Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Luminant’

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 »

60 Day Clock For Nuclear Opponents Starts Ticking

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 6, 2009 |

hourglassHey Look!  A press release from SEED Coalition and Public Citizen:

60 Day Clock For Nuclear Opponents Starts Ticking;
Luminant Moves Forward Toward Expansion of Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant
Reactor Design Not Ready for Primetime

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission posted notice today on the federal register of Luminant’s application to build two reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear plant site, southwest of Fort Worth. Citizens now have only 60 days to prepare and present their legal case in opposition.

The reactor design (US-APWR) has not been approved by the NRC and it has never been built anywhere in the world. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. submitted the US-Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor (US-APWR) for design certification on December 31, 2007, but the review will take the NRC at least until 2011 to complete.

“This fast-tracked combined construction and operating license process was rationalized based on the assumption that new reactors would only use pre-certified designs, but the Comanche Peak reactor design is not approved yet. Not only does this put a huge burden on the public to quickly learn what’s happening and become involved within only 60 days, but it also puts pressure on the NRC to rubberstamp designs that should have extra scrutiny,” said Smith.

“The streamlined process is designed to cut citizens out and limit public involvement in the licensing of two reactors that could cost $22 billion before cost overruns,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “It makes the fast-tracking of TXU’s coal plants in Texas look slow.”

Comanche Peak Unit One ran ten times over budget and was years late coming online. An untested reactor design increases the likelihood of similar problems occurring again and soaring rate hikes that would result.

“If safety was a real concern, the three processes all occurring simultaneously would be take one at a time. This rush increases risks of safety oversight and problems from faulty design and construction” said Hadden. “Reactor designs should be analyzed first, and if and when the NRC deems them adequate, a construction license application should be allowed. If the plant has no major construction flaws after completion, then the operating license should be decided.” (more…)

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 »

Aww, Shucks!

Posted in Coal, tagged , , , , , , , on December 17, 2008 |

The Dallas Morning News wrote a sweet editorial last week lauding Public Citizen’s efforts to require that Luminant abide by stricter mercury emissions standards at the new Oak Grove coal-fired power plant under construction near Waco:

When authorities failed to require Luminant, formerly TXU, to abide by stricter federal emissions standards at a coal-fired power plant under construction near Waco, the Sierra Club and another watchdog group, Public Citizen, had to step in.

The groups threatened to sue Luminant when it got a pass from state environmental regulators to use more relaxed, older pollution standards at its two-unit Oak Grove power plant near Waco instead of following tighter new restrictions for mercury emissions…

Clearly, the Sierra Club and Public Citizen meant business with their lawsuit, bolstered by a federal appeals court ruling in February that said the Environmental Protection Agency had to enforce mandatory cuts for mercury emissions at power plants, as the Clean Air Act requires. Mandatory means companies like Luminant can’t regard compliance as optional or arguable.

The lawsuit would have proved costly and could have delayed next year’s scheduled opening of Oak Grove, so Luminant worked out a deal to ensure that its emissions stay within Clean Air Act limits. Luminant promises to control mercury emissions using “maximum achievable control technology,” but if it still exceeds limits, the Oak Grove plant could be forced to curtail operations.

If this is what it takes to make Luminant and other polluting power companies abide by the law, at least Texans can breathe easier knowing they’re in compliance. We still look forward to the day when coercion is replaced by cooperation in the effort to clean up the air we breathe. Until then, watchdog groups deserve praise and support for making sure pollution standards are respected – and enforced.

Oh, stop it, Dallas Morning News!  You’re making us blush! Many thanks to the editorial board for giving credit where credit is due.  It sure is nice to feel appreciated 🙂

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts