and of course the competitiveness of the overall process.”

Tvel's the world number three producer after Westinghouse and Areva. It already makes fuel here for the French giant. Yury Olenin, President of Tvel says as the nuclear industry grows, the number of players will fall.

“Synergies are being forced by the investment required for such high-tech development. Soon there'll be just a few big players, and they'll work together.”

Nuclear's star is on the rise. The Slovakian side tipped it to almost double to a quarter of Europe's energy mix over the next 12 years. On Monday India said Russia was favourite to build its 2 new reactors.

Tvel already supplies England, Germany and China as well as Iran. The firm complains privately that's despite French-lobbied restrictions on EU uranium imports.

This is uranium dioxide, the highly toxic core of Russian nuclear success. Experts say it's one of the few hi-tech sectors where Russia is truly world-class. Tvel's target now is to raise global market share from 17% to 25% by 2020.

Electricity generation from nuclear energy: IAEA, USDOE pledge support

2008-11-18T02:46:00.000-08:00

Written by Ebele Orakpo
Monday, 17 November 2008
President Umaru Yar’Adua in the bid to improve electricity supply which is crucial to the realisation of Vision 20-2020, has reiterated the need for Nigeria to generate electricity from nuclear power plants. Electricity plant As a result, a five-day national workshop on Security of Radioactive Sources in Land and Marine Transport was organised by the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NNRA) in collaboration with the Ministry of Transport, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna, Austria, and United States Department of Energy (USDOE). The workshop which was held at the Sheraton Hotels and Towers, Ikeja, Lagos was the 33rd public engagement the NNRA has organised over the past seven years for different operating organisations dealing with sources of ionizing radiation and nuclear materials in the country. A representative of the US Department of Energy (USDOE), Mark Hawk, in his goodwill message noted that Nigeria is the first country to hold a national workshop on security of radioactive sources in land and marine transport. He stated that USDOE and IAEA are pleased to work with countries in the area of training, pledging the readiness of the US Department of Energy and IAEA to support Nigeria in this area.

Mr. Vincent Nkong-Njock, of the IAEA in his address said the workshop was very timely “in the wake of many events that happened worldwide in 2001 which prompted the IAEA and member-states alike to act swiftly by coordinating the response of the international community to the threats caused by illicit trafficking of nuclear and radioactive materials and it is also expected to foster a better understanding of the nature of the threats of potential malevolent use, on ways to diminish the likelihood of such threats occurring and on the necessary measures for preparedness and response in case they do actually occur.”

Declaring the workshop open, chairman of the occasion, the Commandant-General, National Security and Civil Defence Corps, Dr. John Abolurin, represented by the Deputy Commandant-General, National Security and Civil Defence Corps, Sulleiman Bello said the objective of the workshop was to sensitise handlers, transporters, Clearing and Forwarding agents and users of radiation sources on ensuring safety and security during transportation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and other regulations made pursuant to it.

He noted that movement of nuclear material and radioactive sources of significance are now common place in Nigeria, stating that in 2003, “we moved fissile materials to the Research Reactor in Zaria. Furthermore, in 2006, we also moved more than 300,000 Ci of radioactive materials to the Gamma Irradiation Facility in Sheda. Additionally, many high-risk radioactive sources are transported around the country on a daily basis for various uses especially in the petroleum industry, which is the largest importer and user of radioactive materials in the country. Thus, the role of transporters will ever become more crucial.”

In his keynote address, the Director-General of NNRA, Prof. Shamsideen Elegba noted that “this national project will involve the transportation of nuclear fuel into the country and within the country by water, by rail and by road. Nigeria is already a party to all the international conventions and treaties dealing with safety and security of radioactive sources and nuclear materials. This is part of our preparation for a successful nuclear power project,” he said.

According to the organisers, “the Nigerian Nuclear Regulatory Authority has the statutory responsibility under the Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection Act 19 of 1995, for nuclear safety and radiological protection regulation. The NNRA is, therefore, empowered to categorise and license activities involving the handling and transportation of radioactive sources.

Our national experience since the inception of the agency has shown that radiological incidents and accidents, especially loss of control of radioactive sources, have occurred most frequently during transportation. This thus forms the weakest link in the chain of Import-Export-Use-Transport-Export of radioactive sources.”
source: www.vanguardngr.com

Nuclear energy is clean and efficient

2008-11-17T04:15:00.000-08:00

source: www.desmoinesregister.com

President-elect Barack Obama needs to include nuclear energy in his plans to address our energy needs. While he says he supports the use of nuclear power, his comments that we should not build new plants until we solve the waste problem require a political solution.

Scientifically we know how to have less waste and treat what waste there is. The weapons proliferation fears of the 1970s created the political barrier to executing this strategy. The volume of nuclear waste is more than a million times smaller than the waste from burning coal and has been stored at plants across the country since the beginning of U.S. nuclear power in 1958.

The volume of waste produced since then in its current form would cover one football field to a depth of 20 feet - not a huge problem. What is not so easily solved is our need for more electricity, which the Department of Energy predicts will grow by 25 percent by 2030.

That much power cannot be effectively produced with alternatives because we just cannot build that many windmills (that produce power only when there is the right amount of wind) and certainly not with fossil fuels (that we are trying to avoid because of climate change and air pollution).

I have been an environmental professional since 1997, and there are no sustainable primary-power options with carbon emissions to the environment as low as nuclear. We can even build reactors to create more fuel than they use - truly, a renewable-fuel source. There are applications submitted for more than 30 new nuclear plants that utilities want to build. These need to move forward.

We need to start building the facilities that will deliver clean, abundant and domestic energy. And we should build 200, not 30.

- Thomas Draur, Johnston

West queries IAEA aid for Syria during atomic probe

2008-11-17T04:11:00.000-08:00

Fri Nov 14, 2008
source: www.reuters.com

By Mark Heinrich

VIENNA (Reuters) - Western powers have questioned an International Atomic Energy Agency offer to help Syria look into building a nuclear power plant while it is under investigation for alleged covert atomic activity, diplomats said on Friday.

But they said that whether the United States and close allies act to bar the "technical cooperation" project at an IAEA governors meeting in two weeks -- a rare and politically divisive step -- will depend on the findings of the agency's first investigative report on Syria due next week.

Diplomats tracking the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Monday that traces of uranium turned up in some test samples taken by IAEA inspectors from a Syrian site Washington says was a nascent atomic reactor before it was bombed by Israel in 2007.

The IAEA declined comment pending the report.

Syria has said the site was a disused military building and that U.S. intelligence driving the IAEA investigation is fabricated. It suggested that the uranium particles came with munitions Israel dropped on the site.

Some diplomats and analysts said the traces were more likely to have come from uranium that was at some stage of processing for fuel, but the origin remained unclear.

The IAEA was expected to caution that the findings warranted further investigation before conclusions could be drawn.

Vienna diplomats, who asked for anonymity, said the mere fact Syria was being probed over nuclear proliferation concerns meant that approving the nuclear power plant study now could send the wrong message.

A restricted IAEA document obtained by Reuters listed a proposal for a "technical and economic feasibility study and site selection" for a power station at a cost of $350,000 from 2009 through 2011.

OTHER PROJECTS NOT IN DISPUTE

This was one of eight draft technical cooperation (TC) projects in Syria of the sort the IAEA does in many member states seeking to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

TC plans come up for ratification by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors every November. Such projects must be approved by consensus.

The other seven projects listed for Syria had innocuous medical, farming or safety applications and diplomats said these would face no objections.

The United States, Britain and France -- among the biggest contributors of funding for IAEA aid projects -- aired the issue of power plant study in a meeting of Western diplomatic missions accredited to the IAEA, diplomats said.

"Eyebrows were raised and questions were posed about the timeline for this power plant study, whether it's premature before other issues are resolved," said one European diplomat.

"There was some question as to whether it would be appropriate first to assess Syria's energy needs," said another.

But diplomats said many delegations on the global governing body were loath to "politicize" IAEA technical aid without urgent reasons and Western powers were awaiting the IAEA report before deciding a course of action.

In a rare step, the board stripped Iran of some TC projects two years ago. But, unlike Syria, Iran had already been found by the IAEA to have hidden proliferation-sensitive activity and had come under U.N. sanctions which prohibited such IAEA aid.

Nuclear Recycling Could Be Emerging Technology in America

2008-11-17T03:04:00.000-08:00

Nov 18, 2008 12:57 PM

source: www.kndo.com

Nuclear recycling is done in France, Japan, and now it's starting in Canada, but not in the U.S. When President Carter was in office he signed an order to ban nuclear recycling technology, but later President Reagan over turned it.

Today, there are many interests from American companies and the federal government. Companies like Energy Northwest think it's vital for the nuclear power industry.

At Energy Northwest gray domes hold all of the old nuclear fuel that they have used in the last 25 years.

"It's the only operating nuclear power station in the Pacific Northwest and it produces about enough electricity to run the city of Seattle," said Brad Peck, Energy Northwest Executive Project Manager.

Nuclear power from this plant has no green house gas emissions and the left over waste could all fit in a building the size of a convenience store.

"Nuclear power and the increase of cost of uranium in recent years has meant that the cost of fuel has gone up which makes recycling used fuel that much more attractive," said Peck.

Right now there is no commercial reprocessing of nuclear fuel.

"There's been talk of reprocessing for many years at this point no one has come forward with an application for a reprocessing facility in the U.S," said Michael Layton, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

There are a lot of issues people have with nuclear energy, but out of the 104 nuclear plants in America that have been running for 30 years, there has not been one related death.

"I think as we take this next step and start recycling and close what we call the fuel cycle we will be much better off and we will see nuclear power take on a true renaissance," said Peck.

If a company wanted to build a nuclear fuel recycling facility they would have to get a license from the NRC. It would be a similar process that is needed to build a nuclear reactor. In the U.S. there are 30 applications to build new nuclear plants.

Crisis opens the door to a new nuclear era

2008-06-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

Source: www.al.com

Thursday, June 26, 2008

FINALLY, THE nation is moving back to the future of alternative energy.

It took a new energy crisis and the emergence of climate change as a global issue to persuade U.S. leaders to embrace — in some cases, warily — nuclear power. Unfortunately, the lingering effects of Three Mile Island Syndrome lasted almost 30 years, causing the country that originally harnessed the atom to fall well behind Europe and Japan in developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy.

But with the price of carbon-based energy soaring and the search for ways to cut carbon emissions intensifying, nuclear power advocates have suddenly found powerful new allies in Washington, including the two men vying for the presidency.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, recently called for a major expansion of the nuclear power industry. Sen. McCain wants to see 45 new nuclear facilities come on line by 2030.

Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. McCain's likely Democratic foe, seems to be slowly warming up to nuclear power. During a meeting with the nation's governors last week, he said nuclear power was "not a panacea," but added that it was worth investigating with an eye toward future development.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement, but it's an improvement over the traditional anti-nuclear militancy of his party's left wing. Congressional Democrats also are quietly moving toward a more pro-nuclear stance. Many environmental activists aligned with the Democrats now realize there is no other energy alternative that has the potential to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2005 energy bill passed by Congress re-opened the door to nuclear power by providing federal loan guarantees to help companies with the massive cost of building new reactors. Currently, proposals for 15 new reactors are moving through the regulatory pipeline.

That falls far short of what the country needs to reduce pollution and escape dependence on foreign energy resources. According to a government study, if the U.S. power industry expanded its nuclear footprint to the same size as France's nuclear power industry, which provides 80 percent of that country's electricity, CO2 emissions in the United States would fall to the level specified by the Kyoto climate treaty.

Currently, nuclear plants supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. The presidential candidates and congressional leaders should set a goal of more than doubling that percentage in the next 20 years.

Congress can help by removing regulatory obstacles and speeding up the glacial process of licensing nuclear facilities. In licensing and regulating nuclear plants, the government should take into account that the commercial nuclear power industry has a better safety record than any other power-generating industry.

The lack of nuclear waste disposal sites is the biggest obstacle to the growth of the nuclear industry. Obstructionists continue to block the development of a national waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Nuclear advocates may be stymied if they fail to make an all-out push for the Yucca Mountain project.

Fifty years ago, nuclear power was considered the wave of the future. But a lot of Americans are just now finding out that it's the cleanest, most efficient alternative to fossil fuels.

With the Three Mile Island hysteria finally behind us, the nation is ready to go nuclear, big-time.

The G 20 and the GCC Agenda

2008-06-20T06:45:00.000-07:00

17/11/2008

When the world's powers gather together during the month of November in the United States to begin a series of meetings to discuss the global financial crisis, the Gulf Cooperation Council states (GCC - Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) will be an important component of the discussion. While Saudi Arabia will be an active direct participant, the other GCC states will be keen listeners. To be sure, these states are impacted by the financial crisis just as much as other countries despite having large financial reserves based on their position as the world's most significant oil producers. In fact, the GCC states are likely to face a certain degree of pressure for an anticipated constructive role they will be expected to play. For example, US President Bush has already been suggesting that he is looking forward to the involvement of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the summit. Similarly, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for the Gulf States to contribute to a new fund facility being created within the International Monetary Fund.

In this context, it is important to remember that the GCC states have traditionally played a stabilizing role whether in terms of financial markets through their investment decisions or by maintaining price equilibrium and stable supplies to the world's energy markets. This position will not change. However, it is important that the discussions on the current financial crisis not be limited to the present economic agenda only but that the meeting also considers the broader political context in which this crisis is occurring and being handled. For the GCC countries this is an important item on the overall agenda and it will be necessary for other participating countries, including the United States, to comprehend that solely seeing the position of the GCC states in economic terms is no longer sufficient.

The reason for a broader agenda is that the current global financial crisis cannot and should not be seen in isolation. It is indeed the culmination and manifestation of a series of interrelated unresolved problems, which have led to accumulated tensions in the international political, security and economic system, tensions that are causing deep fractures in the system itself. One way to compare the situation is to relate it to how earthquakes occur. Here, tectonic plates are constantly in movement, getting closer or farther from each other. Such movements create growing stress at the points of juncture between plates, stress which must be released either through multiple smaller adjustments (small earthquakes) or through a major, sometimes catastrophic event.

Today, we are witnessing a major earthquake whose epicenter is in the United States and in the financial system, but its origins are not exclusively in either of the two.

The global system has accumulated stress in many of the plates that constitute it. This includes the following, not necessarily exhaustive, list:

The international trade plate has seen rapid progress towards globalization, with shifting production of material goods from the traditional industrial countries to new emerging countries, creating greater and greater trade imbalances with growing problems for employment in the industrial countries and the progressive disappearance of industry. These trends are not sustainable, in the sense that if one extrapolates them into the future, one comes to a vision which is paradoxical and clearly unacceptable. So, something must be done: not necessarily a complete reversal of liberalization, but surely a less ideological implementation of free trade, with exceptions and a degree of state re-involvement in the economy. Signs of that are already evident.

The international energy system is characterized by a huge imbalance in the level of per capita energy consumption between the US and the rest of the industrial countries; between the industrial countries and the emerging countries; between even the emerging countries and the poorer countries, including almost the whole of Africa, where billions of people do not have access to commercial energy at all. Available reserves of fossil fuel together with environmental considerations clearly tell us that the current pattern of energy consumption in the industrial (and the GCC) countries is unsustainable. Something must change very radically if one wishes to be able to envision an acceptable scenario of the future.

The international security system has been characterized by the unchallenged and unchallengeable supremacy of a single superpower, but whose immense military might has proven totally ineffective to achieve the objectives that matter. The US has not been able to win the war either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and has found its hands tied with regard to Iran. As a result, the US is looking like a useless superpower - it has the might to destroy the world but cannot impose its will unilaterally. This is an untenable position in the long run. The non-proliferation file will probably be one on which things must change quite rapidly. Faced with the resurgence of interest in nuclear energy and the impossibility of keeping nuclear ambitions in check in Iran or North Korea or elsewhere, the nuclear powers will either have to admit defeat or finally accept a substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenals. A complete rethinking of the US military strategy in the coming months and years is one aspect that can be anticipated.

The international financial system is the easiest to understand just now. For years, the system has been based on deregulation and the massive encouragement of indebtedness for US consumers and enterprises, paralleled by growing government debt and trade deficit - all based on the thinking that this was the rest of the world's problem, not the US's. The rest of the world was expected to be forever happy to buy US assets - and it has been by and large, except that the system within the US itself at some point collapsed. It is very interesting that the crisis originated out of the mortgage market, not out of a global crisis of confidence in the US economy or the US dollar. That the US financial posture was untenable has been evident for years - but the IMF and everybody else hoped for a soft landing. Instead, the soft landing has turned into a crash with the result that the international financial system will have to obviously be established on new bases.

All of the above only substantiates the claim that one cannot simply tackle the financial crisis without at the same time also addressing some of the political issues. For the GCC states, this means that they must concentrate on a few key points:

Get from the United States a clear commitment that they will support regional integration – within the GCC and with the rest of the Arab countries. The US has been systematically sniping at the GCC and this must stop. In line with the above, the GCC states should seek a commitment to honestly work towards a regional security system that is based on progressively building mutual trust rather than on the military presence of the US in the region.

Get assurances that the trade system will be redesigned in a way that is not contrary to the interests of the GCC countries. This means a combination of openness to international trade with tolerance of state intervention which is geared to achieving developmental objectives. While this is very difficult to articulate in practice, the general idea is clear.

Get assurances that a major effort will be made to put the non-proliferation train back on track, which includes negotiating a substantial cut in the arsenal of the nuclear powers and putting pressure on all countries to become parties to the NPT

Get assurances that the new international financial system will not tolerate systematic imbalances, not even in the US, and that international investment will be free within well understood rules. There should be no discrimination against Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs).

Ask for US support for the four key diplomatic initiatives of Saudi Arabia with respect to regional crises:

King Abdullah's peace plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

King Abdullah's diplomatic initiative to start a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

The Saudi position towards a united Iraq in which all components share in power.

The engagement of Iran in a regional context.

All of the above are essential points and they represent a comprehensive framework that the GCC states should pursue as the discussion about resolving the present global financial crisis proceeds. Isolated and single point solutions will not work and it is time to adopt a broader approach.

Economics of Nuclear Technology

2008-06-02T06:22:00.000-07:00

Author: Pranav Bhat

Nuclear Technology can also be used to produce ELECTRICITY which is very important according to economical condition of a country. Nuclear plant can produce more electricity than thermal or hydro electric plant.
Isotope produced using Nuclear Technology is used in many chemical and pharma companies.

1)Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.
2)Fuel costs for nuclear plants are a minor proportion of total generating costs, though capital costs are greater than those for coal-fired plants.
3)In assessing the cost competitiveness of nuclear energy, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are taken into account.

The relative costs of generating electricity from coal, gas and nuclear plants vary considerably depending on location. Coal is, and will probably remain, economically attractive in countries such as China, the USA and Australia with abundant and accessible domestic coal resources as long as carbon emissions are cost-free. Gas is also competitive for base-load power in many places, particularly using combined-cycle plants, though rising gas prices have removed much of the advantage.
Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

External costs

The report of a major European study of the external costs of various fuel cycles, focusing on coal and nuclear, was released in mid 2001 - ExternE. It shows that in clear cash terms nuclear energy incurs about one tenth of the costs of coal. The external costs are defined as those actually incurred in relation to health and the environment and quantifiable but not built into the cost of the electricity. If these costs were in fact included, the EU price of electricity from coal would double and that from gas would increase 30%. These are without attempting to include global warming.
The European Commission launched the project in 1991 in collaboration with the US Department of Energy, and it was the first research project of its kind "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU". The methodology considers emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer). Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average.

Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost has been reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

The cost of fuel

From the outset the basic attraction of nuclear energy has been its low fuel costs compared with coal, oil and gas fired plants. Uranium, however, has to be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel elements, and about two thirds of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of this spent fuel or the wastes separated from it.
But even with these included, the total fuel costs of a nuclear power plant in the OECD are typically about a third of those for a coal-fired plant and between a quarter and a fifth of those for a gas combined-cycle plant.
Fuel costs are one area of steadily increasing efficiency and cost reduction. For instance, in Spain nuclear electricity cost was reduced by 29% over 1995-2001. This involved boosting enrichment levels and burn-up to achieve 40% fuel cost reduction. Prospectively, a further 8% increase in burn-up will give another 5% reduction in fuel cost.

Comparing electricity generation

For nuclear power plants any cost figures normally include spent fuel management, plant decommissioning and final waste disposal. These costs, while usually external for other technologies, are internal for nuclear power.
Decommissioning costs are estimated at 9-15% of the initial capital cost of a nuclear power plant. But when discounted, they contribute only a few percent to the investment cost and even less to the generation cost. In the USA they account for 0.1-0.2 cent/kWh, which is no more than 5% of the cost of the electricity produced.
The back-end of the fuel cycle, including spent fuel storage or disposal in a waste repository, contributes up to another 10% to the overall costs per kWh, - less if there is direct disposal of spent fuel rather than reprocessing. The $18 billion US spent fuel program is funded by a 0.1 cent/kWh levy.
French figures published in 2002 show (EUR cents/kWh): nuclear 3.20, gas 3.05-4.26, coal 3.81-4.57. Nuclear is favourable because of the large, standardised plants used.
The cost of nuclear power generation has been dropping over the last decade. This is because declining fuel (including enrichment), operating and maintenance costs, while the plant concerned has been paid for, or at least is being paid off. In general the construction costs of nuclear power plants are significantly higher than
for coal- or gas-fired plants because of the need to use special materials, and to incorporate sophisticated safety features and back-up control equipment. These contribute much of the nuclear generation cost, but once the plant is built the variables are minor.
In the past, long construction periods have pushed up financing costs. In Asia construction times have tended to be shorter, for instance the new-generation 1300 MWe Japanese reactors which began operating in 1996 and 1997 were built in a little over four years.
Overall, OECD studies in teh 1990s showed a decreasing advantage of nuclear over coal. This trend was largely due to a decline in fossil fuel prices in the 1980s, and easy access to low-cost, clean coal, or gas. In the 1990s gas combined-cycle technology with low fuel prices was often the lowest cost option in Europe and North America. But the picture is changing.

Future cost competitiveness

The OECD does not expect investment costs in new nuclear generating plants to rise, as advanced reactor designs become standardised.
The future competitiveness of nuclear power will depend substantially on the additional costs which may accrue to coal generating plants. It is uncertain how the real costs of meeting targets for reducing sulphur dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions will be attributed to fossil fuel plants.
Overall, and under current regulatory measures, the OECD expects nuclear to remain economically competitive with fossil fuel generation, except in regions where there is direct access to low cost fossil fuels.
In Australia, for example, coal-fired generating plants are close to both the mines supplying them and the main population centres, and large volumes of gas are available on low cost, long-term contracts.
A 1998 OECD comparative study showed that at a 5% discount rate, in 7 of 13 countries considering nuclear energy, it would be the preferred choice for new base-load capacity commissioned by 2010 (see Table below). At a 10% discount rate the advantage over coal would be maintained in only France, Russia and China.

FACTORS FAVOURING URANIUM
Uranium has the advantage of being a highly concentrated source of energy which is easily and cheaply transportable. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20,000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. It is therefore intrinsically a very portable and tradeable commodity.
The fuel's contribution to the overall cost of the electricity produced is relatively small, so even a large fuel price escalation will have relatively little effect. For instance, a doubling of the 2002 U3O8 price would increase the fuel cost for a light water reactor by 30% and the electricity cost about 7% (whereas doubling the gas price would add 70% to the price of electricity).

REPROCCESSING & MOX

There are other possible savings. For example, if spent fuel is reprocessed and the recovered plutonium and uranium is used in mixed oxide (MOX) fuel, more energy can be extracted. The costs of achieving this are large, but are offset by MOX fuel not needing enrichment and particularly by the smaller amount of high-level wastes produced at the end. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
For different fuel costs (fossil fuels) or lead time (nuclear plants). Assumes 5% discount trate, 30 year life and 70% load factor. While the figures are out of date, the comparison remains relevant. Note that the key factor for fossil fuels is the high or low cost of fuels (top portion of bars), whereas nuclear power has a low proportion of fuel cost in total electricity cost and the key factor is the short or long lead time in planning and construction, hence investment cost (bottom portion of bars). Increasing the load factor thus benefits nuclear more than coal, and both these more than oil or gas. (OECD IEA 1992)

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/

IAEA Daily Press Review

2008-03-10T06:54:00.000-07:00

The objective of the DPR is to present a general overview of international, English-language, media coverage of the IAEA and nuclear issues, that does not purport to be exhaustive. The following articles are obtained from external news sources for whose content the IAEA takes no responsibility.

10 March 2008

IAEA in the News

Iran Ready to Talk Nuclear With Europe Iran is ready to negotiate with Europe over the Islamic republic's nuclear program if there were would be ''meaningful and effective'' results, Iran's foreign minister said Sunday. AP

Iran's nuclear program: talk of international consortium Interest is growing in a possible US-Iran nuclear compromise that could enable sensitive atomic work on Iranian soil, lower the risks of proliferation, and ease Iran's isolation. CSMonitor

India - IAEA Pact Close But U.S. Nuclear Deal Clouded India is close to finalizing the text for an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, but may fail to save a nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington that remains clouded in political uncertainty. Reuters

Other Nuclear News

Reformers Decry Iran President's Nuclear Rhetoric A leading Iranian reformist said on Sunday that "provocative" speeches had damaged Iran's nuclear cause and its diplomatic standing in a veiled attack on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reuters

Peres calls Iran 'greatest problem' in the world, but says Israel will not act alone President Shimon Peres on Sunday called Iran the world's "greatest problem" but said Israel would not act on its own against the Islamic nation's nuclear program. AP

Destruction of Iran's nuclear program good, if done by Israel, even better: Kuwaiti analyst The destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities would be in the interest of the Arab nations in the Gulf, and it would be "less embarrassing" if it was done by Israel rather than the U.S., a top Kuwaiti strategist said in remarks published Sunday. AP

US renews calls for North Korea to declare nuclear programs The top U.S. envoy to South Korea renewed Washington's commitment to removing North Korea from U.S. terrorism and trade blacklists if the communist government fully accounts for its nuclear weapons programs. AP

'Dirty bomb' threat as UK ships plutonium to France Weapons-ready plutonium that terrorists could easily make into a nuclear bomb is to be carried hundreds of miles down the west coast of Britain in an unarmed ship, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The Independent

China's nuclear power expansion "faster than planned" China is expanding nuclear power construction plans faster than earlier planned, a senior energy official told state media on Saturday, saying installed power capacity by 2020 could be 50 percent above the initial goal. Reuters

Deep under Sweden's soil could lie a solution to the UK's nuclear waste problem Inside the cavernous hall of a nuclear storage plant in southern Sweden, an 18-tonne steel canister, bristling with tiny fins to draw out excess heat, is being hauled slowly through a hatch by a crane. The Times

Opinion and Analysis

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal Time

Don't Nuke The Deal The Times of India

Nuclear States’ Double Standards The Korea Times

Source: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/

Nuclear States’ Double Standards

2008-03-03T07:05:00.000-08:00

By Valerie Epps

From time to time, the world community becomes concerned that a country, or other entity, not currently possessing nuclear weapons, might be on the road to acquiring them.

First it was Iraq, then it was Iran or al-Qaida. Recently, the discussion has shifted to trying to persuade the North Koreans to abandon further development of nuclear weapons.

Most people are rightly convinced that the fewer nuclear weapons there are, and the fewer people with access to such weapons, the better off we all are. But there is something decidedly odd about the structure of the legal argument about the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Groups of nations have often come together to ban certain sorts of weapons. The 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg prohibited certain explosive projectiles; biological weapons were outlawed in 1972; chemical weapons in 1993; land mines in 1997; and a long list of other weapons have also been declared illegal.

These weapons were banned because they were perceived as violating the laws of war. Although soldiers are permitted to kill the enemy in warfare, weapons that cause unnecessary suffering to combatants are prohibited.

Civilians may never be targeted in warfare and thus a weapon that cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets violates the law, as does a weapon, which although targeting the military, in fact, kills a disproportionate number of civilians.

Whenever there is sufficient sentiment to ban a weapon, states draft a treaty, work out the final language, and sign on to the ban. These treaties contemplate a total ban of the designated weapon.

They do not list countries that are permitted to retain the prohibited weapon, nor do parties to such treaties indicate that states who chose not to ratify the treaty will be entirely free to acquire the banned weapon.

Most of us learn early in our lives that if we expect rules that we set to be respected, we cannot promulgate the rule and, at the same time, grant ourselves a permanent exception.

The main treaty that deals with nuclear weapons, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a very different and fundamentally flawed structure.

This treaty specifically permits five states ― China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. ― to retain nuclear weapons, but any other party to the treaty must agree to forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

States that refuse to ratify the treaty, such as Cuba, Pakistan, India and Israel are free to acquire such weapons, and three of them have done so.

Why are states and other entities so eager to retain or acquire nuclear weapons? The motive is the same whether a state already has such weapons or hopes to acquire them. Nuclear weapons are perceived as giving the possessor a huge military advantage.

The determination on the part of the five nuclear declared states to create a structure that allows them to retain nuclear weapons while denying ownership to other nations, is exactly the same sort of determination that we see being brought to bear by states, and other non-state actors, to acquire such weapons. They all want military superiority.

Should nuclear weapons be banned? Such weapons have the capacity to cause untold suffering indiscriminately to military and civilians alike. They can cause vast environmental and economic devastation, not only in the area and at the time of detonation, but throughout the world and for future generations.

Surely nuclear weapons, including the so-called ``low-yield" nuclear weapons, carve out a far more destructive path than all of the weapons previously coming under the regime of a total ban.

Nuclear weapons certainly need to be prohibited, but they must be prohibited for all states and all entities. Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires all states party to the treaty ``to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

The International Court of Justice has described this as a binding treaty obligation.

As long as some states, including the U.S. and China, insist on their right to retain nuclear weapons, other states will wish to own such weapons and will work out ways to acquire them, even if it means violating treaty obligations.

If all the nuclear states would get together and start negotiations toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, including their own weapons, with a tough verification system applicable to all, the ``problem" of North Korea, Iran and all of the other nuclear aspirants would begin to disappear.

Under the present flawed structure, by which the nuclear states have legalized the ultimate double standard, all we have to look forward to is a new nuclear aspirant on the horizon every time we turn around.

Trying to eliminate nuclear weapons will surely be a monumental task but its success might just ensure us all a future in a hopeful world.

Valerie Epps is a visiting professor of law at Hongik University College of Law, Seoul, and professor of law and director of the International Law Concentration, Suffolk University Law School, Boston. She can be reached at vepps@suffolk.edu.

Final Warning on India Nukes Deal

2008-03-01T06:59:00.000-08:00

By MADHUR SINGH/NEW DELHI

During the final full dress rehearsal for India's Republic Day Parade in New Delhi, a replica of India's Agni-III missile passes by spectators. The Agni is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Raveendran / AFP / Getty

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher last week visited New Delhi with a sharp reminder: it's now or never for the Indo-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which has been stalled since India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh failed to garner the votes from within his own coalition to pass the deal.

Washington is warning that given the U.S. presidential campaign season, India has until June to complete all the steps required to get the agreement — which provides for civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries without India having to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — before Congress for a yes or no vote. Having invested immense political capital in the deal, the Bush administration is keen to see it completed, and has been quietly pressuring New Delhi to expedite matters. Last week, former Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns publicly asked India to take a "courageous decision" in view of the "short timelines". Before that, on February 20, U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and Joe Biden has visited New Delhi with the same message.

Making haste, however, is proving difficult for India's government, because of the resistance to the deal by opposition parties as well as the leftist parties in the ruling coalition who have delayed the deal at every step since it was first proposed in July 2005. The government has sidestepped this resistance by agreeing to hold talks with leftist allies, buying itself time to complete the requirements to get the deal before the U.S. Congress. But now, time is running out. Experts agree that the current deal is the best one India can get: it allows India to trade internationally in nuclear materials and technology, without signing the CTBT and despite carrying on with its nuclear weapons program. And it has the backing of a congressional consensus in the U.S. sufficient to win endorsement on Capitol Hill. If the deal is not passed during the tenure of the current administration, however, its successor might seek to renegotiate on terms less favorable to India.

The realization that Washington's position may harden has prompted India's power brokers to burn the midnight oil in order to meet the deadlines. This requires concluding, by the end of this month, an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to regulate India's civilian nuclear energy program and to ensure that it remains separate from its nuclear weapons program. By May, they must secure an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls international trade in nuclear materials, to rules that preclude supplying states that are not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and India's failure to sign the Test Ban Treaty will not go down easily with some of its members. India reiterated its support for universal nuclear disarmament at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva last month, and proposed a seven-point agenda. Getting an NSG waiver will be tricky, but the U.S. has assured India of its support in convincing skeptics.

With opponents of the deal — mainly the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party — digging their heels in, the June deadline may prompt the government to tell its leftist allies to take a hike. Riding high on a popular budget announced last week — which substantially reduced income tax and waived $150 billion worth of loans owed by small and marginal farmers — the government is in a good position to face elections. Politicians know that the average citizen cares little about the nuclear deal, as the CPI (M) learned last September: While the CPI (M) was focusing its attention on holding up the nuclear deal in New Delhi, in Bengal, the state it governs, villagers angry at food shortages and corruption broke into a riot. Many CPI (M) cadres were assaulted in riots over the following weeks. Most Indians may, in fact, be glad to get the nuclear deal out of the way, so that politicians can get on with working on issues more important in the minds of the citizenry.

http://www.time.com/

Nuclear Energy Not Part of Volvo's Environmental Goals

2008-01-28T06:38:00.000-08:00

by EVANDER KLUM

Volvo has recently announced that its truck-making business has signed an energy supply contract with utility Vattenfall. The contract specified that none of the company’s electricity will be generated from nuclear power plants by 2008.

According to Volvo’s environmental chief Inge Horkeby, the nuclear energy is not in line with the company’s environmental goals. She told the Dagens Nyheter newspaper, “We place nuclear energy far down the scale. It’s not sustainable from a number of aspects.”

“The raw materials used to produce nuclear energy are a finite resource and the waste management problem has not been solved,” she added.

In contrast however, a position statement on Volvo’s website said, “Volvo is not opposed to nuclear energy… Taking into account the climate issue, our view is that nuclear energy is needed in the energy system – perhaps even more nuclear power than today.”

Under the agreement between Volvo and Vattenfall, only Sweden is covered. The Swedish automaker said, “We have agreed on receiving renewable energy – nuclear energy is not renewable. The reason we made this demand is to help bring other alternative energy sources to the market. Accordingly, the aim of the agreement is not to eliminate nuclear energy but to choose alternatives in an effort to increase the availability of renewable energy on the market.” Thus, the company is still eager to continue the use of nuclear-generated electricity outside Sweden.

Volvo said, in its statement, “We would like to see that a parliamentary commission is appointed with the mission of investigating what the conditions are for continued use of nuclear power – particularly taking into account the fourth-generation.”

“We are not prepared to say that we should expand nuclear energy. What we are prepared to say, however, is that we believe that it would be favourable if we dared to again take a look and seriously investigate the conditions for the future of nuclear energy against the background of the technology development that has occurred since the referendum in 1980. There has not been any new thinking about nuclear energy in Sweden since then,” it continued.

Since the 1970s, Volvo holds environmental consideration as one of its core values. The company has said that its long-term objectives included the increase in use of the carbon dioxide-neutral energy, the reduction of energy consumption by 50% per manufactured unit and the no longer use of coal or oil for heating.

Volvo also stated its goals in powering all of its worldwide plants with the use of renewable energy sources. The company said that its truck plant in Ghent, Belgium, is actually the world’s first vehicle factory to be totally carbon dioxide-free. Most of the plant’s energy is being supplied by onsite wind turbines and a biomass production facility. Some electricity is being provided by Electrabel from renewable sources. At present, the plant produces 40,000 truck units (equipped with quality Volvo floor mats and other genuine parts) annually.

Volvo Trucks’ Europe Division President Claes Nilsson said, “We are fully aware of the environmental problems we have in the world today and we’re working to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in both fixed facilities and from vehicles.”

“However, for practical and economic reasons it is simpler to make a factory carbon-dioxide free, something we achieved within a period of two years.”

China's Battle for African Uranium

2008-01-25T06:43:00.000-08:00

by JAMES FINCH

As reported by the Wall Street Journal, Sunday night’s revelations that China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) may strengthen its ties to UraMin could represent a broader picture than an ordinary acquisition of a near-term uranium producer.

There is an ongoing global war for energy security, which appears to be politically inspired. China and Russia are the main opponents, especially in Africa, but have rivaled each other, over the past several years, in Central Asia. The goal for both nations is not only energy security but political influence and alliance over their targeted territories.

On May 12th, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan signed a declaration to upgrade and expand transport pipelines along the Caspian Sea coast directly to Russia. The project relies mainly upon the vast Turkmen gas reserves. This is part of Russia’s growing monopoly of Central Asian gas. Although Europe was shocked by Vladimir Putin’s new arrangement, the Chinese were flabbergasted.

We’ve been following developments in Central Asia, and had reported upon milestone events in both of our uranium publications, and again (with far greater details) in our soon-to-be-released Investing in China’s Energy Crisis.

After more than two decades in power, Turkmen strongman Saparmurat Niyazov passed away this past December. In April 2006, Niyazov had signed a framework agreement on oil and gas cooperation. By August, Niyazov had announced a pipeline, designed to pump gas to China, would be opened in 2009. The deal died with the dictator, it appears.

A few weeks ago, a spokesman for China’s National Reform and Development Committee announced China was unlikely to reach its natural gas target of a 10-percent portion of the country’s energy portfolio by 2010. Increasingly, Russia has shut China out of Central Asia in obtaining long-term, multiple energy sources.

Aside from South America, where China has strengthened the country’s ties with Venezuela and others, Africa is a prime hunting ground for China’s future energy security. China has established a strong foothold in the Sudan for petroleum. But, Africa is rich in uranium deposits.

According to a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005, Africa has 18 percent of the world’s known recoverable uranium resources – about six percent less than Australia and one percent more than Kazakhstan. We began coverage on both Namibia and Niger, after Russia sent a delegation to Egypt to discuss the nuclear renaissance. At the time, our research pointed to Africa, particularly those countries, as ripe for future uranium production. Chinese prospectors raced to Niger within weeks after our initial coverage.

During 2006, Namibia became saturated with numerous exploration plays hoping to capitalize on the country’s uranium resources and relaxed environment. Consequently, the Namibian Minister of Mines and Energy closed the country’s exploration window. Since then, Niger has become a new hunting ground. We expect this country to become just as saturated as Namibia has been.

China is eager to capitalize upon the continent’s uranium resources before Russia outmaneuvers them as has been accomplished in Central Asia.

According to an email we received from TradeTech’s Gene Clark, after presenting at the China Power & Alternative Energy Summit on May 18th, he told us China’s official target for nuclear power capacity was ‘40 GWe by 2020 and another 18 GWe in the following five-year plan.’ This confirms China’s aggressive plans to acquire sufficient uranium to reach this capacity, and would be foolish to rely on just Australia.

Typically, China has built its energy portfolio through numerous deals across multiple regions. This past October, Yang Changli, vice president of China National Nuclear, said it would seek uranium not only from Australia, but from Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Namibia. In an interview Yang gave during the 15th Pacific Basin Nuclear Conference, he said, “China won't rely on any single supplier of uranium because of energy security considerations.

Namibia is the First African Focus of Uranium Politiques

On May 14th, Russia’s second-largest bank Vneshtorgbank and Russia’s state-run nuclear exporter Tekhsnabexport announced they were considered a joint venture to operate in Namibia through licenses they directly hold and through investments in other companies which have obtained licenses in Namibia.

In March Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov announced his country was prepared to building nuclear plants in Namibia. Neighboring South Africa had previously warned Namibia to expect reductions in energy supplies. Namibia is dependent upon South Africa for electricity and has forecast an energy deficit of 300 megawatts within the next three years.

On May 10th, Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to set up the International Uranium Enrichment Center, anticipated to come onstream by 2013. As part of this announcement, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency, said, “Any country can become a member of the center by signing an intergovernmental agreement granting it guaranteed access to uranium enrichment services.” We conclude Namibia may wish to participate in this arrangement.

Enter CNNC on Sunday night. The Chinese company’s deputy general manager for uranium procurement announced to Bloomberg News that CNNC and UraMin will start ‘more formal’ talks this week.

UraMin is a prime acquisition candidate for the Chinese because of its uranium prospects in both Namibia and Niger. The company also has holdings in South Africa and the Central African Republic.

We are now facing a new era of uranium politics or rather ‘Uranium Politiques.’ And there is good reason for this to escalate. Yesterday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration issued ‘International Energy Outlook 2007.’ The report announced, “World marketed energy is expected to grow by 57 percent between 2004 and 2030.”

The most rapid growth in energy demand is anticipated in non-OECD Asia. The majority of this energy demand growth would come from China and India. This was the reference case – the middle ground of growth.

Also on Monday, leading Russian nuclear expert Yevgeny Velikhov, head of the Kurchatov Institute, told reporters at a news conference that the recent surge in uranium prices “may still grow by another order of magnitude.” He believes the uranium price will continue to rise as global uranium demand soars while supplies remain tight. “The global energy market is very turbulent,” Velikhov said. “The uranium price can hit any mark at a time of crisis.” Ironically, both crisis and turbulence have come about because of the Asian and Russian scramble to lock-up the uranium resources of entire countries.

The energy battle in Africa is good news for the two front-runners in Namibia: UraMin and Forsys Metals. We’ve called this a horse race, over the past several months. Both endeavor to become the ‘next miner’ following Paladin Resources in this country.

Yet, both companies are vulnerable to acquisition efforts by Russian or Chinese companies. Or either could be acquired by one or more majors hoping to build up their uranium reserves. In the case of Rio Tinto, acquiring one or both could mean expanding uranium operations in this country.

Acquisition Candidates

Just as the announcement by Energy Metals Corp, regarding a potential sale of the company, fueled weekend speculation as to the ‘next’ takeover candidates, the same could occur this week with African acquisition candidates.

One might be misled into believing China would focus on Niger, where the company has built a foundation, and Russia’s focus would remain in Namibia. However, in a state visit to China this week, Namibian Defense force chief exchanged views with Guo Boxiong, Central Military Commission vice chairman, on promoting relations between the two countries.

In February, Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Namibia to sign an economic deal with Namibia giving the country a grant of US$4.3 million and an interest-free loan of the same amount. Reportedly, some of the money would be used to boost group tourism from China to Namibia. This is the same tactic China has utilized in courting relationships in South America to help develop natural resource deals.

With US$1.2 trillion in foreign currency reserves, China is exercising its financial biceps. In March, the country formed the Huijin Fund as the state’s investment arm. Up to US$400 billion have reportedly been placed in this fund for investment purposes. On Sunday night, the Huijin Fund invested US$3 billion to purchase a stake in about 9.9 percent of the Blackstone private equity firm. Our research suggests the fund is likely to strongly invest in natural resources.

On this basis, we can not rule out a simple carving of Africa. We don’t believe China will quietly step back and focus the country’s uranium acquisition efforts in Niger, permitting Russia to concentrate on Namibia and South African uranium.

In Niger, we covered two ‘early days’ prospective uranium juniors over a year ago. North Atlantic Resources acquired a uranium permit in the 1900-square kilometer Abelajouad in this country. This past April, the company increased its holdings to nearly 3,000 square kilometers. In late April, Northwestern Mineral Ventures announced uranium mineralization in assays from rock samples after a first-pass reconnaissance on its In Gall and Irhazer uranium properties. Both would need to further explore their properties before attracting serious interest from the Chinese.

However, in Namibia both UraMin and Forsys Metals are actively progressing toward mining uranium on their properties. Either could be the first, but we believe both should become winners in the uranium bull market. Because China has carefully aligned with UraMin, or at least shown an inkling to do so, we suspect Russia might begin to look more carefully at Forsys Metals. This is purely speculation based upon our premise of ‘uranium Politiques.’ We do not have any ‘inside track’ on this matter.

Fortunately, we had the opportunity to chat with Forsys chief executive Duane Parnham late last week. His company had announced the completion of the pre-feasibility study on the company’s Valencia uranium deposit in Namibia. We missed the company’s conference call, but were allowed the opportunity to discuss his company’s prospects and future plans during a telephone call.

The company’s pre-feasibility study was prepared by Australia-based Snowden Mining, which used the guidelines of Australia’s JORC code. Subsequently, the Valencia uranium mineral reserve was classified as Probable Reserves. These were calculated at 24 million pounds U3O8.

We asked about production. “We are now modeling 2.4 million pounds per year,” Parnham told us. He expects to payback in less than two years. With Forsys as with all near-term producers, some early conversations have begun about pre-selling the company’s uranium production after production has commenced.

His company’s news release talked about six month of stripping during the initial part of the operation so we started there. “We’ll start when we get a mining license and then looking at production.” When will the company complete its ongoing environmental assessment? “We are hoping to have an environmental decision by year end,” Parnham told us. “We are hoping to have enough data to apply for a mining license in early 2008. If that’s successful, then obviously the decision to go forward will be made at that time.”

For the time being, the company plans to expand its resource. “The pre-feasibility is just the first snapshot of the situation,” he said. “We are finding the pit optimization study is only looking at a very small portion of the overall resource.” Does that mean the resource is actually larger, then? “It’s a heck of a lot bigger,” he told us. “It’s just a function of how much data you have available to punch into the model. Then, how much does the model give you back? The evaluation process is ongoing. You’ll probably see a change in the pit design very shortly because we have the ability to move more resource into the reserve category.”

We talked about his company’s horse race with UraMin. How does it look? “Neck and neck, toe to toe,” Parnham said. “I think it shows there’s opportunity in Namibia, and that’s good that there are a number of us working for a common goal.”

Finally, we asked what has emerged as the key question: Is Forsys a ripe plum for the picking. He offered both sides of the coin. “Where the real opportunity lies is putting a property into production,” he responded. “The operation isn’t all that difficult so it’s not a deposit that our expanding team couldn’t put into production.” And then Parnham left the door open. “Anything can happen. It’s an open market, and we are a public company. But, we are certainly geared toward putting this into production.”

And from what we’ve seen among the recent, significant consolidations, those companies who have commenced production, and those closest to production, are the prime acquisition candidates. Why should companies developing projects in Africa become the exception instead of the rule? Especially when two super powers are both eagerly trying to establish stronger uranium footholds in this continent.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. His focus on the uranium mining and nuclear fuel sector resulted in the widely popular “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” which is now available on http://www.stockinterview.com and on http://www.amazon.com

Related Articles - China, Africa, Uranium, Namibia,

Iran Says First Nuclear Plant to Start in Mid-2008

2008-01-23T07:06:00.000-08:00

by VOA News

Iran says its first nuclear power plant will begin operating in mid-2008.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told state media Sunday that the Bushehr nuclear power station will start generating electricity next year at 50 percent of its 1,000 megawatt capacity.

Construction of the reactor has been delayed by payment disputes between Russia and Iran.

Earlier this month, the Russian company that is completing the construction said the plant will not be launched before late 2008.

Russia began making internationally-supervised deliveries of nuclear fuel to the plant this month under terms that mandate the return of all spent fuel to Russia.

Both Russia and the United States said the fuel deliveries make it unnecessary for Iran to enrich its own nuclear fuel.

But Tehran says it needs to make its own fuel to supply a series of new nuclear power plants it plans to build.

Iranian officials have said they plan to generate 20,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear energy in the next two decades.

The United States and its Western allies have accused Iran of attempting to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program.

Tehran argues that its nuclear work is strictly for civilian purposes.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters.

Problems with Using Nuclear Energy

2008-01-20T07:19:00.000-08:00

By Karel Kosman

In principle, nuclear energy, whose share of covering the world's energy needs presently amounts to around 5%, is one of the best methods how we can presently produce energy. Even so, this form of energy has many great risks for mankind and the environment.

The wasteful consequences of nuclear energy is not only in its military use, as was proven following the atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But, as was shown in the nuclear power plant accident in Chernobyl in 1986, the peaceful use of nuclear energy also carries with it its unexpected risks. Not only did thousands of people die immediately following the reactor's failure but also due to the cancer illnesses clearly resulting from this accident. Besides this, there is a clear rise in the number of miscarriages and birth defects in the area surrounding Chernobyl. At that time, a radioactive cloud engulfed all of Europe. Although the consequences of this accident were not directly visible in all parts of Europe, increased amounts of radiation were observed in many locations.

To avoid such an accident from taking place in the future, some countries have decided to stop producing nuclear energy outright. Furthermore, many residents living near border regions neighbouring countries still operating or building nuclear power plants are protesting against it.

It can be generally stated that, even in light of many safety and preventive measures, the use of nuclear energy has many risks hidden within it in that dangerous situations can occur at all locations along its fuel circuit. The risks involved do not only relate to, as it is often erroneously believed, the actual fusion process, the storage of uranium or its recycling and transport but also on the mining of uranium and the creation of radioactive dumpsites. The biproducts of nuclear fission, such as radioactive radon gas created from waste containing remains of radium, leads to greater occurrences of lung cancers, evident with miners or residents living near radioactive waste dumps.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Karel_Kosman

Nuclear Energy - The Green Solution

2008-01-20T07:11:00.000-08:00

by JOHN WOOLF

The United States with less than 5% of the world's population consumes roughly 25% of the world's energy. Some might argue that this is egregious, while others would say that it is simply a yardstick by which the world's largest economy is measured. But for whatever the reason for our vast consumption of energy, the fact remains that in order to consume you first have to produce. And as most of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels- which wouldn't be too bad except that:

(1) burning vast amounts of fossil fuels in this county alone dumps millions of pounds of earth warming greenhouse gasses into, what appears, is a fragile atmosphere, every day. Just warming up the atmosphere a couple of degrees on average has significant impact. Look no further than last year's hurricane season. The worst on record. And...

(2) let's not forget its close cousin; smog pollution, which adds to respiratory problems and other health conditions, not to mention the visual blight hanging over our cities as well. In addition...

(3) have you filled your tank recently? Paid the heating bill? The cost of all fossil fuels, even coal has increased significantly. As other emerging economies such as China and India vie for ever more limited resources, all bets are that the costs will continue to climb over the long haul. Moreover...

(4) as we import most of our oil nowadays- we are increasingly held hostage to an unstable supply from a number of countries that we, for whatever reasons, are increasingly unpopular with. The end game? If our supply of oil is not first arbitrarily cut off, as it becomes increasingly scarce the price will rise until our growth is strangled. In either case we will feel impelled to engage in war with other rising powers to secure our supplies.

The bottom line: Fossil fuels are not only hazardous to our health (and the planet's) but may in fact be hazardous to the American way of life.

But if energy is the lifeblood of our economy what are we to do? Wind? Solar? While anything we can do other than consume fossil fuels will help, these sources of energy are relatively diffuse and inconsistent. In other words, their "cost to calorie" ratios are not efficient and they are not always dependable. As James Kunstler points out in his intriguing book The Long Emergency, one of our best options out of these dilemmas is to do an "Apollo Project" type effort to develop additional, new nuclear energy capability. As it turns out, it just may be the greenest, viable alternate we have.

The U.S. currently produces about 20% of its electrical power from nuclear power. The advantages are; that there are no greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere, no visual pollution, it is cost relatively cost effective, quiet and we have sufficient supply of uranium here at home for the foreseeable future to provide for a major portion of our energy needs. Historically, at least, the problem with nuclear energy has been primarily two fold. First, the "China Syndrome" problem of a meltdown of a reactor which could release a large amount of radioactivity and second, what do we do with nuclear waste material that has a half-life of over 25,000 years! The perception of these two significant obstacles might doom a new nuclear drive and stand in the way of an energy-independent United States.

However, there are new technologies in this field that, like the cavalry, have come to our rescue- and none too soon. First, there is a new class of nuclear reactors that have their nuclear fuel so structured that they cannot do a melt down. Turn off the cooling to this new nuclear reactor and it only gets a bit hotter. No big deal. Turn the cooling back on and it runs more efficiently. Okay, one down. But what about all that radioactive spent reactor fuel? Let's see if we can put some perspective on it. If you gathered all the spent nuclear fuel in this country under one roof it would fill a typical high school gym. Not too unmanageable. Moreover, the spent fuel is encapsulated in super strong glass beads, which in turn are embedded into hardened concrete inside steel drums. This makes the waste product "transportable" and is designed to withstand the elements for 10,000 years. Nevertheless, even in it's tomb it is still relativity radioactive. Most of these drums are stored in water as radiation cannot penetrate more than about 3 feet of water. However, no one seems anxious to have it in their back yards. A political hot potato to be sure.

But while our politicians don't have the answer, the earth does. The answer lies in the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific. It is the deepest place in the ocean (over seven miles) and one of the fastest moving subduction plates on earth. If the drums of waste were placed in the bottom of the trench, they would, within a few hundred years, be swallowed up into the bowels of the earth and blend into the earth's core where heat and pressure (caused in part by radioactive substances contained within the earth) rendered insignificant.

Given the current geopolitical situation, which only seems to be working to our disadvantage, limited resources for cheap fossil fuels, not to mention the environmental impacts we are starting to experience, it is time we take drastic measures to get us off our fossil fuel addition. Let's hope we are not too late.

---

John Woolf is the founder of several successful Internet technology companies including the Book Price Comparison website CompareBook.com. As a pragmatist of the world around him, he is both a critic and crusader on international politics and energy policy as it relates to our security and our impact on the global environment.

Visit CompareBook.com to read reviews, find similar titles, and search for the lowest possible price for The Long Emergency and other great books.

Related Articles - Energy, Nuclear Energy, Oil, Environment, Green, Book, Book Review,

An Overview of Nuclear Energy

2008-01-18T07:23:00.000-08:00

By Richard Chapo

In the effort to get away from our oil and coal dependency, nuclear energy is getting attention again. Here is an overview of nuclear energy.

Harnessing a chemical reaction at the nuclear level of certain materials produces nuclear energy. The process is known as nuclear fission.

Nuclear fission occurs when certain materials, such as uranium, are manipulated in a manner that causes them to decay quickly. A byproduct of this decal is immense amounts of heat. The heat is then typically used to turn turbines much as occurs in hydropower dams. The spinning turbines produce electricity, which is then used for commercial applications and propelling naval vessels such as submarines.

The largest known nuclear reaction can be seen everyday in the sky. The sun is essentially a nuclear reaction, but on a much larger scale than we could ever replicate. It does not blow up because of its immense gravity. It does, however, shoot off massive solar flares which contain more energy than we could use in years.

Nuclear energy is a popular subject with governments because it produces a lot of energy with relatively small resource requirements. Countries such as Russia, France and China have invested heavily in nuclear energy production. There are, however, significant problems with nuclear energy.

Nuclear fission is a fairly unstable process. Energy is produced by speeding up and slowing down the decay process. Essentially, it is a balancing act. Allow the decay to happen to quickly and your risk a meltdown. Although meltdowns are rare, they are absolutely devastating when they occur.

The best known nuclear disaster was Chernobyl in 1986. Located in the Ukraine, the individuals controlling the reactor attempted an ill-advised test. Blame has been put on the controllers and the basic design of the plant, but nobody is really sure as to the exact cause. What is known is control was lost and the nuclear fission went to fast. Huge steam explosions occurred followed by a full nuclear meltdown. A huge radioactive cloud escaped and dropped radioactive material over much of Eastern Europe. 330,000 people around the reactor had to be evacuated. Thousands died immediately. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people have suffered health problems. Birth defects are a sad, regular occurrence. All and all, the meltdown produced 300 times the radioactive material produced in the two bombs dropped on Japan at the end of the Second World War.

Nuclear energy is a very efficient way to produce energy, but one that is extremely devastating when it goes wrong. All and all, we are better off finding another platform for our energy needs.

Rick Chapo is with SolarCompanies.com, a directory of solar energy companies. Visit us to read more articles on renewable energy.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Richard_Chapo

Can Nuclear Energy Save You From Global Warming?

2008-01-08T07:28:00.000-08:00

By Erik Leipoldt

Just imagine a world with abundant energy, enabling you to live the good life forever... Isn't that what most of us crave? Nuclear energy is magic isn't it?

Nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. The latest technology has made it safe and we can bury nuclear waste without worrying about radiation. Business as usual without doing any harm.

Perfect!

Well, is it?

Nuclear energy is magical thing. It's hard to understand how it works and it's easy to get bamboozled by claims made by the nuclear magicians – scientists – as well as by opponents.

Take veteran environmentalist Dr James Lovelock, of GAIA fame who says only nuclear energy can save us from global warming. Or Dr Helen Caldicott who says it's too dangerous and we do not need it.

And governments ... Well, depends on who you talk to.

Your life is full already without figuring out what is valid and what's not. Right?

Easier to just leave it to "Them."

But stop!

Find out the facts on nuclear energy and nuclear radiation hazards. Then make up your mind – and next time there is an election you vote with some knowledge under your belt. There is plenty of information out there to help you make up your mind and I'll give you a leg-up.

So, here is an easy framework. Imagine experiencing a certain “knowing”about this important issue on your way to the ballot box, or in talking with your friends.

Given that global warming is a real threat, and global energy demand is ballooning, then the nuclear energy debate is essentially about four Big Issues.

1) Can nuclear energy deliver on a low-emission or even non-emission basis?
2) Is nuclear energy for electrical power purposes safe?
3) Can it be delivered at a reasonable cost?
4) How does it compare with other low-emission alternate energy sources?

Here is an overview only of those issues. But don't just take my word for it. Find out more yourself!

Emissions

Yes, nuclear energy is emission-free if you just measure the exhausts from a reactor's chimney.
In one study, nuclear energy came close to wind power in low emissions over its lifetime.
There is no air pollution, with big nuclear energy user France having the cleanest air in Europe.
No, it is not emission-free and is a greenhouse gas emitter, when measuring mining of uranium and transporting it, building and decommissioning nuclear power plants.

Safe?

Chernobyl still stands the only disastrous accident with a nuclear power plant, and the antiquated structure and action taken after the “melt-down” bears much blame.
Any safeguards are only as good as the people that manage them, and any further accident will be one too many.
Modern nuclear power plant structures are much safer.
A terrorist attack, using radioactive material in a dirty bomb cannot be excluded.
A terrorist attack using an airplane could be disastrous, even though deactivating a modern nuclear plant can be done in 5 seconds.
A higher-than-normal incidence of childhood leukemia has been reported near power plants in the UK, France and Germany.
So-called Generation IV nuclear reactors, including "fast breeders" are said to be cleaner (low radiation level waste), cheaper and safer but the first will not be ready before 2010, some not until 2030.

Cost

Economics of nuclear energy is a wobbly concept, depending on the assumptions about other energy sources and their end costs.
Nuclear reactors currently have very high start-up and close-down costs compared to other low-emission, and renewable energy sources.
Costs are more than just counting money.

Comparison to low-emission energy sources

You'll find many studies with different results.
One must take into account the urgent threat presented by global warming, that of radioactive energy, and appraise the benefits of energy-wise living and currently available renewable energy sources.

The magical attraction of nuclear energy remains: throw enough money at it and all our problems will seem to go away. But the future is most likely one of a diversified use of renewable energy with some nuclear energy. It's a question of where to put the emphasis.

Nuclear energy sources removes people even further from tangible "natural" processes. More of the same kind of thinking that caused our global warming problems in the first place. Why not emphasize responsible energy use, and the use of the Great Big Nuclear Reactor In The Sky to drive wind, tidal and solar energy. And to try and live in harmonious relationship with each other and our environments.

But you just have to make up your own mind. My children's future and yours depend on you. Only your personal attitude – the greatest energy source we know – can help you live with global warming. And we are going to have to live with it for a long, long time.

Dr Erik Leipoldt has long been concerned about the effects of global warming. In particular he uses his own experience of severe disability in practical approaches towards alternate energy sources to survive and thrive in our environmentally disabled world.

See http://www.alternate-energy-sources.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Erik_Leipoldt

Asia Leads Way In Nuclear Power Development

2008-01-02T07:39:00.000-08:00

Asia Leads Way In Nuclear Power Development

30 October 2007 | With 18 of the 31 reactors now being built located in Asia and more in the planning, Asian nations are at the forefront of the renewed interest in nuclear power generation according to the findings of a newly-released IAEA report. Full Story »

Special Event Launches New Partnership

24 October 2007 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will join more than 100 leading public figures, philanthropists and cancer experts at the UN Headquarters in New York on 29 October to mark the launch of a new partnership between the IAEA and the US-based National Foundation for Cancer Research (NFCR). Press Release »

Nuclear Power Worldwide: Status and Outlook

23 October 2007 | Nuclear power's prominence as a major energy source will continue over the next several decades, according to new projections made by the IAEA, which has just published a new report, Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power for the period up to 2030. Press Release » :: Nuclear Power in Focus »

IAEA Chief Outlines Vision for Global Security

17 October 2007 | In a speech delivered at the fifth annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in New Delhi, India, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said that the current situation of global insecurity can only be addressed through "an adjustment of our mindset, and a change in our values" leading to a new global security thinking. Full Story » :: Read Statement »

Daniel Nase: Amtech Thermonuclear Converter

2007-12-28T21:05:00.000-08:00

Author: Daniel Nase

The AMTECH Thermonuclear Converter uses radiation from a nuclear source to heat liquid sodium and generate a potential across a composite ceramic doped with metal ions. This converts radiation from nuclear isotopes into electrical energy that is used to power the world's deep space satellites. The prototype and two successive designs to increase the AMTECH's efficiency where created by Daniel Nase at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in July of 1997. Successive designs were drafted, which recycle the waste radiation that escaped from the first layer of the device. The initial device was only 40% efficient. However, the third device boosted efficiency to 75%. Since there are no moving parts in the AMTECH and the nuclear material has a very long decay rate, the AMTECH is expected to power deep space satellites for more than 600 years.

Reference: NASA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Article Tags: Electricity, Mission, Nuclear, Radiation, Nasa, Convert, Converter, Satellites, Daniel Nase, Amtech, Thermonuclear, Jpl, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pathfinder, Deep Space

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/t

The Benefits of Using Renewable Energy Over Fossil Fuels & Nuclear Power

2007-12-27T21:09:00.000-08:00

Author: Don Alexander

Work is a force applied over a distance. Let us further define energy as a shifting back and forth, but never truly changing one thing: it's constancy.

The first law of thermodynamics: energy is conserved. Thermodynamics is the study of the movement of heat. This law instructs us that although the kind of energy in a given system can change, the total amount can't. Energy is able to travel seamlessly through systems, yet it never changes its structure or shape.

I find this concept enlightening, because you wouldn't normally think of energy as such a fluid movement. It seems more. I found it fascinating that all forms of energy are interchangeable. It makes one think about the potential of newer energy as well.

All objects hold some internal energy. That is, the kinetic energy of moving atoms. Conduction is discussed as the transfer of heat through collisions of electrons and atoms. Leaders at the University of Irvine that are studying the effect of aging, and specifically how the breakdown of DNA over time, effects aging.

The group at the University of Irvine has made a fruit fly live twice as long by their experiments. As they stated, it may only be a bit more time before scientists discover a way to reverse or slow down aging, if they can discover the cause.

Thermal conductivity, the study of how energy transfer occurs, sounds very interesting. Radiation, or the movement of infrared energy and light traveling across a room, until they absorb, are also important to the second law of thermodynamics as well, because it makes one think about the process of how atoms and energy move from place to place.

The concepts of electricity and magnetism can be explained very differently from how Sir Isaac Newton explained gravitational pulls. One learns that lightning is a result of electrical charges, which come about from the transfer of electrons. That makes one think about what is going on to cause the lightning bolt, rather than just running from them!

It's also important to note that objects with like charges experience a "get away from me" stance, while objects with opposite charges attract each other. We know that every Magnet has a north and south pole and those magnets exert forces on each other, and always contain two poles.

A compass will point at the earth's "dipole" magnetic field. Dipole is the magnetic field that arises from the two poles of a magnet. In the previous example of the earth, that would be the north and south poles. That's a long distance to carry forces!

That brings us to wavelengths, amplitude, and frequency. Science has discovered that ocean waves are transverse waves that move perpendicular to the direction of the waves. James Clark Maxwell discovered that electromagnetic radiation could travel through a vacuum at the speed of light. Before this, scientists must have really wondered how that happened.

Gamma rays are the highest energies in the spectrum, and they are used to treat tumors and other medical needs in hospitals. The rays cause the bad tissues to die, allowing the human to live on his/her excellent tissues. It really makes one think about what happens as light moves.

Knowing all of the above, how can we better make use of earth's energy? The answer is renewable energy. This type of energy use taps into natural cycles such as the movement of the wind and water, the heat and light of the sun, heat in the ground, and the carbohydrates in plants. These are all natural energy sources that can supply our needs in a sustainable way.

Current levels of renewable energy use represent only a tiny fraction of what could be developed in the United States. Since electricity generation is a leading cause of carbon dioxide emissions, something needs to be done soon.

Renewable energy will also help alleviate our polluted air, water, increase plant and animal life, and help deter global warming. It's tough though, because fossil fuels and nuclear energy are tough to compete with due to their widespread usage and politics.

Still though, I encourage you, write your congressman. Let them know that you are for renewable energy and you can even get petitions going in your area to see this come to pass. Over time, renewable energy sources could replace nuclear generation altogether. Furthermore, because renewable energy is homegrown, it can increase our energy security as a nation and create a ton of jobs as well.

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/

Fission & Chain reaction

2007-10-01T03:07:00.000-07:00

Fission describes the splitting of an atom's nucleus into two or more smaller nuclei. Most atoms will not fission because a binding energy that holds its protons and neutrons together prevents it. However, some atoms with big, unstable nuclei, like U-235, are possible to break apart. Under certain conditions, when U-235 is struck with a neutron it divides and produces two lighter atoms. The mass of these two lighter atoms added together is less than the original U-235 atom. In the process of fission the mass that seems to have disappeared has been converted into energy.

According to Einstein's formula E = mc², even a small amount of mass (m) inside the atom can be magnified by a huge number (c², the speed of light squared) to create enormous amounts of energy (E). The fissioning of one U-235 nucleus releases 50 million times more energy than the combustion of a single carbon atom. Nuclear fission produces far more heat than burning a comparable volume of hydrocarbon fuel such as oil, natural gas or coal.

Chain reaction

In addition to the creation of two new smaller nuclei, fission frees some neutrons to make other atoms divide. They strike other U-235 atoms and release more neutrons. As long as there are uranium atoms present, the fission process continues. This is called a chain reaction. It is this chain reaction that makes a sustained nuclear reaction possible. It creates an ongoing release of energy from one atom to the next and therefore provides a continuous source of energy.

If uncontrolled the fission reaction multiplies rapidly and can produce an explosion. However, in a nuclear reactor, fission is controlled. Only one neutron is allowed to produce another fission. Control rods prevent the number of neutrons in a nuclear reactor from growing too large by absorbing excess neutrons. To do this, control rods are inserted into the core of the reactor. Pushed in, they soak up neutrons and slow down the reaction; pulled out they allow it to speed up again. In this way the chain reaction is controlled.

---------------------------------------------------------

How does uranium become nuclear fuel?

2007-09-21T03:17:00.000-07:00

Uranium, as it is mined from the ground, is not directly useable for power generation. Much processing must be carried out before uranium can be used efficiently to generate electricity. Uranium's transformation from ore in the ground into nuclear fuel and ultimately the handling of waste products is described as the nuclear fuel cycle.

After a successful exploration program, uranium ore undergoes:

mining and milling to produce uranium concentrate known as yellowcake
conversion of the concentrated uranium into either uranium dioxide (UO₂) for heavy water reactors or gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF₆) for light water reactors
enrichment, which increases the proportion of the rarer 'fissile' form of uranium, U-235, which is the essential component of nuclear fuel
fuel fabrication, where the uranium is manufactured into fuel pellets
electricity generation where nuclear fuel is loaded into a reactor and allows nuclear reactions to generate electricity. After fuel is consumed, it is removed from the reactor and stored on-site for a number of years while its radioactivity and heat subside.
optional chemical reprocessing, after a period of storage, recover from the spent fuel elements any residual uranium or byproduct plutonium, both of which are still useful sources of energy - and at the same time to separate and package the highly radioactive residues produced while the fuel was in the reactor; or alternatively storage, without chemical treatment, for up to fifty years to allow the radioactivity to diminish; (while its radioactivity and heat subside).
and finally disposal where, depending on the design of the disposal facility, the nuclear fuel may be recovered if needed again, or else remain permanently stored. At some point in the future the spent fuel will be encapsulated in sturdy, leach-resistant containers and permanently placed deep underground where it originated, thus completing the cycle.

Steps one to four are known as the front end of the fuel cycle; steps six and seven, the back end, refers to what happens after the fuel comes out of the reactor.

How do you find uranium deposits?

Today's exploration activities are much more complex than in the past since the deposits that were close to the surface were found first because they were easier to discover. With the highest-grade deposits buried in deep rock formations, advanced technologies like satellite imagery, geophysical surveys, multi-element geochemical analysis and computer processing are required to locate and confirm the deposits.

Once geologists locate a prospective deposit, detailed geological and economic evaluation of the grade and characteristics of the orebody must be completed. Then mining engineers develop a mining plan to extract the ore. If the project looks promising, environmental impact assessments and the public consultation process begin so that applications can be made for regulatory approvals of project development. When permits and licences are in place, mine development and construction of surface facilities can begin. The timeline from discovery of an orebody to electricity production can span decades. Cameco's McArthur River mine was fast-tracked and still took 12 years to bring to commercial production.

At Cameco, uranium exploration has focused in recent years on targets in northern Saskatchewan's Athabasca Basin and in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia.

How is uranium mined?

Uranium ore is removed from the ground in one of three ways depending on the characteristics of the deposit. Uranium deposits close to the surface can be recovered using the open pit mining method, and underground mining methods are used for deep deposits. In some circumstances the ore may be mined by in situ recovery, a process that dissolves the uranium while still underground and then pumps a uranium-bearing solution to the surface.

Open pit mining

When uranium ore is found near the surface, generally less than 100 metres deep, it is typically extracted by the open pit mining method. Open pit mining begins by removing overburden (soil) and waste rock on top of the orebody to expose the hard rock. Then a pit is excavated to access the ore. The walls of the pit are mined in a series of benches to prevent them from collapsing. To mine each bench, holes are drilled into the rock and loaded with explosives, which are detonated to break up the rock. The resulting broken rock is then hauled to the surface in large trucks that carry up to 200 tonnes of material at a time.

Cameco's Key Lake mine in 1994. The photo on the left is an aerial view of Deilmann Pit. On the right, ore is being loaded onto a truck to be transported to the surface. After mining was completed in 1996, the pit was converted to a tailings storage facility.

Cross-section of McArthur River underground development

Mine operator Arthur Bekkattala uses a remote controlled scoop tram to collect and transport uranium ore 640 metres underground at McArthur River, the world's largest, highest grade uranium mine.

Cameco uses in situ recovery mining at its Crow Butte operation in Nebraska.

Underground mining

When an orebody is located more than 100 metres below the surface, underground mining methods are necessary since it is uneconomic to mine by open pit. For example, Cameco's McArthur River orebody is located more than 500 metres below the surface and so is it mined using an underground mining method.

The first step in underground mining is to access the ore. Entry into underground mines is gained by digging vertical shafts to the depth of the orebody. Then a number of tunnels are cut around the deposit. A series of horizontal tunnels, called drifts, offer access directly to the ore and provide ventilation pathways. All underground mines are ventilated, but in uranium mines, extra care is taken with ventilation to minimize the amount of radiation exposure and dust inhalation.

In most underground mines the ore is blasted and hoisted to the surface for milling. At McArthur River, due to the potential for radiation exposure from the high-grade ore, processing systems must ensure worker safety. As a result, the ore is processed underground to the consistency of fine sand, diluted with water and pumped to the surface as slurry or mud. The slurry is trucked to the Key Lake site for milling.

does uranium become nuclear fuel?
How do you find uranium deposits?
How is uranium mined?
What happens to the ore during milling?
What is refining and conversion?
What is enrichment?
What is fuel fabrication?
How does a nuclear reactor work?
Can nuclear fuel be reused?
How are nuclear fuel wastes handled?

Source:http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/fact.php#two
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is nuclear energy produced?

2007-09-10T02:56:00.000-07:00

How can something so small generate so much energy? The secret is in the basic building block of all matter - the atom. All matter in the universe is made up of atoms, particles so tiny that they cannot be observed even under a microscope.

Atoms

The atom resembles a miniature solar system. In the centre of the atom is the nucleus around which electrons orbit, like planets moving around the sun. The nucleus, composed of protons and neutrons, contains most of the mass of the atom. Tiny electrons move around in relatively large orbits with nothing in between.

Atoms that contain an equal number of protons and electrons are referred to as elements. There are 90 kinds of naturally occurring elements and at least 14 other artificial elements have been created by scientists in controlled experiments. Elements are listed in a periodic table arranged according to their number of protons (atomic number). For example, an atom of hydrogen, the lightest element, has just one proton in the nucleus. An atom of uranium, the heaviest element found in nature, has 92 protons.

Elements are listed in a periodic table arranged according to their number of protons.

Isotopes

The number of protons in the nucleus of an element is always the same but the number of neutrons may vary. For example, carbon atoms that have six protons usually have six neutrons. However, some have eight. Atoms that have a different number of neutrons than protons are called isotopes. Each isotope is identified by its atomic mass, the sum of its protons and neutrons.

Naturally occurring uranium is made up primarily of two different uranium isotopes. Approximately 99.3% is uranium 238 (U-238) with 92 protons and 146 neutrons, and 0.7% is uranium 235 (U-235). Under certain conditions the nucleus of U-235 can be made to split, or fission. Because of this property, U-235 plays an important role in the creation of nuclear energy.

Splitting the nucleus of an atom - a process called nuclear fission - releases the binding energy. The energy released is nuclear energy.

Source:http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/fact.php#two
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the sources of energy?

2007-09-05T02:53:00.000-07:00

There are six basic kinds of energy. As you throw a basketball, your arms give it mechanical energy in the form of movement. A burning log gives off chemical energy, which you can see as light and feel as heat. A hot burner on the stove receives electrical energy from an outlet and supplies thermal energy to a frying pan with eggs. The sun sends radiant energy to Earth every day in the form of light but gets its own nuclear energy from reactions inside the nuclei of its own atoms. Nuclear energy can be produced in two ways. In the sun, energy is created by the joining of the nuclei of hydrogen atoms in a process called fusion. On Earth the nuclei of larger atoms such as uranium split apart to create energy in a process called fission. All types of energy are essentially different forms of one another.

Source:http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/fact.php#two
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is uranium related to energy?

2007-09-01T01:54:00.000-07:00

Uranium is an element found in nature. Used as a nuclear fuel, it is a source of energy. Uranium fuel is emissions-free, making it safe for the environment and in comparison to other fuels, only a tiny quantity is required to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. All the uranium produced by Cameco is used to generate electricity.

Society depends on electricity. It wakes us up, cooks our food, keeps us warm, cools us off, runs the factories, and connects us to the Internet. We may take these conveniences for granted but many of the things we do require electricity.

Electricity is a form of energy. The universe is made up of both matter and energy. Matter is all those things that have weight, or mass - rocks, trees, lakes, people, animals. Energy is harder to describe, but it is observed all the time. Energy is the force that makes things move and change. In other words, if the universe were a watch... energy would make it tick.

Source:http://www.cameco.com/uranium_101/fact.php#two
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Privacy Policy for Nuclear Energy for Peace

2007-04-07T22:16:00.000-07:00

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at kedarah@hotmail.com.

At Nuclear Energy For Peace, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Nuclear Energy For Peace and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, Nuclear Energy For Peace makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
Nuclear Energy For Peace does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Nuclear Energy For Peace.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Nuclear Energy For Peace and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Nuclear Energy For Peace send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Nuclear Energy For Peace has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Nuclear Energy For Peace's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.