[ RadSafe ] Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception
Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply
New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal
Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction 
Bristol region readies for nuclear waste
BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source
IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding 
==============================

Nuclear power is finding a warmer reception

Governments are turning to a power source that was once mostly 
shunned as too dangerous and too expensive.

Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune Jan 13 - Sixty miles outside Buenos 
Aires, construction crews soon will be swarming over a partially 
built concrete dome abandoned 12 years ago and will resume work on 
Argentina's long-delayed Atucha II nuclear power plant. They will be 
in the vanguard of surging interest in nuclear power worldwide. Faced 
with evidence that coal- and oil-fired electric plants are 
overheating the planet, and alarmed by soaring demand for 
electricity, governments from South America to Asia are turning once 
again to a power source mostly shunned for two decades as too 
dangerous and too costly.  

Globally, 29 nuclear power plants are being built. Well more than 100 
others have been written into the development plans of governments 
for the next three decades. India and China each are rushing to build 
dozens of reactors. The United States and the countries of Western 
Europe, led by new nuclear champions, are reconsidering their cooled 
romance with atomic power. International agencies have come on board; 
even Persian Gulf oil states have plans for nuclear generators.

"Energy and climate changes can't remain tied to carbon or 
hydrocarbon," the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier 
Solana, said in October. "They are polluting, and we'll have to find 
substitute energies, including nuclear energy." Creating heat through 
nuclear reactions rather than combustion gives off no carbon dioxide, 
the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases that trap heat 
in the Earth's atmosphere.

Dusting off plans

Utilities are dusting off plans for nuclear plants even though most 
of the problems that shelved those projects remain. Critics say 
governments have forgotten the crises of Three Mile Island and 
Chernobyl. The costs and time to build the concrete-encased plants 
far exceed those of conventional plants. There still is no safe 
permanent storage for the used fuel that will remain radioactive for 
a million years. Not to mention the newly realistic worry of a 
terrorist attack on a nuclear plant.

10 to 30 new U.S. plants

In the United States, the Bush administration has strongly pushed 
nuclear power and backed a 2005 energy bill offering subsidies to 
utilities to go ahead with projects in a shortened, streamlined 
regulatory process. The industry talks enthusiastically of 10 to 30 
new nuclear plants being started in the next two decades.

Critics say those predictions will stall without long-term subsidies, 
and they scoff at the administration's explanations that nuclear 
plants will help battle global warming. "The Bush administration 
doesn't believe climate change is a threat unless it is arguing for 
nuclear power," said Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the 
Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

Just talk?

Skeptics say the nuclear resurgence is still just talk. In the United 
States, they note, not a single reactor has been ordered. High costs 
and long delays that vexed nuclear construction soon will diminish 
the atomic ardor in other countries, they say.

According to Lyman, "We need to move faster to really take a bite out 
of greenhouse emissions, and there aren't any scenarios in which 
nuclear power can do that."

At present, 442 nuclear plants operate in more than 31 countries, 
according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The 
United States has the most -- 103, which provide about 19.3 percent 
of the country's electric power. Worldwide, atomic energy accounts 
for 16 percent of electrical production.

But carbon emissions from conventional plants bring "higher global 
temperatures, rising sea levels that would threaten to submerge 
coastal regions, prolonged droughts and more frequent violent 
storms," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei warned last month.

World energy needs will rise 51 percent by 2030, the International 
Energy Agency in Paris predicts. Add up the carbon-dioxide emissions 
from all the oil and coal plants that would be built to meet that 
need, and scientists see an environmental nightmare in the making.

Moving up the list

Natural gas is a cleaner fuel for making electricity, but the price 
has soared. Hydropower from dams has largely topped out at less than 
20 percent of the world's electric supply. Solar, thermal and wind 
power remain a tiny contributor in most countries and would require 
dramatic economic changes to become substantial sources. To many, 
that leaves nuclear.

In 2003, a British government white paper called nuclear power an 
unattractive option; in May, Prime Minister Tony Blair said nuclear 
power is "on the agenda with a vengeance."

Some nuclear construction will merely keep the status quo. The first 
big wave of nuclear plants, built in the 1970s and 1980s, are near 
their planned obsolescence; six have been shut down. Regulators in 
the United States have extended licenses to 60 years, but other 
countries are replacing aging plants to make sure the nuclear 
component of their base supply does not disappear.

'Head in the sand'

Proliferation of nuclear material remains a worry.

"The industry is sticking its head in the sand," said Jim Riccio, a 
policy analyst at anti-nuclear Greenpeace in Washington. "They 
haven't gotten close to addressing safety or security."

Because nuclear fission emits no greenhouse gases, some environmental 
groups have grudgingly concluded that nuclear power is preferable to 
global warming. Others still argue that aggressive conservation and a 
dramatic increase in solar, wind, thermal and biofueled production 
can meet future needs.

"The voices of opposition have drastically decreased," said Tadao 
Yanase, director of nuclear energy policy at Japan's Agency for 
Natural Resources and Energy. "They obviously won't say they totally 
support" nuclear power, "but they are giving a tacit consent." 
-------------

Nuclear power faces reduced share in global energy supply

LONDON Gulf Times - Nuclear Power´s share of global power supply is 
likely to shrink over the next few decades as political indecision 
and public opposition stunt its growth. Even optimists do not see a 
big expansion in nuclear power´s share of electricity production over 
the next few decades, despite governments warming to it as fears over 
climate change and security of energy supply intensify. "In relative 
shares, in most projections out to 2030 nuclear power is going to 
decline," Hans-Holger Rogner, head of nuclear energy planning at the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, told Reuters. The IAEA expects 
nuclear power to produce 12%-13% of global electricity by 2030, down 
from the current 16%, while the International Energy Agency forecasts 
10%-14%. But Rogner said that long construction times, planning 
obstacles, a lack of trained nuclear engineers and lingering public 
fear all hindered the progress of nuclear energy. "Even if there is a 
momentum of rising expectations for nuclear power, it will take time 
to propagate to the system," he said. "Many countries, even nuclear 
countries, have lost the capability. They don´t have the licensing 
authorities in place any more, and they have to re-educate their 
people." The IAEA forecasts an increase in nuclear generation 
capacity of 20%-30% by 2030, but as overall electricity generation 
capacity is going to double in that period - with most of that met by 
coal, renewables and gas-fired plants - nuclear looks like being left 
behind. Beyond 2030 is very hard to predict because it mostly depends 
on whether fears over climate change override the fear of nuclear 
power that still lingers 20 years after the Chernobyl nuclear 
disaster. "One accident could set everything back," Rogner said. "If 
we have a little bit more climate catastrophe it may just go the 
other direction." If there is a big shift towards nuclear over the 
next few decades, amid accelerating climate change and diminishing 
fossil fuel reserves, the technology might grow its share of 
generation, but not until the middle of the century and beyond. "Our 
2050 projections, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
scenarios and so on... you get into the 20 to 25% range of nuclear 
generated electricity," Rogner said. The global response to climate 
change, together with soaring oil and gas prices, has helped bring 
nuclear power out from the shadow cast by Chernobyl. But growing 
political discussion in the developed world about the benefits of the 
technology has yet to result in large scale nuclear build, while 
Europe´s ageing, state-built reactors hobble towards retirement. "Is 
it just lip service that our politicians pay or do they really mean 
it?" Rogner said. "That will make a difference over the next 20 to 30 
years." Because of the huge costs involved in building new nuclear 
plants and disposing of the waste, private companies demand 
investment security from governments, particularly a long-term, 
global cost on carbon emissions. There is no sign of that yet. Even 
where there is a cost for carbon, potential investors in new European 
reactors are reluctant to commit to new build because Europe´s CO2 
trading scheme currently ends in 2012. "It´s hard to see private 
industry investing in nuclear power stations without guarantees from 
government, not only for carbon but also for... waste disposal and 
decommissioning," Andrew Nind of Poyry Energy Consulting said. Nind 
said that increasingly liberalised markets of Europe discourage new 
nuclear build, but that growing environmental concerns might force 
governments to assume enough of the risks involved to encourage 
private industry to build it. "A lot will depend on the weather and 
the political will to do something about global warming," he said. As 
it stands, Asia will probably see the biggest nuclear energy growth 
over the next few decades, observers say. The IAEA says 16 of the 29 
reactors being built are in developing countries. Most of those are 
in Asia, with India leading the pack with seven new reactors and 
China just behind. Meanwhile, 20 years after Chernobyl, public 
distrust of nuclear power lingers in Europe and its role in 
generation there is likely to shrivel as political indecision and 
public opposition persist.
-------------  

New nuclear plant hinges on fuel disposal

Exelon executive wants U.S. to build depository for spent fuel rods

Bloomberg News Jan 13  - Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. owner of 
nuclear power plants, wants government assurance of a disposal site 
for spent fuel before it will proceed with the reactor it has 
proposed in Texas, Chief Executive John Rowe said Friday.

"The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently 
run, but I'm the one who's being foolish if I build a new plant 
without knowing what they're going to do with the spent fuel," Rowe 
said in an interview in Chicago.

Rowe, 61, said his preference would be for the federal government to 
step up and establish a permanent fuel depository, something it's 
been unable to do. However, he would not rule out the state of Texas 
creating its own site.

Proposals to build new nuclear plants, including in the Carolinas, 
are gaining momentum as prices rise for coal-fired and natural-gas 
plants along with global-warming concerns. About 32 announcements 
have been made for new nuclear power plant licenses. No company has 
sought to build a new reactor in about 30 years.

Exelon in September said it would seek regulatory approval for a 
nuclear-fueled plant in Texas, the largest power-consuming state.

Lack of a permanent repository has forced Exelon and other nuclear-
plant operators to store spent fuel at their plants, a strategy 
that's been criticized by environmental groups, partly on concern the 
sites may be terrorist targets.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who became Senate Majority 
Leader this week, opposes the government's chosen site in that 
state's Yucca Mountain.

The next new U.S. nuclear plant probably will be built in the U.S. 
South or Southeast, where economic growth is driving demand for so-
called baseload plants, usually coal-fueled or nuclear plants 
designed to run at all hours and all seasons to provide basic power 
supply, Rowe said.

Most of the pending nuclear-plant licenses are for sites in 
southeastern states and Texas. A few proposals have also been made in 
the state of New York and Maryland.

Atlanta-based utility owner Southern Co. has won regulatory approval 
in Georgia to charge customers for the cost of licensing new nuclear 
plants, and Charlotte-based Duke Energy Corp. is seeking the same in 
North Carolina. That's a source of funding not available in Texas, 
where power-generation, power delivery and retail-power sales are 
separate businesses, Rowe said.

No new reactor has been ordered in the U.S. since the 1979 accident 
at Three-Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pa.
--------------

Dion dismisses nuclear power in oilsands extraction  

CALGARY Calgary Herald Jan 13  -- Federal Liberal Leader Stephane 
Dion threw cold water Friday on using nuclear energy to extract 
bitumen from the Alberta oilsands.  

Speaking Friday to the Calgary Herald editorial board, Dion 
acknowledged nuclear is part of the "energy mix" in Canada, but 
doesn't believe it's a viable option for use in Alberta's oilsands 
due to lingering concerns about whether its waste can be safely 
disposed.

"I have no power to stop a province to do that. It's provincial 
jurisdiction," Dion said. "I am concerned about the waste and I don't 
hide my concerns."

The debate over nuclear power in Alberta has heated up in recent 
months as industry and government look for ways to reduce the use of 
natural gas and slash greenhouse gas emissions from the Athabasca 
oilsands -- a major contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in 
Canada.

Enormous amounts of gas are used in the heating and extraction of tar-
like bitumen, and oilsands output generates significantly more carbon 
dioxide than conventional crude production.

A nuclear plant would be used to produce electricity and generate 
steam that would be pumped underground to help melt the bitumen for 
easier extraction. However, exact construction costs are unknown -- 
some estimates peg it at $4 billion -- and significant technical and 
political hurdles must be cleared before a nuclear plant in the 
oilsands could proceed.

Earlier this week, Husky Energy CEO John Lau said his company is 
studying nuclear energy for its future oilsands developments in 
northern Alberta.

But new provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner said he's 
skeptical about nuclear energy in the oilsands, including concerns 
over how to dispose of its waste.

"We obviously have no experience with it in Alberta," Renner told the 
Herald this week. "It's worth looking at, but I think it's a very 
long-term solution."

Environmental groups also are opposed.

"It's the farthest thing from clean energy. It's pretty much a toxic 
energy," said Marlo Raynolds, executive director of the Alberta-based 
Pembina Institute.

Raynolds doubts the economic viability of a nuclear facility and said 
it could make the oilsands potentially a larger terrorist target.
---------------

Bristol region readies for nuclear waste

Material bound for N.M. will be shipped through area on I-81

BRISTOL Richmond Times Jan 14 -- Local emergency responders are 
preparing for trucks carrying nuclear waste that will pass through 
western Virginia next year.  

About 147 shipments of waste left over from Cold War-era nuclear 
weapons tests will travel through Virginia via Interstate 81, headed 
to New Mexico for disposal.

Virginia's Department of Emergency Management will spend $100,000 
training local firefighters and hospital personnel on how to handle 
possible spills.

"There is going to be specific training on incidents for biological 
and nuclear waste," Bristol Virginia Fire Chief Walt Ford said.

Hazardous materials spills are always a danger along I-81, a major 
shipping route.

Ford, also the city's hazardous materials coordinator, said he 
doesn't know when state officials will conduct the firefighters' 
segment of the training. But the sessions will be held in different 
localities across the state, he said.

"We have a lot of monitors and tools already [at the station]," Ford 
said. "We've had a lot of radiation classes, so it wouldn't be new to 
us. But that's not to say we can handle this."

The waste -- called transuranic -- comes from New York, New Jersey 
and Pennsylvania. The material can include anything from protective 
clothing and tools to sludge. Transuranic waste often is covered in 
plutonium, which is a toxic, radioactive metal.

The waste is headed for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, 
N.M.

State and local officials hope the waste is transported safely out of 
Virginia.

However, if an accident happens, the material could be dumped along 
the highway. Furthermore, an accident followed by a fiery explosion 
could scatter the waste for miles.

Ford said that if local residents are exposed, they would be 
transported to Bristol Regional Medical Center.

"If you get that type of stuff on you, we've got to get it off soon," 
said David Rasnick, director for safety and security at Wellmont 
Health Systems, which operates the hospital. "That's like getting 
exposed to nuclear fallout -- it's radioactive material."

Sixty-eight Southwest Virginia hospital employees will be trained in 
radiation and decontamination on March 15 and 16 at the hospital.

"In order to stay ready for disaster, we must undergo training," 
Rasnick said.
-------------

BAE and Carlyle plan nuclear dockyard bid - source

LONDON (Reuters) - Defence firm BAE Systems could join with U.S. 
private equity group Carlyle as one option for bidding for the 
nuclear submarine dockyard Devonport, a source close to the situation 
said on Sunday.  

The source told Reuters the joint bid was "one of BAE (LSE: BA.L - 
news) 's options" after reports in the Sunday Times and Sunday 
Telegraph said the two groups were teaming up for an offer that could 
be worth around 200 million pounds.

Devonport, the only UK site equipped to refit and refuel nuclear 
submarines, is currently owned by KBR <KBR.N>, Balfour Beatty (LSE: 
BBY.L - news) <BBY.L> and Weir Group (LSE: WEIR.L - news) <WEIR.L>.

BAE already owns the submarine yard at Barrow, the country's only 
submarine-building facility, which built the current UK fleet.

A BAE spokesman said, "Combining front-end design and build 
capabilities with through-life support is fully in line with the 
government's aspirations."
---------------

IDBI mulls nuclear power projects funding 

India Daily Jan 14 - The IDBI Bank may consider funding civilian 
nuclear power projects once players firm up their plans in this 
segment, a top bank official has said. Several major players like 
NTPC Limited, the Tata group and Reliance have evinced interest in 
nuclear power and are awaiting operationalisation of the Indo-US 
civil nuclear deal. "As of now we don''t have any proposal but we are 
not averse to funding nuclear power projects," IDBI Bank deputy 
managing director Jitender Balakrishnan said.  


----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle 
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations 
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc. 
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 Extension 2306 
Fax:(949) 296-1144

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/