Jumat, 30 November 2012

Majelis Umum PBB sepakat memberikan Palestina status sebagai negara pengamat non-anggota, langkah yang ditentang keras oleh Israel dan AS......>>>...Majelis mengambil keputusan dengan hasil 138-9 dan 41 negara abstain. ...>>>..[KELAHIRAN DAN PEMBUATAN NEGARA JADI2-AN ISRAEL PADA TAHUN 1947 YANG DILAKUKAN SECARA DADAKAN DAN TIPU MUSLIHAT...... DAN SECARA "DE JURE" DAN AKAL SEHAT ADALAH TIDAK SAH, KARENA SUATU NEGARA TANPA KEJELASAN TAPAL BATAS DAN TANPA PROKLAMASI PERJUANGAN RAKYAT ISRAEL DAN TANPA MENYATAKAN NEGARA YANG DIGUNAKAN TERSEBUT ADALAH SEBAGIAN NEGARA ARAB PALESTINA DAN TANPA PERSETUJUAN NEGARA2 TETANGGA SEBAGAI BATAS2 NEGARA. KALAU AS DAN INGGRIS....BENAR2 MAU MEMBUAT ISRAEL ADALAH NEGARA YANG SAH..DAN BENAR...TENTUNYA MEREKA MENGESAHKAN JUGA NEGARA PALESTINA DENGAN BATAS2 NEGARA KEDUANYA SECARA JELAS... HAL INI TIDAK DILAKUKAN... KARENA NEGARA MODEL INI ADALAH SSUNGGUHNYA ASAL MUASAL PIJAKAN UNTUK MEMBANGUN PANGKALAN TENTARA AS-INGGRIS UNTUK MELAKUKAN SISTEM PENJAJAHAN MODEL BARU...(NEO KOLONIALISME & NEO IMPERIALISME) NEGARA ISRAEL ADALAH CIPTAAN POLITIK TIPU DAYA DAN REKAYASA INGGRIS DAN AMERIKA SERIKAT... UNTUK MENGELABUI DAN MENDUSTAI ....BANGSA2 DI DUNIA DAN PBB ADALAH BADAN YANG MENJADI ALAT PERMAINAN POLITIKUS AS DAN SEKUTU BARATNYA TERUTAMA INGGRIS .... INI TIPU DAYA YANG SESUNGGUHNYA ISRAEL ADALAH MERUPAKAN PANGKALAN TENTARA AS DAN SEKUTU DI TIMUR-TENGAH UNTUK MENGEKALKAN PENJAJAHAN TERHADAP DUNIA ISLAM DAN BANGSA2 DI TIMUR TENGAH.... SAYANGNYA ..PARA PEMIMPIN DI TIMUR TENGAH SUDAH TERPECAH BELAH OLEH HASUTAN DAN FITNAHAN YANG MERASUK KEPADA TOKOH2 POLITIK OPORTUNIS DAN SEBAGIAN TENTARA...PEMBERONTAK YANG DISOKONG PENJAJAH INGGRIS DAN SEKUTU.. JUGA PARA ULAMA2 SUU BUATAN PARA PARA PENJAJAH...YANG RAKUS HARTA...DAN KEDUDUKAN.... INILAH KEBODOHAN SEBAGIAN UMAT ISLAM MAU DI ADU DOMBA DAN DIPECAH BELAH OLEH HANYA AMBISI YANG HARTA DAN KEKUASAAN.... SEMOGALAH KESADARAN RAKYAT DAN GENERASI BANGSA ARAB DAN UMAT ISLAM SEMAKIN BAIK DAN MENJADI ORANG2 YANG LEBIH SADAR DAN KUAT SILATURAHIM DAN PERSATUANNYA... DAN SEGERA MEWUJUDKAN KEKUATAN PERSUDARAAN-SILATURAHIM-SOLIDARITAS-PERSATUAN-KESATUAN DENGAN LANDASAN DAN BERDASARKAN AJARAN AGAMA ALLAH YANG LURUS DAN KOKOH, KOMPREHENSIF DAN INTEGRAL..SECARA UTUH MENYELURUH... AAMIIN..] ..>>>...Berikut 9 negara penentang peningkatan status Palestina: 1. Israel 2. Amerika Serikat 3. Kanada 4. Republik Ceko 5. Marshal Island 6. Mikronesia 7. Nauru 8. Palau 9. Panama....>> "Untuk pertama kalinya, akan ada negara bernama Palestina, yang diakui oleh seluruh dunia," kata Amir Hamdan pada kantor berita Associated Press....>>...Kamis 29 November 2012 menjadi hari bersejarah bagi Palestina. Mendapat pengakuan dunia sebagai sebuah negara, meski mendapatkan status penuh di PBB. Setelah perjuangan panjang tanpa henti dan kucuran darah para korban....>>...Menyambut hasil voting ini, bendera Palestina dikibarkan di ruang majelis Umum PBB, di belakang para delegasi yang bersorak dan menangis haru. Kemenangan diplomatik ini juga dirayakan di seantero Palestina, Ramallah juga Gaza. Rakyat meneriakkan "Allahuakbar", membunyikan klakson, menembakkan senjata ke udara, menari di jalanan. ..>>..Alhamdulillah, Palestina Diakui di PBB

Alhamdulillah, Palestina Diakui di PBB

Jumat, 30 November 2012, 06:07 WIB
http://www.republika.co.id/berita/internasional/palestina-israel/12/11/30/me9uwg-alhamdulillah-palestina-diakui-di-pbb

Alhamdulillah, Palestina Diakui di PBB
Bendera Palestina di Stadion
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, NEW YORK -- Sidang Majelis Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-bangsa (PBB) di New York, Amerika Serikat pada Kamis (29/11) akhirnya mengakui peningkatan status Palestina sebagai negara pemantau non anggota.

Berdasarkan hasil voting, Palestina mendapat dukungan mayoritas sebesar 138 anggota majelis umum PBB. Sementara itu, hanya sembilan negara anggota yang menolak dan 41 anggota lainnya memilih abstain.

Dengan status barunya ini, Palestina dapat bergabung dalam organisasi PBB serta terlibat dalam perjanjian internasional. Ini bisa menjadi langkah maju guna mengupayakan jalur diplomasi mewujudkan kemerdekaan negaranya.

Presiden Palestina Mahmoud Abbas menilai peningkatan status ini bisa menjadi nafas baru menuju negosiasi damai dengan Israel.

''Usaha kami ini tidak untuk mengakhiri proses negosiasi melainkan bertujuan mencoba napas baru untuk perundingan dan peletakan fondasi kuat acuan sesuai kerangka resolusi internasional yang sesuai,'' katanya seperti dikutip AFP.

Bagi Israel, status ini bukan berarti ada pengakuan terhadap Negara Palestina. Negara zionis ini balik menuduh upaya tersebut dapat memicu terhenti bahkan rusaknya peta jalan damai keduanya. Penolakan Israel atas resolusi ini juga didukung sekutunya seperti Kanada dan AS. 

Setelah Vuk Jeremic, Presiden Pertemuan Ke-67 Sidang Majelis Umum, mengumumkan hasil pemungutan suara itu, sambutan meriah datang dari ruang Sidang Majelis Umum.

Banyak duta besar dan diplomat menyambangi untuk berjabat tangan dengan Presiden Palestina Mahmoud Abbas guna menyampaikan ucapan selamat mereka.
Redaktur: Heri Ruslan
Reporter: Umi Lailatul

PBB mengakui status Palestina

Terbaru  30 November 2012 - 08:14 WIB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/indonesia/dunia/2012/11/121130_palestina_pbb.shtml

palestine , pbb
Tepuk tangan terdengar saat hasil pemungutan suara diumumkan

Majelis Umum PBB sepakat memberikan Palestina status sebagai negara pengamat non-anggota, langkah yang ditentang keras oleh Israel dan AS.

Presiden Palestina Mahmoud Abbas di hadapan majelis mengatakan hasil pemungutan suara itu adalah "peluang terakhir untuk menyelamatkan solusi dua-negara" dengan Israel.
Delegasi Israel di PBB mengatakan hal itu membuat proses perdamaian "mundur", sedangkan AS mengatakan keputusan itu "disayangkan."
"Hari ini dunia akan mendengar suara kami"
Amir Hamdan di Ramallah, Tepi Barat
Majelis mengambil keputusan dengan hasil 138-9 dan 41 negara abstain.

'Akta kelahiran'

"Enam puluh lima tahun yang lalu hari ini, Majelis Umum PBB mengadopsi resolusi 181, yang memisahkan tanah Palestina yang bersejarah menjadi dua negara dan menjadi akta kelahiran bagi Israel," kata Abbas sebelum pemungutan suara berlangsung.

"Majelis Umum hari ini terpanggil untuk mengeluarkan akta kelahiran bagi terwujudnya Negara Palestina," kata dia.

Duta Besar Israel untuk PBB, Ron Prosor, mengatakan "satu-satunya cara untuk mencapai perdamaian adalah melalui persetujuan" antara kedua belah pihak, bukan PBB.

[KELAHIRAN DAN PEMBUATAN NEGARA JADI2-AN ISRAEL PADA TAHUN 1947 YANG DILAKUKAN SECARA DADAKAN DAN TIPU MUSLIHAT...... DAN SECARA "DE JURE" DAN AKAL SEHAT ADALAH TIDAK SAH, KARENA SUATU NEGARA TANPA KEJELASAN TAPAL BATAS DAN TANPA PROKLAMASI PERJUANGAN RAKYAT ISRAEL DAN TANPA MENYATAKAN NEGARA YANG DIGUNAKAN TERSEBUT ADALAH SEBAGIAN NEGARA ARAB PALESTINA DAN TANPA PERSETUJUAN NEGARA2 TETANGGA SEBAGAI BATAS2 NEGARA.  

KALAU AS DAN INGGRIS....BENAR2 MAU MEMBUAT ISRAEL ADALAH NEGARA YANG SAH..DAN BENAR...TENTUNYA MEREKA MENGESAHKAN JUGA NEGARA PALESTINA DENGAN BATAS2 NEGARA KEDUANYA SECARA JELAS... HAL INI TIDAK DILAKUKAN... KARENA NEGARA MODEL INI ADALAH SSUNGGUHNYA ASAL MUASAL PIJAKAN UNTUK MEMBANGUN PANGKALAN TENTARA AS-INGGRIS UNTUK MELAKUKAN SISTEM PENJAJAHAN MODEL BARU...(NEO KOLONIALISME & NEO IMPERIALISME)

NEGARA ISRAEL ADALAH CIPTAAN POLITIK TIPU DAYA DAN REKAYASA INGGRIS DAN AMERIKA SERIKAT... UNTUK MENGELABUI DAN MENDUSTAI ....BANGSA2 DI DUNIA DAN PBB ADALAH BADAN YANG MENJADI ALAT PERMAINAN POLITIKUS AS DAN SEKUTU BARATNYA TERUTAMA INGGRIS ....

INI TIPU DAYA YANG SESUNGGUHNYA ISRAEL ADALAH MERUPAKAN PANGKALAN TENTARA AS DAN SEKUTU DI TIMUR-TENGAH UNTUK MENGEKALKAN PENJAJAHAN TERHADAP DUNIA ISLAM DAN BANGSA2 DI TIMUR TENGAH....

SAYANGNYA ..PARA PEMIMPIN DI TIMUR TENGAH SUDAH TERPECAH BELAH OLEH HASUTAN DAN FITNAHAN YANG MERASUK KEPADA TOKOH2 POLITIK OPORTUNIS DAN SEBAGIAN TENTARA...PEMBERONTAK YANG DISOKONG PENJAJAH INGGRIS DAN SEKUTU.. JUGA PARA ULAMA2 SUU BUATAN PARA PARA PENJAJAH...YANG RAKUS HARTA...DAN KEDUDUKAN....

INILAH KEBODOHAN SEBAGIAN UMAT ISLAM MAU DI ADU DOMBA DAN DIPECAH BELAH OLEH HANYA AMBISI YANG HARTA DAN KEKUASAAN....

SEMOGALAH KESADARAN RAKYAT DAN GENERASI BANGSA ARAB DAN UMAT ISLAM SEMAKIN BAIK DAN MENJADI ORANG2 YANG LEBIH SADAR DAN KUAT SILATURAHIM DAN PERSATUANNYA... DAN SEGERA MEWUJUDKAN KEKUATAN PERSUDARAAN-SILATURAHIM-SOLIDARITAS-PERSATUAN-KESATUAN DENGAN LANDASAN DAN BERDASARKAN AJARAN AGAMA ALLAH YANG LURUS DAN KOKOH, KOMPREHENSIF DAN INTEGRAL..SECARA UTUH MENYELURUH... AAMIIN..] 

"Tidak ada keputusan PBB yang dapat menghancurkan ikatan 4.000 tahun antara rakyat Israel dan tanah Israel," kata Prosor.

palestina
Warga Palestina merayakan keputusan PBB
Para penentang keputusan itu mengatakan negara Palestina seharusnya dimunculkan melalui negosiasi bilateral, seperti ditentukan dalam perjanjian damai Oslo 1993 yang mengukuhkan Otoritas Palestina.

Berbicara usai pemungutan suara, duta besar AS untuk PBB, Susan Rice, mendesak Palestina dan Israel untuk kembali mengadakan pembicaraan damai dan memperingatkan kedua negara agar tidak melakukan aksi-aksi unilateral.

Menteri Luar Negeri AS Hillary Clinton menyebut keputusan itu "disayangkan dan tidak kontra-produktif", dan mengatakan hal itu justru memberikan lebih banyak rintangan pada jalan damai.

"Dengan datang ke PBB, Palestina telah melanggar kesepakatan dengan Israel dan Israel akan bertindak sesuai peraturan," kata kantor Perdana Menteri Israel Benjamin Netanyahu melalui Twitter.

Sekjen PBB Ban Ki-moon juga menyerukan pembicaraan antara kedua negara dan mengatakan resolusi itu mengecilkan pentingnya bagi Palestina dan Israel kembali melakukan negosiasi damai.

Inggris abstain dari pemungutan suara, demikian pula Jerman. Kepulauan Marshall dan Panama termasuk di antara negara yang memberikan suara sama dengan Israel dan AS.

Di Tepi Barat, warga merayakan hasil di PBB dengan mengibarkan bendera dan bertakbir.

"Untuk pertama kalinya, akan ada negara bernama Palestina, yang diakui oleh seluruh dunia," kata Amir Hamdan pada kantor berita Associated Press.

"Hari ini dunia akan mendengar suara kita," tambahnya.

Ini 9 Negara Penentang Status Palestina di PBB


Liputan6.com, New York
http://id.berita.yahoo.com/ini-9-negara-penentang-status-palestina-di-pbb-020805690.html

Kamis 29 November 2012 menjadi hari bersejarah bagi Palestina. Mendapat pengakuan dunia sebagai sebuah negara, meski mendapatkan status penuh di PBB. Setelah perjuangan panjang tanpa henti dan kucuran darah para korban.

Seperti dimuat Sky News, Jumat (30/11/20120), relosusi Majelis Umum PBB meningkatkan status Palestina menjadi negara pengamat non-anggota. Didukung 138 negara, 41 menyatakan abstain, dan hanya 9 negara yang menentang. 

Menyambut hasil voting ini, bendera Palestina dikibarkan di ruang majelis Umum PBB, di belakang para delegasi yang bersorak dan menangis haru. Kemenangan diplomatik ini juga dirayakan di seantero Palestina, Ramallah juga Gaza. Rakyat meneriakkan "Allahuakbar", membunyikan klakson, menembakkan senjata ke udara, menari di jalanan. 

Meski perjuangan belum berakhir, sampai Palestina diakui sebagai sebuah negara merdeka dan berdaulat. Namun ini adalah langkah maju: untuk mendirikan negara Palestina yang meliputi Tepi Barat, Jalur Gaza, dan Yerusalem timur -- sebuah wilayah yang dikooptasi Israel dalam Perang Timur Tengah 1967. 

Status ini membuka kesempatan bagi Palestina untuk bergabung di badan-badan PBB, termasuk International Criminal Court (ICC), yang bisa digunakan untuk memperkarakan Israel dalam kasus kejahatan perang. 

AS-Israel malu berat
Di sisi lain, ini adalah kekalahan diplomatik memalukan bagi Amerika Serikat dan Israel.

AS langsung mengkritik pemungutan suara historis ini. "Resolusi tak menguntungkan dan kontraproduktif hari ini akan menghambat jalan perdamaian," kata Duta Besar AS untuk PBB, Susan Rice.  Kata "tak menguntungkan" dan "tidak produktif berasal dari Menlu AS, Hillary Clinton. 

Perdana Menteri Israel Benjamin Netanyahu bahkan mencak-mencak. Ia menuding pidato Presiden Palestina, Mahmoud Abbas sebelum voting sebagai "fitnah dan berbisa". Ia bahkan menganggap pemungutan suara itu tak berarti. 

Selain Israel dan AS, hanya Kanada negara besar yang menentang peningkatan status Palestina itu. Jerman dan Belanda yang sebelumnya cenderung menolak, memilih jalan tengah, abstain.

Berikut 9 negara penentang peningkatan status Palestina: 

1. Israel
2. Amerika Serikat
3. Kanada
4. Republik Ceko
5. Marshal Island
6. Mikronesia
7. Nauru
8. Palau
9. Panama.

Minggu, 25 November 2012

BAHAYA!!!....BAHAYA!!!.....TANGAN DAN KEKUATAN ASING...AKAN SEMAKIN MENCENGKERAM INDONESIA...??!!... ADA APA DAN PERMAINAN APA DENGAN ARB..DAN GOLKAR....???!! >>>>>> APAKAH INI BAGIAN DARI AMBISI ARB DALAM RENCANA DAN UPAYA KANDIDAT PRESIDEN 2014??!! SEHINGGA RELA MENJUAL HABIS PT BUMI Plc YANG KONON ADALAH LADANG BATU BARA TERBESAR DI INDONESIA??!!...>>.ATAWKAH INI BAGIAN DARI KONDISI KEUANGAN PERUSAHAAN BAKRIE...SEHINGGA HARUS MENGORBANKAN PT BUMI...??? >>> HAL SEPERTI INI BISA MENJADI BATU SANDUNGAN ARB...DALAM UPAYA KANDIDAT PRESIDEN 2014??!!..>>> ATAW MENCARI POSISI TAWAR DALAM KEKUATAN POLITIK GOLKAR 2014..??!!>>..Rothschild Berani Bayar Rp 2,5 Triliun Depak Bakrie dari Bumi>>.New York - Taipan asal Eropa, Nathaniel Rothschild, menyatakan konsorsium yang ia pimpin akan menyuntikkan dana hingga sebesar US$ 270 juta (Rp 2,5 triliun) kepada Bumi Plc jika dewan komisarisnya berani memutus hubungan dengan Grup Bakrie....>>...Roeslani dan Tan punya saham di Bumi Plc lewat perusahaan investasi Recapital Advisors dan PT Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal (BORN). Recapital menguasai 13% saham Bumi Plc, sementara Borneo 23,8%. "NR Investments percaya Bapak Tan dan Keluarga Bakrie sudah tidak lagi tertarik untuk berada di Bumi Plc. Oleh karena itu, bersama dengan investor lain, NR Investments sudah berkomitmen untuk menyuntikkan dana US$ 270 juta ke Bumi Plc untuk menyingkirkan kelompok tersebut," kata Rothschild dalam keterangan tertulis yang dikutip Wall Street Journal, Jumat (23/11/2012).....>>..Rothschild pun lalu mengirimkan proposal tambahan yang isinya menyarankan alternatif tawaran Grup Bakrie tersebut. Ia menawarkan pembelian kembali 29% saham BUMI milik Bumi Plc senilai US$ 278 juta secara tunai dengan catatan Grup Bakrie hengkang dari perusahan yang tercatat di bursa London tersebut.>>....Kasus Bakrie-Rothschild Bisa Hambat Ical Jadi Presiden...>> APAKAH INI PERKONGSIAN YANG SANGAT PAHIT BAGI BAKRIE??!!...>>>...Hubungan Grup Bakrie dan Rothschild yang makin memanas diprediksi akan menjadi penghambat Aburizal Bakrie (Ical) dalam niatannya menjadi presiden Republik Indonesia. Pasalnya, keributan yang terjadi di tubuh perusahaan kongsi keduanya, Bumi Plc, bisa merusak citra Ical yang selama ini dijaga demi kelancaran Pilpres 2014, meski ia sendiri sudah memutuskan untuk tidak ikut campur dalam kelangsungan usaha Grup Bakrie sejak menyatakan jadi kandidat calon presiden. Selain kisruh di Bumi Plc dengan Nathaniel Rothschild, Ical juga masih menyisakan kontroversi besar yaitu lumpur Lapindo yang mulai terjadi 2006 lalu, meski Mahkamah Agung sudah menyatakan perusahaannya bebas dari kesalahan. "Dalam politik, semuanya berhubungan. Orang akan bertanya-tanya, apakah dia bisa memimpin negara kalau memimpin perusahaan saja tidak bisa?" kata kepala salah satu lembaga survey Kuskridho Ambardi kepada AFP, Senin (12/11/2012)....>>>....Kelompok usahanya yang sekarang dijalankan oleh anak Ical itu menawarkan diri untuk keluarkan dari perusahaan yang dulunya bernama Vallar Plc tersebut. Caranya dengan membeli kembali saham di BUMI dan PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk (BRAU) senilai US$ 1,4 miliar (Rp 13 triliun). Tawaran yang diberikan Bakrie itu jika disetujui maka akan dilakukan dalam tiga tahap. Pertama menukar guling saham Bumi Plc dengan 29% saham BUMI yang dimilikinya. Kedua, membeli sisa saham BUMI secara tunai, dan terakhir membeli 85% saham Berau milik Bumi Plc....>> DISISI LAIN ADA LAGI PERUSAHAAN ARB YANG KONON AKAN PINDAH TANGAN...KEPADA TAIPAN MUDA INDONESIA DARI KALANGAN CINA...YANG KONON SANGAT BERPENGALAMAN BERMAIN ....DAN MENGALAHKAN TUTUT SUHARTO...ATAS BROADCAST TV TPI ??!! >> LIHAT SAJA SEPAK TERJANG PARA KONGLOMERAT INI MENGHIMPIT DAN MENDESAK PARA PENGUSAHA ANAK DIDIK SUHARTO SEMAKIN TERSINGKIR...??!!! >> ADA FENOMENA POLITIK APA DINEGERI INI... >> PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT), salah satu perusahaan milik pengusaha Hary Tanoesoedibjo akan membeli seluruh ruas tol milik Grup Bakrie. Dalam aksi korporasi ini, anak usaha Grup MNC itu menggandeng mitra strategis. "Perseroan melalui salah satu anak usahanya yang bekerja sama dengan pihak ketiga sedang dalam tahap negosiasi untuk mengakuisisi kepemilikan atas ruas tol milik PT Bakrie Toll Road," kata Direktur BHIT Darma Putra dalam keterangan tertulisnya, Rabu (21/11/2012)....>>...MNC Group melalui anak usaha PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT) berencana untuk memborong semua tol milik Bakrie, baik yang sudah beroperasi maupun yang masih proses konstruksi. Bos MNC, Hary Tanoesoedibjo dinilai punya sedikit pengalaman karena sebelumnya telah terjun ke bisnis tol juga sebagai pemegang saham PT CMNP. Hal ini diungkapkan oleh Ketua Asosiasi Tol Indonesia (ATI) Fatchurahman kepada detikFinance, Selasa ...>>..."Kalau saya membangun konstruksi maka kontrakstornya harus pengalaman. kalau mengakuisisi itu, asal dia punya uang, maka dia bisa. Pengoperasiannya gampang, tinggal perawatan teratur agar memenuhi SPM biar bisa naik tarif," pungkasnya. PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT) memang mempunyai saham di perusahaan jalan tol, PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP). Di 2011 BHIT sempat melepas sahamnya di CMNP dengan menjual 9 juta saham atau 0,45% total saham, di harga Rp 1.250 per saham....>>...Pasca masuknya Creador Malaysia dan Saban Capital Group menjadi investor strategis di PT MNC Sky Vision Tbk (MSKY) melalui Initial Public Offering (IPO), perusahaan ini mengubah struktur dewan komisaris. Dua perusahaan investasi ini menempatkan dua komisaris di jajaran MSKY, yaitu Adam Chesnoff dan Brahmal Vesudevan. Adam merupakan perwakilan Saban dan kedudukan terakhir menjabat President and CEO. Sedangkan Brahmal memiliki jabatan CEO Creador, yakni perusahaan private equity asal Malaysia. Dua muka baru ini menggantikan anggota direksi lama Agus Mulyanto dan Indra Pudjiastuti...>>


New York - Taipan asal Eropa, Nathaniel Rothschild, menyatakan konsorsium yang ia pimpin akan menyuntikkan dana hingga sebesar US$ 270 juta (Rp 2,5 triliun) kepada Bumi Plc jika dewan komisarisnya berani memutus hubungan dengan Grup Bakrie.

Perusahaan yang dulu bernama Vallar Plc itu sudah menerima dua proposal, satu lagi Rothschild, satu dari lagi Grup Bakrie yang menguasai 23,8% di perusahaan tersebut.

Grup Bakrie menawarkan untuk melepas hubungan dengan Bumi Plc melalui pembelian kembali saham-saham yang dipegang Bumi Plc di aset-asetnya di Indonesia senilai US$ 1,2 miliar.

Yaitu melalui pembelian kembali 29% saham BUMI juga 85% kepemilikan di PT Berau Coal Tbk (BRAU) yang keduanya merupakan anak usaha Bumi Plc. Pembelian akan dilakukan secara bertahap. Masing-masing nilainya US$ 278 juta dan US$ 950 juta.

Rothschild, yang juga salah satu pemegang saham Mayoritas di Bumi Plc merespons proposal ini dengan cara mengundurkan diri dari jabatannya sebagai direksi. Ia menilai langkah yang dilakukan Grup Bakrie ini tidak memihak pada kepentingan investor minoritas.

Apalagi, salah satu orang terkaya di Indonesia yang menjadi komisaris Bumi Plc juga punya hubungan dekat dengan Grup Bakrie.

Rothschild pun lalu mengirimkan proposal tambahan yang isinya menyarankan alternatif tawaran Grup Bakrie tersebut. Ia menawarkan pembelian kembali 29% saham BUMI milik Bumi Plc senilai US$ 278 juta secara tunai dengan catatan Grup Bakrie hengkang dari perusahan yang tercatat di bursa London tersebut.

Rothschild, melalui NR Investment, memimpin konsorsium untuk menambah modal di Bumi Plc dalam rangka membeli saham-saham milik Samin Tan dan Rosan Perkasa Roeslani dari Bumi Plc. Sehingga Bumi Plc bebas dari tangan Indonesia dan sepenuhnya berada di tangan Rothschild.

Roeslani dan Tan punya saham di Bumi Plc lewat perusahaan investasi Recapital Advisors dan PT Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal (BORN). Recapital menguasai 13% saham Bumi Plc, sementara Borneo 23,8%.

"NR Investments percaya Bapak Tan dan Keluarga Bakrie sudah tidak lagi tertarik untuk berada di Bumi Plc. Oleh karena itu, bersama dengan investor lain, NR Investments sudah berkomitmen untuk menyuntikkan dana US$ 270 juta ke Bumi Plc untuk menyingkirkan kelompok tersebut," kata Rothschild dalam keterangan tertulis yang dikutip Wall Street Journal, Jumat (23/11/2012).

Taipan pertambangan Robert Friedland sudah setuju ambil bagian dalam konsorsiumnya Rothschild, kata dua sumber yang mengetahui rencana tersebut. Friedland selama ini sudah punya jam terbang tinggi di dunia pertambangan.

Ia terlibat dalam penemuan beberapa tambang besar dunia, termasuk tambang emas Oyu Tolgoi dan proyek tembaga di Mongolia. Friedland menyatakan siap membantu setoran dana hingga sebesar US$ 50 juta kata sumber tadi.

Selain itu saudara Prabowo Subianto, Hashim Djojohadikusumo, dikabarkan juga telah sepakat membantu kucuran dana US$ 50 juta kepada konsorsium asing tersebut. Namun, pihak Hashim tidak mau memberikan komentar dalam kabar ini.
 

Kasus Bakrie-Rothschild Bisa Hambat Ical Jadi Presiden

Angga Aliya - detikfinance 
http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/11/12/113038/2089072/6/kasus-bakrie-rothschild-bisa-hambat-ical-jadi-presiden?
Senin, 12/11/2012 11:36 WIB
 
Jakarta - Hubungan Grup Bakrie dan Rothschild yang makin memanas diprediksi akan menjadi penghambat Aburizal Bakrie (Ical) dalam niatannya menjadi presiden Republik Indonesia.

Pasalnya, keributan yang terjadi di tubuh perusahaan kongsi keduanya, Bumi Plc, bisa merusak citra Ical yang selama ini dijaga demi kelancaran Pilpres 2014, meski ia sendiri sudah memutuskan untuk tidak ikut campur dalam kelangsungan usaha Grup Bakrie sejak menyatakan jadi kandidat calon presiden.
Selain kisruh di Bumi Plc dengan Nathaniel Rothschild, Ical juga masih menyisakan kontroversi besar yaitu lumpur Lapindo yang mulai terjadi 2006 lalu, meski Mahkamah Agung sudah menyatakan perusahaannya bebas dari kesalahan.

"Dalam politik, semuanya berhubungan. Orang akan bertanya-tanya, apakah dia bisa memimpin negara kalau memimpin perusahaan saja tidak bisa?" kata kepala salah satu lembaga survey Kuskridho Ambardi kepada AFP, Senin (12/11/2012).


Kisruh yang terjadi di Bumi Plc awalnya terjadi karena perbedaaan perdapat antara beberapa direksi, dibumbui oleh masalah finansial, seperti utang dan laporan keuangan, salah satu anak usahanya di Indonesia yaitu PT Bumi Resources Tbk (BUMI).

Perusahaan tambang terbesar di Indonesia itu didirikan oleh Grup Bakrie dan sekarang menjadi bagian dari Bumi Plc bersama Rothschild dan salah satu orang terkaya di Indonesia Samin Tan, pemilik Grup Borneo.

Grup Bakrie sudah menawarkan pembelian kembali saham BUMI dari Bumi Plc. Tawaran ini sudah seolah menyiramkan bensin ke hubungan mereka yang sudah lama memanas sebelumnya.

Kelompok usahanya yang sekarang dijalankan oleh anak Ical itu menawarkan diri untuk keluarkan dari perusahaan yang dulunya bernama Vallar Plc tersebut. Caranya dengan membeli kembali saham di BUMI dan PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk (BRAU) senilai US$ 1,4 miliar (Rp 13 triliun).

Tawaran yang diberikan Bakrie itu jika disetujui maka akan dilakukan dalam tiga tahap. Pertama menukar guling saham Bumi Plc dengan 29% saham BUMI yang dimilikinya. Kedua, membeli sisa saham BUMI secara tunai, dan terakhir membeli 85% saham Berau milik Bumi Plc.


Proposal yang diberikan Grup Bakrie pada bulan lalu itu menyusul tuduhan adanya penyimpangan dana di BUMI dan permintaan Rothschild untuk melakukan audit investigasi di perusahaan tambang tersebut.

Rothschild merespons tawaran itu dengan menyatakan mundur dari jabatan direksi di Bumi Plc, yang dibentuk dua tahun lalu bersama Grup Bakrie. Pengunduran diri ini dilakukan setelah beredar kabar hubungan Rothschild-Bakrie tidak lagi mesra seperti dulu.

Akan tetapi, merespons tawaran dari Grup Bakrie itu, Bumi Plc menerima proposal baru dari Nat Rothschild. Proposal terbaru ini akan menawarkan alternatif selain rencana pembelian kembali saham BUMI senilai US$ 1,4 miliar tadi.

Lawan Bakrie di Bumi Plc, Rothschild Dikabarkan Cari Bekingan

Angga Aliya - detikfinance 
http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/11/02/141040/2079820/6/lawan-bakrie-di-bumi-plc-rothschild-dikabarkan-cari-bekingan?
Jumat, 02/11/2012 14:15 WIB
Hong Kong -  
Investor asal Inggris, Nataniel Rothschild, dikabarkan sedang mencari mitra di Indonesia guna menjawab rencana hengkangnya Grup Bakrie dari Bumi Plc, perusahaan kongsi mereka yang tercatat di bursa London.

Grup Bakrie sudah menawarkan pembelian kembali saham anak usahanya di Indonesia, PT Bumi Resources Tbk (BUMI) senilai US$ 1,4 miliar (Rp 12,6 triliun) dari Bumi Plc. Tawaran ini sudah seolah menyiramkan bensin ke hubungan mereka yang sudah lama memanas sebelumnya.

Menurut sumber yang mengetahui detail transaksi tersebut dikutip Reuters, Jumat (2/11/2012), Rothschild yang menjalin kerjasama dengan Bakrie dua tahun lalu itu, sudah berbicara dengan beberapa mitra potensial, termasuk salah satunya kandidat calon presiden Indonesia Prabowo Subianto.

Tujuan dari pencarian mitra ini adalah mengambil alih saham salah satu perusahaan tambang terbesar di Indonesia tersebut. Namun sayang, sumber yang enggan disebutkan namanya itu mengatakan masih belum jelas peranan Prabowo dalam rencana Rothschild tersebut.

Grup Bakrie, yang juga dipimpin oleh kandidat calon presiden Pemilu 2014 RI Aburizal Bakrie, sudah menawarkan diri untuk keluarkan dari perusahaan yang dulunya bernama Vallar Plc tersebut. Caranya dengan membeli kembali saham di BUMI dan PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk (BRAU).

Tawaran yang diberikan Bakrie itu jika disetujui maka akan dilakukan dalam tiga tahap. Pertama menukar guling saham Bumi Plc dengan 29% saham BUMI yang dimilikinya. Kedua, membeli sisa saham BUMI secara tunai, dan terakhir membeli 85% saham Berau milik Bumi Plc.

Tawaran yang diberikan Grup Bakrie pada bulan lalu itu menyusul tuduhan adanya penyimpangan dana di BUMI dan permintaan Rothschild untuk melakukan audit investigasi di perusahaan tambang tersebut.

Rothschild merespons tawaran itu dengan menyatakan mundur dari jabatan direksi di Bumi Plc, yang dibentuk dua tahun lalu bersama Grup Bakrie. Pengunduran diri ini dilakukan setelah beredar kabar hubungan Rothschild-Bakrie tidak lagi mesra seperti dulu.

(ang/dnl)

Akuisisi Tol Bakrie, Hary Tanoe Gandeng Mitra Strategis

Angga Aliya - detikfinance 
http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/11/21/114116/2096814/6/akuisisi-tol-bakrie-hary-tanoe-gandeng-mitra-strategis?
Rabu, 21/11/2012 11:43 WIB
 
 
Jakarta
PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT), salah satu perusahaan milik pengusaha Hary Tanoesoedibjo akan membeli seluruh ruas tol milik Grup Bakrie. Dalam aksi korporasi ini, anak usaha Grup MNC itu menggandeng mitra strategis.

"Perseroan melalui salah satu anak usahanya yang bekerja sama dengan pihak ketiga sedang dalam tahap negosiasi untuk mengakuisisi kepemilikan atas ruas tol milik PT Bakrie Toll Road," kata Direktur BHIT Darma Putra dalam keterangan tertulisnya, Rabu (21/11/2012).

Sayangnya, perseroan tidak menyebutkan identitas mitranya tersebut. "Apabila rencana akuisisi tersebut telah terealisasi akan kami laporkan secara tertulis," tambahnya.

Jalan tol yang dibeli tersebut antara lain tol Kanci-Pejagan (telah beroperasi), ataupun Pejagan-Pemalang, Pasuruan-Probolinggo, Batang-Semarang, Cimanggis-Cibitung, serta Ciawi-Sukabumi.

Khusus pada ruas tol Ciawi-Sukabumi, grup MNC makin bersemangat karena terjadi transaksi tambahan. Yakni pengalihan lahan 1.000 ha di Lido yang sebelumnya akan dibangun taman bermain (theme park) oleh Bakrie.

(ang/dnl)

Siap Borong Tol Milik Bakrie, Hary Tanoe Sudah Punya Pengalaman

Zulfi Suhendra - detikfinance 

http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/11/13/101738/2090033/6/siap-borong-tol-milik-bakrie-hary-tanoe-sudah-punya-pengalaman?

Selasa, 13/11/2012 10:17 WIB
 
Jakarta
 
MNC Group melalui anak usaha PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT) berencana untuk memborong semua tol milik Bakrie, baik yang sudah beroperasi maupun yang masih proses konstruksi. Bos MNC, Hary Tanoesoedibjo dinilai punya sedikit pengalaman karena sebelumnya telah terjun ke bisnis tol juga sebagai pemegang saham PT CMNP.

Hal ini diungkapkan oleh Ketua Asosiasi Tol Indonesia (ATI) Fatchurahman kepada detikFinance, Selasa (13/11/12).

"Dia (Hary Tanoe) pemegang saham CMNP untuk ruas tol dalam kota, lalu ada lagi di Surabaya, dan Depok Antasari," ungkap Fatchur.

Meski demikian, Fatchur menambahkan, untuk mengakuisisi sebuah proyek tol, tak harus punya pengalaman atau jam terbang tinggi. Asalkan memiliki dana yang besar, siapapun bisa memiliki sebuah proyek jalan tol dan mengoperasikannya.

"Kalau mengakuisisi itu siapa aja bisa, sah-sah aja. Asal harganya cocok. Walau secara yuridis harus lapor ke Menteri PU. Kalau orangnya bonafid, sah-sah saja," paparnya.

Fatchur memaparkan, dana yang dimaksud bukan serta merta dana yang dimiliki sendiri. Sebuah perusahaan harus bisa menggerakan dana yang dikeluarkan itu agar menjadi sebuah pendapatan dari pengoperasian tol itu sendiri.

"Mereka nggak harus punya uang. Asal mereka mampu untuk menggenerate uang itu, memobilisasi uang itu," paparnya.

Lain hal dengan konstruksi, lanjut Fatchur, yang harus memiliki banyak pengalaman. Untuk mengoperasikan tol, adalah hal mudah.

"Kalau saya membangun konstruksi maka kontrakstornya harus pengalaman. kalau mengakuisisi itu, asal dia punya uang, maka dia bisa. Pengoperasiannya gampang, tinggal perawatan teratur agar memenuhi SPM biar bisa naik tarif," pungkasnya.

PT Bhakti Investama Tbk (BHIT) memang mempunyai saham di perusahaan jalan tol, PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP). Di 2011 BHIT sempat melepas sahamnya di CMNP dengan menjual 9 juta saham atau 0,45% total saham, di harga Rp 1.250 per saham.


Harga penjualan tersebut sedikit lebih rendah dari harga rata-rata saham CMNP selama sepekan lalu, yaitu di level Rp 1.282 per saham.

Kepemilikan BHIT di CMNP sudah menyusut menjadi hanya 3,15% saham dan kini BHIT tak lagi mempunyai saham. 

Ditopang Iklan, Omzet Perusahaan Media Hary Tanoe Capai Rp 4,5 Triliun

Whery Enggo Prayogi - detikfinance 
http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/10/19/110250/2066910/6/ditopang-iklan-omzet-perusahaan-media-hary-tanoe-capai-rp-45-triliun?
Jumat, 19/10/2012 11:02 WIB
Jakarta
PT Media Nusantara Citra Tbk (MNCN) mampu menjaga pertumbuhan kinerja keuangan hingga triwulan III-2012. Hingga September ini, perseroan meraih omzet Rp 4,462 triliun dengan penopang utama dari pendapatan iklan televisi RCTI, MNC TV dan Global TV yang mencapai Rp 3,77 triliun.

Berdasarkan laporan keuangan MNCN, seperti dikutip Jumat (19/10/2012), total omset perseroan mengalami kenaikan 14,05% dari triwulan III-2011 Rp 3,912 triliun menjadi Rp 4,46 triliun. Pendapatan iklan mencapai Rp 3,944 triliun, naik dari periode sebelumnya Rp 3,241 triliun.

Iklan terbesar masuk dari televisi Rp 3,77 triliun, kemudian media cetak Rp 153,26 miliar dan iklan radio Rp 20,5 miliar. Seperti diketahui MNCN menaungi banyak perusahaan media diantaranya PT Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI), PT Global Informasi Bermutu (GIB), PT Cipta Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (CTPI), PT MNC Networks (MNCN), MNC International Middle East Limited (MIMEL), MNC International Limited (MIL), Linktone Ltd dan banyak lainnya.

Perseroan juga masih memiliki media cetak dan online diantaranya, PT Media Nusantara Informasi (MNI), PT MNI Global (MNIG), PT MNI Publishing (MNIP), PT MNI Entertainment (MNIE) dan PT Okezone Indonesia. Pendapatan MNCN masih dilengkapi dari value added services dan content Rp 270,03 miliar dan lain-lain Rp 248,49 miliar.

Perusahaan Harry Tanoesoedibjo ini pun mencatat laba kotor Rp 2,42 triliun, naik dari periode yang sama tahun 2011 Rp 2,18 triliun, dengan laba sebelum pajak Rp 1,622 triliun.

Perseroan pun meraih laba bersih periode berjalan Rp 1,27 triliun, naik signifikan dari sebelumnya Rp 837,39 miliar, dengan laba yang diatribusikan kepada entitas induk Rp 1,16 triliun.

(wep/ang)

Investor Malaysia Masuk, TV Berbayar Hary Tanoe Rombak Komisaris

Whery Enggo Prayogi - detikfinance 
http://finance.detik.com/read/2012/10/05/120024/2055376/6/investor-malaysia-masuk-tv-berbayar-hary-tanoe-rombak-komisaris?

Jakarta - Pasca masuknya Creador Malaysia dan Saban Capital Group menjadi investor strategis di PT MNC Sky Vision Tbk (MSKY) melalui Initial Public Offering (IPO), perusahaan ini mengubah struktur dewan komisaris.

Dua perusahaan investasi ini menempatkan dua komisaris di jajaran MSKY, yaitu Adam Chesnoff dan Brahmal Vesudevan. Adam merupakan perwakilan Saban dan kedudukan terakhir menjabat President and CEO.


Sedangkan Brahmal memiliki jabatan CEO Creador, yakni perusahaan private equity asal Malaysia. Dua muka baru ini menggantikan anggota direksi lama Agus Mulyanto dan Indra Pudjiastuti.

Direktur Utama Perseroan Rudy Tanoesoedibjo menegaskan, masuknya komisaris baru ini akan memperkuat bisnis MNC Sky Vision milik Hary Tanoesoedibjo yang terkenal dengan TV berbayarnya Indovision.

Berikut susunan direksi dan komisaris baru MSKY:
  • Direktur Utama : Rudy Tanoesoedibjo
  • Direktur : Handhianto Kentjono
  • Direktur : Gwenarty Setiadi
  • Direktur : Salvona Tumonggor Situmeang
  • Direktur : Wesly Parsaoran Parapat
  • Direktur Tidak Terafiliasi: Effendi Budiman
  • Komisaris Utama : Harry Tanoesoedibjo
  • Komisaris : Posman Lumban Tobing
  • Komisaris : Adam Chesnoff
  • Komisaris : Brahmal Vesudevan
  • Komisaris Independen : Hery Kusnanto
  • Komisaris Independen : Jeffrie Geovanie
(wep/dnl)

 

....Nuclear Power and the Red Queen Syndrome ....>>.....The electricity needed for any country to successfully replace fossil fuels, both for transportation and everyday use, will have to come from nuclear generation. As the world’s population and standard of living continues to climb, demand for more - and cleaner energy - grows alongside the pressures we continue to put on our environment. ...>>Today, there is an almost global wide move to develop higher levels of nuclear energy production. This is because nuclear energy works, it’s safe and recognition is slowly dawning it’s going to be impossible to meet the global, growing demand for energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions without nuclear energy. ..

Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar

Climate Change, Nuclear Power and the Red Queen Syndrome

Commodities / Nuclear PowerNov 24, 2012 - 04:13 AM
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article37698.html 
All through human evolution we have been harnessing increasingly effective forms of energy. From human power to horse power, to wood, coal, natural gas and uranium we've been working our way up the energy efficiency ladder. In reality what we've been doing is searching for the highest energy density to make energy production more efficient.

"The release of energy from splitting a uranium atom turns out to be 2 million times greater than breaking the carbon-hydrogen bond in coal, oil or wood. Compared to all the forms of energy ever employed by humanity, nuclear power is off the scale. Wind has less than 1/10th the energy density of wood, wood half the density of coal, and coal half the density of octane. Altogether they differ by a factor of about 50. Nuclear has 2 million times the energy density of gasoline." William Tucker, Understanding E=MC2

Ahead of the Herd recently interviewed Richard (Rick) Mills about the dark cloud of negative sentiment hanging over the nuclear power industry.....

Ahead of the Herd (AOTH): Japan's reactors are offline, Chinese demand has slowed considerably as well. German demand has evaporated and many miners are being forced to sell into the spot and mid-term market. This selling has dropped the much watched spot price of uranium to US$40.00 lb.

RM: Japan's inventories are thought to be an overhang in the spot market as are German inventory sales. There's been very limited Chinese demand lately because of the country's revised nuclear new build schedule.
Buyers are sitting on the sidelines waiting for prices to come to them.

AOTH: The Chinese authorities took a timeout in regards to new nuclear builds to implement stringent safety standards in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.

RM: Yes they did. But China has recently released its new energy plan and it effectively ends the pause on new nuclear construction. Any reactors currently under construction will be allowed to continue but new reactors will be required to use third-generation technology, the EPR or AP1000.
This is a major industry catalyst as it paves the way to commence building a lot of reactors very soon. Currently China has 12.57 GW in operation with 26 GW under construction. The Chinese government had previously stated that its goal was establish 40GW of nuclear power capacity by 2015 and to reach 80 GW by 2020.

AOTH: It's not hard to raise money in China for nuclear power.

RM: China Guangdong Nuclear raised 1.5 billion yuan or US$240 million through a *dim sum bond offering. The offering was oversubscribed by a factor of four, that equates to a lot of interest.
* A bond denominated in Chinese yuan and issued in Hong Kong. Dim sum bonds are attractive to foreign investors who desire exposure to yuan-denominated assets, but are restricted by China's capital controls from investing in domestic Chinese debt - INVESTOPEDIA.

AOTH: And where is Japan?

RM: The current Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) government tabled a new nuclear energy policy in September 2012 that would see all reactors phased out in the 2030s. The Cabinet refused to ratify it and Japanese utilities are spending money upgrading their reactors and JOGMEC, the Japanese governments exploration arm, has entered into a joint venture with the government of Uzbekistan to explore for uranium for export to Japan. You would not do all these things if you weren't going to restart.

AOTH: Japan has a new regulatory agency.

RM: Yes, the Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) replaces the old NISA. The key takeaway here is that the power utilities, in addition to the NRA green-lighting their restart, will only need the consent of the host municipality and the prefectural governor, no higher levels of government are involved.
An initial regulatory framework will be drafted by Mar-2013 and, after a public comment period, written into law by Jul-2013. Inspections, to see if plants are up to the new code, will be allowed prior to the July legislation so I expect the next restarts in the third quarter of 2013.

AOTH: Germany is walking away from nuclear power and selling its fuel inventory.

RM: Germany is greenwashing the world. They need to import more and more nuclear produced electricity from Holland, the Czech Republic and France to cover their self-inflicted power shortfall. Germany touts itself as the poster child for green energy yet they are sucking up nuclear generated power at a prodigious pace, just not from reactors on their soil.
And that's not all there is to this story. France relies on electric heaters for heating many of its homes, the country's energy needs rises over 2,000 MW, the equivalent of two nuclear plants, for every one degree drop in temperature. Germany helped cover their own, and the French energy shortage, by using its existing coal-fired plants. There are twenty three new coal fired power plants under construction in Germany. Why so many? Because Germany is worried about the increasing cost of electricity.
Here's a staggering reality, Germany opened a $3.4 billion 2,200 MW coal fired power plant in August 2012. It vomits 13 million tonnes of CO2 instead of the 15 the old ones do by being 10 percent more efficient and burning only the 'cleanest' of coal, lignite. In one year, in just one year that one coal burner will generate one million times more CO2 than Germanys entire nuclear fleet would have over 20 years!
The top five coal fired power producers are; China, the U.S., India, Germany and Japan.

AOTH: Mainstream media, many internet bloggers and newsletter writers are 'reporting' the U.S. has 100 years of NG supply. There's a widely held perception that there are so many shale natural gas discoveries being made in the U.S. that nuclear energy is dead.

RM: Nothing could be further from the truth. The key to the U.S. natural gas boom is the use of new technology. Hydraulic fracturing, fracking, and horizontal drilling have tapped huge resources previously thought unrecoverable.

However the decline rate of shale gas wells is very steep. A year after coming on-stream production can drop to 20-40 percent of the original level. If the best prospects were developed first, and they were, subsequent drilling will take place on increasingly less favourable prospects. Can you imagine how much drilling would have to take place just to keep even with the existing production rate? Not, imo, going to happen.

Here's James Howard Kunstler, author of "The Long Emergency" and his take on the situation;

"In order to keep production up, the number of wells will have to continue increasing at a faster rate than previously. This is referred to as "the Red Queen syndrome" which alludes to the character in Alice in Wonderland who famously declared that she had to run faster and faster just to stay where she is."
Here's something else, it's a piece from an interview with energy expert Bill Powers;
"My thesis is that the importance of shale gas has been grossly overstated; the U.S. has nowhere close to a 100-year supply. This myth has been perpetuated by self-interested industry, media and politicians. Their mantra is that exploiting shale gas resources will promote untold economic growth, new jobs and lead us toward energy independence.
In the book, I take a very hard look at the facts. And I conclude that the U.S. has between a five- to seven-year supply of shale gas, and not 100 years. That is far lower than the rosy estimates put out by the U.S. Energy Information Administration and others. In the real world, many companies are taking write-downs of their reserves." Bill Powers, author 'Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth' in a Energy Report interview

AOTH: What's the state of the U.S. uranium market?

RM: The U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors operating requiring 55 million pounds of uranium. This is the largest fleet of nuclear reactors and the US is the world's largest uranium market. There are also two reactors currently under construction in the U.S.
U.S. uranium mines produced only 4.1 million pounds U3O8 in 2011, three percent less than in 2010.

AOTH: In its just released outlook, the IEA said global energy demand would grow by more than a third over the period to 2035, with China, India and the Middle East accounting for 60 per cent of the increase.

RM: We need to de-carbonize energy. The earth's population is projected to climb from its current seven billion people to upwards of ten billion by 2050, most of this population growth will come from developing countries. All the people without power and all the new people will want power, they want TV's, air conditioners, washers and dryers, phones, clean drinking water etc, they will want electricity. They all want the very same amenities we in the West take for granted, this will take enormous amounts of energy.
The quote below is from an article by James P. Hogan, Nuclear Power, It's No Contest

"A year's operation of a 1,000-MW coal plant produces 1.5 million tons of ash - 30,000 truck loads, or enough to cover one and a half square miles to a depth of 40 feet - that contains large amounts of carcinogens and toxins, and which can be highly acidic or alkaline depending on the sulfur content of the coal. Also, ironically, more unused energy is thrown away in the form of trace uranium in the ash than was obtained from burning the coal. Getting rid of it is a stupendous task, and it ends up being dumped in shallow landfills that are easily leached out by groundwater, or simply piled up in mountains on any convenient site. And that's only the solid waste. In addition there is the waste that's disposed of up the smokestack, which includes 600 pounds of carbon dioxide and ten pounds of sulfur dioxide every second, and the same quantity of nitrogen oxides as 200,000 automobiles.

An equivalent-size nuke, by contrast, produces nothing in addition to its cubic yard of high-level waste, because there isn't any chemical combustion. No ash, no gases, no smokestack, and no need for elaborate engineering to generate and control enormous air flows. Because of its compactness, nuclear power is the first major industrial technology for which it is actually possible to talk about containing all the wastes and isolating them from the biosphere."

Natural gas systems were the largest anthropogenic (refers to greenhouse gas emissions that are a direct result of human activities or are the result of natural processes that have been affected by human activities) source of methane emissions in the United States in 2009. Methane is more than 20 times as effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.

AOTH: Life-cycle emissions definitely favor nuclear power.

RM: Nuclear power's life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 gram-equivalents of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower's range ranked lower at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalents per kilowatt-hour. Wind came in at 7 to 124 grams and solar photovoltaic at 13 to 731 grams. Emissions from natural gas fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams. Coal produces 790 to 1,182 grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilowatt hour.

Nuclear energy is the only proven technology that can deliver base-load electricity on a large scale, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless-of-the-weather, without producing carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power plants emit no carbon pollution - no carbon monoxide, no sulfur oxides and no nitrogen oxides to the atmosphere - nor do they need costly electricity storage options.

The bottom line? One ton of uranium produces more energy than several million tons of coal and oil. Fuel transportation costs are less and there is less impact on our environment from mining or fracking shale gas.

AOTH: Nuclear power plants aren't cheap to build.

RM: Neither are $3.5 billion coal fired plants. Here's a bit more from the same article I quoted from earlier...
"A 1,000-MW solar conversion plant, for example - the same size as I've been using for the comparisons of coal and nuclear - would cover 50 to 100 square miles with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of other metals such as chromium and titanium - a thousand times the material needed to construct a nuclear plant of the same capacity. These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn't come for nothing. Moreover, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry industries in their own right that produce large amounts of waste, much of it toxic. So much for "free" and "clean" solar power."

When it comes to cost, upfront money isn't everything.
Compare the costs of nuclear/gas, nuclear/coal or nuclear/hydro. The operational cost of nuclear power was 1.87 ¢/kWh in 2008 which is 68% of the electricity cost from coal and a quarter of that from gas, and who wants to dam a bunch more rivers?

One pound of yellowcake (U3O8 - the final product of the uranium milling process) has the energy equivalence of 35 barrels of oil. One seven gram uranium fuel pellet has an energy to electricity equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 564 liters of oil or 1,780 pounds of coal, that's energy density.

Natural gas accounts for 80 percent of the cost to produce power from an NG power plant while uranium accounts for 5-10 percent of the price of nuclear energy. The future price of uranium matters little, yet if Mr. Powers is right what is going to happen in regards to NG produced electricity pricing in a few short years? Never mind the environmental cost.

AOTH: Without a much higher incentive price to make most new production economical we're heading towards a serious shortage of mined uranium. Many existing uranium mining operations will not be able to withstand a protracted period of prices in the low-US$40s, particularly publically-owned entities with high cost mines and high exposure to spot.

RM: There's not a lot of people that get that, yet it seems fairly straight forward that without sufficient price incentive, pipeline mine supply will continue to erode thus exacerbating the future shortfall. There are several significant deposits which were progressing down the development path but have been put on hold due to the fall in the uranium price.

The supply side of the equation needs at least US$70/lb., some analysts are saying as high as $85lb, to encourage new projects and it takes up to ten years to develop, permit and build a uranium mine. We're talking about facts, real supply side issues that will keep the market tight over the next several years. Expected and new projects/production are at risk at current prices.

AOTH: There are recent developments backing up what you say.

RM: The Olympic Dam, Kintrye, Millennium and Langer Heinrich Stage 4 expansion deferrals have removed a potential 22 million pounds of U3O8, or 1.5x the supply provided by Cigar Lake, from the market.
Areva placed its 9 Mlbs/yr Trekkopje development project on care and maintenance citing a projected US$75/lb break-even price.
Energy Fuels (EFR-TSX) stated on Oct-17-12 that it will cease operations at two of its mines due to current market conditions.
Cameco has cut its long term uranium production forecast trimming guidance by six MM lbs to 36 MM lbs U3O8 in 2018.

AOTH: China is uranium deposit hunting and security of supply is going to be a huge issue moving forward, especially for the U.S. which was short 51 million pounds of uranium in 2011.

RM: Here's four good examples of what's happening to future supply.
China's Guangdong Nuclear Power Corp.'s subsidiary Taurus Minerals did a A$2.2 billion acquisition of Australian listed Extract Resources. Extract owned the Husab uranium project in Namibia which is said by Extract to be the fourth largest uranium-only deposit in the world having measured resources of 84 million pounds uranium and indicated resources of 274 million pounds (Swakop Uranium is the local wholly-owned subsidiary of Taurus and is developing Husab).

Canadian PM Stephen Harper met with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to fast-track the 2010 India-Canada nuclear deal so a lot of Canadian uranium will be going to India.

Australia-India talks that were recently concluded resulted in an agreement to see Australian uranium exported to India for its huge pending nuclear power program. Again this is a deal tying up a lot of uranium.
Turkey imports more than 70 percent of its energy, primarily fossil fuels, and electricity demand has been growing an average of eight percent per year over the past decade. Current Turkish leaders plan to turn the country into the nuclear energy poster child. Russia is going to build, and own, the Turkish plants, running them presumably using fuel from the motherland. This is now the adopted Russian business model for selling its nuclear technology to nuclear newcomers. If successful, and there's no reason to believe they won't be highly competitive, this will take a lot of Russian supply off market.

Of course all of these long term deals locking up future supply means less uranium for the rest of the world going forward.

AOTH: There are more reactors under construction and planned now than there were before Fukushima.

RM: Without higher prices, we won't see the necessary uranium mines coming on stream to keep up with the ever increasing uranium demand from the nuclear power industry.

AOTH: Do you see uranium prices recovering anytime soon?

RM: According to a recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), by the year 2035:

"World nuclear electricity generating capacity is projected to grow from 375 GWe net (at the end of 2010) to between 540 GWe net in the low demand case and 746 GWe net in the high demand case, increases of 44% and 99% respectively.

There are several catalysts that should spur utilities to pick up their buying activity short term.

The restart of Japanese reactors and the Chinese resumption of construction for their reactors should at the very least firm up spot prices. The new Chinese energy plan reiterates a nuclear capacity goal of 60-70 GW by 2020 which is in line with previous expectations.

Under the terms of the 1993 government-to-government nuclear non-proliferation agreement (Megatons to Megawatts program), the United States and Russia agreed to commercially implement a 20 year program to convert 500 metric tons of HEU (uranium 235 enriched to 90 percent) taken from Soviet era warheads, into LEU, low enriched uranium (less than 5 percent uranium 235). The HEU agreement ends late in 2013 and removes 24 million pounds of uranium supply from the U.S. market.

AOTH: The U.S., if naysayers like Bill Powers are proven correct, has no energy security. They don't in uranium, your feed for 24/7 base load power and don't in natural gas. Supplying a meaningful percentage of the U.S. population with renewable power, solar/wind, is pie in the sky dreaming.
Does anybody else out there, besides the Indians and Chinese, understand the absolute importance of energy security - security of supply?

RM: Oh absolutely, EDF of France has dropped US$200 million in cash a full seven years in advance of delivery from one producer for 13 MM lbs, and has contracted 78 MM lbs from another.
Three billion dollars worth of sales contracts from the United Arab Emirates appears to cover a full seven years of uranium supply for its first four reactors.

I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia follows these examples and buys long term supply for their planned 16 reactors, if all this doesn't sound like worry about security of supply, then nothing does.
AOTH: Thank you Rick.

Conclusion

Set up in 2008 the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) was to advise the UK government on climate change issues. Their very first report stated; "It would be possible to decarbonise electricity generation with very significant nuclear deployment."

Concerns about climate change, carbon footprints, energy security and the rising cost of fossil fuels spurred a revival of interest in nuclear power generation. In early 2010 we saw the start of a of a global nuclear renaissance. It was derailed when the unfortunate Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident paused the renaissance.

Whether you believe in a nuclear renaissance or not, the security of supply issue for today's global reactor fleet of 436, coupled with future demand for the 60 nuclear reactors under construction and the approximately 150 reactors planned, is an issue of paramount importance and should be on every investors radar screen. Is energy security on yours?
If not, maybe they should be.
By Richard (Rick) Mills 


If you're interested in learning more about the junior resource and bio-med sectors please come and visit us at www.aheadoftheherd.com

Site membership is free. No credit card or personal information is asked for.
Richard is host of Aheadoftheherd.com and invests in the junior resource sector.

His articles have been published on over 400 websites, including: Wall Street Journal, Market Oracle, SafeHaven , USAToday, National Post, Stockhouse, Lewrockwell, Pinnacledigest, Uranium Miner, Beforeitsnews, SeekingAlpha, MontrealGazette, Casey Research, 24hgold, Vancouver Sun, CBSnews, SilverBearCafe, Infomine, Huffington Post, Mineweb, 321Gold, Kitco, Gold-Eagle, The Gold/Energy Reports, Calgary Herald, Resource Investor, Mining.com, Forbes, FNArena, Uraniumseek, Financial Sense, Goldseek, Dallasnews, Vantagewire, Resourceclips and the Association of Mining Analysts.

Copyright © 2012 Richard (Rick) Mills - All Rights Reserved 

Legal Notice / Disclaimer: This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment. Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from sources he believes to be reliable but which has not been independently verified; Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Richard Mills only and are subject to change without notice. Richard Mills assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission. Furthermore, I, Richard Mills, assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within this Report.

Nuclear Power, It's No Contest

Richard (Rick) Mills
Ahead of the Herd
http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2012/Nuclear-Power-Its-No-Contest.html

As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information

The electricity needed for any country to successfully replace fossil fuels, both for transportation and everyday use, will have to come from nuclear generation.

As the world’s population and standard of living continues to climb, demand for more - and cleaner energy - grows alongside the pressures we continue to put on our environment.

Today, there is an almost global wide move to develop higher levels of nuclear energy production. This is because nuclear energy works, it’s safe and recognition is slowly dawning it’s going to be impossible to meet the global, growing demand for energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions without nuclear energy.

There is simply no other logical alternative.

Critical Mass - a point or situation at which change occurs - support for the measure has reached critical mass.

Nuclear No-Contest

By: James P. Hogan
September 19, 2009
jamesphogan.com

Before the 1950s, the future confronting the human race was bleak. With the global population increasing and becoming more dependent on energy-dense technologies to sustain its food supplies and rising living standards, there seemed no escape from the catastrophe that would come eventually when the coal and the oil ran out. But few worried unduly. It was only after an escape from the nightmare presented itself with the harnessing of nuclear processes and the prospect of unlimited energy that people began to worry. People can be very strange.

Toward Higher Energy Densities

For reasons that have mainly to do with politics and the media's thirst for sensationalism, nuclear energy has been a subject of much disinformation and alarmism for several decades. In fact, nuclear is safer, cleaner, and potentially cheaper and more abundant than any other proven source of energy that the human race has come up with. But beyond this, it’s real significance is that it represents the next natural step in the evolutionary progression that has marked the history of energy development.

From unaided muscle power, through the use of animals, wood, wind and water, to coal, and oil, finding better ways of doing the work involved in living has reflected the harnessing of more concentrated energy sources. A lot is written about how much energy can be obtained from this source or that source. But if you really want to do things more easily and efficiently – and open up ways to doing new things that were inconceivable before – what counts is energy density. How much can be packed into a given volume. It's easy to calculate how much energy it takes to lift three hundred people across the Atlantic, and how much wood you'd need to burn to release that much energy. Okay, now try building a wood-burning 757. It won't work. The mountain of logs will never get itself off the ground. You need the concentration of jet fuel.

Some people argue that we don't need nuclear power because we already have other ways to generate electricity. This misses the whole point. It would be like somebody in an earlier century telling Michael Faraday that we didn't need electricity because we already had other ways to heat water. What made electricity so different was its ability to do things that were unachievable to any degree with existing technologies, and the whole field of electrical engineering and electronics that we take for granted today was the result. A similar distinction sets nuclear processes apart from conventional sources. All forms of hydrocarbon and other chemical combustion involve energy changes in the outer electron shells of atoms. The energies associated with transitions of the atomic nucleus are thousands of times more intense, and hence represent a breakthrough to the next regime of energy control that the growth of human populations and wealth creation require. The so-called alternatives do not.

Our present use of nuclear energy, as a replacement for conventional heat sources to generate electricity by steam turbines, is just a first, exploratory step into a qualitatively new realm of capability, opening up prospects of obsoleting most of today's cumbersome and polluting industries in much the same way as the introduction of electricity revolutionized the coal-based methods of the nineteenth century.

The availability of cheap, high-temperature process heat opens the way to desalinating seawater inexpensively in large quantities and pumping it to where it needs to go to irrigate currently useless land. Furthermore at such temperatures, water "cracks" thermally into its constituent atoms, yielding a potentially unlimited supply of hydrogen as a base for a whole range of synthetic liquid fuels to replace gasoline. My guess is that, given the will and the vision, we could be making our own hydrocarbons more cheaply, and possibly with higher efficiency, long before the last barrel of the natural stuff is pumped out of the ground.

What About Safety?

One of the fears implanted in the public mind has been that nuclear power is inherently dangerous. Every form of human activity carries some attendant risk. The only meaningful way that society can judge the acceptability of a given risk is by weighing it against the benefits, and comparing the result with those obtained by similarly treating the alternatives.

Despite the hysterical media reactions to the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, nuclear power remains probably the least threatening to human life of all major industrial technologies. Because the energy density of nuclear fuels is much greater, the amount needed to achieve the same result is correspondingly less. Over five thousand times as much coal has to be mined, transported, and processed as uranium to produce the same amount of energy – 200 trains a year, each consisting of 100 cars, to feed a 1,000 Megawatt plant, compared to four car loads of uranium oxide. Fatalities resulting worldwide from mining operations alone every year are numbered in thousands, but like automobile accidents they occur in ones and twos spread over time in many places, and are largely invisible. In the Western world, nuclear power generation has never killed anybody.

At Three Mile Island no one was killed, no one was hurt, and no member of the public was ever in any danger. We were not at the brink of a major catastrophe. A bizarre set of circumstances coupled with inappropriate operator responses led to a loss of coolant and damage to the reactor core that included the melting of some fuel. The safety systems responded the way they were supposed to by shutting the system down. The outer layers of containment were never challenged, let alone breached, putting conditions well within the worst-case scenario that the plant had been designed to withstand. At one point there was speculation that an accumulation of hydrogen gas might explode. Had it done so, there would have been simply a chemical detonation – certainly nothing of a thermonuclear nature as was suggested by the headline H-BLAST IMMINENT that appeared in some newspapers. It was established later that an explosion couldn't have happened since there was no oxygen present; but even if it had, the shock would have been comparable to that imparted by a sledge hammer, which would hardly damage a reactor vessel with steel walls twelve inches thick. The engine block of a car absorbs more stress thousands of times every minute. Even if the vessel had cracked, any dangerous material would still have had to get through a four-foot concrete shield and an outer steel containment shell to reach the environment. Yes, some radioactive gas accumulated in the containment building and was subsequently vented to the outside. But the predictions of tens of thousands of cancer deaths as a consequence were absurd. The maximum increase in radiation dose measured immediately above the plant was in the order of eight millirems over the course of several days. A routine dental X-ray delivers three times as much in seconds. When a dam bursts, a drilling platform collapses, or a gas storage tank explodes, you don't have days for the luxury of holding press conferences and talking about evacuating.

Chernobyl didn't say anything about nuclear engineering. It did say something about priorities under a militarist totalitarian system in which public safety doesn't figure highly in policymaking. What happened was that the reactor's graphite core caught fire after the safety systems had been turned off for experimental work to be conducted, and the resultant explosion ejected radioactive material due to the lack of a comprehensive containment structure. Reduced containment suggests a design intended primarily to serve military needs, where the fuel has to be removed frequently to avoid the contamination by fission products that would prevent purification to the level that weapons-grade material requires. In civilian power reactors the fuel rods are changed typically every three years, and the obstruction caused by containment structures becomes less of a hassle. So what the circumstances point to is a facility built primarily for defense purposes being used to supplement the power grid at a time of low political tension and reduced military demand.

It's difficult to see how anything comparable could happen with Western nuclear plants in the way that some critics have claimed. Besides operating inside multi-layer containment to ensure defense in depth, Western reactors don't possess graphite cores – such a basis for design was expressly rejected by the U.S. in 1950, precisely because of the risk of one igniting in the way that happened. Two features are essential for a nuclear power reactor to function: a "moderator" substance, which surrounds the fuel and in effect keeps the nuclear chain reaction running; and a coolant to carry away the heat produced and deliver it to the steam generator that drives the turbines. The Chernobyl design used graphite as the moderator and water as the coolant. This means that if the coolant flow fails the reactor will continue to produce heat at full power (because of the presence of the moderator), with consequent rapid escalation to an emergency – as in fact occurred. Western designs, by contrast, use water as both the moderator and the coolant. So if the coolant should fail, the moderator is automatically lost also, and the chain reaction ceases, leaving only the residual fission products as sources of heat to be disposed of, which represents typically five percent of the normal power output.

The actual attributed deaths at Chernobyl numbered thirty-eight, from immediate effects and acute radiation poisoning among firefighters and rescue workers. The figure of hundreds of thousands of long-term cancers that was bandied around came not from any physical diagnoses but from statistical computer exercises using theoretical assumptions that have been shown to be wrong. Studies twenty years later show nothing to support these predictions.

But What If? . . .

More people seem to be realizing that a nuclear power plant cannot explode like an atom bomb. The detonating mechanism for a bomb has to be built with extreme precision for the bomb to work at all, and a power plant contains nothing like it. Besides that, the materials used are completely different. Natural uranium contains about 0.7 percent of the fissionable U-235 isotope, which has to be enriched to more than 90 percent for bomb-grade material. For the slow release of energy required in power reactors, the fuel is enriched to only 3.5 percent. It simply isn't an explosive.

So what about a meltdown? Even if TMI wasn't one, mightn't the next accident be?

Yes, it might. The chance has been estimated – using the same methods that work well in other areas of engineering where there have been enough actual events to verify the calculations – as being about the same as that of a major city being hit by a meteorite one mile across. Even if it happened, simulations and studies indicate that it wouldn't be the calamity that most people imagine. If the fuel did melt its way out of the reactor vessel, it would be far more likely to sputter about and solidify around the massive supporting structure than continue reacting and burrow its way down through the floor. The British tested an experimental reactor in an artificial cave in Scotland for over twenty years, subjecting it to every conceivable failure of the coolant and safety systems. In the end they switched everything off and sat back to see what happened. Nothing very dramatic did. The core quietly cooled itself down, and that was that.

But what if the studies and simulations are flawed and the British experience turns out to be a fluke? Then, mightn't the core turn into a molten mass and go down through the floor?

Yes, it might.

And then what would happen?

Nothing much. We'd have a lot of mess down a hole in the ground, which would probably be the best place for it.

But what if there was a water table near the surface?

In that case we'd create a lot of radioactive steam that would blow back up into the containment building, which again would be the best place for it.

But what if some kind of geological or structural failure caused it to come up outside the containment building?

It would most likely expand high into the sky and dissipate.

But what if . . .

Now we're beginning to see the kinds of improbability chains that have to be dreamed up to create disaster scenarios for scaring the public. Remembering the odds against any major core disintegration in the first place, what if there happened to be an atmospheric inversion that held the cloud down near the ground, and if there was a wind blowing toward an urban area that was strong enough to move the cloud but not enough to disrupt the inversion layer? . . . Then yes, you could end up killing a lot of people. The statistical predictions work out at about 400 fatalities per meltdown. Perhaps not as bad as you'd think. And that's if we're talking about deaths that couldn't be attributed directly to the accident as such, but which would materialize as a slight increase in the cancer rate of a large population over many years, increasing an individual's risk from something like 20.5 percent to 21 percent. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to cause 10,000 deaths annually in the U.S., for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal is now would require a meltdown somewhere or other every two weeks.

But if we're talking about directly detectable deaths within a couple of months from acute radiation sickness, it would take 500 meltdowns to kill 100 people. On this basis, even having 25 meltdowns every year for 10,000 years would cause fewer deaths than automobiles do in one year.

What About The Radiation, Then?

It's true that even an un-melted down nuke under normal operation and in proper working order releases some radiation into the environment. But then, so does a shovelful of dirt from your back yard, the air you breathe, everything you eat, the water you drink, and even your body tissues. There's hardly anything that doesn't emit some radiation from trace elements that it contains, all of which adds up to a natural background thousands of times stronger than anything contributed by the nuclear industry. The emission from the granite that Grand Central Station is built from exceeds the permissible limit set for industry. Grand Central Station wouldn't get a license as a nuclear plant.

This is not meant to suggest that large doses of radiation aren't harmful. Napalm bombs and blast furnaces are not very healthy either, but it doesn't follow that heat in any amount is therefore hazardous. You wouldn't last long at the no-dose temperature of absolute zero.

The science of toxicology has long recognized the phenomenon of "hormesis," in which substances that are lethal in high doses, turn out to be beneficial, if not actually essential to health, in small doses, as a result of stimulating the body's immune and repair mechanisms. In the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that this applies to ionizing radiation as well. By just about every measure that biologists use to assess the well-being of living things – vitality; longevity; number of offspring; the number of them that survive; healing of injuries; susceptibility to disease and speed of recovery – everything from bacteria through plants, bugs, invertebrates, to mammals and people fares better when the environmental radiation is moderately increased. Depending on the type of organism, the optimum seems to be around ten times the natural background; beyond that the effects become less benign, then harmful, and eventually lethal. And this makes intuitive sense. When it comes to temperature, pressure, humidity, light, internal and external chemical concentrations, and just about everything else that makes up their environments, living things are designed, created, evolved – whatever you subscribe to – to exist within a distinct comfort zone, beyond which too little can be as bad as too much. It would seem odd if the same didn't apply to radiation too.

Nevertheless, we are constantly being told that any level of radiation is harmful, however small. A simple prediction from this would be that cancer in areas with higher background levels ought to be greater. But the fact is, they're not. The cancer rate in Colorado, for example, with twice the nation's average radiation, due to the cosmic rays at that altitude and the high radioactivity of the rocks that occur there, when corrected for such factors as age and occupation, is only 68 percent of the average. The relationship remains negative – i.e. the higher the radiation background, the lower the cancer rate – across the country as a whole, with a spectacular correlation coefficient of minus 39 percent. That's about the same as the correlation of lung cancer with cigarette smoking – but the other way around.

What About The Waste?

Well, after the foregoing heresies, would it come as a complete surprise if I were to suggest that the ease of getting rid of the waste is one of nuclear power's major benefits? Because the amount of fuel needed for the same amount of energy is much smaller, so is the amount of waste produced. And the waste that is produced isn't as hazardous as people are led to believe. It's considerably less dangerous than many other substances that are handled routinely in far greater quantities with far less care, which the world accepts as a matter of course.

Around 95 percent of the spent fuel that comes out of a power reactor can be reprocessed into new fuel and put back in – saving in a typical plant's 40-year lifetime the equivalent of eight billion dollars' worth of oil. Burning it up in this way is the sensible thing to do, and the industry was designed on the assumption that this would be the case. What's left after reprocessing constitutes the "high level" waste that needs to be disposed of. A large, 1,000-MW plant produces about a cubic yard of it in a year – small enough to fit under a dining-room table. A coal plant of equal capacity produces ten tons of waste every minute. A facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. was commenced as a joint venture by government and industry at Barnwell, South Carolina. But work was halted in early 1977 essentially for political reasons, while at the same time the utilities were cut off from the military reprocessing facilities that had been handling domestic wastes safely for twenty years. Thus, 100 percent of what comes out of reactors is having to be treated as if it were high-level waste, to be stored in ways that were never intended, and this is what gets the publicity. It's a needlessly manufactured political problem, not a technical one. The rest of the world continues to reprocess its spent fuel regardless.

But isn't it true that the high-level waste remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years? So what do you do with that?

Yes, the high-level waste contains fission products that have long half-lives. But these are not what constitute a possible biological hazard. They just provide big numbers that get the public's attention. For obviously, if the energy release is spread out over that long a time, its intensity can't be very great. Rusting iron has a long half-life; TNT has a short one. The principal danger is from the short-lived isotopes, such as iodine 131, with a half-life of eight days. To allow these to decay to levels that can be safely handled, the spent fuel is put into cooling ponds at the reactor site for six months before being shipped for reprocessing.

So what do you do with what's left?

Current proposals are to reduce it to a powder, vitrify the powder into a highly stable glass, seal the glass into steel canisters, and bury them in a concrete repository two thousand feet underground – although some scientists have urged that the repository be made accessible, since the "wastes" contain many rare isotopes that could be invaluable after the current phobias have abated. Beyond this somewhat mundane approach, more recent theoretical and research developments point to the feasibility of artificially stimulating these long-life fission products to decay instead in ways that will take only minutes, using low-cost equipment that can be operated on-site, without need for costly transportation and long-term bulk storage. By definition these are unstable nuclei, after all, like rocks balanced on the edge of a precipice, waiting for a nudge to send them in a direction that they're already set to go. Such a solution has a feeling of "appropriateness" about it – using nuclear technology to resolve an issue that is of an inherently nuclear nature.

Let's make no bones about it. We are talking here about a significant concentration of radiation that would have to be confined and handled with great care. If all the electricity used in the United States were produced by nuclear power, the high-level waste produced each year would be enough to kill ten billion people – more than the present population of the planet. Sounds scary, doesn't it? But the U.S. also produces enough barium to kill a hundred billion people, enough ammonia and cyanide to kill six trillion, enough phosgene to kill twenty trillion, and enough chlorine to kill four hundred trillion. There's no doubt enough gasoline around, too, in cars, garages, storage refineries, and under filling stations to kill us all several times over, and enough pills in hospitals, pharmacies, and family medicine closets. But we don't worry about it, because there's no way in which the population is going to line up to be administered their dose or otherwise be evenly exposed to any of these substances. This is even more true of nuclear waste sealed deep underground.

Every foot of overlying rock reduces the radiation by a factor of ten, which means there's no hazard to anyone above ground from the buried material. What danger there is comes from the risk of some of it finding its way out of the repository and into a person through being ingested or inhaled. Unlike chemical toxins, which remain lethal forever, radiation from nuclear waste decays with time. After ten years of burial, it would be about as toxic as barium if ingested; if inhaled, a tenth as toxic as ammonia and a thousandth as toxic as chlorine. After a hundred years these figures fall to one ten-thousandth, one hundred-thousandth, and one ten-millionth respectively. Nature's biological waste-disposal program puts a thousand million tons of ammonia into the atmosphere every year, and we use chlorine liberally to clean our bathtubs and swimming pools.

For comparison, a year's operation of a 1,000-MW coal plant produces 1.5 million tons of ash – 30,000 truck loads, or enough to cover one and a half square miles to a depth of 40 feet – that contains large amounts of carcinogens and toxins, and which can be highly acidic or alkaline depending on the sulfur content of the coal. Also, ironically, more unused energy is thrown away in the form of trace uranium in the ash than was obtained from burning the coal. Getting rid of it is a stupendous task, and it ends up being dumped in shallow landfills that are easily leached out by groundwater, or simply piled up in mountains on any convenient site. And that's only the solid waste. In addition there is the waste that's disposed of up the smokestack, which includes 600 pounds of carbon dioxide and ten pounds of sulfur dioxide every second, and the same quantity of nitrogen oxides as 200,000 automobiles. So in answer to questions about the "unsolved problem" of nuclear waste, is this supposed to be a solved one?

An equivalent-size nuke, by contrast, produces nothing in addition to its cubic yard of high-level waste, because there isn't any chemical combustion. No ash, no gases, no smokestack, and no need for elaborate engineering to generate and control enormous air flows. Because of its compactness, nuclear power is the first major industrial technology for which it is actually possible to talk about containing all the wastes and isolating them from the biosphere. A study of the consequences of the U.S. going to all-nuclear electricity concluded that the total additional health risk that the average citizen would be exposed to, covering everything from uranium mining through transportation, power generation, to final disposal of the wastes, would be equivalent to that of raising the speed limit by six thousandths of one mile per hour. The risks eliminated, of course, would be far greater.

What About Terrorists?

Fears are expressed that the spread of nuclear power would make available the resources and materials for politically unstable nations and terrorists to make bombs. To whatever degree such possibilities may exist in today's world, domestic nuclear power is pretty much irrelevant. Any group that has the determination and funds to make a bomb can do so in any of at least a half-dozen ways that are cheaper, simpler, faster, and less hazardous than going through the complications of using new or used power plant fuel, and require no access to civilian generating technology. Expertise is available that can be bought for a price, and with laser isotope separation techniques the materials to produce bomb-grade materials exist in rocks everywhere. Slowing the introduction of nuclear power to developing nations does nothing to reduce potential weapons threats. It does, however, retard their economic development and thus help perpetuate the differences in health and living standards that perhaps make resorting to such threats more likely.

Solar Dreaming

If the way forward into the future calls for higher energy densities, the notion that we can depend on solar or wind (which is another form of solar) represents a move backward. To get an idea of just how dilute a source solar is compared even to coal, consider a lump of coal capable of yielding a kilowatt-hour of electricity, which would weigh about a pound, and ask how long the Sun would have to shine on it to deposit the same amount of energy that the coal will release when burned. The area of its shadow, which measures the sunlight intercepted, would be about fifteen square inches. In Arizona in July, with a 24-hour annualized average insolation of 240 watts per square meter, it would take 435 hours, or almost three weeks , for this amount of surface to receive a kilowatt-hour of sunshine. For the average location in the U.S., allowing for bad weather and cloud cover, a reasonable estimate would be twice that. But to obtain a kilowatt-hour of electricity, at the ten to twenty percent efficiency attainable today, which appears to be approaching its limit, we'd be talking somewhere between thirteen and seven months.

The Sun shining on forests for tens or hundreds of years affords an enormous concentration of energy over time that Nature performs for free. Subsequent geological compaction into coal adds another dimension of concentration in space, which humans carry further by their activities of mining and transportation. Hydroelectric power is another form of highly concentrated solar. The Sun evaporates billions of tons of water off the oceans, which fall on wide areas of land and drain through river systems to strategic points suitable for building dams. Once again, most of the work involving the concentration of energy in time and space on enormous scales is done for nothing by Nature.

I wonder if the people who talk glibly about attempting to match such feats artificially really comprehend the scale of the engineering that they're proposing. A 1,000-MW solar conversion plant, for example – the same size as I've been using for the comparisons of coal and nuclear – would cover 50 to 100 square miles with 35,000 tons of aluminum, two million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, and 1,500 tons of other metals such as chromium and titanium – a thousand times the material needed to construct a nuclear plant of the same capacity. These materials are not cheap, and real estate doesn't come for nothing. Moreover, these materials are all products of heavy, energy-hungry industries in their own right that produce large amounts of waste, much of it toxic. So much for "free" and "clean" solar power.

The comparison doesn't end there. When a power engineer talks about a one-thousand-megawatt plant, he means one that can deliver a thousand megawatts on demand, anytime, day or night. A nuclear plant can do this; so can a conventional fossil-fuel plant. But a solar plant can only operate when the Sun is shining, which straightaway gives it a maximum availability of 50 percent – low enough to be considered prohibitively uneconomic for any other type of power plant. To ensure supply when the demand is there, some kind of regular supply would have to be available as a backup anyway, making the whole idea of solar as a replacement unrealistic.

The only other way would be to provide some kind of storage system that the solar plant would be able to charge up during its operating period, and then draw on when demand exceeds supply. At present there isn't any really satisfactory way of storing large amounts of electrical energy. What's usually proposed instead is to convert it to potential energy by pumping water up to a high reservoir, and letting the water flow back down through turbines in the nonproductive periods. A sleight-of-word commonly slipped in by solar advocates when pushing for this kind of option is to continue referring to the facility as a "thousand megawatt" solar plant. However, the power industry's normal criterion expects a practicable storage system to be capable of recharging at five times the nominal rating. This means that for "thousand megawatt" to mean the same as it does for every other kind of plant, the solar facility would have to have a peak capacity of six thousand megawatts, adding vastly to the size, complexity, cost, and environmental effects implied by the figures above.

Decentralizing by putting solar panels on everyone's roofs wouldn't reduce the cost or the amount of materials, but simply spread them around. In fact things would get worse, for the same reason that McDonalds use less oil to cook two tons of fries than eight thousand households that make a half a pound each. The storage problem wouldn't go away either, but would become each homeowner's responsibility. In a battery just big enough to start a car, gases can accumulate that one spark can cause to explode – sometimes with lethal consequences, as some unfortunates have demonstrated when using jumper cables carelessly. Imagine the hazard that a basement full of batteries the size of grand pianos would present, which a genuinely all-solar home would need to get through a bad spell in, say, Minnesota in January. And who would do the maintenance and keep the acid levels topped up?

Then we have the problem of keeping the roof panels clean and free from snow and wet leaves, not in the summer months, but when the roofs are slippery and frozen. Even today, the biggest cause of accidental deaths in the country, after automobiles, is falls. If we build all those houses with bombs in the basements and skating rinks on the roofs, it seems to me we'd better add in a lot more hospitals and emergency rooms too, while we're at it.

As a science-fiction writer, I'm certainly enthusiastic about the thought of our expanding into space – for the right reasons. Solar power satellites has never struck me as one of them. The intensity of solar radiation outside the atmosphere is about six times that on the surface, which isn't a lot really. I don't see how it could justify the expense of putting huge amounts of technology into orbit to re-concentrate energy diluted by ninety-three million miles' worth of the inverse square law, when we can generate it at the Sun's original density right here. One study that I read estimated 10,000 shuttle launches to build a satellite capable of powering New York City – and on top of that would be the cost of ground equipment to receive the beamed power.

Similar considerations apply equally to wind power, which seems to be the current fad of the political savants who would lead us into the twenty-first century. The picture above shows the South Korean nuclear park at Yongwang, which has six one-thousand-megawatt reactors. Matching that capacity with wind generators would require a wind farm 175 miles wide extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Direct solar would require somewhere around 20 square miles of collector area alone, i.e. without allowing any spacing for steerable geometry or the maintenance access that would be necessary for a practical plant design.

This isn't to say that solar doesn't have its uses. It can be beneficial in remote places far from a supply grid, such as isolated farms or weather stations, and if somebody who lives in the right place finds it worthwhile to shave something off his electricity bill, there's nothing wrong with that. But the problem that matters isn't simply a domestic one of keeping the living room at 75 degrees and heating the bath water. The real issue is that of running the aluminum smelters, steel mills, fertilizer plants, cement works, factories, and transportation systems that keep a modern industrial society functioning. Solar and its variants can never make a significant contribution. And that is precisely the reason why those who don't want a modern industrial society are so much in favor of it and would like to see everything else forcibly shut down.

All of the world's peoples would like to think that a century from now their children will be living that way. They could be, too. The human race possesses the knowledge and the ability to ensure that every child born on the planet could look forward to a healthy and well-fed body, an educated mind, and the opportunity to become the best that he or she is capable of. But when the demand is translated into energy needs – providing a globally stabilized population of, say, ten billion with energy per person probably greater than that of the U.S. today – the amount is utterly beyond any approaches that are merely variations of what we have. Only continued evolution into the next logical realm of energy control can do it.

So, can we make nuclear energy work, safely, cleanly, and efficiently? Sure we can. When we take a long, hard look at the alternatives, we see that we have to. Fortunately for all of us, the Neanderthals who first learned how to tame fire thought the same way.


James P. Hogan, a former digital systems engineer and computer sales executive, has been a full-time writer since 1980. He was born in London, moved to the USA for many years, and now lives in the Republic of Ireland. His web site is at jamesphogan.com

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Richard (Rick) Mills
rick@aheadoftheherd.com

If you're interested in learning more about the junior resource sector, bio-tech and technology sectors please come and visit us at www.aheadoftheherd.com

Site membership is free. No credit card or personal information is asked for.

***
Richard is host of Aheadoftheherd.com and invests in the junior resource sector. His articles have been published on over 300 websites, including: Wall Street Journal, SafeHaven, Market Oracle, USAToday, National Post, Stockhouse, Lewrockwell, Uranium Miner, Casey Research, 24hgold, Vancouver Sun, SilverBearCafe, Infomine, Huffington Post, Mineweb, 321Gold, Kitco, Gold-Eagle, The Gold/Energy Reports, Calgary Herald, Resource Investor, Mining.com, Forbes, FNArena, Uraniumseek, and Financial Sense.

***
Legal Notice / Disclaimer
This document is not and should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or subscribe for any investment.

Richard Mills has based this document on information obtained from sources he believes to be reliable but which has not been independently verified; Richard Mills makes no guarantee, representation or warranty and accepts no responsibility or liability as to its accuracy or completeness. Expressions of opinion are those of Richard Mills only and are subject to change without notice. Richard Mills assumes no warranty, liability or guarantee for the current relevance, correctness or completeness of any information provided within this Report and will not be held liable for the consequence of reliance upon any opinion or statement contained herein or any omission.

Furthermore, I, Richard Mills, assume no liability for any direct or indirect loss or damage or, in particular, for lost profit, which you may incur as a result of the use and existence of the information provided within this Report.