I wandered as a cloud

The Century of the Self

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:58:00 +0000

To many in both business and government, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power is truly moved into the hands of the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self by Adam Curtis tells the untold and controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society. How is the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interest?

The Freud dynasty is at the heart of this compelling social history. Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis; Edward Bernays, who invented public relations; Anna Freud, Sigmund's devoted daughter; and present-day PR guru and Sigmund's great grandson, Matthew Freud. Sigmund Freud's work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.

Part 1-Happiness Machines:
Part one documents the story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays who invented 'Public Relations' in the 1920s, being the first person to take Freud's ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn't need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

Part 2-The Engineering of Consent:
Part two explores how those in power in post-war America used Freud's ideas about the unconscious mind to try and control the masses. Politicians and planners came to believe Freud's underlying premise that deep within all human beings were dangerous and irrational desires. They were convinced that it was the unleashing of these instincts that had led to the barbarism of Nazi Germany, and in response to this, they set out to find ways to control the masses so as to manage the 'hidden enemy' within the human mind.

Part 3-There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads, He Must Be Destroyed:
In the 1960s, a radical group of psychotherapists challenged the influence of Freudian ideas, which lead to the creation of a new political movement that sought to create 'new people', free of the psychological conformity that had been implanted in people's minds by business and politics. This episode shows how this idea rapidly developed in America through "self-help movements", into the irresistible rise of the expressive self: the Me Generation.

Part 4-Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering:
This episode explains how politicians turned to the same techniques used by business in order to read and manipulate the inner desires of the masses. Both New Labor with Tony Blair and the Democrats led by Bill Clinton, used the focus group which had been invented by psychoanalysts in order to regain power. Both set out to mold their policies to manipulate people's innermost desires and feelings, just as capitalism had learned to do with products.

the power of colleboration

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:39:00 +0000

TED's vision

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 25 May 2011 15:36:00 +0000

filter robots from fb and google

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 25 May 2011 14:39:00 +0000

NYT-Osama bin Laden

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 02 May 2011 15:23:00 +0000

Obituary | Osama bin Laden, 1957-2011

The Most Wanted Face of Terrorism

Rahimullah Yousafzai/Associated Press

Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

By KATE ZERNIKE and MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN

Published: May 2, 2011Digg

- MySpace
- Permalink

Osama bin Laden, who was killed in Pakistan on Sunday, was a son of the Saudi elite whose radical, violent campaign to recreate a seventh-century Muslim empire redefined the threat of terrorism for the 21st century.

Multimedia

The Times's Michael D. Shear on the Announcement

Interactive Feature

Milestones: Osama bin Laden

Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says (May 2, 2011)
News Analysis: President’s Vow Fulfilled (May 2, 2011)
Media Decoder Blog: How the Bin Laden Announcement Leaked Out (May 1, 2011)
Amid Cheers, a Message: ‘They Will Be Caught’ (May 2, 2011)
Text: Obama’s Remarks on Bin Laden’s Killing (May 2, 2011)
Times Topic: Osama bin Laden

Related in Opinion

Op-Ed Columnist: Death of a Failure (May 2, 2011)
Nicholas D. Kristof Blog: After Osama bin Laden... (May 2, 2011)

Enlarge This Image

Al-Jazeera

As the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, here in video recorded in 2001, waged a terror war against the United States.

With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Bin Laden was elevated to the realm of evil in the American imagination once reserved for dictators like Hitler and Stalin. He was a new national enemy, his face on wanted posters, gloating on videotapes, taunting the United States and Western civilization.

“Do you want Bin Laden dead?” a reporter asked President George W. Bush six days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“I want him — I want justice,” the president answered. “And there’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive.’ ”

It took nearly a decade before that quest finally ended in Pakistan with the death of Bin Laden during a confrontation with American forces, who attacked a compound where officials said he had been hiding.

The manhunt was punctuated by a December 2001 battle at an Afghan mountain redoubt called Tora Bora, near the border with Pakistan, where Bin Laden and his allies were hiding. Despite days of pounding by American bombers, Bin Laden escaped. For more than nine years afterward, he remained an elusive, shadowy figure frustratingly beyond the grasp of his pursuers and thought to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan and plotting new attacks.

Long before, he had become a hero in much of the Islamic world, as much a myth as a man — what a longtime C.I.A. officer called “the North Star” of global terrorism. He had united disparate militant groups, from Egypt to Chechnya, from Yemen to the Philippines, under the banner of Al Qaeda and his ideal of a borderless brotherhood of radical Islam.

Terrorism before Bin Laden was often state-sponsored, but he was a terrorist who had sponsored a state. For five years, 1996 to 2001, he paid for the protection of the Taliban, then the rulers of Afghanistan. He bought the time and the freedom to make Al Qaeda — which means “the base” — a multinational enterprise to export terror around the globe.

For years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the name of Al Qaeda and the fame of Bin Laden spread like a 21st-century political plague. Groups calling themselves Al Qaeda, or acting in the name of its cause, attacked American troops in Iraq, bombed tourist spots in Bali and blew up passenger trains in Spain.

To this day, the precise reach of his power remains unknown: how many members Al Qaeda could truly count on; how many countries its cells had penetrated; and whether, as Bin Laden boasted, he sought to arm Al Qaeda with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

He waged holy war with distinctly modern methods. He sent fatwas — religious decrees — by fax and declared war on Americans in an e-mail beamed by satellite around the world. Qaeda members kept bomb-making manuals on CD and communicated with encrypted memos on laptops, leading one American official to declare that Bin Laden possessed better communications technology than the United States. He railed against globalization, even as his agents in Europe and North America took advantage of a globalized world to carry out their attacks, insinuating themselves into the very Western culture he despised.

He styled himself a Muslim ascetic, a billionaire’s son who gave up a life of privilege for the cause. But he was media savvy and acutely image conscious; before a CNN crew that interviewed him in 1997 was allowed to leave, his media advisers insisted on editing out unflattering shots. He summoned reporters to a cave in Afghanistan when he needed to get his message out, but like the most controlling of C.E.O.’s he insisted on receiving written questions in advance.

His reedy voice seemed to belie the warrior image he cultivated, a man whose constant companion was a Kalashnikov rifle that he boasted he had taken from a Russian soldier he had killed. The world’s most threatening terrorist, he was also known to submit to frequent dressings down by his mother. While he built his reputation on his combat experience against Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980s, even some of his supporters questioned whether he had actually fought.

And though he claimed to follow the purest form of Islam, many scholars insisted that he was glossing over the faith’s edicts against killing innocents and civilians. Islam draws boundaries on where and why holy war can be waged; Bin Laden declared the entire world fair territory.

Yet it was the United States, Bin Laden insisted, that was guilty of a double standard.

“It wants to occupy our countries, steal our resources, impose agents on us to rule us and then wants us to agree to all this,” he told CNN in the 1997 interview. “If we refuse to do so, it says we are terrorists. When Palestinian children throw stones against the Israeli occupation, the U.S. says they are terrorists. Whereas when Israel bombed the United Nations building in Lebanon while it was full of children and women, the U.S. stopped any plan to condemn Israel. At the same time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his rights, they receive the top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader. Wherever we look, we find the U.S. as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world.”

The Turning Point

For Bin Laden, as for the United States, the turning point came in 1989, with the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

For the United States, which had supported the Afghan resistance with billions of dollars in arms and ammunition, that defeat marked the beginning of the end of the cold war and the birth of a new world order.

Enlarge This Image

Agence France-Presse

Osama bin Laden in 1998 in Afghanistan, where he planned the Sept. 11 attacks while under the protection of the country's Taliban leadership.

Enlarge This Image

Robert Fisk /The Independent

Bin Laden later returned to his native Saudi Arabia, but under pressure from the royal family he moved to Sudan in the 1990s.

Bin Laden, who had supported the resistance with money, construction equipment and housing, saw the retreat of the Soviets as an affirmation of Muslim power and an opportunity to recreate Islamic political power and topple infidel governments through jihad, or holy war.

He declared to an interviewer, “I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.”

In its place, he built his own legend, modeling himself after the Prophet Muhammad, who in the seventh century led the Muslim people to rout the infidels, or nonbelievers, from North Africa and the Middle East. As the Koran had been revealed to Muhammad amid intense persecution, Bin Laden saw his own expulsions during the 1990s — from Saudi Arabia and then Sudan — as affirmation of himself as a chosen one.

In his vision, he would be the “emir,” or prince, in a restoration of the khalifa, a political empire extending from Afghanistan across the globe. “These countries belong to Islam,” he told the same interviewer in 1998, “not the rulers.”

Al Qaeda became the infrastructure for his dream. Under it, Bin Laden created a web of businesses — some legitimate, some less so — to obtain and move the weapons, chemicals and money he needed. He created training camps for his foot soldiers, a media office to spread his word, and even “shuras,” or councils, to approve his military plans and his fatwas.

Through the ’90s, Al Qaeda evolved into a far-flung and loosely connected network of symbiotic relationships: Bin Laden gave affiliated terrorist groups money, training and expertise; they gave him operational cover and a furthering of his cause. Perhaps the most important of those alliances was with the Taliban, who rose to power in Afghanistan largely on the strength of Bin Laden’s aid, and in turn provided him refuge and a launching pad for holy war.

Long before Sept. 11, though the evidentiary trails were often thin, American officials considered Bin Laden at least in part responsible for the killing of American soldiers in Somalia and in Saudi Arabia; the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993; the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; and a foiled plot to hijack a dozen jets, crash a plane into the C.I.A. headquarters and kill President Bill Clinton.

In 1996, the officials described Bin Laden as “one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremism in the world.” But he was thought at the time to be primarily a financier of terrorism, not someone capable of orchestrating international terrorist plots. Yet when the United States put out a list of the most wanted terrorists in 1997, neither Bin Laden nor Al Qaeda was on it.

Bin Laden, however, demanded to be noticed. In February 1998, he declared it the duty of every Muslim to “kill Americans wherever they are found.” After the bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa in August 1998, President Clinton declared Bin Laden “Public Enemy No. 1.”

The C.I.A. spent much of the next three years hunting Bin Laden. The goal was to capture him with recruited Afghan agents or to kill him with a precision-guided missile, according to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission and the memoirs of George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence from July 1997 to July 2004.

The intelligence was never good enough to pull the trigger. By the summer of 2001, the C.I.A. was convinced that Al Qaeda was on the verge of a spectacular attack. But no one knew where or when it would come.

The Early Life

By accounts of people close to the family, Osama bin Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden was born in 1957, the seventh son and 17th child, among 50 or more, of his father.

His father, Muhammad bin Awad bin Laden, had immigrated to what would soon become Saudi Arabia in 1931 from the family’s ancestral village in a conservative province of southern Yemen. He found work in Jidda as a porter to the pilgrims on their way to the holy city of Mecca; years later, when he would own the largest construction company in Saudi Arabia, he displayed his porter’s bag in the main reception room of his palace as a reminder of his humble origins.

According to family friends, the Bin Laden family’s rise began with a risk — when the father offered to build a palace for King Saud in the 1950s for far less than the lowest bid. By the 1960s he had ingratiated himself so well with the Saudi royal family that King Faisal decreed that all construction projects be awarded to the Bin Laden group. When the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem was set on fire by a deranged tourist in 1969, the senior Bin Laden was chosen to rebuild it. Soon afterward, he was chosen to refurbish the mosques at Mecca and Medina as well. In interviews years later, Osama bin Laden would recall proudly that his father had sometimes prayed in all three holy places in one day.

His father was a devout Muslim who welcomed pilgrims and clergy into his home. He required all his children to work for the family company, meaning that Osama spent summers working on road projects. The elder Bin Laden died in a plane crash when Osama was 10. The siblings each inherited millions — the precise amount was a matter of some debate — and led a life of near-royalty. Osama — the name means “young lion” — grew up playing with Saudi princes and had his own stable of horses by age 15.

Enlarge This Image

Essam Draz/Balkis Press/SIPA

Bin Laden directing guerrillas near Jalalabad in 1989, when he was receiving assistance from the United States during Afghanistan's war against the Soviet Union.

But some people close to the family paint a portrait of Bin Laden as a misfit. His mother, the last of his father’s four wives, was from Syria, the only one of the wives not from Saudi Arabia. The elder Bin Laden had met her on a vacation, and Osama was their only child. Within the family, she was said to be known as “the slave” and Osama “the slave child.”

Within the Saudi elite, it was rare to have both parents born outside the kingdom. In a profile of Osama bin Laden in The New Yorker, Mary Anne Weaver quoted a family friend who suggested that he had felt alienated in a culture that so obsessed over lineage, saying: “It must have been difficult for him, Osama was almost a double outsider. His paternal roots are in Yemen, and within the family, his mother was a double outsider as well — she was neither Saudi nor Yemeni but Syrian.”

According to one of his brothers, Osama was the only one of the Bin Laden children who never traveled abroad to study. A biography of Bin Laden, provided to the PBS television program “Frontline” by an unidentified family friend, asserted that Bin Laden never traveled outside the Middle East.

That lack of exposure to Western culture would prove a crucial distinction; the other siblings went on to lead lives that would not be unfamiliar to most Americans. They took over the family business, estimated to be worth billions, distributing Snapple drinks, Volkswagens and Disney products across the Middle East. On Sept. 11, 2001, several Bin Laden siblings were living in the United States.

Bin Laden had been educated — and, indeed, steeped, as many Saudi children are — in Wahhabism, the puritanical, ardently anti-Western strain of Islam. Even years later, he so despised the Saudi ruling family’s coziness with Western nations that he refused to refer to Saudi Arabia by its modern name, instead calling it “the Country of the Two Holy Places.”

Newspapers have quoted anonymous sources — particularly, an unidentified Lebanese barber — about a wild period of drinking and womanizing in Bin Laden’s life. But by most accounts he was devout and quiet, marrying a relative, the first of his four wives, at age 17.

Soon afterward, he began earning a degree at King Abdulaziz University in Jidda. It was there that he shaped his militancy. He became involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, a group of Islamic radicals who believed that much of the Muslim world, including the leaders of Saudi Arabia, lived as infidels, in violation of the true meaning of the Koran.

And he fell under the influence of two Islamic scholars: Muhammad Quttub and Abdullah Azzam, whose ideas would become the underpinnings for Al Qaeda. Mr. Azzam became a mentor to the young Bin Laden. Jihad was the responsibility of all Muslims, he taught, until the lands once held by Islam were reclaimed. His motto: “Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences and no dialogue.”

The Middle East was becoming increasingly unsettled in 1979, when Bin Laden was at the university. In Iran, Shiite Muslims mounted an Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah and began to make the United States a target. Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty. And as the year ended, Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan.

Bin Laden arrived in Pakistan on the border of Afghanistan within two weeks of the occupation. He said later that he had been asked to go by Saudi officials, who were eager to support the resistance movement. In his book “Taliban,” the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid said that the Saudis had originally hoped that a member of the royal family might serve as an inspirational leader in Afghanistan, but that they settled on Bin Laden as the next closest thing when no princes volunteered.

He traveled like a visiting diplomat more than a soldier, meeting with leaders and observing the refugees coming into Peshawar, Pakistan. As the family friend says, it “was an exploratory rather than an action trip.” He would return twice a year for the next few years, in between finishing his degree and lobbying family members to support the Afghan mujahedeen.

Bin Laden began traveling beyond the border into Afghanistan in 1982, bringing with him construction machinery and recruits. In 1984, he and Mr. Azzam began setting up guesthouses in Peshawar, which served as the first stop for holy warriors on their way to Afghanistan. With the money they had raised in Saudi Arabia, they established the Office of Services, which branched out across the world to recruit young jihadists.

The men came to be known as the Afghan Arabs, though they came from all over the world, and their numbers were estimated as high as 20,000. By 1986, Bin Laden had begun setting up training camps for them as well, and he was paying roughly $25,000 a month to subsidize them.

To young would-be recruits across the Arab world, Bin Laden’s was an attractive story: the rich young man who had become a warrior. His own descriptions of the battles he had seen, how he lost the fear of death and slept in the face of artillery fire, were brushstrokes of an almost divine figure.

But intelligence sources insist that Bin Laden actually saw combat only once, in a weeklong barrage by the Soviets at Jaji, where the Arab Afghans had dug themselves into caves using Bin Laden’s construction equipment.

“Afghanistan, the jihad, was one terrific photo op for a lot of people,” Milton Bearden, the C.I.A. officer who described Bin Laden as “the North Star,” said in an interview on “Frontline,” adding, “There’s a lot of fiction in there.”

Still, Jaji became a kind of touchstone in the Bin Laden myth. Stories sent back from the battle to Arab newspaper readers, and photographs of Bin Laden in combat gear, burnished his image.

The flood of young men following him to Afghanistan prompted the founding of Al Qaeda. The genesis was essentially bureaucratic; Bin Laden wanted a way to track the men so he could tell their families what had happened to them. The documentation Al Qaeda provided became a primitive database of young jihadists.

Afghanistan also brought Bin Laden into contact with leaders of other militant Islamic groups, including Ayman al-Zawahri, the bespectacled doctor who would later appear at Bin Laden’s side in televised messages from the caves of Afghanistan. Ultimately Dr. Zawahri’s group, Egyptian Jihad, and others would merge with Al Qaeda, making it an umbrella for various terrorist groups.

The Movement

Through the looking glass of Sept. 11, it seemed ironic that the Americans and Osama bin Laden had fought on the same side against the Soviets in Afghanistan — as if the Americans had somehow created the Bin Laden monster by providing arms and cash to the Arabs. The complex at Tora Bora where Qaeda members hid had been created with the help of the C.I.A. as a base for the Afghans fighting the Soviets.

Bin Laden himself described the fight in Afghanistan this way: “There I received volunteers who came from the Saudi kingdom and from all over the Arab and Muslim countries. I set up my first camp where these volunteers were trained by Pakistani and American officers. The weapons were supplied by the Americans, the money by the Saudis.”

In truth, however, the American contact was not directly with Bin Laden; both worked through the middlemen of the Pakistani intelligence service.

In the revisionism of the Bin Laden myth, his defenders would later say that he had not worked with the Americans but that he had only tolerated them as a means to his end. As proof, they insisted he had made anti-American statements as early as 1980.

Bin Laden would say in retrospect that he was always aware who his enemies were.

“For us, the idea was not to get involved more than necessary in the fight against the Russians, which was the business of the Americans, but rather to show our solidarity with our Islamist brothers,” he told a French journalist in 1995. “I discovered that it was not enough to fight in Afghanistan, but that we had to fight on all fronts against Communism or Western oppression. The urgent thing was Communism, but the next target was America.”

Afghanistan had infused the movement with confidence.

“Most of what we benefited from was that the myth of the superpower was destroyed not only in my mind but also in the minds of all Muslims,” Bin Laden later told an interviewer. “Slumber and fatigue vanished, and so was the terror which the U.S. would use in its media by attributing itself superpower status, or which the Soviet Union used by attributing itself as a superpower.”

He returned to Saudi Arabia, welcomed as a hero, and took up the family business. But Saudi royals grew increasingly wary of him as he became more outspoken against the government.

The breaking point — for Bin Laden and for the Saudis — came when Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Bin Laden volunteered to the Saudis that the men and equipment he had used in Afghanistan could defend the kingdom. He was “shocked,” a family friend said, to learn that the Americans — the enemy, in his mind — would defend it instead. To him, it was the height of American arrogance.

The United States, he told an interviewer later, “has started to look at itself as a master of this world and established what it calls the new world order.”

The Saudi government restricted him to Jidda, fearing that his outspokenness would offend the Americans. Bin Laden fled to Sudan, which was offering itself as a sort of haven for terrorists, and there he began setting up legitimate businesses that would help finance Al Qaeda. He also built his reserves, in 1992, paying for about 500 mujahedeen who had been expelled from Pakistan to come work for him.

The Terrorism

It was during that time that it is believed he honed his resolve against the United States.

Within Al Qaeda, he argued that the organization should put aside its differences with Shiite terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the better to concentrate on the common enemy: the United States. He called for attacks against American forces in the Saudi peninsula and in the Horn of Africa.

On Dec. 29, 1992, a bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where American troops had been staying while on their way to Somalia. The troops had already left, and the bomb killed two Austrian tourists. American intelligence officials later came to believe that that was the first Bin Laden attack.

On Feb. 26, 1993, a bomb exploded in a truck driven into the underground garage at the World Trade Center, killing six people. Bin Laden later praised Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of the bombing. In October of that year in Somalia, 18 American service members were killed — some of their bodies dragged through the streets — while on a peacekeeping mission; Bin Laden was almost giddy about the deaths.

After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle, thinking that the Americans were “like the Russians,” he told an interviewer.

“The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat,” he said. “And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order, and after a few blows, they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”

By 1994, Bin Laden had established new training camps in Sudan, but he became a man without a country. The Saudi government froze his assets and revoked his citizenship. His family, which had become rich on its relations to the royals, denounced him publicly after he was caught smuggling weapons from Yemen.

This only seemed to make him more zealous. He sent an open letter to King Fahd outlining the sins of the Saudi government and calling for a campaign of guerrilla attacks to drive Americans from Saudi Arabia. Three months later, in November 1995, a truck bomb exploded at a Saudi National Guard training center operated by the United States in Riyadh, killing seven people. That year, Belgian investigators found a kind of how-to manual for terrorists on a CD. The preface dedicated it to Bin Laden, the hero of the holy war.

The next May, when the men accused of the Riyadh bombing were beheaded in Riyadh’s main square, they were forced to read a confession in which they acknowledged the connection to Bin Laden. The next month, June 1996, a truck bomb destroyed Khobar Towers, an American military residence in Dhahran. It killed 19 soldiers.

Bin Laden fled to Afghanistan that summer after Sudan expelled him under pressure from the Americans and Saudis, and he forged an alliance with Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban. In August 1996, from the Afghan mountain stronghold of Tora Bora, Bin Laden issued his “Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques.”

“Muslims burn with anger at America,” it read. The presence of American forces in the Persian Gulf states “will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings, and prides and pushes them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land.”

The imbalance of power between American forces and Muslim forces demanded a new kind of fighting, he wrote, “in other words, to initiate a guerrilla war, where sons of the nation, not the military forces, take part in it.”

That same month in New York City, a federal grand jury began meeting to consider charges against Bin Laden. Disputes arose among prosecutors and American law enforcement and intelligence officers about which attacks against American interests could truly be attributed to Bin Laden — whether in fact he had, as an indictment eventually charged, trained and paid the men who killed the Americans in Somalia.

His foot soldiers, in testimony, offered differing pictures of Bin Laden’s actual involvement. In some cases he could be as aloof as any boss with thousands of employees. Yet one of the men convicted of the bombings of the embassies said that Bin Laden had been so involved that he was the one who had pointed at surveillance photographs to direct where the truck bomb should be driven.

Bin Laden was becoming more emboldened, summoning Western reporters to his hide-outs in Afghanistan to relay his message: He would wage war against the United States and its allies if Washington did not remove its troops from the gulf region.

“So we tell the Americans as a people,” he told ABC News, “and we tell the mothers of soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their lives and the lives of their children, to find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and not the interests of the Jews. The continuation of tyranny will bring the fight to America, as Ramzi Yousef and others did. This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious government that looks out for their interests and does not attack others, their lands, or their honor.”

In February 1998, he issued the edict calling for attacks on Americans anywhere in the world, declaring it an “individual duty” for all Muslims.

In June, the grand jury convened two years earlier issued its indictment, charging Bin Laden with conspiracy to attack the United States abroad, for heading Al Qaeda and for financing terrorist activities around the world.

On Aug. 7, the eighth anniversary of the United States’ order sending troops into the gulf region, two bombs exploded simultaneously at the American Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The Nairobi bomb killed 213 people and wounded 4,500; the bomb in Dar es Salaam killed 11 and wounded 85.

The United States retaliated two weeks later with strikes against what were thought to be terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, which officials contended— erroneously, it turned out — was producing chemical weapons for Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden had trapped the United States in an escalating spiral of tension, where any defensive or retaliatory actions would affirm the evils he said had provoked the attacks in the first place. In an interview with Time magazine that December, he brushed aside President Clinton’s threats against him, and referred to himself in the third person, as if recognizing or encouraging the notion that he had become larger than life.

“To call us Enemy No. 1 or Enemy No. 2 does not hurt us,” he said. “Osama bin Laden is confident that the Islamic nation will carry out its duty.”

In January 1999, the United States government issued a superseding indictment that affirmed the power Bin Laden had sought all along, declaring Al Qaeda an international terrorist organization in a conspiracy to kill American citizens.

The Aftermath

After the attacks of Sept. 11, Bin Laden did what had become routine: He took to Arab television. He appeared, in his statement to the world, to be at the top of his powers. President Bush had declared that the nations of the world were either with the Americans or against them on terrorism; Bin Laden held up a mirror image, declaring the world divided between infidels and believers.

Bin Laden had never before claimed or accepted responsibility for terrorist attacks. In a videotape found in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar weeks after the attacks, he firmly took responsibility for — and reveled in — the horror of Sept. 11.

“We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower,” he said. “We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.”

In the videotape, showing him talking to followers nearly two months after the attacks, Bin Laden smiles, hungers to hear more approval and notes proudly that the attacks let loose a surge of interest in Islam around the world.

He explained that the hijackers on the planes — “the brothers who conducted the operation” — did not know what the mission would be until just before they boarded the planes. They knew only that they were going to the United States on a martyrdom mission.

Bin Laden had long eluded the allied forces in pursuit of him, moving, it was said, under cover of night with his wives and children, apparently between mountain caves. Yet he was determined that if he had to die, he, too, would die a martyr’s death.

His greatest hope, he told supporters, was that if he died at the hands of the Americans, the Muslim world would rise up and defeat the nation that had killed him.

Alain SERVAIS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:26:00 +0000

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Interview : Alain SERVAIS

Alain Servais, self-portrait (with Nathalie Fournier), in front of a work by Anish Kapoor.

The young Belgian collector, Alain Servais, started collecting art in the late 1990s. In 2000, he moved into a 900-square meter old factory which he transformed into a three-storey loft, located in a working-class neighborhood of northern Brussels. This is where he lives and works, as well as showing his contemporary art collection. “There are two lighting systems, the artwork lighting system and the living lighting system. This is my way of living”, he said. The freedom he enjoys as an independent financial consultant allows him to travel at his own rhythm. Art is taking up most of his personal and leisure time. He visits more than 10 art fairs, festivals and biennales around the world every year. Other than collector and Financial Consultant, Alain is a happy father of two lovely daughters, Alexia (14) and Marie (12).

In the interview, we talked about how a collection betrays its master, the collector. Alain is very open and sincere in sharing his experiences and philosophy. I am very grateful for his generosity, and I really admire his courage to confront himself. “This is really the most revealing and personal interview I ever did and probably will ever do”, he wrote me a week after the interview.

AS - Alain Servais
ST – Selina Ting for InititArt Magazine

Click for Editor's Note on Meeting Alain Servais

What is Collecting Art?

ST: You are young, and a very active and “hard-working” collector. What are your basic ideas about collecting art?

AS: There are different things about collecting. The very first aspect concerns what you think of art. It’s almost the first question I am asking to everyone I meet to know in which artworld category to find them. It’s a tough question to answer, “What is art for you?”, and I ask myself this question regularly.

ST: Throughout the years you must have very different answers to your own question.

AS: Yes, of course.

ST: Perhaps it’s interesting for us to start with the question.

AS: I don’t know but let me finish your question first. So, you have the art then you have the collecting. Why is it? You said earlier that I am fascinated by collectors, and it’s very true. I am very interested in them across history, not just today, but in general about the phenomenon of collecting. There are many different ways of collecting, but I like the following definition that I read somewhere: The difference between a museum and a private collection is that, a museum is trying to illustrate an evolution of time, while a collector is encapsulating a point in time. A collector is very often active in a certain time span, usually they are good for 10 to 12 years, then they often become bad or they stop. Why? It’s because things are changing so much that you can’t adapt many times in succession. That’s why it’s so amazing to see some collectors changing and re-focusing their collection. It’s an amazing personal effort to do that. That’s also why you would see so often the same artists in different collections active in the same period.

ST: How can you try not to become a victim of this?

AS: That’s the second level about collecting, which means you have to try to give a message through your collection. I tend to explain it in this way: an artist is creating a sign, and the collector at a certain point is taking these signs and putting them together to give another message. He’s making a sentence, if you will. He’s creating something new. He’s expressing himself also. I think it’s important. I am trying to express something. Sometimes I have the impression that I am not being listened to… [Smiles] I ask the work of art to speak for me, on my behalf. I am hiding behind what they are saying, or in fact, I am saying what they are saying.

ST: Because you are the one who’s organizing the sentence.

AS: Yes, or sometimes, I can go to another level than what the artist really intended to say. I like the idea an artist told me, that once you sent the work of art to the world, you are losing control of its meaning. Some artists want to fight against this; some are just fine with it. Also, with the passing of time, you can never really see the work with the same eye as at its time of creation. That’s why I like to visit museums. I try to put myself in the mindset of times during which the work was created to understand how people in that time looked at those pieces. I don’t want to see the works only with my eyes of today because when one makes the effort to imagining oneself back in the artist’s own time you realize how those works could be really revolutionary and radical, and it feels even better to understand that. [Smiles]

Alain Servais creating the composition and anaylsing the dog, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009. Photographed by Selina Ting.

ST: Can we say that what we get from your comparison of a collector commanding the sentence is the subjectivity of the collector?

AS: That’s what I like: the subjectivity, but not the “command” in your question. [Smiles] I don’t feel myself as the “boss”. For example, I never commissioned a work. I don’t want to give instructions to an artist on what he has to do. At the same time, I don’t feel myself as the owner of the work. I am just a custodian of the work. Ok, I am given the work in exchange of a payment, I integrated the piece into my sentence, but it’s not my work. Because anybody coming here to see them can own them, appropriate them in their own way. That’s why I lend works to museums or others as often as I can.

ST: But then, we come back to the question, you can also go to the museums to look at them, to appropriate them in your own way. You don’t need to possess them.

AS: But the immense joy is that I don’t need to go to the museum every time, I can be here, look around, and say, oh, how lucky I am to live in a “museum”.

ST: Is there an obsession to own it?

AS: Yes and no. I have the obsession of putting them in evidence. Yes, I love the impact they have on me and others. It’s a nice feeling to see how the art work sometimes can influence people, can change certain things inside me and others, and can be useful to everyone. That’s why the works are not my property. They are the artists’ property, the world’s property, and I am happy to share them. I am just the lucky guy who’s living with them at the moment. [Smiles]

ST: Is it also your reflection from history that a collection can never stay in the same hand in view of changes of time and circumstances?

AS: Yes. That’s why conservation is very important for me. Because I hope someone will have them in 50 years, in 100 years. And if I don’t take correct care of them, they would be dead.

ST: When you have a huge collection, can your sentence still be coherent? Is there a limit?

AS: The sky is the limit! No, I should say the budget is the limit! So, why so many? At one point, I could say that you may realize what the core of the collection is (I don’t believe in collections consciously built from the beginning). Then you would have to have the courage to tidy it up. The big problem of many collectors, and sometimes myself, is the excessive drive of looking forward. You always look for the next piece and you forget a little bit about the past pieces. Then you have challenges concerning the storage, conservation, exhibiting, documentation, etc. This is the impulse and the weakness of a collector: What’s the next one I want to have?

ST: What about the coherence? When a collection expands to several hundred or several thousand pieces, can it still be coherent?

AS: More and more! There is more and more consistency as it gets bigger and more mature. But let me be careful about this word “consistency”. You can build collections in different ways. The hottest talk today, particularly in “courses” about collecting, [Winks] is to focus. But as I said, the collection is the sentence of the collector. It can be concerned by sports, sex, politics, death, love, etc. If you just want to talk about one of the chosen issues, then you are creating a much focused collection. But for me, there is diversity in each personality. There are people who are much more focused or disciplined, but I want to cultivate my diversity. There are many different elements in life that are interesting to me, and I don’t want to limit myself to one subject only. I know people who only collect black and white work. It’s a joke! [Laughs]

Left: Alain Servais. Right: Alain Servais and Cristina Savini. Images provided by Alain Servais. ©Alain Servais.

What you are looking at is inside you

ST: So your collection is more based on the subject-matter rather than a certain artistic movement?

AS: Yes, but someone’s history is where one is coming from and what one is. In my case, there are two sources of influence: first of all, I have been raised by Jesuits. The caricature of Jesuits is that they always answer questions with another question, and that they are always questioning perceived reality or conventions. They are a little bit manipulative [Winks] but they are attempting to examine things from different points of views and they teach you to look at your surroundings, physical and mental, from different perspectives. So, you come out of a Jesuit school either as a strong believer or as a strong disbeliever, and I came out as a very strong disbeliever in religion. They offer you a model of thinking about the world, but they give you the tools to destroy the model. So their views are very critical but very open-minded. They influenced my way of thinking in that if something looks to be white, I am going to ask myself where is the black of this white? [Smiles] So when you said my collection is very strong on messages, and you are not the only one saying so, then I will purposely add a work that speaks about the opposite, which is not at all about the message or the intellectual but perhaps the poetry. There is a very deep and obvious contradiction in the collection in that there are things that don’t seem to bear being together except that it is my intention – that they are contrary to one another.

ST: When you decided to destroy, when you become a disbeliever, I imagine you found yourself in the bewilderment with nothing to hold on to…

AS: Yes, I find it a difficult but exciting challenge to manage living with uncertainty. And that’s the other side in my history – Socrates. Socrates said, “One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing”. [Smiles] This is the basis of philosophy and the basis of my philosophy and my life. It’s true that human beings usually do whatever they can to avoid uncertainty but I try to live with this uncertainty, this permanent questioning. And it is not easy, particularly also for the ones living with me. [Winks] Sometimes we want to hold on to something solid but in reality everything is moving around. It definitely translates into the collection.

What’s interesting is that despite this impulse to keep changing, there are only very few works that I “reject” even though I bought them 10 years ago or more. Because each of them is a part of my history and very often their meaning is still alive. I can still feel the life coming out of them. [Smiles]

But this very intellectual and philosophical aspect is only one side of my philosophy, my personality and my collecting. Then there is another part which is the animal instinct and which is just as important. You think that we, humans, are superior, the creatures at the top of the evolution, but no, we are just another animal among other animals, the smartest animal, nothing else. Sometimes I like to cut off from all the rubbish, the illusion about human “intelligence”. Just look at what’s going on in the world. That’s just animals fighting each other. The way we behave when we want to have power, love, sex or drugs, is the same as for other animals most of the time. So let’s try not to make the human being what he’s not. So this other major theme express itself through the collection is, “Watch out for your animal instinct”. That’s why there are some very “crude” elements in the collection which disturb a lot of people. There is animal instinct behind the higher level of consciousness, and at one point the animal instinct would take over, be it for love, sex, politics, religions, races, power, etc., and that can be very violent and terrible.

Living Room of Alain Servais, Brussels. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

ST: When you use the word “Watch out”, it’s also about intellectual control on the animal instinct.

AS: Yes, I try to control it and again I try to say: this violence that you don’t like to see in art is also inside you, so, don’t reject it! Because sometimes when you are conscious of that violence, you can control it; if you are not conscious of it, it can explode and then you don’t know how to react to it or control it.

ST: What about the artists who created them? How do they get there?

AS: If you look at sociology… Where do you see the inner workings of a society? It’s at the edges. It’s where the problems, the dark sides, the failures of a society lay. When you see what the problems are and the “solutions” applied to them, then you understand the way the society is. It’s fascinating to me the way our society treats minorities. This is another very central in the collection. What codes, perceptions, treatment a society has for the homosexual, the immigrant, the prostitute, the lower-class, etc.? What are these telling us about our so-called “smart”, “wealthy”, “democratic” society? That’s why it’s very interesting to see and understand how things are working together, not just at the individual level of an artist or an individual, but the society as a whole.

ST: If we believe that art has the power to speak for the subaltern or revealing the messages to us, then, are we really giving voices to them or just another interpretation / manipulation? As a white, wealthy, upper-class male, are you not patronizing them? Where is your position in all these?

AS: One of my “model collector” is Herman Daled .He once wrote that “art should disturb me”. Art should ask me questions if it cannot provide me withanswers. It should teach me something that I don’t know about myself or my environment. This is what art is for me. As I can stand the questioning, as I accept to be put into question, I can live with those voices of the art which are raising very difficult questions. A lot of my friends say, “oh, I like your art but I could never live with it”. It’s just because I am “different” in some ways that I can cope with that questioning. And let us be clear this difference is not a source of glory or pride. It is more often a burden. [Smiles]

The second part of your question: if I am patronizing? … It’s a very good question because it touches something in my core. The answer is: maybe I am a “minority” myself. Despite being a member of the so-defined “dominating elite class”, maybe I am still in my own way a minority. [Smiles]

ST: Because you don’t conform to the values of your own social class?

AS: You know the answer. [Winks]

ST: Do you identify with the labels of white, male, wealthy, social status, etc. etc.?

AS: It’s objective. It’s a fact. I can’t go against that.

Corners of the living room in Alain's house. On the right, Claude Closky's collage of 1001 "things to do" cut out from magazines. Photograph by Selina Ting, 2009. Courtesy of Alain Servais. ©initiArt Magazine.

What else…?

ST: Now you have many pieces in your collection and you change the hanging once a year.

AS: Yes, about 80% of the work is changed out. It’s a lot of effort, but if you don’t want to change the hanging, what’s the point of buying more? It’s a pleasure because it transforms the house completely. It’s also paying respect to the artists, and it’s a worthy effort for my guests as well. [Smiles]

ST: What is it like to live with the same work for 365 days? Do you still see them on the 300th day?

AS: A year is not long. [Smiles] Do I still see them? Yes, and I am doing the necessary to look at them again and again such as having group visits two to three times a month, and I guide the tour myself. Yes, I love art, it’s more than a passion; it’s a way of living, as I tried to explain. But outside this “intellectual” environment of art, I am as happy to live with my animal side [Winks] by watching football games and playing with my kids. There are two lighting systems in the house, the artwork lighting system and the living lighting system. This is my way of living. I love things with two or more sides. [Smiles]

ST: How do you decide and design the hanging?

AS: I make a list of works that I want to take out of storage. Then I see how they “work” with the physical environment of the house. The interesting thing is that, once they are there, suddenly you see the intrinsic link between them. I don’t work like a curator who starts with a theme, a theory then research into the work.

Alain Servais with an unknown audience, in the game installation of MIND-GAMES (2009) by Madelon Vriesendorp, in Arsenale, 53rd Venice Biennale 2009. Photographed by Selina Ting.

ST: What do you look at and what do you look for when you visit a private collection?

AS: I want to know who the hosts are. I want to meet the person, whether they are physically present or not. Visiting the private house of a person is to get to know that person for real. There is little he or she can hide. [Smiles]

ST: What about your own feelings of opening your own private, intimate living space for visitors, some of them are strangers?

AS: I am probably an exhibitionist. [Laughs] I don’t care. I have nothing to hide. You like me or you don’t like me, you judge me or you don’t judge me, good for you. There is nothing I can do about it.

ST: And when you visit a private collection, do you feel yourself a voyeur?

AS: A little bit. I am a voyeur as well. I am an exhibitionist and I am voyeur. [Laughs] So, there’s no problem…

ST: According to you, what’s the role of a collector in the making of art history?

AS: They realize that the very good artists cannot be understood today, that’s a bit caricature though…

ST: …Because the artists are ahead of their time.

AS: Most of the time for the good ones. A very good artist is a very good artist by nature; a very good collector is a also good collector by nature. Again, let me give you another metaphor: the artist is the “broken” or “twisted” transmitter, he’s gathering information from the world, good feelings and bad feelings about the world, and he’s expressing them in the work of art, he’s creating a sign. Most of the normal people can’t decipher it, can’t pick up the message immediately. But the collectors understand it because they are the receptors, often as “broken” or “twisted” as the transmitter is. [Winks] Look at Gertrude Stein, Peggy Guggenheim and many other collectors. They are very important because they support new movements and they are the ones taking the risks. Today, the galleries are promoting the living artists but how many galleries are still buying from their own artists? Who’s putting up their own money, taking risks and supporting the artists today? Collectors! Again, that’s simplifying the scenario, but the way to make a complex idea clearer is often to simplify it and exaggerate the point. [Winks] Of course, in reality and nuances there are different categories of artists, galleries, collectors, etc.

ST: Thank you very much.

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:59:00 +0000

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Interview : Paul CHAN

©Paul Chan, Sade for Sade's Sake, three-channel animation projection, 5hr45mins. Courtesy of the artist

Sade for Sade’s Sake (2009), a three-channel animation projection that Paul Chan (b. 1973) presented for the 53rd Biennale di Venezia this year, depicts shadow-like human bodies in physical movement. These figures talk, argue, and plea with one another, walk and crawl, and beaten and whipped, and engaged in sexual activities and religious rituals. Interspersed among them are shadows of rectangles, squares, and other shapes and forms.

In the interview, Paul Chan talks about Sade, Freedom, Sexuality and Morality.

PC – Paul Chan
ST – Selina Ting for initiArt Magazine

ST: In your opinion, how many people have watched the video, Sade for Sade’s Sake (hereafter “SSS”) in its full-length of 5hours 45mins?

PC: None, let’s hope.

ST: We know that the video has a basic structure of 45 second per scene interspersed by some geometrical forms of objects. You once said it’s like a ballad. Does it bear any resemblance to the structure of Sade’s 120 days of Sodom, i.e. from Part 1 to Part 4 and the repetitive structure of Day 1 to Day 120?

PC: The whole piece is structured like a ballad. Each of the 45 second scenes I consider a line in the ballad. Four lines make up a stanza in a ballad, and so each stanza has a particular rhyming scheme. Visually this means that the lines that are suppose to rhyme have recurring visual elements in their scene, but in a different composition or way of moving.

ST: I’ve only seen a little part of it, but I am very curious to know how it develops within the 5hours 45mins. Is there "development" in it?

PC: Yes, SSS changes radically over the course of the 5+ hours. Things fall apart, bodies become disembodied, rhyme becomes reason, and colors change, and so on.

ST: What do these geometrical objects stand for?

PC: I don’t know. You know?

ST: Well, perhaps they are windows for escape…or they can be residues of visual spots in the mind, objects for worship, or a black hole where humanity falls. I am so often told by artists that once the work is done, they gained autonomy and have their own life in the world. Art is for everyone’s interpretation.

PC: Just the interesting observation that when something becomes free, or what you describe as something gaining autonomy, it tends to emanate an essential formlessness, whatever it looks like, which could be interpreted as something everyone can interpret. But for me this formlessness shouldn’t be seen as a kind of willful ambiguity. It is more like the stubbornness of someone not willing to belong to anyone or anything.

ST: Someone humorously commented that to attempt Sade’s 120 days of Sodom is a challenge. Because if you can’t persist till the end, you are a loser; if you successfully make it to the end, you made yourself a fool. Can this be applied to your work as well?

PC: No, because the only holy fool is me, for making it. It’s also a good question whether Sade wrote 120 days to be read. He wrote it during his imprisonment in the Bastille. And like any prisoner he wanted to escape. And how he escaped was by writing, by making literature. So in the end what is most vital is the time spent making it, not in having it received.

On Freedom

ST: You’ve also mentioned the idea of escape in Venice. You said that "the most intimate form of engagement is escape. Escape creates a sense of inner and outer integrity and gives a picture of what freedom looks like". Can you further elaborate the relationship between confinement, escape and freedom?

PC: Sure. Confinement is the condition that makes us desire escape most, and in escaping we achieve freedom. In freedom we find the truth of confinement, which is not something oppose to freedom, but in fact its grounding. I think this is what they call a Hegelian triad. But I’m most likely wrong.

ST: SSS has been largely regarded as a critique of the scandal of Abu Ghraib prison for its sexual violence, imprisonment and torture. However, from your previous work, it seems that your interest in Sade is less on sex or sexual violence itself, but on the idea of supreme freedom or the so call “Sadeian Freedom” where individual sovereignty becomes the supremacy without limit. How do you interpret Sade’s notion of freedom?

PC: I have written before on this project that, does it make Sade’s work more bearable to remember that his thinking around sex, pleasure, and freedom are inextricably tied to a ruthless critique of institutional power, whether it was governments, churches, or philosophies? Probably not. The blue and purple prose is what sticks in the craw of the mind, a seemingly endless accounting of perversities, debaucheries, and tortures. The law of reason compels sex to greater and greater extremes. In Sade, the Kantian notion of freedom as the power to follow the path paved by the series of causes and effects from one’s own reason for being fulfills Kant’s image of human autonomy and at the same time makes a mockery of its humanist potential.
Pleasure has its own reason and freedom its own law. Call it Sade’s law. And yet to follow Sade’s law to the letter is to pledge an allegiance to an imaginary power as rigid, cruel, and paradoxical as the one he was fighting against. The irony of this is on full view today. Since 2001, the US has waged a campaign to spread freedom and democracy around the world. But ironically, the more this freedom spreads, the more rigid, cruel and sexually inhuman the campaign becomes.

ST: In Must We Burn Sade ? (1955), Simone de Beauvoir accuses Sade for his solipsistic worldview, his denial of the reality of the Other and his oppression on the others. According to de Beauvoir, freedom and satisfactions for Sade can only be obtained in an imaginary or literary world where the others as embodied consciousness did not exist for him. In this sense, writing is a form of escape for Sade and his freedom lacks the possibility of action. How would you comment on de Beauvoir’s critique of Sade?

PC: You have reduced de Beauvoir’s essay to being merely a critique of Sade, when it is rather a more full bodied assessment of his work and its relevance then and now. One of the points de Beauvoir was trying to make was that Literature is a kind of action, and that the act of artistic creation has as much reality embedded in it than, say, digging a hole, or making love. That is why people wanted to burn Sade, they sensed in his work the gravity that comes from having made a concrete existence out of mere words.

ST: What about the critique on the oppression of the Other? What differs de Beauvoir’s notion of freedom from that of Sade is also her recognition of the inter-subjective lives and relationships of reciprocity.

PC: Yes, you’re right. The fundamental blindspot in Sade is that the people who populate his imaginative world are not really people at all, but things that can be used and dominated to their core. But isn’t this the mind simply wielding its power over the entire domain of artistic creation? Doesn’t Sade have a fundamental right as a thinking-and-making being to reflect and express whatever comes to him? This difference between Sade and de Beauvoir is not really a difference between different notions of freedom, but the irreconciliability between ethics and art.

ST: How relevant is Sade’s form of freedom to our society today?

PC: Sade is very relevant: he is the court philosopher for any country spreading democracy and freedom today.

On Sexuality and Morality

ST: Religion / Christianity is a point of attack for the Enlightenment and Post-Enlightenment thinkers. Sex as the origin of human evil and slavery becomes the primal site of transgression and individual liberty, especially for Sade. Today, the role of religion as a regulator is largely replaced by law. Law and Order become the social architects that construct a framework within which individual sovereignty is delimited and constantly kept in check. In your project, My Laws are my Whores (2008), where you presented 9 charcoal drawings of America's Supreme Court justices vis-à-vis 14 large, textualized drawings based on the characters from Sade’s work. Can you share with us your dea under this provocative title and the juxtaposition of Law and Sade?

PC: Well, the first thing is that the title of that show is a parody of Diderot’s famous quip, 'My thoughts are my whores'. But the spirit is the same. And for me it exemplifies what Sade was trying to achieve. A law of pleasure unto himself. I’ve written on the idea that the world Sade portrays is as representative of reality as pornography is to actual sex. But they are not mere fantasies. They posses the prodding movements of a mind that imagines sex not merely as a pleasure, a job, or a weapon, but as a form of reason. Here is where the spirit of Sade resides. If human freedom is expressed in the sovereignty of sex, then Sade is pushing to create a form of expression that can free the reason of sex from both nomos (human law) and physics (law of nature).

©Paul Chan, My laws are my whores, 2008, Charcoal and paper, Courtesy of the artist.

ST: Sade has turned his subversive, sadist sexuality into an ethic of erotic or mode of living and expressed that ethic of erotic through writing. There is also an attempt to synthesize the violent and arbitrary justice of the aristocracy with bourgeois rationalism of his epoch. Do you see any transgression, in terms of sexuality, politics, social justice, in this strategy?

PC: This is the second hardest question I’ve ever been asked. The first was by a 9-year-old who asked me how big God was. Yes, it was a transgression then, and in many ways it still is transgressive. There remains in Sade an unbearable quality. And this is what renders him relevant.

ST: What does this transgression imply in the relationship between the individual and the world?

PC: The poet Wallace Stevens once wrote that a poem, among other things, is 'a violence within that protects us from a violence without'. In a way, the world trangresses upon us more than we will ever transgress it. The work of art, if it is art, gives us ways to abide in or resist the world.

ST: I read the mechanical sexual scenes in the video as numbing rather than shocking, like "violence for violence’s sake" or "torture for torture’s sake". Under what conditions would morality / humanity completely surrendered to cruelty and violence? Is this question naïve?

PC: Not a naïve question. There are many conditions that would render humanity into perpetual cruelty and violence. Poverty is one such condition. Inequality would be another one. Lack of civil rights another. Your read of the "sexual" scenes from SSS is not off the mark. Although there is tenderness in there somewhere, but like real tenderness, it is fleeting and not readily apparent.

ST: How far can one say that your work takes the same line as Sade that Sexuality is not a biological imperative but a social fact?

PC: I don’t know. One can almost say anything these days. The question is whether what is said has the force of material reality or not.

ST: You said in Venice that "a person is a world more than the world itself, and that a shift in a mind means more than a change in gravity itself." To what degree do you place your faith in humanity?

PC: I have no faith to place anywhere. Besides, humanity doesn’t need faith as much as a new reason to be itself.

About the artist

Paul Chan was born in 1973 in Hong Kong and currently lives in New York City. He received his BFA in video and digital arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and his MFA in film, video, and new media from Bard College. His most recent solo shows include My Laws are My Whores in the University of Chicago in 2009, The 7 Lights in New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC in 2008, The Western Front in Vancouver, Paul Chan in Serpentine Gallery in London, Lights and Drawings in Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, all in 2007. His work was included in the Rotating Views #2 in Astrup Fearnley Museet for Moderne Kunst, Oslo, in 2009; Medium Religion in ZKM Karlsruhe, T2 Torino Triennale, Turin, 16th Biennale of Sydney, Betwixt in Magasin 3 Stockholm Konsthall, Stockholm, Traces du Sacré in Centre Pompidou, Paris, Shadow Cabinet in Extra City, Antwerp, all in 2008.

Unsafe at Any Exposure - OtherWords

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:44:00 +0000

Unsafe at Any Exposure - OtherWords

Unsafe at Any Exposure

There's no safe level of radiation exposure.

By Dr. Ira Helfand

As the radioactive contamination of food, water, and soil in Fukushima, Japan worsens, the media is continuously reassuring us that these levels are "safe." But there is no safe level of radiation.

Yes, at lower levels the risk is smaller, but the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science has concluded that any exposure to radiation makes it more likely that an individual will get cancer.

The press is reporting that 100 millisieverts (mSv) is the lowest dose that increases cancer risks. This simply isn't true. According to the NAS, if you are exposed to a dose of 100 mSv, you have a one in 100 chance of getting cancer, but a dose of 10 mSv still gives you a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv gives you a one in 10,000 risk.

Those odds sound fairly low for one individual, but if you expose 10,000 people to a one in 10,000 risk, one of them will get cancer. If you expose 10 million people to that dose, 1,000 will get cancer. There are more than 30 million people in the Tokyo metropolitan area.

To understand the danger of low levels of radiation exposure, consider several factors.

First, the total dose is the most important factor, not the dose per hour. When you get an X-ray, you're exposed to a one-time burst of radiation. If you work for 10 hours in a spot where the radiation level is 1 millisievert per hour, your dose is 10 millisieverts, and the dose goes up the longer you stand there.

Second, there's a big difference between external and internal radiation. If you're standing in a spot where you're exposed to external radiation, that exposure ends as soon as you move away. But if you ingest or inhale a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate your body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in your body.

Further, if you ingest radioactive particles, the dose isn't spread evenly over your entire body. It concentrates where the particles lodge. The average total body dose may be relatively low, but the dose at the site may be large enough to damage that tissue and cause cancer.

That's why the radiation being found in Japan in spinach, milk, and other food--as well as water--is so worrisome. If consumed, it will create ongoing radiation exposure and increase the risk of cancer.

A large majority of the hundreds of thousands of cancer cases that have occurred in the former Soviet Union because of the Chernobyl catastrophe were caused by people eating radioactively contaminated food.

Finally, it makes a big difference who gets irradiated. Children are much more vulnerable than adults. If a fetus is exposed to only 10 mSv in utero, his or her risk of getting cancer by age 15 doubles. So it's particularly dangerous when children or pregnant women consume radioactive food or water.

Reports indicate that the total radioactive releases in Fukushima have been relatively small so far. If this is the case, then the health effects will be correspondingly small. But it's not "safe" to release this much radiation. Some people will get cancer as a result. Most importantly, we don't know at this point how much more radiation there will be.

That’s why the U.S. government has said that people shouldn't be allowed within 50 miles of the plant.

If a comparable accident were to occur at the Indian Point nuclear reactors 24 miles north of New York City, 17 million people would need to evacuate. That's something to think about when we're told everything is OK at our nuclear plants.

Dr. Ira Helfand is an internist and a member of the board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. ww.psr.org

The battle of chenobyl

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:59:00 +0000

The battle of chernobyl shows that the Fukushima catastrophe could take years to clean up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o

800,000 people could contract cancer if not moved out of Fukushima

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 11:37:00 +0000

Dr. Chris Busby, a British scientist, predicts some 800,000 people out of about 8 million who live within 200 kilomters of the Fukushima nuclear plants will contract cancer if they are not moved out. http://www.infowars.com/fukushima-exposure-levels-going-up-everywhere/

Japan crisis forces rethink of the nuclear option

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:47:00 +0000

The Telegraph April 8, 2011

The reactor meltdown at Fukushima has forced the energy industry to reconsider its investment priorities.

Anti-nuclear activists in Bulgaria protest in Sofia in reaction to the dramatic situation at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan. They want the government to scrap plans to build second nuclear plant near Belene. Photo: AFP

By Josephine Moulds 9:00PM GMT 19 Mar 2011

16 Comments

With the eyes of the world watching, Japanese soldiers and workers continue to battle to keep the six nuclear reactors at Fukushima from meltdown.

The most technologically advanced nation in the world has been forced to resort to using police water cannons and buckets of water hurled from helicopters to cool exposed fuel rods. Authorities admit they may have to bury the plant in sand and concrete to prevent a catastrophic release of radiation.

The frightening situation is far from resolved, but the crisis has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets.

The dangers of nuclear power have been thrown into the spotlight – halting building projects all over the world; while the third largest economy in the world is desperately importing fossil fuels just to turn the lights back on after the earthquake ripped through the power supply, leaving 1.3 million people without electricity.

In the short term, the need for energy has dropped as factories sit idle and there is little movement around the country.

Japan nuclear crisis: 'Fukushima Fifty' cut off from family
19 Mar 2011
Japan still 'racing against the clock' to prevent meltdown
18 Mar 2011
A nuclear future – proceed with caution
18 Mar 2011
Fukushima 50 fight nuclear fallout covered in duct tape
18 Mar 2011
Obama defends US evacuation order
18 Mar 2011
All over the world, an industry with failings
18 Mar 2011

But that will change rapidly as the reconstruction effort begins. Leo Drollas, chief economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, says: “Imagine all the girders needed to rebuild houses, cement for the flyways that have been destroyed, shipping fleets rebuilt, steel going into the trawlers.”

Japan has shut down 11 nuclear reactors in four different power plants. With talk of burying the Fukushima plant, it seems likely that at least six of those are lost for good. The question then is, what will replace them?

The country has more than 50 nuclear reactors – one in ten of the world’s total – squeezed on to its geologically unstable, densely populated land mass. Drollas says: “Obviously in Japan, there will be a major rethink.”

But it is not just Japan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already said she will close seven of the country’s 17 nuclear plants; while China has put its plans to build 110 new reactors on hold.

Mark Lewis, head of energy research at Deutsche Bank, says: “The obvious beneficiary of all of this is gas. If you want to build new power stations with relatively low emissions, the advantage of gas is that it’s much cleaner than coal, you can build it within three years, and it is ideal to build in conjunction with renewable capacity.”

Gas works well as a back-up for alternative fuels such as wind or solar, because its output can be altered quickly as levels of renewable output change.

Liquefied natural gas prices shot up 15pc to peak on Wednesday, dropping back slightly by the end of the week.

Coal will also enjoy a renaissance if nuclear’s future is defined by the ongoing Japanese situation, even though this could have disastrous effects for the environment as coal emits one tonne of CO2 for every megawatt of power that it generates, compared with nuclear, which emits no CO2.

Subsequently the cost of carbon surged this week to its highest level since 2008.

These prevailing forces will boost the market for renewable power. As fossil fuels get more expensive, alternative energy needs less subsidies.

But, argue nuclear advocates, the world cannot build renewable capacity fast enough. Kevin McCullough, chief operating officer of RWE npower, the German-owned company seeking to develop two nuclear power stations in the UK, said: “We mustn’t forget about climate change, the impending UK energy gap and the need to keep bills affordable. None of those challenges has gone away.

“No one source of energy can deliver all that, even if you take the most optimistic view of energy efficiency gains. The country needs new nuclear as part of its mix and we must focus on delivering that with safety as the priority.”

Safety is, of course, the sticking point. Nuclear power was only just emerging from the shadow cast by the catastrophic explosion in Chernobyl in 1986. Now Fukushima has given critics the ammunition they need to urge governments to halt their nuclear ambitions. Although this crisis has been much less severe than Chernobyl, commentators say it is worse for the industry as it happened at a modern reactor in a first world country.

Barclays commodity analysts said the Japanese nuclear plants were constructed with an extremely high level of technological sophistication to withstand earthquakes, with safety mechanisms including a tsunami wall.

In response to these safety concerns, the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) came out fighting. NIA spokesman John Mcnamara said: “Effectively that power station shut down safely. When the earthquake struck, the station shut down and the safety systems kicked in. Obviously there are going to be learning points about the strength of the tsunami .”

Around the world, governments have ordered reviews of nuclear programmes, to “learn the lessons” from the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.

In the UK, Liberal Democrat Energy Minister Chris Huhne commissioned a report from chief nuclear officer Mike Weightman.

The UK has 10 existing power stations, nine of which are scheduled to close by 2023. The previous Labour-led Government committed in 2006 to building a new generation of plants and eight sites have so far been shortlisted for replacement. But final investment decisions have not yet been made. As Deutsche’s Lewis points out: “No-one is close to the stage where they can start pouring concrete into the ground . This is going to push the timeframe back further still.”

He says it is inevitable that the cost of nuclear power will go up. “The amount of capital investment required to build a nuclear power station to the level needed for public confidence will be greater. And the perceived risk will go up, so the cost of financing [it] will go up. On an economic level it makes nuclear less competitive.”

Funding a nuclear power station is particularly risky in the UK, where the energy market has been liberalised.

“All the nuclear power stations in the UK were built before electricity markets were liberalised,” says Lewis. “You would expect to recover your cost because [of] the price of electricity . Liberalisation changes the game completely.”

Chris Huhne, energy and climate change secretary, has admitted there is an “ongoing potential risk” that investors will lose appetite for nuclear power in the UK following the crisis.

Anecdotal evidence suggests his fears may be realised. Gerard Reid, cleantech research analyst at investment bank Jefferies, says: “From the investor community, the energy funds I am speaking to, not alternative energy funds but funds who have had complete '360s’ on this and were pro-nuclear, they have gone anti-nuclear.”

The Japanese crisis will also buffet Huhne’s planned electricity market reform, which he has called the biggest shake-up of the industry since the 1980s.

The energy White Paper due in late spring is expected to drive towards a much more open market. Drollas says: “This might make people reconsider whether market solutions have to be pursued at all costs.”

In Germany, which receives 23pc of its electricity from nuclear, the situation is even more acute. The German nuclear power industry has been at the centre of a raging political debate for decades. Last year,

Chancellor Merkel’s government took the controversial decision to extend the life of Germany’s nuclear power plants by 12 years. So it was a major shock when she announced the closure of the oldest reactors this week, ordering a three-month review of the other 10 remaining plants.

Further afield, President Barack Obama has ordered a comprehensive review of domestic nuclear plants.

In Asia, the picture is mixed. China is currently the world’s biggest builder of nuclear reactors, driving government plans forward without the lengthy consultation required in democratic countries.

It, however, appears cowed by the events in Japan, with the Chinese State Council decreeing: “We will temporarily suspend approval for nuclear power projects, including those that have already begun preliminary work, before nuclear safety regulations are approved.”

India, on the other hand, remained firm in its nuclear ambitions. The country of one billion people aims to generate 63GW of nuclear power by 2032, compared with the less than 5GW it generates today.

Until the situation in Fukushima stabilises, the global reaction will keep changing. But already the face of energy markets has changed, possibly for good.

前核電廠技師的瀝血控訴

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 16:21:00 +0000

設施配管1級技士平井憲夫(1997年1月因癌症逝世)

生前的最後吶喊。

我不是反核運動家。這20年來，我一直在核電廠工作。社會上有聽不完的擁核反核理論，但我只想在這裡告訴大家：「所謂的核電廠是這樣一回事。」大部份的人都不知道核電內部的實際情形。希望大家有耐心把這篇文章讀完。所謂核電，跟各位所想的或許有點出入。在那裡，每天都有遭受放射線污染的工人，以及嚴重的岐視產生。

我的專長，是負責大型化學工場的內部配管施工與維修。快30歲時，日本掀起了一陣核電建設的風潮。核電內部有錯綜複雜的配管，正好是我發揮專長的大好舞台。因此我被核電製造商挖角，長期擔任工程現場的監督人員，一晃眼就過了20年。

「安全」是紙上談兵

1995 年1月發生阪神大地震。地震隔天我到了神戶，看到傾倒的新幹線與斷裂的高速公路。不禁發起一陣省思。因為這些公共建設實在與核電廠有太多相似點。大家或許認為，核電、新幹線、高速公路這些攸關人命的建設，平日應該受到政府嚴格控管。但是看到倒下的高架支柱，不是混凝土裡夾雜著施工初期的定型木片，不然就是焊接處焊的亂七八糟。為什麼會發生這些事呢？這不僅僅是施工單位的不用心，其實問題的本質，是我們都太過於注重「理論上的安全」了。

「素人造核電」

核電廠裡面，鐵絲掉進原子爐、工具掉進配管裡卡住的人為疏失可說是層出不窮。為什麼會這樣？因為工程現場裡「有真功夫的師父」實在是太少了。不管核電設計有多完美，實際施工卻無法做到與原設計一模一樣。核電的藍圖，總是以技術頂尖的工人為絕對前提，做出不容一絲差錯的完美設計。但卻從來沒有人討論過，我們的現場人員到底有沒有這種能耐。

早期的工地，總是會叫經驗老道的老師父來做「班長」。他們比那些年輕的監督人員有經驗，並注重名譽，不允許錯誤發生在自己手上。但現在，老師父已幾近凋零。建設公司在徵人廣告上以「經驗不拘」做為求才條件。這些沒經驗的素人，不知道核能事故的可怕，也不知道自己負責的部位有多重要。東京電力的福島核電，曾因鐵絲掉進原子爐，差點發生席捲世界的重大事故。把鐵絲弄掉的工人知道自己犯了錯，卻完全無法想像這個錯會造成如此可怕的事故。這就是現在核電現場的實際狀況。

老師父一個接一個退休了。建商也查覺到這件事。因此把工程圖盡量分割簡化，做出連菜鳥也看的懂的製造手冊。菜鳥們在現場有如堆積木般地組裝各種零件。他們不知道現在到底在作什麼，也不能理解這個部份有什麼重要性。這就是核電廠事故頻傳的原因之一。

核電廠因為有幅射的危險性，很難在現場培育人材。電廠的作業現場既暗又熱，又必須穿戴防護衣罩，作業員彼此無法直接做語言溝通，這該怎麼把技術傳給新人呢？更何況技術越好的師父，就代表他進入高汙染區的頻率越高。他們很快就會超過規定的放射能曝晒量，無法再進核電廠作業。所以菜鳥工才會越來越多。

再舉配管的焊接師父來說吧！專業的焊接工，通常年過三十後眼睛就會不堪使用，無法完成一些細膩的工作。所以需要許多細膩作業的石油廠就不會再雇用這些工人。這些人為了生計，只好去願意雇用他們的核電廠工作。

大家或許都會錯意了。以為核電廠是多麼高科技的先端產物。核電不像各位想的這麼高級。這些菜鳥做的核電廠，日後必會為我們帶來無窮的災難。

「徒有虛名的檢查官」

好，或許有人會說就算核電真的都是素人蓋的，那好好監督它總行了吧。我想跟各位說明，監督系統才是核電更大的問題。真正的檢查，是檢查官指出有問題的部分說：「你這裡焊接黏的不好，來，我來教你怎麼黏。」這樣才叫檢查。但檢查官通常都沒有真功夫。他們只會讀著整理完善的報告書，聽著建商的精彩報告，看著漂漂亮亮的場地，表面沒什麼大問題就判定合格。這就是核電監督的真相。

以前在外演講時，曾經有一位技術官員在場告白：「說來很慚愧。我們的部門害怕去核電檢查會遭幅射污染，所以從不派自己人去現場檢查。總是找些農業部的職員去監督。昨天在教人養蠶、養魚的人，隔天就被派去當核電檢查官了。福井縣美濱核電廠的檢查總長，在上任之前是個負責檢查稻米的。」這些由素人發出運轉許可的核電，真的能信賴嗎？

東京電力的福島核電廠發生緊急爐心冷卻系統(ECCS)的重大事故時，負責監督該座核電的檢查總長竟然透過隔天的報紙才知道這件事。這件事還被媒體以「核電重大事故，檢查官被矇在鼓裡」為標題大肆報導。其實也不能怪電力公司。在十萬火急的事故現場，排除事故都來不及了，誰還有空去向一個什麼都不懂的三歲小孩說明現在的狀況呢？所以他們不會把檢查官放進現場，所以官員永遠是狀況外。

檢查官不說OK，工程就無法進行。他們什麼都不懂，只懂的看表面，卻又擁有太大權限。我還在職的時候，就一直呼籲政府必須組織一個完全獨立的第三者機關，找些有真功夫的配管或機械組裝的老師父來當檢查官，他們一眼就能看穿哪裡有焊接不良或偷工減料。但是講了再講，政府的政策卻依然沒有改變。

「定期保養也是素人」

核能機組每運轉一年，就必須停機做定期保養。因為原子爐會產生高達150的氣壓，攝氏300度的蒸氣及熱水，這些熱水氣會使配管的管壁或汽門嚴重磨耗。因此必須定期更換。但這些作業卻使工人遭受幅射污染。

核電廠插入燃料棒後，只消運轉一次，內部就會充滿放射性物質。進入現場時，工人必須脫掉所有的衣物，換上防護衣才能進場。防護衣的作用並不是保護工人，而是確保放射線不被帶出核電廠。因為測量工人身體幅射劑量的儀器竟是佩戴在防護衣裡面，而不是外面！

包圍在重重護具底下的工人們，必須在畏懼輻射污染的高度心理壓力下工作。在這種環境下絕對無法維持好的作業品質。就拿最最基本的鎖螺絲來講；我在作業前一定會告誡工人：「鎖對角才會緊，輻射才不會外洩。」但是他們的工作場域是布滿輻射的高度危險區，進去以後不消幾分鐘，佩帶在身上的輻射測量儀就會發出高分貝的響鈴，警告工人必須立刻退場。在進入現場前，我們雖會告知工人今天這個區域能待幾分鐘。但是現場並沒有時鐘，工人也因為輻射污染問題，無法自行攜帶手錶進去。大家都想在警鈴響起前趕快離開。整個心就掛念著現在到底過了幾分鐘？警鈴是不是要響了？管他什麼螺絲要鎖對角，反正有鎖上去就好了。人在這種環境下絕對無法精確工作，但你想這會帶來什麼後果呢？

「放射能被直接排入大海」

核電的定期保養大都在冬季。保養結束後，幾十噸的放射性廢水會被直接排入大海。而在平常運轉時，也會有每分鐘數十噸單位的大量廢熱水被排進海洋。但政府或電力公司卻總是滿口保證核電絕對安全，久而久之國民也對核電造成的環境影響變的莫不關心。

工人穿過的防護衣必須用水清洗，這些廢水皆全數排入大海。排水口的放射線值高的不像話，而漁民卻在那附近養魚。如果我們不正視這個問題，放任核電廠越蓋越多的話，後果實在不堪設想。

「體內的幅射污染最可怕」

核島區內的所有東西都是放射性物質。每個物質都會釋放傷害人體的放射能，當然連灰塵也不例外。如果是身體表面沾上放射性物質，沖洗乾淨就沒事。但如果是經由口鼻吸入體內的話，將對人體帶來數倍的危險性。負責打掃核島區的清潔工，通常是最高危險群。

進入體內的放射性物質，通常在3至5天內會隨著汗水或小便排出身體。但這些物質在體內循環的過程會對人體帶來打擊；更何況它們並不會百分之百排出體外。長年累積下來的放射能將會帶來疾病。

有去參觀過核能設施的人，應該都看過核電內部打掃的一塵不染的情形。電力公司的職員總是得意的說：「核電廠既漂亮又乾淨！」這是理所當然的事情。放任灰塵飛散的話可是會擴大幅射污染呀！

我遭受了100次以上的體內幅射污染，最後得了癌症。我曾經畏懼即將到來的死亡。但我的母親鼓勵我，沒有比死更可怕的事情。因此我決定在死前站出來，把我知道的真相全部公諸於世。

「截然不同的作業環境」

放射能無論有多微量，都會長期累積在人體。但所謂的放射線健康管理，卻規定一年的曝晒量不超過50mSv就好。這是一件相當可怕的事情。因為我們依據這個量除以365天，算出一天可被曝晒的劑量。按照這個算法，核島區內的一些高污染區，一天只能進去5到7分鐘。但這麼短的時間根本無法完成工作。所以我們會要求工人一口氣曝晒三個禮拜到一個月的量，以順利完成工作。我們根本沒料到這短短的十幾二十分，會為我們帶來白血病或癌症等疾病。電力公司完全不告訴我們這些事情。

還記得有一次，運轉中的核電機組裡有一根螺絲鬆了。核電運轉中排出的輻射量相當驚人。為了鎖這根螺絲，我們準備了三十個人。這三十人在離螺絲七公尺遠的地方一字排開，聽到「預備，跑！」的號令後輪番衝上去鎖，一到那裡只要數三下，計量器的警鈴就會嗶嗶響起。時間實在太過緊迫，甚至有人衝上去後找不到扳手警鈴就響了。這個螺絲才鎖三轉，就已經花費了160人次的人力，400萬日幣的費用。或許有人會覺得奇怪，為什麼不把核電廠停起來修理？因為核電只要停一天就會帶來上億元的損失。電力公司才不會做這種虧本的事。在企業眼中，金錢比人命重要。

長達五小時的「絕對安全」教育

第一次在核電廠上班的工人，必須接受約五小時的放射線管理課程。這個課程最大的目的就是解除內心的不安。他們絕不會說核電廠到底有多危險，只會一再強調有政府嚴格管理，一切安心這些話。「社會上有一些反核份子很愛說輻射會帶來白血病或癌症等疾病，但那全部都是謊言，那些人都是騙子。你只要遵守政府的規定就不會有問題。」諸如此類的洗腦教育將持續約五小時。

當然不只限於核電內部，電力公司也常在社區內推廣這種「核電絕對安全」的教育。他們有時邀請有名人來演講，有時透過料理教室等等的文化活動宣傳，有時是把圖文並茂的精美文宣夾報。久而久之人們慢慢就會被洗腦，變成只會擔心「沒了核電，我們將無電可用」。

這二十年來，我以現場負責人的身分，為新進員工執行這個更勝於奧姆真理教的洗腦教育。自己都不知道自己殺了多少人。核電工人總是對核電安全自信滿滿，就算身體狀況變差，也不認為與核電有關。因為他們從不知道放射能的真正恐怖。每個工人，每一天都持續遭受輻射污染。而負責人的任務就是隱瞞這些事情，不讓本人或外界知道這些資訊。

我長年從事這種工作，壓力日積月累，只能依賴酒精慰藉，而且每晚越喝越兇。我也常捫心自問，自己到底為了誰，為了什麼，每天要過這種充滿謊言的日子？一晃眼過了20年，終於連自己的身體也被輻射侵蝕的破碎不堪。

「核電廠出事時，誰要去救？」

有一次，東京電力的福島核電廠內，有一名工人不慎割破額頭大量失血。因為情況危急，非馬上送醫不可。慌忙的電力公司職員立刻叫來救護車，卻忘記他剛從高污染區出來，全身上下都是放射能，連防護衣都沒脫。趕來急救的醫護人員也缺乏知識，不做任何清洗就把病人直接送往醫院。結果所有接觸到他的醫生、護士都受到輻射污染，連救護車、病床等東西也不例外。整個村落差點陷入大恐慌。

大家看到重傷病患時會下意識地去搶救，無色無臭無味的放射能容易被人忽略。光是一個人就搞的天翻地覆了。如果核電廠發生大事故，大批居民遭到輻射污染時，誰要去救他們？這絕不是別人家的事，而是全國國民必須共同思考的問題。

「令人震驚的美濱核電廠事故」

核電事故往往被有意無意的忽略。大家都知道三浬島跟車諾比事件，卻不知道日本一直持續發生重大核安事故。其中我印象最深刻的，是1991年發生在關西電力美濱核電廠的細管破碎事故。原子爐中含有放射性的冷卻水，因為細小的配管破碎而外洩到海裡，只差0.7秒，失去冷卻的原子爐就要像車諾比一樣暴衝了。幸好值班的是個老經驗的職員，他當機立斷，手動開啟ECCS(緊急爐心冷卻裝置)，避免了一場大慘劇。要知道，ECCS是核電廠的最後一道防線。使用ECCS系統阻擋下來的美濱核電廠事故，可說是一台載著日本一億人口的大巴士，在高速公路以一百公里以上的速度狂奔，踩煞車也不靈，拉手煞車也擋不住，最後撞上懸崖才總算把車子停下來的一場大事故。我只能說日本人，喔不，是世界上的人們太幸運了。

最後調查時才發現，原來是一組零件在事故發生時未能及時插入機組，導致原子爐在高溫攀升的情形下沒有自動停機。這是施工上的失誤。但卻從來沒有人發現，這座已運轉二十年以上的機組擁有這個致命缺失。這也代表當初建設時根本沒按照原設計施工。太長的就切掉，太短的就硬拉，這些設計師意料不到的事情，卻在工程現場理所當然的發生，也導致核電事故層出不窮。

「文殊試驗爐的大事故」

使用全鈽的高速增殖試驗爐─文殊(Monjyu)，在1995年發生液態鈉外洩火災的重大事故。(譯註：高速增殖爐使用鈽做為核燃料。鈽為核分裂時產生之放射性物質，不存在於自然界，具猛毒致癌性。其原子分裂時能產生巨大能量，故適用於製作核子彈。普通的核電廠已純水做冷卻液，但高速增殖爐卻必須使用危險性極高的液態鈉才能達到冷卻效果。文殊爐在該事故發生後停擺了約15年。雖於2010年成功重啟試運轉。卻在稍後發生原子爐內上方的巨大零件脫落，直擊爐心的事故。因為爐內已受高度輻射污染，取出該脫落零件可說是難上加難。爐心內部的損傷情形也無法掌握，該爐至今前途未卜。)

這不是該爐第一次發生事故。其實從施工期開始，就一直事故頻傳。因為所長跟現場監工、裡面的師父都是我以前的手下，發生什麼事情都會找我商量。我雖然已經辭職了，卻又害怕核電出事會造成無法彌補的慘劇，結果在施工時期前後跑了六趟文殊爐。

有一次他們打電話來說：「有一根配管無論如何就是裝不下去，可不可以請你來看看。」一去後發現該配管完全符合原設計尺寸，周圍的零件也都安裝的好好的，卻怎麼也裝不進去。後來想了一陣子才恍然大悟。文殊爐由日立、東芝、三菱、富士電機等廠商共同設計，而每家廠商的規格不同。打開設計圖後可以發現，日立的設計圖把0.5mm以下的單位無條件捨去，而東芝和三菱卻是無條件進入，雖說是小小的0.5mm，幾百個地方加起來卻會變成相當大的誤差。這就是為什麼明明照著圖面施工，卻怎麼也做不好的道理。最後沒辦法，只好叫他們全部重做。畢竟這座原子爐背負著日本國的威名，花點錢是必要的對吧？

這座拼裝式的原子爐，會發生事故可說是理所當然。反倒是沒出事的話還比較不可思議。但是政府卻一再淡化事故的嚴重性。甚至把一些事故稱為「現象」。有一次發生事故，電力公司在縣議會報告時，又不改陋習地說：「關於這次的現象…」，我氣的在台下對著縣議員大喊：「什麼現象？這個叫事故！事故！」在這種政府的領導之下，也難怪國民對核電的危機感越來越低。

「日本的鈽變成法國核武？」

尚無能力做核燃料再處理的日本把用畢核燃料送到法國處理，提煉出具高度危險性的鈽。預計在文殊爐使用的鈽為1.4噸，而長崎核爆的那顆原子彈卻僅含鈽8公斤。請各位想想，文殊的鈽能做多少顆原子彈？

大部分的日本人都不知道，1995年，法國把這些來自日本的鈽挪用去南太平洋做核爆試驗。也有更多人不知道，再處理費用是法日兩國交易額的第二大項目。日本身為世界上唯一一個遭受核爆侵襲的國家，口口聲聲高喊反對核武，卻允許自國的核廢料變成核武，為大溪地的人民帶來輻射災難。

美、英、德各國都早已因安全考量及經濟問題，中止所有的高速增殖爐研究計畫。其中德國更是把已經建設好的原子爐改建成遊樂園，為當地帶來新氣象。世界各國都認為鈽不能拿來發電，卻只有日本仍堅持繼續開發文殊爐。

為什麼日本要這麼固執？因為這個國家的政府缺乏中止一項錯誤政策的勇氣。就拿核能政策全體來說，日本在剛開始發展核電時就一直沒有前瞻性的計畫，到現在過了幾十年，連廢棄物要丟哪都還不知道。而年輕人也漸漸地不再願意學者核工技術，造成人材嚴重斷層。

曾任原子力局長的島村武久，在退休後寫了一本名為「原子力講義」的書說：「日本政府的核能政策只不過是在自圓其說。其實根本沒有電力不足的問題。不敢明言拒絕美國的日本一口氣蓋了太多核電廠，搞的自己手上屯積了一堆鈾跟鈽，不知該如何是好。世界各國都在懷疑日本是不是想搞核武。政府為了證明自己的清白，只有不得不蓋更多核電廠來消費這些燙手山芋。」這就是日本這個國家真正的面孔。

「無法廢爐也無法拆除的核電廠」

日本國內有許多老舊的核電廠，政府卻不知道處理方式，只能任由它們繼續運轉下去。原來充滿放射能的核電不是想關就能關，想拆就能拆。位於神奈川縣的武藏工業大學裡面有一座100瓦的原子試驗爐。因為老舊不堪，造成輻射外漏而被停用。結果計算出來的修理費用是20億日幣，廢爐則要花上60億日幣，超過大學一整年的預算。現在校方也只好把它放在那裡，等放射能衰退後才能著手整理了。

普通的商業原子爐大都高達100萬瓦。真是令人莫可奈何。

「『關閉』，監視、管理」

為什麼原子爐無法輕易廢爐或拆除？因為核電機組內充滿大量的水蒸氣及冷卻水，如果停機後放著不管，水氣馬上會使機件生鏽，接著使金屬產生破洞，排放出放射能。核電廠只要插入核燃料棒運轉過一次，整座核電廠就會變成一個大型放射性物體。廢爐、拆除，談何容易？就算是放機器人進去作業，它也會馬上因為放射能而短路。

世界上有許多先進國家「關閉」國內核電廠。因為他們無法廢爐、拆除。只能「關閉」。所謂關閉核電廠，就是把發電機關掉，取出核燃料棒。但真正的重頭戲從這裡開始。

為了不讓機組內部的機件生鏽，造成輻射外洩。就算不再發電，也必須把水導入系統，維持機械運轉。當水壓造成配管磨損，或者零件毀損時也必須補修，以免輻射外漏。這些作業必須持續到核電內部的放射能完全衰退為止。

電力公司真的會完善管理這些毫無經濟效益的廢核電廠嗎？他們重來不思考老舊核電廠的處理方式，只會一昧計畫增設新的核電廠。我不得不說這個國家真是瘋狂。日本國內即將到達年限的核電機組有幾十座。會為這些核電的去向感到恐懼的，難道只有我嗎？

「無去無從的放射性廢棄物」

核電廠運轉後，每天都會不斷地產生放射性廢棄物。這其中有所謂的低階核廢料，名稱雖為低階，但其中也有待在核廢桶旁五小時就有生命危險的劇毒物質。一開始電力公司還把低階核廢料丟進海底。我在茨城縣東海核電廠上班時，那裡的業者就是把核廢料桶載上卡車，運到船上，最後丟進千葉外海。我常常想，這些鐵桶丟入海裡後應該不到一年就會鏽蝕。裡面的核廢料不知道變怎樣了？附近的魚不知道會變怎樣？

現在，日本把低階核廢全部拿去青森縣的六所村核燃基地存放。政府預計在那裡埋300萬桶核廢料，管理300年。但是誰能預料300年後這些鐵桶會變怎樣？300年後管理這些廢棄物的業者還存在嗎？

另外一種是高階核廢料，也就是用過的核燃料棒，經過再處理過程抽取出鈽之後剩餘的放射性廢棄物。這些高階核廢料(液態)必須與玻璃一起固化，並封閉在堅固的金屬容器裡。人類只要站在容器旁兩分鐘就會死亡。接著必須冷卻這些持續散發高熱的核廢料30至50年。等溫度降低後再把它埋入幾百公尺深的地底，存放1萬年以上！也難怪世界各國都找不到高階核廢的最終存放場。

至於核電廠本身，在停機後也將變為一龐大的放射性廢棄物。如果想把核電拆除，就等於將出現高達數萬噸的放射性廢材。我們連一般的產業廢棄物都不知道要丟哪裡了，這些核廢料到底該怎麼辦？

我在北海道演講時，曾提到核廢料必須管理50年，300年等等。那時有一個國中的小女生舉手發言：「你說什麼50年，300年這些話。結果做這些事的不是你們這些大人，全部都要我們，或是我們的孩子、孫子去做！我討厭這樣！」在場的大人，頓時啞口無言。

「身受輻射污染恐懼與歧視的居民」

「核電廠不會造成任何輻射污染」。這個謊言已經重複了幾十年。而如今，越來越多的證據讓核電集團無法再說謊下去。

核電廠的高聳排氣管，一天24個小時持續排出放射能氣體。周圍的居民每天都遭到輻射污染。

我曾經收過一名23歲女性的來信。她說：「我離開鄉下去東京就職。後來遇到好對象，連婚都訂了。他卻忽然提說要分手。他說他很喜歡我，也很想跟我在一起。但是他的父母告訴他，我是在福井縣敦賀那邊長大，那裡有很多核電廠，聽說住核電廠附近的人生小孩容易得白血病，他們怕自己的孫子也這樣，所以不准我們結婚。我到底是做了什麼壞事，要受到這樣對待呢？

請你想想，如果有一天，你自己的孩子跟核電廠附近的居民談戀愛，你能衷心地祝福他們嗎？核電廠衍生出來的歧視就在我們週遭。擔心核電發生事故是一回事，就算不出事，這種歧視也會隨時蔓延在人們的意識裡。所以我厭惡核電，核能破壞的不只是環境，它連人的心也一起粉碎。」

最後我想說一件令我震驚許久的事情。這是我在北海道的泊核電廠附近的共和町演講時發生的事。今天講的話大家可以通通忘記，但請千萬記住接下來我要說的。

那一天的演講是在晚上舉辦，會場來了約三百人。有為人父母的，也有學校老師，連國中、高中生也來了。演講結束後我請聽眾發問，這時，有一個國二的女生邊流淚邊把手舉了起來：

「今天晚上聚集在這裡的大人們，全部都是裝著好人面孔的偽善者！我今天會來，就是要來看看你們這些大人到底長什麼嘴臉。特別是會來這種聚會的大人，你們平常最愛討論一些農藥問題、高爾夫球場問題、核電問題。說什麼一切都是為了孩子，說什麼你們努力在搞運動。

我住在核電廠附近的共和町，24小時都受到輻射污染。我看過書上寫，核電廠及英國的核燃料再處理工廠附近的小孩罹患白血病的機率很高。我是個女孩子，長大後想要結婚生小孩，你們說說，我以後生小孩沒問題嗎？」她邊哭邊說，在場的大人卻誰也答不出話。

「你們都說核電廠很可怕，那為什麼要等到核電廠都蓋好運轉了才在這邊告訴我們這些事？為什麼當初施工時不去拼命把它擋下來？現在泊電廠的二號機都已經開始運轉了，你們這些大人到底在幹什麼？就算沒電可用，我也討厭核能發電！」

「我真的不知道你們今天在這裡辦活動有什麼意義？如果我是大人，自己有小孩的話，我一定拼上這條命也要去把核電廠擋下來。」

「現在二號機也開始運轉了，我將遭到雙倍的輻射污染，但我不打算逃離自己的故鄉。」

這時我問：「妳有跟媽媽或老師講過妳的煩惱嗎？」她說：「我媽媽跟老師今天都在現場，但我沒跟她們講過。班上的女生都在談這個話題，我們都害怕自己將來結不了婚，生不了小孩。」

這個問題，絕不僅只發生在政府規定的核災應變範圍五公里、十公里內。離核電廠50公里、100公里遠的地方，有數不清的國高中生們都抱持著類似煩惱。希望各位能意識到這件事情。

「有核電就無法安心生活」

話說到這裡，各位應該對核電廠有了一個新的體認了是吧？

車諾比事故已經是過去的事情。「想要維持都會生活機能，保障能源穩定，雖然有點危險，但我們需要核電廠。」尤其是住在大城市的人，更容易接受這種想法。

但這種想法是國家及電力公司砸下大筆預算，努力推行「核電是核能的和平利用」「我們嚴格控管核電，絕對不會出事情！」「海島型國家缺乏資源，核能有絕對的必要性」等等洗腦教育的結果。事情的真相，永遠被隱瞞在檯面下。

在座的各位都知道，核電廠出事不得了。那是不是不出事就沒問題了呢？什麼是核能的和平利用？只要有像我這樣罹患癌症的核電工人存在；只要有遭到歧視的周邊居民存在，核電就永遠稱不上是和平利用。

再請各位想想那些需要看管上萬年的核廢料。管理核廢料也需要電力跟石油。到時能源的總使用量絕對超出核電所產生的能量。而且負責管理這些東西的不是我們，而是往後世世代代的子孫。這到底算哪門子的和平利用？

我想請求各位，每天一早起來，仔仔細細地端看自己的孩子或孫子的臉龐。再想想國家積極發展核電的政策到底有沒有問題？特別是位於地震帶的日本，不只核電廠事故，還必須提防大地震帶來的影響。再這樣下去，早晚會發生無可彌補的悲劇。

因此我堅決反對繼續蓋新的核電廠。而運轉中的核電廠，也必須確實地逐一關閉。

只要有核電存在，真正的和平就不可能降臨於世界。請把美麗的地球留給孩子們吧！

關於平井憲夫：

1997 年1月逝世。設施配管1級技士，核電事故調查國民會議顧問，核電勞工救濟中心代表，北陸電力志賀核電廠停止訴訟原告特別輔佐人，東北電力女川核電停止訴訟原告特別輔佐人，福島二號核電廠三號機運轉停止訴訟原告證人。「核電勞工救濟中心代表」在他仙逝後，因後繼無人關閉。

Nuclear Power in China

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:31:00 +0000

Mainland China has 13 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a ten-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.¹

Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3810 billion kWh in 2010^a. Installed generating capacity had grown by the end of 2010 to 962 GWe, up 10.1% on the previous year's 874 GWe, which was 10.2% above the 2008 figure of 793 GWe². At the end of 2010, fossil fuelled capacity (mostly coal) reached 707 GWe, hydro capacity was 213 GWe (up 16.6 GWe in the year), nuclear capacity was 10.8 GWe and wind capacity reached 31 GWe. Meanwhile, investment in electricity dropped 8.5% to CNY 705 billion ($107 billion) for the year. Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020.

These capacity increase figures are all the more remarkable considering the forced retirement of small inefficient coal-fired plants: 26 GWe of these was closed in 2009 and 11 GWe in 2010, making 71 GWe closed since 2006, cutting annual coal consumption by about 82 million tonnes and annual carbon dioxide emissions by some 165 million tonnes. China is well advanced in developing and deploying supercritical and ultra-supercritical coal plants, as well as moving quickly to design and deploy technologies for integrated (coal) gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants.

The grid system run by the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) and China Southern Power Grid Co (CSG) is sophisticated and rapidly growing, utilising ultra high voltage (1000 kV AC and 800 kV DC) transmission. By 2020, the capacity of the UHV network is expected to be some 300 GW, which will function as the backbone of the whole system, having 400 GWe of clean energy sources connected, of which hydropower will account for 78 GW, and wind power from the north a further significant portion (wind capacity by 2020 is planned to be 100 GWe). Also by 2020, operational transmission losses are expected to be 5.7%, down from 6.6% in 2010. At the end of 2009, China had budgeted to spend $600 billion upgrading its grid.

Among the main listed generators, Huaneng Power produced 203.5 billion kWh from its domestic plants in 2009, 10.2% up on 2008. Datang Power produced 141.9 billion kWh, 12% up on 2008. Huadian Power produced 107.5 billion kWh, 6.75% above 2008. CPI Development produced 43.9 billion kWh, 2.0% above 2008 level.

While coal is the main energy source, most reserves are in the north or northwest and present an enormous logistical problem – nearly half the country's rail capacity is used in transporting coal. Because of the heavy reliance on old coal-fired plant, electricity generation accounts for much of the country's air pollution, which is a strong reason to increase nuclear share. China recently overtook the USA as the world's largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The US Energy Information Administration predicts that China's share in global coal-related emissions will grow by 2.7% per year, from 4.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 9.3 billion tonnes in 2030, some 52% of the projected world total. Total carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow by 2.8% per year from 6.2 billion tonnes in 2006 to 11.7 billion tonnes in 2030 (or 28% of world total). In comparison, total US carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow by 0.3% per year, from 5.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 7.7 billion tonnes in 2030.³

Electricity generation is only one part of China's rapid development; roads, air transport and a 40,000 km high-speed rail system by 2015 are others.

Nuclear power

Nuclear power has an important role, especially in the coastal areas remote from the coalfields and where the economy is developing rapidly. Generally, nuclear plants can be built close to centres of demand, whereas suitable wind and hydro sites are remote from demand. Moves to build nuclear power commenced in 1970 and about 2005 the industry moved into a rapid development phase. Technology has been drawn from France, Canada and Russia, with local development based largely on the French element. The latest technology acquisition has been from the USA (via Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba) and France. The Westinghouse AP1000 is the main basis of technology development in the immediate future.

By around 2040, PWRs are expected to level off at 200 GWe and fast reactors progressively increase from 2020 to at least 200 GWe by 2050 and 1400 GWe by 2100.

Prior to 2008, the government had planned to increase nuclear generating capacity to 40 GWe by 2020 (out of a total 1000 GWe planned), with a further 18 GWe nuclear being under construction then. However, government targets for nuclear power have been increasing. As of June 2010, official installed nuclear capacity projections were 70-80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030 and 400-500 GWe by 2050. China Daily in January 2011 quoted a senior official projecting 86 GWe target in 2020.

In September 2010, the China Daily reported that China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) alone plans to invest CNY 800 billion ($120 billion) into nuclear energy projects by 2020. Total investment in nuclear power plants, in which CNNC will hold controlling stakes, will reach CNY 500 billion ($75 billion) by 2015, resulting in 40 GWe on line, according to CNNC. In order to fund the company's expansion target, CNNC plans to list its subsidiary, CNNC Nuclear Power Co Ltd in 2011, to attract strategic investors.

Hong Kong gets much of its power from mainland China, in particular about 70% of the output from Daya Bay's 1888 MWe net nuclear capacity is sent there. The Hong Kong government plans to close down its coal-fired plants, and by 2020 to get 50% of its power from mainland nuclear, 40% from gas locally and 3% from renewables. Hong Kong utility China Light & Power has equity in CGNPC's Daya Bay and Yangjiang power plants, and may take equity in a further CGNPC nuclear plant.

In January 2011 a report from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters, was published. While approving the enormous progress made on many fronts, it cautioned concerning provincial and corporate enthusiasm for new nuclear power plants and said that the 2020 target should be restricted to 70 GWe of new plant actually operating so as to avoid placing undue demand on quality control issues in the supply chain. Another 30 GWe could be under construction. It emphasised that the priority needed to be resolutely on Generation-III technology, notably the AP1000 and derivatives. However, ambitious targets to deploy AP1000s with reduced foreign input had proved difficult, and as a result, more of the Generation-II CPR-1000 units are under construction or on order. Only China is building Gen-II units today in such large numbers, with 57 (53.14 GWe) on the books⁴.

SCRO said that reactors built today should operate for 50 or 60 years, meaning a large fleet of Gen-II units will still be in operation into the 2070s, when even Gen-III reactors would have given way to Generation-IV and perhaps even to commercial nuclear fusion. The country should be 'careful' concerning 'the volume of second generation units under construction... the scale should not be too large' to avoid any perception of being below international standards of safety in future, when most of the world's Gen-II reactors are retired. The SCRO noted the 100-fold increase in probabilistic safety brought by Gen-III, and that future generations would continue the trend.

Another factor potentially affecting safety is the nuclear power workforce. While staff can be technically trained in four to eight years, 'safety culture takes longer' at the operational level. This issue is magnified in the regulatory regime, where salaries are lower than in industry, and workforce numbers remain relatively low. SCRO said that most countries employ 30-40 regulatory staff per reactor in their fleet, but the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) has only 1000 staff - a figure that must more than quadruple by 2020. The SCRO recommended that 'The NNSA should be an entity directly under the State Council Bureau, making it an independent regulatory body with authority.' It is currently under the China Atomic Energy Authority which plans new capacity and approves feasibility studies for new plants, although it is understood to report to the State Council directly.

The report said that 32 further reactors 34.86 GWe had been approved by the state at end 2010, with 25 (27.73 GWe) then under construction.

The SCRO calculated that nuclear development would require new investment of some CNY 1 trillion ($151 billion) by 2020, not counting those units being built now. These projects rely mainly on debt, funds are tight, and 'investment risks cannot be discounted'. This cost figure could rise if supply chain issues impact schedules, with repercussions for companies borrowing to build and for the economics of the Chinese nuclear program overall. A major recommendation was to sort out bottlenecks in the supply chain for AP1000 reactors.

Nuclear power reactors in mainland China

Reactor technology

China has set the following points as key elements of its nuclear energy policy:

PWRs will be the mainstream but not sole reactor type.
Nuclear fuel assemblies are fabricated and supplied indigenously.
Domestic manufacturing of plant and equipment will be maximised, with self-reliance in design and project management.
International cooperation is nevertheless encouraged.

The technology base for future reactors remains officially undefined, though two designs are currently predominant in construction plans: CPR-1000 and AP1000. Beyond them, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors and fast reactors appear to be the main priorities.

A major struggle between the established China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) pushing for indigenous technology and the small but well-connected State Nuclear Power Technology Corp (SNPTC) favouring imported technology was won by SNPTC about 2004. In particular, SNPTC proposes use of indigenized 1000+ MWe plants with advanced third-generation technology, arising from Westinghouse AP1000 designs at Sanmen and Haiyang (see section below on Embarking upon Generation III plants). Westinghouse has agreed to transfer technology to SNPTC over the first four AP1000 units so that SNPTC can build the following ones on its own.

In February 2006, the State Council announced that the large advanced PWR was one of two high priority projects for the next 15 years, depending on "Sino-foreign cooperation, in order to master international advanced technology on nuclear power and develop a Chinese third-generation large PWR".⁵ In September 2006, the head of the China Atomic Energy Authority said that he expected large numbers of third-generation PWR reactors derived from foreign technology to be built from about 2016, after experience is gained with the initial AP1000 units.

AP1000

The Westinghouse AP1000 is the main basis of China's move to Generation III technology, and involves a major technology transfer agreement. It is a 1250 MWe gross reactor with two coolant loops. The first four AP1000 reactors are being built at Sanmen and Haiyang, for CNNC and CPI respectively. At least eight more at four sites are firmly planned after them, and about 30 more are proposed to follow.

The reactors are built from modules fabricated adjacent to each site. The timeline is 50 months from first concrete to fuel loading, then six months to grid connection for the first four units, with this expected to reduce significantly for the following units. The cost of the first four is expected to be less than $2000/kW, with this reducing to $1600 for further units. In October 2009, SNPTC and CNNC signed an agreement to co-develop and refine the AP1000 design. (See also section below on Embarking upon Generation III plants).

EPR

Two Areva EPR reactors are being built at Taishan, and at least two more are planned (see section below on Embarking upon Generation III plants). Areva says the reactors are 4590 MWt, with net power 1660 MWe.

In October 2008, Areva and CGNPC announced establishment of an engineering joint venture as a technology transfer vehicle for development EPR and other PWR plants in China and later abroad. The JV will be held 55% by CGNPC and other Chinese interests, and 45% by Areva. It will engineer and procure equipment for both the EPR and the CPR-1000.

CAP1400

Westinghouse announced in 2008 that it was working with SNPTC and Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute (SNERDI) to develop jointly a passively safe 1400 MWe design from the AP1000, for large-scale deployment. This development with SNERDI opens the possibility of China itself exporting the new larger units with Westinghouse's cooperation.

In December 2009, the State Nuclear Demonstration Company – a 55-45% joint venture company by SNPTC and China Huaneng Group – was set up to build and operate an initial unit of the larger design, the CAP1400, at Huaneng's Shidaowan site. The new company signed a set of agreements with SNERDI and the State Nuclear Power Engineering Company (SNPEC) in November 2010 to proceed with the project. Construction is scheduled to start in April 2013, and SNPTC hoped to have it operating in December 2017. Westinghouse is to provide technical consulting services to SNPTC for the design. It may be followed by a larger, 3-loop CAP2100 design if the passive cooling system can be scaled to that level. Agreements with Westinghouse stipulate that SNPTC will own the intellectual property rights for any derivatives over 1350 MWe. SNPEC is doing the engineering under a team from SNERDI, the Shandong Electric Power Engineering Consulting Institute (SEPECI), and the State Nuclear Power Equipment Manufacturing Company (SNPEMC), which will make the components.

CNP-1000 (also CNP-600, CNP-300)

CNNC had been working with Westinghouse and Framatome (now Areva) at SNERDI since the early 1990s to develop a Chinese standard three-loop PWR design, the CNP-1000. This is developed from the single-loop Qinshan CNP-300 unit (scaled up to the two-loop CNP-600 units, also at Qinshan), with high (60 GWd/t) burn-up, 18-month refueling cycle and 20 more fuel assemblies than the French-origin units^b. In 1997, the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC) at Chengdu became involved in the reactor design and, early in 2007, SNERDI was reassigned to concentrate on the AP1000 program. CNNC has been keen to create its own brand of advanced second-generation reactor with full intellectual property rights, and wanted to build two initial CNP-1000 plants at Fangjiashan, adjacent to Qinshan near Shanghai, under the 11th Economic Plan, though the design probably would not have been ready. In early 2007, the CNP-1000 development was put on hold indefinitely, though this aborted export plans for two CNP-1000 units to Pakistan.

Further CNP-600 units are being built at Qinshan and Changjiang, Hainan. CNNC says they are free of French intellectual property rights. CNNC is also developing the design to the ACP600 which it expects to be able to built on Hainan or in the northwest Gansu province about 2013^c.

A new 300 MWe CNP-300 PWR unit is being built at Chasma in Pakistan by the China Zhongyuan Engineering Corporation. It is a twin to that already commissioned in 2000, and similar to Qinshan 1 – China's first indigenously-designed (by SNERDI) nuclear power plant.

CNNC is seeking to sell the CNP-300 to Belarus and in Africa.

CPR-1000

The CPR-1000 is a significantly upgraded version of the 900 MWe-class French three-loop technology imported for the Daya Bay nuclear power plant in the 1980s. Known as the 'improved Chinese PWR' and designated Generation II+, it features digital instrumentation and control and a design life of 60 years. Its 157 fuel assemblies have core melt frequency of 1x10^-5 and a release probability an order of magnitude lower than this.

Standard construction time is 52 months, and the unit cost is under CNY 10,000 (US$ 1500) per kilowatt. With a capacity of 1080 MWe gross (1037 MWe net), Ling Ao Phase II is the first plant to be designated as the CPR-1000 design. The CPR-1000 is being widely and quickly deployed for domestic use.

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC) led the development of the CPR-1000 and has established a nearly complete domestic supply chain. However, Areva retains intellectual property rights, which constrains overseas sales since the Chinese would need agreement from Areva on a case-by-case basis.

CGNPC refers to later units as CPR-1000+, incorporating design improvements which bring it close to Generation III standard. Of more significance is its evolution to the ACPR-1000 with full Chinese intellectual property rights and which CGNPC expects to make available for local build and overseas markets from 2013.

VVER

Russia's Atomstroyexport was general contractor and equipment provider for the Tianwan AES-91 power plants using the V-428 version of the well-proven VVER-1000 reactor of 1060 MWe capacity. The reactors incorporate Finnish safety features and Siemens-Areva instrumentation and control systems. Russia's Energoatom is responsible for maintenance from 2009. Tianwan units 3 & 4 will use the same version of the VVER-1000 reactor, and if CNNC continues with Russian technology for units 5 & 6, they will probably use the VVER-1200.

Candu

In September 2005, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) signed a technology development agreement with CNNC which opened the possibility of it supplying further Candu-6 reactors. AECL built the two-unit Qinshan Phase III plant on schedule and under budget and estimates that it could be replicated for 25% lower cost. Any replication would be on the basis of involving local engineering teams, not on a turnkey basis, but the technology is now well understood and the decades-old Candu-6 design would likely pose fewer problems for technology transfer than state of the art third-generation designs from Westinghouse and Areva NP. (The later Korean Candu-6 plants at Wolsong had 75% local content.) However, the agreement with CNNC – more specifically with SNERDI – looked further forward to collaboration on AECL's new ACR design later. SNERDI is now focused on AP1000 engineering and reassigned to SNPTC, so early in 2008 work on Candu fuel technologies passed to another CNNC entity: the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC).

HTR

In February 2006, the State Council announced that the small high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR) was the second of two high priority projects for the next 15 years. The small HTR-PM units with pebble bed fuel were to be 200 MWe reactors, similar to that being developed in South Africa, but plans have evolved to make them twin 105 MWe reactors so that they can retain the same core configuration as the prototype HTR-10. The twin units will drive a single steam turbine. China Huaneng Group is the lead organization in the consortium to build the demonstration Shidaowan HTR-PM with China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Group (CNEC) and Tsinghua University's INET, which is the R&D leader. Chinergy Co., a joint venture of Tsinghua and CNEC, is the main contractor for the nuclear island. Thermal efficiency of 40%, localisation 75% and 50-month construction for the first unit is envisaged. The initial HTR-PM will pave the way for 18 (3x6) further 210 MWe units at the same site – total 3800 MWe (see Shidaowan project below, and Research and development section in page on China's Nuclear Fuel Cycle).

Fast neutron reactor

Longer-term, fast neutron reactors (FNRs) are seen as the main technology, and CNNC expects the FNR to become predominant by mid-century. A 65 MWt fast neutron reactor – the Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) – near Beijing achieved criticality in July 2010.⁶ Based on this, a 600 MWe pre-conceptual design was developed. The current plan is to develop an indigenous 1000 MWe design to begin construction in 2017, and commissioning 2022. This is known as the Chinese Demonstration Fast Reactor (CDFR) project 1.

In addition to CDFR project 1, in October 2009, an agreement with Russia confirmed earlier indications that China would opt for the BN-800 technology as CDFR project 2. The 880 MWe gross BN-800 reactor being built by OKBM Afrikantov at Beloyarsk in Siberia is the reference design and the first two in China are planned to start construction in 2013 at Sanming, Fujian province, with the first to be in operation in 2018 (see see section below on Sanming).

See also Fast neutron reactors section in page on China's Nuclear Fuel Cycle.

Embarking upon Generation III plants

In September 2004, the State Council approved plans for two units at Sanmen, followed by six units at Yangjiang (two to start with), these to be 1000 or 1500 MWe reactors pioneering Generation III nuclear technology from overseas. The Sanmen (in Zhejiang province) and Yangjiang (in Guangdong province) reactors were subject to an open bidding process for third-generation designs, with contracts to be awarded in mid-2006 – in the event, mid-2007 – putting them clearly into the 11th Five Year Plan.

Bidding process

This open bidding process underlined the extent to which China is making itself part of the world nuclear industry, and yet at first remaining somewhat ambivalent about that.

Three bids were received for the four Sanmen and Yangjiang reactors: from Westinghouse (AP1000 reactors), Areva (EPR) and Atomstroyexport (VVER-1000 model V-392). The State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC), directly under China's State Council, was in charge of technology selection for new plants being bid from overseas.

The USA, French and Russian governments were reported to be giving firm support as finance and support arrangements were put in place. The US Export-Import bank approved $5 billion in loan guarantees for the Westinghouse bid, and the French Coface company was expected similarly to finance Areva for its bid. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave approval for Westinghouse to export equipment and engineering services as well as the initial fuel load and one replacement for the four units. Bids for both two-unit plants were received in Beijing on behalf of the two customers: China Guangdong Nuclear Power Co (CGNPC) for Yangjiang, and China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) for Sanmen. Bids were for the nuclear portion of each plant only, the turbine tenders to be called for subsequently.

Bids were assessed on level of technology, the degree to which it was proven, price, local content, and technology transfer - which apparently became the major factor. Areva and Westinghouse were short-listed. However, the decision on reactor type was delayed, and came under review at the highest political level, with CNNC evidently pushing for the use of indigenous second-generation designs for both sites.

In December 2006, 22 months after the bids were submitted and after several revisions to them, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was selected for the four units – two each at Sanmen and Yangjiang. Early in 2007, the two units planned for the Yangjiang site were switched to Haiyang in the more northerly Shandong province, making way for two EPR units Areva was in negotiations to build at Yangjiang. Later in 2007, plans for the EPRs under consideration for Yangjiang were transferred to another Guangdong site – Taishan – since there was pressure to build a lot of capacity quickly at Yangjiang.

Sanmen 1&2 and Haiyang 1&2

A framework agreement was signed at the end of February 2007 between Westinghouse and SNPTC specifying Haiyang and Sanmen for the four AP1000 units. In July 2007, Westinghouse, along with consortium partner Shaw, signed the contracts with SNPTC, Sanmen Nuclear Power Company (51% owned by CNNC), Shangdong Nuclear Power Company (61% owned by CPI) and China National Technical Import & Export Corporation (CNTIC) for four AP1000 reactors. Specific terms were not disclosed but the figure of $5.3 billion for the first two was widely quoted.

Sanmen site works commenced in February 2008 and full construction on Sanmen 1 – the world's first AP1000 unit – officially commenced on 19 April 2009. The reactor is expected to begin operation in August 2013 with the second about one year later. First concrete at Haiyang 1 was in September 2009. The Haiyang units are expected to commence operation in 2014 and 2015.

AP1000 construction and equipment contracts

Westinghouse and Shaw Group have an engineering, procurement, commissioning and start-up as well as project management contract with SNPTC for the first four reactors (Sanmen & Haiyang). Also Shaw has a contract with State Nuclear Power Engineering Corp. Ltd, a SNPTC subsidiary, for technical support for the first two Dafan, Xianning units in Hubei province, including engineering and design management, project controls, quality assurance, construction management and project management.

In April 2007, Westinghouse signed a $350 million contract with Doosan Heavy Industries in Korea for two pressure vessels and four steam generators for Sanmen 1 and Haiyang 1. The pressure vessels for the other two units are being made by Chinese manufacturers: China First Heavy Industries (CFHI, also known as YiZhong) for Sanmen 2 and Shanghai Electric Group Corporation (SEC) for Haiyang 2. Steam generators for Sanmen 2 and Haiyang 2 were to be manufactured by Harbin Power Equipment Co., Ltd. (HPEC) and SEC, respectively, though a contract for Sanmen 2 steam generators was let to Spain's ENSA in 2011.

All four steam turbine generators are being manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). In a $521 million deal, Sanmen Nuclear Power ordered two turbine generator packages from MHI at the end of September 2007, with Shandong Nuclear Power ordering another two early in 2008. MHI's Takasago Machinery Works is manufacturing the turbines, including rotors and blades. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation is supplying the generators and HPEC, partnering with MHI, is responsible for turbine casings, piping and associated facilities. The turbines will reportedly boost the capacity of the reactors from their designed 1175 MWe to 1250 MWe gross.

In November 2010, further contracts were signed between SNPTC and Westinghouse, including one for Westinghouse to provide SNPTC with technical consulting services in research and development of the CAP1400 nuclear power plant, to be developed by SNPTC with Chinese intellectual property rights. Westinghouse said that having shared design technology with SNERDI, it expected 100% localization by 2015.

In January 2011, a further agreement was signed with SNPTC to deploy further AP1000 units, and to extend the 2008 technology cooperation agreement for another two years. SNPTC said the deal also included measures "to develop cooperation in the field of overseas markets." Another agreement was signed with China Baotou Nuclear Fuel Co "to design, manufacture and install fuel fabrication equipment that will enable China to manufacture fuel" for AP1000 units. The latter $35 million contract involves supply and installation of US equipment at Baotou.

Taishan 1&2

In February 2007, EDF entered a cooperation agreement with CGNPC to build and operate a two-unit EPR power station at Yangjiang in Guangdong province. This deal was not expected to involve the technology transfer which is central to the Westinghouse contracts, since the EPR has multiple redundant safety systems rather than passive safety systems and is seen to be more complex and expensive, hence of less long-term interest to China. However, negotiations with Areva and EDF dragged on and in August 2007 it was announced that the EPR project had been shuffled to Taishan (in Guangdong) so that six CPR-1000 units previously planned for that site could be built at Yangjiang as soon as possible.

At a November 2007 ceremony attended by Chinese president Hu Jintao and French president Nicolas Sarkozy in Beijing's Great Hall of the People, Areva initialed an €8 billion contract with CGNPC for the two EPRs at Taishan plus supply of fuel to 2026 and other materials and services for them. The whole project, including fuel supply, totals €8 billion, of which the nuclear reactors themselves were reported to be about €3.5 billion. Steam turbine generators costing €300 million are included in the larger sum. The Guangdong Development Commission quotes the total investment in both units as CNY 49.85 billion ($7.3 billion). The joint venture partners will put up CNY 16.45 billion and the balance will be borrowed with guarantee from the Central Bank of France. French export credits for the project are reported as €1.7 billion ($2.4 billion), covering purchase of equipment such as pressure vessel and steam generators for unit 1 from French suppliers.

In August 2008, EDF and CGNPC signed the final agreements for the creation of Guangdong Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company Limited (TNPC). EDF will hold 30% of TNPC for a period of 50 years (the maximum period permitted for a joint venture in China), CGNPC 70%. TNPC will oversee the building, then own and operate the plant. EDF is paying €600 to 800 million over four years for this share, subject to approval by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Ministry of Commerce. (EDF is project manager and architect for the Flamanville 3 EPR project in France, and this initiative consolidates its change in corporate strategy outside France as expressed already in the UniStar joint venture set up in mid-2007 with Constellation in USA to build, own and operate a fleet of US-EPRs in North America.)

CGNPC subsidiary China Nuclear Power Engineering Co. and Areva also set up an engineering joint venture Wecan, in December 2009. This is 55% CGNPC and 45% Areva, is based in Shenzen, and builds on Areva's European experience

CGNPC authorised construction in July 2008 and first concrete was poured on 28 October 2009, though the official inauguration ceremony was not until 21 December. Construction on the second unit started in April 2010. The first unit should be completed at the end of 2013 and the second in 2015. The major components for unit 1 are imported: the pressure vessel from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) in Japan and the steam generators from Areva Chalon/St. Marcel in France, but those for unit 2 are all built in China: the pressure vessel by Dongfang Electric (DEC), the steam generators by DEC (two) and Shanghai Electric (two). The Arabelle steam turbines and 1750 MWe generators are being purchased separately from Alstom and Dongfang Electric Co.

Nuclear growth

In 2007, nuclear power plants provided 62.86 billion kWh – 2.3% of total – and there is now 8.6 GWe (net) installed. The first two nuclear power plants in mainland China were at Daya Bay near Hong Kong and Qinshan, south of Shanghai, with construction starting in the mid-1980s.

China's concerted nuclear expansion began with the National Development and Reform Commission's (NDRC's) Tenth Economic Plan for the years 2001-2005. (China's first economic plan was in 1953 and began China's centrally planned industrialization under Mao Zedong.) The Eleventh Economic Plan for the years 2006-2010 set even more ambitious goals than the Tenth for new nuclear plant construction, and marked a watershed in China's commitment to third-generation reactors, such as the Sanmen plant in Zhejiang province and Haiyang plant in Shandong province (see section above on Reactor technology).

The Tenth Five-Year Plan (2001-05) incorporated the construction of eight nuclear reactors, though the timeline for contracts was extended, putting the last two projects into the 11th plan. The four units in the Tenth Plan were: Ling Ao Phase II (also known as Ling Dong) in Guangdong province – the first CPR-1000 plant and based on the Daya Bay and Ling Ao Phase I nuclear plants; and Qinshan Phase II, in Zhejiang province – duplicating the indigenous CNP-600 units 1&2. The following slipped to the Eleventh Plan: Sanmen in Zhejiang province, using advanced foreign technology and design; and Yangjiang in Guangdong province, 500 km west of Hong Kong, originally intended to use advanced foreign technology.

The 11th Five Year Plan (2006-10) had firmer environmental goals than previously, including reduction of 20% in the amount of energy required per unit of GDP, i.e. 4% reduction per year. As well as the Sanmen and Yangjiang projects slipped from the Tenth Plan, nuclear power developments originally proposed in the Eleventh Plan included reactors at Hongyanhe (4), Haiyang (2), Fuqing (2) and Taishan (2), all of which are now under construction. Two at Lufeng and two at Hongshiding are delayed.

In 2007, it was announced that three state-owned corporations had been approved by NNSA to own and operate nuclear power plants: CNNC, CGNPC and China Power Investment Corporation (CPI). Any other public or private companies are to have minority shares in new projects, which is proving a severe constraint on the ambitions of the country's main power utilities (including Huaneng, Huadian, Datang and Guodian), all of which have set up nuclear subsidiaries or become involved in nuclear projects. CGNPC is increasingly preeminent in actual nuclear power plants.

The 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-15) includes construction start on phase II of Tianwan, Hongyanhe, Sanmen and Haiyang, as well as phase I of inland sites: Taohuajiang, Xianning, and Pengze (2 reactors each except Taohuajiang: 4). By the end of the 12th Five Year Plan some 25 GWe is planned to be operational, and 45 GWe by the end of the 13th Five Year Plan.

More than 16 provinces, regions and municipalities have announced intentions to build nuclear power plants in the 12th Five Year Plan 2011-15. These include Henan and Sichuan, as well as those listed in the Further nuclear power units proposed Table below – most of which have preliminary project approval by the central government but are not necessarily scheduled for construction. Provinces put together firm proposals with reactor vendors by 2008 and submitted them to the central government's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) for approval during 2009. NRDC consideration is via the new National Energy Administration (NEA). A great many proposals were received, many of which will be deferred to the 13th Plan.

In its 2007 Annual Report, CPI said that at the end of the 12th Five Year Plan it expected to have 100 GWe of controllable installed capacity including three nuclear power bases: Liaoning, Shandong and inland.⁷

The complex ownership structure of Chinese nuclear plants is described in Appendix 1: Government Structure and Ownership, and China's considerable heavy engineering and manufacturing capacity is detailed in the information page on Heavy Manufacturing of Power Plants.

Operating nuclear plants

Operating nuclear reactors

Units	Province	Net capacity (each)	Type	Operator	Commercial operation
Daya Bay 1&2	Guangdong	944 MWe	PWR	CGNPC	1994
Qinshan Phase I	Zhejiang	279 MWe	PWR (CNP-300)	CNNC	April 1994
Qinshan Phase II, 1-3	Zhejiang	610 MWe	PWR (CNP-600)	CNNC	2002, 2004, 2010
Qinshan Phase III, 1&2	Zhejiang	665 MWe	PHWR (Candu 6)	CNNC	2002, 2003
Ling Ao Phase I, 1&2	Guangdong	935 MWe	PWR	CGNPC	2002, 2003
Tianwan 1&2	Jiangsu	1000 MWe	PWR (VVER-1000)	CNNC	2007, 2007
Ling Ao Phase II, 1	Guangdong	1037 MWe	PWR (CPR-1000)	CGNPC	Sept 2010
Total: 13		10,234 MWe

Daya Bay, Ling Ao Phase I

The Daya Bay reactors in Guangdong province are standard 3-loop French PWR units supplied by Framatome, with GEC-Alstom turbines. Electricite de France (EDF) managed construction, starting August 1987, with the participation of Chinese engineers. Commercial operation of the two units was in February and May 1994. There were long outages in 1994-96 when Framatome had to replace major components. Reactor vessel heads were replaced in 2004. The plant produces about 13 billion kWh per year, with 70% transmitted to Hong Kong and 30% to Guangdong.

The Ling Ao Phase I reactors are virtually replicas of adjacent Daya Bay. Construction started in May 1997 and Ling Ao 1 started up in February 2002 entering commercial operation in May. Ling Ao 2 was connected to the grid about September 2002 and entered commercial operation in January 2003. The two Ling Ao reactors use French technology supplied by Framatome, but with 30% localisation. They are reported to have cost $1800 per kilowatt.

Daya Bay and Ling Ao together comprise the 'Daya Bay nuclear power base' under the common management of Daya Bay Nuclear Power Operations & Management Co (DNMC), part of China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC). Framatome is now Areva NP. For Ling Ao Phase II, see below.

Qinshan

Qinshan 1 in Zhejiang province 100 km southwest of Shanghai, is China's first indigenously-designed and constructed nuclear power plant (though with the pressure vessel supplied by Mitsubishi, Japan). Design of the 300 MWe PWR was by the Shanghai Nuclear Engineering Research & Design Institute (SNERDI). Construction work spanned 6.5 years from March 1985, with first grid connection in December 1991. It was shut down for 14 months for major repairs from mid-1998.

In October 2007, Qinshan 1 was shut down for a major upgrade. The entire instrumentation and control system was replaced, along with the reactor pressure vessel head and control rod drives. Areva NP supervised the work, which is likely to lead to life extension beyond the original 30 years.

Qinshan Phase II units 1&2 are locally-designed and constructed 2-loop PWR reactors, scaled up from Qinshan 1, and designated CNP-600. Local content was 55%. Unit 1 started up at the end of 2001 and entered commercial operation in April 2002. Unit 2 started up in March 2004, with commercial operation in May 2004. Units 3 & 4 are similar, with local content of 77%. After 53 months construction, unit 3 was grid connected on 1 August 2010, and entered commercial operation 12 weeks later⁸.

In 2004, CNNC announced that the next two Qinshan units would be 1000 MWe indigenous units (i.e.CNP-1000 units, now seen as very unlikely or much delayed, and in effect Fangjiashan, adjacent to Qinshan 1, takes over this role).

Qinshan Phase III units 1&2 use the Candu 6 pressurised heavy water reactor (PHWR) technology, with Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) being the main contractor of the project on a turnkey basis. Construction began in 1997 and unit 1 started up in September 2002 and unit 2 in April 2003. They are each about 665 MWe net.

Tianwan

Tianwan Phase I at at Lianyungang city in Jiangsu province is a Russian AES-91 power plant (with two 1060 MWe VVER reactors) constructed under a cooperation agreement between China and Russia - the largest such project ever. The cost is reported to be $3.2 billion, with China contributing $1.8 billion of this. Completion was delayed due to corrosion in the steam generators which resulted in some tubes having to be plugged with a net loss of capacity of about 2%. The first unit was grid connected in May 2006 and put into commercial operation in June 2007. The second was grid connected in May 2007, with commercial operation in August 2007. Design life is 40 years.

Nuclear plants under construction and planned

China Guangdong Nuclear Power (CGNPC) expected to spend $ 9.5 billion on its Ling Ao Phase II, Yangjiang and Taishan nuclear power plants by 2010 and to have 6000 MWe on line by then, with 12,000 MWe under construction. Work is under way at all these sites and others. It also planned to start on the Lufeng plant in Guangdong and Wuhu in Anhui province, but awaited NDRC approval. It is expecting to have 34,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020, providing 20% of the province's power, and 16,000 MWe under construction then. From 2010 it expects to commission three units per year and, from 2015, four units per year. CGNPC is also, due to State Council policy, committed to developing significant wind capacity through CGN Wind Co. It projects a total of 500 MWe by 2020.

In 2006, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) signed agreements in Liaoning, Hebei, Shandong and Hunan provinces and six cities in Hunan, Anhui and Guangdong provinces to develop nuclear projects. CNNC has pointed out that there is room for 30 GWe of further capacity by 2020 in coastal areas and maybe more inland such as Hunan "where conditions permit". In October 2007, CNNC's list of projects included Chuanshan (Jiangsu province), Jiyang (Anhui), Hebao Island (Guangdong), Shizu (Chongqing), Xudabao (Liaoning) and Qiaofushan (Hebei) amongst others.

CNNC said in December 2006 that it planned to build four 1000 MWe units at Heyuan, inland in northeast Guangdong, at a cost of US$ 6.4 billion, but no timing was mentioned.

In mid-2009, Huaneng Nuclear Power Development Co – a subsidiary of China Huaneng Group (CHNG) – said it had opened an office in the city of Yingtan in China's inland Jiangxi province for the development of a new nuclear power plant in the area. This is one of five sites for nuclear plants after Rongcheng which CHNG was reported in May to have selected: Cangnan in Zhejiang province, Huaining in Anhui, Xuyi in Jiangsu, and Xiapu in Fujian being the others.

In November 2007, the NDRC said that the government had budgeted CNY 450 billion ($65 billion) to build nuclear power capacity by 2020. It had selected 13 coastal sites to accommodate 59.46 GWe.

In December 2009, CGNPC is reported to have signed a CNY 5.3 billion ($776 million) nuclear island installation contract with China Nuclear Power Engineering Group Co (CNPEC), apparently covering Ningde 3&4 in Fujian, Yangjiang 3&4 in Guangdong, Fangchenggang 1&2 in Guangxi, and Taishan 1&2 in Guangdong. This is the largest contract of its kind in China.

Nuclear reactors under construction and planned

Plant	Province	MWe gross	Reactor model	Project control	Construction start	Operation
Ling Ao Phase II unit 2	Guangdong	1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	5/06	8/11
Qinshan Phase II unit 4	Zhejiang	650	CNP-600	CNNC	1/07	2012
Hongyanhe units 1-4	Liaoning	4x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	8/07, 4/08, 3/09, 8/09	10/12, 2013, 2014
Ningde units 1-4	Fujian	4x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC, with Datang	2/08, 11/08, 1/10, 9/10	12/12, 2013, 2014, 2015
Fuqing units 1&2	Fujian	2x1080	CPR-1000	CNNC	11/08, 6/09	10/13, 8/14
Yangjiang units 1-4	Guangdong	4x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	12/08, 8/09, 11/10, 15/3/11	8/13, 2014, 2015, 2016
Fangjiashan units 1&2	Zhejiang	2x1080	CPR-1000	CNNC	12/08, 7/09	12/13, 10/14
Sanmen units 1&2	Zhejiang	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC	3/09, 12/09	11/13, 9/14
Haiyang units 1&2	Shandong	2x1250	AP1000	CPI	9/09, 6/10	5/14, 3/15
Taishan units 1&2	Guangdong	2x1770	EPR	CGNPC	10/09, 4/10	12/13, 11/14
Hongyanhe units 5&6	Liaoning	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	2011, 2011	2015
Shandong Shidaowan	Shandong	210	HTR-PM	Huaneng	3/11	2015
Fangchenggang units 1&2	Guangxi	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	7/10, 2011	2015, 2016
Fuqing units 3&4	Fujian	4x1080	CPR-1000	CNNC	7/10, 2011	7/15, 5/16
Fuqing units 5&6	Fujian	2x1080	CPR-1000 or CNP1000	CNNC	?, ?	-
Changjiang units 1&2	Hainan	2x650	CNP-600	CNNC & Huaneng	4/10, 11/10	2014, 2015
Hongshiding (Rushan) units 1&2	Shandong	2x1080	CPR-1000	CNEC/CNNC	Deferred from 2009?	2015
Ningde units 5&6	Fujian	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC
Xianning (Dafan) units 1&2	Hubei	2x1250	AP1000	CGNPC	2011 or 2015	2015?
Taohuajiang units 1-4	Hunan	4x1250	AP1000	CNNC	2011 or 2015	4/2015-2018?
Pengze units 1&2	Jiangxi	2x1250	AP1000	CPI	2011 or 2015	2015?
Xudabao / Xudapu units 1&2	Liaoning	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC with Datang	9/11, ?
Sanmen units 3&4	Zhejiang	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC
Haiyang units 3&4	Shandong	2x1250	AP1000	CPI	2010?
Xiaomoshan units 1&2	Hunan	2x1250	AP1000	CPI	2011?
Longyou (Zhexi) units 1&2	Zhejiang	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC	2011?
Sanming units 1&2	Fujian	2x880	BN-800	CNNC	8/2011	2018, 19
Zhangzhou units 1&2	Fujian	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC & Guodian	2011
Yanjiashan/Wanan/Ji'an	Jiangxi	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC	2011?
Shaoguan units 1-4	Guangdong (inland)	4x1250	AP1000	CGNPC	2013
Tianwan units 3&4	Jiangsu	2x1060	VVER-1000 (AES-91)	CNNC	12/12, 8/13
Tianwan units 5&6	Jiangsu	2x1200	VVER-1200 or CPR-1000	CNNC	?, ?
Wuhu units 1&2	Anhui	2x1250	AP1000	CGNPC	12/2011	8/2016
Lianyungang units 1&2	Jiangsu	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC
Shanwei (Lufeng) units 1&2	Guangdong	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC	by 2015?
		33x1080 32x1250 2x1060 2x1200 2x1770 2x880 3x650 1x210
Total: 77		87,620 MWe

Where construction has started, the dates are marked in bold. Those here not under construction are marked as 'planned' in the WNA reactor table. At 31 December 2010, 27 under construction: 29,790 MWe; 50 planned: 57,830 MWe (gross).
Fangjiashan is sometimes shown as a development of Qinshan Phase I.

Further nuclear power units proposed

Plant	Province	MWe gross	Expected model	Project control	Construction	Start up
Lianyungang units 3&4	Jiangsu	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC
Taishan units 3&4	Guangdong	2x1770	EPR	CGNPC	by 2015
Nanchong (Nanchun, Sanba)	Sichuan	4x1080	CPR-1000?	CGNPC
Tianwan units 7&8	Jiangsu	2x1200	VVER-1200 (AES-2006)	CNNC
Yangjiang units 5&6	Guangdong	2x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC		2017
Xianning (Dafan) units 3&4	Hubei	2x1250	AP1000	CGNPC
Shidaowan units 1-4	Shandong	4x1250	AP1000	Huaneng	2013?
Shidaowan units 5&6	Shandong	2x1400	CAP1400	Huaneng	2013?
Shandong Shidaowan	Shandong	18x210	HTR-PM	Huaneng
Changjiang units 3 & 4	Hainan	2x650	CNP-600 or ACP-600	CNNC & Huaneng
Haiyang units 5&6	Shandong	2x1250	AP1000	CPI
Xiaomoshan units 3-6	Hunan	4x1250	AP1000	CPI
Xudabao / Xudapu units 3-6	Liaoning	4x1250	AP1000	CNNC with Datang
Shanwei (Lufeng) units 3-6	Guangdong	4x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC
Fangchenggang units 3-6	Guangxi	4x1080	CPR-1000	CGNPC
Yingtan	Jiangxi	2?		Huaneng
Nanyang units 1-6	Henan	6x1250?	AP1000 (if CPI)	CNNC or CPI
Xinyang units 1-4	Henan	4x1080	CPR-1000?	CGNPC?
Changde (Chenzhou, Hengyang)	Hunan	4x1000?		CNNC & Guodian?, CGNPC
Subtotal: 74 units		68,000+ MWe

Jiyang	Anhui	4x?		CNNC
Sanmen units 5&6	Zhejiang	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC
Cangnan	Zheijiang	6x1000		CGNPC/Huaneng
Zhexi /Longyou units 3&4	Zhejiang	2x1250	AP1000	CNNC
Haijia /Haifeng units 1&2	Guangdong	2x1000?		CGNPC
Jinzhouwan units 1&2	Liaoning	2x1000
Fuling units 1-4	Chongqing	4x1250	AP1000	CPI
Jingyu units 1-4	Jilin	4x1250	AP1000	CPI & Guodian	2013?
Wuhu units 3-4	Anhui	2x1250	AP1000	CGNPC
Pengze units 3&4	Jiangxi	2x1100	AP1000	CPI
Heyuan /Jieyang units 1-4	Guangdong	4x1000		CNNC?
Haiyang units 7&8	Shandong	2x1250	AP1000	CPI
Pingnan/Baisha units 1-4	Guangxi	4x1250	AP1000	CPI
Hengren units 1-4	Liaoning	4x1250	AP1000	CPI
Lanzhou	Gansu	2?		CNNC
Xiangtan	Hunan	4x1250	AP1000	Huadian
Donggang	Liaoning	4x1000		Huadian
Shizu	Chongqing			CNNC
Qiaofushan	Hebai			CNNC
Songzi/Xianning 5&6	Hubei		AP1000	CGNPC
Guangshui	Hubei	4x1250	AP1000	CGNPC
Hebaodao	Guangdong			CNNC
Yibin	Sichuan			CNNC
Sanming 3&4	Fujian	2x880?	BN-800?	CNNC	2015
Site to be decided	Heilongjiang	4x1000		Huaneng
Subtotal: about 72 units		32x1250 20x1000 2x880 c.18x210 Approx. 80,000 MWe

Total: about 140		138,000+ MWe

All PWR except Shidaowan HTR-PM and Sanming BN-800. Some of these entries are based on sketchy information. For WNA reactor table, 80% of numbers and capacity from this table are listed as 'Proposed'

Ling Ao Phase II

While the bidding process for the delayed Generation III plants from overseas vendors was in train over more than two years (see section above on Embarking upon Generation III plants), the Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) signed contracts with Chinese designers and manufacturers for two CPR-1000 reactors as Phase II of the Ling Ao power station (also known as Ling Dong). Construction started in December 2005 with the 1080 MWe (gross), 1037 MWe (net) units. Unit 1 is about 50% localized and unit 2 will be 70% localized, under the project management of China Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (CNPEC), part of CGNPC. Low-speed Arabelle turbine-generator sets are being provided by Alstom. In June 2009, the first Chinese-made reactor pressure vessel for a 1000 MWe class reactor was delivered for unit 2, from Dongfang (Guangzhou) Heavy Machinery Co. Unit 1 started up in June 2010 with grid connection in mid-July, 54 months after construction start, and entered commercial operation in September. Unit 2 is expected to commence operation in 2011.

Qinshan Phase II-3&4

Construction of the second stage of Qinshan Phase II was formally inaugurated at the end of April 2006, though first concrete had been poured for unit 3 in March. That for unit 4 was poured in January 2007. Local content of the two 650 MWe CNP-600 reactors will be more than 70% and scheduled construction time is 60 months.

Hongyanhe

This is the first nuclear power station receiving central government approval to build four units at the same time, and the first in northeast China. Construction of the first unit of the Hongyanhe nuclear power plant in Dalian, Liaoning, started in August 2007. It is the first nuclear power project in the 11th Five-Year Plan, with owner and operator being Liaoning Hongyanhe Nuclear Power Co, a joint venture of CGNPC and CPI (45% each) with Dalian Construction Investment Group. The National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) issued a construction licence for units 3 & 4 in March 2009, and first concrete for unit 3 was poured soon afterwards. The cost of all four 1080 MWe CPR-1000 units in the first construction phase is put at CNY 50 billion (US$ 6.6 billion). China Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (CNPEC), part of CGNPC, is managing the project. Shanghai Electric won a $260 million contract for equipment and Alstom is to provide the four low-speed Arabelle turbine-generator sets for $184 million. Localisation is above 70%. Commercial operation is planned for 2012-14. The project incorporates a 10,080 m³/day desalination plant.

In May 2010, the NRDC approved preliminary work on the CNY 25 billion two-unit second phase of the plant (units 5&6), and work began in July. The National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) and the Environment Ministry approved the project in September 2010, construction start is expected 2011. Localisation is to be above 80% and the first unit is expected on line in 2015.

Ningde

Construction of CGNPC's six-unit Ningde nuclear power plant commenced in 2008. This is on three islands in Fuding city in northeast of Fujian province, and the first construction phase comprises four CPR-1000 units. The project was approved by the National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) in September 2006, and local content will be about 75% for units 1&2 and 85% for units 3&4. Construction of the first unit started in February 2008, and CGNPC expects commercial operation of it after 58 months, in December 2012, with the others following to 2015. First concrete for the second unit was in November 2008, for the third early in January 2010 and for the fourth at the end of September 2010. Total cost for four units was put at CNY 51 billion ($7.2 billion). Dongfang Electric has a contract to supply turbine generators for units 1-4, using Alstom Arabelle low-speed technology. No dates yet known for units 5 & 6.

Fuqing

Construction of the six-unit Fuqing nuclear power plant 170 km south of Ningde also commenced in 2008 at Qianxe, Fuqing city in Fujian, near Fuzhou. The Fujian Fuqing Nuclear Co Ltd was set up in May 2006 with 49% held by China Huadian Corp. CNNC is responsible for the project which is using CGNPC's CPR-1000 reactors since alternatives are not licensed. First concrete for unit 1 was poured in November 2008, for unit 2 in June 2009, and for unit 3 in December 2010. Commercial operation is expected over 2013 to 2016. Site works are under way for further units there, total expected cost for all six being CNY 100 billion ($14.6 billion).

Construction of the project is by China Nuclear Power Engineering Co. (CNPE) and the reactor pressure vessels will be supplied by China First Heavy Industries, as for Fangjiashan. In June 2008, Dongfang Electric Group announced a CNY 5 billion ($725 million) contract for Alstom Arabelle low-speed steam turbine generators for the Fuqing and Fangjiashan plants. Late in 2010, CNNC was proposing the CNP1000 for units 5 & 6, noting "pre-project under way".

Yangjiang

Yangjiang city in western Guangdong province had originally been earmarked for the country's first Generation III plants (see section above on Embarking upon Generation III plants). After plans changed in the light of pressing generation needs in the region, Yangjiang will be the second nuclear power base of the China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC). Development of all six units of the Yangjiang plant was approved in 2004, with CPR-1000 later confirmed as technology for it. Construction of the first of two units started in December 2008, for commercial operation in 2013. Construction on the first unit of the second pair started in November 2010, then the final two (as the second construction phase) are to follow, with the last being built by 2017. Total cost is put at CNY 70 billion ($10.1 billion).

Yangjiang 1-6 and a further 14 units, along with the six units at Daya Bay/Ling Ao, will be operated under regional Daya Bay (DNMC) management. In July 2010, Hong Kong-based power utility China Light and Power (CLP) agreed to take a 17% stake in Yangjiang – the equivalent of one reactor.

Fangjiashan

Construction of CNNC's Fangjiashan plant started at the end of December 2008. It is close to the Qinshan plant in Zhejiang province and essentially an extension of it, using two CPR-1000 reactors. Construction of the CNY 26 billion ($3.8 billion) project is by China Nuclear Power Engineering Co. (CNPE) and the reactor pressure vessels will be supplied by China First Heavy Industries, as for Fuqing. In June 2008, Dongfang Electric Group announced a CNY 5 billion ($725 million) contract for Alstom Arabelle low-speed steam turbine generators for the Fuqing and Fangjiashan plants.

Sanmen

At the end of 2006, the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was selected for Sanmen in Zhejiang province (and for Yangjiang in Guangdong province, with the latter site changed to Haiyang). Contracts with Westinghouse and Shaw for two units were signed in July 2007. Site works under CNNC commenced in February 2008 and an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract was signed in March 2009 between SNPTC + CNNC and China Nuclear Engineering & Construction Group (CNEC) for both units, which will be overseen by Westinghouse and Shaw. Other stakeholders are Zhejiang Provincial Energy Group Co Ltd, CPI Nuclear Power Co Ltd, and China Huadian Corp. Construction on Sanmen 1 – the world's first AP1000 unit – officially commenced on 19 April 2009. The reactor is expected to begin operation in August 2013 with unit 2 about one year later. Construction on unit 2 commenced in mid-December 2009. The pressure vessel and steam generators for unit 2 are being made in China. See section on Embarking upon Generation III plants above.

Haiyang

Shangdong Nuclear Power Company (a subsidiary of CPI) signed contracts with Westinghouse and Shaw for two AP1000 units in July 2007. Work on the site is well underway and first concrete was poured in September 2009 for unit 1 and June 2010 for unit 2. The 5000 cubic metre base mat of each was placed in a single pouring of less than 48 hours. The pressure vessel and steam generators for unit 2 are being made in China. These units are expected to commence operation in May 2014 and March 2015. See section on Embarking upon Generation III plants above.

The site will eventually have six or eight units, and in March 2009, the NDRC approved preliminary works for units 3 and 4 at the CPI site, to be AP1000 units. Construction was expected to start late in 2010.

Haiyang will be a CPI training base for AP1000 staff, along with a set-up at Yantai.

Taishan

The first two EPRs planned for Taishan in Guangdong province form part of an €8 billion contract signed by Areva and the Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPC) in November 2007. The Taishan project (sometimes referred to as Yaogu) is owned by the Guangdong Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company Limited (TNPC), a joint venture between EDF (30%) and CGNPC. First concrete was poured in October 2009, and unit 1 should be commissioned early in 2014, with unit 2 in 2015. Areva is fabricating major components for both units and expects net capacity to be 1660 MWe each. See section on Embarking upon Generation III plants above.

Site works are reported to be proceeding for units 3 & 4, and construction is expected to start before 2015.

Shidaowan HTR-PM

A demonstration high-temperature gas-cooled reactor plant, with twin reactor modules driving a single 210 MWe steam turbine, was initially approved in November 2005, to be built at Shidaowan in Weihai city, Shandong province, by Huaneng Shidaowan Nuclear Power Company Ltd (HSNPC). It will be part of the Rongcheng Nuclear Power Industrial Park project. The HSNPC joint venture is led by the China Huaneng Group Co – the country's largest generating utility but hitherto without nuclear capacity, and still without NNSA authority to build nuclear plants. Huaneng Power International is investing CNY 5 billion in the project, which received environmental clearance in March 2008. Site work is largely complete, but no NNSA licence has been issued. Subject to this, Huaneng wants to commence construction as soon as possible, for commercial operation in 2015. The latest (unconfirmed) reports suggest that NDRC approval has been given for construction start at the end of March 2011. The EPC (engineering, procurement, construction) contract was let in October 2008, and involves Shanghai Electric Co and Harbin Power Equipment Co. A simulator contract signed in May 2010 was between HSNPC, Chinergy and CGNPC Simulator Co. After three years of negotiation, in March 2011 a contract was signed with SGL Group in Germany for supply of 500,000 machined graphite spheres for HTR-PM fuel by the end of 2013. In November 2010 Huaneng Group signed an agreement with US-based Duke Energy to train nuclear plant staff.

This will be the demonstration plant for a further 18 modules at the site, total 3,800 MWe. (See also Research and development section in page on China's Nuclear Fuel Cycle.)

Shidaowan (PWRs)

In November 2007, China Huaneng Group (CHNG) signed an agreement with CGNPC for the Huaneng Nuclear Power Development Company to build four CPR-1000 reactors at Shidaowan, Rongcheng city, in Shandong province in an $8 billion deal. A letter of intent regarding the first two was signed in 2008. However, this has now become another AP1000 project and National Development and Reform Commission approval is being sought.

In October 2009, the Shidaowan Nuclear Power Development Limited Company was set up with capital contribution 40% CHNG, 30% Huaneng International Power Development Corp. (HIPDC) and 30% Huaneng Power International (HPI) – both being CHNG subsidiaries. Thus none of the authorised nuclear utilities is now involved, though Huaneng is linked with SNPTC on the project through the State Nuclear Demonstration Company – a 55-45% joint venture company by SNPTC and CHNG in respect to building the first CAP1400 units (see Reactor technology section above), two being envisaged after the four AP1000s.

Fangchenggang

The Fangchenggang Nuclear Power Project is located at Hongsha village, in the Beibu Gulf Economic Zone near Bailong in the coastal city of Fangchenggang in the Guangxi Autonomous Region (45 km from the Vietnam border in south China). Following an agreement in July 2006, the first stage (two 1080 MWe CPR-1000 units out of six planned) of the plant was approved by NDRC in October 2008, and again in July 2010. First concrete was poured in July 2010, and about 87% of the first two units will be sourced in China.

In October 2009, a general construction contract was signed with CNPEC. Guangxi Fangchenggang Nuclear Power Co., Ltd., a joint venture between China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (61%) and Guangxi Investment Group (39%), is responsible for the construction and operation. The first unit is expected to begin commercial operation in 2015, the second in 2016. Total budget is CNY 70 billion ($10.26 billion), with CNY 26 billion ($3.87 billion) for stage 1. (There is also a Fangchenggang supercritical 2400 MWe coal-fired power station operated by CLP Guangxi Fangchenggang Power Company Limited, a 70:30 equity-basis joint venture between China Light & Power and Guangxi Water & Power Engineering (Group) Co., Ltd.)

Tianwan Phases II & III

In October 2006, a preliminary agreement for two further 1060 MWe AES-91 reactors as the second construction phase at Tianwan in Lianyungang city of Jiangsu province was signed with Russia's Atomstroyexport. Construction of units 3 & 4 was to start when both the first two units were commissioned, and hence in November 2007 a further agreement was signed by CNNC. Preliminary approval from NDRC was received in August 2009, and the project is expected to cost $3.8 billion. Protracted discussion on pricing for the Russian components of the plant delayed the project. Eventually, a contract for the engineering design of Tianwan 3 & 4 was signed in September 2010 between Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation and Atomstroyexport, and the general construction contract was signed in November 2010. Final approval from NDRC was received in January 2011, and first concrete was scheduled for December 2012 and August 2013.

€1.3 billion was agreed for Atomstroyexport to provide 30% of the plant including nuclear island equipment (reactor, steam generator, pressurisers, primary piping. etc.) and some related equipment. It will not act as the principal contractor, though it insists on retaining intellectual property rights. Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corporation is responsible for about 70% of the project, namely, the civil work, turbine island with equipment and related infrastructure on the site. The turbine generator sets will probably be sourced from Dongfang Electric, using Alstom Arabelle low-speed technology.

Meanwhile, Iskorskiye Zavody, part of OMZ, has started making the major components covered by the Russian €1.3 billion part of the plant. It will manufacture two VVER-1000 reactor pressure vessels with internals and upper units. Delivery should be completed in 2014. The company already took part in making the major equipment for Tianwan 1 & 2, including reactor pressure vessels.

In August 2009, the Assets Supervision & Administration Commission announced that Phase 3 of Tianwan (units 5 & 6) would start construction in October 2010 – now delayed. These are likely to be AES-2006 type, though some reports have them as CPR-1000. Dongfang Electric has a contract to supply turbine generators using Alstom Arabelle low-speed technology. CNNC reported an EPC contract between Jiangsu and CNPE in February 2011, making CNPE the project manager.

Hongshiding (Rushan)

In November 2006, an agreement was signed by CNNC to proceed with the first two units of the Hongshiding nuclear plant at Hongshiding in Weihai or Rushan city, Shandong province, costing $ 3.2 billion, with construction to begin in 2009 and first power in 2015. However, it appears to have been deferred. Six units totaling 6000-8000 MWe are envisaged at the site, with Shandong Hongshiding Nuclear Power Co. Ltd as developer.

Changjiang

CNNC's Changjiang nuclear power plant on Hainan Island started construction in April 2010 for operation of the first unit at the end of 2014 and the second in 2015. It will eventually comprise four 650 MWe PWR units (CNP-600) based on those at Qinshan Phase II. Total cost of the first pair is put at about CNY 20 billion ($2.8 billion). Units 3 & 4 will be built as the second phase of construction. Huaneng Power International (HPI), part of China Huaneng Group (CHNG), holds a 30% share in Hainan Nuclear Power Co Ltd. More than 70% of the plant's equipment is to be made in China.

Sanming

In October 2009, an agreement was signed by CIAE and CNEIC (a CNNC subsidiary responsible for technology imports) with Russia's Atomstroyexport to start pre-project and design works for a commercial nuclear power plant with two BN-800 fast neutron reactors (referred to as Chinese Demonstration Fast Reactors) at Sanming city, an inland part of Fujian province. A site survey and preliminary feasibility study had been undertaken in 2007-08. CNNC in April 2010 established Sanming Nuclear Power Co Ltd as a joint venture company with the Fujian Investment & Development Corp and local government, and initiated a full feasibility study. Construction is due to start in 2013, the local content is targeted at 70%, and the first unit is to be in operation in 2018, and the second following about a year later. A second phase, with units 3 & 4, is due to commence in 2015. The plant will be similar to the OKBM Afrikantov design being built in Russia at Beloyarsk 4 and due to start up in 2012.

Xudabao/Xudabu

CNNC's Xudabao nuclear power station is in Xingcheng City, Huludao, in coastal Liaoning province. The CNY 90 billion (US$15 billion) Xudabao project will comprise six AP1000 reactors, with units 1&2 in the US$4 billion first phase. Site preparation was under way in November 2010, and final NDRC approval in January 2011 will allow construction start in September 2011. CNNC's Liaoning Nuclear Power Company Ltd owns the plant, with Datang International Power Generation Co holding 20% equity, and State Development and Investment Corporation (SDIC) 10%. The general contractor is China Nuclear Power Engineering Company Ltd (CNPE). In October 2010, the Northeast Electric Power Design Institute (NEPDI), Changchun, Jilin, a subsidiary of China Power Engineering Consulting Corporation (CPECC), signed a survey and engineering contract for the plant.

Lianyungang

CGNPC's Lianyungang nuclear power project is planned to have four units of 1000 MWe class to be constructed in phases. This is in Xinxu town, Lianyun district, Lianyungang city, Jiangsu province close to CNNC's Tianwan plant and involving the Jiangsu Nuclear Power Company. A proposal has been submitted to the NRDC and preparations for the project are proceeding, but prospects in the 12th Five Year Plan are uncertain.

Shanwei (Lufeng)

CGNPC's Lufeng Nuclear Power Corporation is making efforts to start on the first two units (of 6) of the Shanwei plant at Lufeng, Tianwei district in eastern Guangdong, but awaits NDRC approval. It will be a CNPEC project. It is in the 12th 5-year plan, so construction start by 2015 is likely.

Zhangzhou

China Guodian's first nuclear power venture, with CNNC holding 51%, will initially have two AP1000 reactors, on the coast in Fujian province.

Inland nuclear power plants

Xianning

In August 2008, CGNPC and Hubei Energy Group Ltd set up the Hubei Nuclear Power Company as a joint venture and announced plans to build a nuclear power plant in Xianning city of the inland Hubei province. Site works for this plant (four AP1000 units) at Dafan are under way. Construction of the first two units was expected to start in 2011, but may be delayed to 2015. The reactor pressure vessel for the first unit is contracted to China First Heavy Industries, and the first two 209 metre high cooling towers to Belgium's Hamon Thermal. The cost of four AP1000 reactors is put at CNY 60 billion ($8.8 billion). This will be CGNPC's first AP1000 plant. A further phase is estimated to cost CNY 45 billion.

The large pre-assembled modules that will make up the bulk of the new AP1000s are to come from a new inland facility owned by new firm Hubei Nuclear Power Equipment Company.

Reports of a Songzi plant may refer to later stages of Dafan, though possible projects in Yangxin county have been mentioned.

The Hubei Nuclear Power Co is also reported to be planning a four-unit AP1000 plant at Guangshui city in the northeast of the province.

Pengze

CPI's Jiangxi Pengze Nuclear Power Project in Jiangxi province is to have four AP1000 reactors costing CNY 60 billion ($8.8 billion). The site has been prepared for the first two units, and safety and environmental approvals were obtained in May 2009. CPI signed the EPC contract framework for phase 1 (units 1 & 2) in August 2009, the engineering project contract was reported to be between CPI Jiangxi Nuclear Power and CPIC. The equipment procurement was reported to be between CPIC and China Power Complete Equipment. CPI aimed to start construction in 2010, for 2013 start-up, but construction may be delayed to 2015. The project is inland in Juijiang city, on the Yangtze River. The cooling towers are being designed by Belgium's Hamon Thermal for the State Nuclear Electric Power Planning Design and Research Institute (SNPDRI).

Taohuajiang

CNNC's Taohuajiang nuclear power plant on the Zi River in Yiyang city, near Yueyang in inland Hunan province will be China's first inland nuclear power plant. It was expected to start construction in September 2010, and site works are under way, but construction may be delayed to 2015. (It is also referred to as the Taohua [peach blossom] River project.) CNNC set up Hunan Taohuajiang Nuclear Power Co Ltd. to build and operate the plant. Initially this was to be 4 x 1000 MWe at a total cost of CNY 34 billion, but it will now be a four-unit AP1000 project costing CNY 67 billion. The main contractor is China Nuclear Industry 23rd Construction Co Ltd; China Erzhong is contracted to supply the main pressure vessel forgings, and Dongfang Electric Corp will supply other major components. Germany's GEA Group is to construct the cooling tower for unit 1: a natural draft unit some 200 metres high and 160 m in diameter, with 15,000 square metres drenching area. Subsequent towers will have increasing local content.

It was approved by the NDRC in November 2005, and in 2008 the project was approved for preliminary construction. The design by SNERDI under SNPTC and SNPDRI was submitted to the NNSA in February 2010 for licensing. A general framework agreement for construction was signed by CNNC with CNPE Corporation as EPC contractor in December 2010. The first unit was originally expected in commercial operation in April 2015, and the fourth in 2018.

Xiaomoshan

The Xiaomoshan nuclear power plant on the Yangtze River in Huarong county, Yueyang city, Hunan province (inland), is a priority project for CPI. It will eventually have six AP1000 reactors and be built by Hunan Nuclear Power Company Ltd in two phases. NDRC approval was given in 2006 but as of mid-2010 NNSA approval was awaited. Site preparation is underway and first concrete was expected late in 2010. The cost is put at CNY 70 billion ($10.25 billion) for the first four units, funded by SNPTC and Wuling Electric Power Development Co. (a CPI subsidiary). The Heimifeng pumped storage plant will be associated with it.

Yanjiashan/Wanan/Ji'an

In August 2009, CNNC (51%) signed a joint venture agreement with Jiangxi Ganneng Co. Ltd and Jiangxi Ganyue Expressway Co Ltd (49% between them) setting up Jiangxi Nuclear Power Co to build the Wanan Yanjiashan nuclear power project at Ji'an in the Jiangxi province. CNNC contracted a feasibility study of Yanjiashan nuclear power program in July 2010. Pre-project work was reported as under way in November 2010. (This is also reported as a CPI project.)

Hengyang

Also in August 2009, CNNC signed an agreement with Hengyang city in Hunan province to build a nuclear power plant there or nearby. This is about 200km south of its Taohuajiang project at Yiyang city in Hunan. China Guodian Corporation, one of the country's largest power producers, is involved in the project though it has no nuclear capacity so far.

Zhongxiang

CNNC's Hubei Zhongxiang nuclear power project is at Zhongxiang city in central Hubei, with China Datang. The 5000 MWe plant is undergoing a detailed feasibility study, but further details are unknown.

Wuhu

The Wuhu nuclear plant on the Yangtze River in the Bamaoshan area, Fanchang county, of Anhui province was planned to have four 1000 MWe CPR-1000 units, but is now designated for AP1000s to be constructed in two phases. CGNPC's proposal for two units of phase 1 has been submitted, some preparatory work is under way and the Anhui Wuhu Nuclear Power Co has been set up, with 51% CGNPC ownership. The environmental impact statement was released for public comment in January 2010. The first unit is due on line in 2016.

Jiyang

Besides Wuhu, CNNC was reported as starting a feasibility study on another four-unit nuclear plant in the Anhui province, at Jiyang in Chizhou city, in December 2008.

Nanchun/Nanchong/Sanba, Yibin

In 2005, Sichuan proposed Nanchun/ Nanchong city east of Chengdu as a suitable site for a nuclear power plant and sought approval for it from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which was not given, possibly because of seismic concerns. In March 2009, the provincial government signed an agreement with CGNPC to pursue the plan for a Nanchun nuclear power plant, involving the Nuclear Power Institute of China (NPIC), headquartered in Chendu. Preliminary plans in 2008 were for a 4000-6000 MWe Sanba nuclear power plant on the Jialing River, at a cost of CNY 25 billion ($3.7 billion). Majority ownership would be CGNPC.

Another Sichuan agreement for a nuclear power plant project has been signed between CNNC and Yibin city, south of Chengdu.

Shaoguan

CGNPC's Shaoguan nuclear plant will comprise four AP1000 reactors and is expected to cost RMB 50 billion. It will be located in Baitu Town of Qujiang District in Shaoguan City, and will be the first inland nuclear power project in Guangdong. The Shaoguan Nuclear Power Co was established in April 2010.

Xiangtan

In December 2009, China Huadian Corp signed an agreement with Xiangtan city government in Hunan to undertake studies for a CNY 60 billion power plant comprising four 1250 MWe reactors. A refined proposal was expected in September 2010. This will apparently be the fourth nuclear project for China Huadian.

Longyou/ Zhexi

In October 2008 a project proposal was submitted to NDRC by CNNC and Zhejiang Energy Group Co Ltd for a western Zhejiang nuclear power plant in Hangzhou with four AP1000 reactors, though earlier reports had four 1000 MWe units to be built in two phases from late 2010. The proposed site is Tuanshi, Longyou county. Pre-project work was reported as under way in November 2010.

Jingyu

CPI plans to spend CNY 85 billion to build the six-unit Jingyu nuclear power plant near Baishan, in Jilin province, with four AP1000 units to be in stage 1. The project is still in the preliminary feasibility stage, though site preperation is now underway.

Nanyang

To be a six-unit CNNC plant in Henan province. Pre-project work was reported as under way in November 2010.

Further Information

Notes

a. According to the China Electricity Council, electricity consumption in 2010 increased 14.6% to 4190 billion kWh, corresponding with a 10% growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Some 3090 billion kWh of this was in industry. China's energy consumption per unit of GDP met a target reduction of 20% from 2005 levels by the end of 2010, according to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). The energy intensity targets for the following five years are expected to be about 17%. [Back]

b. The CNP series of reactors is also referred to as the CP series. [Back]

c. The ACP600 design appears to be an advanced version of the CNP-600. CNNC expects to complete development of the ACP600 design by 2013. [Back]

References

1. Cost of Pollution in China: Economic Estimates of Physical Damages, The World Bank, State Environmental Protection Administration, P. R. China (February 2007) [Back]

2. Platts Power in Asia, 21 January 2010; China's electricity consumption jumps 14.56% in 2010, Xinhua News Agency (17 January 2011) [Back]

3. International Energy Outlook 2009, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EIA-0484(2009), available at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html [Back]

4. Maintain nuclear perspective, China told, World Nuclear News (11 January 2011) [Back]

5. APWR and HTR are listed into the national program, CNNC news release (24 February 2006) [Back]

6. Criticality for fast reactor World Nuclear News (22 July 2010) [Back]

7. 2007 Annual Report of China Power Investment Corporation (26 November 2008) [Back]

8. Unit 3 at Qinshan Phase II Nuclear Power Station begins operation People's Daily Online (22 October 2010) [Back]

General sources

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group website (www.cgnpc.com.cn)

China National Nuclear Corporation website (www.cnnc.com.cn)

Country Analysis Briefs: China, Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/index.html

Uranium 2007: Resources, Production and Demand, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and International Atomic Energy Agency, 2008 (ISBN: 9789264047662)

Nicobar Group website (www.nicobargroup.com)

Dynabond PowerTech website (www.dynabondpowertech.com)

Proceedings of the World Nuclear Association's China International Nuclear Symposium, held in Beijing on 23-25 November 2010.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=320&terms=Nuclear%20power%20in%20China

Nation & World | Radioactivity detected 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant | Seattle Times Newspaper

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:01:00 +0000

Nation & World | Radioactivity detected 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant | Seattle Times Newspaper

A perfect storm of man-made and natural disasters

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:11:00 +0000

By Tom Stevenson 5:00PM GMT 12 Mar 2011

1 Comment

The mountainous country lives on its coast so the position of the epicentre off the eastern seaboard could hardly have been worse.

Markets conducted their pitiless audit of the likely impact on Friday and will continue doing so tomorrow. Their calculation is roughly this: the most recent comparable disaster in Japan, the 1995 Kobe quake, incurred a heavy human and economic cost from which the important seaport has arguably never fully recovered. More than 6,000 perished in Kobe while the financial cost was estimated at around $100bn (£62bn).

With the affected area this time representing a relatively small share of Japanese output, the impact could be rather lower but it is too soon to tell with any certainty. Kobe was a major logistics hub so supply chains were seriously compromised.

In the short term, the impact on the Japanese economy will be negative, in part due to physical damage to infrastructure and capital stock and because of the psychological trauma suffered by the Japanese, which is likely to trigger risk aversion, a drop in consumer confidence and an increased urge to save.

Further out, the rebuilding effort will probably stimulate the economy via construction and other capital spending. The net impact on GDP might be positive, not least because the Bank of Japan quickly made it clear it will provide whatever liquidity is required. Fiscal policy is likely to ease.

Japan quake hits global markets
11 Mar 2011
Oil falls after quake, Saudi crackdown
11 Mar 2011
Japan earthquake: market reaction
11 Mar 2011
Major tsunami damage in Japan after 8.9 magnitude earthquake
11 Mar 2011
Thousand dead as 30ft tsunami hits Japan
11 Mar 2011
Japan earthquake hits global markets
11 Mar 2011

With the earthquake striking so close to the end of the trading week in Tokyo, the full stock market impact will not become apparent until Monday morning. The 1.7pc fall in the Nikkei on Friday was as much a knock-on from Thursday's poor showing on Wall Street as a reaction to the unfolding disaster.

The stock market impact of Kobe was prolonged, with the Japanese market underperforming the S&P 500 for many weeks. In part this was a response to the rapid appreciation of the yen as overseas investments held by Japanese investors were repatriated.

Foreign assets tend to be liquidated first when there is an urgent demand for capital, and in the weeks following the Kobe quake insurance companies sold off US Treasury bonds – their most liquid holdings – in order to meet a surge in claims by their Japanese customers.

This time around, the currency market response was initially to sell off the yen as hot money flowed out of Japan, but this was almost immediately reversed and it is likely the Japanese currency will remain underpinned by international flows for some time to come. This will be a negative for the export-reliant stock market.

The insurance sector was unsurprisingly in the spotlight on Friday. The reinsurers are quite heavily exposed to a Japanese earthquake and they have experienced a busy year already for natural catastrophes, so further losses could hit their balance sheets hard. What is not yet clear is whether the price tag is heavy enough to trigger higher premiums during the renewal season, which starts in April.

It is difficult to generalise from previous natural disasters about what the longer-term market and economic impact will be. Hurricane Katrina cost $45bn and is estimated to have taken 1pc off US GDP, but its market impact was minimal. In New Zealand, the Christchurch quake has already led to a half-point cut in interest rates to an all-time low. Australia's floods had little immediate impact but a $1.8bn tax hike to fund reconstruction was taken badly by investors.

Friday's quake came at a bad time for global markets. Already, the two-year anniversary of the bottom of the bear market in March 2009 had turned into a damp squib. Last week was characterised by an intensification of the turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East, concerns over Chinese inflation and the re-emergence of the eurozone as a serious concern following the downgrade of the sovereign debt of both Spain and Greece.

The key question for investors is the extent to which the global economic recovery could be derailed by this perfect storm of man-made and natural disasters. The answer is probably less than you might think, transfixed as we are by TV footage of a tidal wave sweeping across defenceless rice fields.

tomrstevenson@fil.com

Tom Stevenson is an investment director at Fidelity International. The views expressed are his own.

www.twitter.com/tomstevenson63.

Nuclear safety worries spread to Europe

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 09:41:00 +0000

Tens of thousands of people have taken part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in southern Germany. The demonstration had been planned for some time, but after the news of Japan's nuclear emergency, organisers were overwhelmed by crowds of around 50,000 people who turned up.

The demonstrators, who stretched in a 45km chain from Neckarwestheim power plant to the city of Stuttgart, were demanding that the German government move away from nuclear power.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has extended the lifespan of Germany's nuclear power plants, summoned senior cabinet ministers to an emergency meeting.

The Japanese radiation leak comes at a difficult time for Merkel, whose conservatives face three state elections in March where worries over nuclear safety could rally her opponents. The opposition Social Democrats and Greens have called for change and claim several German nuclear plants could not withstand a direct hit by an aircraft or an earthquake.

"We cannot master nature, nature rules us," said Renate Kuenast, the Greens' parliamentary leader.

The government's decision last year to keep Germany's 17 nuclear plants running for about 12 years beyond their original shutdown date has weighed on the popularity of Merkel's coalition.

In Italy a senior government politician said the earthquake would not change plans to move ahead with a new nuclear power scheme.

Italy is the only G8 industrialised nation that does not produce nuclear power, but prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wants to generate a quarter of the country's electricity from nuclear in the future.

Italy is also at high risk of suffering natural disasters, mainly due to earthquakes. "The position remains what it is, you can't keep changing it," Fabrizio Cicchitto, leader of Berlusconi's PDL party in the lower house told reporters. "It's not just recently that we have energy problems," he said.

In the UK the energy secretary Chris Huhne said the government was monitoring the nuclear situation in Japan. "It's too early to say what the cause was, let alone what the implications are. We are working extremely closely with the IAEA to establish what has happened. Safety is the number one priority for the nuclear industry."

Privately, many in government and the private energy sector in the UK are worried that the raising of the spectre of nuclear disaster will have implications for the coalition's huge building programme for ten new power stations to replace the UK's ageing reactors.

The accident in Japan comes days after the Navy admitted the reactors on British submarines are 'significantly below benchmarked good practice', and weeks before the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which will push fears over nuclear safety back to the forefront of the minds of the British public.

Jan Beranek, head of Greenpeace International Nuclear Campaign, asked for the construction project to be scrapped in the wake of the Japanese earthquake. "Governments should invest in renewable energy resources that are not only environmentally sound but also affordable and reliable," he said.

Japan struggles with nuclear reactors in wake of quake

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:46:00 +0000

By the CNN Wire Staff

March 12, 2011 -- Updated 2146 GMT (0546 HKT)

Tokyo (CNN) -- Crews at a nuclear plant struck by an earthquake, then a tsunami and then an explosion in the span of 36 hours resorted Saturday to flooding a feverish nuclear reactor with sea water in hopes of preventing a meltdown of its core.

An explosion that sent white smoke rising above the Fukushima Daiichi plant Saturday afternoon buckled the walls of a concrete building that surrounded one of the plant's nuclear reactors, but did not damage the reactor itself, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters.

The explosion was caused, he said, by a failure in a pumping system as workers tried to prevent the reactor's temperature from racing out of control.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, citing Japanese authorities, said the explosion occurred outside the plant's primary containment vessel and that the vessel remained intact. The explosion injured four workers, it said.

To limit damage to the reactor core, Tokyo Electric Power Company began injecting sea water mixed with boron into the primary containment vessel in an operation that got under way Saturday night, IAEA said.

Nuclear plants

Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant

Expert: 'This is a serious situation'

Japan's nuclear worries

Nuclear crisis looms in Japan

Map: 8.9 earthquake hits Japan

Gallery: Massive quake hits Japan

RELATED TOPICS

The use of sea water and boron was described as a "Hail Mary pass" by Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies focused on energy policies and a former senior policy adviser to the U.S. secretary of energy.

"My understanding is that the situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilize it and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," he said.

Boron, a chemical element, was being added to the water "to sort of stymie other potential nuclear reactions," he said.

But, he acknowledged to reporters in a conference call, "There's a lot that we don't know about what's happening with these reactors. It's trying to piece together a picture where you're dealing with just a few pieces of the puzzle."

Another expert said enough was known to conclude that Saturday's nuclear events in Japan rank high on the list of similar incidents. "If this accident stops right now it will already be one of the three worst accidents we have ever had at a nuclear power plant in the history of nuclear power," said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear materials and president of the U.S.-based Ploughshares Fund, a firm involved in security and peace funding.

He said only the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor core at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union were worse.

If the effort to cool the nuclear fuel inside the reactor fails completely -- a scenario experts who have spoken to CNN say is unlikely -- the resulting release of radiation could cause enormous damage to the plant or release radiation into the atmosphere or water. That could lead to widespread cancer and other health problems, experts say.

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) was dribbling out information slower than some experts wanted: it said Saturday that it detected cesium-137 and other isotopes near Unit 1 early in the day. Cesium is a byproduct of the nuclear fission process that occurs in nuclear plants.

While Cabinet Secretary Edano said later in the day that radiation levels appeared to be falling, the government nevertheless ordered an evacuation of residents within a 20-kilometer radius of the Daiichi plant, as well as a second facility where the cooling system had failed -- the Fukushima Daini plant.

An estimated 170,000 people have been evacuated, though the process was ongoing, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Saturday.

Japanese authorities have classified the event at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 as a level 4 "accident with local consequences" on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale intended to communicate to the public the significance of radiation-linked events. The scale runs from 0 to 7, with the latter being classified as a major accident.

On Saturday night, three patients at a hospital tested positive for radiation exposure, according to the Japanese public broadcasting station NHK, citing a statement from Fukushima Prefecture.

The three were randomly selected from a group of 90 hospital workers and patients who were outside the hospital -- about three kilometers from the Daiichi plant -- awaiting evacuation at the time of the explosion. The patients had already been hospitalized at the medical facility prior to Friday's quake.

While the three showed signed of exposure, "no abnormal health conditions have been observed," NHK quoted the prefecture as saying.

Meanwhile, two experts from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with expertise in boiling-water nuclear reactors like those affected by the disaster have been sent to Japan as part of a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) team.

The NRC's Maryland-based headquarters operations center has been operating around the clock since the beginning of the emergency.

Japanese authorities, meanwhile, appeared to be preparing for the possibility of a nuclear release. Japan public broadcaster NHK reported the country's defense ministry had sent a unit that specializes in dealing with radioactive contamination to a command post near one of the stricken plants.

The government was also preparing to distribute iodine tablets to residents, the IAEA said. Iodine is commonly prescribed to help prevent the thyroid gland from taking in too much radioactivity, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website.

In all, the earthquake prompted the automatic shutdown of 10 reactors at three nuclear plants near the quake site, Japan's nuclear agency said. Problems have been reported at all three plants, although the fire reported Friday at the Onagawa nuclear plant was quickly extinguished and it has not been a focus of concern since.

At the Fukushima Daini plant, problems had been detected with the pressure and cooling systems at three of the four reactors that shut down, but plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Company reported all of the reactors were stable Saturday.

Japan's nuclear agency said there is a strong possibility that the radioactive cesium the monitors detected was from the melting of a fuel rod at the plant, adding that engineers were cooling the fuel rods by pumping water around them.

A spokesman for the agency said atomic material had seeped out of one of the five nuclear reactors at the Daiichi plant, located about 160 miles (260 kilometers) north of Tokyo.

The problems at the Daiichi plant began Friday when the 8.9-magnitude quake struck off the eastern shore of Miyagi Prefecture. The quake forced the automatic shutdown of the plant's nuclear reactors and knocked out the main cooling system, according to the country's nuclear agency.

A tsunami resulting from the quake then washed over the site, knocking out backup generators that pumped water into the reactor containment unit to keep the nuclear fuel cool, according to the agency.

As pressure and temperatures rose inside the reactors at the Daiichi and Daini plants, authorities ordered the release of valves at the plants -- a move that experts said was likely done to release growing pressure inside as high temperatures caused water to boil and produce excess steam.

As crews were working to pump additional water into the reactor containment unit to lower the temperature, the pumping system failed, Edano said, causing an explosion that injured four workers and brought down the walls of the building containing the reactor.

The team then reverted to a plan to flood the reactor with sea water, which Edano said would lower the temperature to acceptable levels. That work began Saturday night and was expected to take two days, Edano said.

Before Edano's announcement, Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow for energy, environment and development at London's Chatham House, said the explosion indicated that "it's clearly a serious situation, but that in itself does not necessarily mean major (nuclear) contamination."

"This is a situation that has the potential for a nuclear catastrophe. It's basically a race against time, because what has happened is that plant operators have not been able to cool down the core of at least two reactors," said Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

If damage from the explosions or aftershocks have compromised the structural integrity of the reactor complex, it could make efforts to cool the reactors more difficult, Cirincione said.

"The big unanswered question here is whether there's structural damage to this facility now," he said.

Japan's nuclear path

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:49:00 +0000

Can nuclear power save Japan from peak oil?

by Brendan Barrett on February 2, 2011

Keywords: energy, nuclear, peak oil

If the recent proclamations from various bodies, including the International Energy Agency, about our close proximity to the peak in world oil production are true, then Japan may be sitting on the equivalent of an energy security time bomb.

The greatest concern is that this time bomb could explode as early as 2015, and with a high probability before 2020 when a global oil crunch has been predicted by Chatham House (the UK’s Royal Institute of International Affairs), by the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (a group of businesses, including Virgin Airlines, Ove Arup and Partners, etc.) and by the Energy Research Centre, amongst others.

The reason for this concern is simple — Japan’s self-sufficiency in primary energy stands at 18%, including nuclear. This compares with an average 70% energy self-sufficiency across OECD countries.

One issue here is Japan’s high dependency on oil. A paper just published by Andrew DeWit and Iida Tetsunari points out that:

“Japan relies on oil for 44% of its primary energy. It also gets over 90% of its oil from the unstable Middle East.”

It costs Japan around ¥16.6 trillion (around US$200 billion) each year to pay for these oil imports. Basically, this represents a quarter of all Japanese annual expenditure on imports.

It is both an expensive and vulnerable position to be in. What if the supply of oil was suddenly cut-off? This is a reality that Japanese leaders and bureaucrats are well aware of. The 2010 Annual Report on Energy by the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) makes specific reference to “choke points” that obstruct the flow of oil from the Middle East and other oil producing regions.

A choke point is a strategic location on a sea route (e.g., the Malacca Straits) that could easily be blocked to prevent the flow of shipping in a time of geopolitical turmoil.

With respect to alternatives, as in some countries like Germany and Sweden, there is considerable potential for the development of more renewable energy in Japan if the suitable conditions are in place.

Power generator in Yokohama city. Photo by Ykanazawa1999.

It is possible to calculate something called a “choke point ratio”. A ratio of 100 means that 100% of the oil reaching a country passes through such points. When it exceeds 100, this means that the oil passes through multiple choke points. Japan’s choke point ratio is 171, while those for Germany and the United Kingdom are around 5 and 3 respectively.

Countries tend to respond to concerns about supply vulnerability by stockpiling oil. Japan maintains stockpiles for 129 days. So in the advent of a major disruption to oil supplies, Japan would be able to carry on for around five months under business-as-usual scenarios (perhaps longer if only vital services are maintained). That is a rather thin safety cushion to rely on, and the question here is how is Japan dealing with its energy security vulnerabilities in the short term and long term?

How to increase energy security?

The last time we spoke to officials from METI back in 2009, it appeared that the direction of Japan’s future energy policy was in flux and renewable energy (particularly solar) was gaining increased support, especially through the country’s stimulus packages.

In the intervening period a great deal appears to have changed. These changes are explained by DeWit and Iida who argue that the nuclear lobby has reasserted its influence over the Japanese political and bureaucratic elite and that now nuclear power is seen as “the only realistic option for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and cutting [greenhouse gas] emissions” and as a “major export business”.

The Strategic Energy Plan of Japan, published by METI in June 2010, sets forth the goal of constructing nine new nuclear power plants by 2020 and more than 14 by 2030.

The plan envisions a significant reduction in the overall energy consumed by Japan in 2030 through efficiency measures, as shown in the figure, with nuclear power growing from 10% of primary energy today to 24% in 2030. The share of renewables is also predicted to grow from 6 to 13%.

There are a lot of assumptions underpinning these proposals. First, although the Japanese population is predicted to decline, the number of households is expected to increase slightly, reflecting changing lifestyles and family structures. As a result, greater energy efficiencies are required in the residential sector that would also have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. The plan envisions something like a revolution in the efficiency of household electrical appliances.

Also in the plan, nuclear and renewable energy are both described as zero emission power sources, although some may contest whether from a life-cycle perspective either are totally carbon dioxide emissions free.

Japan currently sits at number three in the world, behind France and the United States, in terms of the amount of energy generated from nuclear sources. The direction presented in the latest Strategic Energy Plan is essentially taking France as the model, since like Japan, it is a country that lacks domestic fossil energy resources (except coal).

Japan’s 2010 Energy White Paper makes specific reference to key advantages of the French model: powerful energy supply businesses, such as EDF and TOTAL, a monopolistic energy sector, and vertically integrated national and public companies.

This closely reflects the situation in Japan where ten electrical utilities maintain regionally-based monopolies and, according to DeWit and Iida, these companies “want to protect that dominance against competitors and energy alternatives that might threaten their plans to expand nuclear power.”

Moving in the wrong direction?

In many respects, it may possible to argue that, with respect to the future of energy in Japan, nuclear may be the wrong direction. This is not to argue against the merits of nuclear power per se, but to express concern of the emphasis placed on nuclear above other options, including renewables. This approach runs counter to experience in countries like Sweden and Germany, and also to the findings of recent research that shows that we could power the world on alternative energy technologies within 20–40 years. So why not Japan?

Clearly, from an historical perspective, nuclear makes considerable sense taking into account Japan’s lack of domestic fossil fuel options and also bearing in mind the considerable industrial expertise that Japan has developed in this sector. Nuclear for Japan represents the “business as usual” option. It ensures a coordinated, centralized, monopolized energy system that can guarantee the maintenance of a high technology industrial system. Nuclear seems to make sense if you want to maintain huge urban agglomerations like Tokyo (which has 1% energy self-sufficiency).

If you conclude that the future will be the same as the past then nuclear seems like the right choice. But when you also think about the less urbanized areas of Japan, nuclear is much less attractive.

Certainly the best and the brightest in Japan’s bureaucratic elite would say, “Yes, categorically, nuclear is the way to go”. But the problem here is the lack of independent think tanks inputting into policy (i.e., those not directly set up by, or related to the government) which means that the energy policy process in Japan is not open to the consideration of alternatives and that could also explain why peak oil is yet to enter the policy debate.

The other big challenge related to nuclear is the issue of safety and risk, especially in an earthquake prone country like Japan and particularly in relation to how radioactive waste is dealt with, as we touched on in Monday’s article.

For instance, the first Renewable Energy White Paper published in 2010 by a group of independent Japanese think tanks argued that it would be possible to meet 67% of domestic energy demand in Japan by 2050. This view has been largely ignored by Japanese energy policy-makers at the national level.

That estimate may be optimistic and some may argue that renewable energy also has very significant limitations. Nevertheless, a major expansion of renewable energy in Japan could help reduce energy insecurity by diversifying supply and decentralizing power generation. This would give local communities more say on how they generate their electricity and allow them to innovate in the process. This approach would represent a radical and visionary change in how the energy sector works in Japan; if history is any guide, such a transition does not yet seem palatable for those who decide how the country will invest in its energy infrastructure.

From a peak oil perspective, some commentators, such as Rob Hopkins and John Rawlins, are concerned that nuclear may not be the right way forward. They are worried about the availability of uranium, suspecting that future scarcities and suggesting that nuclear is a “stop-gap” solution rather than something that can be sustained long into the future.

Another concern would be how nuclear may fare in a world where energy supplies as a whole are declining. According to Hopkins:

“Nuclear power has always been predicated on the concept that future generations will be more capable than we are to deal with nuclear waste. The logic runs that they will, by that time, have cracked how to make it safe, and so therefore it is fine to leave it as some kind of intellectual puzzle for them to figure out.”

Solving something as complex as how to process nuclear waste is an energy intensive industry and this increases the vulnerability of the energy sector in an energy scarce scenario. Hopkins is concerned that:

“Future generations will not have the dubious luxury of being profligate with fossil fuels as we have been.”

An important point to make here is that the planning, construction and implementation of nuclear power plants take decades. So Japan, and every other country, may be facing a race against time, where the rate of oil depletion after the peak will be a significant factor in determining how rapidly we need to find alternatives to oil.

Pushing nuclear does mean that Japan would require less oil for energy, which then could be utilized in the transportation sector, for instance. But here too is another race against time. The 2010 Strategic Energy Plan aims to increase the number of next generation cars (hybrids and electric) from 10% today to 70% of new cars sold by 2030. This still suggests a very large proportion of cars in Japan in 2030 will be gasoline powered. Ideally, in order to avoid major disruptions almost 100% of cars would be electric by 2030, but that is just not going to happen under the current policy framework.

So it may be safe to conclude that by pushing so aggressively down the nuclear path, Japan may be putting too many eggs in one basket. The rationale behind this approach is easy to understand since business as usual is easier than radical reform, and maintaining monolithic centralized structures is easier than decentralised ones in which less control by Tokyo and other urban centres would be a given.

However, let’s give the people behind the strategic energy plan the benefit of the doubt for just a moment. The plan is required to be reviewed every three years and revised if needed. So we have to wait until 2013 before the next review and by that time we all may have greater awareness about the state of our collective energy predicament.

For now, the central question remains open: will nuclear power actually save Japan from the worst effects of a peaking oil production? What do you think?

German export destinations: China overtaking the US

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:25:00 +0000

For the first time ever, German companies are shipping more vehicles, machines and electric goods to China than the U.S.

Latest trade figures showed China, including Hong Kong, accounted for 6.6 percent of Germany's export total in December 2010, compared to 6.5 percent to the U.S.

This marks a turning point to Germany's export structure after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

Guest Post: Currency Wars: Flash Points in the 'Age of Rage'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:21:00 +0000

Guest Post: Currency Wars: Flash Points in the 'Age of Rage'

A grubby Libyan lesson in realpolitik

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:57:00 +0000

By Gideon Rachman

Published: February 21 2011 22:25 | Last updated: February 21 2011 22:25

Another week, another revolution. Muammer Gaddafi of Libya may soon become the third Arab president to be swept from power in little more than a month.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Desperate Gaddafi clings on to power - Feb-22

In depth: Middle East protests - Feb-16

Video: No easy answers in Libya - Feb-21

Opaque Libyan fund built diverse portfolio - Feb-21

Residents take over rule of Benghazi - Feb-21

Cameron calls for move to democracy in Egypt - Feb-21

Until a few years ago, his toppling would have been greeted with delight in western capitals. But in recent years, the Libyan leader has been recast as a reformed sinner, an ally in the “war on terror” and a valued business partner. His current travails should be a cause of justified embarrassment – not least in London – since Britain has led the way in the attempted rehabilitation of Col Gaddafi.

Changing attitudes to the colonel highlight the way in which western concern over human rights is almost always coloured by convenience. In the 1980s, the Libyan leader was regarded as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and rightly denounced for his dreadful human rights record. Ronald Reagan called him a “mad dog” and the US bombed Tripoli in 1986. Saddam Hussein of Iraq, by contrast, was largely tolerated because he was useful in containing Iran.

When the US decided it needed to topple Saddam, his ghastly human rights record received much more attention. By contrast, the cruelty of Col Gaddafi’s regime has been downplayed in recent years. As the US and the UK searched for a retrospective justification for the war on Iraq, Libya’s renunciation of weapons of mass destruction was seized upon as convenient evidence that the Middle East had changed for the better after the Iraq war. In 2004, Tony Blair visited Libya and hailed Col Gaddafi as a partner in the “war on terror”. British business followed in the prime minister’s wake and lucrative oil contracts were signed. In 2008, Condoleezza Rice became the first US secretary of state to visit Libya since the 1950s.

It is true that Libya’s behaviour, in recent years, has become less directly threatening to the west. But the Libyan leader remained a brutal despot. If he is now toppled it will be little thanks to the US or Europe. Instead the Libyan people have looked for inspiration and practical support to their recently liberated neighbours in Egypt and Tunisia.

Libyans need all the help they can get, because the colonel runs a much more vicious regime than those that were toppled in Egypt or Tunisia. Unlike in Tahrir Square or Tunis, no foreign television crews have been let in to record the bloodshed on the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli. Libya has never allowed even the facade of democracy and opposition that was tolerated in Egypt. All opposition political parties are banned. Indeed membership of a political party is punishable by death.

Freedom House, which monitors political and civil liberties across the world, recently ranked Libya as the most despotic country in the Middle East. It was the only country to get the worst mark (a seven) for both political and civil liberties: it is worse than Syria, worse than Iran, much worse than Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. According to the Freedom House rankings, Libya ranks alongside the world’s worst dictatorships – North Korea and Burma.

Libya’s oil wealth and its eccentric and brutal ruler have allowed the country to loom much larger on the international scene than its population might warrant. Despite its vast territory (it is the fourth biggest country in Africa), Libya has a population of just 6.7m – compared with the 80m in neighbouring Egypt.

As the Libyan regime totters, it no longer seems hyperbolic to call the events in the Middle East, “the Arab 1989”. But while the European revolutions of 1989 swept away undemocratic regimes that were profoundly hostile to the west, the Arab revolutions have, so far, claimed pro-western regimes that were regarded as forces for moderation in the region.

Egypt and Tunisia have gone. Libya, the west’s new-found friend, is wobbling. Bahrain, the base for the US Fifth Fleet, is in turmoil. So is Yemen, an important ally in the fight against al-Qaeda. The Americans would love to see their enemies in Iran and Syria swept away by the tide of popular revolt. The fear is that those regimes might be ruthless enough to cling on.

That leaves Saudi Arabia as the west’s most crucial Arab ally. Few in Washington are comfortable defending a feudal monarchy whose educational system produced fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Yet the Saudis have only grown more crucial to the west in recent years, as a bulwark against Iran and as the “Central Bank” of oil – the world’s largest oil producer.

It is not clear how Saudi Arabia will react to the loss of a key ally in Mr Mubarak and to turmoil in neighbouring Bahrain and Yemen. But a rapid move to democracy can certainly be ruled out. Rather more likely would be a Saudi move to prop up their neighbouring Sunni royal family in Bahrain, perhaps through military intervention, using the vast amounts of weaponry sold to the Saudis by eager westerners.

The Obama administration would love to have a clear narrative in which freedom and American interests advance, hand-in-hand, across the Middle East. In reality, things are much messier and more dangerous than that.

But there should be little room for mixed feelings about the downfall of Col Gaddafi. Despite the feeble post-Iraq efforts to rebrand the Libyan leader as a force for good, he remains what he always was – a despot and a monster.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

2011: The Enterprise Resets

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:20:00 +0000

Aaron Levie Jan 2, 2011

This post was written by Aaron Levie, CEO and co-founder of Box.net. His last guest post for us was “Building The Simple Enterprise.”.

On a recent call, an analyst shared a story about a company whose IT infrastructure was completely wiped out in a natural disaster. Forced to start from scratch, the company reinvented the spirit and composition of its enterprise IT strategy, and the set of solutions that emerged from the rubble made their organization inherently more mobile and efficient. Which begs the question: what would enterprise IT look like if all companies were afforded the opportunity to “start over?” In 2011, we might just find out. Other less destructive but incredibly powerful drivers for change are at work, and the coming year will be one of massive transformation in the enterprise.

The cloud has tipped for the enterprise

IDC forecasts that worldwide IT spending will hit $1.6 trillion this year, with 13% growth coming from software and services, and public cloud solutions making up the largest growth area. Cloud services are no longer on the periphery. 2011 will make this undoubtedly clear, bringing a massive wave of adoption, innovation and transformation as the cloud crosses the chasm from the early adopters to larger, more pragmatic organizations.

Evidence that the cloud has tipped is everywhere. It especially hit me when my dad, who works at a blue-chip paper company, told me that one of his business units had recently adopted NetSuite. Microsoft has started advertising their cloud products at airports and on television. In 2010, the US government determined that Google apps is secure enough for the GSA and Microsoft’s BPOSS for the USDA, citing millions in cost savings annually. Even Larry Ellison, one of the cloud’s biggest detractors, opened his Oracle Openworld keynote talking about, well, cloud computing.

Suffice it to say, we’re in the middle of one of the most important computing shifts in history. And as has happened before with other major paradigm transitions, new businesses will emerge to define and dominate markets. Apple and Microsoft took over as we moved from Mainframe to Personal. Google’s power grew alongside the rise of the consumer internet era. Facebook is owning social. We know the drill. We will look back on this period with wonder, when five years from now managing your own servers and infrastructure will seem about as quaint as when Bill Gates supposedly said, “No one will need more than 637KB of memory.”

Cloud in the enterprise is a classic disruption story. It began as a way to deliver lower-end applications that we didn’t yet care about or know we needed. Most incumbent vendors ignored or tried to delay the early indicators. But that’s how all disruption stories start: from the low end, and as the technology matures – more security, uptime, traction – the wave builds momentum. Soon, the enterprise wakes up to the fact that this approach to doing business and IT is not only more time and cost effective, it’s transforming the way their organization operates.

The first cloud deployment in a large enterprise is always the greatest hurdle, but once Walmart implements SuccessFactors for performance management or Chiquita’s CIO decides that Workday is reliable enough to be its system of record for HR, there’s very little holding these organizations back from moving other non-core systems to outside vendors.

And their cloud adoption paves the way for others, creating a ripple effect through organizations of all sizes. If you had surveyed the market a year ago you’d have found many enterprises still wary about the state of cloud solutions for their business, but we’re now seeing the inverse become true: enterprises are no longer comfortable with investing in on-premise systems when trusted web-based alternatives exist.

Just as mainframe computing became obsolete when personal computers and servers matched their power far more efficiently, today’s big iron IT infrastructure may well see its own obsolescence for the majority of needs. In fact, perhaps the most prescient quote of all was from Thomas J. Watson, former president of IBM, when he said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” He was just about 60 years too early.

The mobile enterprise will finally be realized

Mobility is creating major demand for cloud offerings today, and is a disruptive force on its own. In last year’s summer earnings call, Apple COO Tim Cook shared that, “…in the first 90 days, we already have 50% of the Fortune 500 that are deploying or testing the iPad.” In 2010, AT&T said that nearly 40% of iPhone sales were going to businesses and enterprises, with the most relative growth in enterprise market share coming from Android devices in 2010.

As Aberdeen’s Andrew Borg points out, these devices aren’t completely enterprise ready, yet it doesn’t take much clairvoyance to see that this trend will continue to gain momentum in 2011; and with greater diversity of sophisticated mobile devices in the enterprise comes completely new opportunities for disruption.

For these new devices to be fully corporate-ready, they need seamless access to email systems, business data and intelligence, communication tools, and more. The cloud rewrites the rules here, enabling new handsets and tablets to connect to the “grid” like any other computer, something that is finally making the mobile workplace a reality. And with the truly mobile workforce, completely new computing cases are emerging.

Remote sales teams are pulling down inventory or product information from the cloud while on-site with just their iPad in hand. Construction workers on rooftops are viewing up-to-date digital blue prints from the main office. Good luck doing that with SharePoint. Mobile devices are becoming a catalyst for completely new enterprise applications, and vice versa. The marriage of the two is so uniquely powerful that businesses will experience a wave of productivity transformation over the next few years.

The polygamous enterprise and the fall of Microsoft monogamy

While enterprises of prior decades may have gotten by predominantly on a combination of software developed in Redmond and Redwood Shores, this won’t be the case for the enterprise in 2011. The mandate of the modern enterprise IT department is transitioning from maintaining and upgrading systems from a limited set of vendors, to piloting and implementing a diverse set of services to solve problems.

We’re even seeing this shift on the hardware side, as Macs enter corporations in greater proportions, seeing double and in some cases triple digit growth within large enterprises and the government. The era of near-religious adoption of vertically integrated tools from behemoth vendors is coming to an end, providing an unprecedented opening for best-of-breed solutions to compete for enterprise customers.

Microsoft will likely be the most affected party, but enterprises in 2011 will start to feel both the upsides and management strain immediately. With the floodgates open for new and heterogeneous solutions, we’ll continue to see massive adoption of technology directly from employees themselves. This is quickly becoming the fastest entry point for new software and hardware, and these tools aren’t being immediately turned off by IT.

During an audience survey at this year’s Dreamforce conference half the group said they had SharePoint in their organization; yet when asked how many were looking to switch off SharePoint in the coming year, more than half of the group kept their hands up. Ballmer and company are still trying to figure out how to operate in a world that isn’t centered around them, and the rise of cloud and mobile is producing just exactly that. Microsoft—a company that has traditionally grown through complexity and new product lines—is going to have to fight to stay competitive.

Social and personalization will permeate all business apps

All this variety would normally create chaos, except that these applications are becoming connected in incredibly powerful ways. They’ll work harder for us, surfacing more relevant information for a passive user than an active user could ever possibly discover in their silo-ed legacy software.

Social capabilities will transform how we interact with our applications, and not just within the category of enterprise social software, which is finally beginning to move from the periphery to mainstream, with Gartner estimating a $1B market size in 2011. To get much further than this, Rob Koplowitz of Forrester points out that business value has to be established, and organizations must learn to embrace a different kind of risk, suggesting there’s more danger today by not sharing enough than having too much transparency.

This is not just about our software becoming more social in the contemporary sense, with status messages and communication between users. It’s about our software becoming much more personalized for our job functions, and being smarter than us in the areas it has more knowledge. Your content management solution should surface information and collaborators that are relevant to your current projects.

Your social software platform should recommend experts for a team you’re putting together without being prompted. LinkedIn should tell you what candidates fit the position for which you’re hiring. And as the business social layer continues to grow, a rich ecosystem of applications that connect to one another will emerge. This will lead to the ability to write mashups on top of our business social software, have viral business applications that live on top of the “graph,” and an enterprise experience in 2011 that is far more personalized and contextual to our own work behaviors.

The disruption story of cloud in the enterprise is still in its early chapters, but in 2011 it will be impossible to deny. Don’t be surprised if the rise of mobility, the fall of vendor hegemony, and the spread of social capabilities across all business applications creates massive upheaval in the enterprise software market—more than we’ve seen in the past five years combined. (I may be biased here since I run an enterprise cloud startup, but I may also be right).

It will also create short-term challenges for IT departments as they find their footing in a world with more applications and devices to manage than ever before, but with a long-term upside of significantly reduced system maintenance and a role that is inherently more strategic and dynamic. For users, however, this disruption only brings benefits. The devices they want to use are finally the ones they’re being armed with, and thanks to cloud applications, they can now work from anywhere.

The technology they’re using is best-of-breed rather than chosen by default or vendor lock-in. And the social capabilities that have revolutionized their personal lives are now being applied to their work lives in ways that are arguably even more powerful. Welcome to 2011.

Photo credit: Flickr/Jennifer Konig

get widget minimize

CrunchBase Information

Box.net

Website:	box.net
Location:	Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded:	2005
Funding:	$29.6M

After starting as a college business project in 2005, Box.net was officially launched in March of 2006 with the vision of connecting people, devices and networks. Box.net provides more than 4 million users with secure cloud content management

Goldman invests in Facebook at $50 bln valuation

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:11:00 +0000

January 2, 2011, 11:31 pm Venture Capital

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and EVELYN M. RUSLI

Tony Avelar/Bloomberg News

The deal could double the personal fortune of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder.

Facebook, the popular social networking site, has raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs and a Russian investor in a deal that values the company at $50 billion, according to people involved in the transaction.

The deal makes Facebook now worth more than companies like eBay, Yahoo and Time Warner.

The stake by Goldman Sachs, considered one of Wall Street’s savviest investors, signals the increasing might of Facebook, which has already been bearing down on giants like Google.

The new money will give Facebook more firepower to steal away valuable employees, develop new products and possibly pursue acquisitions — all without being a publicly traded company. The investment may also allow earlier shareholders, including Facebook employees, to cash out at least some of their stakes.

The new investment comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun an inquiry into the increasingly hot private market for shares in Internet companies, including Facebook, Twitter, the gaming site Zynga and LinkedIn, an online professional networking site. Some experts suggest the inquiry is focused on whether certain companies are improperly using the private market to get around public disclosure requirements.

The deal could add pressure on Facebook to go public even as its executives have resisted. The popularity of shares of Microsoft and Google in the private market ultimately pressured them to pursue initial public offerings.

So far, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has brushed aside the possibility of an initial public offering or a sale of the company. At an industry conference in November, he said on the topic, “Don’t hold your breath.” However, people involved in the fund-raising effort suggest that Facebook’s board has indicated an intention to consider a public offering in 2012.

There has been an explosion in user interest in social media sites. The social buying site Groupon, which recently rejected a $6 billion takeover bid from Google, is in the process of raising as much as $950 million from major institutional investors, at a valuation near $5 billion, according to people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.

“When you think back to the early days of Google, they were kind of ignored by Wall Street investors, until it was time to go public,” said Chris Sacca, an angel investor in Silicon Valley who is a former Google employee and an investor in Twitter. “This time, the Street is smartening up. They realize there are true growth businesses out here. Facebook has become a real business, and investors are coming out here and saying, ‘We want a piece of it.’ ”

The Facebook investment deal is likely to stir up a debate about what the company would be worth in the public market. Though it does not disclose its financial performance, analysts estimate the company is profitable and could bring in as much as $2 billion in revenue annually.

Under the terms of the deal, Goldman has invested $450 million, and Digital Sky Technologies, a Russian investment firm that has already sunk about half a billion dollars into Facebook, invested $50 million, people involved in the talks said.

Goldman has the right to sell part of its stake, up to $75 million, to the Russian firm, these people said. For Digital Sky Technologies, the deal means its original investment in Facebook, at a valuation of $10 billion, has gone up fivefold.

Representatives for Facebook, Goldman and Digital Sky Technologies all declined to comment.

Goldman’s involvement means it may be in a strong position to take Facebook public when it decides to do so in what is likely to be a lucrative and prominent deal.

As part of the deal, Goldman is expected to raise as much as $1.5 billion from investors for Facebook at the $50 billion valuation, people involved in the discussions said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the transaction was not supposed to be made public until the fund-raising had been completed.

In a rare move, Goldman is planning to create a “special purpose vehicle” to allow its high-net-worth clients to invest in Facebook, these people said. While the S.E.C. requires companies with more than 499 investors to disclose their financial results to the public, Goldman’s proposed special purpose vehicle may be able get around such a rule because it would be managed by Goldman and considered just one investor, even though it could conceivably be pooling investments from thousands of clients.

It is unclear whether the S.E.C. will look favorably upon the arrangement.

Already, a thriving secondary market exists for shares of Facebook and other private Internet companies. In November, $40 million worth of Facebook shares changed hands in an auction on a private exchange called SecondMarket. According to SharesPost, Facebook’s value has roughly tripled over the last year, to $42.4 billion. Some investors appear to have bought Facebook shares at a price that implies a valuation of $56 billion. But the credibility of one of Wall Street’s largest names, Goldman, may help justify the company’s worth.

Facebook also surpassed Google as the most visited Web site in 2010, according to the Internet tracking firm Experian Hitwise.

Facebook received 8.9 percent of all Web visits in the United States between January and November 2010. Google’s main site was second with 7.2 percent, followed by Yahoo Mail service, Yahoo’s Web portal and YouTube, part of Google.

For Mr. Zuckerberg, the deal may double his personal fortune, which Forbes estimated at $6.9 billion when Facebook was valued at $23 billion. That would put him in a league with the founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who are reportedly worth $15 billion apiece.

Even as Goldman takes a stake in Facebook, its employees may struggle to view what they invested in. Like those at most major Wall Street firms, Goldman’s computers automatically block access to social networking sites, including Facebook.

No Easy Ride for Yuan Through Hong Kong

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 02:34:00 +0000

By ALEX FRANGOS

When is a yuan not a yuan? When it is in Hong Kong.

Bankers are giddy with excitement over the recent liberalization of trading in the Chinese currency in Hong Kong, even raising notions that a flood of yuan into the city will erode the logic behind the Hong Kong dollar's peg to the greenback.

It is unlikely the territory's vaunted peg—in place since 1983—is going anywhere soon. Hong Kong Monetary Authority Chief Executive Norman Chan has four criteria before Hong Kong will switch currency allegiances. These include an open capital account in China, a freely convertible currency, a mature financial system and a Hong Kong economy more closely aligned with China's. How many have been met? None, he says.

Still, the yuan certainly is flooding in. Deposits of the Chinese currency in the Hong Kong banking system have mushroomed to the equivalent of $32.6 billion in October, up from $8.4 billion a year earlier.

Partly this is a result of a Chinese regulatory change in July, which freed the yuan to be used for private investment, setting off a parade of bond issuances in the Hong Kong market by companies, most recently including a Russian bank and a Macau-based casino. Caterpillar andMcDonald's have also tested the market with yuan-denominated bond issues to help fund their China operations at lower interest rates. Billionaire Li Ka-shing is said to be planning the first Hong Kong yuan-denominated IPO tied to a collection of mainland real estate holdings.

View Full Image

Reuters

Deposits of the Chinese yuan in the Hong Kong banking system have mushroomed to the equivalent of $32.6 billion in October, up from $8.4 billion a year earlier.

An even bigger factor was China's expansion of a trade-settlement program that lets Chinese companies pay for imports with yuan instead of dollars. As a result, foreign companies and individuals in Hong Kong are building up yuan deposits, figuring it is a currency that is only going up.

But here is the rub: Only a limited amount of yuan can be brought from Hong Kong to China and vice versa without permission. That means little has actually changed when it comes to China's steel-gated policy of controlling capital flows and investment. As HSBC currency strategist Daniel Hui writes, the Hong Kong yuan "is effectively a separate currency," that while it allows exposure to China's currency, it is "not a perfect proxy."

The spread between the value of the Hong Kong yuan and the onshore variety is small and shrinking. The only means for moving Hong Kong-based yuan onshore is through the trade-settlement program or with permission from authorities in Beijing. Hong Kong government officials are hopeful any spread between the two versions of the currency will be arbitraged away as mainland companies exploit the difference by choosing one market over the other in deciding where to raise yuan-denominated capital or which currency to use when settling trades.

Still, the opposite could happen. In the absence of a true free flow of capital, financial markets can do funny things. Investors looking at the Hong Kong version of the yuan might consider the gap in valuations between Chinese companies with shares listed in both Hong Kong and Shanghai. Right now those traded in the closed-off Shanghai market trade roughly at par with their brothers in Hong Kong. But the difference was as wide as 23% higher in early 2010 and a distorted 108% in January 2008.

It won't get that bad when it comes to the different flavors of the yuan. But investors looking to ride China's currency through Hong Kong should still mind the gap.

Soaring office rents in Hong Kong

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 03:26:00 +0000

Firms to Shift

By Kelvin Wong and Bei Hu - Dec 15, 2010 12:01 AM GMT+0800

One International Finance Centre, center right, and Two International Finance Centre, center, are illuminated on the skyline in Hong Kong on Dec. 13, 2010. Photographer: Dale de la Rey/Bloomberg

Surging office rents in Hong Kong are prompting firms including Allianz Global Investors to shift out of the city’s most expensive towers as competition for prime space heats up along with the region’s growth.

Prime office rents in the Central business district soared 34 percent in the six months ended September from a year earlier, the biggest gain worldwide, according to property broker CB Richard Ellis Group Inc. Office rents in the area may climb as much as 30 percent next year, said Gavin Morgan, head of markets at Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.

Top-tier buildings such as Cheung Kong Center andInternational Finance Centre have raised rents as banks including HSBC Holdings Plc and Barclays Plc expand after the financial crisis. The city now has the world’s most expensive occupancy costs after London’s West End.

Tenants in Central “are reassessing whether it’s still within their budget to stay in the district,” said Simon Lo, Hong Kong-based director of research and advisory at Colliers International. Some tenants such as professional services or consulting firms “have a much lower threshold for rents,” he said.

Cheung Kong Center, the 12-year-old office building owned by Li Ka-shing, Hong Kong’s richest man, may see as many as five tenants move out by the end of 2011, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The IFC towers I and II, both owned by Sun Hung Kai Properties Ltd. and Henderson Land Development Co., are seeing at least three tenants depart this year and next.

Hongkong Land Holdings Ltd.’s Exchange Square complex will lose another tenant to Sun Hung Kai’s International Commerce Centre in West Kowloon, across Victoria Harbour, following moves by Morgan Stanley and Credit Suisse Group AG.

Allianz, McKinsey

Allianz Global, the investment unit of Allianz SE, Europe’s largest insurer, which occupies about 20,500 square feet in Cheung Kong Center, will shift to nearby Citibank Plaza, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. McKinsey & Co. is also looking at moving, according to two people.

Patience Chan, a spokeswoman for Allianz in Hong Kong, declined to comment, as did Glenn Leibowitz, a Shanghai-based McKinsey spokesman. Laura Cheung, a spokeswoman forHutchison Whampoa Ltd., which owns and operates Cheung Kong Center, declined to comment on its tenants. Hutchison is 49.9 percent- owned by Li’s developer Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, whose current lease for its 85,000 square feet of space expires in November 2011, is in discussion with Cheung Kong Center’s building management about a possible renewal, Joanne Oswin, a Hong Kong-based operation partner at the accounting firm, said in an interview.

Cheung Kong Center

Even with such departures, Cheung Kong Center won’t have problems attracting new tenants, said John Siu, general manager for southern China at real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield Ltd. in Hong Kong. Barclays, the U.K.’s third-largest bank, moved into the building earlier this year.

“It is one of the few top-tier office buildings in Hong Kong and many companies believe that being there gives you a sense of prestige and market influence,” said Siu.

Cheung Kong Center, built on the site of the former Hilton hotel, charges its new tenants between HK$140 ($18) and HK$150 a square foot per month on average, according to Seattle-based Colliers and Cushman & Wakefield of New York. The average rent in Citibank Plaza, owned by Champion REIT, is HK$110 per square foot and in Swire Pacific Ltd.’s Pacific Place in Admiralty district from HK$95 to HK$100, according to Colliers.

“We’re seeing a change in the profile of tenants in Central’s top office buildings,” said Jones Lang LaSalle’s Morgan, who is based in Hong Kong. “Many of the support departments in the big banks or professional firms providing these services to them are moving their operations away to non- core districts.”

Citic Tower

Accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP is moving its entire local operation, now in IFC II and Li’s Hutchison House, to Citic Tower in Admiralty, adjacent to Central, next year, according to spokeswoman Queenie Yuen. The firm has agreed to take up nine floors at the tower, owned and run by Citic Pacific Ltd., an arm of China’s biggest state-owned investment company.

ING Groep NV, the biggest Dutch financial-services company, in October moved its investment management and insurance units to the ICC from IFC I, said spokeswoman Jessie Hsieh. London Stock Exchange Group Plc in July moved its Hong Kong office from IFC II to ICC.

Rents in IFC II, Hong Kong’s second-tallest skyscraper after the ICC, and IFC I, are about HK$140 per square foot, according to Chicago-based Jones Lang LaSalle, the second- largest publicly traded commercial property broker. Rents at ICC are about HK$55 and may rise as much as 30 percent over the next two years, according to property consultant Knight Frank LLP.

Moving Out

Simmons & Simmons, a London-based law firm, will move out of its 21,000 square-foot space on the 35th floor of Cheung Kong Center in May for Pacific Place, Paul Li, Simmons & Simmons’s China head, said in a phone interview.

Deutsche Bank AG will complete its relocation to the ICC from Cheung Kong Center this year, said Singapore-based spokesman Mark Bennewith. Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, is a tenant in Cheung Kong Center.

“The reason why we haven’t heard new tenants moving in yet is because some of the ones that are moving out still have a few months to a year in their contract and landlords won’t normally need to rush to sign up new tenants,” said Cushman & Wakefield’s Siu.

That space will probably be filled by separate small offices of hedge funds or investment banks, he said.

Gateway to China

Occupancy costs, which include rent, taxes and service fees, were $184.21 a square foot a year in Central, compared with $193.69 in London’s West End, according to a report from Los Angeles-based CB Richard Ellis, the world’s largest commercial property broker.

Hong Kong’s government raised this year’s growth forecast to 6.5 percent as the city, a gateway to China, benefits from growth on the mainland.

The jobless rate fell to 4.2 percent for the three months ended Oct. 31, the lowest level in 20 months. The city’s number of financial professionals rose to a record 37,694 by July, eclipsing the previous high reached in November 2008, the Securities and Futures Commission said in August.

PwC, which also has offices at the Edinburgh Tower and Prince’s Building in Central, leased about 100,000 square feet of office space in 2008 at the Manulife Financial Centre in the Kowloon East district. Rents in that district, a 30-minute subway ride from Central, are currently between HK$20 and HK$30 a square foot, said Colliers’ Lo.

Professional services’ firms “are going to be reviewing their cost base as a result of rising rents in Central,” said Rhodri James, Hong Kong-based executive director of office services at CB Richard Ellis. “Some of them will be moving all or part of their operations to more cost-efficient buildings outside the area.”

I wandered as a cloud

The Century of the Self

the power of colleboration

TED's vision

filter robots from fb and google

NYT-Osama bin Laden

Obituary | Osama bin Laden, 1957-2011

The Most Wanted Face of Terrorism

By KATE ZERNIKE and MICHAEL T. KAUFMAN

Published: May 2, 2011Digg

Multimedia

Milestones: Osama bin Laden

Related

Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says (May 2, 2011)

News Analysis: President’s Vow Fulfilled (May 2, 2011)

Media Decoder Blog: How the Bin Laden Announcement Leaked Out (May 1, 2011)

Amid Cheers, a Message: ‘They Will Be Caught’ (May 2, 2011)

Text: Obama’s Remarks on Bin Laden’s Killing (May 2, 2011)

Times Topic: Osama bin Laden

Related in Opinion

Op-Ed Columnist: Death of a Failure (May 2, 2011)

Nicholas D. Kristof Blog: After Osama bin Laden... (May 2, 2011)

Al-Jazeera

Agence France-Presse

Robert Fisk /The Independent

Essam Draz/Balkis Press/SIPA

Alain SERVAIS

Interview : Alain SERVAIS

Hardting the Dream Weaver: illustrate 01

Interview : Paul CHAN

Unsafe at Any Exposure - OtherWords

Unsafe at Any Exposure

There's no safe level of radiation exposure.

The battle of chenobyl

800,000 people could contract cancer if not moved out of Fukushima

Japan crisis forces rethink of the nuclear option

The Telegraph April 8, 2011

The reactor meltdown at Fukushima has forced the energy industry to reconsider its investment priorities.

Related Articles

前核電廠技師的瀝血控訴

Nuclear Power in China

Nuclear growth

Operating nuclear plants

Nuclear plants under construction and planned

Inland nuclear power plants

Further Information

Notes

References

General sources

Nation & World | Radioactivity detected 60 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant | Seattle Times Newspaper

A perfect storm of man-made and natural disasters

Related Articles

Nuclear safety worries spread to Europe

Japan struggles with nuclear reactors in wake of quake

Japan's nuclear path

Can nuclear power save Japan from peak oil?

German export destinations: China overtaking the US

Guest Post: Currency Wars: Flash Points in the 'Age of Rage'

A grubby Libyan lesson in realpolitik

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Desperate Gaddafi clings on to power - Feb-22

In depth: Middle East protests - Feb-16

Video: No easy answers in Libya - Feb-21

Opaque Libyan fund built diverse portfolio - Feb-21

Residents take over rule of Benghazi - Feb-21

Cameron calls for move to democracy in Egypt - Feb-21

2011: The Enterprise Resets

Goldman invests in Facebook at $50 bln valuation

No Easy Ride for Yuan Through Hong Kong

By ALEX FRANGOS

Soaring office rents in Hong Kong

Firms to Shift