Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study – The Guardian – Ian Sample, science correspondent February 2, 2007 - “Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today
.Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered…………………………………….
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the ‘overwhelming scientific evidence’on global warming. ‘It’s a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims,’said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia……………………..On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report.”
‘Emailgate’ probe could cost $25 million - Pahrump Valley Times 2/2/07 DEMOCRATS MAY CHOP $50 MILLION FROM YUCCA PROJECT -STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU – WASHINGTON – “Federal agencies plan to spend more than $25 million to retrace key Yucca Mountain research that became tainted after the discovery of emails that suggested documents may have been falsified, according to a report made public Tuesday.
The report by the Government Accountability Office puts a price tag on an email scandal that rocked the Department of Energy almost two years ago, and that contributed to delays in the nuclear waste repository effort. Costs of $25.6 million, compiled by the GAO from figures supplied by the Energy Department and other federal agencies, include replacing an important computer model of how water might infiltrate the mountain and erode canisters of highly radioative spent nuclear fuel. DOE personnel also randomly sampled and reviewed 14 million worker emails for evidence of deeper problems in the Yucca program.
This long article illustrates the secrecy of this industry. The public in Australia, Russia, are unaware of the secret manouverings of the industry
Busting the Russian domestic uranium mining monopoly – Mineweb John Helmer ‘03-FEB-07 “MOSCOW -The last time a major international miner attempted to fly secretly into Moscow, make his deal, and depart unnoticed was more than forty years ago, when Harry Oppenheimer sent his man to offer the Soviet Union membership of the De Beers diamond trade cartel, and signed an agreement for what came to be known as the “single marketing channel”………….
Now, on January 17 of this year there was no keeping the secret that Charles (”Chip”) Goodyear, chief executive of BHP Billiton, had alighted from his corporate jet, and was sped to a meeting with Sergei Kirienko, head of the Russian Agency for Nuclear Power (Rosatom), plus a group of men belonging to the newly created United Uranium Mining Company (UMC)
. ……………………..The Russians have provided Mineweb with the details; the Australian miner is trying to keep them secret. So what exactly is “the matter” that has BHPB’s mouth choking on its gag? The answer is a very sensitive mineral — uranium. ……………………….Today, BHPB is pursuing Russia for cooperative ventures on both Australian and Russian territory that may not look like a cartel move, but whose secretiveness stems partly from that concern; and partly from the tactics BHPB and Australian government officials have used to persuade the Russians. ……………………………….see whole article at: http://www.mineweb.net/energy/610148.htm
When is a secret not a “secret”? ALBUQUERQUE JOURNAL by John Fleck 17 January 2007 -”……………………”secret” has a very specific meaning in the world of DOE jargon, which is different than the way you and I use the word.For us, secret means “kept from public knowledge” (Webster’s New World, Fourth Edition), which pretty clearly applies in this case.
The details of the first shipment of remote-handled waste are being “kept from public knowledge” until it has safely arrived at WIPP.
At the DOE, there are whole classes of information that is “kept from public knowledge” that doesn’t meet the agency’s legal/bureaucratic definition of “secret.”
Emerging Energo-Fascism – Big Brother and the Nuclear Renaissance –
TomPaine.common sense Michael T. Klare – January 17, 2007
-“…………. the inevitable rise in state surveillance and repression attendant on an expected increase in nuclear power.
………..there’s another danger in the spread of nuclear power: that it will require a systematic increase in state surveillance of everyone even remotely connected with commercial nuclear energy.
After all, every uranium enrichment facility, nuclear reactor, and waste storage site-and any of the linkages between them-is a potential source of fissionable materials for terrorists, black-market traffickers, or rogue states like Iran and North Korea.
This means, of course, that all of the personnel employed in these facilities, and all their contractors and sub-contractors (and all their families and contacts) will have to be constantly vetted for possible illicit ties and kept under strict, full-time surveillance.
The more reactors there are, the more facilities and contractors who will have to be subjected to this sort of oversight-and the more the security staff itself will have to be subjected to ever higher levels of surveillance by state security agencies
. It’s a formula for Big Brother on a very large scale.
New Publishing Rules Restrict Scientists - washingtonpost.com By JOHN HEILPRIN – “WASHINGTONThe Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the US Geological Survey,
the latest agency subjected to controls on research that might go against official policy.
New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming.
The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.”
Nuke Watchdog Urges New Look at Whistleblower Case - The New Standard by Catherine Komp ” Newly uncovered documents show discrepencies between what managers told two different federal agencies before and after firing an employee who raised safety concerns at Fitzpatrick nuclear plant.
Nearly three years after Entergy Corporation dismissed engineer Carl Patrickson from his position at its FitzPatrick nuclear power plant near Oswego, critics also say the company and federal regulators have failed to adequately address the ‘chilled work atmosphere’ that resulted.
According to transcripts of interviews conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Labor, and reviewed by The NewStandard, three FitzPatrick managers gave conflicting testimony to the federal agencies about whether they knew Patrickson had reported safety problems before he was fired……
.CAN wants the NRC to suspend the three Entergy managers who apparently gave false testimony in the case, as well as reinstate Patrickson’s job. …..Patrickson described in court testimony a long of period of worker intimidation for reporting possible safety hazards and violations.”
Some Indian Point workers afraid to raise safety issues, NRC says - NewsDay.com 21/12/06 By JIM FITZGERALD Associated Press Writer WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — Some workers at the Indian Point nuclear power plants are reluctant to raise safety concerns because they fear retribution, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Thursday. During an inspection in September, “We found out that there were workers who perceived that they would be treated negatively by management for raising issues and consequently some of the workers expressed reluctance to raise issues under certain circumstances,” said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. “We refer to it as a chilling effect, a situation when workers do not feel comfortable raising safety concerns……..”
¶ May 07 UK White Paper on nuclear power – locals not able to object on environmental grounds... ¶ April 07 Secret deal uranium enrichment Russia-Iran¶ Feb 2 2007 Falsified data re Japan’s reactors ¶ Feb 2007 Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study ¶ Feb 07 Yucca waste plan documents falsified ¶ December 2006 The Canadian Nuclear Association’s $1.7 million ad campaign
Archive for September, 2008
civil liberties – significant older news
September 9, 2008sustainable energy – significant older news
September 9, 2008Around 0.3% of Sahara could power Europe, Middle East and North Africa All About: CSP
November 13 Rachel Oliver – (CNN) — “What if you could provide the world with an endless supply of virtually carbon-free electricity; ensure a constant source of drinkable water to the world’s most vulnerable areas; avert some of the world’s future humanitarian crises; and save billions of dollars in the process? Certain concentrated solar power (CSP) proponents say there is no “could” about it — it’s more a case of “can.”Like photovoltaic systems (PV), CSP relies on the sun to work. But where PV relies on mirrors to directly translate the sun’s rays into energy, CSP uses the sun to heat water, or other liquids, to high temperatures, whose resulting steam is then used to drive turbines that create electricity………………..
…………Whereas PV can work on cloudy days, CSP needs direct sunlight — and a lot of it, which means the only practical places on earth CSP plants can really work are in deserts. Deserts typically attract three times as much sunlight as northern Europe, according to The Guardian. It’s why California’s Mojave Desert has traditionally been the world centre for CSP, home to the world’s biggest CSP plants, and is attracting companies from Australia, Germany, Israel and Spain to set up there, according to Business 2.0.Proponents of CSP say you don’t need to use up much of the desert space to make CSP effective. A solar farm taking up 92 by 92 miles of desert could power the entire U.S., for example, according to Green Wombat, referring to a calculation made by the chairman of solar company Ausra, David Mills.
…………………………….CSP is attracting a list of high profile champions in the field of commerce, including venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. Khosla was one of the early backers of Google, Amazon and AOL and his latest venture is to invest in CSP, according to The Toronto Star………………………………….The founder of Greenpeace Lebanon, Fouad Hamdan, also argues it makes economic sense when compared with many world politicians’ favored solution to climate change — nuclear energy. Writing in Lebanon’s Daily Star, he argues that when comparing nuclear energy and CSP like-for-like on a cost basis, nuclear becomes “economically insane.”
“Investing in nuclear is a huge waste of money,” Hamdan writes. “Plans to build a CSP in Egypt are estimated at $140 million for 140 MW, or about $1 million per MW. In comparison, the cost to build a nuclear power plant is estimated to be at least at $1.5 billion for 1,000 MW – about $1.5 million per MW.”……………………………………..But while environmentalists can make things unpleasant, politicians can make things impossible. A small number of media sources have been reporting recently that there is a growing possibility that U.S. Democrats will allow solar and wind energy tax credits and a renewable portfolio standard (which obliges utilities companies to produce a certain amount of their energy from renewable sources) to be stripped from the forthcoming U.S. Congressional Energy Bill. It has the U.S renewable energy industry in a state of panic………………………………………………..”.
SEVILLE’S SOLAR POWER TOWER inhabitat by Jorge 21 May 07 “Rising out of the Andalusian countryside like a gigantic obelisk, a 40 story concrete tower surrounded by fields of photovoltaic panels is is the first stage of Europe’s first commercial solar power station , which recently went into operation in a sunny region outside Seville, Spain…………….
The first stage of the solar power station, known as PS10, is a 300ft tall tower surrounded by 624 solar panels which will produce enough energy to power 60,000 homes. There is also a secondary component, known as Sevilla PV, which is a photovoltaic power plant composed of 154 panels, which will generate enough electricity for about 1800 homes.
Here is how the tower works: the solar panels, a 120m2 mixture of mirrors and photovoltaics, track the sun throughout the year, reflect the energy of the sun to solar receptor at the top of the tower. Water passes through pipes at the top, and is heated enough to turn it into steam by the solar receptor, which in turn passes through a series of turbines to produce electricity.t is a sight to be seen. The area around the tower becomes so bright, that it actually illuminates the water vapor and dust that is in the air. It becomes necessary to wear sunglasses while you are there……………………………..
The entire development, once it’s operational, will generate zero greenhouse gas emissions.SEVILLE’S SOLAR POWER TOWER inhabitat by Jorge 21 May 07 “Rising out of the Andalusian countryside like a gigantic obelisk, a 40 story concrete tower surrounded by fields of photovoltaic panels is is the first stage of Europe’s first commercial solar power station , which recently went into operation in a sunny region outside Seville, Spain…………….
significant older news items
September 9, 2008The tragedy of Tibet Sify.com Tarini Mehta 18 March , 2008 “…………………………China is also reported to have stationed approximately 90 nuclear warheads in Tibet, and the Ninth Academy, China’s academy for nuclear research located in Amdo, Tibet, has dumped a large quantity of radio active waste in a haphazard, dangerous manner.
The potential for devastation will increase as China continues such hazardous activities. One can only imagine the future crisis this will create…………………………………………”
British, Russian Support May Not Save Ambitious Nuclear Power Club World Politics Review Richard Weitz 10 Apr 2008A campaign threat to the nuclear power industry
ASK THIS | Nieman warchdog Questions the press should ask By Joseph Davis January 18, 2008
If a Democrat wins the presidency-and if campaign promises count-it may be time to write the obituary for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site. What happens then to the renewed call for nuclear power in the U.S.? –“The top three Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards tussled before the Jan. 19 Nevada caucus over which was more opposed to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. The fuss has importance as more than just campaign mud-wrestling
-”After hesitating several years, the British government finally accepted American entreaties to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)………..
……..the GNEP remains in trouble, both internationally and within the United States………………GNEP members will not need to foreswear the right to enrich uranium .
…Although such reassurances may have facilitated the entry of Australia and Canada into the program, they have aroused concern among nonproliferation experts that GNEP will have the perverse effect of encouraging the proliferation of sensitive nuclear technologies.
……………………….some have criticized the program for encouraging nuclear proliferation, wasting money on a narrow range of excessively ambitious and unachievable technologies, and diverting resources from other more important priorities, such as cleaning up domestic nuclear waste sites. Members of Congress share many of these concerns, and have severely limited GNEP funding.
Despite Russian and British support for the partnership, it appears that GNEP will remain primarily a research program for the next few years, notwithstanding the grandiose visions for GNEP held by some of its more ardent advocates.
. It may be a sign that it is finally time to write an obituary for the Yucca Mountain plan – and a sign that the industry-ballyhooed “renaissance” of commercial nuclear electric power in the U.S. is headed for trouble – or for a train-wreck………………….Whichever Democrat is nominated, Vegas oddsmakers might well favor that person to win the White House in November, and he or she would presumably be expected to live up to the campaign rhetoric by killing Yucca Mountain.. The cloud over Yucca Mountain’s future is much darker than that…………………………………….Yucca was born of politics, not science, back in 1987, when Congress told scientists they could pick any site they thought best – as long as it was Yucca Mountain. Nevada never agreed. Some 20 years later, after billions of dollars of study, the Energy Department is not much closer to making an air-tight scientific case………………………………This year, politics may be the project’s final undoing……”
Power failure: What Britain should learn from Finland’s nuclear saga
It was hailed as the template for all future reactors – but then they tried to build it.
THE INDEPENDENT By Michael Savage 16 January 2008 – “……………………………..Olkiluoto 3 was meant to be the power plant for the 21st century, a show home for the nuclear industry…………………
to say that Finland’s experience bodes well would be optimistic to say the least. It was not long before Olkiluoto 3 was hit by a slew of safety concerns, building blunders, spiralling costs and chronic delays……..…..The 1,600MW-capacity reactor, which was meant to be producing energy by 2009, is now around two years behind schedule. It is more than 1bneuros over budget, without taking into account the cost of the lost electricity production time which, rough estimates suggest, could run to 600m euros. After Finland’s government rejected greener energy sources for being too expensive, that has angered many Finns………
…………The delays will now cost the Finnish people billions of euros……………………………………………..”.
Scientists take on Brown over nuclear plans Academics say safety concerns of new generation of plants not yet addressed
Guardian Unlimited 6 January 08 A group of scientists and academics today condemns as undemocratic and possibly illegal the government’s plans to force through a new generation of nuclear power stations to meet Britain’s energy needs for the n ext 30 years.
They warn that questions about the risks from radiation, disposal of nuclear waste and vulnerability to a terrorist attack have not been addressed - even though the government was ordered last February to repeat a public consultation on energy supply, after its exercise was declared unlawful by a high court judge oday
The nuclear consultation group, made up of 17 energy economists and several of the government’s independent advisers on nuclear waste, condemned the methods used in the second attempt to gather public and expert opinion.
‘We are profoundly concerned that the government’s approach was designed to provide particular and limiting answers‘ said Paul Dorfman, a spokesman for the independent group, which includes professors of Oxford, Sussex, and Lancaster universities, and Rutgers in the US. ‘Those answers risk locking in UK energy to an inflexible and vulnerable pathway that will prove unsustainable’ he added.…
……..In an 87-page report, the group says: “Significant issues were not consulted on in any meaningful way or resolved in practice. It has left the government vulnerable to legal challenge and may lead to hostility and mistrust of any future energy decision,” the paper warns ………………
…………………The intervention could trigger fresh legal action, however. Yesterday Greenpeace, whose challenge to the energy review was upheld last year, said it would wait to see the government’s formal response on Tuesday before deciding whether to return to the courts ………………….
………………Green groups said the questions were loaded and the information presented biased and inaccurate. A complaint was made to the Market Research Standards Board alleging the market research firm involved broke the code of conduct…………………….” …
Spending Bill Includes $24 Billion Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Industry Democracy Now 21 Dec 07 - “The House is set to vote Tuesday on the $500 billion 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Hidden in the bill is a major energy package that would boost government financing for the nuclear industry. It would provide loan guarantees of up to $25 billion for new nuclear reactors…………………………….”
Tories plan £300m green energy revolution to avoid nuclear option
THE INDEPENDENT By Andrew Grice, Political Editor 06 December 2007
“……………………………………………………A Tory government would spend up to £300m on a ‘green energy revolution‘ by encouraging householders, small businesses, schools and hospitals to create their own electricity from renewable sources. The Tory leader, David Cameron, will announce today that his party would scrap grants for people who install wind turbines, solar panels or combined heat and power generators. Instead, it would guarantee prices for electricity created by householders through a system in ‘feed-in tariffs’
The reforms could help a future Conservative administration avoid building more nuclear power stations if it was successful in reducing carbon emissions……………….…………………………..What the party is proposing
* Decentralised energy to play “major part” in meeting Britain’s needs.
* Every household, small business, school, hospital able to generate electricity through micro-generation.
* Feed-in tariffs to guarantee fixed price for electricity from decentralised, low carbon sources such as wind power, photovoltaic, combined heat and power, biomass, waste and micro-hydro.
* Any person or organisation allowed to install a low carbon generating appliance of below 250kW using accredited professional.
* Credits on electricity bills for surplus amounts fed into local network……………………………………………..”
French Shun Nuclear Energy, Choose Conservation
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research November 04, 2007- “The overwhelming majority of people in France agree there is a need to conserve energy and favour renewable sources.According to a poll by CSA. 96 per cent of respondents think conserving energy should be a priority, and 94 per cent think the European country should focus on developing solar and wind power.
Polling Data
On the topic of energy, do you think (the following) should be a priority?Conserving energy: yes – 96%, no -4% not sure — 0
Developing renewable energy: yes – 94%, no – 5% not sure – 1%Developing nuclear energy: yes – 35%, no – 61% not sure – 4%
GNEP facing opposition from National Academy of Sciences
Current Argus.com By Stella Davis
: 11/02/2007 – “CARLSBAD – The U.S Department of Energy’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has come under fire from the National Academy of Sciences.Earlier this week, the academy published a report recommending that Congress scale back the program because it relies on unproven technology.
The National Research Council, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said that GNEP, a program that aims to reprocess spent nuclear fuel that then could be shared with partner countries, should not go forward…………………………..…………………………………………..GNEP was launched in February of 2006 as part of President George Bush’s advanced energy initiative. It was established as a federal program and funded at $80 million. Funding for 2007 was $167.5 million. Proposed funding for 2008, from Bush, is $405 million. The Senate and House have both proposed significantly lower levels of funding……………..”.
Science panel calls for Bush to dump nuclear waste plan
Detroit free Press October 30, 2007
BY H. JOSEF HEBERT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON – “A panel of the National Academy of Sciences urged President George W. Bush on Monday to abandon a plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing that is the heart of the administration’s push to expand civilian use of nuclear power.The 17-member panel said the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, hasn’t been adequately reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn’t been proved, or isn’t expected to be ready in the time the administration envisions.It said if the administration proceeds as planned there will be ’significant technical and financial risks’Bush announced the initiative in 2006 and has touted it as key to U.S. efforts to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power.
The plan envisions a few nations, including the United States and Russia, supplying others with reactor fuel and reprocessing their used fuel.
…………………..The panel concluded that the program, even if pursued, is not expected to be ready in time to deal with the commercial nuclear waste accumulating at 104 U.S. commercial power reactors and the waste expected to be added from the reactors being built……………………………”.TIMELINE 3 July 07 - Germany – Merkel confronts German energy industry with radical policy overhaul
July 07 U.S. Expands Renewable Energy Cooperation with Sweden11 June India – 2000 people attended public hearing – opposition to proposed nuclear plants at Tamil Nadu
4 June USA Assembly and Senate pass law to for Article X , slowing approval for new nuclear plants3 June India – students protest govt’s uranium mining project
May 07 Asia Pacific nuclear plan scuttled at APEC meeting
21 May 07 Scotland First Minister to block British plans for nuclear plants in Scotland 25 March 07 Multinational protest in Brussels against doubled nuclear spending15 Feb 07 British High Court rules ‘unlawful’ Govt’s plans for nuclear power18 Jan 07 Spanish President rules out nuclear energy
