Over the past decades many new energy technologies have been demonstrated to
replace nuclear and fossil fuel power but there is a dual-use secrecy
restriction on their implementation by the US government fearful that an
enemy could use the technology or science involved for military purposes
against the US, the "dual-use" secrecy restrictions by which 4000 patents
are in a vault at the US Patent office confiscated under these regulations
detailed in FOIA reproduction of 1952 secrecy law in Jeanne Manning's book
The Coming Energy Revolution overviewing a number of these new energy
technologies and inventors, info we have submitted to DOE and California
Energy authorities without success in getting them implemented over the last
many years.

One of the key genre of this new kind of energy tech is (mislabled?) Cold
Fusion which in the public mind is debunked but not to the hundreds of
scientists worldwide getting postive results showing this genre as viable.
Many of these scientists gather every year to report on their ongoing
research even lately verified effects at the US national laboratories "in
principle".

Last year's 9th International Conference on Cold Fusion ICCF-9 was in
People's Republic of China and this year is in Cambridge Massachusetts, same
location as article below, with involvement this time of some from MIT
including leading figure in this field formerly science writer for MIT, Dr.
Eugene Mallove who says that the evidence piled up about the viability of
cold fusion technology makes this the one of many such kinds of new energy
technologies which can best reach the public generally by coverage of this
information, although there are other such technologies that may in fact be
superior or more readily implemented sooner, once the public becomes aware
of them and demands them.

See Dr. Mallove's letter to President Clinton overviewing this research, and
Clinton's thank you note, more info at website of his magazine, Infinite
Energy http://www.infinite-energy.com and if you can please get scientists
and media to come to Cambridge to this conference detailed at
http://www.iccf10.org

See relevant posts with updates to CA energy authorities with many urls for
more info included at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions

This is the pathway to stop wars over oil and the dangers of nuclear power
and adverse impact on environment of fossil fuel combustion.


---- Original Message -----
From: ASlater
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 7:33 AM
Subject: [abolition-caucus] Fwd: Nuclear Power Can Work


Dear Friends,
Some nukeheads from MIT wrote the editorial below recommending nuclear
power. I think we should have lots of scientists writing in and saying why
its wrong. Also, if Phil Smith from Inesap could show how you don't save
that much on carbon emissions from fossil fuel by going nuclear, his
analysis would really be useful. Thanks. Alice slater


August 14, 2003


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR


Nuclear Power Can Work


By JOHN DEUTCH and ERNEST MONIZ




AMBRIDGE, Mass.
The world needs both more electricity and less pollution. The goals are not
incompatible, but the solution will require better management of demand,
smarter use of coal as well as renewable energy sources, and increased use
of nuclear power.

As Congress considers an energy bill when it returns from recess, it will be
under pressure to expand or limit the use of nuclear power. The issue,
however, is not simple. More nuclear power will be necessary but more
nuclear plants will be built only if more safeguards and incentives are put
in place. The challenge is to make nuclear energy safer, cleaner and more
economical.

We built a model to compare the costs of producing electricity from new
nuclear, coal and natural gas plants. The model focuses on economic cost,
not regulated or subsidized cost. According to our study, the baseline cost
of new nuclear power is 6.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 4.2 cents
for coal and natural gas (when the price of gas is $4.50 per thousand cubic
feet). Plausible, but unproved, technology could reduce nuclear costs to
those of coal and gas.

However, if a cost is assigned to carbon emissions either through a tax or
some other way, as in a current Congressional proposal that would limit
emissions but allow companies to buy and sell the right to discharge more
pollutants nuclear power could become an attractive economic option. For
example, a $50 per ton carbon value, about the cost of capturing and
separating the carbon dioxide product of coal and natural gas combustion,
raises the cost of coal to 5.4 cents and natural gas to 4.8 cents.

Even under these favorable circumstances, the regulatory uncertainty
threatening the large-scale investment needed for a nuclear plant will
require some government assistance. A production tax credit, similar to that
extended to wind power, is a good idea. It would give private investors an
incentive to complete a plant. If no plant is built and operated, no public
money is spent. If the first plants are indeed built and operated
competitively, more will follow and the possibility of reducing greenhouse
gases increases.

Besides cost, there is the problem of nuclear waste. While it is technically
possible to dispose of spent fuel safely, the issue is actually doing it.
Successful operation of the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada
would be an important step.

But the Department of Energy's nuclear waste research and development
program should consider solutions beyond mined depositories like Yucca
Mountain. For example, burying spent fuel several kilometers deep in a dry
well, called a borehole, may offer significant cost and environmental
benefits compared to mined repositories. This and other possibilities should
be systematically explored.

Finally, there is the challenge of nonproliferation, which is complex
because of its international dimensions. There is no question that the
current nonproliferation regime needs to be strengthened. Particular
attention must be paid to enrichment technology and reprocessing.
Enrichment, which converts natural uranium into reactor fuel, can produce
uranium well beyond reactor grade, suitable for weapons. Reprocessing
separates plutonium metal, which can be used directly in weapons, from
reactor fuel. There is ample uranium available so that reprocessing can be
avoided for at least the next 50 years.

In the near term, the priority should be to require signatories to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, like Iran, to accept inspections of
suspected but undeclared nuclear facilities. For the longer term, advanced
nations that operate nuclear facilities should offer to provide fuel to
reactors in less developed nations and to remove all spent fuel.

Nuclear power can make an important contribution to meeting the world's
growing electricity needs while helping to reduce carbon emissions. But this
contribution will be realized only if the United States and other nations
focus on making today's technology work and avoid expensive advanced
technologies that involve reprocessing, which presents serious proliferation
risks.

It will be difficult, of course, to carry forward this nuclear agenda. Yet
it will also be difficult to limit greenhouse gas emissions adequately while
satisfying global energy needs for social and economic development. In both
of these endeavors, American leadership is essential.

John Deutch, professor of chemistry at M.I.T. and former director of central
intelligence, was in the Energy Department from 1977 to 1980. Ernest Moniz,
professor of physics at M.I.T., was in the Energy Department from 1997 to
2001. They directed a recent M.I.T. study on nuclear energy.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

-------end article


Laura Giannatempo
Public Relations Director
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
215 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10016
p 212-726-9161 Ext. 18
f 212-726-9160

www.factoryfarm.org
www.gracelinks.org





Alice Slater
Global Resource Action Center for the Environment (GRACE)
215 Lexington Ave., Room 1001
New York, NY 10016
tel: (212) 726-9161
fax: (212) 726-9160
email: aslater@...
http://www.gracelinks.org
GRACE is a member of Abolition 2000, a global network for the elimination of
nuclear weapons.

To subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account
you wish to be subscribed to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

--------end fwd post

*spiritual unity understanding*

Torahkoom, The Law Stands Up

David Crockett Williams 661-822-3309
Chartered Life Underwriter
Bachelor of Science, Chemistry
Silk Road Peace March Co-Coordinator
www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/vision.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tehachapi-peace-center

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-road-to-peace
August 24, 2003 - October 31, 2004
Keene, California, Japan, Korea, China, Nepal,
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jerusalem,
Europe, USA, La Paz, October 2nd Gandhi birthday

"One person can make a difference"
www.kucinich.us
Dennis Kucinich for USA President

Pardon USA Peltier
www.freeleonardpeltier.org

Spirituality is The Highest Form of Politics
www.7fires.org

For a Culture of Peace & Community
http://web.mahatma.org.in
www.cesarechavez.org
www.brianwillson.com
www.dharmawalk.org
www.sathyasai.org
www.tewari.org
www.prop1.org
www.brianoleary.com
www.peaceinspace.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/new-energy-solutions