Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Arjun Makhijani’

Protect Texas from Becoming Nation’s Radioactive Waste Dump

Posted in Good Government, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2010 |

SEED Coalition opposes any radioactive waste dumping in Texas, but at minimum seeks to prevent our state from receiving waste from more than just the two Compact States and becoming the nation’s radioactive waste dump. With support from Public Citizen, Environment Texas and Nuclear Information and Resource Service and other groups, they will submit comments today to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission. The Proposed Import/Export Rule under consideration may open the door for Texas to becoming the nation’s nuclear dumping ground and we’re making recommendations to strengthen the rule and protect public health as safety .

State Rep. Lon Burnam (District 90, Ft. Worth) will ask a series of questions of the Compact Commissioners, and try to get answers as to why they are considering the weak and risky approach taken by the draft rule under consideration.

Some of SEED Coalition’s comments can be summarized as follows:

  • The site should be limited to radioactive waste from Texas and Vermont, and have volume and radioactivity caps that match the license for the facility.
  • Waste from Texas and Vermont would more than fill up the facility, and no Out of Compact Waste should be imported.
  • The proposed import/ export rule needs to be strengthened and deemed a Major Environmental rule, so that more careful analysis can be done.
  • Radionuclides must be carefully tracked and monitored. The public has a right to know what is shipped to the site and the level of radioactivity in curies.
  • The public should be informed as to health risks from various radionuclides and meetings held in accord with the Open Meetings Act

The Compact Commission meets today beginning at 9 AM in Austin, Texas in the State Capitol Auditorium, E1.004, 1400 North Congress.

Visit www.NukeFreeTexas.org to find SEED’s comments, Rep. Burnam’s questions, a NIRS factsheet and the memo by nuclear expert Dr. Arjun Makhijani.  Press release after the jump… (more…)

Read Full Post »

Year in Review: San Antonio Nuclear Debacle/Amores Nucleares Telenovela

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 5, 2010 |

*Update: Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current just published a fantastic and very thorough recap of the twisted nuclear saga. Check it out!

Here’s part 2 in this year’s first annual Year in Review: Top Texas Vox Stories of 2009 series. Part 1 is just a hop, skip and scroll down.

3. San Antonio Nuclear Debacle/Amores Nucleares Telenovela

This year has been a doozy for nuclear power, with the highlight of course being the San Antonio situation.  Over the last 12 months San Antonio has ridden a wild wave of cost estimates, community meetings, protests, scandals, and misinformation.  But I’m getting ahead of myself. Remember when…

Last January, CPS Energy committed to spend $60 million more on the proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project, a decision which at that point brings the city utility’s total expenditures on units 3 & 4 to $267 million. Not long after that, Austin City Council took a look at participating in the expansion project but said “No way, that’s much too risky of an investment for us.” San Antonio decided that something magical (but mysterious) was different for them, despite our prediction in late April that the proposed reactors could actually cost as much as $22 Billion.  Mum was CPS’ word on a cost estimate at that time, but by June they announced that $13 Billion was a good, round number. We worried at this point that CPS was being overly optimistic, ignoring the history of the South Texas Project and other nukes around the nation and independent reports, but those concerns largely fell on deaf ears.

Then over the summer, CPS Energy launched a massive public outreach campaign, with meetings in every district — but kind of botched it.  Despite activists’ protests that CPS’ cost numbers were innacurate, the utiltiy refused to release their information or back up numbers, and many San Antonio citizens left the community meetings feeling disenchanted with the process and suspicious of CPS.

As a rising tide of activists and concerned citizens grew, eventually they formed the coalition group Energía Mía and worked together to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. The group launched a string of protests and press conferences highlighting the many flaws of nuclear power and the San Antonio deal in particular.  Everyone was all geared up for a big showdown the last week in October, but then the cowpie really hit the rotating bladed device (let’s call it a windmill). For the next part, I’m going to pull from a previous post where I likened the whole situation to a geeky, policy version of a telenovela.

Previously, on Amores Nucleares:

With just days before San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds for new nuclear reactors, it was leaked that the project could actually cost $4 Billion more than CPS had been saying all summer (according to Toshiba, who would actually be building the plant). The vote was postponed, there was an impromptu press conference, and it came out that CPS staff had actually known about the cost increase for more than a week — Oops! Oh, and the “leak” wasn’t that CPS came out with the truth, an aide from the mayor’s office only found out after confronting CPS about a rumor he’d heard. But how did the mayor’s office find out? NRG, CPS’ partner in the project was the “Deepthroat”, because they were going to announce Toshiba’s $17 Billion cost estimate at a shareholder’s meeting soon after the city council vote and thought, geez, that could look really bad for CPS! Meanwhile, CPS reps flew to Japan in a hurry to figure things out. Steve Bartley, interim GM for CPS, resigned. Furious that CPS had hidden the ugly truth from City Council, the mayor demanded the resignation of two key CPS board members, and got City Council to vote unanimously that they get the boot. Chairwoman Aurora Geis agreed to go, but Steve Hennigan said “No Way, Jose.” THEN CPS completed an internal audit of the whole shebang to figure out what-the-hell-happened, which found that Steve Bartley was to blame, and everyone else was only guilty of failure in their “responsibility of prompt disclosure”. Then it came out the project could be even more way way expensive than anyone thought (except of course Energia Mia, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, the Center for American Progress, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and analysts Arjun Makhijani, Clarence Johnson, Craig Severance, and Mark Cooper to name a few). And then those crazy cats all started suing each other.

So in the end, they told folks all summer long that the plant would cost $13 Billion, even though insiders knew since late June that it could very well be $4 Billion more. Latest update is that the plant could really cost $18.2 Billion! On December 31st, Toshiba provided CPS with another new estimate, which the utility will use to come up with their own new cost estimate mid-January. City council is slated to vote sometime after that, once and for all, on $400 million in bonds to continue the project.

But clearly, enough is enough. So if you live in San Antonio, tell City Council to stop throwing good money after bad, and to cut their losses before its too late. Tell them to vote “no” to nuclear bonds and start the year off fresh and free from the “ghost of nuclear projects past.”

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

$18.2 Billion! Amores Nucleares: San Antonio Nuclear Expansion Soap Opera Update

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2009 |

The San Antonio Nuclear Expansion Soap Opera plot thickens.  Today’s update brings the shocking news that South Texas Project Reactors 3 & 4 could actually cost, not $13 Billion, not even $17 Billion… but $18.2 Billion!

With all the trouble CPS has gotten into recently regarding transparency (a gentle term we’re using that translates roughly to “lying to the public and covering up bad news”), you’d think that they would’ve come forward and made this estimate public as soon as humanly possible.

But you’d be wrong.  Instead, they presented the numbers to their board in a closed session last week (read: NOT public, you’re not invited).  Sometime later, the San Antonio Express-News got wind of the update, “based on numbers provided by the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co”, and published the results.

When will CPS learn that they have got to be honest with the public, the mayor, and city council? They told folks all summer long that the plant would cost $13 Billion, even though insiders knew since late June that it could very well be $4 Billion more.  CPS has led a lengthy and sloppy cover-up campaign of STP and nuclear power’s “inconvenient truth” that culminated in resignations, an internal investigation, and several firings and demotions.

Am I going to fast for you? Did you miss a few episodes, and are confused that CPS’ prize project could so quickly fall to pieces? Let’s do a recap.

Previously, on Amores Nucleares:

With just days before San Antonio City Council was to vote to approve $400 million in bonds for new nuclear reactors, it was leaked that the project could actually cost $4 Billion more than CPS had been saying all summer (according to Toshiba, who would actually be building the plant).  The vote was postponed, there was an impromptu press conference, and it came out that CPS staff had actually known about the cost increase for more than a week — Oops! Oh, and the “leak” wasn’t that CPS came out with the truth, an aide from the mayor’s office only found out after confronting CPS about a rumor he’d heard. But how did the mayor’s office find out? NRG, CPS’ partner in the project was the “Deepthroat”, because they were going to announce Toshiba’s $17 Billion cost estimate at a shareholder’s meeting soon after the city council vote and thought, geez, that could look really bad for CPS! Meanwhile,  CPS reps flew to Japan in a hurry to figure things out.  Steve Bartley, interim GM for CPS, resigned.  Furious that CPS had hidden the ugly truth from City Council, the mayor demanded the resignation of two key CPS board members, and got City Council to vote unanimously that they get the boot.  Chairwoman Aurora Geis agreed to go, but Steve Hennigan said “No Way, Jose.” THEN CPS completed an internal audit of the whole shebang to figure out what-the-hell-happened, which found that Steve Bartley was to blame, and everyone else was only guilty of failure in their “responsibility of prompt disclosure”.  And then this week it came out the project could be even more way way expensive than anyone thought (except of course Energia Mia, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, the Center for American Progress, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and analysts Arjun Makhijani, Clarence Johnson, Craig Severance, and Mark Cooper to name a few).

That about brings us up to speed.

So what is next? December 31st, Toshiba should come out with a new, “official” cost estimate, which CPS will use to come up with their own cost estimate mid-January. City council is slated to vote January 15th, once and for all, on $400 million in bonds to continue the project.  But clearly, enough is enough.  Tell City Council to stop throwing good money after bad, and to cut their losses before its too late.  Tell them to vote “no” to nuclear bonds January 15th, and start the year off fresh and free from the “ghost of nuclear projects past.”

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

No Nuclear! San Antonio Platica Tonight featuring energy expert Arjun Makhijani

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 4, 2009 |

Please join the Energia Mia Coalition
including the Esperanza Center, Southwest Worker’s Union

No Nuclear! Platica Tonight

a discussion with local activists and visiting energy expert Arjun Makhijani

FRIDAY, Dec. 4th – 7pm
at the Esperanza Center (210)228-0201
922 San Pedro Ave, SA, TX 78212

Marisol Cortez

currently works as the climate justice organizer for the Southwest Workers’ Union, where she helps lead a campaign calling for greener, more just energy policy in San Antonio. Born in Corpus Christi and raised in and around San Antonio, Marisol worked with local environmental and EJ networks around the PGA issue, which inspired her to study environmental justice issues as a graduate student at UC Davis. She recently completed her Ph.D. in Cultural Studies at UC Davis, and has returned to San Antonio to hopefully put her knowledge and passion to good use!

Arjun Makhijani

President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), holds a Ph.D. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley. He has produced many studies and articles on nuclear fuel cycle related issues. Most recently, Dr. Makhijani has authored Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy (RDR Books and IEER Press, 2007), the first analysis of a transition to a U.S. economy based completely on renewable energy, without any use of fossil fuels or nuclear power. IEER’s website is: www.ieer.org

Genevieve Rodriguez

is a grassroots community activist and labor organizer who has been working to organize students and young people of color in San Antonio around the nuclear issue. Genevieve works on campaigns addressing multiple issues of labor, poverty, reproductive health/ health care, queer issues, public space & sexism/racism /homophobia. Genevieve’s work includes moving and being moved through music, writing & art. She is part of many organizations including Esperanza Center, Planned Parenthood, LIPS (UTSA feminists) & the broader progressive, mujerista, music, and art communities.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR POWER, visit:

www.energiamia.org

www.nukefreetexas.org

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives to nuclear

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on October 2, 2009 |

CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives to nuclear

By Arjun Makhijani – Special to the San Antonio Express-News

CPS Energy is asking its board and the San Antonio City Council for permission to sell $400 million of bonds to follow the $276 million CPS Energy has already spent to get an option to buy a nuclear pig in a poke.

Yet, the price that Toshiba, the company that would build the plant, would charge won’t be fully disclosed until 2012; a “baseline” cost estimate will be disclosed this winter. A commitment of such a vast additional sum is premature, at best.

First, CPS’ electricity demand projections are suspect. Its projected annual growth rate would increase from about 1.5 percent during 2009-2020 to about 2.4 percent after that. Yet, stringent building and appliance efficiency regulations are in the works nationally. Carbon prices are likely to rise steeply after 2020.

CPS’ assumption about an increasing growth rate makes neither market sense nor common sense. The risk to San Antonio would not be as serious had CPS done a careful analysis of the options. It has not. It only considered coal (a poor risk) and natural gas as potential alternatives.

CPS did not consider compressed-air energy storage, in use on a large scale both in Alabama and Germany. An investment of $400 million could convert the 1,250 megawatts of wind energy that CPS has or plans to acquire into about 400 megawatts of baseload capacity. CPS estimates a cost of $9,000 per kilowatt for a concentrating solar thermal power plant with heat storage, yet utilities are signing contracts (or purchased power agreements) for half this amount or less today. Google’s green energy chief, Bill Weihl, recently stated that solar projects typically cost $2,500 to $4,000 per kilowatt, plus $1,000 for storage.

Moreover, these costs are coming down. CPS did not consider combined heat and power, which is commercial, biomass used in an integrated gasification combined cycle plant, or elements of a smart grid that could convert intermittent renewable capacity into dependable capacity for loads like washing machines and air conditioners. It doesn’t appear to have considered recent drops in natural gas prices.

In brief, CPS has dropped the ball on alternatives. The argument that CPS must meet urgent deadlines to preserve its nuclear option should not rush the board or the city. NRG, CPS’ 50-50 partner in the project, can hardly proceed without CPS. Without CPS’ stellar bond rating and money, NRG, with its junk bond rating, would be far less likely to get federal loan guarantees.

Indeed, in my view, without CPS, NRG would not have a viable project. During the Clean Technology Forum in San Antonio on Sept. 16, Mayor Julián Castro promised the public that CPS’ investment decision will be made on merits.

However, this cannot be done now, because CPS has not put the options on the table that would enable a comparison on the merits. An independent expert panel could probably do a study for City Council in six months, possibly less. It would be unwise to risk $400 million more without it.

Arjun Makhijani is president of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. He has published two studies on CPS nuclear costs.

Read Full Post »

WATCH: San Antonio Clean Tech Forum- The Great Nuclear Debate

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 18, 2009 |

Many of you have been clamoring for these videos of the clean tech forum that we attended on Wednesday, so here they are in streaming digital goodness.
[vimeo 6648744]
[vimeo 6649649]

Outside the event we caught up with two of the panelists from the forum, specifically the ones opposed to San Antonio investing in the new nuclear expansion.  First, Craig Severance, a CPA by trade, who did a financial “due diligence” type of analysis on the proposed nuclear expansion at STP 3 and 4. Read about it in his blog at energyeconomyonline.com/San_Antonio_Debate

[vimeo 6648340]

We also spoke with Dr. Arjun Makhijani, a noted power expert, on the risks of nuclear expansion.

[vimeo 6648395]

It’s time to be hard-headed about this, folks.  Investing in nuclear  is an economic risk the City of San Antonio simply can’t afford to take.

Hungry for more?  We have full footage of the “Risking San Antonio’s Economic Future, Nuclear Experts Explain Flaws and Risks of Pursuing More Nuclear Reactors” forum that was held later in the day at the UTSA Downtown Campus.

[vimeo 6660448]
[vimeo 6662900]

Here’s some of the press coverage from the event:

Energy leaders to debate nuke issue in S.A.By Tracy Idell Hamilton   -Express-News

Nuclear forum highlights contrasting opinions –  By Anton Caputo   -Express-News

Nuke vote delayed; final hearing is set By Tracy Idell Hamilton   -Express-News

Nuclear investment part of a viable energy portfolio By Patrick Moore
(please go here and leave snarky comments about what a corporate stooge sell-out Patrick Moore is)

http://johntedesco.net/blog/2009/09/16/fresh-from-twitter-debating-nuclear-power/

http://blog.barberassociates.com/2009/09/san-antonio-clean-technology-nuclear.html

http://www.ksat.com/news/20966023/detail.html

And last but certainly not least, for our Amigos who can habla espanol, please watch this video from Univision featuring our own Melissa Sanchez and David Power!

Read Full Post »

Nuclear or Not? Hear the Experts at Free Evening Talk Wednesday Sept. 16

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on September 14, 2009 |

157_5c14c_nuclearenergy2Nuclear or Not?  That’s the question on everyone’s lips in San Antonio these days, but some are still waiting to hear from the experts before they make a decision.  What are the consequences and risks? What affordable and safe options exist?  We want to know, but we want to hear from folks we can trust.

Lucky for you, the experts are rolling into town.  On Wednesday, September 16th, Energía Mía will host an evening talk at UTSA at 7 pm with nuclear experts Craig Severance and Dr. Arjun Makhijani. And just who exactly are these distinguished gentlemen?  I thought you might ask…

Dr. Arjun Makhijani is President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and holds a Ph.D. In Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in nuclear fusion. He has authored two San Antonio specific studies regarding energy options and nuclear power costs. Most recently, Dr. Makhijani has authored Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: a Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. He has been featured on every major U.S. television network and has been consulted by the United Nations. IEER’s website is www.ieer.org.

Mr. Craig Severance is a CPA and businessman, who offers a practical business perspective. He has authored “Business Risks to Utilities as New Nuclear Power Costs Escalate” (Electricity Journal, May ‘09) and “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power” (Center for American Progress, Jan. ‘09). He co-authored The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976). Mr. Severance writes about energy issues on his website: www.energyeconomyonline.com

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16 AT 7PM
UTSA Downtown Campus
Riklin Auditorium
Frio Street Building, Room 1.406
On S. Frio Street between Buena Vista and Durango
(This is a free talk, open to the public. Parking is available in Cattleman Square Parking Lot)

For more information, download the flyer for the event and help pass them out to your friends!

Read Full Post »

Express News Editorial Gets It, Why Doesn’t CPS?

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 17, 2009 |

The following editorial from the San Antonio Express News is an excellent take on the issue of the South Texas Project nuclear expansion. Kudos to Carlos Guerra!

Expert offers uniquely Texan power solution

Carlos Guerra – San Antonio Express News

With a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from UC-Berkeley, Arjun Makhijani has followed energy issues and innovations for decades. But with his uncanny understanding of economics, and a willingness to put a pencil to what comes along, when he says something, you listen.

Or, at least, you should.

Makhijani’s most recent book, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free” is now a must-read on emerging energy solutions. And last fall, he studied CPS Energy’s plans to participate in the doubling of the South Texas Project.

Among other things, the engineer concluded that the two new reactors would cost more than twice what was projected.

CPS’ latest forecasts now almost echo Makhijani’s.

And Wednesday, he advised CPS to closely re-examine its drive to expand the STP and, especially, its latest twist in the deal: to sell excess electricity on the wholesale market to offset the regular rate increases that would be made necessary to pay for the new reactors.

“Especially in a deep recession, when demand for electricity is going down throughout the country, and nobody has any idea when it will recover,” he said, “for San Antonio to say they are going to sell electricity on the open market at rates that will benefit ratepayers is gambling with public money.”

Makhijani did compliment our utility’s newfound commitment to promoting greater efficiencies and relying more heavily on wind energy. But he also offered alternatives to the pricey investment in nuclear power that he says would be better and safer — economically and environmentally — and yield better results more quickly.

“The combination of efficiency, storage and wind, and concentrating solar thermal energy would be the right mix,” he said. “And the pace at which you do that should depend on the economic circumstances. You shouldn’t be overbuilding anything, not wind, solar or whatever.

“In San Antonio, the first thing to do is to start making money on efficiencies so bills don’t go up for consumers,” he continued.

“That will lay the foundation for a solid electricity sector that will be modern and that can accommodate changes.”

And since CPS leads Texas in its commitment to buying wind energy, it should incorporate storage strategies so it can purchase excess electricity when it is cheapest, and distribute it to augment other electricity sources when demand — and other electricity prices — soar.

The Japanese, Makhijani noted, are already using large industrial sodium-sulfur batteries to do just that with wind energy.

But in Texas, storing energy as compressed air in massive underground caverns — as is done with natural gas — might make more sense. And it is a proven technology.

Then, when energy demand peaks, the compressed air is heated with small amounts of natural gas and used to drive turbines to generate electricity that can help meet the peak-load demands.

When you think about it, that would be a perfectly Texan solution. When temperatures soar and air conditioners are cranked up, we could solve our peak demand problems with natural gas and a lot of hot air.

Read Full Post »

South Texas Project Nuclear Reactors Too Expensive, CPS Cost Estimate Overly Optimistic

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2009 |

Last week San Antonio’s CPS released their cost estimate for the proposed South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion, and we found their numbers naive optimistic ignored history wanting.  To find out why, check out this Guest Column, printed in today’s San Antonio Express-News, from Public Citizen’s own Energy Policy Analyst Matthew Johnson.

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Matthew Johnson: Why not cheaper, safer sources of energy?

Nuclear reactors too expensive

By Matthew Johnson – Express-News Guest Voices

CPS Energy announced its cost estimate for two more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project near Bay City last week. The $13-billion price tag is the latest estimate in a sustained and systemic low-balling by utilities wishing to receive government subsidies.

CPS’ partner, NRG Energy, recently pegged the cost of units 3 and 4 at $10 billion, a figure that has jumped nearly 50 percent from its original estimate of $5.4 billion.

Other analyses, however, have estimated the cost of two new reactors to be nearly 100 percent higher than the CPS estimate. Former Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel official Clarence Johnson recently estimated the cost of STP expansion to be $20 billion to $22 billion, while nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Dr. Arjun Makhijani estimated a cost of up to $17.5 billion in 2008.

A new study by Mark Cooper, of the Vermont Law School, analyzed numerous cost estimates of the so-called nuclear renaissance beginning around 2001. He discovered that early estimates of new nuclear reactors were made predominantly by industry and academics and were optimistic and eager to rejuvenate the industry.

Since then, utilities’ estimates have shown similar wishful thinking, but continue to rise. Independent analysts and Wall Street, Cooper shows, offer the most realistic estimates that are much higher.

The history of the STP expansion effort follows this pattern. CPS and NRG have been attempting to gain support in federal, state and city government since they submitted their application to build two new reactors to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007.

Wall Street estimates also place a similar and continuously rising price tag on new reactors. The bond-rating agency Moody’s predicted $5,000-6,000 per kilowatt for new reactors almost two years ago, which translates to $16.2 billion for STP expansion, and recently indicated that it could downgrade bond ratings on utilities constructing new nuclear reactors.

The federal government established an $18.5 billion subsidy to back loans taken out to construct new reactors. STP expansion advocates brag about being on the short list for part of these loan guarantees, but proponents and opponents agree that more reactors won’t be built if the feds don’t pony up the dough.

The reason is simple. Investors are squeamish to lend money for projects with such a high risk of defaulting on repayments. Delay and cost overruns increase risk. STP’s original reactors took eight years longer than planned to complete and costs soared six times over original estimates.

CPS Energy has faster and cheaper alternatives. Their recent announcement on the 27 megawatt solar plant in West Texas, the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts plus their goal to save 771 megawatts through energy efficiency by 2020 are shining examples of the path they should focus on to keep rates stable and low in the future. This path also creates more local jobs.

City Council will soon have to decide on San Antonio’s involvement in new reactors. It must vote no on nuclear to protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.

Matthew Johnson is an energy policy analyst for Public Citizen’s Texas office.

Read Full Post »

CPS’ Reactor Cost Estimate Naïve; Ignores History and Independent Reports

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 29, 2009 |

Statement of Tom “Smitty” Smith, Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

CPS Energy’s announcement today that it will cost $13 billion to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) is a naïve guess when compared to independent assessments that offer more realistic estimates for financing and construction. San Antonio already has spent nearly $300 million just for an accounting of this project’s potential cost, but it appears that even that amount could not buy the city an accurate study.

Former Office of Public Utility Counsel Director Clarence Johnson and nuclear engineer and president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Arjun Makhijani have estimated that costs will range from $17.5 billion to $22 billion.

Even Wall Street underwriters are pinning new reactors at a cost closer to what Johnson and Makhijani have estimated. Wall Street realizes the true potential cost and risk of nuclear power – which is why they refuse to invest in STP unless it is able to secure federally guaranteed loans. That way, if the project goes under or the costs balloon out of control, the only investors who will lose a significant amount of money are the American taxpayers.

Estimates like the one CPS made today are non-binding. If the reactors cost more than CPS has estimated, San Antonio taxpayers will pay the difference. If NRG Energy is unable to provide a fixed contract for this deal, CPS and San Antonio should ask why.

The City Council can stop all this madness and save San Antonio from a bad deal that will pass costs onto ratepayers for decades to come. Council members have questioned the project in the past and have expressed skepticism. The unfortunate truth is that there will be no way to know how much the expansion will cost until the plant is online.  No one knows how much new reactors will ultimately cost to build, finance and operate.

City Council members have shown support for investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. They have shown incredible vision supporting the Mission Verde plan to develop 250 megawatts of solar and new wind contracts. Just this May, the City Council voted to allow CPS to fund energy efficiency efforts, known as the Save for Tomorrow Energy Program. These are the sorts of measures that San Antonio should be supporting – measures that can be deployed quicker and at a fraction of the cost of nuclear expansion.

Now is the time for the City Council to bring common sense and practicality back to the table. San Antonio can’t afford another nuclear boondoggle; the City Council has the opportunity to say “no” to these new nuclear investments. Only it can protect San Antonians from bearing the overwhelming economic burden of building costly, dangerous and unnecessary nuclear reactors.

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 »

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 »