In Renewable Energy in Rural Markets Project (PERMER)’s proposed scheme, photovoltaic or wind system are installed for the user, who then pays for its operation and maintenance dependent on their means.
”People have adapted well to technology and began to ask for solarpanels instead of electricity lines,”
there [ the province of Entre Riosall] the rural schools and nearly 2,000 homes have solar panels.The impact is rewarding.
Renewable energy brings power to the rural corners of Argentina http://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/article/renewable-energy-brings-power-to-the-rural-20130208 Cooking, heating water, or the house during
winter, reading, listening to the radio, charging your phone, using
the computer, watching TV — most people take these activities for
granted in the 21st century, but for thousands of inhabitants in
Argentina’s remote rural communities without electricity it is a
challenge. Nearly 150,000 homes still do not have this basic service,
most of them in the northern part of the country.
Since 1999, the Renewable Energy in Rural Markets Project (PERMER) has
aimed to put an end to this situation. Supported by the World Bank and
the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the initiative connects homes
and schools to clean energy sources such as solar panels and
windmills.
So far, around 25,000 residential customers and nearly 2,000 schools
have been reached, and 300 solar thermal stoves, furnaces and water
heaters have been installed. Also 2,000 users in small, isolated
communities have benefited from small power systems (generation and
distribution networks). The project has also included almost 400
public buildings, such as health centers, community centers, as well
as Gendarmerie (Police force) and National Parks Administration’s
stations. Continue reading →
India is developing a new, long-range missile capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads to different targets, a senior defence industry official said on Friday.
Please write to every legislator on the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and let them know how disappointed you are in their lack of action and lack of protection for South Dakotans. Also, please encourage their support for a summer study to examine mining issues in the Black Hills:
South Dakota uranium mining bills – all deferred,Dakota Rural Action February 7, 2013 by sking86Over 20 people have traveled today to Pierre to testify on SBs 148-150. These three bills would restore adequate oversight to in situ leach uranium mining in South Dakota.
It is clear that the Senate committee is unwilling to stand in the way of development, even if it is permanently damaging and harmful, if it in any way prevents the “economic development” of the Black Hills.
Despite impassioned, moving speeches by long-time ranchers, experts, and lobbyists, the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee dismissed all three bills.
The reasons the Senate committee voted down these bills are, point blank, wrong. Absolutely, whole-heartedly, wrong. In voting down SB 148, excuses about lack of funding and expanding government were made. If our water matters, we should allocate the funding. People, South Dakotas citizens, are asking for this. We are asking for the oversight. Continue reading →
Evidently, South Dakota lawmakers care more about foreign uranium companies than they do about their own citizens.
A tough day for uranium opponents, South Dakota Peace and Justce Center, February 8, 2013Yesterday was a tough day for those of us who want to keep South Dakota’s water safe for future generations. At 10:00 am, the Senate Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee held a hearing for Senate Bills 148, 149, and 150 to bolster state oversight of uranium mining (read more in our earlier post on the three bills). After hearing from ranchers, public health experts, activists, lobbyists, and South Dakota citizens who will have to deal with the fallout from Powertech’s proposed Dewey-Burdock Project in Fall River County, the Committee promptly voted to defer all three bills, effectively killing them.
Flashback: When David stood up to Goliathstuff.co New Zealand, 9 Feb 13, The Dominion Post, TOM HUNT ”,,,,,It may have soured our relationship with Washington and provided a dramatic end to a paradisiacal trip to Tokelau, but it certainly set Lange up as New Zealand’s David versus America’s Goliath.
February 4, 1985 was the day the New Zealand Government backed overwhelming public anti-nuclear sentiment and effectively became officially nuclear free – even if legislation was still two years away.
”I felt so proud,” long-standing anti-nuclear protester Barney Richards said this week.
”We stood up against the most powerful nation in the world. And we had a major victory.”
He remembers a reporter travelling all the way from Britain ”to see for himself the little country that snubbed its nose to the world”. Continue reading →
Exelon cuts nuclear upgrade spending amid low gas prices, Reuters, 8 Feb 13, 02/08/2013Feb 7, 2013 11:27pm GMTFeb 7 (Reuters) – Low natural gas prices and slow economic growth forced U.S. power company Exelon Corp to cancel plans to spend $2.3 billion on capacity expansion at its nuclear power plants and other projects, Chief Executive Chris Crane said on Thursday. Continue reading →
Police forces should no longer be allowed to store the personal information of peaceful protesters on a domestic extremism database if they are not linked to any crimes, a court heard today.
Lawyers acting for 87-year-old John Catt, who has not been linked to any crimes at demonstrations he has attended, argued that police are maintaining a file on their client simply because his regular presence at protests, in contravention of his right to privacy.
The case has major implications for the way the police go about placing protest groups under surveillance in the future.
Tim Owen QC told the court that the police’s current approach means that students who peacefully march at demonstrations where others are involved in violence could end up on the extremism database because they “happen to be seen at another demonstration”.
He added that the effect of the police’s surveillance of regular, peaceful protesters was that they would come to expect to be placed on a database of domestic extremists.
And the court heard that the police had shown an “almost knee-jerk response” in presuming that anyone who turns up at a protest, regardless of what they do, “their name goes on the list”.
Shamik Dutta of Bhatt Murphy said: “The Court of Appeal will determine whether protesters forego the right to privacy if they engage in peaceful protest. If the appeal is successful, police forces will need to review the way in which they gather and retain information about protesters who have never committed any offence”.
Mr Catt’s lawyers did not argue against police officers placing protesters under surveillance where they thought there was a risk of disorder, but said that there was no reason to keep the information gathered once it became plain that the subject was not linked to any crime, either as a perpetrator or as a witness; as they said was the case with their client.
Keeping the dossier, they argued, was in contravention of his right to privacy.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission and Liberty have both been given permission to intervene. John Wadham, General Counsel of the ECHR, said: “We accept the need for there to be measures to ensure the safety of the public , but these need to be proportionate. The right to protest peacefully in public is a core human right and any measures that restrict this right should be subject to proper scrutiny.
“The Commission is concerned that the retention of material on this database, and the inadequate safeguards for its proper use and deletion, are an unlawful breach of the right to freedom of speech and freedom of protest. The police now need to take measures to ensure that the information they hold does not contravene the law.”
Mr Catt, who has been heavily involved with the Smash EDO campaign – among others, is appealing an earlier High Court ruling, which allowed police to keep photographs and other personal information belonging to him on the National Domestic Extremism Database. Last year, Mr Justice Irwin said that protesters registering their feelings in public had no reasonable expectation of privacy.
The first case followed the refusal of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) to permanently delete all the data retained about Mr Catt, who found 66 entries about him had been made on the National Domestic Extremism Database, including one about his appearance.
His appeal is being heard in the High Court by the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson, Lord Justice Patten and Lord Justice Tomlinson and continues tomorrow.
A new code of practice will be introduced under the guise of forcing authorities to comply with a set of principles called ”surveillance by consent”.
On the face of it, it seems like a good move, but look just beneath the surface and we soon discover it does little to slow down the growth of the surveillance state; and, in some cases, even protects Big Brother.
Authorities that breach the code will not face sanctions, and it only applies to a fraction of the UK’s 4 million CCTV cameras. A new watchdog will be created, The new Surveillance Camera Commissioner, but will have absolutely no powers of enforcement or inspection.
Emma Carr, deputy director of privacy and civil liberties campaign group Big Brother Watch, said:
We have repeatedly warned that the public will not have confidence in a part-time regulator who has no powers, no legally binding rules and isn’t even able to take action against organisations breaking the law.
For the new system to cover only a tiny fraction of CCTV cameras, not even those in school lavatories, it is clearly a disappointment to the wide range of people concerned that in many areas CCTV in Britain has got out of hand that the new system is largely a box-ticking exercise with no consequences for people who ignore it.
However, police will have to place warning signs at the roadside of major routes, informing motorists they are being watched on CCTV.
EPISODE BREAKDOWN: On this episode of Breaking the Set, Abby Martin takes an in depth look at the lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act’s indefinite detention clause, starting with a short look at just how many people actually know about it. Abby then talks to one of the plaintiffs spearheading the lawsuit, Tangerine Bolen, about how the suit came to be, and why the corporate media has not picked up the story, Abby also talks to former whistleblower, Jesselyn Radack, about the extent and reach of the NDAA as it applies to journalists, activists and whistleblowers. BTS wraps up the show with an interview with journalist, author and lead plaintiff in the case against indefinite detention, Chris Hedges, about the historical precedent the NDAA lawsuit sets, and why every American should care.
Sierra Adamson interviews Chris Hedges at the hearing for the second court of appeals in the Hedges v Obama NDAA lawsuit. Hedges explains what has happened in the lawsuit to date, the next steps and what he sees in America’s upcoming future.
Become a member of The Sponsor Lounge and get exclusive behind the scenes content while helping us grow! Join us today! http:///www.wearechange.org/donate
Michael Portillo, the defense minister under Conservative prime minister John Major in the 1990’s, told the Financial Times last month that Britain maintained its arsenal “partly for industrial and employment reasons, and mainly for prestige.” He called it “a tremendous waste of money.”
Advisers reach consensus that current arsenals are larger than needed to target foes
Obama administration embraces major new nuclear weapons cut
Advisers reach consensus that current arsenals are larger than needed to target foes
Senior Obama administration officials have agreed that the number of nuclear warheads the U.S. military deploys could be cut by at least a third without harming national security, according to sources involved in the deliberations.
They said the officials’ consensus agreement, not yet announced, opens the door to billions of dollars in military savings that might ease the federal deficit and improve prospects for a new arms deal with Russia before the president leaves office. But it is likely to draw fire from conservatives, if previous debate on the issue is any guide.
The results of the internal review are reflected in a draft of a classified decision directive prepared for Obama’s signature that guides how U.S. nuclear weapons should be targeted in the future against potential foes, according to four sources with direct knowledge of it. The sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to a reporter about the review, described the president as fully on board, but said he has not signed the document.
The document directs the first detailed Pentagon revisions in U.S. targeting since 2009, when the military’s nuclear war planners last took account of a substantial shrinkage — roughly by half from 2000 to 2008 — in the total number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. It makes clear that an even smaller nuclear force can still meet all defense requirements.
Although the document offers various options for Obama, his top advisers reached their consensus position last year, after a review that included the State Department, the Defense Department, the National Security Council, the intelligence community, the U.S. Strategic Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the office of Vice President Joseph Biden, according to the sources.
Several said the results were not disclosed at the time partly because of political concerns that any resulting controversy might rob Obama of popular votes in the November election. Some Republican lawmakers have said they oppose cutting the U.S. arsenal out of concern that it could diminish America’s standing in the world.
The new policy directive, which formally implements a revised nuclear policy Obama adopted in 2010, endorses the use of a smaller U.S. arsenal to deter attack or protect American interests by targeting fewer, but more important, military or political sites in Russia, China, and several other countries. This can be accomplished by 1000-1100 warheads, the sources said, instead of the 1,550 allowed under an existing arms treaty.
The 2010 policy called for reducing the role of nuclear weapons, arguing that they are “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorists and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.” But many critics have charged that not much of the policy has been implemented. Obama himself even joked in a video message to the Jan. 26 annual dinner of Washington’s exclusive Alfalfa Club, that he could not recall why he won his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize [the Oslo committee attributed it partly to his stimulation of “disarmament and arms control negotiations”].
With the election behind him and a new national security team selected, Obama is finally prepared to send this new guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to open a new dialogue with Russia about corresponding reductions in deployed weapons beyond those called for in a 2011 treaty, according to two senior U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.
“It is all done,” said one. “We did so much work on that there is no interest in going back and taking another look at it.” The second official said completion of the new directive would become public in coming weeks, when Obama may mention the issue in his State of the Union address on Feb. 12, or in another speech specifically dedicated to the subject, similar to the April 2009 Prague address in which he promised to “take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.”
A halt has been called to the work for now, due to worries that public opinion will not accept the idea of such a potentially hazardous technology, with the inherent dangers of either a crash – in effect turning the drone into a so-called dirty bomb – or of its nuclear propulsion system falling into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly powers.
So sensitive is the issue that the summary does not spell out the fact that it is referring to a nuclear-powered drone, referring instead to “propulsion and power technologies that went well beyond existing hydrocarbon technologies”.
American scientists have drawn up plans for a new generation of nuclear-powered drones capable of flying over remote regions of the world for months on end without refuelling.
The blueprints for the new drones, which have been developed by Sandia National Laboratories – the US government’s principal nuclear research and development agency – and defence contractor Northrop Grumman, were designed to increase flying time “from days to months” while making more power available for operating equipment, according to a project summary published by Sandia.
“It’s pretty terrifying prospect,” said Chris Coles of Drone Wars UK, which campaigns against the increasing use of drones for both military and civilian purposes. “Drones are much less safe than other aircraft and tend to crash a lot. There is a major push by this industry to increase the use of drones and both the public and government are struggling to keep up with the implications.”
The highly sensitive research into what is termed “ultra-persistence technologies” set out to solve three problems associated with drones: insufficient “hang time” over a potential target; lack of power for running sophisticated surveillance and weapons systems; and lack of communications capacity.
The Sandia-Northrop Grumman team looked at numerous different power systems for large- and medium-sized drones before settling on a nuclear solution. Northrop Grumman is known to have patented a drone equipped with a helium-cooled nuclear reactor as long ago as 1986, and has previously worked on nuclear projects with the US air force research laboratory. Designs for nuclear-powered aircraft are known to go back as far as the 1950s.
The research team found that the nuclear drones were able to provide far more surveillance time and intelligence information per mission compared to other technologies, and also to reduce the considerable costs of support systems – eliminating the need, for example, for forward bases and fuel supplies in remote and possibly hostile areas.
The French energy giant is instead currently in talks with a number of Chinese energy companies about the possibility of their filling this void.
9 Feb 2013
Security Cleared Jobs web-site
The creation of security cleared nuclear sector jobs relies on a suitable framework being in place to support the erection of new plants, EDF Energy’s chief executive has indicated.
Vincent De Rivaz said that EDF’s plans to build four new nuclear plants in the UK would not be jeopardised by the withdrawal of partner Centrica from the project.
American scientists have drawn up plans for a new generation of nuclear-powered drones capable of flying over remote regions of the world for months on end without refuelling.
nuclear-news 