Gas Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Facility

‘Crunch time’ at troubled nuclear fuel plant

2012-01-16T05:03:00.000-08:00

United States Enrichment Corporation cascade
coordinators work in a plant.

U.S. Enrichment Corp., which produces fuel for nuclear power plants, is having its own sort of meltdown.

Disillusioned investors have wiped out 95 percent of the company’s market value since 2007. Standard & Poor’s has saddled it with a dismal CCC-plus credit rating. And USEC’s chief executive John Welch says that “clearly we’re coming to crunch time here.”

When USEC was created by the U.S. government in the 1990s, the idea was to privatize the job of uranium enrichment. USEC leased an old Energy Department plant and under a program known as Megatons to Megawatts, it has blended down highly enriched uranium taken from 17,698 Russian warheads under a U.S.-Russia treaty.

Two decades later, however, the Bethesda-based firm is still struggling to stand on its own two feet. Its deal for inexpensive supplies from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons runs out at the end of 2013. A contract for electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority expires in May and USEC’s outdated plant — which devours as much electricity as the city of Nashville — will be unable to compete with other companies.

USEC says it needs government help. It wants to build a new, more efficient facility that would house thousands of 43-foot-tall centrifuges. But the two-month budget measure Congress passed in December blocks a $150 million Energy Department grant that USEC needs to continue development. And USEC’s application for a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee has been stalled for nearly four years, despite lobbying by the entire congressional delegation from Ohio, where the company wants to build the plant.

Ohio is a battleground not only for USEC, but for President Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). Obama needs votes in the swing state, and USEC says the American Centrifuge Project would provide 4,000 construction jobs and 400 long-term jobs.

While campaigning in 2008, Obama wrote to Gov. Ted Strickland that “under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have my full support.” He added, “I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions and break the tie to high cost, foreign energy sources.”

Boehner wrote a glowing letter on Oct. 27, 2009, in support of the USEC loan guarantee. But in December, he insisted that the two-month budget measure should not include authorization for the Energy Department to direct $150 million to USEC because that would be an earmark. He says he supports passage of free-standing legislation that would let Congress weigh the grant on its merits.

The political fallout: Boehner blames Obama for failing to approve the loan guarantee. The Obama administration, burned by bad publicity over its loan to a now-bankrupt solar panel maker named Solyndra, says USEC’s credit rating is too low to qualify for a loan guarantee and blames Boehner for blocking the grant.
page 2 >>

SENSIBLE Re-enriching spent uranium good for environment, jobs

2011-08-14T07:48:00.000-07:00

Congressman Ed Whitfield’s bill to re-enrich depleted uranium stockpiles has no downside. But that hasn’t immunized it from opposition from Democrats in Congress and the Department of Energy.

The 1st District congressman has succeeded in advancing the Energy and Revenue Enrichment Act through the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, which he chairs. The bill would initiate a two-year pilot program of enriching spent uranium tails at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and another plant in Ohio.

If the bill becomes law, it would have many benefits.

It would make constructive use of a portion of the waste accumulated over a half century of uranium enrichment, thus saving the cost, $135 million, and environmental impact of disposal. Some 40,000 cylinders of depleted uranium are stockpiled at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

Although this pilot program would re-enrich only a small part of the depleted uranium on site, it would at least demonstrate the viability of re-enrichment. Assuming it proves successful, follow-up legislation could authorize finishing the job.

Congress, with its thirst for new revenue, should seize the opportunity. Again, the pilot program would be only a start. The Government Accountability Office estimates the potential value of the re-enriched tails at $4 billion.

More important, this would save jobs. The Paducah plant is slated to be phased out in a few years, leaving 1,200 well-paid employees with expertise in handling nuclear materials in search of work. Re-enriching the tails could keep many jobs here for years to come.

“Given our current rate of unemployment,” Whitfield said, “1,200 jobs is not insignificant.”

Kentucky Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul introduced companion legislation in the Senate. McConnell has criticized Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu for failing to address this opportunity, even when it was brought to his attention.

Some members of Congress, beholden to environmental organizations and their campaign contributions, resist anything related to nuclear energy. But this bill would remove an environmental liability, not create one.

Environmentalists should embrace the legislation.

Democratic leaders also have objected to the bill because it does not provide for competitive bidding. Whitfield said, “There is no other place that can re-enrich the tails. ... How can you bid when there’s nobody else to bid?”

There’s no rational reason to oppose re-enriching this depleted uranium. Congress should approve this bill.

source: ww.paducahsun.com

10 Hot Algae Extraction Technologies (and 5 Stealth Projects to keep an eye on)

2011-06-05T06:25:00.000-07:00

Algae industry awash in new technologies to address key commercialization barrier: will they pluck algae, and the algae industry, out of the water?

Last month in the Digest we ranked “Algae extraction” at #5 on the list of “Transformers” – technologies that would rock the bio world. We wrote:

“While we are on the subject of the special challenges of growing algae, there’s the problem of getting the algae out of the water, or the water out of the algae. Given that a decent microalgae concentration is around 0.1 percent, you have to remove 1000 gallons of water per gallon to get a gallon of dry algal biomass, which has about 50,000 BTUs or so. So even if you are expending just a handful of BTUs per gallon to move the water, you’re dangerously close to using more energy to produce algal fuels than the fuel contains…For sure, no algae fuel company will emerge at scale without a solution to this one."

It’s true. You have to have this one solved. It’s mandatory. But the field s full of contenders now – in fact, half the problem is figuring out which technology to partner with. They are popping up these past twelve months at a rate of around one technology every sixty days – three new ones since mid January, as a matter of fact.

That’s, in part, the rational for the National Algae Association to hold an Algae Growing, Harvesting, Extraction Technologies and Networking Conference, this week in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania. For those who won’t have a chance to network at the NAA meeting, we have this state of the art review.
Three new contenders

AER Sustainable Energy – enzymatic hydrolysis

This Ireland-based group, set up in 2006, applied for license to supply ethanol into the Irish market, and by 2010 was supplying up to 25 percent.

The company reinvested a good portion of the profits with University of Galway R&D enzyme technology, under development since 2000 for 3G sustainable algae. Funded research, and had a technology to extract oil and sugars from high yielding strain.
It’s billed as a cheap, efficient extraction process from a company that’s “ruthlessly focused on a technology, elegant and simple, that breaks down the cell wall to release the oils and sugars,” according at AERS CEO Donal Mac Nioclais.

“The Idea of trying enzymatic hydrolysis with algae is not new, but this is a modified organism, specifically optimized for this problem – to lyse the cell wall. Isn’t that the story of technology? First you have the generics, then the customized solutions.” Mac Nioclais said that “we’re not competing with the likes of Novozymes, we’re targeted.”

One of the juggling acts in the space? Timing your development pace so that you don’t arrive ahead – or too far behind – the algal growth companies. “There’s a 3-5 year program in terms of algal development,” said Mac Nioclais, “some are behind and some ahead of that curve. We’re developing an enabling technology for an industry not yet there, that’s the risk, but there are large, existing markets for nutraceuticals.”

The company is staying in stealth mode as far as its customer list, saying only that it is “working with multiple large international companies on contract R&D to develop solutions for various strains.”

Diversified Technology – pulsed electric field (PEF) technology

In February, Diversified Technologies’ announced that they have introduced low-cost process (patent pending) for the pre-treatment of algae using pulsed electric field (PEF) technology to streamline the extraction of oils from algal cells early in the biorefining process. The PEF applies 10-30 kV/cm electric pulses for 2 to 20 microseconds to an algal slurry which rupture the cell walls to release biodiesel compounds such as methyl hexadecanoate.

Diversified estimates this low energy process of lysing algae cells would account for about $0.10/gal. of the price of algae-derived biofuel compared to $1.75/gal. for conventional drying.

Aurora Algae — amphyphillic solvents

Last month, we learned a little more about Aurora’s dehydration and lipid extraction system, when they received US patent 7,868,195 for “Systems and Methods for Extracting Lipids from and Dehydrating Wet Algal Biomass”.

In traditional approaches, operators have attempted to dehydrate the algae, then separate lipids from the protein. In Aurora’s approach, they take the view that the goal should not be to get the algae out of the water, or the water out of the algae, but separate the protein and carbs from the water and lipid soup.

Not to oversimplify, but amphyphillic solvents that attract both water and lipids can do this work – its one of the principles behind your friend, the soap bar.

Aurora, according to their patent, propose to strain or centrifuge the algae to reach a 10-40 percent concentration, then use a solvent such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, butanone, dimethyl ether, or propionaldehyde to separate out the proteins and carbs from the lipids. After recovering the solvent, water and lipids are separated out as easily as, well, oil and water.
7 technologies also in development and deployment

Algaeventure Systems and low-energy solid-liquid separation system

Last January in Ohio, Algaeventure Systems released an RFP targeting the nation’s leading algae producers to act as demonstration sites for its SLS Industrial algae dewatering technology under its 2009 DOE ARPA-E grant.The RFP is an opportunity for AVS and potential demonstration sites to test and evaluate an innovative technology on a large-scale, under real-world conditions.
AVS will consider demonstration sites across a range of algae growth configurations and will select sites based upon production output, type of growth system, algae species and regional location. Described by ARPA-E as a “potentially transformative innovation…of the very highest scientific and technical merit,” the low-energy solid-liquid separation system aims to reduce the energy cost of dewatering microalgae by 90%.

AlgaeVenture Systems reported in 2009 that a prototype of its technology has reduced algae dewatering costs to $1.92 per ton (about $0.007 per gallon), from a $3.19 per gallon cost achieved with centrifuges and will reduced the cost from $875 per ton to a dramatic low cost of $1.92 per ton.

OriginOil’s Single-Step Extraction and Live Extraction

OriginOil’s Single Step Extraction is currently implemented in the field at MBD Energy’s James Cook University site in North Queensland, Australia. It can be deployed in two ways: dewatering only for conversion of the entire algae mass to a refinable bio-oil, or full separation of lipids and biomass to create more valuable products along with fuels.

Live Extraction is OriginOil’s process for extracting very high quality lipids on a continuous basis from algae that heals after it has been ‘milked’ of its oil content. Live Extraction is in a prototype stage and further developments are expected in 2011.

In January, the company announced that it will focus on its algae extraction technology platform to the exclusion of a number of other technologies for, among other things, algal growth.

New Oil Resources and thermal depolymerization.

Last October, New Oil Resources announced that it has developed a process that uses hot, pressurized water to treat the biomass in a process commonly referred to as hydrothermal liquifaction or thermal depolymerization.

According to the research team, “algae can be processed without dewatering and all the carbon is converted to fuels, not just the fatty oils.” The group said that immediate applications include processing municipal sewage sludge, processing waste streams from the ethanol industry and converting algae to fuel.

The Newoil process is reporting that 70% to 80% of the energy in the feedstock is being returned in the final products. The remaining 20% to 30% of the energy is used to run the process.

Unitel and its sweetwater slurry

Last July, Unitel Technologies advised that the company has filed a patent application for a new technology for making biofuels from microalgae. The process involves minimal dewatering, and completely bypasses the energy intensive drying and oil extraction steps.
In the Unitel process, the feedstock – a slurry or “soup” of water and cultivated algae (1% to 20% by weight) is continuously treated in a special hydrolysis reactor to yield 1) a fatty acid product, 2) a “sweet” water stream containing glycerol and other solubles, and 3) deoiled algal biomass. A small fraction of the fatty acid product is fed back into the reactor as catalyst.

The nutrient rich “sweet water” is recycled into the algae propagation tanks, where the carbon in the glycerol serves to promote the growth of phytoplankton.

The de-oiled biomass (consisting primarily of proteins and carbohydrates) is dried as a food ingredient for animal consumption. The algal fatty acid product is catalytically decarboxylated and converted into paraffinic hydrocarbons (alkanes), followed by mild hydrocracking and hydroisomerization to make biojet fuel comprised of C10-C15 branched paraffins.

Evodos and low-cost centrifuging

A year ago last September, Evodos said that it had developed a very energy-efficient centrifuge to extract algae from water. The low energy consumption allows for a positive energy balance, paving the way for large-scale production of biodiesel from algae, according to company reports. Leading scientists are very excited about this innovation.

The Evodos technology consists of two steps: first, most of the water in which the algae are growing is removed and next the algae are transformed into a dry paste. The Evodos technology enables the extraction of a solid algae cake with a dry solid content of 31.5%. Tests have been conducted to date with Nannochloropsis.

The University of Michigan’s big algal bypass

Last September, a UM research team published, in Energy & Fuels, details of a two-step, catalyst-free algal biodiesel production process, using wet algal biomass and bypassing the drying and solvent extraction steps.

The researchers wrote: “In the first step, wet algal biomass (ca. 80% moisture) reacts in subcritical water to hydrolyze intracellular lipids, conglomerate cells into an easily filterable solid that retains the lipids, and produce a sterile, nutrient-rich aqueous phase. In the second step, the wet fatty acid-rich solids undergo supercritical in situ transesterification (SC-IST/E) with ethanol to produce biodiesel in the form of fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs).”

The University of Michigan’s pressure-cookin’, bio-oil makin’ recipe for makin’ money from low-fat algae

In Michigan, researchers at the University of Michigan are investigating a recipe to pressure-cook algae at 300 degrees for 30 minutes, and thereby break down oils, proteins and carbohydrates into a bio-oil, which can be upgraded into fuel.

The $2 million project, funded by the National Science Foundation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is aimed at producing acceptable fuel yields from low-oil content algae strains, as well as eliminating the need for water extraction in algal fuel production.
Plus, 5 stealthy or embryonic projects to keep an eye on.

New Mexico State and the Air Force

The US Air Force has granted New Mexico State University $2.364 million towards algal research to study better ways to grow algae and refine its oil while working with the University of Central Florida to determine the effects of algae-based fuel on jet engines.

A mystery at Heliae

In November, Heliae tapped ex-BioFuel Energy COO Dan Simon as CEO. Simon says that Phoenix-based Heliae, which just opened a state-of-the-art research and development facility located in Gilbert, is undertaking scaled testing of a patent-pending extraction process that they can’t say anything about. One to watch even if we don’t know a darm thing about it.

Solix and the sonic option

Noise usually destroys concentration, but turns out that a team from the Los Alamos National Laboratory went the other way on that. According to reports that came out at the time Solix signed a research agreement with LANL, “Los Alamos’ acoustic-focusing technology generates ultrasonic fields that concentrate algal cells into a dense sludge and extract oil. Solix hopes that combining the concentration and extraction steps into one process will eliminate the need for centrifuges and solvents (traditional extraction methods) — and at the same time, significantly cut the cost of producing the biofuel.”

Over at the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB)

Led by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (St. Louis, MO), NAABB is integrating resources from companies, universities, and national laboratories to overcome the critical barriers of cost, resource use and efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and commercial viability. They landed a $50M foundational grant from the DOE last year, and have been gearingup on a variety of research fronts.
Principal investigator of the NAABB project, Jose Olivares, said: “In harvesting and oil extract, we are starting with five technologies and hop to focus down to one or two for harvesting the algae in a very energy efficient manner, and that are very cost effective.”

Aquatic Energy

In Louisiana, a project from the Louisiana-AgCenter and Aquatic Energy has been recommended for state research funds by the Industrial Ties Research Subprogram (ITRS) component of the Board of Regents Support Fund. These funds have been endorsed for their proposal to develop breakthrough technology for harvesting microalgae from liquid cultures with the goal of drastically reducing harvesting and dewatering costs.
source: biofuelsdigest.com

From uranium ore to nuclear reactor fuel

2011-06-05T06:16:00.000-07:00

5 June, 2011 - (Reuters) - Cameco is the world's second-largest producer of uranium, a radioactive metal that most nuclear power reactors use as fuel. But the Canadian-based company does more than simply take ore out of the ground.

Here is a step-by-step guide to what is involved in delivering ready-to-use fuel rods to reactors around the world.

MINING AND MILLING

Ore is mined and then milled to separate the uranium from other minerals, creating a concentrate called triuranium octoxide. The substance is then shipped to a refiner.

REFINING

At a refinery, the concentrate is mixed with acid to create a slurry. A solvent is added to extract the uranium and it is scrubbed to remove impurities.

The uranium is then concentrated and heated to break it down into uranium trioxide, a yellow powder that is then shipped to a conversion facility.

HEAVY WATER REACTORS

Natural uranium dioxide is made by reducing uranium trioxide with hydrogen. It takes the form of a tactile black powder. It is shipped from Cameco's facility in Port Hope, Ontario, to customers in Asia, who then use it to make fuel bundles for their heavy water reactors.

Cameco's Port Hope facility is the only commercial producer of natural uranium dioxide in the world.

Uranium dioxide made in Port Hope is also used by the company's fuel manufacturing division to make fuel bundles for Canadian nuclear reactors.

LIGHT WATER CONVERSION

Uranium trioxide is also converted into uranium hexafluoride, which is enriched and then used to fuel light water reactors.

To make uranium hexafluoride, uranium trioxide goes through numerous chemical processes, including the addition of fluorine gas. It is then heated to make a liquid, which is pumped into large storage containers. The containers are cooled for about four days, until the substance crystallizes.

Crystallized uranium hexafluoride is then sent to enrichment facilities in the United States, Europe and Asia where it is converted into enriched uranium dioxide to be used as nuclear fuel.

ENRICHMENT

Enrichment uses centrifuge or gaseous diffusion to increase the percentage of U-235 isotopes in uranium. The isotopes, when divided, release energy that is harnessed by nuclear plants to generate electricity.

Uranium is naturally about 0.7 percent U-235. Enrichment is necessary because light water reactors need fuel that contains 3 to 5 percent U-235.

Once enriched, the uranium has increased potential for fission and must be treated with care.

Cameco does not currently enrich uranium, but is developing a laser enrichment process with General Electric and Hitachi.

FUEL MANUFACTURING

The process of making the fuel bundles varies depending on the type of reactor. Generally granulated uranium in natural or enriched uranium dioxide form is pressed into pellets and heated to create condensed fuel.

The fuel pellets are then ground down, cleaned and fed into special zirconium metal rods which are then welded shut.

For light water reactors, the rods are snapped together in a fuel assembly, which is then transported to reactors.

For heavy water reactors, the rods are arranged into fuel bundles and welded together, then packed and shipped to customers in Canada and rest of the world.
source:

D.C. Water launches biomass AD, CHP project

2011-06-05T04:55:00.000-07:00

The District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority (D.C. Water) has launched two projects at its Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant that will generate heat and power from biosolids and reduce the amount of nitrogen in the anaerobic digester effluent.

Employing a thermal hydrolysis process, the first project will pressure cook biosolids leftover from the wastewater treatment process to generate up to 13 megawatts of power, as well as heat.

The facility, which would also be capable of processing scraps, fat and grease, will include four anaerobic digesters, four Cambi treatment trains, a pre-dewatering centrifuge building, a combined-heat-and-power facility, a gas treatment facility, flares and a gas holder.

D.C. Water believes the $400 million project will be the first in North America to use thermal hydrolysis for wastewater treatment, and that when completed it will be the largest thermal hydrolysis plant in the world. It is already the largest advanced wastewater treatment plant in the world, processing an average of 350 million gallons each day.

General Manager George Hawkins said that D.C. Water is the largest consumer of electricity in the district, and that the digesters should cut its electricity consumption by about a third. “That’s enough to power 8,000 homes,” he said. “We’re also saving $10 million in trucking costs [annually] and reducing our carbon emissions by cutting the amount of solids at the end of the process in half."

The second project, construction of enhanced nutrient removal facilities, will reduce the amount of nitrogen in those leftover solids to meet the new U.S. EPA and Chesapeake Bay Program goals of 4.7 million pounds per year or less in 2014. The project includes more than 40 million gallons of additional new anoxic reactor capacity for nitrogen removal, new post-aeration facilities, an 890 million-gallon-per-day lift station, new channels and conveyance structures, demolition of existing buildings, addition of a protective sea wall and modifications to the existing facilities to enhance performance. It is estimated to cost about $1billion.

D.C. Water aims to have both projects complete by 2014.
source: www.biomassmagazine.com

Inside The United States' Secret Sabotage Of Iran

2011-05-22T05:49:00.000-07:00

May 19, 2011

First in a three-part series

For years, the United States has been trying to stop Iran's nuclear program and change what it says is Iran's bad behavior in the Middle East and beyond.

The United States has used economic sanctions, censure by the United Nations, diplomatic engagement and the threat of military action to accomplish these goals — all with little or no success.

At the same time, other, unacknowledged activities have been under way. They have included cyberattacks, assassinations and defections. As it turns out, these efforts have had some success

Ebrahim Norouzi/AP - A photo taken on Aug. 22, 2010,
and released by the International
Iran Photo Agency shows a worker standing
at the entrance of the reactor of
Bushehr nuclear power plant, outside
the southern city of Bushehr, Iran. Work was
stopped on the reactor to ascertain whether
it had been affected by the Stuxnet computer
virus — apparently developed in Israel
with the help of the CIA.

'A Covert War'

Covert action is meant to stay just that — covert, clandestine, in the shadows.

And in Iran, it did, for quite some time. But in the last year, much has become known about intelligence operations in Iran, says Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who is now an analyst with the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.

"There's little doubt that there's a covert war under way against Iran," he says. "There are at least two players in it: the United States and Israel."

And often, it appears, those players work together.

That was especially true with the Stuxnet worm. The computer virus, apparently developed in Israel with the help of the CIA, was launched in 2009. Sometime the following year, the worm found its way into the computers that control Iran's most important nuclear facility, the uranium enrichment operation at Natanz.

The worm told the gas centrifuges that enrich uranium to spin too fast. Many broke and destroyed other centrifuges — nearly a thousand of them.

The impact of the worm spread even wider, says Muhammad Sahimi, a professor at the University of Southern California who writes for the website Tehran Bureau.

"In fact, not only it destroyed a thousand centrifuges at Natanz — it also forced the government to actually shut down the enrichment facility for a few days," Sahimi says.

That was last year. Computer security companies got wind of it, in part because it may also have affected companies and equipment outside of Iran. And the story became public.

Other Viruses On The Way?

Computer security experts believe the original worm was programmed to mount multiple attacks. That may have occurred, but only up to a point, says David Albright, head of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

"This idea of multiple destruction was built into the planning of the program, and Iran thwarted it just by the simplest of steps — which is panic and shut down everything until you get a sense of what's going on," he says.

Given the success of the Stuxnet worm, it's likely its creators may be constructing Stuxnet 2.0 right now — or other viruses targeting Iran.

Iran may have had to buy new computers to replace those that were affected, and it can't be sure that new computers won't be sabotaged.

In fact, nothing that Iran buys on the international market that could be used in its nuclear program is safe from sabotage, Sahimi says.

"To say the least, probably the uncertainty whether there is a virus somewhere that they haven't detected, that causes a lot of problems for them," he says.

Sabotaging Equipment

Among those problems, the Russians who are finishing the Bushehr nuclear reactor — Iran's first — stopped their work to ascertain whether it had been infected with the worm.

And this worm isn't the first instance of sabotage, Albright says.

"It's one of many efforts that I think are under way to try to constrain Iran from being able to basically, in a sense, either outfit its centrifuge program or to try to actively disrupt it and break things," he says.

Among the parts of the centrifuges that have been sabotaged, according to Albright, are motors and vacuum pumps. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency discovered equipment at Iran's nuclear facilities that had passed through one of the U.S. national laboratories, Albright says.

"So you had a case where the U.S. government, at least, what it was doing was buying equipment on the open market and apparently modifying it in some way," he says.

Then the equipment was apparently delivered to front companies that in turn sold it to Iran.

It could have been used for sabotage, or if it was bugged equipment, it could provide information on the location of secret nuclear facilities in Iran.

Building Paranoia

In any case, Iran's leaders are certainly worried about what they might face next, says Riedel of the Brookings Institution.

"One of the benefits of these kind of programs is that over time it builds paranoia and fear inside the Iranian nuclear program — that they have to be extremely careful that anything they buy may turn out to be a self-destructive pill once it's ingested inside the Iranian program," Riedel says.

In fact, just last week, one of Iran's key nuclear officials disclosed that another computer virus had hit Iran.

The Iranians are calling it the "Stars" virus. They say they have taken care of it.

So far its existence has not been confirmed by computer security specialists outside of Iran. Nevertheless, the effort to sabotage Iran's nuclear program, through cyberattacks or other methods, is certain to continue.
source: www.npr.org

Why I Continue to be a Uranium Bull

2011-04-15T06:05:00.000-07:00

mmediately following Japan’s natural catastrophe and subsequent nuclear disaster, I wrote an article titled, “Is Now the Time to Buy Uranium Miners?”

In this article I suggested that history displays time and time again that buying shares amidst the onslaught of panic selling ultimately pays handsome rewards.

For instance, as you can see in the uranium spot price chart below (data courtesy of Capital IQ) the price of uranium quickly moved from $63 per pound to a low of $49.75 shortly after the catastrophe occurred in Japan. Since the low was established two trading days after the Japanese disaster the spot price has bounced back 18.6 percent, to $59 per pound.

Uranium Spot Prices

Let’s be realistic about the fundamentals of the uranium market.

Remember, there are already 440 nuclear reactors in operation across the globe. There are an additional 108 nuclear reactors currently under construction in the world’s two largest emerging markets of China and India. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) estimates there will be an additional 331 nuclear reactors (including the 108 in China and India) in operation within the next 15 years.

At the end of the day, the world's energy needs outweigh the risk of an isolated incident in Japan. You don't make a bad situation (declining fossil fuel resources and increasing pollution) worse by making hasty decisions to eliminate a key and clean energy source for the future.

The available supply of uranium remains unchanged since the Fukushima disaster, and according to the World Nuclear Association demand remains strong.

If we look out over the next 8 to 10 years, which is the amount of time it takes a nuclear power plant to become fully operational, the market will remain 400 million pounds short of needed demand on an annual basis – forget about any increase in demand from new nuclear power plants.

The fundamentals of the current uranium market are clear – there is a significant gap between current supply and demand. Rising future demand will only amplify the shortfall.

The top 5 uranium producers, which make up almost 90% of the uranium supply market, only produced 110 million pounds of uranium in 2010. In other words, uranium producers need to produce nearly four times their current amount just to meet estimated new demand. The new supply will have to come from somewhere, or the price of the existing supply will need to increase dramatically to clear the market. In either event, shares of the uranium mining stocks would likely increase significantly from their current levels.

The bottom line is that even in the wake of the Japanese catastrophe uranium’s supply crunch lives on.

Some nations have decided to take a 3 month reprieve to review the safety standards set forth in the new construction of nuclear facilities. This is a rational way to proceed as it will allay some fears of the uninformed masses, but in my opinion it is more of a political maneuver than anything.

As for uranium stocks, current share prices are completely divorced from underlying fundamentals. Once the noise in the market created by the Japanese catastrophe is gone, stocks will once again reflect earnings - and while sales to one reactor in Japan may slump, the world's other 439 reactors will be as hungry as ever for uranium fuel.

The tragedy in Japan, and subsequent fear in the market, has presented us with the opportunity to invest in several well-managed and fundamentally sound uranium companies. For well-informed investors with the patience to tolerate volatility for a couple of months, I think this could potentially be the single best opportunity to buy and hold uranium stocks.

I will continue to track the nuclear/uranium story closely and report back to you here in Small Cap Investor Daily. Over the next two weeks I will go over the fundamentals of several of my favorite uranium stocks and why they should perform well over the long-term. Feel free to send in questions, or companies, that you would like me to address. My address is editorial@smallcapinvestor.com.

As you know, I am long-term bullish on uranium fundamentals, and hope that you can join me for what should be a prosperous ride.
source: www.smallcapinvestor.com

Time to debate uranium enrichment, says SA minister

2011-04-15T05:59:00.000-07:00

Mineral Resources Minister Tom Koutsantonis has backed enrichment of uranium in South Australia.

Mr Koutsantonis said he was keen for a debate on the merits of enriching uranium.

"One day down the track we're going to have to start enriching uranium in South Australia, whether that's in the next 10 years, 20 years or 50 years I don't know," he said.

The Minister says demand for uranium is growing and the state must look at more than just mining it.

"The old adage of digging something out of the ground, sending it offshore has got to change, we've got to value-add here in South Australia," he said.

Greg Hall from uranium explorer Toro Energy says there is no urgency.

"I don't think it's a high priority for the Government. I think the priority for the Government is new resource development such as new uranium mines and value-adding their energy strategy going forward," he said.

The SA Government says it does not expect the Japanese nuclear plant crisis to affect SA's uranium industry.

At a uranium industry conference in Adelaide, industry consultant Greg Rudd said now was not the time to debate Australia's nuclear future.

"No-one now is going to go out and back, for example, a nuclear power industry in Australia in this political cycle," he said.

"They'd be stupid to do it."
source: www.abc.net.au

'Artificial leaf' makes hydrogen from solar cell

2011-04-15T05:46:00.000-07:00

Drawing from nature, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Daniel Nocera thinks he can draw cheap and clean energy from water.

At the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Nocera yesterday presented results from research on making an "artificial leaf" to split water to get hydrogen fuel and oxygen. The goal is to use the solar cell to make hydrogen, which would be stored and then used in a fuel cell to make electricity.

"The artificial leaf shows particular promise as an inexpensive source of electricity for homes of the poor in developing countries. Our goal is to make each home its own power station," Nocera said in a statement.

In 2009, Nocera and others created Sun Catalytix to commercialize his work on relatively cheap catalysts made from nickel and cobalt for a device called an electrolyzer that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The company in the fall raised more money from Indian industrial giant Tata.

Using a $4 million grant from the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), researchers at Sun Catalytix began work on their second-generation product. Rather than use an electrolyzer to make hydrogen, this product would make hydrogen directly from a solar cell. That would mean a renewable source for the hydrogen fuel and electricity.

Until now, research yielded very low efficiencies in converting sunlight to hydrogen using a solar cell. Nocera yesterday said that researchers are optimistic they can boost the efficiency rate and the durability of the material. In the lab, he said that an artificial leaf prototype operated for 45 hours without a degradation in performance.

At the ARPA-E Summit earlier this month where Sun Catalytix showed a prototype of its second-generation product, company executives said the research will take a few years to complete and about three to five years to create a commercial product. source: news.cnet.com

Uranium Suppliers Annual - 2010

2011-03-22T19:31:00.000-07:00

Supplying an Expanded Nuclear Future

The Ux Consulting Company, LLC is pleased to announce the availability of the Uranium Suppliers Annual. Sometimes referred to as “The Uranium Bible”, the Uranium Suppliers Annual contains comprehensive data and information on all of the world’s uranium suppliers, including detailed sections on planned producers and junior/exploration companies.

Whether you are a utility, producer, trader, or investor, the Uranium Suppliers Annual provides the basis for understanding potential future developments surrounding the availability of supply against a backdrop of growing demand. In light of the increasing volatile nature of the uranium market, primary and potential suppliers are continuously re-evaluating their properties and future production plans, as well as expanding exploration programs where economically feasible.

One of the major changes to the Uranium Suppliers Annual since our last publication is an extensive update of full production cost data on projects for all existing and planned producers. Additionally, a more detailed review of each project is given. Also, coverage of junior/exploration companies has been expanded significantly since our last publication, nearly doubling the number of companies detailed in this section.

For each primary and planned producer, detailed tables are provided on mill and mine data, which include:

Status
Location
Ownership Interest
Nominal Capacity (Mills)
Process (Mills)
Estimated Reserves (Mines)
Percent Average Ore Grade (Mines)
Mine Type
Estimated Production Cost

Additional information covered on each primary and most planned producers include:

Company Overview
Driving Force
Projected Production Based on Ownership Share
Marketing Strategy

And given the numerous risks affecting uranium producers today, we provide a Project Risk Assessment Matrix for each primary producer to assess a number of risk factors – Geopolitical, Regulatory, Resource Base, Operational, Product Dependency, Exchange Rates and Transportation. Also provided is a Company Risk Matrix, featuring a comparative aggregate overview of all primary suppliers with aggregate project-specific ratings and company-specific risks – Resource Diversity, Financial Strength, and Customer Relations.

For more information on the Uranium Suppliers Annual, please contact Nick Carter.

Please see our product flier and table of contents in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

An online order form is now available.

source: www.uxc.com

Nuclear Industry in Russia Sells Safety, Taught by Chernobyl

2011-03-22T19:24:00.000-07:00

It was truly a trial by fire — one that has now become part of Russia’s nuclear marketing message. Cynical as that might seem.

In April 1986, as workers and engineers scrambled to keep the Chernobyl nuclear power plant’s molten radioactive uranium from burrowing into the earth — the so-called China syndrome — a Soviet physicist on the scene devised a makeshift solution for containing remnants of the liquefied core.

Teams of coal miners working in shifts tunneled underneath the smoldering reactor and built a platform of steel and concrete, cooled by water piped in from outside the plant’s perimeter.

In the end the improvised core-catcher was not needed. The melted fuel burned through three stories of the reactor’s basement but stopped at the foundation — where the mass remains so highly radioactive that scientists still cannot approach it.

Although 25 years later Chernobyl remains the radiation calamity by which all subsequent nuclear accidents will be measured, core-catchers are now a design feature of the newest reactors that Russia’s state-owned nuclear power company, Rosatom, is selling around the world. That includes a contract the company signed with Belarus just last week, even as radioactive steam was rising from the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.

Meanwhile that physicist, Leonid A. Bolshov, who was awarded a Soviet hero’s medal for his efforts at Chernobyl, is now the director of the Institute for Nuclear Safety and Development, formed in 1988 in the wake of that disaster.

Like many others involved in his country’s nuclear power industry, Mr. Bolshov, 64, expresses what to some ears may sound like a jarringly opportunistic sales pitch: that Chernobyl was the hard-earned experience that made Russia the world’s most safety-conscious nuclear proponent.

“The Japanese disaster will give the whole world a lesson,” Mr. Bolshov said in an interview last week. “After a disaster, a burst of attention to safety follows.”

Opportunistic or not, in recent years the Russian nuclear industry has profited handsomely by selling reactors abroad, mostly to developing countries. That includes China and India — whose insatiable energy appetites are keeping them wedded to nuclear power, despite their vows to proceed even more cautiously in light of Japan’s disaster.

And though Fukushima Daiichi provides a new opportunity to stress the message, Rosatom has long been marketing its reactors as safe — not despite Chernobyl, but because of it.

The Russians say they are now building more nuclear power plants globally than anyone, or 15 of the 60 new reactors under construction today. Rosatom says it has an additional 30 firm orders for reactors and plans to sell more.

Late last year, the company has set a goal of tripling worldwide sales by 2030, to $50 billion annually — a goal that might seem much more doubtful now that Japan’s crisis is making many countries think twice about building plants any time soon.

And yet, while stocks of publicly traded companies in the nuclear industry were falling around the world last week, Russian officials were persistently staying on message with their safety assurances.

The Russian prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, himself flew to Belarus last week to sign the contract to build a plant in that country, worth $9 billion.

“I want to stress that we possess a whole arsenal of advanced technical resources to ensure stable, accident-free performance for nuclear plants,” Mr. Putin told journalists in Minsk, the Belarusian capital.

And the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, used the occasion of a visit by Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Erdogan, to praise the safety of Russian nuclear designs. “Even in connection with what has happened in Japan, no radical reconsideration of safety standards is needed,” he said, referring to a four-reactor plant the Russians have contracted to build in a seismically active region of southern Turkey. That deal is worth $20 billion.

Sergei G. Novikov, a spokesman for Rosatom, declined to be interviewed for this article.

Rosatom now charges $2 billion to $5 billion for a reactor, depending on its size and other factors. And despite the claimed safety premium, the Russians still win some business by underbidding competitors that include General Electric and Westinghouse Electric, a division of Toshiba of Japan, according to Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an industrial analyst at the state-owned Gazprombank.

Independent nuclear safety experts say Russia’s reactors for export are as safe as those of their international peers. But that has not insulated the Russian industry from criticism, including the rate of deal-making and the endorsement of nuclear safety to an almost unseemly degree in light of the crisis in Japan.

Igor V. Kudrik, an authority on Russia’s nuclear industry at the Bellona Foundation, a Norwegian environmental group, said Russian reactor designs had indeed improved greatly since Chernobyl, which was built without a containment vessel. But the industry lacks independent oversight in Russia’s politically centralized system, he said, leaving profit motive alone to guide development.

“They promote this technology only because it engages the enormous military nuclear industry left over from Soviet times,” he said.

Pressurized water reactors, like the Rosatom VVER that is the company’s current standard, and the 40-year-old General Electric Mark I boiling water reactor at the Fukushima plant, are inherently safer than Chernobyl-style reactors.

In both boiling water and pressurized water reactors, water cools the fuel and sustains the nuclear reaction. The water that floods the spaces between fuel rods slows neutrons, necessary for the reaction. Thus, in both designs, if the coolant is lost the reaction will stop, following the laws of physics — though, as the disaster-management team in Japan knows all too well, the shutdown does nothing to dissipate still-dangerous residual heat.

So, despite Rosatom’s core-catcher feature for arresting meltdowns, its reactors may be as potentially vulnerable to release of radioactive material if the water-cooling system failed — as happened at Fukushima Daiichi.

But whatever the reactor design, operational safety procedures are crucial. And the Russians contend that their industry and engineers benefited more than others from the lessons of Chernobyl, including the stark reality that most reactors are poorly equipped to contain a full core meltdown.

Rosatom says a reactor it completed in 2007 in Tianwan, China, is the first in the world with what the Russians call a core-catcher built in. It was partly designed by Mr. Bolshov, the physicist who jury-rigged the barrier under Chernobyl.

The contemporary Rosatom core-catcher is a pool in the basement of a reactor filled not with water, but a metallic alloy. Solid under normal circumstances, it is designed to liquefy if the hot, melted-down core drops into it after burrowing through the floors above. Once the whole metallic pool liquefied, Mr. Bolshov said, heat from the continuing nuclear reaction would create currents, swirling the mixture against water-cooled steel walls.

The Russians market it as a final safety net in the last stages of a nuclear catastrophe.

And they say it is a solution to the problem of a China syndrome. It has not, of course, yet been subjected to real-world testing.

Russia is heavily invested in convincing other countries that these systems can make nuclear power safe.

As a legacy of the cold war, Russia possesses about 40 percent of the world’s uranium enrichment capacity. That is much more than it needs to service its domestic reactors, meaning the industry relies on exports. (Enrichment refers to raising the level of the uranium isotope 235 from about 0.7 percent in natural uranium to 3 percent to 5 percent for civilian reactor fuel.)

Russia exports about $3 billion worth of fuel a year. Rosatom says it intends to increase its share of the global nuclear fuel market to 25 percent by 2025, from 17 percent today. The strategy is to make money, but also to offer fuel at a discount to customers who buy Russian-made reactors.

The current threat to the market, for the Russians and others in the industry, is real. In the short term, Germany’s decision last week to close seven of its 17 nuclear plants, and the probable delays of planned reactors elsewhere, will diminish demand for uranium fuel.

The McIlvaine Company, a Northfield, Ill.-based energy consultancy, estimated last week that two-thirds of all new reactor projects will be delayed after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, and that over five years $200 billion in energy investment globally will be redirected from nuclear to coal, petroleum or other alternatives.

Shares in publicly traded companies in the Russian nuclear power industry have plummeted in the wake of the disaster, as have shares in uranium mines and nuclear companies elsewhere.

And even as Russia seeks to export reactors backed by Rosatom’s safety assurances, back home tight money has delayed plans for replacing some aging nuclear plants. That includes 11 Chernobyl-style reactors — the ones without containment vessels. Or core-catchers.
source: www.nytimes.com

North Korea – a Multi-Faceted Threat to Peace and Stability

2011-03-10T16:31:00.000-08:00

Testimony before Committee on Foreign Affairs United States House of Representatives March 10, 2011

My name is Bruce Klingner. I am Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea – a Multi-Faceted Threat to Peace and Stability

North Korea poses a multi-faceted military threat to peace and stability in Asia as well as a global proliferation risk.

North Korea has developed enough fissile material for six to eight plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Although the status of weaponization remains unclear, North Korea conducted two nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. North Korean officials have repeatedly vowed that the regime has no intention of abandoning its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea’s disclosure last November of a previously unknown uranium enrichment facility containing 2,000 operational centrifuges validated earlier U.S. assertions that Pyongyang was pursuing a parallel uranium nuclear weapons program. A visiting U.S. scientist was stunned by the size and sophistication of the facility, which exceeded all predictions of North Korean progress on a uranium program.

A South Korean nuclear scientist estimated that Pyongyang could produce one to two uranium weapons per year using 2,000 centrifuges. Capability would be even greater if North Korea has other undetected uranium enrichment facilities.

The newly identified uranium facility at Yongbyon not only augments North Korean capabilities to increase its nuclear weapons arsenal but also increases the risk of nuclear proliferation. A U.N. task force concluded that Pyongyang continues to provide missiles, components, and technology to Iran and Syria since the imposition of U.N. sanctions.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned in January 2011 that “North Korea is becoming a direct threat to the United States” since it will develop an intercontinental ballistic missile within five years.

Pyongyang has already deployed 600 SCUD missiles to target South Korea, 300 No Dong missiles that can reach all of Japan, and the Musudan missile which can hit U.S. bases in Guam and Okinawa.

Pyongyang’s unprovoked acts of war on a South Korean naval ship and a civilian-inhabited island last year were chilling reminders that the North Korean conventional forces remain a direct military threat to South Korea. Pyongyang’s million-man army has 70 percent of its ground forces forward-deployed within 60 miles of South Korea. North Korea will feel compelled to conduct additional provocative acts in order to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Pyongyang also poses a grave proliferation risk. For decades it has exported missiles to rogue regimes and is suspected of being directly involved in nascent nuclear weapons programs in Iran, Syria, and Burma. In September 2008, Israel destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor that was being constructed with covert North Korean assistance.

Finally, North Korea also poses a risk to its neighbors by counterfeiting U.S. and other countries’ currencies, producing and distributing illegal narcotics and counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and engaging in illicit financial activities.

How Did North Korea Respond to U.S. Engagement?

For years, many have sought to absolve North Korea of responsibility for its acts by instead blaming U.S. and South Korean policies. It has also been claimed that a one-track policy of returning to negotiations, offering concessions, and abandoning punishment for North Korean violations will resolve the nuclear issue and prevent provocations.

Yet secret discussions underway last year did not prevent either North Korean provocation. U.S. and South Korean officials stated that discussions were moving participants back toward the Six-Party Talks but were undermined by Pyongyang’s attack on the Cheonan. Similarly, South Korea was engaging secretly with North Korean officials, including discussions of humanitarian assistance, when the regime shelled Yeonpyeong Island.

During the last four years of the Bush Administration, the U.S. engaged not only in multilateral negotiations but also in frequent direct bilateral diplomacy with Pyongyang. Washington even removed Pyongyang from the state sponsors of terrorism list as a quid pro quo for Pyongyang’s accepting a verification protocol as well as to improve the atmosphere of negotiations and stimulate further progress. But North Korean intransigence, noncompliance, and brinksmanship continued.

In early 2009, there were euphoric expectations that the transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama would lead to dramatic breakthroughs with North Korea. During the presidential campaign, Senator Obama advocated the need for “sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy” with North Korea and considered having an unconditional summit with Kim Jong-il. Once in office, his administration attempted to reach out to North Korea several times.

It was premised that the departure of the Bush Administration would lead North Korea to no longer feel threatened and therefore it would refrain from any further provocations. New efforts at dialogue would lead to dramatic improvements in U.S.-North Korean relations and breakthroughs in the Six-Party Talks.

Instead, Pyongyang quickly sent clear signals that it would not adopt a more accommodating stance post-Bush. On the eve of President Obama’s inauguration, the North Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared the existing Six-Party Talks agreements were void since Pyongyang had new demands. Only two days after Obama’s inauguration, unclassified satellite imagery photos showed Pyongyang was already preparing for a Taepo Dong-2 missile launch in violation of U.N. resolutions.

Pyongyang also conducted a rapid-fire series of provocations in 2009. North Korea responded to President Obama’s soft touch by threatening to weaponize all of its plutonium and build more nuclear weapons, abandoning all previous disarmament pledges, and vowing to “never return” to the already moribund Six-Party Talks.

The regime also launched several missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions; conducted a nuclear test; abrogated the Korean War armistice and all bilateral agreements with South Korea; threatened war against the United States, South Korea, and Japan; threatened the safety of civilian airliners; and closed its border, holding hundreds of South Koreans hostage.

As a result, 2009 saw the death of a lot of cherished misperceptions about engaging North Korea. Pyongyang’s biting the offered open hand of dialogue backfired on the regime since it caused a belated epiphany among U.S. experts that Pyongyang, and not the various U.S. policies over the years under successive administrations, was to blame for the North Korean nuclear problem.

The North Korean provocations convinced a lot of analysts in and out of government that Pyongyang had spent 40 years, billions of dollars, countless man-years of effort, and risked international ostracism and punitive measures to develop nuclear weapons as a military capability and not as a “bargaining chip.”

Formulating a U.S. Policy Response

U.S. policymaking toward North Korea has repeatedly stumbled over a binary debate over whether Washington should use pressure or engagement. The reality, of course, is that pressure and highly conditional engagement—along with selected and fully monitored economic assistance, military deterrence, alliances, and public diplomacy—are all diplomatic tools to influence the negotiating behavior of the other side.

Rather than being used in isolation, these tools are most effective when integrated into a comprehensive strategy utilizing all the instruments of national power. As such, sanctions are not an alternative to diplomacy but are, rather, a component of a more comprehensive foreign policy strategy.

Pressure and engagement are two sides of the same coin; both are necessary. Diplomacy without pressure is as ineffective as sanctions imposed without a strategic objective.

Sanctions and engagement are a means to an objective rather than an end in and of themselves, a point often lost on those who claim the mere resumption of negotiations is itself a success.

To be most effective, sanctions should include a way to ameliorate their impact—as incentive to end the abhorrent behavior that triggered them—just as engagement must carry a penalty when the conditions are violated.

Sanctions Show Resolve to Enforce International Agreements. Sanctions send a strong signal that there are consequences for defying international agreements. As President Barack Obama correctly commented, “sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure North Korea to act. If the North Koreans do not meet their obligations, we should move quickly to re-impose sanctions that have been waived and consider new restrictions going forward.” In response to Pyongyang’s belligerent behavior and violations of U.N. resolutions, President Obama declared, “Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.”

Punitive measures serve a number of objectives. They can:

1. Enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions concerning North Korea’s abhorrent behavior;
2. Impede North Korea’s development of nuclear weapon capabilities by curtailing imports of components, material, and financial support;
3. Curtail Pyongyang’s destabilizing proliferation activities;
4. Discourage further North Korean provocative actions;
5. Interdict illicit activities and make banks and businesses increasingly wary of dealing with Pyongyang;
6. Induce North Korea to comply with denuclearization commitments by removing illegal sources of revenue and offering economic benefits as part of the Six-Party Talks.

China Undermines International Response. Beijing has shown itself to be part of the problem rather than the solution. China has proven itself to be a paper dragon when called upon to enforce U.N. resolutions.

Beijing denied clear, compelling, and comprehensive evidence that North Korea conducted two unprovoked acts of war in 2010, obstructed international efforts to penalize Pyongyang for repeated violations of international agreements, and criticized the U.S. and South Korea for taking steps to prevent further North Korean attacks.

China’s actions have undermined international efforts to resolve the Korean crisis, enforce U.N. resolutions, and induce North Korea to comply with its Six-Party Talks commitments. The effectiveness of sanctions is also hindered by China’s willingness to provide economic benefits outside of the conditionality of the Six-Party Talks.

By not fully implementing sanctions and offering alternative sources of revenue, Beijing reduces the likelihood that North Korea will return to the Six-Party Talks. Why would Pyongyang seek the conditional benefits offered as inducements in the nuclear negotiations when it can receive the same benefits directly from China?

What to expect in 2011. The lunar year of the rabbit will see North Korea hopping back and forth between more provocations and a more energetic charm offensive.

Provocations. The current calm on the Korean Peninsula may be short lived. North Korea’s inability to date to achieve its diplomatic objectives through provocations will compel it eventually to engage in more high-risk confrontational measures, even as it appeals for negotiations with the U.S.

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently warned that the “potential provocations could become more and more catastrophic.” The next provocation could be escalation of warlike rhetoric, tactical military confrontations along the Demilitarized Zone and Northern Limit Line, missile launches, or another nuclear test.

Such tactics have worked repeatedly in the past, with Washington and Seoul willing to buy their way back to a calmer status quo. Previous provocations have often elicited offers of negotiations or concessions. Kim Jong-il would also be emboldened by perceptions that Washington and Seoul do not have a military option because of the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ. There is indeed a long history of deadly provocations for which neither Washington nor Seoul responded.

Charm Offensive. Yet, none of this precludes the potential for resumed dialogue. North Korean provocations have often laid the groundwork for negotiations. Pyongyang used its annual New Year’s Day joint editorial to initiate a new charm offensive. The shift in tactics is consistent with standard North Korean negotiating behavior to alternate between provocations and seemingly conciliatory behavior to attain its goals.

Pyongyang realizes it must lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula and appear to be a reasonable negotiating partner. In order to resume dialogue with Washington, Pyongyang understands it must fulfill one of the Obama Administration’s preconditions by first reaching out to South Korea.

Other North Korean foreign policy objectives include: undermine new U.S. and South Korean efforts to impose additional sanctions for the attack on Yeonpyeong-do and revelation of the uranium facility at Yongbyon; weaken international resolve to maintain existing punitive measures; and gain diplomatic and economic benefits.

But as the collapse of the inter-Korean military talks showed, even when North Korea is reaching out, it’s behavior is more offensive than charming. North Korea showed no inclination to alter its behavior, address South Korean security concerns, or implement its Six-Party Talks denuclearization commitment

Policy Recommendations

The United States should continue the current two-track policy of pressure and conditional engagement, but with additional measures. Overall, it is a good strategy, but has been weakly implemented by the Obama Administration.

Stronger measures—both more pain and more gain—should be implemented to more effectively alter North Korean behavior. There is a need to increase power to all cylinders, namely greater pressure, public diplomacy (overt and covert), military preparations/defenses, and diplomacy

1. Increase punitive and coercive measures

* Fully implement existing U.N. resolution requirements, including freezing and seizing the financial assets of any complicit North Korean person, company, bank, or government agency;
* Close loopholes in the U.N. resolutions, such as allowing the use of military forces to enforce the resolution. Doing so would prevent a recurrence of an incident in which a North Korean freighter suspected of proliferating nuclear or missile items could not be interdicted or boarded for inspection;
* Target both ends of the proliferation pipeline, including foreign companies, banks, and governments that assist North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. U.N. Resolution 1874 applies to all U.N. members. The reluctance of the U.N., U.S., China, and others to target Iranian, Syrian, Burmese, and other government and private entities has hindered international efforts to constrain North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs;
* Impose unilateral U.S. sanctions on foreign violators if the U.N. remains reluctant to act. Call on other nations to match the U.S. effort;
* Maintain international punitive sanctions until North Korea complies with international law and U.N. resolutions. Do not negotiate them away for simply returning to Six-Party Talks;
* Lead a global effort to target North Korean illegal activities, including counterfeiting of currency and pharmaceuticals, production and distribution of illegal drugs, and money laundering;
* Return North Korea to the state sponsors of terrorism list for attempting to assassinate Hwang Jang-yop, the most senior North Korean defector, and providing conventional arms and assistance to terrorist groups;
* Demand a suspension of all U.N. Development Program activities in North Korea until Pyongyang complies with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Demand that North Korea agree to rigorous, transparent monitoring standards and delivery verification for all international food and humanitarian assistance.

2. Simultaneously keep the door open for negotiations. It’s not a question of whether to engage North Korea, but of how to do so. Negotiations should be based on principles of compliance, conditionality, reciprocity, and verification.

* Insist that North Korea comply with its existing Six-Party Talks agreements. The Six-Party Talks should define a strategic blueprint that clearly identifies the desired end-state, objectives, and requirements for all parties, as well as a roadmap delineating the linkages, schedule, and metrics for achieving measurable results;
* Require that subsequent Six-Party Talks joint statements be sufficiently detailed to prevent North Korea from exploiting loopholes to avoid full compliance;
* Insist on a rigorous and intrusive verification mechanism. North Korea should return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and commit to all required inspections. Pyongyang should fully disclose both its plutonium- and uranium-based nuclear weapons programs and past proliferation of nuclear technology, materials, and equipment.

But several factors should be kept in mind before returning to talks:

* Realize that talking itself is not progress. It simply returns the combatants to the ring. The talks had collapsed because North Korea rejected a verification accord.
* The agreements were a series of vaguely written compromises papering over differences that merely kicked the can down the road.
* Entering into negotiations can create forces that may be inimical to achieving U.S. goals. An inherent desire for continued momentum leads to mounting pressure on Washington to make concessions
* Diplomacy is very good for solving problems. North Korea has also learned that diplomacy is also very good for not solving problems.
* The disclosure of significant North Korean progress in its uranium program makes resolution exponentially more difficult since far more stringent verification requirements will be necessary.

3. Strengthen Defensive Measures

Since international diplomacy and U.N. resolutions did not prevent North Korea from continuing its development and testing of nuclear weapons and ICBM delivery capabilities, the U.S. should:

* Continue to develop and deploy missile defense systems;
* Augment non-proliferation efforts, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative;
* Strengthen U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan.

4. Adding Lanes to the Road of Engagement.

The Six-Party Talks need not be the only focus of North Korea policy. A comprehensive, integrated, and conditional approach would offer Pyongyang a path to greater economic, developmental, and diplomatic benefits while still insisting on conditionality, reciprocity, and transparency.

That said, addressing the North Korean nuclear threat must remain the paramount national security objective in Northeast Asia. Pyongyang cannot be allowed to use additional negotiating venues to deflect attention from its intransigence in the Six-Party Talks.

Negotiating venues should be pursued bilaterally or multilaterally depending on their impact on a country’s national interests. (missiles, peace treaty, abductees)

* Inter-Korean negotiations should be based on the 1991 Basic Agreement;
* The U.S., South Korea, and Japan should initiate multilateral negotiations to eliminate North Korea’s missile threat. Such discussions should constrain, and ideally eliminate, missile development, deployment, and proliferation rather than being merely a quid pro quo agreement of cash payments in exchange for Pyongyang not exporting missile technology;
* The U.S., China, North Korea, and South Korea could begin discussions on a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War once North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats to its neighbors are eliminated. An inviolable precondition for such negotiations would be the inclusion of conventional force reductions and confidence-building measures, such as prior notification of major military deployments, movements, and exercises.

Not all forms of engagement should be linked to the Six-Party Talks.

* Humanitarian assistance should not be linked to nuclear negotiat ions. Levels of humanitarian aid should be determined by in-country assessments of North Korean needs. However, distribution of humanitarian aid should be subject to rigorous monitoring standards. Moreover, donor levels cannot help but be influenced by North Korean provocative acts, unwillingness to reform economically, and more pressing humanitarian needs elsewhere.
* International development assistance should be subject to the standard rules of international financial institutions. Initial contributions should be project-based while any extensive, long-term assistance should be tied to North Korean economic reform.
* Law enforcement, implementation of U.N. resolutions, and efforts to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles are not negotiable. It was a grave mistake on the part of the Bush Administration to allow Pyongyang to defy the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council in exchange for North Korea’s return to the Six-Party Talks.

The U.S. should denounce North Korea’s human rights abuses and take steps to improve living conditions for its citizens. The U.S. should:

* Challenge North Korea to improve its abysmal human rights record through exposure at international fora, including at the U.N.;
* Call on Beijing to abandon repatriation of North Korean defectors and allow visits by the U.N. rapporteur on North Korean human rights to investigate refugee conditions in northeast China;
* Engage with China, Mongolia, and Southeast Asian nations to determine ways to facilitate travel by North Korean refugees;
* Support Japanese and South Korean efforts to secure full accounting and return of all abductees and prisoners of war currently languishing in North Korea; and
* Condition establishment of diplomatic relations with North Korea on the introduction of a Helsinki Accord-type process to ensure human rights improvements.

The U.S. should expand public diplomacy to increase North Korean exposure to the outside world and induce the transformation of the nature of the regime, as took place in Communist Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

* Increase public diplomacy offensive (overt and covert). This could include defector-led broadcasting; leaflets, covert ops;
* Facilitate formal student and cultural exchange programs;
* Expand broadcasting services, such as by Radio Free Asia, and distribution of leaflets, DVDs, computer flash drives, documentaries, and movies into North Korea through both overt and covert means.

Building a foundation on sand. While a comprehensive integrated strategy utilizing all the tools of coercion and persuasion provides the best potential for achieving North Korean denuclearization, we must realize that we may be trying to negotiate the non-negotiable. There may not be any magical combination of benefits and punishments that gets Pyongyang to abandon its decades-long quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Indeed, there is a growing sense that Pyongyang’s antics and stalling tactics are not merely negotiating ploys, but instead are designed to achieve international acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state. North Korean officials have repeatedly indicated that is precisely their intention.

Currently, there is little optimism that negotiations will be successful. Pyongyang has repeatedly dashed the hopes of those advocating engagement. North Korea’s words do not offer comfort for a negotiated settlement:

* First Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Kang Sok-ju commented in November 2006, “How is it possible for us to give up our nuclear weapons? Why would we conduct a nuclear test in order abandon them?”
* The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the supposed “soft-liners” in the North Korean government, declared in June 2009 that, “It has become an absolutely impossible option for the DPRK to even think about giving up its nuclear weapons.”
* Pyongyang declared in February 2010 that “those who talk about an economic reward in return for the dismantlement of [North Korea’s] nuclear weapons would be well advised to awake from their daydream.”
* North Korean official media pronounced in February 2010 that “Only fools will entertain the delusion that we will trade our nuclear deterrent for petty economic aid.”

What is Obama’s Plan B? The Obama Administration’s two-track policy of pressure and negotiations is an improvement over earlier approaches. Yet when weakly implemented, “strategic patience” is insufficient as a long-term strategy. Simply containing North Korea in a box is problematic:

* It allows Pyongyang to expand and refine its nuclear and missile delivery capabilities. This not only further undermines the security of the U.S. and its allies but also sends a dangerous signal of de facto acceptance to other nuclear aspirants;
* North Korea may not obligingly stay in a box. The North Korean nuclear genie has already escaped the peninsular bottle to Syria and most likely also to Iran and Burma;

Pyongyang may not meekly acquiesce to a steadily declining condition. In the past, Pyongyang has reacted to feelings of weakness by lashing out in a provocative manner.
source: www.heritage.org

The Iran Stuxnet Affair

2011-03-10T16:27:00.000-08:00

The Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has claimed that the Stuxnet computer virus that attacked Iran’s nuclear installations could have led to a Chernobyl-style meltdown. He demanded an enquiry into the malware, which he said could have caused a thermonuclear explosion at the Bushehr power plant in southern Iran. This idea was dismissed as unfounded by the German cybersecurity expert Ralph Langner, who made the first complete study of the virus: “First, Stuxnet does not target Bushehr.” (It affected the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which has 7,000 centrifuges.) “Second, even if it did, it could not mess with the systems in the primary circuit [in contact with radioactivity]. The funny thing is, the Russians know that very well.” Russia is Iran’s partner in its nuclear program. The Stuxnet affair is a game of mirrors, of computer code sabotage and diplomacy.

Some facts have been established: The authors of the virus had time (it is estimated that it would have taken 10 man-years to write the 15,000 lines of code) and specialist knowledge (the worm spread through four unpatched holes in the Microsoft Windows system). “Code analysis makes it clear that Stuxnet is not about sending a message or proving a concept,” Langer wrote. “It is about destroying its targets with utmost determination in military style.”

But were Iran’s nuclear installations the target? An article in The New York Times in January said the virus was tested and developed on a lifesize model of the centrifuge system at Natanz, and that the large-scale operation was carried out in Israel’s military nuclear complex at Dimona in the Negev desert. The article was based on the accounts of several US and Israeli computer scientists, nuclear enrichment experts and former officials, all unnamed. Its conclusion was that “the covert race to create Stuxnet was a joint project between the Americans and the Israelis, with some help, knowing or unknowing, from the Germans and the British.”

The Germans in question are the Siemens company, which makes the supervisory control and data acquisition system (SCADA) used to monitor industrial processes at Natanz. The Stuxnet worm first appeared in 2009 when it infected tens of thousands of computers around the world. According to a report by the Moscow-based antivirus manufacturer Kaspersky Labs, it spread to several countries, and infected 8,565 computers in India in September 2010, and Indonesia (5,148 victims), before arriving in Iran, where 3,062 cases were detected. Some believe that Stuxnet penetrated Natanz through an infected USB memory stick from a Russian supplier. Then, recognizing the distinctive traits of its target (the make of certain frequency controllers) the virus set off a sequence of attacks out of a Hollywood movie. It made sure the control computers continued to show that everything was operating normally, while it increased the speed of rotation of the centrifuges, pushing the rotors to breaking point, and causing an abnormally high number of failures.

Israel hasn’t said it is behind the worm, but it hasn’t denied it either, and some army officers hint at it. The Stuxnet malware is only one element of various attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. The former head of Mossad (Israeli intelligence), Meir Dagan, said recently he was pleased that the program had been put back several years: “Iran won’t have nuclear capability before 2015.”

According to a report by the US Institute of Peace, Iran’s nuclear program has “mounting setbacks, which in turn will provide more time for diplomacy and reduce the imminence of military strikes.” Iran’s problems are “increased difficulty of obtaining essential parts on the international market; trouble operating large numbers of centrifuges; and apparent covert actions by foreign intelligence agencies.” These include “cyber attacks, sabotaging key equipment Iran seeks abroad; infiltration and disruption of Iran’s smuggling networks, and the assassination of nuclear experts.” (The most recent on 29 November 2010, when the scientist Majid Shahriari was blown up in his car.) The report’s authors, David Albright and Andrea Stricker believe “the biggest problems appear to have been caused by the Stuxnet malware, which started to impact the gas centrifuges at the Natanz fuel enrichment plant in 2009.” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad originally dismissed the affair as fantasy, but last year he had to admit that the virus had caused some problems, which, he said, had since been resolved.

Scott Ritter, the UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998, wrote on Nuclear Intelligence Weekly: “Public statements by both American and Israeli officials [hint] that Stuxnet has stymied, for the time being, Iran’s enrichment program.” But Ritter goes on to say that “a recent assessment conducted by the Federation of American Scientists, drawing on data from the UN nuclear inspection teams [about Natanz], suggests that in 2010 Iran actually increased the scope and efficiency of its enrichment activities, despite the Stuxnet attack.”

The reason for this difference in evaluation, says Ritter, is the tension caused by the “race” between Tehran and the P5 + 1 group. “Fact-based assessments have in the past been ignored in favor of speculation about potential ‘break-out’ scenarios concerning Iran’s ability to produce a hypothetical nuclear weapon...” Diplomats, who for the last 20 years have been saying that Iran is about to get the bomb, have been “limiting policy options to those which addressed these exaggerated hypotheses.” So they have narrowed the areas for discussion. The setback attributed to the sabotage provides an opportunity to continue negotiations without losing face.

Should Stuxnet be welcomed for reducing the risk of a preventative strike against Iran? Apart from the imbalance between the neighbors (Israel’s nuclear bomb is the world’s “worst kept secret” while Iran still seems far from completing its nuclear program), sabotage operations in peacetime risk reprisals and escalation. It would be ironic if the world’s most computerised countries, which have the most to lose, justified such actions. But computer piracy is combat: To defend yourself well, you need to be a master of attack. In Washington, where the memory is still fresh of the hacking of Google’s messaging service, probably by the Chinese, President Obama wants the power to shut down the internet, a last line of defense against foreign cyber attacks. Estonia, which suffered a cyber attack in 2007 (probably by Russia), is now home to NATO’s center of excellence for cyber defense. -- translated by Stephanie Irvine

Philippe Rivière is a member of the editorial team of Le Monde diplomatique.

Copyright © 2011 Le Monde diplomatique -- distributed by Agence Global
source: www.middle-east-online.com

Eagle Rock contract for URS

2011-02-25T00:21:00.000-08:00

25 February, 2011 - URS Corporation has been awarded a contract by Areva to provide procurement, construction and management services for the planned Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho.

URS - a provider of engineering, construction and technical services - said that under the terms of the contract, signed with Areva Enrichment Services LLC, it will perform its work in two phases. The value of the contract was not disclosed.

During the initial phase, the company will provide construction and procurement planning services. In the second phase - which will only begin once Areva has received its combined construction and operating licence (COL) for the facility, together with other necessary approvals - URS will provide a full range of procurement, construction and management services.

A COL application is currently with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which Areva hopes will allow it to begin construction later this year. AES submitted its licence application for the plant at the end of 2008. However, in March 2009 the company informed the NRC that it intended to revise the application to double the capacity of the plant from the originally planned 3.3 million SWU (separative work units, the unit of measurement for uranium enrichment) to 6.6 million SWU per year.

The Eagle Rock uranium enrichment facility is expected to begin operating in 2014 and to be fully constructed by 2017. The plant will be similar to a new Areva's Georges Besse II facility at Tricastin, France, which is based on centrifuge technology licensed from Urenco.

In May 2010, Areva was awarded a conditional offer of a loan guarantee for $2 billion. The loan guarantee supports a large part of the total cost of the project and should help Areva raise private capital. The Department of Energy put the cost of Eagle Rock at $3.3 billion.
source: http://www.yourindustrynews.com

Breakthrough Gas Separation Technology Poised to Allow Use of Up to 30% of The World’s Natural Gas Reserves

2011-02-25T00:13:00.000-08:00

Separating impurities from highly contaminated natural gas reserves is the main focus of Tenoroc’s research. According to an Innovations Report article of 5/12/2006, “Huge underground gas reserves, up to 16% of the total reserves, remain unused. The natural gas in these fields is too contaminated for exploitation. With existing technology, cleaning these fields is much too costly… It is almost impossible to convey the economic value of 16% of the world’s reserves. They represent more that 360 times the annual natural gas production of Shell, Exxon, and BP put together.” Other estimates put the level of these unused reserves as high as 30%.

Established in 2005, Tenoroc has been developing its patent pending curved nozzle technologies since 2006 at its Mankato, Minnesota research facility. These small nozzles, with no moving parts, incorporate gravitational forces that can exceed conventional spinning centrifuges, achieving improved separation levels. Tenoroc’s nozzle technology is divided into two areas, “condensation based separation” and “gas-to-gas separation”.

“Condensation based separation” is a method of using the expansion that occurs within the nozzle to convert one gas in a mix of gases to a liquid. When the gas constituent that has been turned to a liquid and remaining, different gas constituents are exposed to the curve in the nozzle, centrifugal energy forces the liquid, which is heavier than the gas, to the outside wall and it exits through the outside wall outlet.

According to Paul Donovan, Director of Technology Development, “We see our niche in the natural gas industry in applications where there are high levels of contamination, too high for today’s methods of cleansing natural gas. We also hope to improve or supplement cleansing on less contaminated natural gas currently being processed. Our small footprint and versatility in placement is an added bonus.” When asked about commercialization Mr. Donovan added, “The key to commercialization will be our ability to license our technology to a strategic partner that provides equipment and service to the natural gas processing industry. We intend to begin demonstrating our prototype immediately as a first step in this process.”

“Gas-to-gas separation” and isotope enrichment make use of the extreme gravitational force produced by the nozzle curve to move the heavier gas to the outside wall where it exits away from the lighter gas.

Michael Bloom, Principle Tenoroc Researcher, offered, “In addition to natural gas, an application that we have our sights on is isotope enrichment, including isotopically pure silicon for semiconductor wafers. Pure silicon has been studied by the industry for years and is believed to be the answer to the debilitating heat generated by today’s computers. However, no one has ever been able to purify the gas that silicon is made from at a reasonable cost or in the quantities needed.” Mr. Bloom has almost two decades of experience developing separation methods. He achieved a patent on a gas centrifuge in 1999.

“These nozzles look simple, but there has been a great deal of effort and analysis that has gone into their development,” stated Tenoroc’s President, Gary Capuano. He added, “The need for improved separation methods is all around us. The Department of Energy estimates that separation processes represent 40 to 70 percent of both capital and operating costs in industry. They also account for 45 percent of all the process energy used by the chemical and petroleum refining industries every year. There are numerous applications for our technologies, including water de-salination. For now though, we must maintain our focus, and that focus is natural gas.”

When asked about the challenges of commercializing a technology, Capuano replied, “Our company’s management has enjoyed success licensing technology in the past. With today’s interest in energy and the environment, this technology seems to have put us in the right place at the right time. We intend to find the correct industry partner for each application while we continue to improve what we already have.”

Please direct inquiries to;
Armington Technologies, LLC
P.O. Box 3492
Ponte Vedra, FL 32004
Tel: 407-236-7023
Fax: 904-285-2156
pd(at)armingtontech(dot)com source: http://www.prweb.com

The Stuxnet Virus Details

2011-02-19T06:06:00.000-08:00

A powerful computer virus repeatedly struck five industrial sites in Iran over a period of ten months, security researchers have discovered. One organization was hit three times, and another, twice.

Targets could be identified because the Stuxnet virus collected the location and time of every infection. This was a unique feature which allowed the virus’s authors to monitor its progress. The worm first came to notice last year after analysis showed it appeared to have been written by a “nation state” to attack the Iranian nuclear program, which includes uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz.

Stuxnet affected industrial systems such as the Siemens Simatic S7-300 PLC CPU. These are not generally connected to the Internet for security reasons. It would have arrived by email or on a USB device. The virus has been traced to five Internet domains in Iran. Stuxnet gave new instructions to the programmable logic control software of machinery, which required intimate knowledge of the systems.

Stuxnet exploited several previously unknown vulnerabilities in Windows. It has been described as “one of the most sophisticated pieces of malware ever,” but Tom Parker of the Securicon security firm said it was not so advanced. Nonetheless, the Iranian uranium enrichment program has suffered setbacks.

The Institute for Science and International Security said that Stuxnet disabled 1,000 of Iran’s 9,000 centrifuges, machines that refine uranium. Iranian officials admitted the virus infected computers, but denied that it caused major delays, something with which the security researchers’ report agrees: Iran’s output of refined uranium did not fall last year, but neither did it increase significantly. The experience is said to have left the Iranians “rattled.”

Russia’s ambassador to NATO remarked recently that the virus “could lead to a new Chernobyl,” a reference to the infamous 1986 nuclear accident.source: spinport.com

USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility and American Centrifuge Plant); Order Approving Direct Transfer of Licenses

2011-02-19T05:59:00.000-08:00

Feb 18, 2011 (FIND, Inc. via COMTEX) --

I

USEC, Inc. (USEC) is the holder of material licenses numbers SNM-7003 and SNM-2011 for the American Centrifuge Lead Cascade Facility (Lead Cascade) and American Centrifuge Plant (ACP), respectively, which authorize the licensee to: (1) Possess and use source and special nuclear material at the Lead Cascade at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, Ohio, in accordance with material license number SNM-7003; and, (2) construct and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility (the ACP) at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site in Piketon, Ohio, in accordance with material license number SNM-2011.

II

By letter dated September 10, 2010, USEC requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consent to transfer control of material license numbers SNM-7003 and SNM-2011 from USEC to a subsidiary limited liability company, American Centrifuge Operating (ACO), LLC. In addition, USEC requested NRC approval of changes to the Lead Cascade and the ACP material licenses. With NRC's approval of the request to transfer licenses, USEC will then make conforming changes to the license applications to reflect ACO as the Licensee. USEC's request included conforming changes to Chapter 2 of the combined Lead Cascade and ACP security program.

Approval of the direct transfer of the licenses and of the conforming license amendments was requested pursuant to 10 CFR 70.36. A notice of consideration of approval was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2010 (75 FR 70300), including a notice of opportunity to request a hearing, or to submit written comments. No requests for a hearing were submitted in response to this notice. However, the Ohio Sierra Club submitted a written request, dated December 5, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML103370366), for a public meeting to discuss this request to transfer licenses. In response, the NRC held a public meeting on January 4, 2011, in Piketon, Ohio, to discuss NRC's process for reviewing USEC's request to transfer licenses with members of the Sierra Club and other members of the public. During the meeting, the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group (SONG) submitted written comments regarding the transfer of licenses to the NRC. SONG's comments were received after the December 17, 2010, due date for submittal of comments provided in the November 17, 2010, Federal Register Notice. The NRC considered the comments to the maximum extent practicable within the enclosed Safety Evaluation Report.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 30.34(b), 40.46, and 70.36, no license granted under those parts, and no right thereunder to use byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, shall be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license, to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act), as amended, and shall give its consent in writing.

The Commission will approve an application for the direct or indirect transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed restructuring and reorganization will not affect the qualifications of the Licensee to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. After review of the information in USEC's request and other information before the Commission, and relying on the representations and agreements contained in the request, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed corporate restructuring and direct transfer of the licenses are acceptable and consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission. The NRC staff has further determined that the application for the proposed license amendments complies with the standards and requirements of the Act, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in Title 10 Chapter I. The requested direct transfer of the licenses source: www.tradingmarkets.com

Dangerous Conspiracy behind Pak’s Indeterminate Nukes

2011-02-19T05:55:00.000-08:00

Recently, leaked reports from US government sources said Pakistan’s deployed nuclear warheads may have crossed 100, surpassing India’s estimated 60 -70 warheads, with Pakistan emerging as the 5th nuclear weapon power in the world.

The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has claimed that the latest satellite imagery obtained by it shows that the fourth reactor at Khushab, Pakistan is at an early stage of construction, and is nearly the same shape and size as the second and third reactors.

The Khushab complex planned to have four reactors. The first was a heavy water reactor built in the 1990s and known as the Khushab Nuclear Complex-I or KNC-I. The KNC-II, a plutonium producing reactor became operational in 1996. It is estimated to produce 22 Kgs of plutonium per year. The KNC-III, another plutonium reactor is scheduled to become operational this year, 2011. The KNC-IV is now on the way, and construction work is going on well. An expert on nuclear weapons proliferation was quoted recently as saying that the KNC-IV reiterates the point that Pakistan was determined to produce a lot of plutonium to make nuclear weapons far exceeding its need.

In addition, Pakistan has a reprocessing facility at the Pakistan Institute of Science and Technology (PINSTECH), and reports suggest other such facilities exist elsewhere in the country.

The Khushab complex also has a tritium production facility, an element that boosts the yield of a nuclear weapon. Pakistan’s original fissile material facility remains at Kahuta. This is a gas centrifuge, producing highly enriched uranium (HEU), estimated to produce 100 Kgs of fissile material a year. Several other uranium enrichment facilities reportedly exist including at Golra Sharif, 15 Kms from Islamabad.

Kahuta was the traditional center of Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Such centers have reportedly spread, to ensure that targeting one does not cripple Pakistan’s capabilities.

Pakistan has two types of delivery vehicles – the F-16 aircraft earlier provided by the US, and a variety of surface-to-surface missiles acquired from China and North Korea initially, and later developed in Pakistan using these designs and components.

The first nuclear weapon capable missile, the M-II with a range of 290 Kms, was acquired from China in 1991-92. This was followed by the Nadong acquired from North Korea. The main missiles ready are the Hatf-III (Gaznavi) with a range of 300-400 Kms; the solid fuel-IV (Shaheen), with a range over 450 Kms; and the liquid fuel Hatf-V (Ghauri) with an approximate range of 1,300 Kms. The solid fuel Hatf-VI (Shaheen-2), with a range of 2,000 Kms may have already been deployed or soon to be deployed. The ground based cruise missile (Babur), and the air launched Ra’ad, with ranges around 320 Kms are under development (see Congressional Research Service Report, of January 13, 2011).

The above gives a glimpse of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery system. From the available information, Pakistan’s declaration of maintaining a minimum credible deterrence against India becomes questionable. How much is still not minimum with more than 100 deployed warheads and ballistic missiles with upto a range of 2000 Kms covering most of India? Pakistan’s current weapons stockpile is more than is required for its stated deterrence, and a doctrine which includes “first use”, as against India’s 60 to 70 warheads and declared doctrine of ‘no first use”. Its nuclear weapons build up activities and development of long range ballistic missiles and airborne cruise missiles, suggests an ambition much beyond India. So, what is Pakistan’s ambition that its burgeoning nuclear arsenal is going to serve?

It is well known that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons achievement is not indigenous. It had, on the one hand, active foreign assistance which is still continuing. It also acquired technology and know-how through its own efforts and that of a friendly country. On the other hand, the United States and several western countries winked and looked away while blatant proliferation was indulged in by Pakistan, China and North Korea. That is how Pakistan has emerged as the 5th largest nuclear weapons state in the world, and its activities suggest that it may surpass the UK and France in another decade. Operationalization of KNC-III and KNC-IV will ensure that.

The West or NATO led by the US failed to recognize those activities because of narrow geopolitical objectives. During the cold war, the US-Pakistan-China axis evolved to counter the Soviet Union, and India was perceived as a Soviet ally. Post cold war, the deep antipathy towards India remained for quite some time in Washington. One cannot say with full confidence that the whole of Washington has moved away from the Pakistan appeasing line because of its current engagement in the region.

In parallel, in spite of several run-ins with China last year, the US may not be keen to further antagonise China because of huge economic interests. Militarily, the US, especially the Pentagon, is looking at Beijing more in bilateral terms (which includes the Asia Pacific region).

The history of China-Pakistan nuclear and missile cooperation is well known and needs no repetition. The Pakistan establishment, especially the military is elated with China’s power and assistance. It believes that it now stands toe-to-toe with India.

China created nuclear Pakistan to counter India, but the Pakistanis are unable to understand that China has used Pakistan all along. Neither Islamabad nor the GHQ in Rawalpindi have ever stopped to objectively assess how little economic assistance they have received from China over the years. Today China, with $2.8 trillion foreign exchange reserve, is not doing anything for Pakistan to extricate it from its economic hole. When Pakistan suffered its worst ever floods, China did pathetically little, given its economic power. Its investment in Pakistan is basically in the mining area which is to its own interest and in infrastructure like the Gwadar port which will serve China’s interest. The trade imbalance between the two tells the story. Pakistan’s economy is kept afloat by the US and the west. Pakistan hardly realises that China is driving it to become a military nation, a fact which is beginning to worry most countries. The Pakistani people will ignore this at their own peril.

Although China is a signatory to all non-proliferation regimes, it has been contravening them with impunity. With its new found economic and military power it believes that it can do very much what it likes.

It is no secret that Pakistan continues to receive active assistance from China for its plutonium route. It has also received technology to reduce the size of its nuclear warheads, and plutonium is, therefore, important. The China-Pak alliance mainly targets India. In the last two years or so China has made several assertive and aggressive moves against India. Beijing is being extremely irresponsible, because Pakistan ultimately may not follow exactly the script written by China. That is the emerging threat to the entire international community.

How secure is Pakistan’s nuclear asset? The US, at the very highest level, have periodically certified that those are secure. True, after the revelations of the A.Q. Khan Proliferation network, steps were taken to establish multi-layer security. But the Americans agree that vulnerabilities exist, as stated by former Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director Maples in March, 2009.

How secure is secure in a volatile state like Pakistan with rising radical Islamism, with several factions fighting against the state? The former IAEA Director General Mohammad EL Baradei had also expressed the fear that a radical regime could take over power in Pakistan, thereby acquiring control of the nuclear weapons.

It must not be forgotten that A.Q. Khan and at least two of his nuclear scientist colleagues were in touch with Ossama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda group between 1988 and 2001/2. Intelligence reports say the Khan-Ossama meeting was facilitated by the ISI in a safe-house of the organization, and Khan was also flown to Afghanistan in an ISI helicopter. Recent reports suggest that the Al Qaeda has been seeking fissile material and technology.

One can never be too sure that more A.Q. Khans are not sleeping inside Pakistan’s nuclear establishment. Even the real brain behind Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, the low profile Dr. Samar Mubarakmand, had close friends among Islamists. One cannot help but ask the question why Pakistan refused steadfastly to given access to the USA and the IAEA to question Khan. Could Khan reveal names of his kind still inside the nuclear establishment and the involvement of the army in the net-work?

The international community must ponder on the recent developments in Pakistan. Take the case of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. He was killed by his own body guard because of his anti-Islamist and secular disposition. Most lawyers and the public declined to protest against Taseer’s killer, save a few in the media who are waging a lonely battle against the Islamists.

Fearless, liberal member of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Sherry Rehman, had to withdraw her bill on Blasphemy Amendment law under pressure from the party and Prime Minister Yusaf Raja Gilani. The government succumbed to the threat from the Islamists. The banned terrorist organization, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) can gather 20,000 people on the streets with a click of their fingers. The LET remains banned in Pakistan in name only.

In all this, the Pakistan army remained silent. It is well known that the government cannot move one inch in issues related to security and foreign policy without the army’s clearance. So, what was the army’s role in the government giving way to the Islamists? It may be recalled that radical Islamism was brought to the fore by the Pakistani army, especially Gen. and President Zia-ul-Haq. The Islamist groups remain assets of the army in Afghanistan and in the operations against India.

The silence of the international community over Pakistan’s rapid accumulation of nuclear weapons, and China’s assistance, is confounding. The obvious answer is Pakistan’s importance in combating extremists and militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though it is evident whatever Pakistan has done in fighting terrorism has been done under pressure.

Imagine a man like Zia-ul-Haq, becoming the Chief of the army and, in a coup, takes over the government. With such a huge nuclear arsenal which is still growing, Pakistan will not remain India-centric. It will move against the Christian west with the US as the central target. 9/11 may look like a school play compared to what they can do. This may be an extreme scenario. More likely is the possibility of fissile material with dirty bomb technology falling in the hands of the jehadis across the region. Jehadis have among them highly educated technology savvy members.

The US and the west remain short sighted and narrowly focussed, refusing to acknowledge and address a growing threat of dimensions never seen before. The US must accept that the billions of dollars it is pumping into Pakistan for development is not feeding the hungry but fattening the war machine of Pakistan.

(The author is an eminent strategic analyst with many years of experience. He can be reached at grouchohart@yahoo.com)

source: www.eurasiareview.com

Shelly Palmer Radio Report

2011-02-19T05:50:00.000-08:00

February 14, 2011 - A report by Symantec says that the computer virus Stuxnet infected five Iranian industrial facilities. Stuxnet is the same virus that infected Iran’s uranium enrichment complex and took 1,000 gas centrifuges offline. The malware was able to infiltrate their systems through an infected email or USB jump-drive.

In other news, Apple is considering taking their MobileMe cloud storage system and turning it into a multimedia hub. Users would be able to store their iTunes downloads online and access them from any web-ready device.

The media storage locker could be made available as early as June. And finally, Congresswoman Jackie Speier has introduced the Do Not Track Me Online Act to the House of Representatives. The bill is supported by eight privacy advocate organizations and would allow consumers to opt out of online tracking. By opting out, advertisers would lose the ability to serve ads that are specific to users.
Click to play ...
source: www.shellypalmer.com

Lotta Watta: algal innovators pioneering new extraction techniques

2011-01-26T19:22:00.000-08:00

In Ohio, Algaeventure Systems advises that, today, they are releasing an RFP targeting the nation’s leading algae producers to act as demonstration sites for its SLS Industrial algae dewatering technology under its 2009 DOE ARPA-E grant.

Why is that important? Well, if you’ve somehow figured out how to grow algae for biofuels on an industrial scale and at an industrial rate – no small achievement – and your algae is cost-effectively produced and contains just the right mix of carbs, proteins and lipids for your target array of must-have products at everyday low prices…you’ve still got one small problem left.

Just one minor detail - one teency thing. In fact, its so small, it’s microscopic. The algae, that is – single celled creatures that they are that grow to no more than about a 1 percent concentration before you need to harvest – in fact, 0.1 percent concentrations are in many cases closer to the norm.

So, you have either get the water out of the algae or the algae out of the water. Or else, you have a whole lotta watta – that is to say, as much as a thousand gallons of water for every gallon of algae.

The little guys are too small for traditional means of filtration, centrifuging, or solvent extraction (typically, using hexane). It’s more than “the mother of all challenges”, its a barrier that, in itself, could prevent algal biofuel from reaching commercial parity with $80 crude oil. General Atomics has pegged the current cost of algae harvesting at $0.80 to $1.60 per gallon. As they say, a tad high.

So who’s been working on the problem and what have they come up with? The solutions group into a few categories:

One field looks at milking (or otherwise crushing the cell) while the the algae is still in the water, counting on the fact that oil and water will phase separate and allow the oil to be economically collected. Another aims to get the algae to concentrate, and the other aims to force the water and algae to separate, and thereby move the water away from the algae.

Let’s take a look.

More on Algaeventure Systems and its RFP

The RFP is an opportunity for AVS and potential demonstration sites to test and evaluate an innovative technology on a large-scale, under real-world conditions.

AVS will consider demonstration sites across a range of algae growth configurations and will select sites based upon production output, type of growth system, algae species and regional location. Described by ARPA-E as a “potentially transformative innovation…of the very highest scientific and technical merit,” the low-energy solid-liquid separation system aims to reduce the energy cost of dewatering microalgae by 90%.

AlgaeVenture Systems reported in 2009 that a prototype of its technology has reduced algae dewatering costs to $1.92 per ton (about $0.007 per gallon), from a $3.19 per gallon cost achieved with centrifuges and will reduced the cost from $875 per ton to a dramatic low cost of $1.92 per ton.

(Interested in the RFP? Contact Dylan Meister at 937-645-4693 or email dmeister@algaevs.com)

OriginOil’s Single-Step Extraction and Live Extraction

OriginOil’s Single Step Extraction is currently implemented in the field at MBD Energy’s James Cook University site in North Queensland, Australia. It can be deployed in two ways: dewatering only for conversion of the entire algae mass to a refinable bio-oil, or full separation of lipids and biomass to create more valuable products along with fuels.

Live Extraction is OriginOil’s process for extracting very high quality lipids on a continuous basis from algae that heals after it has been ‘milked’ of its oil content. Live Extraction is in a prototype stage and further developments are expected in 2011.

Last week, the company announced that it will focus on its algae extraction technology platform to the exclusion of a number of other technologies for, among other things, algal growth.

New Oil Resources and thermal depolymerization.

Last October, New Oil Resources announced that it has developed a process that uses hot, pressurized water to treat the biomass in a process commonly referred to as hydrothermal liquifaction or thermal depolymerization.

According to the research team, “algae can be processed without dewatering and all the carbon is converted to fuels, not just the fatty oils.” The group said that immediate applications include processing municipal sewage sludge, processing waste streams from the ethanol industry and converting algae to fuel.

The Newoil process is reporting that 70% to 80% of the energy in the feedstock is being returned in the final products. The remaining 20% to 30% of the energy is used to run the process.

Unitel and its sweetwater slurry

Last July, Unitel Technologies advised that the company has filed a patent application for a new technology for making biofuels from microalgae. The process involves minimal dewatering, and completely bypasses the energy intensive drying and oil extraction steps.

In the Unitel process, the feedstock – a slurry or “soup” of water and cultivated algae (1% to 20% by weight) is continuously treated in a special hydrolysis reactor to yield 1) a fatty acid product, 2) a “sweet” water stream containing glycerol and other solubles, and 3) deoiled algal biomass. A small fraction of the fatty acid product is fed back into the reactor as catalyst. The nutrient rich “sweet water” is recycled into the algae propagation tanks, where the carbon in the glycerol serves to promote the growth of phytoplankton.

The deoiled biomass (consisting primarily of proteins and carbohydrates) is dried as a food ingredient for animal consumption. The algal fatty acid product is catalytically decarboxylated and converted into paraffinic hydrocarbons (alkanes), followed by mild hydrocracking and hydroisomerization to make biojet fuel comprised of C10-C15 branched paraffins.

Evodos and low-cost centrifuging

A year ago last September, Evodos said that it had developed a very energy-efficient centrifuge to extract algae from water. The low energy consumption allows for a positive energy balance, paving the way for large-scale production of biodiesel from algae, according to company reports. Leading scientists are very excited about this innovation.

The Evodos technology consists of two steps: first, most of the water in which the algae are growing is removed and next the algae are transformed into a dry paste. The Evodos technology enables the extraction of a solid algae cake with a dry solid content of 31.5%. Tests have been conducted to date with Nannochloropsis.

The University of Michigan’s big algal bypass

Last September, a UM research team published, in Energy & Fuels, details of a two-step, catalyst-free algal biodiesel production process, using wet algal biomass and bypassing the drying and solvent extraction steps.

The researchers wrote: “In the first step, wet algal biomass (ca. 80% moisture) reacts in subcritical water to hydrolyze intracellular lipids, conglomerate cells into an easily filterable solid that retains the lipids, and produce a sterile, nutrient-rich aqueous phase. In the second step, the wet fatty acid-rich solids undergo supercritical in situ transesterification (SC-IST/E) with ethanol to produce biodiesel in the form of fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs).”

The University of Michigan’s pressure-cookin’, bio-oil makin’ recipe for makin’ money from low-fat algae

In Michigan, researchers at the University of Michigan are investigating a recipe to pressure-cook algae at 300 degrees for 30 minutes, and thereby break down oils, proteins and carbohydrates into a bio-oil, which can be upgraded into fuel.

The $2 million project, funded by the National Science Foundation under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is aimed at producing acceptable fuel yields from low-oil content algae strains, as well as eliminating the need for water extraction in algal fuel production.

Plus, some stealthy or embryonic projects to keep an eye on.

New Mexico State and the Air Force

The US Air Force has granted New Mexico State University $2.364 million towards algal research to study better ways to grow algae and refine its oil while working with the University of Central Florida to determine the effects of algae-based fuel on jet engines. Project researchers say they must increase the biomass weight of algae, increase the lipid content and focus on harvesting and extraction techniques.

A mystery at Heliae

In November, Heliae tapped ex-BioFuel Energy COO Dan Simon as CEO. What does SImon say? Simon says that Phoenix-based Heliae, which just opened a state-of-the-art research and development facility located in Gilbert, is undertaking scaled testing of a patent-pending extraction process that they can’t say anything about. One to watch even if we don;t know a darm thing about it.

Solix and the sonic option

Noise usually destroys concentration, but turns out that a team from the Los Alamos National Laboratory went the other way on that. According to reports that came out at the time Solix signed a research agreement with LANL, “Los Alamos’ acoustic-focusing technology generates ultrasonic fields that concentrate algal cells into a dense sludge and extract oil. Solix hopes that combining the concentration and extraction steps into one process will eliminate the need for centrifuges and solvents (traditional extraction methods) — and at the same time, significantly cut the cost of producing the biofuel.”

Over at the National Alliance for Advanced Biofuels and Bioproducts (NAABB)

Led by the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (St. Louis, MO), NAABB is integrating resources from companies, universities, and national laboratories to overcome the critical barriers of cost, resource use and efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and commercial viability. They landed a $50M foundational grant from the DOE last year, and have been gearingup on a variety of research fronts.

Principal investigator of the NAABB project, Jose Olivares, said: “In harvesting and oil extract, we are starting with five technologies and hop to focus down to one or two for harvesting the algae in a very energy efficient manner, and that are very cost effective.”

The Digest’s Take

A whole lotta watta has spurred a whole lotta innovation – but more contenders than champions here. AVS’ demonstration may well be a game-changer in the nearer term – watch OriginOil’s Australia project with MBD too.

source: biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest

US embassy cables: US calls on China to crack down on sensitive exports to Iran

2011-01-26T19:15:00.000-08:00

Cable dated:2008-08-01T19:52:00
S E C R E T STATE 083144
E.O. 12958: DNG: CO 08/01/2032
TAGS: ECON, KNNP, PARM, PTER, IR, CH, PINR
SUBJECT: EFFORTS TO HALT IRANIAN PROCUREMENT IN CHINA
Classified By: EAP Acting DAS John J. Norris for 1.4 b,d

1. (U) This is an action request. Please see paragraph 3.

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

SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

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

2. (S//NF) Washington is currently initiating a more focused strategy to prevent shipments of commodities of concern to Iran. We are approaching countries and asking them to inform their relevant industries of the United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) against Iran, and encourage those industries to contact appropriate officials in their governments if they receive any inquiries of concern. We are providing information about certain Chinese companies that have provided commodities to Iranian entities involved in its nuclear program in an effort to encourage China to ensure such activities are not continued and to encourage China to adopt a similar proactive strategy of working with their companies to make them aware of potential Iranian procurement in support of its nuclear program. We would also expect that the provision of this information will lead to subsequent expert-level discussions of this issue with Chinese Government counterparts.

3. (S//NF) Iran has failed to suspend its uranium enrichment and heavy water-related activities as required by the United Nations Security Council. Iran makes frequent use of deceptive tactics in order to obtain items and technology to continue the development of its nuclear program. Furthermore, as described in IAEA Director General El Baradei,s report of 22 February 2008, Iran has admitted to evading international sanctions in order to procure sensitive nuclear-related technologies. DG El Baradei,s reports of 22 February and 26 May also describe Iran's installation and testing of two new, advanced centrifuge designs. These new centrifuges are called the IR-2 and IR-3. Based on Iranian declarations to the IAEA and on photographs taken by the Iranian Government during a visit to Natanz by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it is probable that these new designs use rotors made from carbon fiber. The other version of Iranian centrifuge (the IR-1) consists of high strength aluminum. We are approaching countries that develop the technologies and materials that Iran,s nuclear program will require (such as carbon fiber for the IR-2 and IR-3) and requesting that these countries take proactive steps to educate and inform their companies about potential Iranian procurement efforts.

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

OBJECTIVES/ACTION REQUEST

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

4. (S//REL CHINA) We would like to reinforce China,s own efforts in thwarting Iranian attempts to procure critical materials for its nuclear program from Chinese entities. Washington requests Post deliver the non-paper in paragraph 4 to appropriate host government officials. (Note - The non-paper was originally prepared for U/S John Rood,s recent visit to China but was not delivered due to time constraints.) Post should pursue the following objectives:

-- Inform China that the U.S. is taking proactive steps domestically to thwart Iranian procurement attempts in support of its nuclear program.

-- Encourage China to take similar steps with their companies.

-- Inform China that in the spirit of our cooperation, we are sharing our assessment of them regarding previous Iranian procurement attempts in China (information in attached non-paper). This includes information about specific Chinese companies that have been approached by Iran for commodities in support of its nuclear program in the past.

-- Emphasize that the USG is very concerned that Iran will continue to approach Chinese companies to procure materials in support of its nuclear program.

-- Inform China that we hope that by sharing this information we can establish an ongoing information exchange to help ensure that both our countries are taking all necessary steps to prevent Iranian procurement attempts in support of its nuclear program.

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

BACKGROUND AND NONPAPER

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

5. BEGIN NON-PAPER S//REL CHINA:

-- Iran has failed to suspend its uranium enrichment- and heavy water-related activities as required by the United Nations Security Council. It has similarly refused to address International Atomic Energy Agency,s outstanding questions regarding its past efforts to develop a nuclear warhead, which have been described in detail in the last two IAEA reports.

-- Iran makes frequent use of deception to obtain items and technology for its nuclear program. Furthermore, as described in IAEA Director General El Baradei,s report of 22 February 2008, Iran has admitted to evading international sanctions in order to procure sensitive nuclear-related technologies.

-- DG El Baradei,s reports of 22 February and 26 May describe Iran's installation and testing of new, advanced centrifuge designs, the IR-2 and IR-3. Based on Iranian declarations to the IAEA and on photographs taken by the Iranian Government during a visit to Natanz by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it is probable that this new design uses rotors made from carbon fiber. The other version of Iranian centrifuge (the IR-1) consists of high strength aluminum.

-- The United States is increasing its efforts to ensure that U.S.-origin goods that could provide direct or indirect support to Iran,s nuclear efforts are not exported or re-exported to Iran. These efforts include: Outreach to U.S. companies that manufacture sensitive commodities. These include producers of commodities listed in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines. We have also taken steps to designate and sanction Iranian individuals and companies associated with Iran,s nuclear program. These designations forbid U.S. companies from engaging in business with them.

-- We are currently undertaking a more focused international strategy to prevent shipments of commodities of concern before they happen. These efforts include: Approaching other countries and asking them to take similar domestic steps such as informing their companies of the United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) against Iran, and encouraging those companies to contact appropriate officials in their governments if they receive inquiries of concern. We have also shared watchlists of sensitive commodities with NSG Participating Governments (PGs) and have provided information to NSG partners on Iran procurement efforts.

-- In the spirit of our on-going nonproliferation cooperation and dialogue with China, we seek China,s partnership in this proactive strategy. We wish to work closely with you to ensure that our companies, either wittingly or unwittingly, are not aiding Iran,s nuclear program. As AFM He Yafei said in his meeting with Acting Under Secretary Rood on June 4 in Beijing, the U.S. and China must cooperate closely on Iran.

-- In particular, we want to alert you to specific commodities that Iran has been trying to procure through Chinese companies to include high-strength aluminum alloys (AA-7075) and vacuum pumps. Certain types of these commodities are controlled on the NSG dual-use annex and are included in the gas centrifuge procurement watchlist that was circulated to NSG PGs, and are covered by the Wassenaar Arrangement.

-- Additionally, based on the DG,s reports in February and May 2008, we believe that Iran may need to procure large amounts of high-strength carbon fiber to support the deployment of additional IR-2 and IR-3 centrifuges. Carbon fiber is included on the NSG,s dual-use annex and gas centrifuge watchlist circulated to NSG PGs.

-- We would like to provide you with detailed information we have compiled regarding Chinese companies that are capable of producing these or other sensitive, dual-use commodities. We hope this information will assist you in your outreach to Chinese companies on your export control regulations as they apply to Iran. We would encourage you, as we have done domestically with our own firms, to ask these companies to contact appropriate authorities should they be approached by entities that may have ties to Iran.

--Regarding aluminum 7075, we have identified Chinese companies that have conducted business with Iranian entities designated under UNSCR 1747, such as XXXXXXXXXXXX.

-- The following are companies in China that have supplied aluminum 7075 to Iranian entities of concern:

XXXXXXXXXXXX

-- Extra vigilance on the part of our governments will help thwart Iran,s efforts to evade export control regulations and flout UNSCRs to support a nuclear program of serious concern to the international community.

-- We believe it would be beneficial if, in the spirit of our collaborative dialogue, you notify us, the NSG and the IAEA, if any of your companies receive inquiries from Iranian entities. Sharing this information will allow the international community to better track and stop Iran,s illicit procurement. -- We would like to ensure that this effort is ongoing and we propose a face-to-face meeting with the appropriate experts to further discuss this matter. -- We greatly appreciate your cooperation on this and other nonproliferation efforts and look forward to hearing the results of your work.

END NON-PAPER

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

REPORTING DEADLINE

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

6. (U) Post should report results within seven (7) business

days of receipt of this cable. Please slug replies for ISN.

Please include SIPDIS in all replies.

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

POINT OF CONTACT

XXXXXXXXXXXX

8. (U) Department thanks Post for its assistance.

RICE

source: www.guardian.co.uk

Extended operation for Paducah?

2011-01-15T04:19:00.000-08:00

US uranium enrichment company USEC said that it is working to extend the operation of its Paducah plant in Kentucky beyond May 2012, when the old and inefficient gaseous diffusion plant had been expected to shut down.

The company said that it is negotiating with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and other electricity suppliers for power to operate the Paducah plant beyond mid-2012 when USEC's current power agreement with TVA expires. USEC noted that, "Because the plant is a large consumer of electricity, power prices are a significant factor in the cost of operations and future planning for Paducah."

The Paducah gaseous diffusion plant (Image: USEC)

USEC expects to reach a decision during the first half of 2011. The company said that it will "base its decision to extend operations upon economic considerations and the ability of the plant to operate profitably."

USEC is also considering enriching a portion of the Department of Energy's (DoE's) depleted uranium stockpile. The company said, "Given the current price of uranium, the federal government could generate substantial revenue by re-enriching portions of the depleted uranium at Paducah to the level of natural uranium."

Steve Penrod, general manager of the Paducah plant and vice president of USEC, commented: "DoE has a unique opportunity while the plant is still operating that would be a win-win for everyone." He added, "Re-enrichment would reduce DoE's decontamination and decommissioning costs while generating revenue for the federal government and maintaining 1200 good, local jobs. From the American taxpayers' standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to extract the valuable uranium; and the time to act is now while Paducah’s capacity is available and uranium prices are strong."

According to USEC, the amount of natural uranium that would be sold annually under such a program represents less than 2.5% of world uranium demand. It noted, "As has been demonstrated over the past year, sales of surplus DoE uranium can be implemented without an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium industry."

The Paducah plant – currently the only operating uranium enrichment facility in the USA - is set to be replaced by USEC's planned American Centrifuge Plant (ACP) project in Piketon, Ohio. According to USEC, the ACP will use 95% less electricity than the Paducah plant, which began operating in the early 1950s.

The full ACP plant was originally expected to commence commercial operation in early 2010, reaching 1 million SWU capacity a year later and achieve full 3.8 million SWU annual capacity at the end of 2012. However, early in 2009 the whole project was slowed pending funding through the DoE loan guarantee program, and in July 2009 it was suspended due to the DoE refusing to award a $2 billion loan guarantee, and asking USEC to withdraw its application.

USEC refused to do this, and in July 2010, it submitted an updated loan guarantee application to the DoE. In October 2010, DoE informed USEC that it has largely completed its initial technical review of USEC's application and is proceeding to the next stage of the loan guarantee process.

Although USEC earlier secured investment of $200 million from Toshiba and Babcock & Wilcox to support the ACP, the company maintains that additional financing is needed to complete plant construction. USEC said: "We believe a loan guarantee under the DoE loan guarantee program is essential to raising the capital needed to complete the American Centrifuge Plant."

Researched and written by World Nuclear News
source: www.world-nuclear-news.org

The 'Fallout' Of The CIA's Race To Get Khan

2011-01-15T04:14:00.000-08:00

In early 2004, A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, was placed under house arrest for his role in an international nuclear trafficking network. For five years, Khan was confined to his home, after admitting that he shared nuclear secrets with countries including North Korea, Libya and Iran.

At the time, President George W. Bush declared the breakup of Khan's nuclear black market as a major victory for the United States. But in a new book about the takedown of Khan's network, two journalists argue that the United States should have acted much sooner -- and when they did, it was too little, too late.

In Fallout, Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins track the ways the United States secretly penetrated Khan's network to prevent Libya and Iran from obtaining nuclear secrets. Frantz tells Fresh Air's Dave Davies that the CIA knew about and tracked Khan's nuclear trafficking network for more than 30 years -- but was so obsessed with getting information that it let Khan and his associates spread dangerous nuclear technology around the globe rather than moving aggressively to shut the network down.

"They could literally have stopped him in his tracks [in the 1970s]. It would have done an enormous amount to delay Pakistan building its own nuclear weapon, to delay the arms race on the South Asian continent and to stop Iran from getting where it is on the nuclear front," Frantz says. "This is something that the CIA, in our view, has been guilty of for more than 30 years now."

Khan, a metallurgist, worked for several European governments, including the Netherlands, in the late 1970s, Frantz says. While in the Netherlands, Khan stole plans needed to develop the fuel for nuclear weapons.

The Dutch government didn't want to draw attention to its lapses in nuclear security and debated whether to arrest Khan. The Dutch security service, which believed Khan was a threat, appealed to the CIA to weigh in on whether the Dutch government should make the arrest.

"Instead, the CIA told the Dutch, 'Let him go; we'll watch him,' " says Frantz. "This was in 1975. In the subsequent years and decades, Khan became clearly the most dangerous proliferator in history."

Frantz and Collins trace the way the CIA allegedly infiltrated the Khan trafficking network by recruiting as spies the Tinners, a family of Swiss engineers closely connected to Khan. The three engineers allegedly supplied both the material and technical know-how to make gas centrifuges, which were then sold to Libya and Iran.

They also allegedly worked for the CIA, which is accused of hampering a six-year Swiss federal probe into the family's relationship with Khan by pressuring the Swiss government to destroy evidence in the case.

"The CIA enlisted senior officials in the Bush administration ... to begin to put pressure on the Swiss government to kill this investigation," Franz says. "But two weeks ago, on Dec. 23, a Swiss magistrate announced that he had filed a report with the Swiss attorney general recommending charges against the three Tinners for selling nuclear equipment to Libya. ... If they go to trial, all of this could come out in the open eventually, which would be absolutely fascinating."
Copyright 2011 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.source: www.wbur.org

NRC to hold evidentiary hearings on Areva application for uranium enrichment plant in Idaho

2011-01-15T04:12:00.000-08:00

Source: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hold evidentiary hearings Jan. 25-27 on safety-related aspects of an application by AREVA Enrichment Services, LLC (AES) for a license to construct and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility in Bonneville County, Idaho.

The hearings will be held in the ASLB Panel Hearing Room at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Md., Two White Flint North Building, Room T-3B45, 11545 Rockville Pike. The hearing will also be webcast over the Internet. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. Jan. 25 and will continue day-to-day until concluded. Portions of the proceedings may be closed to the public to discuss sensitive or classified matters.

These sessions will be part of the “mandatory hearing” on the AES application, with AES and the NRC staff acting as parties. The sessions will concern safety-related aspects of AES’ safety analysis report in its application and the safety evaluation report (SER) prepared by the NRC staff. Presentations will focus on site-specific process-related hazards, foreign ownership and control, license conditions and exemptions, and commitment follow-up and tracking. TheASLB will consider whether the AES application contains sufficient information and the NRC staff’s review is adequate to support issuance of a license.

Members of the public may attend the hearings in person or view them by webcast at the following Internet addresses:

• Tues., Jan. 25: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=75030

• Weds., Jan. 26, if needed: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=75033

• Thurs., Jan. 27, if needed: http://ww.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=75034

In addition, the ASLB will accept “limited appearance” written statements from members of the public on matters involving the hearing. The ASLB is particularly interested in comments regarding the NRC staff’s SER on the application, which is available on the NRC website.

Limited appearance written statements should be submitted both to the NRC Office of the Secretary and to the ASLB, at the following addresses: Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001; and Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk III, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, Mail Stop T-3F23, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. They may also be submitted by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov.source: www.pennenergy.com

Uranium work ‘used as bargaining chip’

2010-12-26T07:13:00.000-08:00

Reuters - North Korea’s uranium enrichment work could complicate any future international talks on dismantling its nuclear programme, especially if ally China backs Pyongyang in saying that it is for peaceful purposes only.

North Korea revealed the previously undetected uranium facility in Yongbyon to a US expert last month who said he was “stunned” at how modern it appeared.

The advance could give impoverished North Korea a second route to producing nuclear weapons and a bargaining chip for aid as it pushes to restart diplomatic talks.

The reclusive state, which carried out nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, has had a separate plutonium programme for decades.

North Korea could use its uranium enrichment to try to redefine “denuclearisation” and divide those involved in talks.

“The enrichment plant certainly presents a complication,” said Mark Fitzpatrick at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.

He said its implications for denuclearisation and how it fits into a 2005 nuclear-disarmament-for-aid deal with five regional powers would need to be negotiated “which is precisely Pyongyang’s objective”.

“Their obligation to denuclearise means no uranium enrichment, a Western diplomat versed in nuclear issues said, pointing out that Pyongyang had previously denied it was pursuing enrichment. “Enrichment definitely muddies the waters.”

South Korean and US officials suspect the North has similar facilities hidden at other locations where it could more easily raise the enrichment level from those used for nuclear power station fuel to the higher-grade suitable for atomic arms.

Seoul, Washington, Tokyo and Moscow, involved in the so-called six-party talks with North Korea and China, are likely to insist enrichment be included in any denuclearisation talks.

“Few want to accept a North Korean enrichment plant, regardless of North Korea’s statement on its declared purpose,” said David Albright, a former UN arms inspector and head of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington.

“North Korea’s gamble is that some, such as China and various NGOs, will accept an enrichment plant under International Atomic Energy Agency (monitoring) and declared as dedicated to producing only low-enriched uranium.”

This is similar to the problem the West has faced with Iran over technology that is difficult for UN inspectors to monitor to ensure there is no diversion for military purposes.

“You can’t outright disallow (North Korea) the right to civilian nuclear activities, so they’re creating a new issue to complicate things,” said Shen Dingli, Director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

“Like Iran, they’re using this right to uranium enrichment as leverage.” Iran says it wants a civilian power programme, but the West suspects it is seeking atomic weapons capability.

China said on Tuesday that North Korea has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but that it must allow IAEA inspectors back into the country to help ease tensions.

Pyongyang expelled the IAEA in April 2009 when it exited the six-party talks, but has recently suggested they could come back.

Albright said partial declarations and limited IAEA access would “doom” any verification effort and warned Pyongyang could offer its equipment and know-how to proliferation-prone states.

South Korea and its allies have refused to restart talks until Pyongyang gives a firm commitment on nuclear disarmament. Seoul is determined to push through with a “Grand Bargain” in which the North will give up the entirety of its atomic work.

“The next six-party talks will be the grand bargain. That means we would need to agree on the target year (for the North’s dismantlement) and the whole picture, not partial elements such as Yongbyon,” said a South Korean government official who is close to nuclear negotiations with the North.

Russia has expressed “deep concern” over North Korea’s uranium enrichment work and has urged it to abide by the 2005 pledge to abandon its atomic programme.

Brian Myers at South Korea’s Dongseo University said the North could not take enrichment off the table for talks as it would show it had no desire to return to them. It would use it to demand greater compensation for denuclearisation instead.

“Needless to say, I don’t believe they are interested in negotiating disarmament in good faith. North Korea can no sooner give up its nuclear potential than the Vatican can give up Catholicism,” he said, explaining that the atomic capacity protected the North and gave it a reason to exist.

Factbox: What is uranium enrichment?

2010-12-26T07:10:00.000-08:00

Reuters - Here are details about the process of uranium enrichment as world powers began talks with Iran on Monday, hoping the meeting will lead to new negotiations over a nuclear program the West believes is for making atomic bombs.

Western powers want Iran to suspend uranium enrichment activity, which can produce fuel for nuclear power reactors or provide material for bombs if refined to a higher degree.

* WHAT IS ENRICHMENT:

-- Enrichment is a process of increasing the proportion of fissile isotope found in uranium ore (represented by the symbol 'U') to make it usable as nuclear fuel or the compressed, explosive core of nuclear weapons.

* WHY URANIUM MUST BE ENRICHED:

-- Uranium is found naturally in a variety of forms but only a particular adapted form of the mineral can be used to generate electricity or create explosives.

-- This type, called U-235 to represent its mass, is present in only about 0.7 percent of mined ore while most of the rest is U-238, which has a slightly heavier mass.

-- To generate electricity, the concentration of U-235 must be increased to between 3 and 5 percent. It must be refined to levels over 80 percent to create the core of an atom bomb.

* TECHNOLOGIES:

-- The two most popular production techniques require uranium ore, known as "yellow cake," to be converted into a gas called uranium hexafluoride (UF-6) before enrichment.

* DIFFUSION METHOD:

-- When gaseous uranium is pumped through a porous barrier, the lighter U-235 atoms traverse the pores at a quicker rate than U-238. This is like smaller grains of sand passing through a sieve quicker than the bigger ones. The process has to be repeated about 1,400 times to get U-235 at a concentration of 3 percent of the UF-6.

* CENTRIFUGE METHOD:

-- Like the diffusion process, the centrifuge method exploits the slight difference in mass between U-235 and U-238. Uranium gas is fed into a cylindrical centrifuge. It spins at supersonic speeds, causing the heavier U-238 to move toward the cylinder's outer edge while U-235 collects around the center. Enriched U-235 is removed and put through the same process many times to raise its concentration.

-- Around 1,500 centrifuges running non-stop for months would be needed to make the 20 kg (45 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium needed for one crude warhead.

-- According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's last report in November, Iran temporarily halted low-level enrichment work at Natanz in mid-November, without giving a reason, but the number of centrifuge sets -- cascades -- in operation had still increased in the last few months.

- According to the report Iran started producing small batches of 20 percent enriched uranium with 164 centrifuges at Natanz in February, fuelling Western fears that Iran aims to develop nuclear bombs.

-- In August, the IAEA said Iran had begun using a second cascade of centrifuge machines to make the work more efficient. Sources: Reuters/ Uranium Information Center www.uic.com/ Nuclear Policy Research Institute www.nuclearpolicy.org.

(Writing by David Cutler, London Editorial Reference Unit)

Gas Guzzle

2010-12-20T18:47:00.000-08:00

GAS usage was expected to hit a record high yesterday as the freezing conditions continued.

The growing demand as households cranked up their central heating systems triggered NATIONAL GRID'S first warning of the winter.

But the energy operator stressed there was no need for concern and insisted it had enough gas and electricity to meet the country's needs.

And demand for both is expected to fall after the middle of this week as Britain shuts down for Christmas.

The National Grid has only issued six gas balancing alerts to industry since the system was introduced in 2005. Network operations director Chris Train said: "Increased demand for energy is an inevitable consequence of the cold weather. However, we remain well supplied."

Stocks have been replenished with liquified natural gas imported by tanker and through a pipe connection with Belgium.

The previous record demand for gas of 465.5million cubic metres (mcm) was set on January 8 during last winter's Big Freeze.

The figure reached 456.6mcm on December 2, but National Grid predicted 465.8mcm yesterday.

Electricity demand is less affected by the weather because most homes are heated by gas, but was still expected to peak just below the record 61gigawatts set on December 10, 2002.

The AA reported motor insurance claims double the normal December volume on Monday, with snow or ice blamed for a record 71 per cent of accidents.

And THAMES WATER received more than 2,800 calls on Sunday with reports of frozen pipes four times the expected level as Britain shivered at minus 17°C.

THE weak housing market showed no sign of reviving last month as mortgage lending fell to a ten-year low.

Gross figures show it dropped ten per cent last month to £11.1billion, the Council of Mortgage Lenders said.

Sales run hot at John Lewis

JOHN Lewis scored near-record profits of £120million last week as Christmas shoppers braved the elements to spend big on gifts.

Toys, beauty products and lingerie were among the top sellers, but items like towels and inflatable beds were also snapped up as customers prepared for Christmas guests.

The week's profit was just £1million less than the record set the previous week, and was seven per cent up on the same week last year.

IHS Global Insight economist Howard Archer said: "People want a really good Christmas after the difficulties of the past couple of years."

US investor SHERBORNE is bidding to put its own men into British fund manager F&C after raising its stake to nearly 18 per cent.

Founder Edward Bramson, now the biggest shareholder, wants to take over as chairman.

FSA fines alert

BANKS and other financial firms face even more fines from the City watchdog than this year's record haul, legal experts predict.

The Financial Services Authority doled out £88.4million in fines this year.

But tougher penalties introduced in March will start to hit firms in earnest next year.

FSA boss Hector Sants famously told the City it should be "very frightened" of the FSA after it was blamed for giving the bankers free rein before the economic crisis.

CONSUMER confidence is set to fall sharply once Christmas is over, a survey has revealed. Nick Moon of GfK NOP said: "The real test will come when festive spending ceases and the VAT increase comes in."

BAE corruption case blow

ARMS giant BAE SYSTEMS' hopes of settling a long-running corruption probe were put in doubt yesterday.

The firm admits it paid an agent to get a radar contract from Tanzania - and failed to keep accurate records of payments.

At London's Southwark Crown Court, Mr Justice Bean said the obvious conclusion was that the money was used for bribes. He refused to accept the plea bargain agreed between BAE and the Serious Fraud Office until he had seen more details of the payments, and delayed passing sentence.

The case continues.
Morgan stay

US bank JP MORGAN has committed itself to London by buying bankrupt rival Lehman Brothers' former skyscraper at Canary Wharf for nearly £500million.

The bank's move to keep its European headquarters in London is a vote of confidence for Britain. Some banks have threatened to quit the country if rules or tax are too heavy.

JP Morgan boss Jamie Dimon said: "This acquisition is a long-term investment and represents part of our continued commitment to London."

INDIAN giant TATA has bought one of Britain's biggest's road salt producers, BRITISH SALT, for £93million. The firm, based in Middlewich, Cheshire, has 125 employees. It produces about half the UK's pure salt.
source: www.thesun.co.uk

Should Bradley Manning Be Stoned to Death?

2010-12-10T06:58:00.000-08:00

By Tracy Turner (about the author)

July 16, 1945 through September 23, 1992 the United States of America conducted (by official count) conducted 1054 nuclear tests. Bradley Manning faces 52 years, essentially life in prison, for "leaking documents", as Daniel Ellsberg did, surreptitiously. Daniel Ellsberg did not do 52 years in prison; many of us including me feel he did "the right thing".

According to the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, all of the corn, meat, milk, fish, fruit and vegetables raised in the United States are "safe".

206 above ground atomic weapons were detonated in New Mexico and Nevada. According to the US EPA, the old AEC, now the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(s), everything we eat and drink downwind from those tests is "safe". Conversely, the Bikini Atoll Rehabilitation Committee [BARC], overlooked by renowned international scientists, considers that the fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and milk from Bikini Atoll are a health hazard. How can the food from Bikini Atoll be "too radioactive to habitually consume"; but the food downwind of the two US atomic test sites be "safe"? In other words, all the many tons of dirt and dust lifted skyward by 1054 tests just magically disappeared? All that Tritium, Plutonium-239, Iodine-131, Uranium-238, Cesium-137 just magically vanished? I (so far) can only find 109 "off-shore" tests (Pacific, Atlantic, Bikini Atoll, Enewetak Atoll, etc.).

According the many studies of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, 5% of the detritus of those two mushroom clouds fell near the two cities, while 95% of it went further airborne and "dispersed over a larger area". Much of that "larger area" is the rest of Japan. But here in the US lower 48, east and North where 95% of those 1054 poisonous plumes settled are places like Lubbock Texas or Columbia, North Carolina, just to name two.

In plain English, all that Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Tritium and Plutonium-239 went somewhere e.g., in sage flats, upon dirt roads, in cattle ranches, dairies, farms and orchards of all kinds. Being the land of capitalism, the leaking of those kinds of documents, documents showing that general electric and general dynamic are liable for the slow poisoning deaths of millions and millions of American people would end a multi-billion dollar industry. The leaking of documents showing that US corn is contaminated with trace amounts of Tritium in its inherent moisture (even feed-corn contains moisture) would ruin a trillion dollar industry. It is easier and more capitalistically fortuitous to give Bradley Manning life in prison, or even a death sentence, than it is to admit some type of truth about human nature and government human nature in particular. Let's put Bradley Manning to death, by public stoning, rather than admit are government makes huge mistakes, all in the name of "efficient" capitalism. Let's not admit, that from 1945 to 2011, the gross domestic product of this country, in dollars and cents, has been nuclear poison. We somehow must keep alive the notion that this is sane, for the public's own good, and that none of it has to do with gigantic corporate-welfare machines feeling it is their divine right to continue the status quo. God forbid that the company, which sold nuke-tech to France, who sold nuke-tech to Iran, should have to downsize the corporate yacht. All I ask is that at Bradley Manning's public stoning, that the politician with no corporate money behind them "cast the first stone". Is it only me, who sees some resemblance between our "political leaders" and the Taliban? Both use any means necessary to keep their "ideology" front and center. Political ideology and truth are not synonymous, mostly.

By the way, has anyone from the renowned international scientific community "verified" the "safety" of our 1054 nuclear tests, including the two under President's Bush and Obama? The American people deserve the truth, for a change, not the censored version of government "transparency". If John Lennon were alive today, I believe he'd ask for nothing less "than the truth"" Before he died, the American people were asking "is milk from the great plains downwind of the two test sites safe for babies, safe for us all"? I don't recall any satisfactory answer, internationally verified.

source: www.opednews.com

Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab: Shrunk to Atomic Proportions

2010-12-10T06:51:00.000-08:00

They do not make toys like these anymore! Brought out nearly over half a century ago by the toy-making whiz, Alfred Carlton Gilbert, the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab not only became a rage during its time but has now returned to charm collectors.

It is inventive, interesting and can get and keep anyone hooked to it for hours! Besides being all that fun, it is a hit with the parents for the sole reason that it also achieves the purpose of education. It is a set that revs up the thinking process of the mind, the inventiveness of a genius and the curiosity of a child.

Brought out in 1951, the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab was a highly intellectual toy set with a scholastic approach. But it was phased out in the year of 1952 because of, what its inventor justifies as, and its sophistication. The game plan was set with some help from the famed Massachusetts Institute of Technology and had backing from the American Government who was keen to get the masses educated about the potential and booming research into the subject matter of atomic energy. This masterpiece was released after years of hard work and study and scientists as wells as bureaucrats alike deemed it the work of a genius!

When it was first released, the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab was priced at, what was considered to be expensive in those good ol’ days, $50. After inflation to 2005 US dollar, that rounds up to $379.92. Today, it circulates among the collectors’ circles at a price that is easily ten times over the original one! This is because the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab was not only a toymaker’s masterwork, but also your backyard Manhattan Project! It is realistic, albeit at the level of a toy set, and it has all the key elements of fun that an inquisitive mind looks for.

Real radioactive particles, although of low-level radiation were used in the set. The list of things part of the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab included Alpha, Beta and Gamma particles, Uranium-bearing ore samples, and nuclear spheres necessary for making a molecular model. The contrast of science and fun is represented by the two books also enclosed in the carton- ‘Prospecting for Uranium’ and a comic titled, ‘Learn how Dagwood Split the Atom’. From being a sensation at the annual Toy Fair to a historic collectible, there is no denying how marvellous the Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab is!
source: walyou.com

Nuclear News Round-Up

2010-11-28T20:03:00.000-08:00

Jonathan McLaughlin’s Blog

Proliferation/Nuclear Weapons

North Korea resumes activity at the Yongbyon facility: Commercial satellite imagery obtained by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) taken on November 4th shows that North Korea has resumed construction at the Yongbyon facility. The North Koreans destroyed the site’s cooling tower and disabled the 5 megawatt-electric (MWe) gas graphite reactor at Yongbyon in 2008. After a recent visit to the site, Dr. Siegfried Hecker and Ambassador Jack Pritchard announced that the North Koreans were building a 25-30 MWe experimental light water reactor (LWR) at Yongbyon as well as a pilot enrichment facility. North Korea claims that the program is based entirely on domestic resources and experts.

In a report documenting his visit, Dr. Hecker indicates that the enrichment facility on site is small, containing about 2,000 centrifuges in six cascades. Each centrifuge is roughly eight inches in diameter and six feet high. The chief engineer told Hecker that the facility has a capacity of 8,000 kg Separate Work Units (SWU)/year. Fueling an LWR would require several tons of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU), which could be produced at the facility at Yongbyon. Hecker notes that the pilot LWR will use uranium dioxide fuel enriched to 3.5%. He found no evidence that Pyongyang has resumed plutonium production or restarted its gas graphite reactor. The new facilities appear to be primarily for civilian energy production, although they could be converted fairly quickly to produce Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU).

Hecker concludes that the revelations “do not fundamentally alter the security calculus of the United States or its allies at this time,” recommending engagement with Pyongyang. South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Kim Young-sun said the construction has yet to be verified, adding that any move to build a light-water reactor would violate U.N. resolutions. Today North Korean and South Korean forces exchanged barrages of artillery fire around the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, killing two South Korean marines, wounding 19 other people, and damaging many buildings on the island. South Korea alleges that the North instigated the skirmish. It was preceded by warnings from Pyongyang to Seoul to stop conducting military drills in the area, which is close to the border between the two.

Computer worm possibly targeted Iranian centrifuges: A malicious computer worm known as Stuxnet has infested computer programs in Iran. Stuxnet causes the rate of electricity being delivered to fluctuate rapidly, reaching speeds of up to 1,410 cycles per second (Hertz). Nuclear analysts report that such fluctuation could badly damage Iranian centrifuges. New evidence suggests that that could be what the worm was designed to do.

While Iran acknowledged earlier this year that it was battling the Stuxnet worm, at this point there has been no reported damage to its centrifuges or any of its industrial facilities. The origin of the worm is still unknown, but there is reason to suspect that Israel was either involved or knew about it. Stuxnet has also appeared in computer programs in India, Indonesia, and several other countries. Iranian officials are scheduled to meet on December 5th with counterparts from the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, China, Germany, and the EU to discuss Iran’s nuclear program. At this point a venue has not been chosen.

NATO Summit in Lisbon

On November 19-20 the NATO Summit of Heads of State and Government was held in Lisbon. Among the items on the agenda were the war in Afghanistan, NATO-Russian relations, and missile defense systems in Europe. Russia agreed to cooperate with NATO on a missile defense system in Europe, an agreement which was a key goal for NATO officials leading up to the summit.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned, however, that this cooperation must be a “full-fledged strategic partnership,” not simply a token gesture to Moscow. The cost of the shield is expected to exceed $100 million. The new Strategic Concept drafted at the summit reaffirmed the value of nuclear weapons in the alliance as the “supreme guarantee of the security of the [NATO] allies.” It did not commit to the removal or further drawdown of the estimated 150-200 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons remaining in Europe, but stated that it sought to create the conditions for further reductions in the future.

New START ratification could be stalled in the Senate

Last week Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) announced that the Senate should not bring New START to the floor for a vote on ratification during the lame duck session, citing the busy Senate agenda and the “complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization” of the nuclear weapons complex. President Obama has pledged over $80 billion for modernization, but Kyl is holding out for additional funding and more details on the plan. The president responded with a forceful call to the Senate to ratify the pact during a high-level meeting last week on New START.

"The stakes for American national security are clear, and they are high," he said. "This is not a matter that can be delayed." Attempting to stifle this push, last Thursday 10 Republican Senators-elect sent Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) a letter urging the delay of a ratification vote until the new Senate convenes in January. At the NATO Summit in Lisbon, a number of European leaders, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, expressed concern that failure to ratify New START would harm the alliance’s relations with Russia and weaken its ability to deal with Iran.

Nuclear Energy & Environment

Powertech Sues Colorado over groundwater protection laws: Last week Powertech Uranium Corp. sued the state of Colorado for its groundwater protection regulations for and minerals. In a complaint filed in the Colorado District Court, Powertech claimed that four lawmakers tried to improperly influence the Mined Land Reclamation Board's rulemaking and violated constitutional rules separating the legislative and executive branches. The complaint also criticized recently enacted state rules requiring in-situ uranium minesuranium developers to return groundwater to its original condition upon completion of the mining. The rules also require developers to provide five examples of other uranium mines where groundwater was successfully restored to pre-mining conditions. Powertech claims that these rules are arbitrary and will harm investment while critics say in-situ mining poses unacceptable risks to the groundwater supply

Governor proposes second nuclear plant for Missouri: on Friday Missouri governor Jay Nixon announced that he was pursuing legislation to build a second nuclear power plant in central Missouri. State utility companies have been calling for the option to build a second nuclear plant, citing potential EPA carbon regulations. Under the governor’s proposal, utilities would be allowed to charge customers the cost of getting early site permits for the plants. This would require repealing a law enacted in 1976 prohibiting utilities from charging customers the costs of a new power plant before it starts producing electricity. This repeal provision has drawn heavy criticism from consumer advocates. Nixon said the early site permit would cost about $40 million and customers would pay an extra $1 to $2 per year.

Additional radioactive contamination discovered at Hanford Site: Last week the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that workers cleaning up the Hanford nuclear site in Washington state found soil with a level of radioactivity that exceeds lethal limits by tenfold. A spokesperson for the cleanup contractor Washington Closure explained that the danger with such high levels of contamination are direct exposure to workers, the contamination becoming airborne, and the contamination seeping into the groundwater.

The contamination was discovered in Hanford’s 300 Area, one of the most difficult to decontaminate and demolish. Workers are reportedly trying to determine the scope of the contamination and develop new plans to clean up and demolish the building. This announcement comes just days after a federal audit raised concerns about cleanup delays and costs at Hanford. The DOE’s Office of the Inspector General recently reviewed the department’s contract with the company CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co., which was originally scheduled to last through 2013. The Office found that the cost of the project has increased by 36 percent, is 13 percent over budget, and is far behind schedule.

Canadian Government releases energy plan: Today the Liberal government released its long-term energy plan. It will reportedly include the construction of two new nuclear reactors and the refurbishment of 10 older ones. These efforts are expected to cost well over the $26 billion figure quoted in 2006. The Canadian government says that these nuclear upgrades are necessary to meet its goal of phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2014. It intends to refurbish 10,000 Megawatts (MW) of existing nuclear power capacity and build other 2,000 MW at its Darlington site.

For background information on these issues, visit the NRDC Nuclear Program page: http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/default.asp

source: switchboard.nrdc.org

Uranium revelation puts world on back foot

2010-11-28T19:16:00.000-08:00

North Korea’s surprise revelation of more than 1,000 centrifuges in a state-of-the-art uranium enrichment facility is a tour de force of political theatre, one that leaves the world’s big powers and intelligence agencies on the back foot.

A report by a US-based atomic scientist who saw the facility this month will pose tough questions for Washington, Seoul and Tokyo which had all expressed optimism that stringent international sanctions could choke Pyongyang’s atomic ambitions.

That policy is now under greater scrutiny than before, just as George W. Bush’s initially more confrontational approach to North Korea was widely criticised after the country exploded a plutonium-based device in 2006. But the news also puts more pressure on China, which features in allegations about the proliferation network that helped Pyongyang further its nuclear ambitions.

Most analysts discount North Korean claims of indigenous capability and believe Pyongyang has received significantly more foreign help than the two dozen centrifuges it procured from the Pakistani AQ Khan network in about 2000.

“One of the most puzzling issues is how they got this far,” writes Siegfried Hecker, a former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, after his visit to the site. Mr Hecker cites work by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security on China, as well as his own fears about connections with Iran. Isis says a Pyongyang-based group called Nam Chongang Trading Company, which buys and sells missiles and nuclear groups and was involved in outfitting a secret nuclear reactor in Syria, has had extensive operations in China, including a business address in Beijing.

“A North Korean company like NCG could blend in easily in China,” Isis wrote in a report last month. “In China, it can effectively buy dual-use equipment from suppliers throughout the world, even those in Europe and the US.”

The report adds that although UN sanctions were imposed on the group in 2009, it is believed to be active in China, possibly under another name. The enrichment plant also poses awkward questions for intelligence services. The world’s top spies seem to have missed the extent of work being conducted right beside a known nuclear reactor at Yongbyon.

“This is a big, big surprise,” says Daniel Pinkston, North Korea specialist at International Crisis Group, a think-tank.

But a senior US intelligence official said: “It’s wrong for anyone to assert that US intelligence agencies somehow missed the boat. We’ve been aware of North Korea’s uranium enrichment activities for years.”

Nevertheless, US assessments of uranium enrichment in North Korea have seesawed, from Mr Bush’s allegations that the country was engaging in enrichment in 2002 to only “moderate confidence” five years later that an enrichment programme even existed, to renewed warnings about enrichment from 2009 onwards.

There has been little inkling of a programme of the current alleged size. But the Isis report last month said it had found data “that North Korea has moved beyond laboratory-scale work and has the capability to build, at the very least, a pilot-scale gas centrifuge plant”.

David Albright, Isis president said: “There’s been great resistance among policymakers to accept the existence of a centrifuge plant: it just complicates things, it makes it harder to negotiate.”

In his own report on his findings Mr Hecker says the plant appears “to be designed primarily for civilian nuclear power, not to boost North Korea’s military capability”.

North Korea is building a light-water reactor nearby at Yongbyon, which would not be well suited for producing fissile material but which would use low enriched uranium as fuel.

Both facilities are on the site of the country’s disabled Yongbyon reactor, which produced the plutonium used in the country’s current stockpile of nuclear devices.

Mr Hecker says: “The greatest concern is that a facility of equal or greater capacity, configured to produce highly enriched uranium exists somewhere else. Such a facility would be difficult to detect as demonstrated by the fact that this facility was undetected in the middle of the Yongbyon fuel fabrication site.”

South Korean atomic negotiators have responded to questions on uranium enrichment with shrugs, saying they have no idea how far Pyongyang’s nuclear scientists have got or where they might be running their experiments.

The Yongbyon staff said the uranium enrichment facility and new light-water reactor under construction were necessary to provide the country with much needed electricity. North Korea is probably producing well under half the power it produced in 1990.

A Yongbyon official said the facility’s control screens would prove that North Korea was not enriching the fuel beyond the low level needed for civilian power.
source: www.ft.com

Getting a grip on the centrifuge subterfuge

2010-11-28T19:04:00.000-08:00

It appears that North Korea now has a facility capable of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb, according to observations by a U.S. scientist, and the reclusive state is thought to have built the facility secretly with outside help,

ignoring international sanctions forbidding it from engaging in acts related to nuclear arms proliferation.

The 2,000 centrifuges that the U.S. scientist, Siegfried Hecker, saw during his trip to North Korea earlier this month bear a striking resemblance to the nuclear programs in Pakistan and Iran.

With North Korea’s choice to use centrifuges to enrich uranium to fuel its nuclear weapons, an axis of states that use the technology has now emerged with North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.source: joongangdaily.joins.comCentrifuges are the preferred technology for nuclear weapon fuel processing, as producing plutonium, which is the other fuel, can only be done through nuclear reactors, a process that’s difficult to hide due to the bulk of the facilities and easily detectable radiation. Centrifuges are easier to maintain and move, and they use less energy, which have authorities concerned about North Korea relocating the machinery shown to Hecker.

The centrifuges were seen at Yongbyon, where Hecker also said he saw a new building under construction to house a light-water reactor.

Suspicion centered on Pakistan after analysts were convinced that North Korea had foreign help in building the uranium enrichment facility.Two satellite images made available by DigitalGlobe show the Yongbyon nuclear complex on Sept. 29, left, and on Nov. 18, right. The later image shows a rectangular structure being built, with two cranes visible. [AP/YONHAP]

Abdul Qadeer Khan, mastermind of Pakistan’s nuclear program, which was based on gas centrifuges, said in 2008 that Pakistan had given centrifuges and their blueprints to North Korea between 1998 and 2001, possibly in return for missiles. North Korea’s program to enrich uranium is thought to have started in 1998.

Khan, who is a renowned figure in his country for creating Pakistan’s first nuclear weapon in 1998, was under house arrest until last year for his confession in 2004 that he was solely responsible for spreading nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. The Pakistani government denied they were ever involved in any of Khan’s acts of proliferation.

The Pakistani scientist also said that North Korea had sold Pakistan shoulder-launched missiles in 1999, and that he was present at the moment of the purchase. North Korea has denied any nuclear involvement with Pakistan since 2002.

According to a report on his North Korean visit that Hecker released on Saturday, his North Korean guide denied that the centrifuges were of Pakistani provenance and said they were manufactured domestically and based on designs from the Netherlands and Japan.

Hecker’s report said the North Korean centrifuges, which had steel rotors, were “most likely P-2 centrifuges.” P-1 and P-2 centrifuges were developed by Pakistan’s nuclear program. If the Pakistan-North Korea link ended in 2002, it is possible North Korea imported the necessary materials from another country while using designs from Pakistan, Japan or the Netherlands.

North Korea was reported to have attempted to purchase maraging steel from a Russian company through its ambassador in Pakistan. Maraging steel is an iron alloy known for its strength.

Experts are now saying that if North Korea does possess the power to produce its own centrifuges, it may result in a new wave of nuclear proliferation.

“The centrifuges that Hecker describes in his report are closer in size to the P-1, but if they used iron alloys, it may be a new North Korean model that could mean they have succeeded in developing advanced centrifuges,” said Lee Chun-geun of the Korea-China Science & Technology Cooperation Center.

By Christine Kim [christine.kim@joongang.co.kr]

Q&A: Uranium enrichment

2010-11-24T19:39:00.000-08:00

As Iran announced plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants in a major expansion of its nuclear programme, we take a look at the nuclear fuel process.

What is uranium enrichment?

Uranium is a slightly radioactive element found naturally in rock, soil and water. But only a certain type of uranium can be adapted to produce electricity or explosives.

This type, called U-235, can be easily split to produce energy, in a process known as nuclear fission.

U-235 is present in only about 0.7 per cent of mined uranium ore. To work in a nuclear reactor it must be enriched to increase the proportion of U-235 to three to five per cent.

To make a nuclear bomb, uranium must be enriched to at least 90 per cent.

How is uranium enriched?

The technology used to enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power stations is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons.

Once uranium is extracted from the ground it is milled and chemically processed to create yellowcake, a concentrated uranium oxide.

This is then converted into uranium hexafluoride, a toxic gas, before being used in the next stage of the enrichment process.

There are two main methods for enriching uranium - gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge. In the US a third method has been proposed, called laser enrichment.

Gas centrifuge

A gas centrifuge works by separating U-235 from U-238, a denser isotope making up the majority of the element, by spinning uranium hexafluoride gas in a cylindrical chamber at supersonic speeds.

Enriched U-235 is then removed and put through the same process many times to raise its concentration.

Around 1,500 centrifuges running non-stop for months would be needed to make 20kg of highly-enriched uranium needed for one crude warhead.

Gaseous diffusion

In the diffusion method, gaseous uranium is pumped through a porous barrier to separate the two isotopes.

This is like smaller grains of sand passing through a sieve quicker than the bigger ones. The process has to be repeated about 1,400 times to get U-235 at a concentration of three per cent of the uranium hexafluoride.

Laser enrichment

Laser enrichment works by using specially tuned lasers to change the properties of a specific isotope and separate it from the rest of the uranium.

The method could potentially use less power and create less waste than gaseous and diffusion methods, but is still under development.

Which countries have nuclear weapons programmes?

China
France
India
Israel
North Korea
Pakistan
Russia
United Kingdom
United States

Why is there concern over Iran's nuclear technology?

The US and other Western nations have accused Iran of intending to use nuclear technology to produce atomic weapons, a charge the Islamic Republic has denied.

Iran has defied five UN Security Council resolutions and three sets of UN sanctions aimed at pressuring the nation to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its programme.

Its latest announcement, that it will enrich some of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to 20 per cent, has added to international concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, with some leaders describing the move as a "provocation".

But some observers have expressed doubt over whether Iran has the technical capacity to enrich uranium stockpiles further, with the country already seeing operational problems in its nuclear facilities.

Others say regardless of tehcnical problems, if Iran has the technology to enrich uranium by three per cent, then it also has the power to enrich it by 20 or 90 per cent.

Some analysts say that if Iran did develop nuclear warheads it could deepen tensions in the Middle East and begin an arms race in the region.

But Iran insists its nuclear power is for civilian use only - to provide fuel for its medical research reactor.source: mwcnews.net

North Korea’s Mixed Messages

2010-11-24T19:34:00.000-08:00

By joshua

To place a new nuclear facility at Yongbyon is to prepare it for exhibition. Nothing else makes that point as well as the easily overlooked third new building mentioned in Sig Hecker’s latest trip report, after the light-water reactor (LWR) and the gas centrifuge enrichment plant (GCEP): “the new three-story Guest House.” Decoded, the message reads: Come visit Yongbyon, where sanctions aren’t working.

The exact placement of the GCEP and the LWR-in-progress contain a message of their own. First, as a recent DigitalGlobe image shows, the LWR construction site occupies the area of the disabled 5 MW(e) Magnox reactor’s former cooling tower. (See the ISIS image brief.) Second, as Jeffrey points out, the GCEP stands on the site of the Magnox reactor’s fuel-fabrication building. As I’ve written in a contribution to the current issue of Uranium Intelligence Weekly, these changes almost certainly would not prevent restoration of the reactor to operational status, but they do convey that making plutonium at Yongbyon no longer rates as a high priority.

In fact, these look like the very sort of additional and unilateral disablement steps that I had deemed so unlikely earlier. (Whoops.) It’s the sort of action that one might expect North Korea to take in order to signal confidence that it already has all the plutonium it needs.

Naturally, skeptics will question the North Koreans’ statements, described in Hecker’s report, that the new facilities are meant to produce electricity only, and not new weapons made with highly enriched uranium (HEU). Those inclined to brooding may reflect on reports that a new tunnel is being dug at the nuclear test site near Punggye-ri, and wonder if this has any connection to threats from July to “bolster [North Korea's] nuclear deterrent in a more diversified manner.” Still, I’m not betting on the testing of an HEU device — at least, not quite so soon after the responsible parties have sworn up and down that it’s all just for making electricity.

What Sort of Centrifuges? How Powerful?

For the time being, my UIW piece remains behind the paywall. If you have access, you might find it interesting for its discussion of the potential characteristics of the machines glimpsed by Hecker and colleagues. The leading hypothesis is that they’re P-2 machines whose design was provided by A.Q. Khan. What makes that particularly interesting is that the Iranians aren’t known to have operated their own P-2 derivatives, the IR-2 and IR-2m, in groups of more than 10. [Update, Nov. 23: Make that "more than 20," per the latest Iran report.]

The P-2 is a significantly better device than the P-1 or its Iranian counterpart, the IR-1. Hecker reports two important claims: first, that the North Korean facility contains about 2,000 machines; and second, that it is capable of producing 8,000 kg SWU/yr. That may be exaggeration or wishful thinking. Then again, based on Mark Hibbs’s past reporting, the German G-2 centrifuge — the basis of Pakistan’s P-2 — was capable of 5 kg SWU/yr. per machine.

Compared to what Iran’s IR-1 has done over most of the course of its recent career, that’s a much more powerful centrifuge. Perhaps we ought to add another item to the list of reasons not to underestimate North Korea.

Update, Nov. 23: According to Dr. Hecker, the new developments at Yongbyon would not significantly interfere with restoration of the 5 MW(e) reactor, if desired. It could be restarted in about six months.
source: pollack.armscontrolwonk.com

Sonata’s gas-sipping power play

2010-11-13T04:24:00.000-08:00

Hyundai’s direct-injected, turbocharged four-cylinder engine is a smooth, modern powerplant that sips nothing more exotic than 87 octane fuel. Yes, good, old regular.

And the Sonata 2.0T ($28,999 base) still manages to generate 274 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 269 lb-ft of torque from 1,750 to 4,500 rpm. Maximum power on the cheapest gas. Now that’s an achievement. Typically, high-performance engines with high cylinder pressures, turbos included, need higher octane fuel to avoid knocking – pre-ignition.

Hyundai senior powertrain engineer Mark Guin offers a long list of reasons why the Sonata’s turbo is a genuinely tricky piece of engineering, but the biggest question of all is this: Will it be reliable? Well, says Guin, development tests included 300 hours at wide-open throttle followed by 20 hours at 6,700 rpm. The turbo engine should last just fine.

To explain the secrets here, a little geek-speak. Skip the next two paragraphs if you simply want to know how the Sonata turbo drives.

Okay, the Sonata 2.0T has a fully electronic wastegate actuator which allows a greater degree of control over boost than traditional actuators. (A wastegate is a valve that diverts exhaust gases away from the turbine that pushes more air into the cylinders, thus creating more power.) Hyundai also uses the electronics to open the turbocharger's wastegate during cold starts, which helps rapid light-off of the catalytic converter, thus improving cold starts. The electronic actuation helps throttle tuning for better fuel economy, too.

Meanwhile, the turbine housing — integrated with the exhaust manifold — is made of a special stainless steel and can withstand extreme exhaust gas temperatures. Because of this, the 2.0T doesn't rely much on fuel enrichment to keep its exhaust bits cool, further enhancing fuel-efficiency. Hyundai also reinforced the aluminum engine block, beefed up the connecting rods and piston design, improved the oil squirters and added temperature-resistant valves and valve seats. A lot of cooling work went into the design, too. A good thing because turbos use hot engine exhaust gases to spin that turbine driving air into the cylinders.

The driving? Turbo boost builds progressively and smoothly. This is a sweet little engine that delivers serious power before the tach sweeps past 2,000 rpm. The power comes on in a linear fashion, rather than with a wham and a bam. In a word, power builds seamlessly and there is no drop-off during gear changes. It’s all very sweet.

This turbo really does deliver just about everything you could want in a V-6, but with lower fuel consumption. As for the rest of the car, Hyundai did not make any changes to the chassis or suspension. Apparently the engineering in those areas is robust enough to handle the extra turbo performance.

Not everyone needs or wants extra power, but for those who do, Hyundai has a relatively fuel-efficient answer.

2011 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T

Type: Mid-size sedan

Price: $28,999 ($1,565 freight)

Engine: 2.0-litre, four-cylinder, direct injection, turbocharged

Horsepower/torque: 274 hp/269 lb-ft

Transmission: Six-speed automatic

Drive: Fron-drive

Fuel economy (litres/100 km): 9.3 city/6.0 highway; regular gas

source: www.theglobeandmail.com

EU Agrees To Iran-proposed Date For Holding Nuclear Talks

2010-11-13T04:15:00.000-08:00

(RTTNews) - EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has agreed to one of the two dates suggested by Iran for resuming the stalled negotiations on the Islamic Republic's disputed nuclear program, several news reports quoting unnamed EU officials said Friday.

Officials said Ashton has agreed to hold the talks on December 5, one of the two dates suggested by Iran earlier this week. She, however, proposed the talks either in Austria or Switzerland, instead of holding them in Turkish city of Istanbul as proposed by Iran.

Ashton had earlier proposed to hold the talks in November in the Austrian capital of Vienna, but Iran said Tuesday that it was willing to hold the proposed talks in the Turkish city of Istanbul either on November 23 or December 5.

Ashton was authorized by the six world powers to try and persuade Tehran to resume the nuclear talks that were stalled after Iran refused to accept a UN-proposed deal last year. The six world powers involved are the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

The EU diplomacy chief would lead a team of officials from the six world powers in the negotiations with Iran, which are aimed at resolving the dispute over Teheran's controversial uranium enrichment program.

However, the emergence of a positive outcome of the talks remains doubtful as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated Wednesday that the Islamic Republic will not negotiate its basic nuclear rights with any other country. He added that Tehran was willing to discuss only regional security issues at the proposed talks.

Though Iran insists that its controversial uranium enrichment work is aimed at producing fuel for a medical-purpose reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes, the West suspects it just a cover-up for the Islamic country's nuclear-weapon ambitions.

The Islamic Republic had already survived four sets of sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council following refusal to halt its uranium enrichment. The last one was imposed this June over Teheran's refusal to accept a U.N.-proposed deal aimed at easing the international concerns over its disputed nuclear program.

The deal was proposed in October 2009 by the then International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei. The proposal envisaged shipping low-enriched Iranian uranium to Russia for further enrichment and then to France for conversion into actual fuel for Teheran's medical-purpose reactor.

The proposed deal was seen as an amicable solution to the issue, as it would provide Iran the nuclear fuel required to run its research reactor while guaranteeing the West that Tehran will not have enough nuclear material to convert into finer-grade uranium required for making nuclear weapons.

Apart from the U.N. sanctions, the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Norway and Australia have also imposed their own sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear and missile programs.
source: www.rttnews.com

NDA may transfer Capenhurst site to Urenco

2010-11-13T04:09:00.000-08:00

The UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is considering transferring management and operation of its Capenhurst operations to Urenco, which already owns and operates a centrifuge uranium enrichment plant on part of the site.

The Capenhurst site is currently split into two parts. One part – a former diffusion uranium enrichment plant that shut down in 1982 - is owned by the NDA and operated by contractor Sellafield Ltd.

While most of the plant has now been decommissioned, uranic material (primarily depleted uranium and uranium hexafluoride) is expected to be stored on the site until 2120. The other part of the Capenhurst site comprises Urenco's operating 1.1 million SWU per year enrichment plant.

The NDA and Urenco have announced the signing of a set of non-binding commercial principles to support a potential transfer of the NDA portion of the site to Urenco. Under the proposed transaction, NDA-owned land and operations would be transferred to Urenco under a long lease and services contract.

The NDA said, "This is anticipated to reduce NDA's net liabilities for managing and clearing the site, provide continued employment opportunities for the site workforce and pave the way for Urenco to invest in new facilities as the nuclear renaissance begins to take shape."

In a joint statement, Urenco and Sellafield Ltd said: "There are still a number of detailed issues to close out from a commercial perspective and to the satisfaction of our many stakeholders. If negotiations are successful, implementation of new arrangements will commence in 2012, subject to licensing and other approvals."

Urenco is planning to build a 7000 tonne per annum deconversion plant at Capenhurst, with operation expected from 2014. It will treat tails from all three European Urenco sites: Capenhurst, Almelo in the Netherlands and Gronau in Germany. Tails from Capenhurst have previously been sent to Techsnabexport (Tenex) in Russia for re-enrichment, but this arrangement concluded at the end of 2009.

Urenco's shares are ultimately held one-third by the UK government, one-third by the Dutch government and one-third by the German utilities RWE and EOn. The UK government "continues to explore options for realizing value" from its stake.

In March, it was announced that Toshiba subsidiary Westinghouse will assume the long-term management of the Springfields nuclear fuel manufacturing site in the UK under an agreement with the NDA. The agreement transfers responsibility for the commercial fuel manufacturing business and the workforce to Westinghouse. In addition, the NDA land at the site will be leased to Westinghouse. The new arrangements, the NDA said, "will give Westinghouse the freedom to invest in the site and develop long-term employment opportunities."source: www.yournuclearnews.com

Bulls Barge Into Sprint, Vale And Uranium, Bears Target Potash

2010-11-13T04:05:00.000-08:00

The supplier of low enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power plants appeared on our ‘hot by options volume’ market scanner after bullish players picked up January 2011 contract call options. USEC’s shares are up 8.65% to stand at $5.39 as of 1:05 pm in New York trading, but earlier rallied as much as 10.7% to touch an intraday high of $5.49.

The price of the underlying stock shot up after the closing bell on Wednesday on news the U.S. Department of Energy is proceeding to the next phase of the $2 billion loan guarantee process for the firm’s American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, OH. Shares in USEC Inc. have risen 56.85% to today’s high of $5.49 since touching down at a 52-week low of $3.50 back on November 30, 2009.

Options traders looking for USU’s shares to continue to appreciate in the next several months purchased approximately 5,200 calls at the January 2011 $6.0 strike for an average premium of $0.32 each. Call buyers make money if shares jump 17.25% over the current price of $5.39 to exceed the average breakeven point at $6.32 by expiration day in January. USU shares last traded up at a 52-week high of $6.50 back on April 12, 2010. The firm is scheduled to report third-quarter earnings after the final bell tolls on November 2, 2010. Options implied volatility on the stock is up 24.9% this afternoon to arrive at 60.08% by 1:15 pm.

Sprint Nextel Corp. ( S - news - people ) – The telecommunications company’s shares were down 0.90% this morning to stand at $4.26 one day after a disappointing third-quarter earnings report from the firm sent the price of the underlying down as much as 12.6% to Wednesday’s intraday low of $4.22. Analysts at RBC Capital Markets cut their rating on Sprint to ‘sector perform’ from ‘outperform’ with a 12-month target share price of $5.00. But, a large call spread purchased in the February 2011 contract on the stock today suggests one long-term bullish player is positioning for Sprint’s shares to improve over the next four months. The trader picked up 15,300 calls at the February 2011 $5.0 strike at a premium of $0.21 each, and sold the same number of calls at the February 2011 $6.0 strike for a premium of $0.05 apiece. Net premium paid to initiate the transaction amounts to $0.16 per contract. Thus, the investor is poised to profit should Sprint’s shares surge 21.1% over the current price of $4.26 to surpass the effective breakeven price of $5.16 by February expiration. Maximum potential profits of $0.84 per contract are available to the trader if shares jump 40.845% to trade above $6.00 by expiration day next year.

Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan ( POT - news - people ), Inc. – Shares of the world’s largest fertilizer producer were lower this morning despite the firm’s better-than-expected third-quarter earnings report, improving global demand for potash, and POT’s upward revision to its full-year earnings forecast. The stock is currently down 2.70% to stand at $143.36. The Canadian potash maker, which is the target of a $40 billion hostile takeover offer from BHP Billiton ( BBL - news - people ), earned $1.32 a share in the third quarter, which handily beat average analyst estimates of $1.16 a share. One big options player wary that shares may extend losses through November expiration initiated a sizable bearish put butterfly spread. The investor purchased 5,000 puts at the November $140 strike for a premium of $4.05 each [wing 1], sold 10,000 puts at the November $135 strike at a premium of $2.35 apiece [body], and purchased 5,000 puts at the lower November $130 strike for premium of $1.35 a-pop [wing 2]. The net cost of the transaction amounts to $0.70 per contract and positions the trader to profit if shares fall another 2.8% to breach the effective breakeven price of $139.30 by November expiration. Maximum potential profits of $4.30 per contract are available to the trader if Potash Corp.’s shares decline 5.8% to settle at $135.00 at expiration day. The butterfly spread could be the work of an investor building up downside protection on a long position in the underlying shares rather than one initiating an outright bearish bet on the stock. Options implied volatility on Potash is up 5.9% at 37.58% as of 12:10 pm.

Vale, Inc. – The world’s largest iron-ore producer popped up on our ‘most active by options volume’ market scanner in the first half of the session after a large chunk of call options were picked up in the December contract. Shares in Vale are currently up 0.70% to trade at $32.25 as of 11:45 am in New York. The Brazilian company reported third-quarter profit of $6.04 billion on higher prices and stronger demand for raw materials used to make steel. Executives at the firm said Vale is looking to increase production by an average of 16% per year between 2001 and 2015, while the company’s CFO said earlier today that the company plans to invest $24 billion in 2011. One bullish options investor hoping to see Vale’s shares rally significantly in the next couple of months purchased approximately 32,000 calls at the December $34 strike for an average premium of $0.98 apiece. The trader makes money if the mining company’s shares jump 8.456% over the current price of $32.25 to surpass the effective breakeven point on the upside at $34.98 by expiration day. Options players exchanged more than 44,000 calls at the December $34 strike by 11:55 am today versus previously existing open interest of 23,485 contracts.

Skechers USA ( SKX - news - people ), Inc. – Shares of the footwear maker are down 18.6% to arrive at $19.24 as of 12:15 pm in New York trading, but earlier fell as much as 19.6% to touch an intraday- and new 52-week low of $19.00. The Manhattan Beach, CA ( CA - news - people )-based company posted third-quarter earnings of $0.74 a share on revenue of $554.6 million, which both missed consensus estimates of $1.02 a share and $572.2 million, respectively. Skechers was cut to ‘neutral’ from ‘outperform’ with a 12-month target share price of $23.00 at Wedbush today, and was downgraded to ‘hold’ from ‘buy’ at Capstone Investments today. Some investors populating SKX options today are betting shares will fail to rally back up to pre-earnings report levels by January 2011 expiration. These pessimists sold 2,000 calls at the January 2011 $24 strike to pocket premium of $0.47 per contract. Call sellers keep the full premium received on the transaction as long as Skechers’ shares trade below $24.00 through expiration day next year. Investors selling the calls may or may not be covered. If the latter is true, traders start to lose money should SKX shares surge 27.2% over the current price of $19.24 to trade above the effective breakeven point at $24.47 by January expiration. Skechers’ overall reading of options implied volatility is down 18.1% to stand at 51.60% following earnings. source: www.forbes.com

Energy question of the week: How much longer will world reserves of the nuclear fuel uranium last?

2010-11-04T20:33:00.000-07:00

As controversial as nuclear power is, with its still unresolved risks, waste storage problems and high capital costs, it currently meets about 14 percent of global electrical power demand through 430 power stations. However, as is the case with crude oil, coal or natural gas, reserves of uranium 235 – the fuel used in atomic power stations – are finite, meaning that they will run out one day. This poses a simple question: how much longer will our natural uranium reserves last?

The annual demand for natural uranium, from which fissile material can be obtained in an elaborate and costly process, currently stands at about 68,000 tons. However, the annual uranium output from mining operations, amounting to about 50,000 tons, only covers about three quarters of this total figure. The shortfall is being met from uranium stockpiles, from the reprocessing of used fuel rods, and from uranium recovered from decommissioned power stations. The German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe; BGR) in Hanover believes that this situation will continue for the next two decades or so.

Reserves for more than 200 years

BGR researchers, in their energy study, estimate that the reserves of uranium that can be extracted at a cost of less than 40 US dollars per ton amount to about 1.7 million tons. At the current rate of consumption, this would mean that we have sufficient reserves of uranium to last us more than 200 years. The bulk of these reserves are located in Australia (40 percent), followed by Canada (15 percent), Kazakhstan (13 percent), Brazil (8 percent) and South Africa (6.5 percent). While Germany does have its own uranium reserves, primarily in the Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) region, extraction has been scaled down progressively since German reunification due to rising costs and the environmental impact of these operations. The BGR estimates that total reserves of uranium, including those for which extraction costs would be significantly higher, are many times greater than the reserves currently being exploited.

Uranium 235 is the most commonly used isotope in the types of power station that are in widespread use today. It accounts for less than one percent of natural uranium. The dominant isotope, accounting for about 99 percent, is uranium 238. This can only be used in breeder reactors like the decommissioned German 'fast breeder' at Kalkar. Worldwide, a small number of breeder reactors, which can also be used to manufacture weapons-grade fissile material, are operated by the USA, Russia and India. Despite decades of research, the complex technology involved in these breeder reactors has not developed sufficiently for use in cost-effective electricity generation.

The DLR Energy question of the week in 'The future of energy' Year of Science

The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) has given the Year of Science 2010 the motto 'The future of energy'. For this reason the science journalist Jan Oliver Löfken will this year answer a question on the subject of energy in his blog each week. Do you have a question about how our energy supply might look in the future? Or do you want to know, for example, how a wave power plant works and how it can efficiently generate electricity? Then send us your question by email. Science journalist Jan Oliver Löfken will investigate the answers and publish them each week in this blog.
source: www.dlr.de/blogs

Some good news in the U.S. for a change

2010-11-04T20:27:00.000-07:00

The setback at Calvert Cliffs not the end of the nuclear renaissance. There’s a lot of good news about it.

sailing fleetDespite a very bad two weeks of sour news out of Maryland about Constellation’s Calvert Cliff’s project, there is still a lot of good news about the nuclear renaissance in the U.S.

The move to build new reactors continues to unfurl its sails and set a course to replace fossil fuels. The rest of the world, especially Asia, realize that nuclear energy is a key to reducing carbon emissions and their impact on global warming.

Constellation’s recent retreat from nuclear energy is not a symbol for setbacks in the rest of the nation. Here are some recent reports.

Duke says the future will be nuclear

Duke Energy must replace its aging fleet of coal-fired power plants with new nuclear reactors according to Christopher Fallon, VP for Nuclear Development at Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK) Speaking to the Nuclear Construction Summit held in Charlotte, NC, earlier this week.
Fallon said it is on track to build a new nuclear reactor power station near Gaffney, SC, and that it is expected to enter revenue service in 2021. He added the firm is working with Areva to assess the feasibility of building a new reactor in Piketon, OH.

greenhouse_gasesFallon said there are important reasons why Duke will keep its commitment to nuclear energy.

* Coal has a limited future given its impact on GHG
* There will be taxes and carbon caps on all fossil fuels
* Solar and wind can’t meet baseload demand for electricity

“We have to modernize and decarbonize our fleet and new nuclear has to be part of that strategy.”

Still, there are challenges ahead. Congress did not pass climate legislation and natural gas prices have dropped over the past year. Electricity demand is down now, but may surge by the time a new reactor comes online in the next decade.

Despite these obstacles, Fallon said Duke is ready to start construction on the William States Lee III twin reactors without a loan guarantee. An NRC license for the project is expected in 2013.

Duke may also seek to partner with Scana on the new twin reactors to be built at the utility’s V.C. Summer Station in South Carolina. Like Duke, Scana has said it will proceed without a loan guarantee from the federal government.

Florida regulators support rates for new reactors

The Florida Public Service Commission has told Progress Energy (NYSE:PGN) that it can continue to include a portion of its billing to customers for a new nuclear power station to be built in Levy County on the sunshine state’s west coast. The project calls for twin Westinghouse 1,100 MW Westinghouse LWR reactors.

OrangesProgress spokesperson Cherie Jacobs told financial wire services the commission’s decision, “confirms the state’s commitment to state-of-the art nuclear power as a strategic asset.”

At a rate hearing last August, the anti-nuclear Southern Alliance for Clean Energy had argued against cost recovery for expenses to license and build the plant. Gary Davis, an attorney for the group, told the PSC all cost recovery should be denied because Progress had not made the case for the need for the new reactors.

The cost recovery measure that authorizes the charge in customer bills was enacted by the Florida legislature in 2006. It dramatically lowers the cost of new nuclear plants by allowing the utility to recover costs as the reactor is being built.

Otherwise, the project would have to take on huge loans with matching interest charges that would accumulate until the plant entered revenue service. Progress expects to get the NRC license for the new project in late 2012.

The construction of two new reactors at FPL’s Turkey Point location near Miami is also expected to benefit from the same type of rate ruling.

USEC gets term sheet for loan guarantee

USEC (NYSE:USU) said in a statement this week that the Department of Energy has completed its technical review of the American Centrifuge Plant to be located in southern Ohio.

Uranium-hexafluorideFrank Munger reports from the Knoxville News, and his blog Atomic City Underground, that the Dept. of Energy had informed the company that it had "largely completed" the technical review of the application for a $2 billion loan guarantee for the American Centrifuge Project.

It is expected to be built as a 3.5 million SWU gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant.

USEC said DOE is now proceeding with the next stage of the loan guarantee program.

"DOE has provided USEC with a draft term sheet that will serve as a framework for discussions between USEC and the DOE," the company said.

GE-Hitachi inks deal for laser enrichment

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has signed a 10-year contract with GE-Hitachi (GEH) potentially worth $400 million for enriched uranium to be produced at the GEH Wilmington, NC, plant.

GEH clarified the agreement is “nonbinding” but that the two organizations have come to a meeting of minds on commercial terms.

UraniumSalesThe facility has not yet been built, but GEH has applied for an NRC license for it. Tammy Orr, the GE Executive in charge of the laser enrichment project, told a North Carolina newspaper in September the firm expects to get the NRC license by the end of 2011. She said this milestone, if achieved, will allow the firm to start construction in 2012.

The Global Laser Enrichment project is a joint venture with 51% owned by GE, 25% by Hitachi, and 24% by Cameco, a Canadian uranium mining company.

GE-Hitachi ESBWR passes safety milestone in NRC review

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) announced Oct 26 its 1,520 MW Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), has passed a crucial safety review performed by an advisory committee for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Completion of this review clears a key hurdle in the company’s bid for design certification of the ESBWR. It sets the stage for final NRC certification by the fall of 2011.

In its October 20, 2010, letter, the NRC’s independent Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) issued its safety recommendation for the ESBWR design, which is required before a new reactor technology can achieve final certification.

“The ESBWR design is robust and there is reasonable assurance that it can be built and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public,” ACRS Chairman Said Abdel-Khalik wrote in the agency’s safety recommendation.

GEH and Michigan utility DTE Energy are collaborating on a potential ESBWR project adjacent to its existing Fermi 2 nuclear plant, 35 miles south of Detroit. The NRC is currently reviewing the utility’s license application for the proposed “Fermi Unit 3.” DTE Energy, which operates Detroit Edison, Michigan's largest electric utility, has not yet made a decision to proceed with construction of the new reactor.

India in talks to build six ESBWR reactors

ElephantOn the other side of the world, GE Hitachi has signed agreements in India with Tata Consulting Engineers, Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC), Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) and Larsen & Toubro for involvement in India's nuclear new build.

GEH and its Indian partners will share expertise and resources with a goal to build new reactors using the GEH ESBWR.

Kishore Jayaraman, GE Energy's India Region Executive, (left) told Business Standard they've been talking to NPC for a year.

Kishore Jayaraman "There are ongoing discussions for six ESBWR units at a designated site, with a desired commercial operation date of approximately 2019 for the first unit,"

Last February GE-Hitachi announced it planned to acquire special steel components and large forged parts from Larsen & Toubro (L&T). The Hindu also reported that L&T is also in a joint venture with NPCIL to set up a nuclear components manufacturing center in Gujarat. This is also the most likely “designated site” for the six ESBWR reactors.

L&T plans to build a capability to produce ingots weighing up to 600 tons and a heavy forge shop with a world class press rivaling the one at Japan Steel Works. That competition won't come on line right away, but it will come.

GE-Hitachi executives said the deal not only helps India, but also provides export earnings. Indian companies reportedly can make nuclear components for as little as half the price of sourcing them from the U.S.

Jack Fuller, CEO, told the Hindu Feb 2, "It can be part of our supply chain for India and other markets."

Separately, this week the Indian government signed an international agreement on civil liability possibly opening its $150 billion nuclear energy market to U.S. firms. U.S. President Obama will visit India in November and hopes to announce new nuclear deals during the trip.

source: theenergycollective.com

Significant Progress on Centrifuge Loan Guarantee

2010-11-04T20:26:00.000-07:00

Piketon, OH (HNN) – USEC has been told by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that its application for a $2 billion loan guarantee for the American Centrifuge Plant at Piketon, Ohio has advanced to the next stage. According to a USEC press release, DOE has provided a draft term sheet that will serve as framework for discussions.

USEC is a leading supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The centrifuge plant utilizes a “highly efficient uranium enrichment gas centrifuge technology” which will produce low enriched uranium and meet the demand for 20% of U.S. electricity supply.

The plant would rebuild U.S. nuclear manufacturing capacities. The construction phase would create 8,000 U.S. jobs in ten states with up to 4,000 in Ohio.

Earlier this year Babcock & Wilcox and Toshiba announced they will each invest $100 million in the Piketon facility.
“The Department’s decision to move forward reflects the significant progress we have made on both the technical and financial fronts in deploying the next generation of U.S. uranium enrichment technology,” said John K. Welch, president and CEO of USEC. “We are very pleased to receive DOE’s draft term sheet, which will provide a framework for further discussions. We look forward to working with DOE to continue advancing the project.”

USEC is investing in advanced centrifuge technology to meet the energy needs of a growing U.S. population, and to provide a long-term, reliable and secure fuel source for the U.S. and international nuclear power plants. USEC believes that the AC100 centrifuge machine that USEC will deploy in the American Centrifuge Plant will be the most advanced centrifuge uranium enrichment machine in the world.

As the only domestic enrichment facility using U.S. centrifuge technology, the American Centrifuge Plant will also help to rebuild U.S. nuclear manufacturing capabilities. This multi-year construction project would create nearly 8,000 U.S. jobs in ten states, with up to 4,000 in Ohio.

USEC has worked for the past decade to significantly improve and update the original U.S. centrifuge technology design developed by the Department of Energy using modern materials and techniques such as carbon fiber and computer-controlled assembly and operations. To date, USEC has invested more than $1.8 billion in the American Centrifuge Project including construction of the commercial American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio and for technology development, testing and manufacturing centers in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

The centrifuge facility is located on a portion of the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant site, which is currently undergoing decommissioning and decontamination.
source: www.huntingtonnews.net

Argentina to join small group of uranium-enriching countries

2010-10-26T09:06:00.000-07:00

BUENOS AIRES: Argentina's President Cristina Kirchner rededicated a uranium enrichment plant in southern province of Rio Negro, saying that next year Argentina would join the group of 10 countries producing the fuel for peaceful use.

"In November 11, a first sample of enriched uranium will be obtained, at which point, Argentina will join the group of 10 countries producing enriched uranium" for peaceful ends, Kirchner said.

The same plant was used to produce enriched uranium from 1982 to 1983 but then closed because of lower international prices, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 and unfavourable public opinion, officials said.
source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com

Laser Uranium Enrichment Makes a Comeback

2010-10-26T08:49:00.000-07:00

The controversial technology poses proliferation risks, but nuclear firms press on

Two technology giants, GE and Hitachi, are betting big on a nuclear renaissance. The companies formed an alliance in 2007 to push for a global expansion of nuclear power. But selling new reactors is only half the game. The joint venture is also aggressively pursuing a controversial technique for making nuclear fuel using lasers, a method they hope to commercialize by building the world's first industrial-scale pilot plant in 2012. Regulatory agencies are worried that laser enrichment of uranium could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

GE has called the laser method a "game-changing technology" and along with Hitachi and Cameco Corp., a Canadian nuclear fuel provider in Saskatoon, Sask., is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to developing it and building the plant near Wilmington, N.C. The technology in question was licensed from Silex Systems, an Australian company that's been quietly conducting enrichment research at a small facility near Sydney for the last quarter century.

But many experts are skeptical. Allan Krass, a retired U.S. State Department official and a physicist who visited Silex's laboratory in 2000, says GE and Hitachi "are betting that there will be an upsurge of nuclear power plant construction—that's a huge and extremely risky bet." He adds that laser enrichment has been held back by substantial technical hurdles.

If approved, the pilot plant will be the first large-scale attempt to use photons to separate the desirable uranium-235 isotopes from the more abundant but nonfissile U-238 isotopes found in natural uranium. Experts generally believe that a laser facility would be both smaller in size and have much lower energy demands than existing enrichment plants. Those features are excellent from the perspective of improving the economics of nuclear power plants, but they also present a major headache for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other nuclear watchdog groups attempting to spot clandestine enrichment plants, largely from satellite imagery.

At least 20 countries have attempted—and, at one point or another, failed—to use lasers to economically separate uranium isotopes since the 1970s. "Everyone was looking for this magical elixir, the best way to do this," recalls Dennis Garratt, who was director of R&D for Cameco from 1989 to 1996.

So what's different this time? And will this version of laser enrichment somehow be proliferation proof? When contacted by IEEE Spectrum, GE-Hitachi, Silex, and the IAEA wouldn't say. But some hints can be found in the technology's history.

Of the many government-sponsored laser enrichment programs, most were shut down in anticipation of a 1993 agreement between the United States and Russia, known as the Megatons to Megawatts Program, which flooded the market with cheap uranium scavenged from Russia's nuclear arsenal. The engineers and physicists working in those laboratories tend to argue that they were on the verge of success when their projects were discontinued.

In essence, all those programs made use of the unique frequencies at which atoms and molecules vibrate. A laser tuned to the precise vibrational frequency of a U-235 atom or a molecule containing U-235 can cause that isotope to behave differently from the heavier U-238.

Broadly, in the method that Silex explored, called molecular laser isotope separation, enrichment begins with uranium hexafluoride gas—in which each uranium atom is surrounded by six fluorine atoms—mixed with an inert gas that dilutes the uranium. The gas is cryogenically cooled and shot out of a nozzle at supersonic speeds. Rapid-fire pulses from an infrared laser penetrate the gas, increasing the vibrational energy in the U-235 molecules' chemical bonds.

That higher vibrational energy causes each U-235 molecule to react more quickly with a third substance in the gas stream, explains Garratt. In one version of the process, a new molecule forms around the U-235. The new molecule lasts for less than a microsecond before breaking apart, and the repelling force from that event pushes the U-235 to the edges of the stream, where it can then be siphoned off.

Though the precise mechanics of Silex's process may differ, the underlying logic is that illuminating a gas with a laser would require only a fraction of the energy needed by the two methods used now to enrich uranium—spinning the gas in a series of centrifuges or repeatedly forcing it through a porous membrane.

At least that's the theory. In practice, several obstacles have kept the technology in the lab. "These lasers are unlike any other in the world—basically, if you need a laser, you've got to go invent one," says Bruce Warner, a laser physicist who led Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's enrichment program, in Livermore, Calif., until the program's demise in the late 1990s.

According to several laser enrichment experts, Silex's approach likely begins with a 10.8-micrometer carbon dioxide laser that pulses hundreds of times per second. The infrared pulses travel through elaborate optics that tune their wavelengths to the needed 16 µm. Each pulse must contain about one joule of energy and be repeated fast enough to expose as much gas as possible. And if the laser doesn't pulse fast enough? Add more lasers! In short order you can wind up with an expensive and complex assembly of staggered pulsing lasers, each with its own set of tuning optics.
source: spectrum.ieee.org

Nuclear energy as an option cannot be ignored

2010-10-15T22:06:00.000-07:00

Nuclear energy was emerging as an option which cannot be ignored in the quest to meet the world's increasing energy demands while reducing release of greenhouse gases, a top official of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.

Speaking at a function at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research here, IAEA deputy director general YA Sokolov said the IAEA-installed nuclear capacity across the world was about 370 GW, contributing about 14% of global power generation.

"To date, Light Water Reactors are the main types of reactors used to economically and safely produce nuclear electricity," he said.

However, only a small fraction of the energy from natural uranium, about 1-3%, is used and the rest left in the spent fuel, he added.

Sokolov said recycling of uranium and plutonium from spent fuel of LWRs is possible only once in LWRs, which can provide 20-30% saving of natural uranium consumption.
Praising IGCAR's FBTR, which has served as an "excellent R&D facility" for irradiation of fuel and structural materials for the last 25 years, he said it has generated valuable data and experience for successful operation of FBR.

"The successful operation of FBTR and experience gained over 25 years of operation as well as the progress in R&D has resulted in the decision to construct the 500 MWe Prototype FBR which I hope will be successfully commissioned in 2011," he said.

Chairman of French Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies
Commission Bernard Bigot said India, which is fully committed to the three stage program set up under leadership of Dr Homi Bhabha, appears all set to become a torch bearer and a world key player in area of fast reactors.

He said the progress made by Indian scientists in FBR would shape the future of that technology across the globe.

IGCAR director Baldev Raj said the 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor (PFBR) modelled on FBTR would be completed by the end of 2011 or in the first quarter of 2012.

Principal scientific advisor to government of India R Chidambaram said closing the fuel cycle assumes greater importance in the context of climate change.

"A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been signed between IGCAR, BHEL and NTPC for joint development of advanced ultra super critical boiler used in thermal power plants," he said.source: www.dnaindia.com

Ukraine joins International Uranium Enrichment Center in Russia

2010-10-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

MOSCOW, Oct. 8 (Xinhua) -- Ukrainian state-owned company Nuclear Fuel has acquired 10 percent of the shares of the International Uranium Enrichment Center, the Itar-Tass news agency reported on Friday.

The center, controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency and located in Russia's southern Siberian city of Angarsk near Baikal, has been participating since 2007 in an IAEA project designed to provide countries in possession of nuclear energy facilities with access to uranium enrichment technology.Ukraine has thus become the third country in the project after Russia and Kazakhstan. Until today, Russia possessed 90 percent of the center's shares and Kazakhstan 10 percent. Russia's share fell to 80 percent as a result of the latest deal.

In addition, Russia's federal nuclear agency Rosatom plans to sell 50 percent of the center's stake package minus one share to the new participants in the project. source: news.xinhuanet.com

Gas and liquid chromatography looks at lipids in plant extracts

2010-10-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

Gas and liquid chromatography have been used by researchers in Algeria and France

to examine lipid composition of plant extracts as part of a study of Zizyphus lotus L (Desf) as an alternative medicine.

The plant, also known as Jujube, is commonly used for anti-inflammatory, hypoglycaemic, analgesic, sedative and anti-diabetic capabilities in the Algerian medicinal system.

Scientists in the departments of molecular biology and chemistry at Universite Abou Bekr Belkaid in Algeria collaborated with the Universite de Bourgogne in France to study Jujube extracts with gas and liquid chromatography.

They found that seed extracts offered the best immunosuppressive effects, giving them potential for applications in immune-mediated diseases.

Meanwhile - and perhaps unsurprisingly - the greatest concentration of vitamins C and A were found in the fruit, along with high levels of linoleic acid.

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine carries research into ways to either assist or replace conventional medical techniques.ADNFCR-3194-ID-800094091-ADNFCR
source: www.chromatographytoday.com

Laser Uranium Enrichment Makes a Comeback

2010-10-01T22:40:00.000-07:00

01 October 2010 - The controversial technology poses proliferation risks, but nuclear firms press on. Two technology giants, GE and Hitachi, are betting big on a nuclear renaissance. The companies formed an alliance in 2006 to push for a global expansion of nuclear power. But selling new reactors is only half the game. The joint venture is also aggressively pursuing a controversial technique for making nuclear fuel using lasers, a method they hope to commercialize by building the world's first industrial-scale pilot plant in 2012. Regulatory agencies are worried that laser enrichment of uranium could lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

GE has called the laser method a "game-changing technology" and along with Hitachi and Cameco Corp., a Canadian nuclear fuel provider in Saskatoon, Sask., is devoting hundreds of millions of dollars to developing it and building the plant near Wilmington, N.C. The technology in question was licensed from Silex Systems, an Australian company that's been quietly conducting enrichment research at a small facility near Sydney for the last quarter century.

But many experts are skeptical. Allan Krass, a retired U.S. State Department official and a physicist who visited Silex's laboratory in 2000, says GE and Hitachi "are betting that there will be an upsurge of nuclear power plant construction—that's a huge and extremely risky bet." He adds that laser enrichment has been held back by substantial technical hurdles.

If approved, the pilot plant will be the first large-scale attempt to use photons to separate the desirable uranium-235 isotopes from the more abundant but nonfissile U-238 isotopes found in natural uranium. Experts generally believe that a laser facility would be both smaller in size and have much lower energy demands than existing enrichment plants. Those features are excellent from the perspective of improving the economics of nuclear power plants, but they also present a major headache for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other nuclear watchdog groups attempting to spot clandestine enrichment plants, largely from satellite imagery.

At least 20 countries have attempted—and, at one point or another, failed—to use lasers to economically separate uranium isotopes since the 1970s. "Everyone was looking for this magical elixir, the best way to do this," recalls Dennis Garratt, who was director of R&D for Cameco from 1989 to 1996.

So what's different this time? And will this version of laser enrichment somehow be proliferation proof? When contacted by IEEE Spectrum, GE-Hitachi, Silex, and the IAEA wouldn't say. But some hints can be found in the technology's history.

Of the many government-sponsored laser enrichment programs, most were shut down in anticipation of a 1993 agreement between the United States and Russia, known as the Megatons to Megawatts Program, which flooded the market with cheap uranium scavenged from Russia's nuclear arsenal. The engineers and physicists working in those laboratories tend to argue that they were on the verge of success when their projects were discontinued.

In essence, all those programs made use of the unique frequencies at which atoms and molecules vibrate. A laser tuned to the precise vibrational frequency of a U-235 atom or a molecule containing U-235 can cause that isotope to behave differently from the heavier U-238.

Broadly, in the method that Silex explored, called molecular laser isotope separation, enrichment begins with uranium hexafluoride gas—in which each uranium atom is surrounded by six fluorine atoms—mixed with an inert gas that dilutes the uranium. The gas is cryogenically cooled and shot out of a nozzle at supersonic speeds. Rapid-fire pulses from an infrared laser penetrate the gas, increasing the vibrational energy in the U-235 molecules' chemical bonds.

That higher vibrational energy causes each U-235 molecule to react more quickly with a third substance in the gas stream, explains Garratt. In one version of the process, a new molecule forms around the U-235. The new molecule lasts for less than a microsecond before breaking apart, and the repelling force from that event pushes the U-235 to the edges of the stream, where it can then be siphoned off.

Though the precise mechanics of Silex's process may differ, the underlying logic is that illuminating a gas with a laser would require only a fraction of the energy needed by the two methods used now to enrich uranium—spinning the gas in a series of centrifuges or repeatedly forcing it through a porous membrane.

At least that's the theory. In practice, several obstacles have kept the technology in the lab. "These lasers are unlike any other in the world—basically, if you need a laser, you've got to go invent one," says Bruce Warner, a laser physicist who led Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's enrichment program, in Livermore, Calif., until the program's demise in the late 1990s.

According to several laser enrichment experts, Silex's approach likely begins with a 10.8-micrometer carbon dioxide laser that pulses hundreds of times per second. The infrared pulses travel through elaborate optics that tune their wavelengths to the needed 16 µm. Each pulse must contain about one joule of energy and be repeated fast enough to expose as much gas as possible. And if the laser doesn't pulse fast enough? Add more lasers! In short order you can wind up with an expensive and complex assembly of staggered pulsing lasers, each with its own set of tuning optics.

The optics themselves are also difficult to engineer, says Einar Ronander, the CEO of Klydon, a South African firm that grew out of that country's laser enrichment program and sold Silex its lasers. The laser-tuning process uses a hydrogen gas whose aerodynamics can be finicky. Bouncing shock waves in the gas can disrupt the beam, diminishing the laser's overall efficiency. And that's no good, says Ronander, because the energy cost of photons adds up fast.

The difficulties don't end there. Skimming off the enriched material is troublesome too. In the system Cameco built in the early 1990s, the entire laser apparatus had to be shut down to collect the enriched uranium. "We had ideas of how to solve this, but we never had the chance to try them," Garratt says.

GE-Hitachi wouldn't say if it has solved these issues—or has faced entirely different ones.

Either way, whether the venture even gets to work out the kinks in laser enrichment is now a question for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). That agency is charged with assessing the safety of nuclear facilities but is unaccustomed to weighing the proliferation risk of new technologies.

The extent of this particular risk, of course, is open to debate. Jeff W. Eerkens, an independent physicist who has worked on laser enrichment as long as lasers have existed, recognizes the threat and suggests tracking sales of the optics, which are uncommon. Other experts think there's no imminent danger; they say that countries interested in clandestine enrichment will continue building centrifuges because that technology's comparatively simpler designs have already eluded proliferation controls. But Charles Ferguson, the president of the Federation of American Scientists, cautions that as more niche laser applications emerge, laser enrichment will eventually seem less exotic.

The NRC is expected to rule on GE-Hitachi's building license by the end of 2011. Should it deny the license, though, laser enrichment is unlikely to disappear. As Krass, the state department physicist, wrote in a 1977 review of laser enrichment in the journal Science (paraphrasing J. Robert Oppenheimer), "It would be a mistake to underestimate the great desire of scientists to achieve something 'technically sweet'…and worry about the consequences later."

source: spectrum.ieee.org

Fixed Gas Detectors for the Water Industry

2010-09-30T23:00:00.000-07:00

Focusing on fixed gas detection in water supply, wastewater and waste industry applications, the Draeger stand will feature a wide variety of fixed gas detection systems, transmitters and sensors for use with oxygen, toxic and flammable gases. Combining cost savings with the fast, safe and reliable detection of hydrogen sulphide, methane and oxygen depletion, the display will include long life sensors which increase calibration intervals to one year, as well as the latest in infra-red (IR sensor technology). As well as a traditional exhibition stand, Draeger will also be presenting a workshop on “SIL* and functional safety in gas detection systems” in the COGDEM workshop room at 12.00 on 10 November, 2010.

Ensuring the reliable detection of combustible gases and vapours, the Draeger PIR 3000 is a smart, explosion proof, infra-red (IR) gas transmitter. ATEX approved and designed to provide failsafe operation in any potentially explosive environment, it can be used in oxygen depleted atmospheres and is immune to poisons such as H2S. Lower in cost than traditional pellistor or catalytic bead detectors, IR technology is also more robust and stable. In addition, the increased accuracy of IR means that maintenance costs can be significantly reduced with traditional six- monthly calibration intervals being extended to one year. Together with an overall life expectancy of more than 15 years, this means that the PIR 3000 is able to dramatically reduce lifetime ownership costs.

Also on show will be the low cost, explosion proof Draeger Sensor IR. Specifically developed to allow existing pellistor or catalytic bead detectors of hydrocarbons to be replaced easily and quickly with an IR detector, this innovative sensor mimics the behaviour of the pellistor it has replaced. This means that users of pellistor or catalytic bead detectors from the majority of manufacturers can upgrade to the increased reliability, operating life and reduced maintenance costs offered by superior IR technology.

The Draeger stand will also highlight the Polytron 3000 and Polytron 7000 range of intelligent transmitters, together with the patented Draeger Sensor for toxic gases and oxygen. Sensors are pre-calibrated and are plug-and-play. Simply plug in the sensor and the detector is ready to use with no further intervention from the operator. Replacing a sensor is equally easy and, because of their large size and accuracy, the sensors offer a very long life, with calibration intervals of one year to further enhance the cost reducing benefits.

* The need for safe system design is placing more and more focus on Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Standards. This is particularly true in any application where there is a need to constantly monitor and detect explosive or toxic gases and vapours, as well as oxygen deficiency and/or enrichment.

source: www.envirotech-online.com

Brunei Malaysia In Oil & Gas Production Sharing Deal

2010-09-22T03:05:00.000-07:00

Bandar Seri Begawan - Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia made a significant step forward in their bilateral relations last night when in the presence of His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam and Malaysian Premier, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, PetroleumBRUNEI and Malaysia's Petronas signed a Deed of Amendment of the country's deepwater block's Production Sharing Agreement (PSA).

His Majesty and Datuk Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak shake hands during the four-eye meeting

The signing ceremony took place yesterday in Putrajaya as His Majesty and the Malaysian premier met for the 14th Annual Leaders' Consultation.

With the inking of this new shared agreement, "both leaders expressed satisfaction with the progress in implementing the commercial arrangement in the exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources with regard to Block CA1 of the Commercial Arrangement Area (CAA)" and hoped that "the PSA for Block CA2 of the CAA would be finalised soon", in which both His Majesty and his Malaysian counterpart saw "good potential for future cooperation".

According to the 22-point Joint Statement that was issued yesterday, this scope of optimism also included "the States of Sabah and Sarawak, as well as possible joint venture with a third country, in the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas, and the development of downstream industries".

Prior to the historic agreement, His Majesty and the Malaysian Prime Minister held a four-eye meeting that lasted about half an hour during which they "took note of the progress in the discussions of the implementation of other agreed elements of the Exchange of Letters" that was signed on March 16 last year.

They also reaffirmed their commitment to take bilateral relations to a "new stage of enhanced partnership and expressed their mutual desire for the continuous and expeditious implementation" of the elements agreed in the document.

Progress was also noted in the discussions that have been made by the Joint Brunei Darussalam-Malaysia Land Boundary Technical Committee, and the two leaders urged the committee "to finalise and conclude the Terms of Reference and the Memorandum of Understanding on the Joint Demarcation and Survey of the Land Boundary" by the end of the year.

Although further details were not available, the Joint Statement stated that a target date sometime during the first half of 2011 had been set for the commencement of joint demarcation and surveying activities.

Despite the "excellent state of bilateral relations", both leaders highlighted the need "to enhance economic cooperation and further facilitate and create a more conducive and sound environment in the various sectors of mutual interests with particular emphasis given to activities in Sabah and Sarawak".

Enhancing further bilateral trade and investment was another area that the two leaders pursued as they expressed their hopes that "the momentum in the increasing level of trade and investment between the two countries would continue to accelerate".

The monarch noted the participation of several Malaysian companies in projects undertaken with the Brunei Economic Development Board whilst the Malaysian Prime Minister reciprocated with Brunei's investments in the Sarawak Renewable Energy Corridor, the Sabah Development Corridor, the Iskandar Development Region and the East Coast Economic Region.

Recalling the 10th Annual Leaders' Consultation that was held in Kemaman, Terengganu in August 2006, which had focused on the "construction of bridges in especially designated areas linking the Sultanate and Sarawak", both leaders noted that these initiatives would be undertaken by the private sector and expressed their hope that the construction of the bridge over Sungai Pandaruan "could commence as soon as possible".

Furthermore, His Majesty and Datuk Seri Najib also noted the positive benefits that the SerasaMenumbok ferry services had provided, especially for locals of both countries and tourists, since its launch last December.

Discussions would also be intensified on finding and facilitating ways and measures to enhance cross border trade and the flow of goods and services, which would include transit and other charges, between the two countries. One of these measures will be the Frequent Travellers Facility that had "been agreed to", which both leaders "looked forward to its launching" that would facilitate increased people-to-people interaction and travel between the two countries. In addition, the MoU between Royal Brunei Airlines and Tourism Malaysia for Joint Marketing Programmes that was signed earlier in January this year was another vehicle that was facilitating the enhancement of bilateral tourism promotions.

Recognising the importance of continuing cooperation in all sectors, His Majesty and his Malaysian counterpart urged the relevant authorities to expeditiously conclude several arrangements, such as a Shipping Agreement, an MoU on Exemption from Tax and Permission to Work for Qualified Individuals, another MoU on Information and Communications Technology, an MoU on Youth and Sports and a Memorandum of Agreement on Higher Education.

Later yesterday evening, His Majesty the Sultan and Yang Di-Pertuan of Brunei Darussalam consented to attend a banquet in his honour hosted by the Malaysian Premier and his wife, Datin Sri Rosmah Mansor.

Over the informal setting, both leaders sat down and took time to discuss regional and international issues of common concern, which included coordination efforts towards realising an Asean Community by 2015, as well as promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the region, which would be deliberated further as the two leaders join their other regional counterparts for the 17th Asean Summit that will be hosted by. the Vietnamese government.

The tragic humanitarian situation in Pakistan that had affected the lives of more than 20 million people was also touched on by both leaders as they agreed "to step up regional and international efforts towards disaster prevention and disaster relief'.

The upcoming 2nd Asean-US Leaders Meeting that will be hosted by US President Barack Obama in New York, on the sidelines of the 65th UN General Assembly on Friday, was also discussed by the two leaders as they "expressed confidence that the discussions would further enhance the regional grouping's relations with the US, particularly in promoting increased dialogue and cooperation".

As the Muslim world continues to celebrate the festive occasion, the Joint Statement also recorded His Majesty's Hari Raya Aidilfitri greeting to his Malaysian counterpart and to all Malaysians, who in turn, responded in kind.

The next Annual Leaders' Consultation will be hosted by the Sultanate next year, which both leaders "believed would be another successful year for Brunei-Malaysia relations".-- Courtesy of Borneo Bulletin
source: www.brudirect.com

Toro Energy Receives Approval for Wiluna Uranium Environmental Scoping Docs

2010-09-22T03:00:00.000-07:00

Australia's Environment Protection Agency has given its approval to the environmental scoping document for Toro Energy's 100%-owned Wiluna Uranium Project, 30 kilometres southeast of Wiluna in Central Western Australia.

The company will next submit the environmental review and management program. The document should be ready for public display by the second quarter of 2011.

The Managing Director of Toro Energy, Greg Hall hopes to move to production phase in 2013 at the Wiluna Uranium Project. Mr Hall said that he had been talking to future potential customers and power generation companies about the offtake of uranium. He had found that there is interest in having the uranium available from Australia from that period onwards in the industry.

With approvals of the government and the Toro Energy board still being sought, the mining company is not able to reach its initial target of starting production in 2012. The government approvals and assessment of infrastructure options has taken longer than expected.

The company is hoping to commence by 2013 which is the same time when Canadian company Mega Uranium Ltd is aiming to commence production at its Lake Maitland uranium project nearby.

Toro Energy is based in Adelaide, South Australia with a project office in Perth, Western Australia. Toro has three other exploration and development projects in Western Australia, and owns uranium assets in Northern Territory, South Australia and in Namibia, Africa.
source: http://www.azomining.com

Uranium project a step closer to fruition

2010-09-22T02:56:00.000-07:00

The Environmental Protection Authority has approved the environmental scoping document for the project.

Toro will now have to submit an environmental review and management program. The company's managing director Greg Hall acknowledges there is strong community interest in uranium projects.

"These are pretty well the same size as small gold mines," he said.

"They're creating interest because they're uranium and this is the first time there's been a uranium industry developed in Western Australia."

Mr Hall says the company plans to have the project in production in 2013.

"I've currently been talking to future potential customers, power generation companies about the offtake of uranium and there is interest in having the uranium available from Australia from that period onwards," he said.
source: www.abc.net.au

UNM studies uranium exposure in Navajo mothers and infants

2010-09-22T02:46:00.000-07:00

Sep 21, 2010 - ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention,

has announced its cooperative agreement with the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center for a $1 million a year, three-year study on pregnancy outcomes and child development in relation to uranium exposure among Navajo mothers and infants living on the Navajo Nation.

Dr. Johnnye Lewis, director of the Community Environmental Health Program at the UNM Health Sciences Center, and her research team will work with the ATSDR, Indian Health Service, Navajo communities, and other federal and Navajo agencies to enroll 1,650 pregnant women to be assessed during pregnancy and child birth. Infants will be assessed at birth, and for growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes up to 12 months of age. The study will also focus on building the infrastructure for longer-term follow-up of this cohort.

Uranium exposure on the Navajo Nation are a concern because of abandoned uranium mines and mills. There are 1,100 abandoned mines, mills and associated waste piles scattered throughout the area, which includes northeastern Arizona, southeastern Utah, and northwestern New Mexico.

Past research has identified uranium exposure as a possible contributor to several health conditions among the Navajo population, such as kidney disease. For these studies, only Navajo adults have been assessed. This will be the first study to observe pregnant women and their newborns.

“The goal of this project is to find answers to long-standing questions about the health conditions of children on the Navajo Nation,” Lewis said. “The Navajo communities have always been concerned about the health and development of their children, and we will finally be able to search deeper into these concerns and develop concrete data for future studies.”

The UNM research team will include collaborators from the Southwest Research and Information Center as well as several Navajo community researchers. Within UNM, experts from the Department of Pediatrics and the Center for Development and Disability will participate in the project. The team will also work in close partnership with Navajo Nation’s Division of Health, Navajo Nation Division of Education’s Growing in Beauty Program, and Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency.
source: www.indiancountrytoday.com

"Dry water" could be the next storage medium for dangerous chemicals

2010-09-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

Despite the oxymoronic name, 'dry water' is very real. This bone-dry water-silica compound could provide a way to transport dangerous liquids and gases safely - inside trillions of water-drop sized packages.

'Dry water' is comprised of 95% water, with a thin layer of silica coating each droplet, essentially turning it into a dry powder. When it's mixed with certain liquids or gasses, they combine with the water - which then traps them in a silica cage. Hence, they become non-reactive, and are easily transported without worrying about accidental detonation and the like.

'Dry water' Despite the oxymoronic name, 'dry water' is very real. This bone-dry water-silica compound could provide a way to transport dangerous liquids and gases safely - inside trillions of water-drop sized packages.'Dry water' is comprised of 95% water, with a thin layer of silica coating each droplet, essentially turning it into a dry powder. When it's mixed with certain liquids or gasses, they combine with the water - which then traps them in a silica cage. Hence, they become non-reactive, and are easily transported without worrying about accidental detonation and the like.

'Dry water' was first discovered in the late 60s, and was immediately snatched up by cosmetic companies, eager to make use of its unique properties. It resurfaced in 2006, and researchers at the University of Liverpool have been working on new applications for the hydrate.

This substance gleefully combines with both liquids and gasses - and this feature makes it very useful. The primary application would be carbon dioxide sequestering. The 'dry water' can absorb three times the mass of CO2 as its constituent ingredients could.

The research also indicates the substance could be used a number of other ways: for storing and transporting methane (from natural deposits, or as fuel); as a way of speeding up the reaction between hydrogen gas and maleic acid to produce succinic acid, which is used to make drugs, food ingredients, and consumer products; or, to aid in transporting emulsions.

What about getting the stored materials out again, once they've been sequestered? Dr. Ben Carter, a researcher on the product, says it's quite straightforward to separate:

A dry liquid (either pure water or a solution of something dissolved in water) can be separated back to liquid + silica by either of two methods. You can centrifuge it at high speed to force the two apart, or you can add an alcoholic solvent like methanol or ethanol. This reduces the water surface tension as the alcohol penetrates the water droplets, causing the dry liquid to fall apart.

If you've stored a gas in DW as a gas hydrate, all you have to do to release it is warm up the material to melt the hydrate (hydrates normally form at 0 degrees C under pressure, and can be stored at -20 degrees C without the need to be kept under further pressure).

The dry water itself is easy enough to manufacture. The hydrophobic silica and water are blended together at 19,000 rpm for 90 seconds, which coats the water droplets completely.
source:

An Unsanitized Look at the Origins of the Iraq War

2010-09-04T16:48:00.000-07:00

Neo-conservatives within the Bush Administration -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, and others, repeatedly told us on TV that individuals who opposed President George W. Bush's attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq value democracy and human rights less than they do.

But the people and organizations who tried to prevent this "preventive" war included the United Nations; people of faith (Muslims, Christians, and Jews); the governments of France, Germany, Russia, China; the Islamic Conference (including Indonesia, the most populated Muslim nation); the Organization of American States; the Arab League; the Organization of African Unity; former President Jimmy Carter; Pope John Paul; 133 members of the U.S. Congress; 10 to 15 million people who took to the streets for peace all over the world on February 15, 2003; Senator Robert Byrd (who articulated a critique of Bush's war aims on Constitutional grounds); a half dozen intelligence analysts and career civil servants from the State Department and CIA who either resigned or spoke out against this course; and many others.

To assuage these voices of dissent and to win over the American people to this endeavor, the neo-cons who dominated the foreign policy of the Bush Administration and their allies among the pundit and chattering classes at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and all the rest, capitalized on the fear created by September 11, to win the support of Congress and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

The neo-conservatives said that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn't.

They said he was in league with Osama Bin Laden. He wasn't.

They predicted that no major post-war insurgency in Iraq would occur. It did.

They said there would be a wave of pro-Americanism in the Middle East and the world if the United States acted boldly and unilaterally. Instead, there was a regional and even global wave of anti-Americanism.

Saddam's human rights record was not an adequate justification to go to war and the Bush Administration did not seriously try to make it one, until long after the war began and all the other plausible justifications had been proven false.

Bush's grand strategy for the Middle East was hashed out in the 1990s by these same neo-cons who are few in number and have worked together in and out of government for years. The Project for a New American Century became the mouthpiece for this group disseminating the ideas of Administration insiders such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and others. In January 1998, the PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton, forcefully calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding," they argued, and "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold sanctions." These developments endanger "our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's oil supply." The letter never mentioned "terrorism" but raised the issue of WMD and concluded: "the only acceptable strategy" was "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

The January 1998 letter to Clinton was signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, William Schneider, Jr., and Peter Rodman -- all top officials in the Defense Department; Richard Armitage, Paula Dobriansky, and John Bolton; Zalmay Khalilzad and Elliot Abrams; and Robert Zoelick. So potent was their call to remove Saddam, that in October 1998, amidst the heated debate of the midterm elections, Congress passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" that made it official U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam.

In December 1998, President Bill Clinton launched "Operation Desert Fox." In the following eight months, the U.S. and Britain fired over 1,100 missiles in eight months at 359 targets inside Iraq killing at least 300 Iraqi civilians.

The PNAC churned out other policy papers in the 1990s with the same general thrust: Now that the Soviet Union no longer existed, the U.S. must use its military power to secure dominance over the Earth, especially the oil producing regions thereby controlling the energy supplies of any future rival.

This Pax Americana would require an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy free from the hindrances of multilateral organizations or treaties, as well as new military bases, and the will and ability to project American power anywhere. An influential PNAC paper from September 2000 states: "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It called for a major military build up and singled out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as immediate targets.

In the run up to the war, these neo-cons in the Pentagon set up the "Office of Special Plans." According to Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski who worked with the group, "Instead of developing defense policy alternatives and advice, OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning." She watched Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith cook the intelligence from May 2002 to February 2003, often relying on dubious Iraqi exiles for information, to support the already made decision to go to war with Iraq.

Said Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski: "I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

Based on this spun and concocted intelligence, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations General Assembly on February 5, 2003: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That's enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

On March 30, 2003, ten days after the war began, Rumsfeld said: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are -- they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

Repeated like a mantra by Administration officials was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed "26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulin, one and a half tons of nerve agent VX, and 6,500 aerial chemical bombs."

In Cincinnati, on October 7, 2002, President Bush said: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. . . . Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." [This aluminum tube charge was later proven bogus by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and David Kay's Iraq Survey Group.]

An ABC News poll published on December 17, 2002 found that 89 percent of Americans believed Iraq "does possess chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons." In a similar poll, about 70 percent said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11 (which he did not).

President Bush said during his State of the Union on January 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Yet former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been charged by the National Security Council to follow up on the uranium from Niger story, went public in July 2003 saying that the White House knew this information was false well before the President's speech. In any case, it was a highly unusual step for a president to announce to the world sensitive intelligence information which is never done casually. The Niger uranium story was based on documents that were shown conclusively to be rather amateurish forgeries. [I probably should add here that lying to Congress is an impeachable offense.]

Cheney said on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Bush and his National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice both on occasion used the image of a mushroom cloud in sounding the alarm of the Iraqi threat.

In a Vanity Fair interview after the occupation of Iraq was a fait accompli, Wolfowitz said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason" for going to war.

In April 2003, the United Nations requested that its weapons inspectors be allowed back in to Iraq, they, after all, possessed the knowledge and experience to find the WMD; but the Bush Administration firmly rebuffed this idea. Instead, David Kay's Iraq Survey Group of 1,400 inspectors spent 30,000 hours scouring Iraq for WMD. They found none.

Buried deep inside Dr. Kay's report to Congress is the following statement: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large scale capability to develop, produce, and fill CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions, and UN inspections." Kay chose not to include this telling admission in either his introductory remarks or his conclusion.

Buried even deeper inside Kay's report was this: "To date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."

The imminent threat posed by Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons turned out to be not so imminent.

When the statue of Saddam came down on April 9, 2003, there was great rejoicing in America -- Administration mouthpieces proclaimed a victory for liberty on par with the fall of the Berlin Wall -- but when two American soldiers were killed in Firdos Square by suicide bombers about 36 hours later, the incident wasn't even reported, let alone the irony pointed out.

When Bush landed in a Navy plane on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 looking martial and gallant in a fighter pilot uniform, helmet tucked under his arm, declaring "Mission Accomplished," his approval ratings were soaring at around 75 percent.

By August 26, 2003, 139 Americans had died in Iraq since Bush's triumphant carrier landing; by September 24, it had climbed to 341 killed, and so on and on and on for the next seven years. Today it stands, (as President Obama pointed out in his speech), at 4,426, with at least 30,000 wounded.

Although the Pentagon says that it is not interested in enemy "body counts," conservative estimates range between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

American soldiers in Iraq still find themselves in a confusing combat environment (even though the "combat" is over), forced to fight in a foreign land where winning the "hearts and minds" of a people they know little about is crucial to the success of their mission.

Hand crafted bombs began claiming the lives of more Americans in Iraq than any other weapon. At first, they were usually made from discarded artillery shells with a detonator wired to a garage door opener or doorbell. They could be set off just about anywhere, buried along roadways or dropped out of vehicles. Fake bombs were set to waste the time of explosive disposal squads or to draw soldiers into ambushes with small arms. New bombs showed up in Iraq wiring together multiple explosives in a "daisy chain" to explode in several places, several yards apart, killing or maiming for life American service men and women. Lately, assassins using silencers are murdering Iraqi police officers in broad daylight.

Then there are the suicide bombers and the enormous car and truck bombs. Missiles attached to donkey carts or fake electricity generators have been used to deadly effect -- often with booby traps of explosives hidden in the wheel wells of vehicles.

American soldiers are still risking their lives every day in Iraq, "combat" or no "combat," and many more will die for this policy our neo-con leaders handed down to us.

The debacle in Iraq is not merely a result of errors in planning or poor decision-making. In devising their plans for Iraq, the neo-cons in the Bush Administration repeatedly and insistently dismissed the vast array of research assembled by think tanks and warnings of its own officials in the State Department and the CIA and the military.

For a small group of men with little understanding of Iraq, warfare, or "nation-building," or "counterinsurgency," is just the arrogant belief that they, and they alone, knew better than anyone else about what was in the United States interests. Their view required not just monumental arrogance but also a cavalier disregard for the life and death consequences of being wrong.

The "threat" Saddam Hussein posed was not "imminent." The war made Americans more hated in the world, especially in the Islamic world; and has made our people more vulnerable to attack both at home and overseas.

The neo-cons and President Bush claimed to know what was in America's interest, but they refused to debate it honestly.

If the Congress and the American people knew the truth about Iraq in 2002 and 2003, they would never have gone to war.

To be silenced by a complacent media and the attack dogs of the jingoistic Right -- to remain silent when we have been systematically lied to would be to betray the fundamental ideals for which our troops have sacrificed their lives on that "battle field" half a world away.
source: www.huffingtonpost.com

China builds gas centrifuge enrichmt plant successfully

2010-09-04T16:45:00.000-07:00

6 Sep, 2010 - Beijing: China is building a gas centrifuge enrichment plant successfully by using Russia's technology, head of the Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation, the regulatory body of the Russian nuclear complex, said.

China is planning to put the plant into operation in 2012, Sergei Kiriyenko said.

Summing up the results of the 14th session of the Russian-Chinese commission for nuclear cooperation, he said the plant "may put into operation ahead of schedule. A total of 87 per cent of equipment has been delivered and the construction works are practically over".

"We stated that Chinese partners were working ahead of schedule and with high quality," Kiriyenko said yesterday.

"Before to talk about further construction, let's complete the plant. If our Chinese partners show interest in this, we're ready to discuss this. But the key moment is that we're ready to discuss further cooperation by way of a joint venture," the Russian official said.

In addition, he recalled that Russia supplied enriched uranium to China and that TVEL Fuel Company had launched a nuclear fuel plant.

He also said Russia and China would build the 3rd and 4th units at the Tianwan nuclear power plant.

A contract may be signed by the year-end. The earlier reached agreements on nuclear cooperation have been implemented, Kiriyenko told Itar-Tass.

The Rosatom Nuclear Energy State Corporation head said that this year Russia and China had signed a protocol on launching the 1st and 2nd units of the Tianwan nuclear power plant.

"Today these are the most modern and most reliable units. Our Chinese partners, including engineers and supervision services, recognise this," he said. "Based on this we've started a project to build the 3rd and 4th units.

Corresponding protocols have been signed. By the end of September we hope to sign a technical protocol," Kiriyenko said.
source: www.zeenews.com

Coal Ash May Provide Uranium for Future Nuclear Power

2010-08-30T21:56:00.000-07:00

In the debate over nuclear power versus conventional coal-burning sources, nuclear proponents often note that the ash from coal also contains radioactive elements like thorium and uranium.Sparton Resources, a Canadian-based company, is investigating the recovery of uranium from waste coal ash at thermal power stations in China.

Sparton has signed an agreement with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), the authority that runs the country’s nuclear-power stations, to recover uranium from coal ash at a site in Lincang, in Yunnan province. Removing the radioactive elements from various forms of waste has positive environmental impact.

The technique could provide new fuel sources for non-greenhouse gas producing energy, and may also provide recycled ingredients for cement, concrete or other fillers.

The company is currently conducting studies and bulk sampling of the ash. Sparton believes it can make a profit from recovering the uranium, which is leached from the ash using acids and water to create a slurry. The dissolved uranium is then extracted from the solution. Sparton is the only company authorized to extract secondary uranium in China.
source: buildaroo.com

Chromatography as a separation technique in chemistry

2010-08-30T21:54:00.000-07:00

Chromatography is a technique of chemical analysis that makes the separation of the components of a mixture possible, depending on their different affinity for two different phases, usually, a liquid or a gas and an adsorbing solid, respectively named "eluting phase" and "stationary phase". It was invented by the Russian botanic M. Tswett (1872-1919) who used it for the separation of pigments from plants, basing on their different coloured bands. These colours inspired the name "chromatography" derived from the Greek "chromos" = "colour" and "graphos" = "writing".

- How it works

In the classic "column-chromatography", the mixture is placed normally on the top of a long vertical glass column filled with a fine granular material like alumina (Al2O3) and silica (SiO2) or one among the many polymeric fine particles featured by polar or non-polar functional groups on their surface. The first two are highly polar phases for the presence of many hydroxyl groups -OH.

Through the column, a continuous flow of the eluting phase passes and drags with it all the components of the mixture. These are differently retained by the stationary phase by means of intermolecular forces depending on their affinity with it. This allows their separation along the column. If the compounds are coloured, the column appears divided into bands of different colours that form the "chromatogram".

- Chromatographic methods

There are several chromatographic methods that differ for the different type and shape of the instruments or for the chemical-physical features of the two phases. So, in "gas-chromatography" (GC), the mobile phase is a gas that separates the vapourised sample along a very long capillary column (from 10 to 100 m). In "liquid-phase chromatography", the eluting phase is a pure solvent or a mixture of solvents.

- Chemical-physical mechanisms

The physical mechanisms that allow the distribution of the sample between the stationary and the eluting phases are at the base of different types of separations:

a) Adsorption c. : when the sample is adsorbed on the very wide surface offered by the stationary phase.

b) Partition c. : the main techniques using it are GC and HPLC (when the eluting phase is liquid at high pressure). The samples are differently dissolved by two different phases.

c) Ionic exchange c. : when the stationary phase contains active groups able to selectively exchange some ions with the sample (ion exchange chromatography).source: www.helium.com

Recovered Uranium Not Seen as Immediate Threat

2010-08-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

Aug. 25, 2010 - The 1.8 kilograms of uranium 238 recovered last month by Moldovan authorities was not an immediate threat for use in a nuclear or radiological weapon, one expert told CNN (see GSN, Aug. 24).

An "elaborate set-up" would be needed to refine the material -- known also as yellowcake uranium -- to weapon-grade levels, said Georgia State University nuclear physics professor Xiachun He. A significantly higher amount of enriched uranium would also likely be needed to power a nuclear weapon.

The uranium would not even have sufficient radiation levels for dispersal using conventional explosives in a radiological "dirty bomb," He said.

"Apparently, you can't make anything serious out of this modest amount of radioactive material," said Chiril Motpan, spokesman for the Moldovan Interior Ministry (CNN, Aug. 24).

''I don't know whether this quantity could be used for making a homemade nuclear bomb, because the uranium must be enriched for this purpose, and this is possible only in special labs,'' he added, according to the Associated Press (Associated Press/New York Times, Aug. 25).

A sting operation in the capital city of Chisinau led to arrests of three of seven suspects who were said to be seeking more than $11 million for the uranium, CNN reported. "They were actively looking for a customer," Motpan said.

The suspects have been reported to include two former Interior Ministry staffers and individuals linked to similar crimes in Romania and Russia.

"We are expecting more information coming out of Russia, Romania and some other countries that can shed light onto this case and those suspects," Motpan said.

Authorities hope to determine the uranium's enrichment level and place of origin through testing in Germany (CNN).source: www.globalsecuritynewswire.org

A nuclear ‘living laboratory’

2010-08-25T20:02:00.000-07:00

The Tennessee Valley Authority was created in 1933 to be a “living laboratory” for harnessing the power of the Tennessee River.

But 77 years later, the development efforts of the federal agency are going nuclear.

TVA directors agreed last week to spend up to $400 million to buy nuclear fuel using a new laser method of uranium enrichment. The pioneering effort, which TVA hopes eventually could cut the cost of uranium processing for up to 12 percent of its nuclear fuel, is one of a half dozen new technologies being pursued in TVA’s nuclear power program.

“We want to be the nation’s leader in increased nuclear production,” TVA President Tom Kilgore told the TVA board last week.

TVA expects to spend up to $8 billion by 2020 to finish its Watts Bar Unit 2 near Spring City, Tenn., its Bellefonte Unit 1 in Hollywood, Ala., and to add more than 500 megawatts of extra generation at existing plants. Within those plants, TVA also is helping to make a key material for nuclear bombs and to reprocess abandoned bomb material for nuclear fuel — the only U.S. utility to do so.

“There’s been a lot of talk about a nuclear renaissance for some time, but TVA seems to be the one utility so far that is making it happen,” said Steve Hedges, editor of the Nuclear Townhall newsletter that promotes more nuclear power.

TVA’s new vision also calls for the agency to test out small reactor designs and pursue reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Eventually, TVA also may build one of the next generation of nuclear reactors at its Bellefonte plant.

Agency officials say nuclear power plants will generate cleaner energy than the coal plants they will replace, and that testing new enrichment and processing technologies could lessen nuclear wastes and cut fuel costs.

But critics argue that TVA is pursuing unproved technologies and insist the radioactive wastes generated from nuclear power plants will last for centuries.

“Nuclear energy is not clean energy, no matter what you hear from TVA,” said Don Safer, chairman of the Tennessee Environmental Council.

Tom Clements, Southeast campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, said TVA is eroding the wall between military and civilian use of enriched uranium and could help to make it easier for developing nations to get the nuclear bomb by advancing new nuclear fuel technologies.

Clements said he is concerned that TVA has agreed to buy uranium fuel for its plants that will be enriched by a new laser technology that could weaken global nonproliferation efforts.

“Laser enrichment is a new, unlicensed technology and there has been no nuclear nonproliferation impact assessment done on this technology, which is a real concern,” Clements said. “The risk is always that this technology will spread and it may be easier to hide than conventional uranium enrichment. These nonproliferation concerns need to be analyzed right now, not after it’s out the door.”

The U.S. Department of Energy helped develop laser technologies to enrich uranium in the 1980s with less energy and less waste than gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge enrichment. The process now is being developed commercially by General Electric in partnership with Hitachi for potential use in the United States.

The company has a test loop to verify the new technology, officials said Monday.

In 2009, GE-Hitachi asked for a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a Global Laser Enrichment Uranium Enrichment Facility in Wilmington, N.C., but the license has yet to be approved.

NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said regulators still are reviewing the proposal, but he said the NRC doesn’t plan to conduct any assessment about the risk of nuclear weapon technology spreading to developing nations.

“We have very strict security regulations, not only regarding any materials but also the process used to enrich uranium,” Hannah said. “We consider that robust enough to protect the public.”

TVA Chief Operating Officer Bill McCollum said TVA’s contract with GE-Hitachi will diversify its fuel sources by adding another supplier and should help lower its fuel costs if the new technology proves successful in enriching uranium with less energy and waste.

“This entails a certain amount of risk as a new technology that is yet to be commercially proven, “ McCollum said. “But TVA has an enriched uranium inventory that will mitigate against production delays or problems.”

Within the next decade, TVA expects to get more than one-third of its power generation from nuclear facilities. As the nation’s biggest government utility, TVA also has a unique role to work for the national defense in helping both to supply plutonium from nuclear weapons and to reprocess abandoned military weapons for use as nuclear fuel.

“There are a number of promising technologies out there, and it has always been a part of TVA’s mission to serve the national defense and common interest of our country,” said Jack Bailey, vice president of nuclear development for TVA.source: www.timesfreepress.com

The Futility of an Israeli Air Strike Against Iran's Nuclear Sites

2010-08-21T20:45:00.000-07:00

Aug 18 2010 - This post is part of our forum on Jeffrey Goldberg's September cover story detailing the prospects and implications of an Israeli strike against Iran. Follow the debate here.

Of all the questions one might ask about bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, the most basic is perhaps the most difficult: whether it would work -- that is, whether it would significantly impede the Islamic Republic's nuclear progress, particularly if carried out by Israel.

What would such bombing destroy? Probably the gas centrifuges that Iran has used to enrich uranium at its plant at Natanz; probably the plant at Isfahan that produces the uranium feed for the centrifuges; probably the heavy-water reactor at Arak and its associated heavy-water production plant; and maybe even the Russian-built power reactor at Bushehr, if Israel decides to risk killing some Russian workers.

What would bombing not destroy? Probably not Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which is easily moved and sufficient to fuel two nuclear warheads, if further enriched; probably not the unknown number of centrifuges that Iran has produced but not deployed at Natanz; probably not the many tons of centrifuge feed that Iran has produced and stockpiled; probably not the factories that Iran is using to make more centrifuges; and certainly not the knowledge needed to enrich uranium and incorporate it into a nuclear warhead. All these essentials of nuclear-weapon breakout capability seem likely to remain.

Would it be possible to find out, after the bombing, what was really hit? The answer is no -- not unless Iran were invaded. Short of which, after exhibiting the inevitable civilian casualties, Iran would likely slam the door on UN inspectors and take its nuclear work underground. Popular nationalist pride will only enable this reaction, if not push hard for it. Iran could claim, with justification, that the data on its nuclear sites gathered by the present UN inspection teams has simply made it easier to target these sites. Why should Iran provide more targeting data by allowing more inspections? Even the limited knowledge we now have about Iran's nuclear status could disappear -- a casualty of military action.

We would, however, know one important thing after any bombing attack: how Iran reacts. If Iran truly values its nuclear program, it would play the victim. The attack would give Iran a claim on the sympathy of countries that might otherwise be inclined to shun it, thereby invigorating its campaign to thwart U.S. and Western isolation efforts. But to remain the victim, it would have not to victimize others. Successful victimhood would therefore mean few or no Iranian-sponsored terror attacks against U.S. targets. It would also mean only limited terror attacks against Israel. If victimhood works, and Iran escapes isolation, its current rulers will have fended off one of the main threats to the regime anywhere on the horizon. That benefit would seem to outweigh whatever harm Israeli bombs could do to the nuclear program.

Israel's leadership has no-doubt considered this, and may well have concluded that Israel cannot stop the Iranian bomb by itself. Israel can't destroy enough of Iran's nuclear capability through air strikes, nor can Israel invade. Only the United States can do those things. Whether it might ever do either is the big question, and one to which absolutely no one has the answer.
source: www.theatlantic.com

Bright ideas needed for Deepwater Horizon

2010-08-21T20:37:00.001-07:00

A surge of oil and gas while drilling an exploratory well 5,000 feet below the surface caused an explosion on 20th April, killing 11 rig workers. The blowout preventer system – the most critical piece of equipment on the rig – failed. The blowout preventer has giant shears which are designed to cut and seal off the well’s main pipe but the valves didn’t close.

The system couldn’t be remotely shutdown either, and after burning for 36 hours the rig sank; there’s has been a constant leak from the well ever since. A rig worker revealed to the BBC that he’d identified a leak in the control pod in the blowout preventer system weeks before the explosion. The leak wasn’t fixed – instead the unit was shut down and a second one relied on. The worker said BP and Transocean – owner of the rig who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the equipment – were both informed, and he is not sure if the leaking pod was turned back on before the explosion.
Disasters such as this shouldn’t be allowed to happen; so the control pod on the blowout preventer failed –what happened to the second unit? Was the first unit ever fixed? These questions remain unanswered as people are turning their attention to the immediate repercussions of the incident. The questions on everyone’s lips are now how can we stop the oil pumping into the sea, and how to we contain the oil which has already escaped?

BP estimate that the well is spewing between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day. They’ve tried to contain the leak with booms, break it up with chemical dispersants, and skimming then burning to rid the surface of oil. But none of this appears to be particularly successful – or environmentally friendly – the well continues to leak, threatening the local wildlife and livelihoods of the fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.

In an attempt to stop the leak, BP have tried lowering a huge containment dome over the main site, but this failed after frozen hydrate crystals formed from the leaking gas. They also tried a top-kill procedure to plug the well by pumping mud, rubber and golf balls into the well to stop the flow – this also failed.

In early May, BP began drilling two relief wells to connect with the original well and pump in a heavy liquid to stem the flow – a project which won’t be complete until mid-August. A damaged riser pipe has also been cut to close the blowout preventer and a cap lowered onto the top section so oil and gas can be funnelled to a drill ship for collection. BP estimates that they’re collecting around 28,000 barrels a day – less than 50% of the estimated daily escape.

The company are now trying to use hoses and a new manifold system to pipe oil and gas to surface vessels to increase the amount of oil captured, and hope to develop a permanent containment system directing oil and gas to free floating riser pipes attached to containment vessels. How effective this will be is yet to be seen, and undoubtedly has been hampered by Hurricane Alex sweeping the Atlantic.

Recent developments have seen BP fit a new cap over the well and it appears to have stopped the flow of oil into the Gulf, but as President Obama pointed out, this is still in the testing phase and the true results are yet to be seen. Even BP is warning that the cap will not be a permanent solution and drilling on the relief wells will continue after testing of the new cap.

As with any type of disaster, celebrities are keen to get involved to do their bit, but rather than the usual charity single offering – which would be inappropriate in this case – Kevin Costner’s company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, is offering the use of 32 oil separation machines to clean water. The machines – capable of cleaning 210,000 gallons of water a day – use centrifuge technology to separate oil and water. It gives 99% purity water – with the separated oil being stored in tanks –without using chemicals and biologic agents.

A clean-up operation has already begun, and will continue for several months – maybe even years – after the leak has stopped. The escaped oil could affect the wetlands around the Gulf – which equates to around 25% of the total US wetlands – and many areas and animals are already suffering the aftermath of the leak. A 78,000-square mile fishing area around the site has had to be closed as scientists fear for the health of wildlife in the area, but the true scale of the disaster really remains unknown.

The bill for the clean-up operation is sure to run into millions – if not billions – of dollars, and who will foot the bill is unclear but if President Obama gets his way, it will be BP. What we do know is that the repercussions of this incident will continue to haunt not only BP and the oil industry, but the Gulf of Mexico for years to come.
source: www.labnews.co.uk

IAEA's top nuclear inspector resigns

2010-07-07T06:04:00.000-07:00

Vienna: The chief nuclear inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Olli Heinonen, is resigning after leading the probe of Iran's nuclear programme for the past five years, an IAEA's spokeswoman said on Thursday.

Heinonen would leave the Vienna-based agency at the end of August for personal reasons, IAEA spokeswoman Gill Tudor said. A successor has yet to be named.
The Finnish nuclear expert had been appointed by the previous IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who was succeeded by Yukiya Amano late last year.

Even before Heinonen headed the nuclear safeguards department, he oversaw inspections in Iran from 2003 to 2005, when the IAEA began uncovering the country's secret nuclear programme.

He also was involved in negotiating a return of IAEA inspectors to North Korea to monitor the closure of nuclear facilities that Pyongyang had agreed to as part of international negotiations. But the inspectors were kicked out in April last year. source: sify.com

Spot Uranium Prices on the Rise

2010-07-07T05:58:00.000-07:00

Jul 7, 2010 - TradeTech’s spot uranium price increased $0.25 to $41.00 per pound following several weeks of inactivity. The weekly spot price for the yellow metal on UXC also demonstrates buyers returning to the market as the price has surged $1.00 to $41.75 this week.
The strong demand activity is attributed to a number of buyers believing that the market price has reached the bottom and endeavoring to acquire material in anticipation of future price increases. Confirmation of this view was reinforced by the announcement that China has moved to obtain long-term contracts with primary suppliers. Although many market participants have extensively pointed to China’s nuclear program as the impetus for future demand growth, the recent announcements validate opinions that the country is taking action now to secure future supplies.

The rush in buying interest comes just as the US Department of Energy (DOE) enters the market to sell the final lot of inventory being sold in 2010 to fund cleanup efforts at the Portsmouth enrichment facility.

Growing South Asian Nuclear Tensions

Less than 2 weeks after the Prime Ministers of Canada and India signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement, China and Pakistan are threatening to disrupt India’s nuclear aspirations by increasing their own partnership, a consideration that has raised international misgivings and revived apprehension about the wisdom of making a special exemption for India.

The origins of these conditions trace back to a 2008 civilian nuclear energy pact between the United States and India, terminating a 34-year embargo on nuclear trade despite New Delhi’s longstanding weapons program. The policy objectives for the United States were to unlock the energy-starved country’s nuclear industry market, estimated at $150 billion, and to implicitly enable India to serve as a regional counterweight to the Chinese threat to security. This decision seemed to make more sense at the time, as nuclear power was demonstrating a global renaissance as a more environment-friendly alternative to fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. While Russia, France and Britain strongly backed nuclear transfers to India, several countries such as Australia, Ireland, Austria and New Zealand had protested against special treatment.

Under the terms of the agreement from 2008, India has been provided with access to U.S. nuclear technology and fuel in return for complying with international inspections of some of its facilities. New plants built to generate power and fourteen of India’s twenty-two existing reactors will be opened for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); however, military facilities and stockpiles of nuclear fuel that it has produced up until now will be exempt from inspections or safeguards.

With the potential of tremendous energy demand developing in this region, security controls threatening resources should not be taken lightly. As of June, the countries with the largest number of planned and proposed new nuclear reactors are: China 154; India 60; Russia 44; USA 32; South Africa 27 (mostly smaller modular reactors); and Ukraine 22. Since last December the largest increases in announced planned and proposed new nuclear reactors are in India, taking its total from 38 to 60 for an increase of 58 percent; and China taking its total from 125 to 154 for an increase of 23 percent.

India and Pakistan have both refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that bars nuclear trade with states that have developed weapons technology. Washington-based Arms Control Association suggests both countries have built modest nuclear arsenals with India believed to possess approximately 100 warheads and Pakistan 70 to 80. It is thought that India uses plutonium for its weapons, while Pakistan likely employs the uranium alternative.

In mid June, a letter was sent by a prestigious and broad array of more than 40 experts and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from 14 countries, to the 46-member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), urging that these nations “reiterate to the Chinese government that it must not engage in nuclear trade with Pakistan in a way that violates nonproliferation obligations and norms.” In the letter, the experts and NGOs note that “The provision of uranium and/or nuclear fuel to Pakistan or India for safeguarded reactors can have the effect of increasing their respective capacity to produce enriched uranium or plutonium for weapons purposes in unsafeguarded facilities.”source: uraniuminvestingnews.com

The future of spaceflight

2010-07-07T05:46:00.000-07:00

While most of the presentations during the Knight/Kavli Universe Workshop talked about determining the properties of the universe or astronomical objects, our last day featured a presentation about manned space flight. To be honest, I wasn’t so excited about the talk beforehand, but that changed quickly. Dava Newman, a professor of aeronautics, astronautics, and engineering systems at MIT, gave a very interesting talk.

Her research touches on the medical issues astronauts endure as a result of living in microgravity (such as bone and muscle loss), ways to keep astronauts from experiencing these problems, and the latest spacesuit technology. I didn’t realize how extreme such medical problems were. During 6 months in spaceflight, an astronaut loses an average about 20 to 30 percent of his or her muscle mass, and 1 to 2 percent of bone density each month. On Earth, it takes about a decade to lose that same amount of bone density.

To help with muscle and bone loss, Newman’s group has designed a centrifuge that could fit in a module of the International Space Station. It takes 23 revolutions a minute to create 1 G at the “foot end” of the centrifuge. The astronaut can then perform squats or use attached bicycle pedals to exercise his or her legs in the simulated Earth gravity.

Later in the day, workshop participants toured the Man Vehicle Laboratory on MIT’s campus. A few people got to go on the centrifuge. Unfortunately, I had a pounding headache during the tour and decided spinning around at a rapid pace would probably be a bad idea.

Another awesome project Newman’s group is working on is a next-generation spacesuit. The current spacesuit is heavy (some 140 pounds), and it takes a lot of the astronaut’s energy to work against the suit (for example, when bending his or her arms and legs). It also limits movement. Instead of a bulky pressurized spacesuit, another option is a skintight suit with helmet. Such a suit allows for more normal movement and also applies the needed pressure directly to the skin (instead of filling a larger suit with pressurized gas).

One characteristic of the Bio-Suit is its “armadillo-like” back structure, on which a life support backpack would sit. Liz Kruesi photo

During her presentation, Newman explained how her team designed the first prototype, called the Bio-Suit. To determine the suit’s structure and how it would move on the human body, they drew circles on the skin and saw how the circles changed shape during common movements. There are certain intersecting areas where the skin doesn’t stretch called “lines of non-elongation.” So these lines on the suit would be made of stronger material, whereas the rest of the suit (what stretches) is a more flexible material.

Newman’s group has created a mockup, but it’s not space-ready yet. Their goal is by 2015. If this is the case, her team will definitely meet the new manned-Mars-mission projection of 2030. It’s exciting stuff!

source: cs.astronomy.com

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About An Israeli Attack On Iran (But Were Afraid To Ask)

2010-07-01T20:18:00.000-07:00

Marla Singer
Zero Hedge
July 2nd, 2010
source: www.prisonplanet.com

At least back in 2009 the most promising targets for damaging the Iranian nuclear program, specifically the weapons related development, were Plutonium production facilities (characterized primarily by the Plutonium Production Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor in Arak) and facilities critical to the “Nuclear Fuel Cycle” (most obviously the Uranium Enrichment Facility in Natanz and the Uranium Conversion Facility in Esfahan). The Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Abdullah Toucan released a detailed report comparing the mission requirements of strikes on these (and other) facilities with Israel’s capabilities and concluded the mission was within Israel’s grasp operationally.1 Normally we would call this report a “must read,” but instead we’ve read it so you don’t have to, as well as added some of our own research and secondary sources.

The report also examined the ballistic missile strike option and delved into some of the political and instability costs that an attack would extract (which we ignore for the purposes of this discussion). Those sections are well worth reading, even if the political reality on the ground has changed since early 2009.
The Esfahan facility converts U3O8 to UF6 (Uranium Hexafloride), an interval product on the way to producing highly enriched (read: weapons grade) material.

The enrichment facility at Natanz is a gas centrifuge plant used (in theory) to process UF6 into 3-5% concentrations of U-235 for use in light water reactors (which has the unfortunate side effect of producing some 90% U-235, read: weapons grade uranium). This is the famous underground centrifuge facility. It isn’t clear exactly how many centrifuges Iran is operating here (or elsewhere), but 1,000 is enough to produce around 20 kg of highly enriched uranium per year. Iran admitted to the IAEA that it had 3,800 operational centrifuges here in late 2008. About 7,000 are thought to be operating today. Iran publicly aspires to installing 50,000 centrifuges in the Natanz facility in “the next few years.” The exact number is something of a mystery.

In addition, once operational, the Arak heavy water reactor has the potential to spit out about 8kg of weapons grade plutonium per year. It is expected to become operational this year or in 2011, and after some warm up, would be at near full capacity to generate electricity (and plutonium) in 2013-2014.

How Much? How Long?

The amount of fissile material required to create a nuclear weapon varies by the method of initiation. In the case of the simple “uranium gun” (using high explosive to propel one sub-critical uranium projectile into another sub-critical uranium mass such that the total mass is super-critical) 20-25 kg of highly enriched uranium is required. As a practical matter, more is likely to be used in a working weapon. While the simplest design, the gun method is highly inefficient and not thought to be practical for plutonium weapons as plutonium’s higher neutron emission rate means that plutonium criticality begins long before the masses meet. Uranium has similar issues that must be overcome with sufficient uranium projectile speed.

The amount of material required for a weapon can be reduced by shifting to an implosion type weapon. In this case, rather than using two sub-critical masses, a single sub-critical mass is squeezed together until it becomes super-critical. High explosive is typically used, and the weaponization process is therefore complicated by the design and precision milling of high explosive around a fissile core with sufficiently symmetric detonation to squeeze the core evenly into a small mass. Timing of multiple detonators in the high explosive around a fissile core is the key engineering challenge for these weapons, but as little as 15 kg of high enriched uranium or 6 kg of plutonium is theoretically sufficient to enable a crude implosion weapon. Again, practical weapons will be likely to require more.

Efficiency of the reaction is a major factor in yield, and inversely proportional to weaponization development time. Crude weapons are not likely to be efficient, and at the low end one might assume 10 kiloton yields for smaller weapons.

Bear in mind, however, that one does not have to create an actual fission weapon to cause quite a bit of trouble. Even conventional explosives, when used to spread highly enriched material, have the potential to render wide swaths of land uninhabitable for long periods. In this context, adding the “weaponization development” time required to design and test a working fission bomb might be a bit of wishful thinking.

Picking Targets.

The centrifuges required to produce weapons grade uranium are a particularly vulnerable part of the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly while operating, as it takes very little in the way of physical trauma to destroy one. In addition, given their precision manufacture and the difficulty in replacing them, they are at least partially vulnerable to bottleneck and control via sanctions or embargo. Additionally, it is highly complex to spread individual centrifuges out, meaning they are usually operated in banks of over 1,000 and “cascaded” into one another to produce more and more enriched product. This presents a tempting, concentrated target.

Clearly, the Iranians recognize the alluring nature of the Natanz facility, given the lengths they have gone to in order to protect it. The enrichment facilities were initially built 25 feet underground with 75 feet of dirt above concrete ceilings and walls in 2003. Reportedly the facility was further hardened in 2006. AAA sites now ring the area making “spot the Iranian air defenses” good sport with Google Earth.2

So we’ll take 600,000 some square feet of concrete building…
and it’s gone. (Iran’s Natanz facility 2003-2004) Golf course planned in 2012!

There Goes The Neighborhood!
Air Defense Sites (probably a combination of Skyguard radar controlled
35mm and 23mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery) sprout up SE of Natanz between 2006 and 2009.

Valuable Iranian Real Estate Near Natanz
The Evolution of an Anti Air Site (probably radar controlled 35mm) 2005-2009

35mm AAA Near Natanz3

Both Arak and Esfahan are above ground, and therefore vulnerable facilities. But even in the case of the Natanz facility, the 5,000 GBU-28 penetrating munition is likely enough to deal with even the thick earth/concrete defenses. The issue is one of size. At over 646,000 square feet of underground facility more than 20 would be required. Of course, any significant losses among the strike aircraft would limit the damage.

The Limits of Iranian Air Defense?

Amusingly, Iran is rumored to have acquired 10 Pantsyr S-1E systems from Syria in 2007. These mobile, tracked units are generally thought to be effective for critical facility protection and can be deployed in linked networks. This is comic given what appears to be the total ineffectiveness these systems demonstrated against the Israeli attack on Syrian facilities in September of 2007. Presently, the rumor is that the Israeli’s used sophisticated jamming and/or cyber attacks on the advanced Russian weapons to blind them completely during the raid.4 It is not clear that Pantsyr systems were the only anti-air to be defending the Syrian site either. The Pantsyr is the next generation of the SA-19 system and many anti-air systems use radar and fire control units similar to the Pantsyr’s 1RS2-1E and 2RL80E units. Potentially vulnerable also are the Russian Tor-M1 systems, of which Iran has liberally partaken.

Traditionally, the “Southern Route” for an Israeli attack (across the southern end of Jordan, into Saudi Arabia and then Iraq or Kuwait through to Iran) was discounted given the political ramifications of overflying Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Despite this, if the Israelis are determined to conduct the attack unilaterally, and rumors of Saudi permission for an overflight5 6 prove true (the Saudis denied this in 2009 and 2010)7 8 the only operational constraints would be the possibility of American fighter aircraft (which are the only armed aircraft flying over Iraq at present) and air defense units firing on Israeli strike groups, or Jordan picking off the plans during their short transit. It is difficult to imagine American units firing on Israeli planes (especially since any Saudi agreement was almost certainly mediated by the U.S. State Department), making this route a potential “beg forgiveness instead of ask permission” approach.

Assuming the use of Israeli F-15E aircraft for GBU-28 delivery an attack on Natanz, Esfahan and Arak would require about 30 ground attack aircraft (a mix of F-15Es and F-16Is) and 40 anti-air defense and anti-air fighters (probably F-16Cs). This works out to basically all of Israel’s F-15E craft and a good slice of the F-16s on hand, but it is far from impossible.

Obviously, assistance from the United States would reduce the mission load, and increase the margin for error. But will it be forthcoming?

1. Abdullah Toukan, “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities,” Center for Strategic and International Studies (March 16, 2009).
2. “The Bluffer’s Guide: Fortress Iran” by “Planeman” is essential reading (and viewing) for the amateur air-defense analyst.
3. Source: Planeman
4. “Israel Shows Electronic Prowess,” Aviation Week (November 27, 2007).
5. “Saudis give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran,” The Sunday Times (July 5, 2009).
6. “Saudi Arabia Gives Israel Clear Skies To Attack Iranian Nuclear Sites,” The Sunday Times (June 12, 2010).
7. “Riyadh Denies Israel Overflight Report,” Foreign Policy (July 7, 2009).
8. “Saudis Deny Report They Will Allow Israeli Planes Over Country,” Israel National News (June 13, 2010).

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Don't Tread On Me Right Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

Developing a Wealth of Natural Gas

2010-07-01T20:09:00.000-07:00

Thursday, July 1st, 2010
source: www.energyandcapital.com

An unlikely showdown occurred yesterday.

Understandably, I'm not usually one to have a row with one of my readers; but when their hard-earned money is on the line, nothing is out of bounds for me. The problem was that this poor soul was a hopeless romantic. For hours, he ranted and raved about wind energy.

First it was the great revitalization that would happen in rural economies... Then he dazzled his own mind with the thought free fuel, stabilizing electricity prices, creating jobs. wind farm 7-1His lecture went even further, explaining how wind was the perfect source of energy. From a cleaner environmental footprint... the lack of mining and transportation like the “filthy” oil sands... and finally, how we'll be preserving countless acres of land.

Believe me, he went on and on like the Energizer Bunny. And on and on... You get the drift.
In fact he was so focused on the development of wind energy; he even made a point to say how profitable wind stocks were.

That part I had to concede. My colleague Nick Hodge has been making a killing on wind stocks for years. He mused how easily his readers just banked 26% from one wind company.

When I pressed him on it later, he went on to tell me about three wind stocks that could double by the end of the year.

So it was an open-and-shut case, right?

Sadly, no.

Like I said, this guy was a dreamer...

Reality blowing in the wind

It's not that I don't like the idea behind wind energy.

On paper, it sounds great.

For example, when the gentleman excitedly told me that wind energy was growing at a tremendous rate, I knew he had lost perspective on his investment.

This would certainly explain the generous profits to be made in the wind stocks, he (and many wind investors) failed to take into account a very important factor.

I want you to look at something. Below, I've let the EIA break down our total energy consumption by source:

(Click to Enlarge)

Obviously, oil's grip over our energy picture is stronger than ever. Also notice that our consumption of wind energy jumped 196% during that time — more than any other source of energy.

The reality, however, is that wind makes up a dismal amount of the overall picture.

In 2007, wind made up just 5% of U.S. renewable energy consumption. And like it or not, all of our renewable energy sources combined amounted for a mere 7% of overall consumption. You can see that break down from the EIA right here.

Fifty or sixty years down the road, you might have me convinced. But by then, we will have already transitioned away from oil with another energy resource.

And I'll tell you right now that it's just as clean as wind — and more profitable.

Natural Gas Stocks: The 2010 Comeback

One thing that will put aside the development of wind energy is natural gas.

And in the U.S., there's no better opportunity to take advantage than right now.

It makes perfect sense, too.

For starters, we have the supply. This should be overwhelmingly evident.

After the first shale gas explosion (no, not in the BP sense of the word), we began to realize how abundant our resources were. Soon after the success in the Barnett shale, several other massive shale formations were tapped.

Earlier this year, I explained why these U.S. shale basins will be a game-changer. At the time, I only used four as an example. As you know, there are several other extremely profitable plays in both the U.S. and Canada.

Also, we have the infrastructure in place. The network of pipelines across the U.S. has kept the natural flowing.

And right now it's incredibly cheap.

When energy demand collapsed along with the housing market, oil and gas prices took a beating. Crude oil collapsed to $33 per barrel in December 2008; natural gas tumbled below $3 per Mcf.

But when oil prices rallied in 2009, natural gas prices remained stagnant — mostly due to the oversupply.

In the last year, natural gas prices have remained cheap:

Now here's the kicker...

Natural gas isn't going to stay this low forever, especially when demand is finally picking back up.

Furthermore, when the U.S. finally makes the transition away from oil, we will be forced to account for even more demand — and you can count on peak oil to facilitate that change.

When I first started investing in natural gas stocks, there was one mantra that quickly adopted: Always buy during the summer months and sell during the winter months. Seasonally, that's when natural gas is at its peak.

And if you haven't noticed it yet, our future in natural gas hinges on developing these shale plays.

One area in particular has a head start.

This free report lays it all out for you — including three plays that stand to double on a natural gas recovery.

Until next time,

Keith Kohl
Editor, Energy and Capital

Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry reveals paintings' hidden secrets

2010-07-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 30 June 2010

The hidden secrets of a number of famous paintings are being explored using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Scientists at the National Gallery received funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to apply GC-MS analysis to paintings in their collection.

Director of science Ashok Roy says: "Only tiny quantities of material are available for analysis as samples, plus the organic content can be very complex." In addition to this, the degradation of the materials used over time means that the results obtained "have to be translated into assessments of the original chemical composition".

As well as allowing the original colour balance of old paintings to be determined, GC-MS can be useful in authenticating disputed works.

The Virgin and Child with an Angel, for example, was originally dated at 1490 and attributed to the Bologna-born artist Francesco Francia.

However, later tests found it was painted in the 19th century; doubts were created when a duplicate appeared on the open market.ADNFCR-3194-ID-19866637-ADNFCR
source: www.chromatographytoday.com

Agilent to provide gas chromatography-mass spectrometry solutions for World Cup

2010-07-01T20:01:00.000-07:00

Drug detection at the 2010 South Africa FIFA World Cup is to be carried out in part using Agilent Technologies' gas chromatography-mass spectrometry solutions.

Earlier in the week, AB SCIEX revealed that its liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry systems had been selected by the South African Doping Control Laboratory.
Now gas chromatography-mass spectrometry equipment from Agilent has been added to the arsenal of devices used to prevent substance-based cheating in the tournament.

Mike McMullen, president of Agilent's Chemical Analysis Group, says: "We are honoured that the South African Doping Control Laboratory selected Agilent to help ensure a level playing field and fair competition at the 2010 World Cup."

The deal sees Agilent's 7000 Series Triple Quadrupole GC/MS system adopted, along with five gas chromatography-mass selective detectors.

South African Doping Control Laboratory director Dr Pieter J van der Merwe adds that the Agilent 7000 Series raises specificity and sensitivity levels of detection, taking doping tests to a higher standard.ADNFCR-3194-ID-19827505-ADNFCR
source: www.chromatographytoday.com

Greenpeace considers protesting uranium shipments

2010-06-24T06:04:00.000-07:00

source: www.3news.co.nz
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 - By Patrick Gower

Ships carrying nuclear material have long been the targets of protest and now the secret is out that ships carrying uranium are coming in and out of New Zealand.

Greenpeace will not rule out taking its anti-nuclear battle to the seas again.

“We'll take it up against the government, but in terms of any action, we don't usually give people a heads-up on that beforehand," says Bunny McDiarmid from Greenpeace.

Finding a vessel to take action against will be no problem, with shipments of the uranium ballooning from one a year in the past to one a week this year.

“I think one shipment is too many,” says Ms McDiarmid.

The shipments also came through New Zealand ports under Labour even though their former leader David Lange made uranium a dirty word.

So we asked Labour leader Phil Goff what would Mr Lange think of this?

“I don't think David Lange would have had a concern about that. He was not against other countries using nuclear energy as a form of electricity generation,” says Mr Goff.

But Mr Lange would never have known, the shipments were kept quiet even from the government and gave Prime Minister John Key a shock.

“Well when I first became Prime Minister, I was surprised to hear they were taking place. I didn't think that was going to be the case,” says Mr Key.

Opponents are most concerned about the uranium being used in weaponry. Key has the answer to that - trust the Australians.

“It can’t be used for ulterior motives, because the Australians under their law don't allow it,” says Mr Key.

So uranium is still a dirty word to some but you can sense a more relaxed political attitude in the air.

It's okay to transport the raw material, but the finished product must stay banned.

Gulf well uncapped again

2010-06-24T06:00:00.000-07:00

source: www.dvb.no

The gulf well is an uncapped geyser again after an accident forced officials Wednesday to remove the containment device that had been effectively capturing much of the gushing oil for weeks.

Separately, the response to the spill took a tragic turn when two people associated with the clean-up died in unrelated incidents, one a swimming pool accident and the other involving a person enlisted in the effort to skim oil, Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen announced. He had no further information about the two deaths, which he learned about just before his noon EDT briefing.

Allen said the accident involving the containment operation was also under investigation, but he outlined the early theory of what happened. At 9:45 a.m. EDT engineers aboard the drillship Discoverer Enterprise noticed gas rising through a water line that had been pumping hot water down to the sea floor to prevent methane hydrates from clogging the cap.

The appearance of gas created a hazardous situation on the ship, which has been rigidly connected to the well via a riser pipe and the containment cap. Engineers disengaged the cap and the riser. Scrutiny of the cap indicated that a vent had been inadvertently closed, possibly bumped by one of the many remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs, that conduct the subsea operations, Allen said.

Officials are studying the cap to see if it is now clogged with methane hydrates. They hope to be able to recap the well, though Allen did not give any timetable for that. The cap had managed to capture 16,668 barrels (700,056 gallons) of oil Tuesday; another 10,429 barrels (438,018 gallons) were flared through a separate containment operation using a line that leads to a different vessel, the Q4000.

The total amount captured set a new record for the containment operation, but the Wednesday morning setback puts the future of the strategy in doubt.

Complicating matters is that hurricane season is kicking into full gear. Allen said up to a week of preparation would be necessary to disengage vessels in advance of a tropical storm. A tropical wave in the Caribbean is moving to the west, slowly, and has a 30 percent chance of becoming a tropical cyclone in the next 48 hours, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The flaring operation continues, but the live video feed from the gulf shows a scene not witnessed for weeks -- a plume of oil and gas surging from the sheared-off pipe atop the well's blowout preventer. The overall flow has been estimated by the government at 35,000 to 60,000 barrels (1.47 million to 2.52 million gallons) a day.

This was not the first accident involving the ROVs, which are operated by technicians on surface ships. Weeks ago, an ROV bumped a pipe that was being used to siphon oil from the collapsed riser pipe and temporarily shut down that containment operation.

"I think the fact that we've had two bumps that have had consequences associated with them in the 60 plus days we've been doing the response, it's a pretty good record," Allen said.

Calibration gas generator

2010-06-24T05:49:00.000-07:00

source: www.rdmag.com
Thursday, June 24, 2010

VICI Metronics’ Dynacalibrator Model 150 is a constant temperature system designed to generate precise ppm or ppb concentrations of chemical compounds in a gas stream, using permeation devices as the trace gas source. It is used as a reference for the calibration of gas chromatography instruments and in other instruments that measure gas concentrations.

This unit is a light weight, compact calibrator capable of delivering the precise concentrations required. A passivated Inertium coated stainless steel permeation chamber houses the permeation device(s), with measured inert carrier gas sweeping the calibration gas/vapor from the chamber. The digital temperature controller maintains the chamber temperature at a set point with an accuracy of ±0.01°C, traceable to NIST standards. The wide range of temperature settings (5°C above ambient to 110°C) means the end user can generate a wide range of volumetric concentrations for both low and high vapor pressure chemical compounds, establishing or changing the desired volumetric concentration by simply varying the carrier flow. Reduced flow path volume permits low concentration generation of mercury, water and other difficult to work with materials.

Multicomponent mixtures can be generated with a Dynacalibrator and the appropriate combination of permeation devices. This technique also allows the removal of a single component from a gas mixture by simply removing the appropriate permeation device. Users have a choice of plumbing and flow configurations. This unit also permits remote control via RS 232 cable.

Product Focus: GC Systems

2010-06-24T05:45:00.000-07:00

source: www.labmanager.com
By: Angelo DePalma

Gas chromatography (GC) has long been the backbone of organic chemical analysis. Most labs involved in organic synthesis or the quantitation of nonpolar organics from food, pharmaceutical, environmental, or forensics samples employ GC as their primary analyzer.

GC was at one time commonly called “GLC,” where the “L” stands for liquid. Inside GC columns are particles of a ceramic or inert material coated with an extremely viscous liquid stationary phase that interacts with the analyte. By contrast, HPLC stationary phases are bonded to the base material. New GCs are sold with software that integrates peaks, stores methods, assists in report writing, and controls instrument functions.

GC detectors have been evolving rapidly to provide greater sensitivity. Flame ionization detectors (FIDs) have been the most widely used, as they detect any molecule containing carbon. FIDs work by burning the sample in a hydrogen flame, ionizing the combustion products, and measuring the resulting current. Numerous other detector types have been introduced over the years, but the most interesting is the mass detector, which is essentially a miniaturized mass spectrometer. Mass detectors provide unequivocal identification of peaks emerging from the chromatograph based on the molecules’ molecular weights and fragmentation patterns.

High-throughput analysis was once associated with commercial labs, but today even academic groups value productivity, says Jim Edwards, business development manager at Thermo Fisher Scientific (Austin, TX). Vendors have done their best to supply instruments that perform faster separations, but this has in turn introduced a detection bottleneck. “Vendors who place a premium on accelerating chromatography should similarly speed up detection to acquire data at a speed appropriate to good precision and performance.” Thermo Scientific accomplishes this by using narrowerbore columns, for example 0.25 mm or 0.18 mm internal diameter, and better managing the sample injection size and thereby the quantity of injected analyte. Less easily achieved is the design of instruments that do not suffer from “fatigue effects,” that is, show signs of slowing down or requiring maintenance after one or two thousand cycles. Maintenance downtime, Edwards observes, is a productivity killer that easily negates the benefits of more rapid analysis or cycling.

Vendors have put a lot of effort over the last decade into GC column technology, particularly to prevent liquid stationary phases from bleeding off the column. Column bleed degrades separation capability and adds to the chemical “noise” detected as both drifting baseline and ghost peaks.

Column developers have introduced more cross-linking into the stationary phase, connecting it more intimately with coated particles and the column itself (similar to HPLC column materials). “Every vendor, across the board, has focused efforts on columns with very low bleed,” Edwards says, “in addition to more unique and proprietary coatings to provide a broad array of separations.”

Removing the bottlenecks

As with HPLC, GC systems have become faster and more selective, to the point where analysts now look to dead times during analytical runs to eliminate inefficiencies. Alessandro Baldi, business manager for chromatography software at PerkinElmer (Waltham, MA), cautions that this is best achieved by avoiding changes that will disrupt workflows or force analysts to alter established methods.

Oven equilibration is one obvious bottleneck. PerkinElmer tackled equilibration by designing an oven with very low mass that is cooled down rapidly and uniformly by fast-moving, nonrecirculated air. It is also possible to achieve efficiencies in heating.

Next the company went after autosampling by implementing lookahead functions. “It takes time to inject, clean the needle, and load and unload the sample,” Baldi says. In an optimal configuration, the autosampler engages not at the precise moment it is needed, but when the oven is almost at the right temperature. “With these two ideas one can minimize, as much as possible, oven equilibration and dead time.”

A third approach is to integrate the GC with sample prep devices in ways that provide greater flexibility and less of a hardwired configuration. PerkinElmer has its own systems for head space analysis and desorption but has recently collaborated with Tekmar (Mason, OH) on purge-and-trap sample concentration and with CTC (Zwingen, Switzerland) on solidphase microextraction. “The goal,” Baldi tells Lab Manager Magazine, is to minimize sample preparation.

Huge reductions in per-injection cycle times may be achieved through the use of flow-splitting techniques that divert eluent to multiple columns or post column to one of several detectors. Agilent, Shimadzu, and PerkinElmer have all introduced their own products in this area. Splitting allows analysts to switch columns or detectors on the fly without having to turn off the instrument, allow components to cool down, and swap them out. In essence, splitting creates “multiple” chromatographs from one instrument.

Angelo DePalma holds a Ph.D. in organic chemistry and has worked in the pharmaceutical industry. You can reach him at angelo@ adepalma.com.

GC Systems: Are you using a gas chromatography system in your lab? Are you considering purchasing a gas chromatography system soon? Lab Manager Magazine’s online surveys help improve the purchasing process and provide you with greater confidence in your final purchasing decision. To take the survey, please visit www.labmanager.com/surveys/gcsystems.

ABI reveals positive data from Ketone test

2010-06-24T05:41:00.000-07:00

source: uk.ibtimes.com

Akers Biosciences has revealed highly positive data following completion of clinical development of the Breath Ketone 'Check' test.ABI designed the Breath Ketone 'Check' as significantly improved, replacement for existing blood and urine based testing methods due to its ability to identify the presence of ketones non-invasively at the earliest stages in a test subject's breath condensate.

The product's accuracy was demonstrated during clinical trials in which Breath Ketone 'Check' results were compared to a standard laboratory method called gas chromatography/liquid chromatography (GC/LC).

This is a technique that analyses a patient's whole blood sample to obtain a quantitative ketone reading.

There was 100% agreement between the testing methodologies from each sample.

President and chief executive Thomas Nicolette said: "The results of this test are the most encouraging and concrete evidence to date that support our belief that ABI's Breath Ketone 'Check' will have a significant improvement in the quality of life for over 220 million diabetic patients around the world at risk of developing ketoacidosis.

"There is an extensive existing market for testing for this condition using cumbersome and invasive methods for which we have shown to be at least as accurate, and within minutes."

The company has applied for a CE-mark to facilitate the initial launch of Breath Ketone 'Check' in the European Union, expected later this year.

Story provided by StockMarketWire.com

First Uranium granted water use licence for MWS

2010-06-21T05:36:00.000-07:00

21st June 2010
By: Loni Prinsloo
source: www.miningweekly.com

JOHANNESBURG (miningweekly.com) - South Africa's Water Affairs Department has granted First Uranium a new order water use licence for its Mine Waste Solutions (MWS) operation, the TSX- and JSE-listed company announced on Monday.

"This effectively gives the green light to accelerate the expansion programme of this profitable operation," said newly appointed CEO Deon van der Mescht.

A key environmental authorisation (EA) for the new tailings storage facility at MWS, which the North West Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development withdrew in January, had also been reinstated, and it had concluded a C$150-million recapitalisation programme.

First Uranium's share price jumped by 19% on the JSE to R9,53 a share on Monday, despite reporting a financial loss.

First Uranium posted a $92-million loss in the financial year ended March 31, 2010, compared with a $16-million loss in the 2009 financial year.

The gold and uranium miner said that its fourth quarter loss widened to $26-million in the March quarter, compared with a loss of $10,7-million in the fourth quarter of the 2009 year.

The company said that the financial crisis during the reporting period was precipitated by the unexpected withdrawal of the EA for the new tailings storage facility at the MWS project at Buffelsfontein.

Van der Mescht commented that while the quarter got off to a disappointing start, the company was satisfied that the initial problems had largely been resolved thanks to the recapitalisation programme and the fact that two key permits for MWS were reinstated and granted.

Although the withdrawal of the EA had a negative impact on gold production at MWS, the company said that gold recoveries continued to improve through the year, allowing the operation to return in excess of 100% cash operating margins.

During the 2010 financial year, 62 019 oz of gold were sold from MWS.

Van der Mescht said that the company had decided to continue using two gold plant modules with two-stream deposition at the MWS project, albeit at reduced throughput of 975 000 t/m until the end May 2011.

Under the two-stream deposition plan, the previously communicated one-stream production run rate would increase by 56% from about 11 500 oz/m to about 18 000 oz/m. Van der Mescht said that this should contribute significantly towards mitigating corporate peak funding risk.

On the expected completion of a third gold plant module and tailings storage facility by May 2011, MWS would start with the technical completion tests, which must be satisfied prior to September 1, 2011, to avoid paying any further penalties.

Subsequent to the completion test, MWS would commission the first two modules of the uranium plant.

However, Van der Mescht pointed out that future expansion and production activities would be subject to capital availability.

He also reported that the Department of Mineral Resources had registered the transfer of the new order mining right for the Ezulwini mine from Simmer & Jack Mines to the Ezulwini Mining Company.

Post the recapitalisation, the Ezulwini mine continued to ramp up production.

During the company's 2010 financial year, 26 965 oz of gold were sold from the Ezulwini mine and its first shipment of 22 500 pounds of uranium was sold in fourth quarter of 2010.

"To ensure that the build-up and production ramp-up is realistic and achievable at the mine, we are currently reviewing a detailed ‘bottom-up' production plan, expected to be completed by the end of June," explained Van der Mescht.

In addition to initiatives at the company's operations, First Uranium had also initiated a cost-cutting exercise across the corporation. Van der Mescht said that the key focus would be to reduce corporate and noncore costs to ensure that First Uranium's overall cost base could be reduced to enhance operational margins.

"This exercise was also intended to create flexibility with respect to cash flow and ensure that the company was able to execute on its future plans.

"Now that different uncertainties have been addressed, we will be able to focus on near-term production goals, with careful control of the costs," concluded Van der Mescht.

Moves to stop uranium shipment

2010-06-21T05:23:00.000-07:00

June 21, 2010
source: www.heraldsun.com.au

NEW Zealand politicians say they are looking for ways to update anti-nuclear legislation in a bid to block uranium shipments from South Australia passing through New Zealand ports.

The U308 uranium ore, known as yellowcake, should not be passing through New Zealand's nuclear-free seas, let alone coming into port, Green Party oceans spokesman Gareth Hughes said.

"I am deeply concerned with the decision to routinely ship uranium ore concentrate through New Zealand ports en route to the United States," he said.
Trans-shipment of nuclear ore appeared to contravene the principles of the Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987, which bans nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ships from New Zealand waters.

"The Green Party is investigating legislation to update the Act so that the principles are upheld with a ban on uranium shipping through New Zealand," Hughes said.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) last month year approved shipping of the concentrate ore mineral through the ports of Auckland, Nelson, Napier and Tauranga en route to France, via Colombia.

It is being shipped by BHP Billiton, which owns the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia.

ERMA can decline such trans-shipments if it believes the hazardous substance cannot be adequately contained, but said the shipment of containers loaded with 48 steel drums of 98-99 per cent pure U308 could be cleaned up if it spilled.

"The radioactive properties of uranium ore concentrate make it both easy to detect and therefore to clean up," ERMA said.

The containers will have to remain on the ship, sealed and below decks while in transit, with each port required to have a contingency plan to deal with emergencies.

But Mr Hughes said the shipments undermined New Zealand's "proud nuclear-free history and the blood sweat and tears of activists in the 1980s who fought to entrench our nuclear-free status".

ERMA earlier this year approved an application by Energy Resources of Australia to also routinely ship similar uranium ore concentrate from Adelaide on Hapag Lloyd or Hamburg Sud ships through the ports of Nelson, Napier and Tauranga en route to Philadelphia.

22 people fall ill as chlorine gas leaks

2010-06-21T05:03:00.000-07:00

source: www.hindustantimes.com

At least 22 people, including women and children, fell sick Monday after chlorine gas leaked from a tank in Orissa's Berhampur town, an official said.

"The tank was kept in the premises of the public health department office to purify water. How it leaked out is yet to be ascertained," Berhampur Superintendent of Police Safeen Ahmed told IANS.

The victims were admitted to a hospital after they complained of chest pain and difficulty in breathing.

All the affected people are out of danger, the official added. Berhampur is about 180 km from here.

Schools, and private and government offices in the nearby areas were immediately ordered closed.

"Efforts are on to contain the leakage," he said.

New Mexico uranium enrichment plant gets NRC green light for start-up

2010-06-17T03:11:00.000-07:00

The first commercial enrichment plant built in the U.S. can begin commercial operations

Anyone who thinks there isn’t going to be a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. needs to take a look at the multi-billion bet placed by Urenco at the Louisiana Energy Services plant in Eunice, NM.

The NRC said in a statement it completed the readiness review of the Louisiana Energy in Lea County, N.M., and concluded that the facility can begin operation of the first cascade under its NRC license. A cascade is a series of rotating cylinders using centrifugal force to separate uranium isotopes.

LES CEO Gregory Smith told AP NRC’s approval is a “turning point” for the nation’s nuclear industry. The plant has contracts with Duke, Exelon, Dominion, and Progress Energy, among others, to make fuel for their reactors.

According to a report in Fuel Cycle Week for June 3, NM Governor Bill Richardson said at a ribbon cutting ceremony, "Urenco always kept their word on what they were going to do and what their timelines were."

Demand for nuclear fuel project to increase

At the full operational capacity the $2 billion plant will produce about 3 million SWU of enriched uranium a year or about 25% of current demand in the U.S. market. Demand for enriched uranium is likely to increase over the next decade which is why Urenco amended the NRC license to be able to produce up to 6 million SWU.

There are 104 operating nuclear reactors in the U.S. The NRC currently has 13 license applications pending for new reactors. According to the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard for June 2010,

Nine utilities have ordered large, long-lead nuclear component forgings from three reactor vendors.
Four Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Contracts signed (Vogtle, V.C. Summer, STP, and Shearon Harris).
TVA resumed construction of Watts Bar 2; construction permits reinstated for Bellefonte 1 & 2.

Additionally, in 2013 the current Megatons-to-Megawatts program that blends down Russian HEU will come to an end. The program, managed by USEC, currently provides up to half the nuclear fuel used by U.S. reactors.

License information

The LES URENCO USA Facility was granted an NRC license in June 2006, and the company began constructing the site’s buildings, centrifuges and security structures. The license allows LES to enrich uranium up to 5% U-235 for use in the manufacture of nuclear fuel for commercial power plants.

The NRC said the readiness review takes into account safety systems, training, operating procedures, security and other aspects of facility operation.

“Our inspectors have examined not only the construction and testing of systems, but the additional factors, including training and procedures,” said NRC Region II Administrator Luis Reyes. “Even after the first centrifuge is started, we will continue to inspect the operation to ensure the protection of people and the environment in the area.”

As a result of the green light from the NRC, the plant will begin accepting operational delivery of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) feed stock.

LES is a subsidiary of URENCO, a company that has been using centrifuge technology in Europe for more than 30 years. The Urenco USA facility (formerly the National Enrichment Facility) is the first to use Urenco's European centrifuge technology in the US. The same types of centrifuges are expected to be used in Areva’s Eagle Rock Facility.

Other U.S. uranium enrichment plants

There are three other uranium enrichment plants under development in the U.S. They are Areva’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Plant near Idaho Falls, ID; USEC’s American Centrifuge Facility near Piketon, OH; and GE-Hiachi’s Laser Enrichment project at Wilmington, NC.

Areva’s plant recently received a $2 billion loan guarantee from the federal government. USEC said in May it will re-submit its application for a loan guarantee later this year. Neither Urenco nor GE-Hitachi have applied for loan guarantees.

Idaho Samizdat is a blog about the political and economic aspects of nuclear energy and nonproliferation issues. It covers the nuclear energy industry globally. Additionally, the blog has regional coverage on uranium mining in the western U.S. and Canada Link to original post
source: theenergycollective.com

Secret Laser Technology Enriches Uranium on the Down-Low ‎

2010-06-17T03:07:00.000-07:00

SILEX, a secret laser technology being developed by GE and Hitachi, will make the process of enriching uranium for nuclear reactors far more efficient and cost-effective.

That’s great news for nuke power-planters like Homer J. Simspon, but SILEX technology has a huge downside that could make it easier for bad guys to build the bomb.

enriching uranium takes enormous amounts of space and energy, but with SILEX, the procedure becomes relatively quick and painless.

No longer will it take football field-sized facilities and grid-sucking power requirements to produce enriched uranium. Just about anyone with SILEX technology could put together an enrichment operation in a plain, unassuming warehouse, far away from the prying eyes of U.N. inspectors.

While the details of SILEX are under lock and key, well-reasoned worrywarts fear its commercial technology could get boosted by rogue scientists.

During the 1970s, A.Q. Khan, donned a lab coat for a European nuke company, stole blueprints for a gas centrifuge uranium-enrichment setup, and sold the plans to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. Khan became the poster boy for proliferation, and largely the reason why guys like Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can enrich uranium today.

It stands to reason that nuclear secrets should be the sort that are best-kept, but classified nuke technology’s been spilled more times than a rumor at recess.

“The history of keeping dangerous nuclear technology secret is pretty poor,” says Henry Sokolski, exec director of the Nonproliferation Education Center, a D.C. think tank. “An early enrichment approach called 'gaseous diffusion' technology got out and, after that, so did centrifuge technology. The question is: How would we handle this when SILEX gets out?"

For years, laser-enriched uranium has been the wily white whale for nations seeking more efficient nuclear technology. If SILEX proves successful, it could launch efforts around the globe to develop more laser-enrichers and bring them to market, which would only increase the threat of proliferation.

Keeping centrifuge enrichers in check has been hard enough for U.N. inspectors; Iran dodged the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for most of the past decade while shoring up its nuke capability. The spread of SILEX technology would make tracking and curtailing illegal enrichment next to impossible.

Yet the forward push of progress, especially where commercial interests are concerned, will eventually produce a laser capable of enriching uranium more efficiently and more cheaply than technology in use today.

Once that happens, the world’s most dangerous regimes could develop the world’s most dangerous weapon, and do so on the down-low.
source: www.takepart.com

Drilling Contractor Relies On MTU Electric Drilling Package For High Power In Harsh Conditions

2010-06-17T03:04:00.000-07:00

June 17, 2010

A Texas driller is counting on top-notch horsepower and reliability from MTU's new Electric Drilling Package, which combines multiple engines and generators to power rigs digging ultra-deep wells in harsh conditions. Besides packing plenty of power, the drilling package offers easier maintenance and better fuel economy than other products in its class.

Bellaire, TX (Vocus/PRWEB) -- Big E Drilling, a land-based drilling contractor headquartered in suburban Houston, goes to work for its customers the way company president Lyle Eastham played offensive line for Texas A&M: rugged, reliable, smart. Operating in remote locations from south Texas to southern Arkansas, Big E's rigs must withstand harsh conditions and tremendous stresses while running dependably at high power levels almost nonstop.

Today's oil and gas drilling rigs have to drill deeper and faster than ever before to meet the demands of their customers – some of the world's most well-known energy companies. In addition, drilling operators use unconventional drilling techniques such as horizontal drilling to access less permeable geologic structures such as oil- and gas-bearing shale.

So when it was time for Big E to add Rig #5 to the lineup to meet growing demand for its drilling services, Eastham chose an all-in-one electric drilling package featuring three MTU Series 4000 G73 generator sets, agreeing to a nine-month test period of the new rig.

Big E tries a new power option

"The stresses on these diesel engines and drills are extreme," said Eastham. "They need to be able to withstand extreme operating temperatures and run dependably at high power virtually nonstop. It's also extremely critical for the engine to perform consistently, because when you're fifteen or twenty thousand feet into a horizontal or vertical well, that could be a ten-million-dollar well you're drilling. If the engines break down and we can't come out of the hole and if our standby engine doesn't perform, there's a lot of money at stake for the oil company, and our reputation is on the line."

Rig #5 engines compliant with Tier 2

Today, the majority of the new oil and gas drilling rigs are AC/DC electric rigs with SCR controls. These rigs use multiple diesel-electric generating sets running in parallel to produce the two to four megawatts of power needed at the drilling site, including the power needed for camp loads such as lighting, heating and air conditioning for crew quarters. Power is generated as alternating current (AC) and then converted to direct current (DC) by a unit called an SCR (so called for the banks of silicon-controlled rectifier semi-conductors that it contains). The SCR unit allows precise control of the flow of power to any of the rig's DC motor loads while the generators run at a constant speed.

Rig #5 was originally equipped with three competitive engines, but they failed to meet the reliability and power-output needs of today's difficult drilling jobs. So Eastham turned to Stewart & Stevenson, the local MTU distributor that had provided service to Big E on other MTU products powering Big E's Rig #4.

The all-in-one electric drilling package on Rig #5, designed specifically for the oil and gas industry, includes three generator sets that provide drilling and backup power for the rig. It incorporates the latest version of MTU's 12V 4000 engines, each capable of generating 1,105 kW at 1,200 rpm. The engines are compliant with Tier 2 emissions standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which may give Big E an advantage when the company competes for drilling projects in certain areas.

Mounted on a steel plate frame, the three generator sets will provide drilling and backup power for Big E's oil drilling operations to depths in excess of twenty-thousand feet. The drilling package also includes control and monitoring equipment such as instrumentation that checks critical operational temperatures and pressures.

MTU Electric Drilling Package up to 10% more efficient

The engines are rated at 1,105 kW at 1,200 rpm plus a 10 percent overload capability. Generator sets with a 10 percent overload capacity beyond their nameplate rating should meet most requirements of land-based drilling rigs subjected to severe service conditions. As for speed, engines in many commercial 60 Hz generator sets operate at 1,800 rpm, but servicing companies have found that engines operating at 1,200 rpm tend to last longer in the field.

Since drilling rig generator sets operate almost continuously, the largest operational cost is fuel consumption. Fuel economy improvement of just a few percentage points can translate into significant savings in fuel costs. This is good news for Eastham, who believes the drilling package may be up to 10 percent more fuel efficient than the engines it replaced.

High-strength steel base handles extreme conditions

MTU's Electric Drilling Package also features a rugged and reliable design to handle the harsh operating environments and rough treatment that are typical in land drilling applications. The stiffness of the genset base is particularly important because any distortion of that base can affect the alignment of the coupling between the engine and alternator, resulting in severe vibration that can damage the equipment. Ordinary structural steel lacks the stiffness necessary to prevent base-frame distortion during rough handling or if the base is placed on uneven ground. Therefore, the drilling package generator sets are mounted on a base frame made of half-inch-thick A572 steel, a high-strength, low-alloy steel suitable for harsh operating conditions.

The frame is mounted to a master skid at three points, an arrangement that provides optimal stability of the engine generator. MTU designers used Finite Element Analysis to ensure that the skid frame can handle the rigors of oilfield use.

Package deal includes easier maintenance

Preventive maintenance can be difficult when drilling rigs are located in remote areas and move from one site to another. MTU took steps to lengthen preventive maintenance intervals for its electric drilling package and make the process easier when maintenance must be performed. For example:

* Twin 10-micron filters keep solid contaminants out of the fuel flow, while water is removed by a conical baffle in the fuel/water separator. A rotary valve isolates each fuel filter so the filters can be serviced while the engine is running.
* Two 21-inch dual-stage air filter elements are equipped with vacuum-actuated valves to release particulate matter from the pre-cleaner stages. Restriction indicators allow easy monitoring of the air filters.
* The generator set's lube oil system includes a centrifuge for effective pre-cleaning to reduce demands on the spin-on lube oil filters. The engine-mounted lube oil centrifuge can significantly extend lube oil change intervals, saving money on oil and filters and reducing downtime for oil changes.

Purchasing a multiple-generator-set drilling package also makes it easier to keep track of maintenance intervals because all of the generator sets consist of the same components and start operating at the same time. In the past, Big E personnel had to monitor a number of maintenance intervals for different pieces of equipment powering the same rig, Eastham says.

In addition, the drilling package comes from a single-source supplier that manufactures and tests the complete package in a factory setting, which improves product quality and speeds up repairs. By contrast, many drilling rig generator sets are assembled by integrators that use parts from a number of different manufacturers. If integrator-assembled generator sets break down, the rig operators using them can have trouble getting the necessary parts and/or service.

Driller puts power package to the test

Eastham maintains that there is no way to adequately test new power products for land-based drilling except to see how they perform on a rig in a field application. MTU and Stewart & Stevenson have allowed him to delay the purchase of the MTU Electric Drilling Package for the test period, while the package powers his new rig in action. During this test period, which began early this year, the rig will be drilling several wells in Louisiana's Haynesville Shale, site of some of the deepest horizontal drilling in North America.

Though the final results won't be in for some time, Eastham's past experience with MTU and Stewart & Stevenson leads him to believe the MTU Electric Drilling Package will pass the long and difficult test on his new rig: "That rig will be working for a very important customer, so I wouldn't have agreed to use the drilling package if I didn't have confidence in MTU products and support," he said.

Eastham's father founded Big E Drilling 30 years ago, so Eastham has known the value of customer service and getting the job done right his whole life. "The bottom line is our engines need to be able to consistently perform and to consistently put out the horsepower and load that we need to get our wells drilled and to keep our customers happy," he said.

About MTU
MTU Detroit Diesel, Inc. is the North American regional headquarters of MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH, one of the world's most important providers of diesel engines and drive and propulsion systems for ships, heavy-duty land and rail vehicles, and distributed energy. It offers a complete line of power solutions from 30 to 12,200 bhp (20 to 9,100 kW) for applications in the marine, rail, power generation, oil and gas, agriculture, mining, construction and industrial, and defense markets. MTU Detroit Diesel, Inc. is the sales and after-sales organization of the Tognum Group in North America. www.mtu-online.com

Tognum
With its two business units, Engines and Onsite Energy & Components, the Tognum Group is one of the world's leading suppliers of engines, propulsion systems and distributed energy systems. These products are based on diesel engines with up to 9,100 kilowatts (kW) power output, gas engines up to 2,150 kW, stationary fuel cells up to 345 kW and gas turbines up to 45,000 kW.

The product portfolio of the Engines business unit comprises MTU engines and propulsion systems for ships, for heavy land, rail and defense vehicles and for the oil and gas industry. The portfolio of the Onsite Energy & Components business unit includes distributed energy systems of the brand MTU Onsite Energy and fuel-injection systems from L'Orange. The energy systems comprise diesel engines for emergency standby power, prime power and continuous power, as well as cogeneration power plants based on gas engines, fuel cells and gas turbines that generate both power and heat.

In 2009, Tognum generated revenue of €2.5 billion and employs more than 8,700 people. Tognum has a global manufacturing, distribution and service structure with 25 fully consolidated companies, more than 140 sales partners and over 500 authorized dealerships at approximately 1,200 locations. The shares of Tognum AG (ISIN: DE000A0N4P43) have been stock-exchange listed since 2007 and are included in the MDAX.

SOURCE: PRWeb

View original release here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/Big-E-Drilling/MTU/prweb4145884.ht
msource: www.oilandgasonline.com