Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Nuclear’ Category

Austin City Hall Showdown: Solar vs. Nukes. Let’s get biz-zay!

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2009 |

Time to show your support for solar, and your opposition to new nuclear power!

On Thursday, Austin City Council will take up the issues of nuclear energy and solar energy. We can’t think of a better picture to illustrate the fork in the road we face when it comes to Austin’s energy future.

Item 3 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will appropriately recommend, again, that the City of Austin not invest in expansion of the South Texas Project. Austin Energy hired the pro-nuclear consulting firm Worley Parsons to examine the proposal, which concluded that Austin’s share of the proposed 3rd & 4th reactors would cost around $2 billion (that’s only 16% of the total, btw). Our solid credit rating would likely decline due to the large amount of debt the city would have to issue coupled with the high risk of cost overruns and schedule delays typically associated with nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the addition of 432 megawatts of baseload nuclear power does not fit with Austin’s projected electric demand forecast. This deal didn’t make sense in 2007 or 2008. It makes even less sense in 2009.

New nuclear power economics are frightening (several cost estimates put new nukes in a category by themselves), and it’s a down right nasty way to make electric power. Uranium mine sites plague groundwater sources, there is no plan in place to deal with the waste, and Texas can ill-afford to devote its precious water resources to running a radioactive water boiler.

We don’t need to go down the nuclear path again. We’ve learned from the mistakes of previous councils. Remember, Carole Keeton McClellan [Strayhorn] was mayor of Austin (1977-1983) when the city trapped itself in the boondoggle that was the first two units at STNP. Read the Austin Chronicle article from 2006 on her (scroll down to “Nailed to the Nuke”).

She is running for mayor again, which means this becomes a radioactive campaign issue. Where do Leffingwell and McCracken stand on the issue? Stay tuned.

Better options exist. Come out and voice your opposition to new nuclear power.

solar-array

Item 16 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will recommend that Council approve a plan to invest in 30 megawatts of solar power from the proposed solar plant near Webberville. This project is a good start down the path toward a renewable energy future for Austin. The 25 year $250 million contract with California-based Gemini Solar Development Company will provide Austinites clean, renewable power from one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in the world. Solar beats new nuclear power on cost, environment and meeting peak demand.

Solar power may seem expensive, but compared to what it costs to run natural gas plants to cover the same peak period and its associated environmental impacts, it’s a winner.

Some have raised objection to the fact that the solar panels are not local. Buying local is always preferable, but it’s not always feasible. There are no Texas companies that can currently manufacture panels for this sized plant. And while a California company has gotten the first contract because of California commitment to solar, local contractors and products can be used to construct and maintain the facility. Austin will still own the land too. We hope that with more plants like this one, solar companies will get the message that Texas is open for business.

We expect a large pro-nuke/anti-solar crowd, so come out to City Council this Thursday, Feb 12, sign up to voice your support for solar power. Tell City Council you want more!

Council convenes at 10 AM.

Read Full Post »

Did the Senate rob schoolchildren and give the money to Mr. Burns?

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2009 |

During much of the debate over the stimulus in the Senate, the argument was made that it was simply too large and porky. I failed to see the logic of the stimulus being “too big” when the Senate Appropriations Committee strained at a few smaller points and then inserted big, porky $50 billion of loan guarantees for the nuclear industry.

Then the debate shifted and they started stripping more pieces out of the stimulus, including money for education and school energy efficiency retrofits.

Does that mean that that they robbed schoolchildren and gave the money to Mr. Burns?

You be the judge:

Stimulus spending on:

House

Senate
Tax credits for Renewable Energy $13 billion $13 billion
Nuclear Loan Guarantees 0 $50 billion
Energy Efficiency upgrades for homeowners $6.2 billion $2.9 billion
Energy Efficiency and modernization upgrades for schools $21 billion 0
Fossil Fuel R&D (clean coal) 0 $4.6 billion
“Smart Grid” technology $11 billion $11 billion
Loan subsidies for renewable energy 0 $8.5 billion
Advanced battery systems research 0 $8.5 billion

Source: AP

Read Full Post »

Stimulus Bill Stuffed with $50 Billion of Glowing Nuclear Pork!

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2009 |

nuclear-pig-v2

UPDATE: With the passage of the stimulus bill through the Senate, now the joint conference committee will have to iron out the differences between the House and Senate bills. This is the last chance for Congress to strip this out of the bill.  Does your Congressman know how you feel about nuclear pork?

Environmentalists are screaming but it doesn’t seem like anyone’s listening. So many articles are debating $50 million for this or that in the economic stimulus bill, but almost all of them seem to be ignoring the huge $50 BILLION slab of glowing pork, in the form of loan guarantees, for the nuclear industry slipped into the stimulus bill last Tuesday by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah).

Sen. Bennett (R- UT) and Fictional Supervillain / Nuclear Power enthusiast C. Montgomery Burns

Sen. Bennett (R- UT) and Fictional Supervillain / Nuclear Power enthusiast C. Montgomery Burns

(A Washington Post article yesterday has some interesting background information. What they left out is why Bennett would be supporting nuclear pork. Anyone want to guess?)

Said Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder in a Press Release last Wednesday,

Senators are supposed to be fixing the economy but instead they’re offering the nuclear industry a $50 billion gift that will create virtually no near-term jobs. It’s unconscionable. Lobbyists are probably popping champagne corks as we speak.

With a long licensing and regulatory process, nuclear reactors are simply not shovel-ready.

Stressed Michael Mariotte, executive director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), in a January 30th Press Release,

This is nothing more than a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear power industry. It would have no stimulative effect on the economy and would create no new jobs, since no reactors will be licensed or can even be started in the two-year period the bill addresses.

Even if this were not the case, the “Nuclear Energy Institute-infamous for overstating nuclear power’s alleged benefits-acknowledges it costs about $1.5 million per job created by nuclear power.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Nickel and Dime your way to a nuke: an update on San Antonio

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2009 |

CPS committed to spend $60 million more on the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project at its Board of Trustees meeting on Tuesday, which brings the city utility’s total expenditures on units 3 & 4 to $267 million.

The construction and operating license still languishes at the NRC, almost a year and a half after being submitted.

Somewhat lost amid the honorings, approvals, and statements of the Board meeting was the fact that STP 3 & 4 ranking for DoE’s loan guarantees has slipped from #1 to #3 (out of 14).  Updated rankings will be out in March.  3rd seems respectable.  It’s a bronze medal, right?  Well, there’s only $18.5 billion slotted for loan guarantees and each reactor can cost $6-who-knows-how-many-billions.

Gschwartz’s piece on this week’s Board of Trustees meeting sums things up pretty well on SA Current’s Queblog.  The Express-News touched on it here and here.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Power Too Risky, Too Expensive, Too Dangerous

Posted in Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on January 5, 2009 |

Hey, look! A joint press release from Public Citizen Texas, the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the SEED Coalition:

An NRC Environmental Scoping Meeting will be held on Jan. 6th in Glen Rose, Texas to take comment on the environmental impact study for two nuclear reactors proposed for the existing Comanche Peak site. A coalition of environmental and consumer groups and their members will be telling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Luminant (formerly TXU) that nuclear plants are “too risky, too expensive and too dangerous” to help Texas meet its power needs, and makes no sense when clean, safe, affordable options exist. The coalition of groups said they
only learned of the hastily called public meeting to seek input on environmental issues on December 24th.

“We’ve been down this road before,” noted Cyrus Reed, Conservation Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club. “The utility industry sold Texas on Comanche Peak and the South Texas Project and consumers have been paying the ‘stranded’ costs ever since, even as valuable water resources are expended and radioactive waste piles up on-site.”

Luminant proposes to build two more nuclear reactors at the existing Comanche Peak nuclear site near Glen Rose, in Somervell County, using an unproven, untested technology known as USAPWR. “The design of the reactors has not been certified and has never been builtanywhere in the world. Why should Texas serve as guinea pigs for a dangerous radioactive experiment?” asked Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Design problems as well as human error led to numerous problems and shutdowns of Comanche Peak reactors in the past. The competence and character of Luminant need to be examined closely since the history of the existing reactors is disastrous. In the past, there was a chance to fix nuclear reactor construction problems before an operating license was issued, but that safeguard is gone with the new licensing process.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Sneak Attack

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , on December 29, 2008 |

compeakIn an era dubbed a “nuclear renaissance” by the nuclear industry and during which the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has indicated that they expect up to thirty applications to be filed to build additional nuclear plants.  Currently, five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process.  Of these early applications, three of them (for 6 nuclear units, 2 per application) are proposed for Texas.

One of these applications is for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, located four and a half miles northwest of Glen Rose in Somervell County and about 80 miles southwest of downtown Dallas.  Luminant (formerly TXU) filed an application September 19, 2008 to build two additional nuclear units on this site.

The Fort Worth Weekly summarizes the history of Comanche Peak:

The process of building and licensing the original pair of reactors at Comanche Peak turned into one of the most contentious – and frankly scary – developments that North Texas had seen in many years. By the time the plant was finished, it had come through major problems in the construction process, was hugely over budget and more than 10 years behind schedule, and had gone through a hard-fought licensing process that many believe added greatly to the safety of the plant. During that process, activists often questioned the objectivity of the NRC inspectors involved.

Given the problematic history of this plant’s previous licensing process, one would think that the NRC would take particular care in making sure the public felt included in the process. But environmentalists, concerned citizens and the media were caught off guard when federal authorities waited until Christmas Eve to send out notice of a public hearing on the proposed expansion scheduled for January 6th.

Officials confirmed that electronic notices of the Jan. 6th meeting were sent Wednesday, Dec. 24th. In defense of their timing, the NRC pointed the media to an online news release dated Friday, Dec. 19th. Though dated for Friday, the release was not actually posted to the website until Monday, Dec. 22nd.

The notification system is supposed to let interested parties know when these events are occurring in a timely fashion.  Burying the notice on Christmas Eve hardly holds to this standard. (more…)

Read Full Post »

du, duh, DUH! Cartoon Super Obama saves America from energy villains!

Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , on December 24, 2008 |

Check out the League of Conservation Voter’s newest ad supporting Obama’s plan to jump start the economy and solve the climate crisis.  If only he really did have super powers…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEBzRP-ZJuQ]

Read Full Post »

NRG asks Austin to invest in South Texas nuclear facility expansion

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , on December 19, 2008 |

The Austin American Statesman ran an article yesterday reporting on the City Council’s likely decision to hire a consultant to look into expansion of the South Texas Project nuclear power facility.

In February NRG invited the City Council, which owns a 16% stake in the plant,  to invest in a project that would double the size of the South Texas facility.  Austin declined when it was determined that the expansion would take an additional $1 billion and 2 years to complete than expected.  Now NRG is asking the Council to reconsider, and they will likely hire a consultant to evaluate NRG’s offer.

Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development) Coalition, responds:

stxplantmapAustin should continue to steer clear of more nuclear power. Morally, it is simply wrong to leave radioactive waste to thousands of generations to come. We should instead invest in safe energy efficiency and solar and wind power, which don’t come with radioactive terrorism risks.

Economically, nuclear power is a disastrous nightmare. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission data shows that nuclear power is the most expensive way to generate electricity. The City of Austin’s new study is likely to show that the economic risks have increased since their first look.

The two South Texas Project reactors would run between $12 – 17.5 billion according to Dr. Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. If Austin were to invest as a 16% owner, the cost to every Austin Energy ratepayer would be over $7200, before cost overruns. Rate hikes would be huge. Last time, the nuclear reactors ran six times over budget and were eight years late coming online. Nuclear power also comes with huge costs at the end of reactor lifespans, since decommissioning is the most expensive funeral ever.

Austin was right to say no to the nuclear expansion in February, and we should tell New Jersey based NRG a resounding and final no this time around.

I wouldn’t fret too much about this consultant, though.  Even the Statesman article notes that it is highly unlikely the city will buy into the expansion — they just need more information on the deal.  In all likelihood, this report will just confirm what a terrible investment this would be for the city.

Read Full Post »

Reprocessing nuclear fuel & the Catch 22 Legacy

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , on October 24, 2008 |

Generating electricity using nuclear power includes processing uranium.  After 40 years, the waste from the process can safely be put into containers for storage, though it is still dangerous to living things. After 10,000 years, the leftovers, the nuclear waste, will no longer be dangerous. Currently in the U.S., we leave the waste in ponds at the power plants and then put it in containers and bury it in the ground (a.k.a. “geologic depositories”).

“Nuclear reprocessing” means separating the waste—taking uranium that didn’t get used the first time out of the “trash” so it can be used to generate electricity.  The uranium is chemically separated from the rest of the waste and one of the new leftovers is plutonium, the radioactive ingredient in nuclear bombs.

Other countries, like France, reprocess their nuclear waste even though plutonium is left over, usually in the form of a highly concentrated power.  In the U.S., we’ve recently heard both 2008 presidential candidates say they support Americans reprocessing nuclear waste. (Private companies in the U.S. stopped doing so in 1976.)

One concern about nuclear reprocessing is individuals acquiring the powdered plutonium leftovers with which they can devise a nuclear weapon.  But for reprocessing nuclear waste, it would be extremely difficult for an individual to develop a nuclear weapon. There is disagreement among scientists about whether the plutonium powder is too radioactive to steal.

“. . .Commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much of this material that it has proven impossible to keep track of it accurately in a timely manner, making it feasible that the theft of enough plutonium to build several bombs could go undetected for years,” reports the Union of Concerned Scientists website. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Gimme! Nuclear industry asks for $122 billion from Uncle Sam

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , on October 16, 2008 |

Call it a preemptive bailout if you like, my Friends…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5L18ZV_qU]

…but the Department of Energy recently issued a press release stating that they have received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 14 nuclear power plants. The price tag: $122 billion.

http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

I know after the $700 billion bailout package, on top of $100+ billion just for AIG, $122 billion for nukes doesn’t sound that impressive. But it is a little scary when you realize that the feds only appropriated $18.5 billion for loan guarantees. Now children, don’t push in line!

The DoE estimated the total cost to construct the 21 proposed reactors at $188 billion, which they say averages out to around $9 billion per reactor.

Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees would total $5.8 billion per reactor based on DoE’s numbers. That’s a hard pill to swallow for an industry with a notorious history of default. From Bloomberg:

Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects’ high costs.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Lowest energy bills in Texas: WOAI says Austin’s got ’em

Posted in Consumers, Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2008 |

CPS Energy stakes its energy planning credibility on the fact that it has the lowest energy bills in Texas – even lower than those Austin people who get energy from hugging bunnies.

But WOAI crunched the numbers and last month, Austin Energy beat ’em. Check out the write-up and video here.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Makhijani, San Antonio discuss energy efficiency

Posted in Efficiency, Energy, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , on August 14, 2008 |

On Monday, various people including representatives from City Public Services, various county commissioners including Tommy Adkisson, commissioner candidate Chip Haass, Laurence Doxsey of HUD , Bill Sinkin of Solar San Antonio, and representatives from the Mayor Phil Hardberger’s office gathered to discuss energy efficiency with the Citizen’s Energy Coalition, SEED Coalition and the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club.

Arjun Makhijani, head of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, presented his preliminary findings on energy efficiency potential for San Antonio. I enjoyed the dialogue that came out of his speech. From most people I heard that Dr. Makhijani’s speech hit the right note of pushing CPS to do more while simultaneously congratulating them for their current energy efficiency and renewable goals.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

NRC Night at the Dome

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on August 12, 2008 |

Never been built

General Electric's ESBWR: Not ready for prime time

Turnout was high at the NRC’s public meeting in Victoria on Thursday about the future of nuclear power in the area. Tara Bozick of the Victoria Advocate estimated 400 people showed up. There was so much going on it might warrant a second post.

The NRC attempted to quell concerns about the fact that Exelon plans to build the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR), despite the fact that they have not yet certified it. In fact, the application for design certification was filed in 2005. Who knows when or if it will be certified, but Exelon’s application to build two of them in Victoria County puts added pressure on the NRC to approve the design.

It was publicly stated by the NRC last night that the ESBWR has never been built before. Why they would consider a combined operating license (COL) at the same time as they are reviewing revisions to the reactor design application is perplexing to say the least. So much for a streamlined process.

Matt

Read Full Post »

Hi, I’m France and I have a nuclear problem.

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on July 24, 2008 |

Are you just slightly skeptical of people who bashed France 5 years ago, yet hold them up as a paragon of energy planning for having so much nuclear power?

From the folks at Beyond Nuclear:

The French Nuclear Medusa: Beyond Nuclear’s Linda Gunter has just returned from a fact-finding mission in France where she also spoke at a rally of 5,000 demonstrators in Paris on July 12 calling for a nuclear-free world. Watch for new updates on France on the French Connection page on our Web site. French speakers can also view videos of the rally here. During Linda’s visit, there were coincidentally – but not inappropriately – two accidents at nuclear sites both operated by Areva. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts