Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Nuclear’ Category

Citizens Oppose South Texas Project Expansion before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 19, 2009 |

Oral Hearing Set for June 23rd-June 24th in Bay City, TX

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors in Texas continues. On June 23rd-24th an oral hearing will be held before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the Citizens’ Petition to Intervene in South Texas Project (STP) Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and South Texas Association for Responsible Energy are petitioners seeking to intervene in the proposed expansion of South Texas Project.

“Building two more nuclear reactors at STP is not in the best interest of the local community,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator. “Pursuing the most expensive and most water intensive energy source in a time of extraordinary drought and economic recession makes no sense. The local community will get stuck with more radioactive waste and bear heavy infrastructure costs if the proposed reactors get built. The existing reactors have not solved local economic problems.” Dancer chairs the Bay City based organization South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE).

Attorney Robert V. Eye will represent the petitioners before the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and argue the admissibility of the 28 contentions citizens filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 21st. These contentions point out the inadequacies and the incompleteness of South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company’s (STPNOC) combined operating license application (COLA) to construct and operate South Texas Project Units 3 and 4. NRG Energy and San Antonio’s municipal utility CPS Energy are both applicants for the proposed reactors, which fall within STPNOC.

“NRG has failed to comply with new federal regulations regarding aircraft impacts,” stated Mr. Eye. “These new regulations are very specific and require the applicant to plan for catastrophic fires and/or explosions that would cause the loss of major critical functional components in the plant. After 9-11, an aircraft attack on a nuclear power plant is a real and credible threat. Moreover, fire hazards represent about half of the risk of a nuclear reactor meltdown. NRG’s noncompliance with these regulations puts citizens around South Texas Project in a dangerous position, which is completely unacceptable.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Emergency preparedness at nuclear plants: Let’s discuss

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , on June 10, 2009 |

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will hold two public meetings tomorrow in Irving, Texas, on a proposed new rule that would change the emergency preparedness requirements for existing and proposed nuclear power plants. Since 9/11, there has been growing concern that the country’s 104 existing reactors are potential terrorist targets and are more vulnerable to major disasters if attacked. There is additional concern that the nuclear reactors being proposed across the country, six of which are in Texas, would not be able to sufficiently mitigate a terrorist attack such as by aircraft.

In their 2007 report, Nuclear Power in a Warming World, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a set of recommendations that address shortcomings of current NRC regulations including a recommendation that the NRC treat the risks of sabotage and attacks on par with risks of nuclear accididents, and require all environmental reviews during licensing to consider such threats. This issue is particularly relevant to Texas because the NRC is currently hearing oral arguments by the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Rep. Lon Burnam, and the local citizen’s group True Cost of Nukes, who seek to intervene in the application by Luminant to expand the Comanche Peak nuclear plant near Glen Rose, Texas.

A contention regarding the lack of safeguards and emergency preparedness for the crash of an airliner into nuclear reactors is among the issues being raised by the groups, who point out that concerned citizens and groups have not had access to the full information needed in this regard.

Public Citizen intends to file comments on the proposed rule, which are due no later than August 3.

The meeting is an opportunity for the public to learn about the proposed rule and ask questions. It will take place at the Westin Dallas Fort Worth Airport; 4545 W. John Carpenter Freeway; Irving, Texas. The meeting will have two sessions, from 2:00 to 4:30 and from 7:00 to 9:30 PM.

The NRC press release for the meeting is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-019.iv.html.

For those who cannot attend in person, the meeting will be webcast. To participate, register ASAP at https://www.livemeeting.com/lrs/8001607981/Registration.aspx?PageName=bg8044041h843dp2 and call in to 1-800-779-8609 (PIN 21726). For more information, contact Annette Stang with the NRC at 1-800-368-5642.

The proposed rule is published in the Federal Register at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-10947.pdf

The UCS report is available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-in-a-warming-world.pdf.

Read Full Post »

Act Now To Stop New Coal and Nuclear Subsidy

Posted in Coal, Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 25, 2009 |

nuke plantA bill currently moving in the Texas Legislature, HB 4525, would create new state subsidy of $50 million each for new nuclear and coal plants.

We need your help to stop this pork bill from passing.  Call your Senator now and tell them that nuclear power doesn’t need taxpayer help!

Although the claim of HB 4525 is that subsidies are necessary to attract new manufacturing plants to Texas, the bill would actually primarily reward plants already intending to build here with a totally unjustified housewarming gift.

In particular, the two nuclear projects singled out by the Legislative Budget Board analysis as the most likely beneficiaries of these subsidies –the South Texas Project and Comanche Peak — are expansions of existing complexes.  We aren’t in danger of these facilities relocating to out of state, and giving them $50 million a pop “to stay” is an extravagant waste of taxpayer money.

At a time of economic crisis, when state tax revenues are plummeting, Texas cannot afford to give that kind of money away, especially to such financially and environmentally risky projects.

Nuclear plants are already the most heavily subsidized energy industry in the United States at both the state and federal level. Coal plants are heavily subsidized as well, and the Texas Legislature is currently considering two new subsidies for “clean coal” projects. Considering the likelihood that a cap-and-trade bill will take effect soon, this is the wrong time to be adding financial support to the quickly changing energy industry.

Call your Senator today, and tell them to STOP this new coal and nuclear subsidy by voting NO on HB 4525.

Read Full Post »

“Clean Energy Bank” to Write Blank Check for Nuclear Industry

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 18, 2009 |

nukeblankcheckBuried in the language of the “Clean Energy Bank” legislation sponsored by Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) is a blank check to the nuclear industry.

This bill includes unlimited availability of taxpayer loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear reactors.

Unlimited guaranteed loans.  As in, as many as the industry could possibly want, no matter the cost, no matter the default rate.  Which for the record, is 50% according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This is one of the most audacious, nasty, pork-laden bill I have heard of in a really long time.  How do they even think that they can get away with this?

Write your House member and Speaker Nancy Pelosi now. And then forward this message to everyone you can think of.

For more information on the “clean energy” bank, check out this NIRS post on Daily Kos.

Since our own Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is encouraging lawmakers to give the nuclear industry even more money, it is more important than ever that we make sure folks on the Hill know that Not All Texans support nuclear power.  Make your voice heard today!

Read Full Post »

Friday Recommended Reading

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 8, 2009 |

ReadingTime for a Friday wrap-up, all the news that’s fit to link:

The Cost of Climate Inaction, Op-Ed in the Washington Post

An Affordable Salvation, New York Times Op-Ed about the benefits of cap and trade

Carbon Offsets in Waxman-Markey Bill, An Overview, Carbonfund.org Blog

Maryland Passes Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, SustainableBusiness.com News

Cap and trade won’t push heavy industries overseas — study, The New York Times

Net metering: The civil rights movement for solar energy, Photovoltaics World

Who gets tough against companies polluting Texas? Hint: It’s not the state, Houston Chronicle

Utah takes nuclear waste from states with own dump, Houston Chronicle (A glimpse of what could happen in Texas if the Andrews Waste Dump goes through)

Read Full Post »

ReEnergize Texas Interviews Texas US Senate Front Runners

Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 5, 2009 |

Looks like our friends over at ReEnergize Texas have scored a couple interviews with two 2010 Senate race hopefuls, Democratic Mayor of Houston Bill White and Republican Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams.

Trevor Lovell, Statewide Director for ReEnergize Texas, reports:

We are not joining the throng of cable news reporters more concerned with the 2010 election than with fixing the country in the meantime. But we did score big with two interviews that could help shape the midterm US Senate race here in Texas.

The US Senate race in Texas has a slightly funny story. Longtime US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is expected to step down and throw her hat in the ring to become the next Texas Governor. The spot she may vacate (but has not yet vacated) is already being contested by a number of potential candidates, the most notable being John Sharp and Bill White on the Democratic side, and Michael Williams and Florence Shapiro on the Republican side.

Check ’em out:

[vimeo 4482130]

[vimeo 4127055]

[vimeo 4124878]

Read on for Lovell’s analysis of the interviews! (more…)

Read Full Post »

Proposed Nuclear Projects in Texas Could Cost $22 Billion

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2009 |

Impressive nuclear headlines in the papers these days, largely as a result of a new report released by our office entitled: “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas: A Consumer Perspective.  The report finds that the proposed expansions of nuclear power plants in Bay City (South Texas Project) and Glen Rose (Comanche Peak) could cost $22 billion, boost the cost of electricity for consumers and curtail investment in energy-efficiency programs and solar power.

The headline in the San Antonio Express News yesterday morning, just below the banner no less, read: Nuke Plan May Cost $22 Billion

This morning the Fort Worth Star Telegram also ran an article titled Anti-nuclear group: Comanche Peak expansion could cost $27.6 billion

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog also reports: Projected nuke power’s price tag inflating.  

In addition to a real cost estimate for nuclear power plant expansions in Texas, the report also compares the cost of nuclear power to the cost of alternatives such as wind, solar, and energy efficiency.  I’d encourage anyone who complains about the expense of renewable energy but claims that nuclear power is “cheap” to take a gander at the following graph: 

estimated-installed-cost-per-kw-11

Wow.  Even on the low estimate end, energy efficiency costs just a fifth of what we would spend to get that kind of power from a nuclear plant, and wind and solar both come in well under that cost of nukes.  Take that, naysayers!

A major concern brought up in this report is that the massive capitol outlays for nuclear power options may drain available financial resources for making advancements in deploying more cost effective alternative resources.  In San Antonio, this could mean that CPS Energy chooses to partner with the South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion at the expense of Mission Verde, Mayor Phil Hardberger’s aggressive plan to green the city’s infrastructure, businesses, energy sources and technology.

“This new report indicates that we’re going to have to decide now which energy future we want for San Antonio,” said Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson. “If CPS becomes a partner in the South Texas Project expansion, we are simply not going to have the financial resources to front Mission Verde. We can either choose the most expensive option possible and send our jobs to Bay City and overseas contractors, or pay a fraction of the cost to create thousands of jobs here at home and power the city with clean, green energy.”

For more information on how consumers could get stuck with the check if the nuclear plant goes over-budget or can’t meet its construction schedule (as they are notoriously wont to do), check out our press release.

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog reports,

Prior to deregulation in 2001, ratepayers were drained of $5 billion in capital costs for the nukes in North Texas and Bay City, according to Johnson’s “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas.”

Also, much of the overruns associated with Comanche Peak and STP have been borne by electric consumers in Texas’ deregulated market since, who “continue to pay off at least $3.4 billion for nuclear assets through transition charges, as well as $45 million in annual payments for nuclear decommissioning,” Johnson writes. 

Additional associated STP costs have also been passed along by AEP and CenterPoint to their customers.

Those interested in the report may also download either the full report or a short fact-sheet detailing the report’s major findings.

Along these same lines, turns out today is the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)’s national call-in day to end coal and nuclear subsidies. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Citizens File in Opposition to South Texas Project Reactors 3 and 4

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2009 |

This Tuesday citizens submitted a filing to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission opposing NRG’s proposed South Texas Project (STP) nuclear reactors. Petitioners included the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

This may sound familiar.  “Didn’t citizens just file opposition to the nuke a couple weeks ago?”  Well, yes they did, but that wasn’t “the” nuke, it was just one of them.  Texas actually has six proposed nuclear reactors; two each at Comanche Peak (near Fort Worth),  STP (by Bay City), and Victoria.

That’s right, folks, six proposed nuclear plants and 12 proposed coal plants, despite the fact that just yesterday the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said that no new nuclear or coal plants may be needed in the United States, ever.

Said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition,

Our contentions laid out the many defects in the South Texas Project license application, including inadequate fire protection, the lack of viable radioactive waste disposal plan, an inability to secure against airplane attacks, vast water consumption, water contamination risks, the failure to analyze clean, safe alternatives and an array of other financial, health and safety risks.

Furthermore, STP has failed to provide cost estimates for their proposed reactors, leaving citizens with no idea of the expense they’ll be buying in to — despite the fact that one of the major partners, CPS Energy in San Antonio, is a municipal utility.

I know that when I walk in to a store and everything looks really nice but there are no price tags — I probably don’t even want to ask. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rates nuclear power as the most expensive form of electric generation. An analysis by Dr. Arjun Makhijani has estimated costs for the two reactors at between $12.5 – $17 billion.

Check out the press release for more information.

Read Full Post »

Texas Observer’s Rundown of “the Chosen” Environmental Bills

Posted in Coal, Efficiency, Energy, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2009 |

I’m going to cross-post the following article from the Texas Observer’s Floor Pass blog whole hog, because it is just that good.  Look for Smitty’s quote in bold, and hold on to your hat 🙂

Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Chosen Ones

posted by Susan Peterson at 03:12 PM

There’s a lot to celebrate this Earth Day when it comes to the Texas Legislature. Republicans in both chambers are carrying environmental legislation – if for no other reason than to stick it to the feds before the feds, under President Obama and a Democratic Congress, begin regulating the environment themselves. And Speaker Joe Straus has been a boon to environmental bills, as well, since he’s actually letting the legislators run the show in the House, unlike his predecessor.

The upshot? More good environmental bills and fewer bad ones.

Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas, says there are just two main bad bills this session. Both would both speed up the permitting process for power plants. Rep. Dan Flynn’s HB 2721, which is being heard today in Environmental Regulation, would speed it up for nuclear plants. The other bad bill, Rep. Randy Weber’s HB 4012, would fast-track permitting for coal power plants.

And I know it’s unlike us to report good news, but Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen in Texas, says he is “suffering from a crisis of abundance” when it comes to all the worthwhile environmental bills this session.

“There are more good bills in the lege session than I can keep up with,” Smitty says. “It is reminiscent of the 1991 legislative session when Ann Richards was elected and there was a wave of reform. This is the best session I’ve had in 18 years.”

Hot damn!

But which of these good bills actually have a chance? Read about them after the jump.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Earth Day Alert: STOP the fast-tracking of water permits for nukes

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on April 21, 2009 |

stp-water-pond2HB 2721 threatens to fast-track water permits for nuclear plants, which use vast quantities of water. Water is precious, and Governor Perry has just requested federal aid for all 254 counties in Texas due to statewide drought. Water permits should be given careful scrutiny, and not be rushed. This bill, which will be heard tomorrow on Earth Day, would actually deny citizens the right to a contested case hearing for these water permits!

According to Greg Harman over at the San Antonio Current’s QueBlog:

To cool down the superheated water used to create electricity can take hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per minute. According to the Sustainable Energy & Economic Development (SEED) Coalition fighting nuclear power in the state, the plants proposed at Comanche Peak in North Texas would require104,000 acre feet per year: 33.8 billion gallons.

To ease the potential political stew that could come from the plants’ permit applications (if they are built), Canton-based Representative Dan Flynn filed a bill to fast-track the water permitting process. (Dan was joined by Houston’s Rep. Bill Callegari as co-author a couple days after the bill was filed and has since also been joined by reps Randy Weber, Tim Kleinschmidt, and Phil King.)

Under House Bill 2721, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality must create “reasonably streamlined processes” to move those applications along. One key way to move a controversial permit it to not allow the TCEQ refer it to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for a public airing. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Citizen Filings Oppose Comanche Peak Reactors 3 & 4

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 9, 2009 |

simpson-nuke This week citizens submitted two separate filings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) opposing Luminant (formerly TXU)’s proposed Comanche Peak nuclear reactors. Petitioners include state Rep. Lon Burnam, the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Ft. Worth based True Cost of Nukes.

In the past, NRC has made  companies jump through two major hoops before their operating license is granted.  First, the company must complete the reactor design certification process which ensures that the design for the plant is safe.  If a company decides to choose a pre-certified design that has been built before and the NRC has vetted, they may get their operating license faster because they can skip dealing with design issues.  After their design is approved, the company can then file for their license to operate in a separate process.  This is when citizens have the opportunity to analyze such documents as the Environmental Impact Statement and file contentions.

But for this new fleet of nuclear plants being licensed, the NRC has streamlined this process, combining both the design certification and licensing process into one.  This is a major problem for reactors such as those proposed at Comanche Peak because they are submitting a design that has never been built before anywhere in the world.  It hardly makes sense that NRC can approve a plant to operate when they don’t even know if the plant design is feasible or safe, but that is exactly what is happening.  This is kind of like getting in car and driving off to the drugstore when you’re not sure where it is and… oops, might not even know how to drive.

“By 
moving 
the
 license 
forward
 without 
having 
certified
 the 
design,
 the
 NRC
 is
 violating
 its 
own 
rules,” 
said 
attorney 
Robert 

Eye,  “The
 licensing
 process
 should
 be 
halted 
until 
the 
NRC 
can 
honestly
 say 
that 
the 
reactor
 design 
is 
safe.”

Rep. Lon Burnam has compared what the NRC is doing to making those living near Comanche Peak “guinea pigs in a radioactive experiment.”  Other nuclear plants that have 
gone forth with construction before their design was finalized and approved by regulators have seen serious complications.

In addition to the madness of the NRC’s licensing process, there were even further contentions filed concerning defects in Comanche Peak’s license application.  These contentions include:

  • inadequate fire protection
  • no viable radioactive waste disposal plan
  • inability to secure against airplane attacks
  • financial, health and safety risks
  • vast water consumption
  • failure to address safe, clean energy alternatives

The next step in this process is for the NRC to respond to citizen’s petitions and contentions.

For further information on contentions filed, check out SEED Coalition’s press release after the jump. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Help Stop Nuke Waste Loophole; Show Support for HB 3423

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2009 |

Rep. Lon Burnam’s bill, HB 3423, will be heard on Wednesday, April 1st, in the House Committee on Environmental Regulation hearing at 10:30 AM or upon adjournment, in E1.014. If you are able to come, we’re trying to get as many people as possible to register their support of this bill (by filling out a witness affirmation form). That’s right, officially registering your opinion on a bill is as simple as filling out a card.  The bill closes the Compact Loophole, and requires other states who want to send radioactive waste here to get legislative approval first.

The Compact Agreement was originally between Texas, Maine and Vermont.  Maine pulled out of the Compact, and now Texas and Vermont are able to send their radioactive so-called “low-level” waste to be stored at the Andrews County dump in West Texas. A loophole in the Compact Agreement allows any state to send radioactive waste to Texas. We don’t need to be the nation’s nuclear dump!

The license for that dump was recently issued by the TCEQ, and the agency wrongly denied the opportunity for a contested case hearing (read: locals were not allowed to voice their opposition in any formal environment). Three long-term scientists at TCEQ recommended denying the permit — and actually left their jobs for ethical reasons once the permit was approved. The science is NOT solid for the Andrews County radioactive waste dump – and there are concerns that radionuclides could come in contact with underground water. It is possible that contamination could spread to the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies eight states, including the nation’s wheat growing region.

96% of the radioactive waste slated  for the site would be from nuclear reactors — everything except the fuel rods. Radionuclides in the waste are dangerous today and remain dangerous for thousands of years. A recent Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruling reclassified depleted uranium from reprocessing, putting it into a less hazardous (Class A) category. Now up to 1.4 million tons of depleted uranium could go to the West Texas site and/or Clive, Utah sites.

If you can’t make it in person, calls to the Environmental Regulation committee in support of Burnam’s bill are needed! If you are a constituent, please let them know that.

Rep. Byron Cook (Chair) – 512-463-0646, Byron.Cook@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Warren Chisum (Vice-Chair) – 512-463-0736, Warren.Chisum@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Lon Burnam – 512-463-0740, (it’s his bill, give him a call to say thanks.)
Rep. Jim Dunnam – 512-463-0508, Jim.Dunnam@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Jessica Farrar – 512-463-0620, Jessica.Farrar@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Kelly Hancock – 512-463-0599, Kelly.Hancock@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Ken Legler – 512-463-0460, Ken.Legler@house.state.tx.us
Rep Marc Veasey – 512-463-0716, Marc.Veasey@house.state.tx.us
Rep. Randy Weber – 512-463-0707, Randy.Weber@house.state.tx.us

For further background on the Andrews County dump, check out Forrest Wilder’s article from the last Texas Observer, Waste Texas: Why Andrews County is so eager to get dumped on. Or if you’re more the auditory type, listen to the podcast.

Check out the press release after the jump.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Andrews County: A Radioactive Risk for West Texas

Posted in Nuclear, Toxics, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 6, 2009 |

radiationsignI have been remiss in my duties as Blog Lady because I haven’t told you anything about the slated Andrews County nuclear waste dump.  Oh, you hadn’t heard?  TCEQ approved a “low-level” radioactive dump out in the lower panhandle.  There wasn’t a contested case hearing — and citizens of Eunice, New Mexico, the closest town to the dump, haven’t been able to officially voice their opposition because they don’t have standing under state law.  The dump is also only licensed for 15 years, after which all that toxic waste will be the responsibility of the state.  Aaaaand the dump will be accepting waste, not just from Texas, but from all over the United States.

Check out the press release below for more information.  If you happen to live near Odessa, be sure to swing by Big Daddy’s Grill and Bar at 6 PM —  D’Arrigo will be speaking there this evening.  She will be joined by Dr. Terry Burns, with the Permian Basin Sierra Club, who will discuss health concerns, Rose Gardner – a concerned citizen from Eunice, New Mexico, the city nearest the radioactive waste dump, and SEED Coalition Director, Karen Hadden.

For a truly beautiful article on this issue, be sure to read Forrest Wilder’s Waste Texas: Why Andrews County is so eager to get dumped on in the newest Texas Observer.  That boy can really write.

Vince Leibowitz over at Capitol Annex also has a really good post on the legislative history of the dump.

Radioactive Risks for West Texas

Odessa, Texas – Texas environmental organizations hosted speaker Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) at a press conference today. She discussed the risks posed to Texans living near the so-called “low-level” radioactive waste dump in Andrews County.

“Low-level radioactive waste could remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands to over a million years,” said D’Arrigo. “Texas’ waste dump in Andrews County calls for a private company to manage a low-level dump, but the company would only be licensed to operate it for 15 years. They could then renew their license or decide to close the dump and walk away, leaving a toxic mess to the state of Texas. This could also happen if the company just folds up and vanishes into the night.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Live from City Hall, its Thuuuuuuuursday Morning!

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2009 |

austincityhall1

Good morning, folks!  I’m sitting in on the Austin City Council meeting this morning.  Here at Public Citizen, we are largely concerned with two important items on today’s agenda:

Item 3: Will the City of Austin invest in the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant?

Item 16: Will the City invest in 30 megawatts of solar power from the proposed solar plant near Webberville?

Word on the street (and by street, I mean city hall) is that some members of the Council would like to postpone the vote on the solar plant.  The big question here is how long the vote will be postponed.  If the vote is pushed back a few weeks to give everyone a little more time to look at the impacts of this new project, that’s not really a problem… but if we are talking months here, the delay may actually be long enough to kill the project.

The Council will listen to citizen testimony before they decide to postpone (or not — though it is highly unlikely that the council will deny a request to delay the vote) and for how long (waiting with baited breath!).

Stick around, I’ll keep you posted!

Read Full Post »

Energy Efficiency Stimulates, but Nuclear Pork Fizzles

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 11, 2009 |

A message from our director, Tom “Smitty” Smith:

efficient-homeToday the House and Senate are working to reconcile their different versions of the long-awaited economic stimulus package. The stakes are now higher than ever for Texans, who stand to gain from billions that could go toward developing renewable energy and efficiency in the state, reducing pollution from diesel engines, and cleaning up abandoned nuclear waste sites.

But as much as the state needs that massive investment in our energy future, there is a troubling side to the senate version of the stimulus package: Senators amended the stimulus bill to include $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants in Texas and elsewhere in the nation.

If Congress needs a reminder why this is a bad deal, it should just ask Wall Street why it doesn’t loan money for nuclear reactors. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nuclear loans default at a rate of 50%. Banks learned long ago that these plants simply can’t be built on budget and aren’t viable without massive taxpayer subsidies. Texans are still paying for the last generation of over-budget nuclear plants each month in a hidden charge on their electric bills. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »