By the way: The idea of closing this huge power gap by heavily
investing in renewable energies is so illusory, that it is not even
worthwhile discussing it.

===========
FROM RUSSIA WITH GAS: FORTHCOMING POLITICAL DISASTERS FOR EUROPE IN
ENERGY SUPPLY
Institut Thomas More, May 2007
http://www.institut-thomas-more.org/pdf/136_fr_WP-ITM10Eng.pdf

Dr.-Ing. Hildegard von Liechtenstein

For years now, I have been trying to grasp what is really going on in
energy politics, as most of the commonly available information on
energy issues is either muddled and misleading or patently wrong. This
is especially true when such information is provided by politicians
who frequently either have only a limited understanding of physics or
natural sciences, or may even be pursuing different interests or
agendas, not necessarily in the common interest of securing energy
supply in the future. Within the framework of my own activities in the
field of energy policy and with the invaluable support of the Thomas
More Institute, I published a paper in March 2006 which I now wish to
update with my observational research of the last 12 months.

So yet again my questions are:

- Do we really face huge problems connected with energy supply,
climate change or geopolitical clashes?

- And what about the nightmare vision of a total dependence on Russia
as Europe's main energy supplier?

In November 2006, I again attended a conference in France on energy
and geopolitics: "La Ville et la sécurité énergétique", within the
framework of the fifth forum on Energy and Geopolitics organised by
the Club de Nice of the Institut Européen des Hautes Etudes
Internationales3. Besides the French attendants, there is
traditionally a high participation of Eastern-European specialists
(especially Russians), but almost no-one from Germany or
English-speaking countries is present. This conference was again very
revealing and in many of my following statements, I will rely on
information given by Russian specialists on the following issues:

Uranium and Thorium ores are present in all continents and in the
oceans as well, and ready-made fuel elements may be stored for years
in relatively small facilities. Fuel reserves for 5 to 10 years may be
conveniently held in stock without the need for substantial
investment. Nuclear is not the only solution, but there is no solution
without.

Copyright 2007, Institut Thomas More


--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

===========
FROM RUSSIA WITH GAS: FORTHCOMING POLITICAL DISASTERS FOR EUROPE IN
ENERGY SUPPLY

Institut Thomas More, May 2007
http://www.institut-thomas-more.org/pdf/136_fr_WP-ITM10Eng.pdf

Dr.-Ing. Hildegard von Liechtenstein

For years now, I have been trying to grasp what is really going on in
energy politics, as most of the commonly available information on
energy issues is either muddled and misleading or patently wrong. This
is especially true when such information is provided by politicians
who frequently either have only a limited understanding of physics or
natural sciences, or may even be pursuing different interests or
agendas, not necessarily in the common interest of securing energy
supply in the future. Within the framework of my own activities in the
field of energy policy and with the invaluable support of the Thomas
More Institute, I published a paper in March 2006 which I now wish to
update with my observational research of the last 12 months.

So yet again my questions are:

- Do we really face huge problems connected with energy supply,
climate change or geopolitical clashes?

- And what about the nightmare vision of a total dependence on Russia
as Europe's main energy supplier?

In November 2006, I again attended a conference in France on energy
and geopolitics: "La Ville et la sécurité énergétique", within the
framework of the fifth forum on Energy and Geopolitics organised by
the Club de Nice of the Institut Européen des Hautes Etudes
Internationales3. Besides the French attendants, there is
traditionally a high participation of Eastern-European specialists
(especially Russians), but almost no-one from Germany or
English-speaking countries is present. This conference was again very
revealing and in many of my following statements, I will rely on
information given by Russian specialists on the following issues:

- European energy supply;

- Russia as a geopolitical challenge for Europe and its reliability as
an energy supplier especially of natural gas.

Obviously I base myself on a number of other sources such as the
International Energy Agency Outlook 2006, on data obtained of Swiss
power generation companies such as Axpo and Atel, and on scientific
studies of Stuttgart University4 and the Paul-Scherrer-Institute
(Switzerland).

1. Our Present Situation in Global Energy Supply

In order to describe our present situation it is important to keep in
mind the following related facts:

1) The global consumption of raw materials and energy is proportional
to the demographic and economic evolution.

2) Facilities for the production of both raw materials and energy
supply are highly equipment intensive i.e. any increase in capacity
raises the current demand for raw materials.

3) The production of raw materials is highly energy-consumptive. It
therefore follows that the growing shortage of raw materials,
including primary energy, will increase not arithmetically but
exponentially for a long time to come. Timid efforts by developed
industrial states to reduce energy consumption are hopelessly
over-compensated by the demand of the so-called emerging countries.

To think that the quite unrealistic aim of reducing the yearly
European growth of energy consumption from 2.1% to zero-or even
achieving negative growth-will solve our problems any time soon is
absurd.

Two further important points are:

4) One must differentiate between raw materials and energy: raw
materials can be recycled, energy is consumed.

5) With regards to energy suppliers, one must distinguish between two
sorts of primary energy. The one of which is easily transportable,
easy to store and easily drawn by producers and distributors (an
example of which is hydropower, or fuel rods used in nuclear power
plants).

The other kind of primary energy is difficult or bulky to store,
costly to transport and/or its availability is highly volatile.
Natural gas can only be stored in relatively small quantities-about
two weeks consumption's worth-and can only be transported over high
distances at great cost. The delivery of natural gas in Europe is
therefore limited to a few specific producers and is supplied just in
time.

As to our present situation, I have two pieces of good news before
coming to some very bad news.

Two problems are no-problems, although they are advertised as such!
However I see major and very real problems ahead, mainly in relation
with the coming power gap. And, personally, I do not see an imminent
solution for them. I will explain myself later.

The good news is that:

1) Enough reserves and provisions of primary energy sources exist. At
present, there are enough global resources in total, however not
sufficient in each category. So: sufficient Uranium, Thorium, Coal and
also Natural Gas, but not enough Conventional Oil and at present
prices. Of course and from a European viewpoint, we have to take into
consideration the fact that oil and gas reserves are unevenly
distributed around the globe, and that the largest reserves are
situated in politically or economically unstable regions. North Sea
oil and gas fields have already been exploited beyond their peak,
leaving Europe dependent on non-EU countries for future supply. I will
come back to this typically European problem later (Chapter 5).

At this point I would like to comment on the assumption that the
global peak oil is imminent within the next few years, as it can often
be read. While the expanding economies of China and India have caused
an enormous rise of crude oil demand, geopolitical tensions have
resulted in a decrease in supply. Accordingly, the current price per
barrel has increased to around 60 US dollars.
This run up in commodity prices has enabled big oil-companies to
economically produce unconventional hydrocarbons such as:

- Heavy Oil from oil sands in Canada
- Heavy Oil from tar sands in Venezuela
- Tight Gas
- Coal Bed Methane
- Shale Oil
- "North Sea carbon cycle" Oil and Gas production5

Up to now, only 8% of these unconventional resources came into
production, but analysts6 are convinced of the existence of global
probable reserves of 3600 billion boe (barrels of oil equivalent),
which is about the double of conventional oil reserves. In comparison:
the global forecast7 of oil-consumption in 2007 is at 31 billion
barrels. As for natural gas, Wood Mackenzie predicts a supply of 40%
of natural gas from unconventional resources for the USA.

2) No technological problems or lack of new technologies. This is if
we use rationally the known techniques and do not exclude important
ones for emotional or irrational reasons. We especially don't have a
problem concerning our western-style nuclear power technologies, which
are highly developed and safe for physical reasons. Whatever some
people tell you about it!

Sure it would be nice to have some techniques at hand to deal with the
storage and transportation problem in electricity supply, as for
example batteries with much higher capacity for hybrid cars or
superconductivity which would allow Russia to produce electricity in
Siberia and bring it over to Europe (you wouldn't believe it, but they
already include this in their forecasts).

And there are some technological devices of which we only know the
name of up to now, like nuclear fusion or exothermal reaction of
silanes. Those techniques will come... perhaps, but you may forget
about them for the next 30 years to come concerning public electricity
supply.

2. The Future Situation in Europe: A Huge Power Gap

Now I come to our real problem, the power gap: The underlying reason
is political and emotional. The power gap in Europe is a certainty,
the only remaining question is: when?

Together with France, Switzerland is in the most favourable position
as far as the security of supply is concerned. The reason is that
electric power generation is mainly based on nuclear and hydropower.

However, even the Swiss must import power from France in the six
winter months (in winter the availability of hydropower declines). The
Swiss utility industry anticipates production shortfalls already
within the next five to six years. This will happen especially if
negative factors intervene such as low precipitation in summer or the
extended shutdown of nuclear power stations for technical reasons as
in 2005.

As a forecast, the power gap in Switzerland will amount to 15-33% of
anticipated consumption in 2030.

But in Europe as a whole, the situation is much worse. The growing
shortages in Europe in the transmission and production of electricity
will amount to around 1800 TWh (Terawatt hours) by 2030, which is
equal to ninety times the Swiss power gap (20 TWh). In a few years,
France will require all its power generation capacity for its own
needs, and what is more, none of the remaining Western European
countries will be able to produce sufficient power to cover their own
national needs. It is absurd to hear the ministries responsible for
energy supply in virtually all EU countries reckoning with importing
electricity to cover their capacity deficits.

The question is: power imports from whom?

By the way: The idea of closing this huge power gap by heavily
investing in renewable energies is so illusory, that it is not even
worthwhile discussing it. Nonetheless, I will briefly take up the
theme of renewables in Chapter 6 in order to highlight the facts, and
comment on some ominous illusions.

3. How Comes that We Find Ourselves in Such a Position?

I think we can find the reasons in all political areas

a.) Emotions in internal politics.

These are based on non-information, disinformation and fear. Those
fears are willingly raised by two groups with their own agendas:
politicians and political parties, willing to be elected, and NGOs
such as Greenpeace. Stirring fear is a powerful instrument-comparable
to envy-to acquire public support (votes) or to raise funds. Fears
regarding nuclear energy and greenhouse gases are successfully stoked.
Both anxieties contradict each other and have fatal consequences on
our European energy policies, bringing serious planning to a
standstill. Salvation is then sought after in methods of generating
energy which exclude both nuclear and fossil fuels. Emotions
dangerously frustrate rational decisions and lead to a gigantic
misallocation of funds and efforts.

For instance: solar or wind power, although useful for specific
solutions, will not solve the overall problem, but have a feel-good
effect. Energy reduction measures would be more helpful, but very
costly and they require 10 to 15 years to generate a substantial cut
down of energy consumption. At any rate, the so-called 2000 Watt
society is not possible, if we don't consider accepting the living
standards of 100 years ago for example without one's own car,
non-essential air travel, PC, washing machine, tumbler, dish washer,
TV set, aluminium products etc.

b.) Fiscal reasons: High taxes on gasoline and mineral oil. Revenues
from these taxes are very important. In France, as a consequence, a
project to link levies on motorcars with gasoline consumption, was
refused. The state cannot afford the consequent reduction of tax
revenues on gasoline.

c.) Ecological paralysis of necessary investments.
Ecologically motivated initiatives prevent important investments to an
unsuspected degree, astonishingly in the field of renewables as well:

- The construction of reservoirs for storage power stations,
obstructed by landscape protectionists. Those reservoirs could enhance
the increase in capacity of hydroelectric power, thereby avoiding the
construction of gas power stations to ensure supply.

- The expansion of the electricity networks is also obstructed by
ecologists, who thereby absurdly inhibit electricity transport from
future wind parks in the North Sea to industrial conglomerations in
the south.

- Long-distance heating for settlements, using waste heat from nuclear
power plants. Ecologists cannot accept that there is anything positive
in nuclear power.

d.) Political inconsistencies: ecological and economical ones.

The Kyoto protocol as an instrument of self-deception!

- In the EU, operators of thermal power plants based on coal receive
state subsidies by being given CO2 certificates, which are negotiable
on the stock market. Coal plants would not be competitive without such
subsidies.

- Biomass fuel leads to a shortage of foodstuffs (corn for ethanol
production in USA) and to the destruction of rain forests through the
production of palm-oil used for power generation here in Europe.

- Environmental pollution through combustion of biomass fuel with
inefficient total energy balance.

- The export of energy intensive production processes in non-European
countries, which does not reduce global CO2 emissions, but allows
European politicians to show improvements on the CO2 front, while
causing economic damage.

e.) Geopolitical risks-which stand for the most dramatic risk-and the
question: what about Europe's political dependency on its energy
suppliers-and the Hitchcock-like scenario of Russia paralysing Europe
within hours by closing the gas ***** (pipelines)?

4. Let's Face our Situation: Dependence on a new Gas Cartel under
Russian leadership

Europe's manufacturing, and especially the German, is widely dependant
on the supply of primary energy. Our own European gas and petroleum
reserves will be heavily depleted in the next 10 years. The oil supply
as such is not the main problem, as on the one hand petroleum and
derived refinery products can be stored fairly easily (see chapter
II.5.), and on the other hand the percentage of oil needed for power
generating in Europe is steadily diminishing, in favour of coal and
natural gas. Above all the red/green groups are urging to increase the
contribution of natural gas to total supplies, out of environmental
reasons.

True, immense reserves of natural gas have recently been discovered in
Norway and on the Norwegian shores. It is however uncertain when and
at what costs these reserves can be brought to production. This may
take at least 15 years.

This means that we increasingly become dependent on continuing and
reliable Russian natural gas supplies. While other geopolitical risks
may affect Europe only through rising prices for fossil fuels, this is
not true concerning our neighbour and main supplier: Russia. Germany's
natural gas imports already derive to 35% from the tundra, with an
increasing tendency, and the figure for the new EU member states in
the East touches 100%.

According to Russia's own acknowledgement (M.Valerie Kostyuk, General
Secretary of the Academy of sciences in Russia) Europe already now
imports 44% of its demand of natural gas from Russia. Gazprom, which
itself stands for about 90% of Russian natural gas-production,
delivers 70% of its product to Europe. Russia goes to great lengths to
outwardly present itself as a peaceful and reliable trade partner.

The object is to pretend that Russia is clearly more dependent on us
as clients as we are on Russia as a provider. This argument is of
course quite absurd, and it does not gain credibility as President
Putin talks up "energetic interdependence" via large media campaigns
(e.g. "Figaro", "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung", November 2006).
Europe has a huge world-wide competition on the demand-side;
especially China which has now loudly begun to demand Russian oil and
gas supplies and, military wise, they are undoubtedly the strongest
pressure group.

It is of crucial importance to Europe to face the fact that in 2030
there will be only two net importers of energy resources in the world,
Europe and Asia, and only two net exporters, Russia and the Middle
East. The plans approved by German Chancellor G. Schröder and
President Vladimir Putin for the construction of a further natural gas
pipeline under the Baltic Sea give grounds to fear that the enormous
risks of becoming dependant on the reliability of supplies from an
authoritarian state have been recognised neither by Western
politicians nor by the general public.

Naturally, the new EU countries in the East take an entirely different
view. Mister Lech Kaczynski, Poland's Prime Minister, has declared the
problem of energy imports to be a matter of public security, his
primary economic policy objective being to find alternatives to
Russian supplies. Poland is still in trauma following Russia's dispute
on prices with White Russia in 2004, in which Russia simply cut off
supplies to the White Russians, thereby severing the supply to Poland.
The same can happen to us.

Russia can stop gas supply through pipelines at any moment. This would
have an immediate effect: German manufacturing and parts of
infrastructure like heating systems, trains and lights, would
instantly break down. Imagine the consequences! The consequence on
Russia of loosing the European market or the momentary income from gas
exports would not be immediate and is not very likely. Because of the
above, Western Europe would make all the concessions required in their
appeasement politics towards Russia. I could imagine Russia pursuing
several goals, for instance the retreat of NATO from the Baltic
States, Poland, Hungary etc., not to speak of drastically rising gas
and oil prices.

Another telling comment (Mr. Kostyuk again) is, that Moscow will
refuse to sign the European Energy Charta, as it is not in Russia's
best interest. That sounds logical as such a decision would imply the
end of Gazprom's monopoly on the natural gas exports.

This growing concern of Europe's dependency on Russian natural gas
supplies is aggravated by Russia's new alliances with other suppliers.
An indication of this market strategy is the new partnership between
Gazprom and the Algerian public group Sonatrach, which happens to be
an important supplier of EU gas demand. Already in 2005, I was told by
a French insider, that an agreement to implement a common strategy had
been reached between Russia and Algeria regarding both pricing and
volume, which would leave Europe defenceless.

Yet another politically very unsettling Russian measure is the
founding, in Russia, of an organisation of gas exporting countries,
called "MANNGO" (Prof. Elena Telegina, Director of the Institute of
Geopolitics and Energy in Moscow). This organisation is to be an
equivalent to OPEC and have the same purpose, that is to control the
natural gas market with respect to consumer countries. This could have
a drastic effect on future gas-prices and on holding consumer
countries on ransom, especially in the EU. A treaty was signed on
August 4th 2006, causing unease among European customers about the
apparition of this kind of Gas-OPEC.

This policy is complemented by on-going negotiations with Western
European energy providers, aiming at obtaining important stakes in
these companies. Investors in big projects like Sakhalin and Shtokman
are forced to accept a status as subcontractor and at the same time
are obliged to cede stakes in their own downstream business.

To this aim any excuse is good enough to terminate existing contracts.


The evident political goal of the Kremlin's is to control via Gazprom
strategic participations in Western
utilities and crucial energy distribution.

As you all can see, this represents an enormous danger!

Already in December 2004, the International Energy Agency in its
report on energy policy warned of this dependency and drew attention
to the necessity of diversifying natural gas imports to assure the
security of Europe's supplies. In my opinion, it is almost too late to
do anything about it. We will have to hurry up.

5. European Incense: Renewables Without any Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Power for Free?

Earthquakes Instead of Geothermic Power? Petrol Instead of Bread?
Biomass Instead of Rainforests?

At the European Union's Council meeting of March 9th, 2007, the
decision was reached to reduce greenhouse gas emissions until the year
2020 by 20% compared to 1990. This is equal to a reduction of CO2
emissions of around 34%, i.e. one third of the current level. This
ambitious goal is to be reached within the next twelve years and will
cause substantial problems for the member states. At the same time,
20% of total power requirements should be covered by so called
renewable energy sources and the share of biofuel should be increased
to a minimum of 10%, both equally ambitious goals. How to solve these
problems is left up to the individual countries, with heavy
implications such as:

1) enormous costs

- to adapt all buildings to energy efficient systems mainly by
insulation
- to convert all roofs to hold photovoltaic cells or solar thermal
facilities
- to restructure the farming industry into the cultivation of biomass
for energy generation
- to develop the existing grid and constructing new electricity
networks for the transport of wind power from the north sea southwards
- to maintain stand-by power generation capacity, in case the sun does
not shine and the wind does not blow

2) unrealistic time frame for planning, development and construction

3) heavy interference in personal freedom on account of a plethora of
new regulations

The only result of these challenging plans that can be predicted with
certainty is a substantial increase in subsidies from Brussels for the
development of renewable energy. The alleged possibility of meeting
resolutions made in Brussels by generating electricity through solar
and wind power on the one hand and by way of solar and geothermic
energy8 on the other hand is of particular interest.

After deduction of hydropower (1,5%), renewable energies in the
European Union today account for 4.9% of the total power requirement,
of which 0.04% are allocated to photovoltaic. An investigation by SATW
(Schweizerischen Akademie der Technischen Wissenschaften) predicts a
tenfold increase in solar energy until the year 2020, equivalent to
0.5% of total electricity production, and up to 8% until 2050,
implying the roofing with solar panels of ALL existing buildings.

The potential of wind energy, currently contributing on average
approximately 0.3% in the European Union, is hardly superior to
present levels in view of the understandably growing resistance from
the general public, from ecologists, ornithologists or game
preservers. Erecting vast offshore wind parks is technically
questionable and expensive. In addition, a substantial increase in
electricity production in northern Europe would require the
construction of large, new electricity networks, as existing grids are
already overstrained-increasing black-outs in the near future can be
expected. Highly praised geothermal energy systems, though
theoretically with much potential, are as yet not perfected. Moreover,
earthquakes in Basel (Switzerland) have put a damper on this
technology and caused the pilot project to be suspended. Before
beginning a new project meticulous and time consuming geological
explorations are imperative.

Applying solar and geothermic energy systems to supply buildings with
hot water, heating or air conditioning would certainly make sense and
save considerable quantities of heating oil. However, little
contribution would be made towards reducing CO2 emissions in the next
twelve years.

The Brussels resolution to increase the portion of biomass to 10% of
total fuel consumption also presents certain problems. An automobile
travelling 20.000 kilometres per year and consuming 7 litres of petrol
would require the conversion of 3.5 tons of cereals per year. In
comparison, a human being consumes 0.5 tons of cereals per year!

Accordingly, the space requirement to grow this amount of crop would
be gigantic. The European Union calculates that 20% of the entire
European cropland would be needed to generate only 5.75% of fuel
demand from biomass. The projected increase to 10% before the year
2020 can only be achieved if methods are developed that do not compete
with food production and result in substantially lower CO2 emissions
than today9.

The simplest solution today for providing biomass for diesel
production or to charge power plants is to import palm oil. However,
the production of this source of energy has disastrous consequences,
as vast surfaces of rainforest, especially in Southeast Asia, are
being sacrificed to ensure production. At the risk of destroying any
remaining illusion, I must unfortunately also mention that biogas,
timber and biomass are also pollutants, emitting substances like
nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides, responsible for acid rain. The
environmental impact of generating such energy is significant.

A further sticking point is that the initial positions of each country
and the consequences of implementing the Brussels plans vary from
country to country. Poland, for example, produces its electricity
requirement almost exclusively from coal, while 78% of France's needs
are covered by nuclear energy.

It is interesting to note, that in relation to the discussion
surrounding commitments and burdens, France has adopted the argument
that nuclear energy falls into the category of renewable energies,
possibly even with success. Physically speaking, France's argument is
correct, especially considering the latest nuclear technology, for
instance fast reactors of the 4th generation. In addition, nuclear
energy causes low levels of pollution compared to any other source of
energy. Poisonous exhaust gases and waste are not blown into the air
but captured inside in the fuel rod.

I hope that the above EU decision will not share the fate of the year
2000 "Lisbon Strategy" which goal was to make of the EU the world's
most competitive economy by 2010.

6. Finding a Way out of the Dilemma

As I have illustrated in chapter III and IV, there is no long term
problem in energy supply or power generation. But we do have a sincere
problem with a near term and medium term power gap. By way of example,
Swiss experts expect first shortfalls in electric power supply to
occur within the next five years. And the energy department in Bern is
already busy working on a so-called cut-off plan. Electricity
suppliers are already counting on periodic power cuts to entire towns
and industrial zones within the next years. Today we cannot begin to
imagine twelve hour power cuts in entire cities like Zurich or
Frankfurt. What would the consequences be for electronic data,
especially in the banking system? The economic fall-out could be
catastrophic.

The question is therefore how quickly the power gap can be closed,
taking into account the decision making process, planning and
construction of power plants. In the short term, within the next five
years, electricity can only be produced through new construction of
gas power stations. Consequently it is understandable that the
European utility industry is busy obtaining appropriate licenses.

Unfortunately this short term solution increases our dependence on gas
supplies and the emission of greenhouse gases. This is a particular
problem for France and Switzerland, as today their electricity
production is not based on fossil fuels (Switzerland) or only to a
minor degree (France).

In comparison the construction of a nuclear power station, including
licensing requirements, takes as a minimum 15 years, assuming that an
existing technique is applied. Nuclear power stations of the 4th
generation will only be developed in a 20-year time, and can therefore
only be operative in 2050.

However such new power plants have the advantage of considerably
improving today still existing problems such as the proliferation of
nuclear material, the amount and the half-life period of radioactive
waste, and the residual risk of operating such a plant. But, as I
already mentioned, this cannot happen before 2050, even if we
massively increase our current efforts.

And now, I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that the
geopolitical independence of European operators of nuclear power
stations stands in sharp contrast to thermal power stations based on
fossil fuels.

Uranium and Thorium ores are present in all continents and in the
oceans as well, and ready-made fuel elements may be stored for years
in relatively small facilities. Fuel reserves for 5 to 10 years may be
conveniently held in stock without the need for substantial
investment. Nuclear is not the only solution, but there is no solution
without.

Copyright 2007, Institut Thomas More