Letter: Consider the Sources

by Letter to the editor

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Regarding the letter "Nuclear engineering graphic bombs," (CT, Sept. 22) by alumni Eric Danner and J. Carrington Dillon, the Collegiate Times staff and your readers should know what motivated the authors to criticize that ingenious and appropriate graphic.

Danner and Dillon are employed by AREVA, a multi-billion-dollar, multinational mega-corporation primarily owned by the French government. According to its corporate Web site, AREVA, with its uranium mines and uranium processing plants, is "ranked first in the global nuclear power industry." Danner and Dillon's AREVA job descriptions also include creating and managing Clean Energy Insight (www.cleanenergyinsight.org), a propaganda tool for the nuclear industry.

And, of course, Danner and Dillon are supporters of the planned uranium mine in Pittsylvania County, which would be the first of many in eastern Virginia, bringing devastation to the environment and human communities throughout the region and beyond. And AREVA and Virginia Tech stand to make millions off the deal.

So, what kind of corporate footprint does AREVA have on the environment and human communities where it operates? According to Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), the humanitarian news and analysis service of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, in Niger, mining operations owned and operated by AREVA in partnership with the Nigerian government have contaminated the air, soil and water, resulting in sickness and death for local residents and depleting regional groundwater supplies.

And the Paris-based Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity, which specializes in the analysis of radioactivity in the environment, found "serious lapses" in and near AREVA mining sites in Niger. In 2005, CRIIRAD environmental studies found water radiation levels in mining communities up to 110 times higher than the World Health Organization safe drinking water standards for industrial areas. You can read about AREVA's mining impacts in Niger at www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=83706.

Uranium mining corporations profit from environmental devastation and human suffering wherever they operate. Eric Danner and J. Carrington Dillon are a couple of their minions. Consider the source.

Shireen Pansoms
Va. community organizer
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
Christiansburg, Va.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14307

France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 15, 2009

CONTACT Alis Aaron Wolf, NIRS 703-276-3265

European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power". WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris. In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors. Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry." In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems: • French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors. • French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started. • French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability. • Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power. • French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes. • Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power. • The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares. • State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer. ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3). Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008). CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com. EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.

Nuclear Power in France: Setting the Record Straight

France sees the light re: nuclear power.

A COSTLY MISTAKE

► The state-owned French nuclear industry has
cost taxpayers billions, including huge export
losses, construction and shutdown costs.

►The breeder reactor – on which the French
nuclear hopes were based – was an expensive
gamble. The Superphenix breeder averaged a
7% capacity factor over its 14 years of operation.

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSITION

►60,000 people rallied in five cities in March
2007 in opposition to a proposed new European
Pressurized Reactor (EPR) in Northern France.

►Annual polls show at least 60% of French
citizens would like to see nuclear power phased
out and a shift made to renewable energy.

► In 2007, 50,000 French citizens signed a
petition demanding a referendum on radioactive
waste dumping in their communities.

FRENCH CORPORATIONS IN THE U.S.

► Two majority French-government-owned
corporations – Areva and Électricité de France –
would reap huge U.S. taxpayer funds if nuclear
power is expanded in the U.S.

► Areva would be the beneficiary of U.S. tax
dollars should a proposed uranium enrichment
facility – owned by Areva – go forward in Idaho.

► EDF, a partner with Constellation, is applying
to build EPR reactors in Maryland and in upstate
New York. At least five additional EPRs are also
under consideration in the US.

AREVA IN NIGER

► In Niger – as in many countries – uranium mining
has disproportionately affected indigenous peoples
who have seen none of the economic benefits but
have suffered from health and environmental impacts.
Proposed new mines across northern Niger have
sparked opposition from tribespeople who have been
arbitrarily arrested, tortured and executed without trial.

► Areva has mined uranium for 40 years in Niger,
West Africa, creating radioactively-contaminated air,
soil and water. Discarded radioactive metals from the
mining operation are sold in public marketplaces.

► Areva has signed a deal for a huge new uranium
mine in Niger that, if opened, would be the second
largest in the world. Uranium mining threatens to
deplete the Sahara Desert area water supply.

France gets nearly 80% of its electricity
from its 58 nuclear reactors. However, its
heavy reliance on nuclear power creates
safety and environmental risks, including an
unresolved radioactive waste problem.

REPROCESSING

► France reprocesses its own, and some
foreign, irradiated reactor fuel. That is, the
fuel is cut up and soaked in acid to extract
plutonium and fissile uranium. This results
in massive releases of radioactive gases,
solids, and liquids into the environment.

► One hundred million gallons of
radioactively contaminated liquids are
discharged annually into the English
Channel from the La Hague reprocessing
center. Dumping these same wastes into
the sea in containers would violate the
1970 London Dumping Convention.

► The claim that France “recycles” its
irradiated nuclear fuel is a major
exaggeration. Only about 1% of the
reprocessed fuel is used as reactor fuel
while 99% remains as radioactive waste.

► A plane crashing on a La Hague
irradiated fuel storage pond could release
radioactivity more than six times the
equivalent released at Chernobyl.

► Radioactive discharges from La Hague
have contaminated area beaches and
waters as far as the Arctic and beyond.
These discharges likely caused the
elevated rates of leukemia near La Hague
found by two independent medical studies.

► La Hague routinely releases radioactive
gases including concentrations of krypton-
85 found at levels 90,000 times higher than
in nature.

►Aerial discharges of carbon-14,
considered to be one of the most damaging
radioactive isotopes to human health, have
also been detected in the La Hague area.
Radioactive carbon dioxide — the leading
climate change culprit, is also released.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROBLEMS

► France has no high-level radioactive waste
repository and faces public opposition to the
only one it is exploring, at Bure.

► Reprocessing has created large quantities of
solid waste contaminated with plutonium that
will need to be isolated permanently.

► Much of the waste remaining in France from
the reprocessing of foreign fuel has never been
returned to the country of origin, rendering
France a de facto international dump site.

► The so-called low- and intermediate-level
radioactive waste dump sites that do exist –
including in the important Champagne region –
are leaking radioactivity into the groundwater.

► Radioactive tailings from the 210
abandoned uranium mines in France have
been used in public areas, including school
playgrounds and public parking lots.

PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION

► After plutonium and uranium are extracted
during reprocessing, they can be combined into
mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel. This is used in fewer
than 20 MOX reactors which generate less
than 10% of French nuclear electricity.

► MOX reactors, like all reactors, also
generate plutonium. There is no significant net
reduction of plutonium from using MOX fuel.

► Dangerous plutonium oxide powder is
transported regularly from La Hague to the
MOX fuel fabrication plants in Belgium and
Southern France.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS LINK

►The 80-plus metric tons of plutonium
stockpiled at La Hague in hundreds of
vulnerable containers are enough to make
at least 10,000 bombs.

►France has exported civilian nuclear
technology and training to, or assisted in
the nuclear programs of, Pakistan, Israel,
India and South Africa, all of which
developed nuclear weapons.

►France exported nuclear technology to
Iran, now the subject of international
controversy about whether Iran is also
developing nuclear weapons.

► France has sent shipments of
plutonium fuel overseas, risking hijacking,
accident or diversion.

► France delivered and helped build
Iraq’s Osirak reactor that was
subsequently bombed by Israel in 1981.

►French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has
toured the globe promoting nuclear power
as a “bridge to the Islamic world.” France
is marketing nuclear technology to much
of the Middle East and North Africa.

FLAWED REACTOR TECHNOLOGY

►The French European Pressurized
Reactors (EPR) under construction in
France and Finland have encountered
serious technical flaws including
substandard parts.By July 2009, the
Finnish reactor was already at least three
years behind schedule and 60% over
budget.

► The summer of 2008 saw a cascade of
nuclear accidents in France. Drinking and
bathing in the water was banned after
radioactive spills at the Tricastin nuclear
complex contaminated rivers.

http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/France_pamphlet_July09.pdf

Demonstrations In Helsinki And Tampere Against Uranium Mining

Citizens in countries all over the world are protesting proposed uranium mines. Apparently they're all asking for that one example of a safe mine operation...and getting no answer.

Demonstrators in Helsinki protest plans for uranium mining in Finnish Lapland. Image: YLE

Protesters gathered in Helsinki and Tampere on Thursday to lend support to residents of Ranua, in Finnish Lapland, who oppose plans for uranium mining in the area.

The French energy group Areva has filed an application with the Ministry Employment and the Economy for a uranium mining claim at Ranua, just south of Rovaniemi. If granted, the claim would allow Areva to carrying out prospecting in the area.

According to a local activisit, Kaisa Kaikkonen, granting the claim could force residents of the area to live for decades in fear of the start-up of uranium mining.

"The drilling and digging in search of uranium are in themselves a risk for the natural environment and ground water. In addition, the further the project proceeds, the harder it will be to prevent the establishment of a uranium mine."

Police report that the demonstrations were peaceful, gathering a dozen people in Tampere and around 40 in Helsinki.

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/08/demonstrations_in_helsinki_and_tampere_against_uranium_mining_927323.html

A Key Energy Industry Nervously Awaits Its 'Rebirth'

Governor Kaine appears quite misguided...do we need to start sending him educational materials?

By PETER BEHR, ClimateWire

Published: April 27, 2009

One of the biggest question marks in the nation's energy and climate policy is the future of nuclear power. In the past, the United States has made a major commitment to it. The U.S. nuclear power industry is the world's largest. The nation's 104 operating plants produce 20 percent of its electricity, making them, by far, the largest source of electricity that does not result in greenhouse gas emissions.

If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, these plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.

But the future of the industry may still hang precariously on decisions made by the Obama administration, in which multiple issues remain unsettled. While former President George W. Bush joined the industry's chorus proclaiming that a "nuclear renaissance" is under way, President Obama has approached the issue with his lawyer's penchant for nuance, caution and opacity as he listens to conflicting voices within his administration.

"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."

To be sure, the "limbo" he refers to isn't just a policy matter. The industry faces political, legal and technological issues in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The economics of nuclear power, including the future costs of new plants, appear to be the biggest current hurdle.

The most-cited evidence for the "renaissance" is that U.S. energy companies have filed 17 applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 26 new reactor operating licenses. On Friday, the first of these fell by the wayside. A Missouri utility, AmerenUE, said it was suspending plans to build its proposed plant because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. Without that "financial and regulatory certainty," the company said it couldn't proceed.

On the other hand, the industry's political acceptance has improved since the 1990s, when new power plant construction stopped as if dead. A shift in the policy debate to climate change mitigation has helped the industry make its case. The availability of nuclear power reduces U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 680 million tons a year, says Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry. "It's a big number -- roughly equivalent to all the CO2 emissions from our passenger [vehicle] fleet," Genoa says.

An industry with a new, international face

The new face of the U.S. nuclear industry that is emerging will have a number of foreign players eager to stake their claim. Virginia officials rolled out the carpet in October for the French energy company Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, which plan to build a $363 million manufacturing plant in Newport News to make nuclear reactor components. More than 500 employees would be at work by 2012, the companies said. "This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia," said Gov. Tim Kaine (D), whose state holds large uranium deposits. (emphasis mine...SB)

Today, 40 nuclear plants are under construction in 11 countries, led by China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, according to the World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear energy is going to be used," asserted William Magwood IV, a physicist who directed nuclear programs in the Department of Energy under both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. "People underestimate how quickly this is going to happen." Internationally, more than 100 nuclear reactors are planned and more thans 250 have been proposed.

Climate concerns led Congress to approve $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005 to support construction of perhaps a half-dozen new nuclear plants that are meant to demonstrate new, safer and more efficient reactor designs. The guarantees would cover up to 80 percent of project costs. The 2005 Energy Policy Act also provided a limited production tax credit for a few new nuclear facilities. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is following a new licensing process designed to speed the review process and prevent recurring environmental challenges.

The first few new plants, aided crucially by the 2005 financial incentives, could be in operation by 2015-17, industry officials say. But the industry's U.S. 'renaissance' could well stop there unless more favorable economic and political conditions appear. "The industry's success in the coming years will turn largely on money, attention to detail, and an ability to earn and retain the trust of all its stakeholders," said Roland Frye Jr., a senior NRC appellate attorney, writing in the Energy Law Journal last year.

Obama's 'agnosticism': maybe, maybe not

Perhaps the most critical issue is whether President Obama will be among those stakeholders. Obama called himself an "agnostic" on the issue during the 2007 presidential primary campaign. "I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what, because there's no perfect energy source," Obama told editors of New Hampshire's Keene Sentinel newspaper.

Read the rest of this most interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/04/27/27climatewire-a-key-energy-industry-nervously-awaits-its-r-10677.html

Welcome to EARTH DAY!

Gee...all that's missing from this line-up is VUI!

Areva's Financial Meltdown: The Crash of France's Nuclear Poster Child

By HARVEY WASSERMAN

March 19, 2009

The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted into financial chaos.

With it dies the corporate-hyped poster child for a "nuclear renaissance" of new reactor construction that is drowning in red ink and radioactive waste.

Areva, France's nationally-owned corporate atomic façade, has plunged into a deep financial crisis led by a devastating shortage of cash.

Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by European Union officials charging that its price-fixing may be undermining competition throughout the continent.

Delays and cost overruns continue to escalate at Areva's catastrophic Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland. Areva has admitted to a $2.2 billion, or 55%, cost increase in the Finnish building site after three and a half years. The Flamanville project---the only one now being built in France---is already over $1 billion more expensive than projected after a single year under construction.

In 2008, France's nuclear power output dropped 0.1%, while wind generation rose more than 37%.

Attempts to build new French reactors in the US are meeting stiffened resistance.

And the definitive failure of America's Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump mirrors France's parallel inability to deal with its own radioactive trash.

Widely portrayed as the model of corporate success, reactor-builder Areva is desperately short of money. As it begs a bailout from its dominant owner, the French government, Areva's mismanagement and overextension in promoting and building new reactors has wrecked its image in worldwide capital markets. According to Mycle Schneider, Paris-based author of "Nuclear Power in France---Beyond the Myth," Areva shares have plunged by over 60% since June 2008, twice as much as the CAC40, the standard indicator of the 40 largest French companies on the stock market.

Areva's hyper-active public relations department has made much of recent orders to build two new reactors in China. But it's now begging France's taxpayers for some $4 billion in short term bailout money, and may need still another $6 billion more to pay for investments in uranium mines, fuel production and heavy manufacturing ventures.

{...}

The potential American reactor market has also been bloodied by the definitive disposal of the proposed high level dump at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. After decades as the centerpiece of America's "solution" to the nuke waste problem, with at least $10 billion spent on it, Yucca's failure underscores France's own waste dilemma.

{...}

Areva says it hopes to raise cash by selling part of a uranium enrichment plant under construction in southern France to Japan's Kansai Electric. Other asset sales may be hampered by slumping market values. Areva also hopes to partner with US weapons builder Northrop Grumman to build heavy reactor equipment in Virginia.

{...}

"Those who think that nuclear power would be a cheap and clean way to render the US less dependent on oil should have a close look at the French record."

At the French heart of its "renaissance," the nuclear clock is winding down, not up. Time is running out for a radioactive technology that, after fifty years, remains unable to muster a sustainable level of private financing, shows no real promise of ever paying for itself, and has now plunged into deepening financial chaos.

Read the entire article here: http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03192009.html