GNU Free Documentation License

Version 1.1, March 2000

Copyright (C) 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

=== 0. PREAMBLE ===

The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others.

This License is a kind of "copyleft", which means that derivative works of the document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.

We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software, because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work, regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or reference.

=== 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS ===

This License applies to any manual or other work that contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this License. The "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you".

A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.

A "Secondary Section" is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.

The "Invariant Sections" are certain Secondary Sections whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License.

The "Cover Texts" are certain short passages of text that are listed, as Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the Document is released under this License.

A "Transparent" copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy, represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public, whose contents can be viewed and edited directly and straightforwardly with generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise Transparent file format whose markup has been designed to thwart or discourage subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. A copy that is not "Transparent" is called "Opaque".

Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML designed for human modification. Opaque formats include PostScript, PDF, proprietary formats that can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the machine-generated HTML produced by some word processors for output purposes only.

The "Title Page" means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have any title page as such, "Title Page" means the text near the most prominent appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the text.

=== 2. VERBATIM COPYING ===

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.

You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may publicly display copies.

=== 3. COPYING IN QUANTITY ===

If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more than 100, and the Document's license notice requires Cover Texts, you must enclose the copies in covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies. The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition. Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim copying in other respects.

If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.

If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible computer-network location containing a complete Transparent copy of the Document, free of added material, which the general network-using public has access to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.

It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to provide you with an updated version of the Document.

=== 4. MODIFICATIONS ===

You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:

* A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.
* B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has less than five).
* C. State on the Title page the name of the publisher of the Modified Version, as the publisher.
* D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
* E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to the other copyright notices.
* F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving the public permission to use the Modified Version under the terms of this License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
* G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.
* H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
* I. Preserve the section entitled "History", and its title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. If there is no section entitled "History" in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
* J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These may be placed in the "History" section. You may omit a network location for a work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
* K. In any section entitled "Acknowledgements" or "Dedications", preserve the section's title, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
* L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not considered part of the section titles.
* M. Delete any section entitled "Endorsements". Such a section may not be included in the Modified Version.
* N. Do not retitle any existing section as "Endorsements" or to conflict in title with any Invariant Section.

If the Modified Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that qualify as Secondary Sections and contain no material copied from the Document, you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant Sections in the Modified Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section titles.

You may add a section entitled "Endorsements", provided it contains nothing but endorsements of your Modified Version by various parties--for example, statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization as the authoritative definition of a standard.

You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover Text, and a passage of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover Text, to the end of the list of Cover Texts in the Modified Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of, you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.

The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply endorsement of any Modified Version.

=== 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS ===

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions, provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice.

The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple identical Invariant Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses, the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.

In the combination, you must combine any sections entitled "History" in the various original documents, forming one section entitled "History"; likewise combine any sections entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections entitled "Dedications". You must delete all sections entitled "Endorsements."

=== 6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS ===

You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.

You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document.

=== 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS ===

A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, does not as a whole count as a Modified Version of the Document, provided no compilation copyright is claimed for the compilation. Such a compilation is called an "aggregate", and this License does not apply to the other self-contained works thus compiled with the Document, on account of their being thus compiled, if they are not themselves derivative works of the Document.

If the Cover Text requirement of section 3 is applicable to these copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one quarter of the entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that surround only the Document within the aggregate. Otherwise they must appear on covers around the whole aggregate.

=== 8. TRANSLATION ===

Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute translations of the Document under the terms of section 4. Replacing Invariant Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include a translation of this License provided that you also include the original English version of this License. In case of a disagreement between the translation and the original English version of this License, the original English version will prevail.

=== 9. TERMINATION ===

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

=== 10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE ===

The Free Software Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.

Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.

The '''GNU Free Documentation License''' (GFDL) is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft copyleft] license for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content open content], designed by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation Free Software Foundation] (FSF) for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU GNU] project. The official text of version 1.1 of the license text can be found at [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html].

The license is designed for software documentation and other reference and instructional materials. It stipulates that any copy of the material, even if modified, carry the same license. Those copies may be sold but, if produced in quantity, have to be made available in a format which facilitates further editing.

== Secondary Sections ==

The license explicitly separates the "Document" from "Secondary Sections", which may not be integrated with the Document, but exist as front-matter materials or appendices. Secondary sections can contain information regarding the author's or publisher's relationship to the subject matter, but not any subject matter itself. While the Document itself is wholly editable, and is essentially covered by a license equivalent to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License GNU General Public License], some of the secondary sections have various restrictions designed primarily to deal with proper attribution to previous authors.

Specifically, the authors of prior versions have to be acknowledged and certain "invariant sections" specified by the original author and dealing with his or her relationship to the subject matter may not be changed. If the material is modified, its title has to be changed (unless the prior authors give permission to retain the title). The license also has provisions for the handling of front-cover and back-cover texts of books, as well as for "History", "Acknowledgements", "Dedications" and "Endorsements" sections.

== Using the GFDL ==

For a document to be covered by the GFDL, one must include a specific copyright and license notice.

== Nuclear spin and GFDL ==

All Nuclearspin articles are licensed to the public under the GNU Free Documentation License. The local copy of the license, as required by the terms of the GFDL, is at [[Text of the GNU Free Documentation License]].

==External Links==
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft] Wikipedia description of 'Copyleft'
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_content] Wikipedia description of 'Open Content'
* {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation] Wikipedia article on the 'Free Software Foundation'.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU] Wikipedia article on 'GNU' project.
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License] Wikipedia article on 'GNU General Public Licence'

==Nukes in US schools==

In the US, the nuclear industry is also engaged in a concerted campaign to ?educate? young people about the benefits of nuclear power. Several run colourful websites designed specifically for children, with online games and their own animated characters.

==American Nuclear Society==

In 2006, the [[American Nuclear Society]] ?increased the number of workshops it sponsors to teach educators about nuclear science?. During 33 workshops held in 20 states, more than 650 teachers ?interacted with nuclear professionals to explore basic concepts, new experiments, and hands-on activities to share with their students?. ANS? website adds: ?Considering that these educators teach an estimated 38,000 students each year, the long-range effect of these training sessions cannot be underestimated.? {{ref|ANS}}

These workshops are paid for by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy?s Office of Nuclear Energy and unspecified ?industry-related companies?. {{ref|ANS}}

ANS also publishes a newsletter, ReActions, which contains ?articles on nuclear technology, classroom activities and upcoming events?.

== Nuclear Energy Institute==
The [[Nuclear Energy Institute]] runs a markedly one-sided [http://www.nei.org/scienceclub/index.html Science Club] aimed at schoolchildren. It contains information, lesson plans and links to ?cool animations and neat experiments?.

The [http://www.nei.org/scienceclub/nuclearworld.html ?Nuclear World? section] includes pages on ?What Makes Nuclear Plants Safe??, ?Taking care of radioactive waste? and ?Why nuclear power plants are good for the environment?. These pages make controversial claims for nuclear energy, such as: ?Nuclear power plants are good for the environment?and good to the environment. Nuclear plants don't pollute the air. They don't produce any carbon dioxide?the major greenhouse gas?or any sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. The small amount of waste that a nuclear plant produces is carefully contained and safely stored. Radiation levels are checked 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Most nuclear plants have a nature park or wildlife sanctuary, too.?

The [http://www.nei.org/scienceclub/4yourclassproject.html 4 your class project] section explains, among other things, ?The benefits of nuclear energy? and ?Why a nuclear power plant is safe?.

==Constellation Energy==
[[Constellation Energy]], one of America?s largest utilities, supports a range of education initiatives, including:
* the [http://www.collegeboundfoundation.org CollegeBound Foundation], an organization set up by ?a group of business and community leaders? that prepares Baltimore City public high school students ?to be members of Baltimore's workforce and to contribute to the strengthening of the social and economic fabric of our city?; {{ref|college}}
* [http://www.ja.org/ Junior Achievement], an organization that ?seeks to educate and inspire young people to value free enterprise, business, and economics to improve the quality of their lives?; and {{ref|JA}}
* sponsoring Oswego State University and Victor Valley College.

==Duke Energy==
[[Duke Energy]] produces a range of six free booklets, lesson plans and tests ? all tailored to the curriculum. They aim to educate pupils about energy generation and safety. {{ref|duke}}

==Entergy==
America?s second largest nuclear operator, Entergy, offers a free ?overview of the electric power industry? on its education website. The section on nuclear energy emphasizes the environmental benefits of nuclear power. It says: ?Nuclear power produces no sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, or carbon dioxide emissions? Existing nuclear power plant performance continues to improve.? But it does note that ?High construction costs and used fuel disposal are two major challenges to building new plants?. {{ref|entergy}}

Its [http://www.entergy-nuclear.com/resource_library/kids.aspx Nuclear Education for Kids] page contains links to the [http://www.nei.org/scienceclub/index.html Nuclear Energy Institute Science Club] and the [http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids Department of Energy?s Energy Information Administration Kids' Page].

==Exelon==
Exelon runs an educational website called [http://www.ceco.electricuniverse.com/ Electric Universe], which contains lesson plans, games and suggestions for classroom activities.

It presents energy companies in a positive light, emphasizing that they are ?mindful of the sustainability of resources? and ?very conscious of the conservation and preservation methods they must practice as global citizens?. It continues: ?Electric utilities consider the consequences when working with the Earth's natural resources. They strive to work responsibly with eyes to a sustainable energy future.?

While the section on nuclear power states that ?the nuclear power facilities in this country are secure and completely safe to the environment?, it fails to mention nuclear waste or radioactivity. {{ref|exelon}}

==FPL==
Florida Power and Light has invented Captain Conservation, ?the world?s best singing, guitar playing, nature conscious, costumed superhero?, who says he is ?here to save the day?. In five free videos, available to download on FPL?s dedicated [http://www.fpl.com/community/learning/captainconservation.shtml Captain Conservation website], the superhero challenges children ?to get involved in the fight of energy conservation for a better tomorrow? and tells them how to save energy. At the end of each film he asks pupils to visit FPL?s website ?to learn more energy saving tips? and find out how ?to bring me on a mission to your school?. FPL offers ?a free energy education presentation? to schools.

On its [http://www.fplforkids.com/ FPL for kids] website, the company offers games, energy-themed colouring in activities, quizzes and safety advice.

Its [http://www.fplforkids.com/lnf_ifrm.aspx page on nuclear energy] explains the history of nuclear power, but it fails to mentions the difficulties of working with radioactive material and the waste disposal problem.

The site also contains links to the [http://www.nei.org/scienceclub/index.html Nuclear Energy Institute Science Club] and [[World Nuclear Association]]. {{ref|fpl}}

==Southern Company==
Southern Company also runs a [http://www.southerncompany.com/learningpower/home.asp?mnuOpco=soco&mnuType=lp&mnuItem=oc dedicated educational website for children]. It tells teachers how to organize a trip to a power station, including nuclear plants, explains how a nuclear power station works, offers free lesson plans, gives tips to children about working in the industry (including at nuclear plants) and emphasises the company?s commitment to the environment.

==SCANA Corporation==
SCANA runs an educational website called [http://www.energeticminds.com Energetic Minds]. It contains games and animations designed specially for children.

The section on [http://www.energeticminds.com/students/learnaboutenergy/712learnaboutenergy/712electricity/nuclear/default.aspx nuclear generation] empahises how safe nuclear energy is. A [http://www.energeticminds.com/students/faq/default.aspx#eg18 question and answer section] reiterates nuclear energy?s safety:
* ?Q: Do nuclear power plants give off radioactive energy into the air and surrounding area? A: Nuclear power plants give off hardly any radiation at all. In fact, you are exposed to more radiation while flying across the country on a jet than you?d get living near a nuclear power plant.? Here, again, there is no mention of radioactive waste or possible leaks.

The company also supports Junior Achievement (see above). {{ref|scana2}}

==Tennessee Valley Authority==
Tennessee Valley Authority runs a website for children, [http://www.tvakids.com/electricity/nuclear.htm TVAkids.com]. It contains information about electrical safety and how energy is generated, including details of the nuclear plants it runs. Of all the sites detailed here, this is the only one that mentions the potential ill-effects of nuclear power, noting, ?High doses of radiation can be very dangerous. High doses of radiation can cause diseases such as cancer?. {{ref|TVA}}

==Westinghouse==
Westinghouse runs a programme called N-Vision to ?ducate communities of the many benefits of nuclear energy?. It consists of a speakers bureau, teacher workshops and educational materials for teachers and community groups.

Three educational booklets ?help illustrate the uses and benefits of nuclear power, as well as provide answers to several misconceptions about nuclear energy?. {{ref|nvision}}

One book, called ?Basics?, explains: ?nuclear energy is an increasingly popular choice for the future because it is clean, safe and affordable? and ?many people feel that nuclear energy should be used in more places for electricity because it doesn?t cause the pollution that coal does.? It briefly discusses concerns about radioation poisoning and terrorist attacks on nuclear plants, but does not mention the radioactive waste problem. {{ref|basics}}

?Electricity from nuclear energy? explains how a nuclear power station works. It finishes with the following passage: ?Now you know how a nuclear power plant works, but do you know why we need nuclear energy, or for that matter, why we need any additional sources of electricity? Because of the increased demand for energy, we must try to conserve our limited supply of fossil fuels. One way to conserve these valuable fuels is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to produce electricity. But what if we didn?t have enough electricity to light our homes, run our hospitals or power our factories? You would not want to live in a world without electricity. Although many people dream of a day when windmills will spin and the sun will shine to produce electricity, these sources of electricity are not practical or economical now for large populations, nor will they be for many years to come. Our nation must have an abundant and available source of electricity to prosper and grow. Nuclear energy can help to provide the electricity we need today and tomorrow in a safe, environmentally friendly manner.? {{ref|electricity}}

The company also runs a US$1,000 grant programme, clearly aimed at encouraging tomorrow?s nuclear engineers. ?Commercial nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence of interest as an environmentally sound, safe and economically competitive means to meet the world's growing demand for energy,? the company explains. ?As part of this nuclear renaissance, we will be in need of qualified leaders for our industry in the future and these leaders are possibly some of your students ? those in middle school and high school. For that reason, Westinghouse Electric Company has developed the ?N-Visioning a Brighter Future? Grant Program and we hope that your school will be interested in applying for it.?

Grants are given to schools that ?exhibit creativity? in science, technology and mathematics education of middle and high school students. {{ref|grants}}

Pupils are also encouraged to produce ?a three to seven minute video on positive aspects of the various forms of energy, including nuclear energy? to win between US$3,000 and US$5,000 in prize money for their school. {{ref|videobribe}}

==Canada==
The [[Atomic Energy of Canada]] runs an animated website aimed at children, called [http://www.aecl.ca/kidszone/atomicenergy/index.asp Kids Zone]. It contains games and information about nuclear power ? including its supposed environmental benefits. The site tells children: ?Nuclear power keeps Canada cool! Since 1971, reactors in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have saved Canada's atmosphere from over 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, which can contribute to global warming.? Another page adds: ?Nuclear power saves the planet from two billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year!?

Here, too, nuclear power is presented in an entirely positive light.

==Australia==

The [www.uraniumsa.org Uranium Southern Australia website] and [http://www.uraniumsa.org/education/Uranium%20-%20Information%20for%20Students%20&%20Teachers.pdf an accompanying information booklet for teachers and students (pdf file)] are produced by the [[South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy]], on behalf of South Australia?s uranium producers, including [[BHP Billiton]], [[Southern Cross Resources]] and [[Heathgate Resources]], ?so that informed debate can occur?. The material ?aims to present facts and issues associated with uranium?. {{ref|USA}}

South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy says the website and booklet ?have been designed principally to educate and inform middle school students about uranium and its uses? and so it is ?easy to incorporate into your curriculum activities? Lesson plan ideas have been provided for each of the Key Learning Areas. There is a focus on the Science, Design and Technology, and Society & Environment Learning Areas.?

But suggested activities for lessons are distinctly one-sided, such as:

? ?Choose one of South Australia?s working uranium mines and find out how uranium is mined there. Make a poster, PowerPoint presentation, e-book or design a website to display your information.?

? Research how the people involved with uranium mines, or any kind of mine, try to minimise their impact on the environment.

? Investigate some of the jobs and career pathways in the mining industry.

? Organise a class debate on the topic: ?Nuclear energy produces a valid source of electricity in conjunction with alternative energy sources for electricity?.

? Write a story describing a typical day in your life ? without electricity.

? In another lesson plan, on a mining method called in-situ leaching, Uranium SA lists suggested websites for research. In addition to two Government sites, it directs pupils to three pro-uranium sites ? [www.uic.com.au the Uranium Information Centre], run by the Australian Uranium Association, [http://www.wma-minelife.com the Wyoming Mining Association], a trade association representing 32 mining companies, and [http://www.uraniumsa.org its own website]. Only one site critical of uranium mining, [http://www.wise-uranium.org/uisl.html WISE], is included.

One suggested activity borders on the bizarre:

? Watch one of the following episodes of the popular television series ?The Simpson?s? ?Homer?s Odyssey? or ?The Crepes of Wrath? (Series One) or ?Two Cars in Every Garage & Three Eyes on Every Fish? (Series Two). Watch Homer at work at the Nuclear Power Station. Investigate, then write a report comparing and contrasting what?s seen on the show with the accurate operations at a nuclear power station.

The booklet and website also contains links to the websites of the [[World Nuclear Association]] and [[Nuclear Energy Institute]].

==References==
# {{note|ANS}} [http://www.ans.org/pi/edu/ ?Teachers and Students?], [http://www.ans.org American Nuclear Society website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|college}} [http://www.collegeboundfoundation.org/aboutus/index.html About us], [http://www.collegeboundfoundation.org CollegeBound Foundation website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|JA}} [http://www.ja.org/ Junior Achievement Who We Are],[http://www.ja.org/ Junior Achievement website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|duke}} [http://www.dukesafety.com/schools/index.html Brain Power], Duke Energy, undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|entergy}} [http://www.entergy.com/global/documents/utility/industry/Electricity_101.pdf ?Electricity 101? (pdf file)], [http://www.entergy.com Entergy website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|exelon}} [http://www.ceco.electricuniverse.com/eu_frontier.php?sec=2&mc=8&sc=33&pn=power_generation.html Electricity Generation], [http://www.ceco.electricuniverse.com/ Electric Universe website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|fpl}} [http://www.fplforkids.com/lnf_ifrm.aspx Florida Power and Light Kids? Corner website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|scana2}} [http://www.scana.com/en/social-responsibility/education/ Social responsibility], [http://www.scana.com SCANA Corporation website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|TVA}} [http://www.tvakids.com/electricity/nuclear_qa.htm Radiation Questions and Answers], [http://www.tvakids.com TVAkids.com website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|nvision}} [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Community/n-vision_program.shtm N-Vision program], [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com Westinghouse Nuclear website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{ref|grants}} [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Community/school_grant_program.shtm School Grant Program], [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com Westinghouse Nuclear website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|videobribe}} [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/Community/student_video_contest.shtm Student Video Contest on the Forms of Energy], [http://www.westinghousenuclear.com Westinghouse Nuclear website], undated, accessed February 2007
# {{note|basics}} ?Basics?, Westinghouse Electricity Company LLC, 2006, unavailable online
# {{note|electricity}} ?Electricity from nuclear energy?, Westinghouse Electricity Company LLC, 2006, unavailable online
# {{note|USA}} [http://www.uraniumsa.org/education/Uranium%20-%20Information%20for%20Students%20&%20Teachers.pdf Uranium ? information for teachers and students (pdf file)], [www.uraniumsa.org Uranium Southern Australia website], undated, accessed February 2007

[[category:Analysis]]

==BNFL Covertly Changes the Curriculum==

In 2006, the national curriculum was changed so that it became compulsory for schools to teach all 14-16 year olds about nuclear power. The move was largely sparked by a [http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file23309.pdf report for the Department for Trade and Industry], published in 2003, about a possible future skills shortage in the nuclear industry.

The report concluded: ?Although the nuclear sector does not have an immediate overall shortage, a number of ?hot spots? exist in disciplines such as safety case production and radiological protection. Postgraduate education and apprentice training are also in a fragile state, raising concerns about future workforce development. Conservative estimates suggest that the sector will require around 50,000 recruits over the next 15 years, excluding potential demand from new build.?

It also noted that: ?Engineering and physical sciences are unpopular fields of study and unpopular career choices for young people; and nuclear and radiological technologies are unpopular choices in this unpopular field. Action to encourage more young people into these sectors is urgently needed.?

It recommended that the DTI should ?work with the Nuffield Foundation to include nuclear and radiological related material in the 2005 review of the national curriculum.?

The Nuclear Skills Group, which produced the report for the DTI, was made up of Government officials and a panel of six ?independent members?. In the report only one, Paul Thomas, was said to be working for BNFL. But NuclearSpin has discovered that two more members were also working for BNFL: {{ref|NSG}}

* '''Brian George''' was listed in the report as an employee of Taylor Woodrow Construction, but he was then also a non-executive director of [[BNFL]]. He was paid £27,500 by BNFL in 2003. Previously, he had also been an executive director of the [[National Nuclear Corporation]] and [[Nuclear Electric]], and had worked for [[Nirex]]; and {{ref|nonexec}} {{ref|george}}
* '''Catrina Hassall''' was listed as representing [[British Nuclear Energy Society]]?s Young Generation Network ? but she, too, was working for [[BNFL]]. {{ref|hassall}}

The curriculum changes were introduced in September 2006. The nuclear industry has responded by pouring millions of pounds into ?teaching aids? that promote nuclear power and attract pupils to work in the industry.

==Energy Foresight - "Promoting Misleading Propaganda"==

One of the nuclear industry?s largest education projects is called [http://www.energyforesight.org Energy Foresight]. It is run by a company called Young Foresight (Education and Training) Ltd, which is part of a larger group called Software Production Enterprises Ltd. SPE is run by former advertising executive and producer Norman Burrows MBE. According to its website [http://www.spe.co.uk SPE] was set up in 1979 ?to specialise in imaginative programmes for science, technology, education and medicine?. Its clients and funders include a range of government departments, the BBC, the NHS, Astra Zeneca and the Royal Academy of Engineering. {{ref|biogs}} {{ref|clients}}

In 2000, Young Foresight Ltd unveiled a project called Young Foresight to help educate school children about design and technology. Its launch was backed by [[Lord Sainsbury]]. The project was launched by Lord [[David Sainsbury]]. {{ref|Sainsbury}}

Young Foresight Ltd has been paid hundreds of thousands of pounds by nuclear organisations to develop a set of teaching materials ?that present radioactivity and related issues in personal and social contexts? and is specifically designed ?to support the new Science GCSE curriculum that comes into effect in September 2006.? The materials include three films, a teaching pack and a full day of training for teachers. {{ref|welcome}} {{ref|foresight}}

According to a funding document written by Energy Foresight, obtained by NuclearSpin, one of the aims of the curriculum change is to ?change students? (and teachers?) attitudes to, and perceptions of, nuclear issues and encourage positive interest in the nuclear sector as a source of future employment?. {{ref|fundingdoco}}

The first phase of the project was paid for by [[British Nuclear Group]], [[RWE Nukem Limited]], [[Cogent]] ? a trade body for the chemical, oil, gas, nuclear, petroleum and polymer industries, which counts the former Head of Trade and Industry at [[Nuclear Industry Association]], [[John Haddon]] on its board ? Cumbria Learning and the North West Development Agency. An ?independent? £45,000 assessment of the pilot scheme, carried out by the Open University, was also part-funded by British Nuclear Group, RWE Nukem and Cogent. {{ref|sponsors}}

While Energy Foresight claims that its material presents the arguments for and against nuclear power fairly, the project has received considerable public backing from the British Nuclear Energy Society. In a letter to potential funders, BNFL President Sue Ion says: ?I believe Energy Foresight is an extremely important project which holds out the prospect of changing perceptions of nuclear power both as a power source and as an industry offering worthwhile and rewarding career prospects?. {{ref|BNESletter}}

But it has been criticized by independent nuclear consultant John Large as ?a blatant piece of propaganda? it misleads?. {{ref|Large}}

Energy Foresight recently announced another tie-up ? a £750,000 deal with the [[Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]]. The money will pay for ?a new film addressing nuclear waste and the NDA?s activities, together with updated materials and web site. As well as addressing the physics behind radioactivity, the materials highlight the employment opportunities in the nuclear industry in health, power, decommissioning, and waste management.? It?s clear that if you have enough money, you can pay to have your organization promoted to schoolchildren through such ?educational materials?. {{ref|pressrelease}}

Energy Foresight aims to extend the programme to 50 per cent of all secondary schools in the UK by mid-2009, but ?biased towards those areas with the large nuclear presence?. {{ref|hudsonletter}}

The NDA makes no secret that the new teaching materials are aimed at turning today?s pupils into tomorrow?s nuclear engineers. In a [http://www.energyforesight.org/downloads/EFPressRelease061121.pdf press release], the NDA?s Head of Technology and Skills Development, Dr Ian Hudson, says: ?It is important that young people have a good understanding of nuclear power and the issues surrounding radioactivity and nuclear waste. That?s why we are so pleased to be working with Energy Foresight on a project that brings that information and understanding into the classroom as part of the national curriculum. As we look to build a skilled workforce to deal with the UK?s existing nuclear legacy we hope that projects like this encourage young people to think seriously about careers in areas that rely on scientific skills and understanding.?

However, it remains unclear why the body charged with cleaning up the civil nuclear industry?s waste is spending three-quarters of a million pounds of taxpayers? money to promote its views to schoolchildren. According to the DTI, the NDA?s focus should be ?squarely on [dealing with] the nuclear legacy?. {{ref|squarely}}

And it doesn?t stop there. Energy Foresight is appealing for yet more funding from the nuclear industry. Its website says: ?We intend to complete the rollout to a total of over 2100 schools (50%) of the UK secondary schools by 2009. To do this we will, however, require considerable extra funding, and we are looking to the nuclear industry to assist us with this. If you feel you might be in a position to support the programme, please contact us.? {{ref|sponsors}}

An article written by Dr David Fishlock, a committee member of the [[Supporters of Nuclear Energy]], includes some revealing comments made by Energy Foresight?s director, Peter Waller. ?From the start it recognised there were many problems preventing students gaining a balanced understanding of the role of nuclear energy,? writes Fishlock. He adds that Waller said: ?Our research confirmed some deep-rooted obstacles? to ?understanding? nuclear power? and gave five examples:
? Most teachers appear anti-nuclear.
? The government has in the past appeared to be anti-nuclear, although it has now instituted a full review of energy options - including nuclear- to report in summer 2006.
? There?s not enough neutral material in schools ? ?the Greens have done a good job?.
? Many parents are uncertain about nuclear energy and are ill-informed.
? The omissions in the current curriculum do not help the situation. {{ref|welcome}}

Fishlock welcomes the changes to the curriculum, saying they could ?eventually lead to a radical change in public attitude to nuclear energy?. Until now, he noted, ?pupils were given almost no formal instruction in the basic sciences of nuclear energy to combat the insidious informal information circulated by non-government organizations?. {{ref|welcome}}

But his concern about public attitudes might surprise those who remember the uncompromising position he took when giving evidence to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee?s investigation of underground nuclear storage in 1999. ?The public should not be expected to have an opinion,? he told shocked Committee members. ?There are many things for which quite legitimately the public looks to Government to make up the mind of 56 million people. Nuclear energy is a matter that is largely in Government hands and is a matter for Government decision.? {{ref|mindless}}

And Energy Foresight is just the tip of the iceberg?

==Eon?s teaching packs for schools==
[[Eon]] is also engaged in ?a major new programme? to produce and promote teaching packs for schools, tied into the national curriculum. ?Whether they are starting out or finishing their schooling, energy will be a dominant theme in their lives,? the company says about the children it is targeting. ?They are part of a generation that will have to make key decisions, individually and collectively, which will affect them and the rest of the world. The E.ON Energy Experience has the ambition of helping to create an energy literate generation giving them the information they need to make informed choices.? {{ref|eonblurb}}

The free resources offered by the company include online activities plus a pack of information and activity cards, accompanied by teacher?s notes, for use in classrooms. The subjects covered include:
* Renewable and non-renewable energy sources
* Climate change
* Using energy
* A nuclear future?
* Energy transformations
* Distributing energy

?Fact sheets? about different sources of energy have Eon?s logo on every page. Indeed, the wide range of teaching packs produced by Eon means that pupils could be exposed to the company?s logos and material in not only in science lessons, but also in geography, citizenship and ICT classes. A helpful [http://www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/668.htm website for teachers] outlines all the possible ways in which the material can be used to fit in with the curriculum.

Eon?s [http://www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/582.htm nuclear power ?fact sheet?] emphasizes the benefits of nuclear power (?Uranium is readily and cheaply available, nuclear fuel is easily stored, a small amount of nuclear fuel produces a lot of electricity, and nuclear power stations do not produce any carbon dioxide from nuclear fission,? it says) while underplaying the disadvantages (?Nuclear power stations +may+ be unpopular with people who are concerned about how safe they are? [emphasis added] and ?Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste which must be buried in sealed containers for a long time? (forgetting to mention that the UK currently has no idea of where it can bury such waste)).

One set of resources encourages children to debate the motion: ?Our class believes that nuclear is the right choice to meet the UK?s energy needs in the 21st century?. Teachers can also download an [http://www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/eeAssets/worldPDF/Energy_World_activity_card_6.pdf ?activity card?] to help them plan a lesson on the nuclear power debate. While the [http://www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/918.htm teaching pack website] provides links to [[Greenpeace]] and coverage of the [[Chernobyl]] disaster, it also points students towards the nuclear industry?s lobbying body, the [[World Nuclear Association]].

==The Nuclear Industry Association==
The [[Nuclear Industry Association]] is also currently developing ?a new suite of educational booklets? covering important topics like energy and the environment; radiation, health and safety; nuclear energy - past, present and future; and energy and society?. The material is ?specifically geared to the needs of the national curriculum?. {{ref|NIA}}

The industry body is also training ?young people in the industry? to counter the critics of nuclear power. NIA says it has ?begun a programme of stimulating workshops to bring these people together, and provide them the opportunity to explore the arguments used against the industry, discuss how they can be challenged, and give them some professional training in communications and presentational skills so that they can go out to engage and debate with the public.? {{ref|NIA}}

==BNFL/British Nuclear Group==
In addition to sponsoring Energy Foresight, BNFL runs a well-established science education programme for both primary and secondary schools. On its [http://www.bnfleducation.com/educationprog/index.html specialist teaching website] it boasts: ?Over the past ten years, British Nuclear Group has developed a strong programme of nationwide educational support for the teaching of science and technology in primary, secondary and further education. British Nuclear Group has gained the reputation of being one of the foremost companies in the UK for providing sponsored teaching resources.?

It adds: ?Our company is founded on a proud track record of applying in-depth experience to complex nuclear challenges. The end result will be a safe environment, both now and for future generations.?

The site offers a wide range of [http://www.bnfleducation.com/resources/ teaching resources], many of which are free, including DVDs, [http://www.bnfleducation.com/games/index.html online games and quizzes]. Materials include information on how nuclear power stations work and are decommissioned.

Here, too, as elsewhere, materials have been carefully designed to fit in with the requirements of the national curriculum.

But one booklet, called Energy and the Environment, is heavily biased in favour of nuclear power. While it devotes two pages to the environmental impacts of coal, oil, gas and biomass, and a further two to hydroelectric, wind, tidal, wave, solar and geothermal power, nuclear gets four pages, largely devoted to counteracting concerns about the risks associated with nuclear power plants and radioactive waste. The booklet claims that ?nuclear power has the potential to provide electricity generation for a thousand years? and reassures pupils that ?safety [is] the number one responsibility for the nuclear industry in the UK?. Although the booklet was published in 1994, it is still available today. Interestingly, it also quotes Professor [[Ian Fells]], now a paid consultant to the nuclear industry. {{ref|bnflbooklet}}

BNFL?s educational website also contains a [http://www.bnfleducation.com/sites/index.html list of nuclear sites that schools can visit].

BNG also runs a separate [http://www.bnfleducation.com/sellafield/index.html website for teachers and students about Sellafield].

== Nexia Solutions==
BNFL subsidiary [[Nexia Solutions]] has just started sponsoring a residential course for children.

The first course, run by the [http://www.smallpeicetrust.org.uk Smallpiece Trust], introduced pupils to nuclear engineering. {{ref|nexia}}

==Nirex==
[[Nirex]], the government-controlled agency established to oversee the storage of radioactive waste, also has a [http://www.nirex.co.uk/index/ieducat.htm webpage offering educational material] aimed at both students and teachers, though it is considerably less sophisticated than others profiled here.

But its material, too, arguably underplays the risks from nuclear power. Its [http://www.nirex.co.uk/educate/487576.pdf ?What is radioactivity leaflet?], for example, says: ?When people first began to work with radioactivity they did not realise that it could be harmful, and many became ill and died. Nowadays we know how to measure the dose received, and use shielding to protect ourselves and the environment from such dangers.?

Similarly, its leaflet [http://www.nirex.co.uk/educate/487583.pdf ?What should we do with the UK?s radioactive waste?] aims to ?describe the most commonly suggested options, and explain some of the advantages and disadvantages of each?. It details disadvantages of all the options ? apart from Nirex?s favoured option, Phased Disposal.

==Consumer watchdog?s withdraws support for schools sponsorship guidelines==

Commercial activities in schools, including sponsorship of teaching materials, operate under a set of voluntary guidelines drawn up by the Department for Education and Skills, the [http://www.isba.org.uk Incorporated Society of British Advertisers] and the consumer group [http://www.which.co.uk Which?] In 2004, Which? Published withdrew its support because they were ?concerned that the guidelines were not sufficiently robust to ensure against irresponsible sponsorship in schools?. This followed the publication of a report on the promotion of unhealthy foods to children in schools. Which says they wanted the guidelines ?strengthened to deal more specifically with sponsorship linked to foods high in fat, sugar and salt.? {{ref|which}}

==References==
# {{note|NSG}} [http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file23312.pdf Report of the Nuclear Skills Group, Part Two ? annexes (pdf file)], [http://www.dti.gov.uk Department for Trade and Industry website]], 5 December 2002
# {{note|barlex}} [http://www.schoolsnetwork.org.uk/Article.aspa?PageId=216666 David Barlex, Director Nuffield Design & Technology ? biography], [http://www.schoolsnetwork.org.uk Schools Network website]], March 2004, accessed February 2007
# {{note|erp}} [http://www.energyresearchpartnership.co.uk/erp.php?sid=4&profile=145 Energy Research Partnership ? members], [http://www.energyresearchpartnership.co.uk Energy Research Partnership website], undated, accessed March 2007
# {{note|welcome}} Dr David Fishlock, [http://www.sone.org.uk/content/view/267/30/ Nuclear-savvy gurus in UK schools], SONE website, 24 April 2006
# {{note|mindless}} [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldsctech/41/4109.htm Select Committee on Science and Technology Third Report - Management of Nuclear Waste], Hansard, 10 March 1999
# {{note|eonblurb}} [http://www.eon-uk.com/EnergyExperience/663.htm Eon Energy Experience ? Introduction], Eon website, undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|NIA}} [http://www.niauk.org/industry-link/issue-2/nia-initiatives.html NIA initiatives], NIA website, undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|foresight}} [http://www.energyforesight.org Energy Foresight website], undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|pressrelease}} [http://www.energyforesight.org/downloads/EFPressRelease061121.pdf Energy Foresight and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority join forces to deliver better science education to 14 - 16 year olds], [http://www.energyforesight.org Energy Foresight website], 21 November 2006
# {{note|sponsors}} [http://www.energyforesight.org/default.asp?section=About&chapter=ProgrammeRollout ?Programme roll out?], [http://www.energyforesight.org Energy Foresight website], undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|biogs}} [http://www.spe.co.uk/spe.asp?section=personnel Software Production Enterprises ? Personnel], SPE website, undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|clients}} [http://www.spe.co.uk/spe.asp?section=projects Software Production Enterprises ? Projects], SPE website, undated, accessed January 2007
# {{note|Sainsbury}} [http://www.youngforesight.org/yf/www/default.asp?section=News&chapter=NewsArch&vNewsItem=item0405151243 ?Government support for Young Foresight?], Energy Foresight website, 1 January 2001
# {{note|nonexec}} [http://www.bnfl.com/UserFiles/File/178_1.pdf BNFL Annual Report 2003 (pdf file)], [http://www.bnfl.co.uk BNFL website], page 29
# {{note|george}} [http://www.taylorwoodrow.com/presscontent.asp?ArtID=70 ?Bryant Homes Ltd appoints Brian George as non-executive chairman? press release], [http://www.taylorwoodrow.com Taylor Woodrow website], 6 August 2001. See also [http://www.bnfl.co.uk/UserFiles/File/annual_report.pdf BNFL Annual Report 2005 (pdf file), [http://www.bnfl.co.uk BNFL website], page 27 ? biog of Brian George: ?Joined the Board on 12 March 2001?He left the Board on 31 March 2005?
# {{note|hassall}} British Nuclear Energy Society Consolidated Accounts 2003, available to download at [http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/AccountListing.asp?charitynumber=261687]. Click on 31/12/2003. Page 7: ?Catrina Hassall, BNFL? Hassell later changed her surname to Collings (see p1 of BNES Accounts 2003) but continued to work at BNFL/British Nuclear Group. See [http://www.imechewestcumbria.org.uk/eventsothers/bnes/decommissioning-191005.html ?CONSORT - Nuclear Dinosaur or UK Strategic Resource?], Institution of Mechanical Engineers - West Cumbria Area website, 19 October 2005
# {{note|bnflbooklet}} pp12-15, ?Energy and the Environment?, BNFL, 1994 ? unavailable online.
# {{note|nexia}} [http://www.smallpeicetrust.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=25&Itemid=117 Latest news], [http://www.smallpeicetrust.org.uk The Smallpiece Trust website], accessed February 2007. See also Ian Boydon [http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1139624.mostviewed.students_nuclear_power.php ?Students' nuclear power?], [http://www.thisischeshire.co.uk], 24 January 2007.
# {{note|hudsonletter}} [http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/c/c5/Waller.PDF Letter from Energy Foresight?s Peter Waller to the NDA?s Dr Ian Hudson], dated 6 January 2006, released to NuclearSpin under the Freedom of Information Act.
# {{note|fundingdoco}} [http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/c/cc/EnergyForesight.PDF ?Proposal to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?, Energy Foresight], December 2005 Also [http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/9/9c/EnergyForesight_-_Appendix.PDF Appendices]- released to NuclearSpin under the Freedom of Information Act.
# {{note|Large}} [[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/flreport_classroomcommercials BBC Radio 5 Live interview with John Large ? podcast]], 9 December 2007, Large?s comments made from 12mins 30seconds
# {{note|BNESletter}} [http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/b/bd/BNES.PDF Letter from BNES/BNFL?s Dr Sue Ion to Nu-Tech Associates Ltd] 11 August 2005 - released to NuclearSpin under the Freedom of Information Act.
# {{note|squarely}} [http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file29300.pdf ?Managing the nuclear legacy ? strategy for action? (pdf file)], DTI, July 2002
# {{note|which}} Email from Which to NuclearSpin, 21 February 2007



[[category:Analysis]]

==Pages with Unreferenced material==
*[[Hill and Knowlton: Corporate Crimes]] has a brief section on Three Mile Island and H&K referenced to footnote 54 - but the footnotes only go as far as 37

==Pages Merged by tiding needed on SW page==

*[[Nuclear Decommissioning Authority]] - text merged but need to print our and revisit to check poss overlap in staff section and BP section
*[[Royal Society]] - text merged but need to revisit to change format of refs and find refs (or remove text) for unreferenced material.
*[[SONE]] text merged but need to revisit to change format of refs

==Not for merging?==
*[[International Futures Forum]] - the only nukes content on this whole page is a mention of funding from Nirex but there is no mention in the narrative that IFF have done anything promoting nukes. I haven't merged this for the moment. Not sure whether to delete?

==Merged==
*[[African American Environmentalist Association]]
*[[All Party Parliamentary Group on Nuclear Energy]]
*[[Atomic Energy Canada Ltd]]
*[[Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation]]
*[[BHP-Billiton]]
*[[BNFL]]
*[[British Nuclear Fuels Limited]]
*[[British Nuclear Fuels Ltd]]
*[[British Nuclear Energy Society]]
*[[BNES]]
*[[Bell Pottinger]], [[Bell Pottinger Public Affairs]], *[[Bell Pottinger Communications]]
*[[Bell Pottinger Good Relations]]
*[[Bernard Ingham]]
*[[Bruno Comby]]
*[[Cameco]]
*[[Centre for European Energy Strategy]]
*[[David Porter]]
*[[Clean and Safe Energy Coalition]] -
*[[Duke Energy]]
*[[EU]] - this is a category - I have created the same categories in SW and activated them so all the files transferred across should be be linked.
*[[Entergy]]
*[[Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy]]
*[[Financial Dynamics]]
*[[Finsbury]]
*[[Foresight Communications]]
*[[Foresight Communications UK Staff and clients 30.11.03-31.05.04]] (this data is on the main profile page so I haven't copied it across.
*[[GE Energy]]
*[[General Electric]]
*[[GPC Market Access]]
*[[Global Business Network]]
*[[Good Relations]]
*[[Gordon Brown]]
*[[Grayling Political Strategy]]
*[[Institute for Science and International Security]]
*[[John Hutton]]
*[[International Atomic Energy Agency]]
*[[International Policy Network]] - a few q's for Andy on some refs and preamble statements
*[[Jon Phillips]]
*[[Keith Parker]] - identical to SW page
*[[Kenneth Adelman]]
*[[Kenneth L. Adelman]]
*[[Luther Pendragon]]
*[[Nirex]]
*[[Norris McDonald]]
*[[Nuclear Energy Agency]]
*[[Nuclear Energy Institute]] - print and recheck page for chron sequence and flow
*[[Nuclear Fuels Reprocessing Coalition]]
*[[Nuclear Industry Association]] - there were two documents (on the SW page in the "Documents" section that I wasn't sure where or whether they linked to in the text.
*[[Nuclear is not the Answer to Climate Change]] - I changed the title to be Nuclear is not the answer to Global warming; Analysis category needs a better title and then activating; not sure if there are other NS articles in same catg so will leave until after the merge
*[[Pete Domenici]]
*[[Rio Tinto Zinc]]
*[[Rothschild]]
*[[Rothschilds]]
*[[Scientific Alliance]]
*[[Social Market Foundation]]
*[[Sovereign Strategy]]
*[[Sovereign Strategy Ltd]]
*[[Spencer Abraham]]
*[[Supporters of Nuclear Energy]]
*[[Spiked Online]] (same as Spiked awaiting refs)
*[[Terry Wynn]]
*[[Thomas Docherty]]
*[[Tony Blair]]
*[[Tony Gilland]] - text moved across, need to retrun and convert ref links to full refs
*[[Tracey Brown]]
*[[Truman National Security Project]]
*[[Westinghouse]]
*[[Fleishman-Hillard]]
*[[Hill and Knowlton]]
*[[Weber Shandwick]]
*[[Weber Shandwick Worldwide]]
*[[Hill & Knowlton]] - didn't merge, no nukes content
*[[James Lovelock]]
*[[Patrick Moore]]

{{nuclear spin}}

==Background==

Bulgaria's National Electricity Company ([http://www.nek.bg/cgi-bin/index.cgi?l=2&d=1005 Natsionalna Elektricheska Kompania NEK])] is 100% owned by the State. Owner rights are exercised by the Bulgarian Minister of Economy and Energy.

Until 2002 Bulgaria operated six nuclear power units at the Kozloduy site comprising four VVER-440/230 units and two VVER-1000/320 units - all manufactured and imported from the former USSR. In 2002 the two oldest VVER 440 plants - Kozloduy 1 and 2 - were closed and in December 2006 Kozloduy 3 and 4 were closed, all as a result of Bulgaria's accession to the European Union. Kozloduy is close to the Danube River border with Romania. {{ref|nonukes}}

In 2003 NEK produced 42.5 billion kilowatt hours and exported 5 billion of these to Greece, Turkey, Serbia and Macedonia. {{ref|wna}} The country sold 7.6 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity abroad in 2005, and 26.7 billion kilowatt-hours were produced for domestic consumption. However, with the closure of two older nuclear units at the end of 2006, it is unlikely that any significant surplus remains. {{ref|nonukes2}}

==Belene chosen as second nuclear site==

A second site was chosen near Belene, also near the Danube border with Romania. This was with a view to building four or six large units. Site clearance started in 1980 and construction of the first VVER-1000/320 unit started in 1987. This was partly built (40%, with 80% delivery of equipment) but was aborted in 1991 due to lack of funds. {{ref|wna2}}

In 2003 five reactor vendors expressed an interest to the Energy Ministry in completing Belene or building new units there. Early in 2005 the government approved the construction of Belene as a 2000 MWe plant. Parsons E&C Europe was appointed architect-engineer for the project to oversee redesigning and installing one incomplete V-320 reactor unit and building a new second more modern one. Two consortia submitted bids to build the plant. Both had two variants: using the old VVER-1000/320 equipment already on site, and building afresh two AES-92 units. {{ref|bln}}

In October 2006 NEK chose [[Atomstroyexport]] (ASE) over a [[Skoda]]-led consortium to build the Belene nuclear power plant comprising two 1000-MWe AES-92 VVER units with third-generation reactors. {{ref|bbc}} Russia's ASE leads a consortium including [[Areva]] NP and Bulgarian enterprises in the EUR 4.0 billion project. [[Atomstroyexport]] and [[Areva]] NP are to build a completely new AES-92 {{ref|oeko}} power station, using two VVER 1000/B466 reactors. The two companies claim to be able to complete the first block in 6.5 years and the second block a year later.

Although the [[Atomstroyexport]] consortium won the tender over the Czech [[Skoda]] Alliance consortium, both [[Atomstroyexport]] and [[Skoda]] are majority owned by the Russian State and the Russian state company [[Gazprom]], which makes it likely that the offers were coordinated.

NEK argues its choice of two completely new reactors over finishing the existing VVER 1000/320 reactors will have a higher chance of acceptance by the European Union. During an intensive information campaign preceding this decision, a coalition of Bulgarian and international NGOs had made clear to the public, interested banks, the EU and the Bulgarian government that the VVER 1000/320 would not be given an operation permit in Germany because of safety concerns. They also had pointed to the bad track record of [[Skoda]] in Temelín in the Czech Republic. {{ref|wise}}

The AES-92 has not been licensed before in Europe. At present [[Atomstroyexport]] is constructing an AES-92 power plant in Kudankulam in India, where construction started in 2001 and the first block is supposed to be loaded and become critical in 2007 with the second to follow two years later. The AES-92 is presented by [[Atomstroyexport]] as a Third Generation reactor. It is a further development of the VVER 1000/320 model, fitted out with an extra strong containment with stainless steel lining and a core-catcher.

NEK will set up the Belene Project Company to manage the work. It will retain 51% interest in the project, but in May 2007 it invited investors to express an interest in taking up to 49% of the equity or proposing long-term electricity purchasing contracts. {{ref|wnn}} Applications were received from Swiss companies ATEL and EGL (part of the [[Axpo]] group), [[EDF Group]], [[Electrabel]] of Belgium, [[Endesa]] of Spain, [[Enel]] of Italy, and [[RWE Group]] and [[Eon]] of Germany, [[CEZ]] of the Czech Republic, and Bulgarian copper company Kumerio Med.

[[Enel]] confirmed its interest in June 2007 {{ref|forb}}, as did the other companies listed. {{ref|abc}} Altogether ten European energy companies are interested in investing in the project according to the Financial Times. {{ref|ft}}

==Budgets==

The total building costs of Belene have not been made public. The almost 4 Billion Euro contract budget only represents the construction by Atomstroyexport. It does not include preparation costs, infrastructural works and an interim nuclear waste store to be built on or near the site. Although Atomstroyexport mentioned a construction time of 6.5 to 7.5 years, Bulgarian authorities like to give the impression that the first block will go on-line in 2013. Greenpeace and WISE / NIRS consultant Jan Haverkamp expects adaptations of the AES-92 to European standards, as well as the new involvement of Areva NP in the construction to lead to large delays and therefore called the estimated building time of 6.5 years highly optimistic. {{ref|wise2}}

The 4 Billion Euro value of the contract came as a surprise and forced Greenpeace and WISE / NIRS to adapt their comment. They first described the project as "Russian, fast and cheap", but after contract price was revealed changed this to "Russian, slow and expensive". The total cost of the nuclear power plant is likely to be more than 6 billion euros. {{ref|nwsbg}}

==Belene: a financial nightmare==

Financing the project appears to be a major problem for Bulgaria. After the Bulgarian government announced that NEK was going to take a 51% stake in the project, the financial broker Standard & Poor's downrated the company from "developing" to "negative". {{ref|wise3}} But also banks that had been alleged to be interested by Bulgaria's Economy and Energy Minister, Rumen Ovcharov, withdrew their interest after being informed by Greenpeace, WISE/NIRS and CEE Bankwatch about the risks involved. {{ref|foee}} For example, Belene is in a seismically active area; the Environmental Impact Assessment has large flaws and has already been subject to court action; and it is likely that Belene, once on-line, will have to face a highly dynamic saturated market. {{ref|gp}}

At the Bulgarian Government?s press conference to announce that Atomstroexport had won the contract, a group of six more banks, along with Euratom and the European Investment Bank were mentioned as sources of finance. Deutsche Bank a day later confirmed to Greenpeace that it featured falsely in that list and definitely had no interest in the project. Euratom spokes people denied that any application had been received. The other five banks, were Credit Suisse, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch & Co. and the Lehman Brothers Bank.

BNP Paribas was reported in May 2007 to be in advanced negotiations with NEK regarding a 250m euro loan. {{ref|int}} Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Bulgarian coalition BeleNE! and urgewald / Banktrack met with BNP Paribas top management on June 13 to discuss its brokering role in the deal to loan NEK finance for initial project works. {{ref|bel}} On June 5 environmental organisations in 14 countries protested against BNP Paribas?s plans to finance the Belene nuclear plant. {{ref|foei}} Despite these protests it seems that BNP Paribas was announced as the winner of the tender to syndicate the 250 million euro loan to finance the first year of planning and construction work. The contract was expected to be signed in early June 2007. Currently fifteen, as of yet unidentified banks intend to join the loan arrangement for NEK. {{ref|bnk}} In an open letter the Bulgarian coalition BeleNE!, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the watchdog organizations Banktrack and urgewald warned international banks against participating in the loan. According to the environment organizations, Belene is one of the
worst cases of nuclear planning worldwide.

The NGO campaign against BNP Paribas has, however, already had an effect. Although the bank is determined to proceed with its loan to NEK, it says there will be no further financing of the project by BNP Paribas. {{ref|ro}}

==Wind resources==
Bulgaria has one of the best wind resources on Central Europe. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development concluded that the practicable renewable potential by 2012 from wind, biomass and hydro amounts to around 8GW - about two thirds of Bulgaria's current installed electricity capacity.

According to Greenpeace, Bulgaria wastes more energy than any other European country. It needs nine times more energy to produce a unit of economic output than any of the 15 Western European countries. Bringing this in line with the European average by improving the efficiency of the energy infrastructure, such as properly insulating buildings and efficient electrical appliances, would be a cheaper, faster and safer way to ensure a secure energy supply for Bulgaria than building a nuclear power station. {{ref|gp2}}

==The dark side==
Starting at the end of 2004 Albena Simeonova, a well-known environmental campaigner in Bulgaria, who founded the Bulgarian Green Party, received threats to her life due to her public opposition to the construction of a nuclear power plant at Belene. {{ref|cd}}


==References==

# {{note|nonukes}} [http://www.ecology.at/nni/country.php?country=Bulgaria No Nukes Info Source: Bulgaria], Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology, Jan 9, 2007.
# {{note|wna}} [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf87.html Nuclear Power in Bulgaria], World Nuclear Association, June 2007.
# {{note|nonukes2}} [http://www.ecology.at/nni/country.php?country=Bulgaria No Nukes Info Source: Bulgaria], Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology, Jan 9, 2007.
# {{note|wna2}} [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf87.html Nuclear Power in Bulgaria], World Nuclear Association, June 2007.
# {{note|bln}} [http://belene-npp.com/index.php?lang=2&pid=1 Belene NPP website], accessed July 9, 2007
# {{note|bbc}} Russia wins Bulgaria nuclear deal, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6101854.stm ''BBC News''], October 31, 2006.
# {{note|oeko}} [http://www.ecology.at/files/pr529_1.pdf AES-92 for Belene: The mystery reactor], Antonia Wenisch, Austrian Institute of Ecology, February 2007.
# {{note|wise}} Atomstryexport/Areva to build AES-92 in Belene, WISE-NIRS [http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/650/5773.php ''Nuclear Monitor''], December 15, 2006.
# {{note|wnn}} Belene project seeks investors, [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/industry/070607-Ten_companies_bid_to_invest_in_Belene.shtml ''World Nuclear News''], May 3, 2007.
# {{note|forb}} Enel makes non-binding offer for stake in Bulgarian nuclear power plant, [http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/06/06/afx3793208.html ''Forbes''], June 6, 2007,
# {{note|abc}} Electrabel, Cumerio join parties interested to invest in Bulgaria nuclear plant, [http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/07200784094.htm ''ABC Money''] June 7, 2007.
# {{note|ft}} Kerin Hope, Adam Jones and Theodor Troev, ?Ten groups eye up nuclear plant?, [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/33cb6f18-1a13-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=5b566934-3013-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8,Authorised=false.html?_i_location= ''Financial Times''], June 14, 2007 See also: Ten companies bid to invest in Belene, [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/industry/070607-Ten_companies_bid_to_invest_in_Belene.shtml ''World Nuclear News''], June 7, 2007.
# {{note|wise2}} Atomstryexport/Areva to build AES-92 in Belene, WISE-NIRS [http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/650/5773.php ''Nuclear Monitor''], December 15, 2006.
# {{note|nwsbg}} NPP Belene more expensive than expected, [http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_2002686540 News.BG], June 20, 2007
# {{note|wise3}} Atomstryexport/Areva to build AES-92 in Belene, WISE-NIRS [http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/650/5773.php ''Nuclear Monitor''], December 15, 2006.
# {{note|foee}} European banks withdraw from Bulgarian nuclear power project, [http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2006/joint_20_Oct_Bulgaria_nuclear_plant.htm FoE Europe etc Press Release], October 20, 2006.
# {{note|gp}}Jan Haverkamp, [http://www.banktrack.org/doc/File/dodgy%20deals/Belene%20nuclear%20power%20plant/20070124%20Belene%20problems.pdf Problems with the Belene NPP], Greenpeace, Wise/NIRS, January 24, 2007.
# {{note|int}} BNP Paris in 250mln euro loan talks for new Bulgarian nuclear plant, [http://www.iii.co.uk/news/?type=afxnews&articleid=6104484&subject=companies&action=article ''Interactive Investor''], May 15, 2007
#{{note|bel}} [http://www.bluelink.net/belene/index-en.shtml?x=17169 Environmental organizations demand banks withdraw from start-up financing for dangerous Bulgarian nuclear power plant], BeleNE, June 14, 2007 NB: [http://www.banktrack.org/?show=aletter&va=81 Banktrack] has been running a cyberaction against BNP Paribas.
# {{note|foei}} BNP Paribas plans to finance nuclear power plant in earthquake prone zone, [http://www.foei.org/en/campaigns/finance/banks/belene Friends of the Earth International], June 5, 2007. See also [http://bankwatch.ecn.cz/project.shtml?apc=147583-----1&s=330660 CEE Bankwatch]
# {{note|bnk}} Dodgy deals: Belene Nuclear Power Plant, [http://www.banktrack.org/?show=dodgy&id=42 Banktrack], June 15, 2007 See also: [http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2007/Belene.chronology.pdf Belene Chronology], Greenpeace & Wise/NIRS, May 20, 2007
# {{note|ro}} BNP Paribas will not finance Belene construction but continues start-up loan, [http://www.mail-archive.com/nuclear-romania@yahoogroups.com/msg00438.html Nuclear Romania], June 15, 2007.
# {{note|gp2}} [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/our_work/expeditions/belenenuclearplantsolutions Clean Energy Solution for Bulgaria], Greenpeace International, August 9, 2005.
# {{note|cd}} Bulgarian Green Leader Threatened with Death, [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0308-08.htm ''Common Dreams''], March 8, 2005. See also: [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/our_work/expeditions/belenenuclearplantsolutions/albena-simeonova-factsheet Albena Simeonova Factsheet], Greenpeace International, August 9, 2005





[[Category: Nuclear Spin]]
[[Category:pro-nuclear companies]]
[[Category:Civil nuclear industry]]
[[Category: Bulgaria]]

{{nuclear spin}}

==Background==

The Romanian state nuclear power corporation, Nuclearelectrica, (or Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica S A, SNN) was established in 1998. The Company reports to the Ministry of Industry and Finance and the state owns 100% of the shares. Its main role is to operate Romania?s Cernavoda nuclear facility, and manufacture nuclear fuel.

In the late 1970s the Ceacescu regime, which ran Romania between 1965 and 1989, considered both Russian VVER-440 reactors and Canadian CANDU technology, but eventually decided to adopt the latter. Five Candu reactors were planned at Cernavoda on the River Danube. Construction of the first reactor started in 1980, and of units 2-5 in 1982. In 1991 work on the latter four was suspended in order to focus on unit 1, responsibility for which was transferred to an [[Atomic Energy Canada Ltd]]-Ansaldo (Canadian-Italian) consortium. {{ref|wna}} Unit 1 (655MW) was connected to the grid in mid 1996 and entered commercial operation in December 1996. The second reactor (655MW) started operation in May 2007, and is due to enter commercial operation in September 2007. {{ref|nce}} In 2005 Cernavoda-1 supplied 5.1 TWh ? about 10% of Romania?s electricity demand. It also supplied 176 GJ of district heating.

Romania joined the European Community on January 1, 2007.

==Cernavoda-2==
In 2000 the government decided that completion of Cernavoda-2 was a high priority, despite lack of funds and the fact that the country had adequate supplies of electricity. {{ref|bank}} The Government supplied some EUR 60 million towards it. It was seen as the least-cost means of providing extra generating capacity for the country. Further finance was raised in 2002-03, with a EUR 382.5 million package announced by the government, including EUR 218 million from Canada. In 2004 a EUR 223.5 million Euratom loan was approved by the European Commission for completion of unit 2, including upgrades. The Export Credit Agencies of Italy and the USA are also helping.

The reactor, being built by the AECL-Ansaldo-Nuclearelectrica management team, is expected to have a final cost EUR 777 million. World Nuclear News reports that it may reach 100% power in July 2007. {{ref|wnn}}

Almost 70 NGOs around the globe, including from Europe and Canada, commented on the Environmental Impact Assessment Summary provided by AECL. Some of the principal deficiencies in the environmental assessment included: lack of an adequate public consultation process; failure to consider alternatives; failure to assess the consequences of a catastrophic accident; failure to conduct an adequate Probabilistic Risk Assessment; failure to assess security provisions and ability to defend against a terrorist attack; failure to disclose the seismic risks; and failure to identify the full range of decommissioning activities required to rehabilitate the site and manage associated nuclear wastes in perpetuity. {{ref|sier}}

==Cernavoda 3 to 5==
In 2002 efforts got under way to resume work on unit 3, and Nuclearelectrica commissioned a feasibility study from Ansaldo, AECL and KHNP (S.Korea) in 2003. In August 2004 the government advertised for companies interested in completing Cernavoda unit 3 - a 720 MWe Candu 6 reactor - through a public-private partnership arrangement. This proved impractical, and a feasibility study in March 2006 analysed further options for both units 3 & 4, including that of Nuclearelectrica completing unit 3 itself.
However, it was decided to proceed with creating a project joint venture with Nuclearelectrica to complete both 720 MWe units in a EUR 2.2 billion project. This would be an independent power producer with Nuclearelectrica providing operation and maintenance. Twelve potential investors have been selected from 15 initial bidders, and no shareholder will have more than 50% of equity. A tentative schedule is for commissioning unit 3 in 2014 and unit 4 in 2015. Nuclearelectrica also plans to complete unit 5 by 2020.

All three of the private distributors in Romania - all without generating capacity - have expressed an interest in being involved in the project, including [[Enel]],{{ref|ebr}}the Czech state-run energy company [[CEZ]], {{ref|intfx}} and the German utility [[Eon]]. Investors interested in bidding for the construction of the two nuclear reactors have until August 10, 2007 to submit their offers. The winning bidders are to be selected by October 29. [[Enel]] acquired the Romanian electricity distributor Electrica Muntenia Sud (EMS) for EUR 820m in June 2007. It is expected that a project company will be formed and construction will start in March 2008.

Other bidders include AES Corp. (US), [[Electrabel]] (Belgium), [[RWE Group]] (Germany), [[Iberdrola]] (Spain), Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (South Korea), and a consortium of a Luxembourg investment firm and Turkey's Dogan Energji Yatirimlari/Dogus Holding. The International Consortium of Ansaldo and [[Atomic Energy Canada Ltd]] was also accepted for further negotiations on the project. According to a Romanian press report, so far BRD-Groupe Societe Generale, Merrill Lynch, Calyon and Fortis Bank have expressed interest in financing the Cernavoda.

The presence among the bidders of big European utilities that can't build new nuclear plants on their home turf, like [[Eon]], [[RWE Group]], [[Enel]] and [[Electrabel]], testifies to the potential attractiveness of the terms of the offer. Platts Nucleonics Week reported that the presence of [[Eon]] and [[RWE Group]] was seen as a warning to the German federal government that, if it continues to uphold the nuclear phase-out, German utilities will make nuclear investments elsewhere. [[Eon]] says it is betting on eastern Europe becoming a major nuclear power producer before 2020." [[Areva]] and German utilities continue to scope out investment opportunities in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. {{ref|nw}}

==Romania deluded about costs and benefits==

The Romanian environmental NGO TERRA Mileniul III complains about the lack of public involvement in the Environmental Impact Assessment process for the construction of Cernavoda 3 and 4. The scoping stage of the EIA was carried out by a private committee established by the Environmental Protection Agency ? Constanta. {{ref|seedw}} Similarly, South Eastern Europe Development Watch complains that feasibility studies for reactors 3 & 4 are kept secret by Nuclearelectrica. It will not even release old feasibility studies for Cernavoda 2.

One particularly worrying impact which is virtually unique to Candu reactors is the large discharges of radioactive tritium. Tritium (radioactive isotope of hydrogen) discharges from Candu reactors are very large ? around 100 times greater than tritium discharges from other kinds of nuclear reactors. Tritium has a radioactive half life of about 12 years which means it stays around in the environment for a long time. It has many unusual properties - extremely rapid transport in the environment, quick uptake by humans, fast exchange mechanisms with other hydrogen atoms, and the ability to bind with organic molecules in our bodies during cell formation and cell metabolism. Tritium emissions to air result in all downwind matter containing hydrogen becoming tritiated. This results in people drinking, breathing and absorbing tritium-contaminated water, and eating tritium-contaminated food. All the time. Because tritium is radioactive, this means an increased risk of cancers, congenital malformations and genetic effects. {{ref|ca}}

==Sustainable options closed off==

The hunt for investors for the new reactors is being carried out in the absence of a national energy strategy, thus determining the energy sector's trajectory by default and closing off sustainable alternative options. Investors will have no accident liability, nor any responsibility to fund decommissioning and radioactive waste management costs. Nor will electricity prices include these costs, thus allowing nuclear to be promoted as a cheap source of electricity. Cernavoda 1 has been in operation for ten years already, but no funds have been set aside for waste management and decommissioning. Cernavoda 1 was forced to suspend operations in 2003 due to a drought and the lack of cooling water in the Danube. Hydro-technical works are included in the Cernavoda 3 and 4 projects, but it is unclear how much help these will be and they will add significantly to the project?s costs. Concern has already been expressed that Cernavoda may have to close again in August 2007 due to drought. {{ref|hn}}

Romania is a net electricity exporter. The second reactor will add to these exports. State-guaranteed loans appear to be subsidising private investors to build nuclear reactors in Romania to produce electricity for export with only dis-benefits for the Romanian public.

==Energy efficiency the first priority==

Romania's existing policies for the energy sector prioritise increasing energy efficiency, but in practice the Government appears to want to maintain subsidies for fossil fuel and nuclear power. Energy efficiency is very low throughout the Romanian economy and large amounts of energy could be saved by taking simple and mostly cheap measures. {{ref|terra}} According to Greenpeace, Romania uses 50% more energy, and produces almost 5 times more CO2 per
Euro GDP than the EU average. {{ref|gp}} The Government itself says that economic development cannot take place on a sustainable basis without increasing energy efficiency. {{ref|terra2}}

==Renewable prospects==

Greenpeace also says Romania has very good prospects for renewable energy. 80% of Romanian electricity consumption could be produced by wind and biomass alone. TERRA Milleniul III quotes the National Strategy for Revaluation of Renewable Energy Sources which says that Romania has a remarkable potential for renewable energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass). During EU accession negotiations Romania accepted a target of producing 33% of its electricity from renewable energy by 2010.

==Euratom Loan==

An international coalition of around 35 environmental organizations launched a campaign to "Stop Euratom loan for Cernavoda II", in December 2001. The coalition included all major Italian NGOs, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF. Protests were also held against plans to support Cernavoda II by the Italian export credit agency ? SACE. {{ref|foee}} According to Friends of the Earth, although Euratom loans could go to a defined group of non-EU states (Romania didn?t become a member until 2007), the money should only be used for safety upgrades for example of older Soviet design nuclear power plants. Since Cernavoda 2 is of Canadian reactor design, which was only partially built in 2001, the Romanian reactor should not have been granted a loan. {{ref|foee2}} Euratom?s decision on the loan probably influenced that of other funders such as the Export Credit Agencies. {{ref|foee3}}

Applications for Euratom loans are currently kept secret. Friends of the Earth Europe (FoEE) has called for more openness and transparency in the process. For example, four assessment reports on Cernavoda 2, commissioned by the European Commission, were not made public. {{ref|foee4}}

The Euratom loan for Cernavoda 2 was approved on 30th March 2004. {{ref|nke}}

==Pro-nuclear Nuclearelectrica==

[http://www.nuclearelectrica.ro/? Nuclearelectrica] is a member of [[Foratom]].
[http://www.aren.ro/en/gen_data.html The Romanian Nuclear Energy Association (AREN)] is afilliated to the [http://www.euronuclear.org/library/public/enews/ebulletinwinter2004/romanian-nuc-org.htm European Nuclear Society] and has concluded cooperation agreements with similar organizations from Bulgaria, France, Slovenia, USA and Canada.

==References==

# {{note|wna}} [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf93.html World Nuclear Association Briefing on Romania], May 2007
# {{note|nce}} First criticality for Cernavoda NPP Unit-2, [http://www.nuclearelectrica.ro/page.php?pid=65 Nuclearelectrica website], May 6, 2007. See also: Cernavoda nuclear power plant achieves first criticality, [http://www.energy-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=00EFD379-5BB0-48C0-B5A0-247B25557AF3 ''Energy Business Review''] 9th May 2007
# {{note|bank}} Cernavoda 2 NPP, Romania, [http://bankwatch.ecn.cz/project.shtml?apc=147583-330660---1&s=153981 Bankwatch website], accessed 4th July 2007.
# {{note|wnn}} Cernavoda decision forthcoming, [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newNuclear/Cernavoda_3_and_4_decisions_forthcoming_290607.shtml ''World Nuclear News''], June 29, 2007.
# {{note|sier}} [http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/ngo-cernavoda-ea-comments.pdf NGO comments on Cernavoda-2 EA summary by AECL], Sierra Club Canada, January 16, 2002.
# {{note|ebr}} Enel pledges support for Romanian energy industry, [http://www.energy-business-review.com/article_news.asp?guid=358D3B01-17DC-436F-85AA-435361A55591 ''Energy Business Review''], May 30, 2007,
# {{note|intfx}} Czech energy giant CEZ mulls nuclear reactors for Romania's Cernavoda plant ? analysts, [http://www.interfax.com/5/286774/news.aspx ''Interfax''], June 26, 2007,
# {{note|nw}} Nucleonics Week Volume 47, Number 27, July 6, 2006
# {{note|seedw}} 2 more nuclear reactors at Cernavoda: Romania still deluded about costs and benefits, [http://bankwatch.org/documents/SEEDW_bulletin_13.pdf ''South Eastern Europe Development Watch, Bulletin''] No.13 April 18, 2007
# {{note|ca}} Greenpeace warns of high levels of nuclear waste near nuclear plants, [http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/greenpeace-warns-of-high-level Greenpeace Canada Press Release], June 12, 2007.
# {{note|hn}} Romania nuclear plant in Cernavoda may shut down due to severe drought, [http://english.hotnews.ro/Romania-nuclear-power-plant-in-Cernavoda-may-shut-down-due-to-severe-drought-articol_45390.htm ''Hotnews.ro''], July 3, 2007.
# {{note|terra}} Cernavoda Reactors 3 & 4: Irresponsible Development, [http://www.terraiii.ngo.ro/index.stm?apc=ni-e0x1-27928&x=28356 TERRA Mileniul III Press Release], March 14, 2007
# {{note|gp}} Greenpeace action against the Romanian Cernavoda nuclear power plant, [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/nuclear-Romania/message/1003 Greenpeace Press Release], August 15, 2005.
# {{note|terra2}} [http://terraiii.ngo.ro/date/b2d1f2f8f1bb3ec1206dd2e29da29cba/Letter_to_the_romanian_prime_minister_cernavoda_16.05.2006.pdf Letter from TERRA Milleniul III to the Romanian Prime Minister], May 16, 2006.
# {{note|foee}} EU to finance a nuclear power plant in Romania? [http://www.foeeurope.org/press/PL_12_12_01_Cernavoda.htm FoE Europe Press Release], December 12, 2001.
# {{note|foee2}} [http://www.foeeurope.org/press/Background%20Cernavoda.doc EU to finance a nuclear power plant in Romania? No to Euratom loan for Cernavoda II], FoE Europe Briefing December 2001.
# {{note|foee3}} Talk by Antonio Tricarico, Coordinator, Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale, Italy: [http://www.foeeurope.org/publications/2003/Euratom_proceedings_Nov_2002.pdf Cernavoda II ? A new reactor for Romania?] at Euratom Conference, After 45 years of nuclear promotion, time for change. September 2002, European Parliament, Brussels. See also: [http://bankwatch.org/documents/study_cernavoda_campagna_05_03_1.pdf Cernavoda 2 NPP in Romania, a test case for the coherence of EU policies in accession countries], Campagna per la riforma della Banca mondiale, May 2003.
# {{note|foee4}} [http://www.foeeurope.org/press/cernavodaletter.pdf Letter from Mark Johnston, Friends of the Earth Europe to all European Commissioners], February 26, 2004. Also see: EU Commission called on to reveal nuclear funding secrets, [http://www.foeeurope.org/press/cernavodaletter.pdf Friends of the Earth Europe Press Release], March 1, 2004,
# {{note|nke}} Dates of Reference in the Romanian Nuclear Energy Field, [http://www.nuclearelectrica.ro/page.php?pid=21 Nuclearelectrica website], accessed 5th July 2007.

==External Links==

Societatea Nationala Nuclearelectrica.
[http://www.candu.org/cernavoda.html CANDU owners group website]

Cernavoda Nuclear Power Plant, Romania, CANDU Projects, [http://www.aecl.ca/Projects/CANDU-P/Cernavoda-P.htm AECL website].

Cernavoda, CANDU reactors, [http://www.aecl.ca/Reactors/CANDU6/CANDU6-Units/Cernavoda.htm AECL website].

[http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/cernavoda-2-backgrounder.html Romania?s Cernavoda-2 nuclear reactor], Sierra Club Canada Backgrounder, December 2001.

[http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/cernavoda-2-eia-comments.pdf NPP Cernavoda-2: Comments to the documents provided for the EIA], by Antonia Wenisch, Erika Ganglberger, Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology and Heinz Högelsberger, Global 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria) on behalf of Campagna per la Riforma della Banca mondiale Vienna, November 2002.

[http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/563/5375.html Cernavoda-2: Exporting Nuclear Risks], WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor, February 15, 2002

[http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/reports/Cernavoda2/EAS.pdf Cernavoda Unit 2 NPP, Environmental Assessment Summary], Atomic Energy of Canada LimitedDecember 2001.


[[Category:Civil nuclear industry]]
[[Category:Pro-nuclear companies]]
[[Category: Romanian]]

{{nuclear spin}}

== Background ==

John Purvis is one of two Scottish MEPs. {{ref|con}}

== A Conflict of Interest? ==

===Pro-Nuclear===

Purvis is a keen supporter of nuclear power, being one of the signatories to a Foratom declaration in support of increased nuclear power in the European Union. {{ref|foratom}}

He has also advocated that nuclear is the solution to Scotland's energy problems at a conference of the European Movement.

?Scotland currently has a target of 40% of electricity coming from renewables by 2020. This just can not be done,? Purvis told the conference in 2005. ?In Scotland, we have Hunterston, Chapelcross and Torness nuclear power stations but Chapelcross has closed and the others are reaching the end of their lives and yet we have no plans to build even one more nuclear power station,? he said.

?If we do not make a decision about nuclear power soon, as North Sea oil and gas run out and our nuclear power capacity expires, we will be dependent on importing the bulk of our energy from some of the most unreliable sources in the world such as Siberia, the Middle East and North Africa.? {{ref|em}}

===Yet Investing in Nuclear Companies===

In his register of interests at the European Parliament, John Purvis lists amongst his appointments that he is the Non-executive Director, and a shareholder of the European Utilities Investment Trust. {{ref|EU}}

According to the latest (2006) Annual Report for the European Utilities Trust plc, nearly 50 per cent of its net assets - over £10 million of investments - were in companies with nuclear interests.{{ref|eutrust}} Many of these companies would benefit financially if there was an EU-adoption of new nuclear build.

== External Links ==

# {{note|con}} [http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&PersonID=3855 Conservatives Website]
# {{note|foratom}} Foratom, [http://www.foratom.be/ClimateChangeSem/3%203152-05-0004%20MEP%20Declaration%20(signature%20version)%20-%20Rev%20%202005%2010%2025.pdf Declaration on Climate Change and Nuclear Energy]
# {{note|em}} Scottish Conservatives, [http://www.scottishtorymeps.org.uk/archive/0506/ReturnLatestTopic.asp?offset=20&id=87 ''An MEP Told a Conference at the Weekend that Nuclear Power was the Answer to Scotland?s Energy Needs and Environmental Goals''], November 19, 2005.
# {{note|EU}} European Parliament,[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-dif/729_05-12-2006.pdf ''Declaration of of Members' Financial Interests''], John Purvis MEP, December 5, 2006
# {{note|eutrust}} European Utilities Trust Plc, [http://www.nuclearspin.org/images/c/c6/Eutrust.pdf ''Annual Report and Accounts for the Year Ended''], July 31, 2006 (only front page and relevant page scanned)

[[category: UK Individuals]]
[[Category: Nuclear Spin]]
[[Category: EU Individuals]]
[[Category:Individuals linked to the push for nuclear|Purvis, John]]

==Introduction==

Jurgen Trittin ? Former German Federal Minister for the Environment ? describes calls for more nuclear power to tackle the problem of climate change as ?fighting one risk with an even bigger one?. {{ref|org}} And Environment Ministers from Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Austria, have launched a joint campaign against the use of nuclear energy as a solution to climate change, saying the current debate is downplaying the environmental, waste, proliferation, nuclear liability and safety issues. {{ref|irisht}}

Nuclear power can, at best, only make a minimal contribution to reducing carbon emissions anyway, and it cannot reduce them soon enough, so is unlikely to be worth the extra risk. At worst carbon emissions from the nuclear life cycle could begin to climb, as lower and lower grades of uranium are mined to feed its insatiable appetite.

But there is one risk associated with new reactors which is perhaps most worrying of all ? the risk of diverting attention and resources from the urgent programmes which must be implemented in order to effectively tackle climate change ? renewable energy and energy efficiency. If attention, political effort and resources are diverted to a new nuclear programme, past experience suggests that problems and delays will mean that by 2025 carbon emissions are still rising and too much time has been wasted to start implementing alternative strategies. {{ref|obs}}

Professor Andrew Blowers of the Open University, and a member of the Government?s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) warns:

?[Nuclear power] would provide the illusion of a solution to the problems of global warming and energy security which required no fundamental changes in production or consumption. It is this business-as-usual aspect of nuclear that is its most insidious characteristic. ? The danger is that by focusing on nuclear we refrain from recognizing the scale of the challenge we face and shirk our responsibility for dealing with it?. {{ref|nornot}}

==Nuclear Power - A Minimal Contribution==

Carbon dioxide is emitted from the whole energy system, not just the electricity sector, so we also need to look at transport and how we supply our heat. Nuclear power can only supply electricity, so can only ever have a small role in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. {{ref|lov}} Globally nuclear power supplies about 15.8% of current electricity generation, which is only 2.5% of final energy consumption. {{ref|stats}}

In the United Kingdom nuclear power provides around 20% of electricity, but only about 8% of total energy. If you allow for losses at the power station, nuclear power?s current contribution to the UK?s final energy consumption is only 3.6 % (80 TWh/y out of a final consumption of about 2,250 TWh/y). {{ref|grun}}

It would be unwise, therefore, to focus exclusively on electricity, as the energy debate seems to have been doing, ignoring carbon emissions from heat and transport ? we need to look at the problem of carbon emissions more holistically. For example, the UK Government?s aviation policy has given the industry permission to produce up to three times the volume of carbon emissions by 2030 than might be avoided by replacing the UK?s nuclear power stations. A rethink of aviation policy would be a far more effective way to tackle climate change. {{ref|hale}}

==Nuclear Power?s Contribution ? Too Late==

If the UK were to start the process of building new reactors soon, it would probably take until around 2020 before the first new reactor comes on stream. {{ref|mck}} Clare Spottiswoode, deputy chairman of British Energy says that, except for France and Finland, it is "highly unlikely" that any plants will be built in Britain or the rest of Europe before 2020. Europe is looking to the UK and will not undertake a new nuclear station until Britain does, she said. {{ref|spot}}

To tackle climate change the speed with which carbon abatement measures can be introduced is important. During the period when reactors are being constructed, capital is tied up and therefore unavailable for investing in alternative carbon abatement techniques. Because nuclear investments are also inherently slower to deploy, then such investments also retard carbon displacement. Spending on energy efficiency measures can be put into effect much more quickly. {{ref|lov1}}

The UK Association for the Conservation of Energy, for example, says if one new nuclear reactor is operating by 2020, it could be delivering perhaps just over one million tonnes of carbon saving. In contrast energy efficiency "could save around 25 million tonnes of carbon through cost-effective energy efficiency measures" by that date. {{ref|ace}}

Similarly, decentralised energy can be installed quickly without needing complex regulatory processes. Despite moves around the globe to speed up regulatory approval of new reactors it is hard to imagine how the balance could ever shift in favour of nuclear power. New reactors take a long time to build, are delay-prone, complex, and contentious technology, and one single major accident or terrorist attack could scuttle nuclear stations virtually everywhere.

By the time we reach 2025 it will become increasingly difficult to achieve the required 60% plus cut in carbon emissions, and it will require huge additional investment. Unless we have made significant progress by then, the chances of meeting the required targets must be very slender indeed. {{ref|nornot2}}

==Uranium Resources==

Most authorities agree that currently known conventional uranium resources are sufficient to last around 75-100 years at current levels of nuclear capacity. New uranium deposits will almost certainly be found, and higher prices will stimulate more exploration. But we don?t know what the quality of those uranium deposits will be. It is surely likely that the highest quality deposits would be the ones easiest to find, so the chances of finding more high-grade ores must be slim. As the richest ores of uranium are extracted, and the industry turns to poorer and poorer grades, emissions of carbon dioxide from the nuclear life cycle will climb. Today the average ore grade used by the industry is 0.15% - 1.5 grams of uranium oxide to 1kg of rock. At ore grades of between 0.01 and 0.02%, carbon emissions from nuclear power approach those of a gas-fired station. {{ref|org2}} The claim that nuclear power is a low carbon energy source may, therefore, turn out not to be incorrect. Given the implications of this for the effectiveness of a nuclear expansion in tackling climate change there should certainly be an independent review of carbon emissions from the nuclear life cycle.

==Scarce Resources==

Many advocates of nuclear power say that, because climate change is serious we need to promote renewables, energy efficiency and nuclear power. This suggests we have infinite sources of finance to spend on energy projects, which is obviously nonsense. Because we have scarce resources, and because of the seriousness of climate change, we need to maximize carbon reductions for every dollar spent. Investing in expensive nuclear power is just about the worst thing we can do ? energy efficiency can be up to seven times more cost effective than nuclear power. So investment in new reactors will, in effect, worsen climate change because each dollar we spend is buying less solution than it would do if we were to spend it on energy efficiency measures. {{ref|lov2}}

==Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development==

As well as spending our scarce resources as effectively as possible, we also need to ensure that our spending decisions do not impact negatively on other carbon abatement solutions. In other words, we need to make sure that building new nuclear stations does not impact negatively on carbon emissions from the energy system, which provides the other 97.5% of final energy consumption, and on moves towards making that more sustainable with lower carbon emissions. {{ref|bridge}}

The UK Government?s Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) points out that, even with a doubling of UK nuclear capacity, cuts in carbon emissions of at least 50% would still be needed from other measures if the UK is to meet its climate targets for 2050. {{ref|sdc}} So it is important that our capacity to implement other carbon abatement measures is not damaged by a decision to go ahead with the construction of new reactors. Warwick Business School (UK) (WBS) argues that, far from complementing the necessary shift to a low carbon economy, the scale of the financial and institutional arrangements needed for a new reactor programme would fatally undermine it.

The SDC says a new nuclear programme would give out the wrong signal to consumers and businesses, implying that a major technological fix is all that?s required, weakening the urgent action needed on energy efficiency. The Commission says a decision to proceed with a new reactor programme will require ?a substantial slice of political leadership ? political attention would shift, and in all likelihood undermine efforts to pursue a strategy based on energy efficiency, renewables and more CHP.? {{ref|sdc2}} Sir Jonathon Porritt, chair of the Commission, says nuclear power is seriously diverting attention from the hard decisions required to solve the UK's energy challenges. {{ref|por}}

Even the Environment Agency warns that a decision to proceed with new reactors could seriously undermine the development of a low carbon energy system because resources are drained away. {{ref|indy}} If reactor construction fails to result in the replacement of existing capacity because of construction delays or public opposition, we could end up in a worse position than we are today.

==The Finnish Experience==

The undermining of alternative low carbon energy strategies by a decision to go nuclear appears to be exactly what is happening in Finland. After falling in 2001 and 2002, Finland?s carbon emissions are now rising. Measures, promised in a 2001 climate report, have not been implemented, for example, energy taxation. {{ref|satu}} According to Finland's former environment minister, Satu Hassi MEP, once the decision was made to build the fifth reactor, the country lost interest in alternative energy sources. {{ref|grun2}}

The International Energy Agency highlights the risk to Finland of relying on carbon dioxide reductions coming from the operation of the new reactor. It says this may inhibit Finland?s ability to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets under Kyoto, if the operation of the plant is in any way delayed. {{ref|iea}} In fact construction of Olkiluoto 3 has now fallen eighteen months behind schedule. {{ref|ap}} Its original target date for completion was 2009, so there is a danger that it will not be available in time to contribute to meeting Finland?s Kyoto target.

==Conclusion==

Nuclear power will at best make only a minimal contribution to tackling climate change. In fact, because the money spent on new reactors could be much more effectively spent on other carbon abatement projects it will damage efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

It would not be possible to start bringing new reactors on stream before about 2020, so there is a very real danger that any reductions in carbon emissions will be much too late, we need to start making reductions now if we are to reduce emissions by 60% by 2050.

Nuclear power currently only provides around 2.5% of final e