Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear reactors’

Nuclear Loan Guarantee: A High Risk Investment for the American People

Posted in Nuclear, Nuclear Plants, tagged , , , , , , , on February 22, 2014 |

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced on Wednesday, February 19th, that his agency approved a multibillion dollar taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for the first nuclear reactors to be built in the U.S. in more than 30 years.  We view this as a costly act of desperation for a failing project.

An $8.3 billion loan guarantee was conditionally approved four years ago for two new reactors at Southern Company’s Vogtle plant in Waynesboro, Ga.  Since then, negotiations around the terms of the loan guarantee have been extended five times. Secretary Moniz’s announcement – that the government has finalized terms with two of three companies – accounts for just $6.5 billion of the loan. With approval for $1.8 billion of the loan still pending, the agency is clearly attempting to give momentum to the stalled project.

The construction of the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant are 21 months behind schedule and $1.6 billion over budget.  The original two units at Vogtle resulted in 1000% cost overruns from the original $1 billion dollar estimate as well as decades-long set-backs and construction delays.  This not only calls into question the decision to underwrite this risky project with taxpayer dollars, but proves that the same issues that plagued reactor construction more than three decades ago have not been resolved.

Nuclear energy continues to be beset with safety issues and produces toxic wastes that we still don’t have a solution for – hardly a technology the government should be promoting and propping up with taxpayer funds.

We berate wall street for their high-risk investments, yet the Department of Energy seems to have little to no risk aversion for these types of loan guarantees.  This is a bad deal for the American people who have been put on the hook for a project that is both embroiled in delays and cost overruns and to a company that has publicly stated that it does not need federal loans to complete the project.

This is a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

Read Full Post »

NRC Staff Should Stop Balking, Provide Fire Safety Information, Groups Say

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2010 |

Agency Is Refusing to Adhere to an Order to Release Document That Would Help Determine Safety of New Nuclear Reactors

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should stop balking and provide a critical document that would reveal how the owners of a Texas nuclear plant expansion project plan to deal with a fire or explosion, three public interest groups told the commission late last week.

Three administrative judges of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board have ordered the agency to provide at least a redacted version, but NRC staffers have refused. The NRC’s lack of transparency could impact the ability to get adequate safety-related information not only about the South Texas Project (STP) but about other proposed reactors around the country as well.

Late Friday, the groups – the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, Public Citizen and the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy – filed a brief with the NRC. It noted that the NRC staff’s refusal to provide the information violated President Barack Obama’s new transparency policy. The groups also said the NRC is acting arbitrarily and trying to shut the public out of NRC proceedings.

“After the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress required new fire and safety standards for all new plants and the NRC developed rules to reflect this. Now, the NRC is trying to do its work behind closed doors, and its staffers are literally making up how to handle information as they go along, keeping as much secret as possible,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the SEED Coalition. “Without disclosure of this information, we can’t tell how well the NRC is doing in protecting the public.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Nuclear Renaissance Dealt Blow by South Texas Project Troubles

Posted in Energy, Good Government, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 29, 2010 |

A critical court ruling today rang the first chime in what could be the death knell of the so-called “nuclear renaissance,” starting with the failed expansion of the South Texas Project (STP).

This afternoon’s ruling by 408th District Court Judge Larry Noll that CPS Energy can safely withdraw from the proposed STP expansion project without losing all its investment offers the utility and the city of San Antonio the cue they’ve been waiting for to exit the national nuclear stage. Combined with the NRG Energy CEO’s announcement during a shareholder and press conference call this morning that NRG would “wind down the project as quickly and economically as possible” if CPS withdraws or STP does not receive federal loan guarantees, this news marks a major blow to those who claim nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy. The expansion project calls for two new nuclear reactors at a site with two existing reactors.

slide 8 of NRG's "STP 3&4 Nuclear Project and CPS Litigation" presentation given at shareholder and media conference call Friday, January 29, 2010 8:00 a.m. ET

These events give credence to the contention made over the past five years by opponents of nuclear power that it is a needlessly expensive and risky way to meet future energy needs.. In less than a year, the price of the STP nuclear expansion ballooned from around $5 billion to more than $18 billion. Given this case study of nuclear power’s failure, we must call into question the federal government’s decision to increase federal loan guarantees to support oversized, untenable projects that are already proving too risky for private investors.

Public Citizen calls on both CPS Energy and NRG Energy to stop throwing good money after bad with their nuclear expansion plans and halt the project. Thankfully, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro intervened by putting the project on hold before costs jumped too far out of San Antonio’s reach. Given the court’s announcement that the city’s interests are protected, we hope San Antonio will take the next responsible step and bow out entirely.

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

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, 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 »

Denied a substantial rate increase to fund their construction, Florida Power and Light nuclear reactors put on hold

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , on January 15, 2010 |

Two proposed nuclear reactors in Florida were put on hold this week after the Florida Public Service Commission denied the lion’s share of a rate increase necessary to fund the project’s construction. The utility Florida Power and Light (FPL) requested a record rate hike of $1.27 Billion, but was only granted a a $75.5 million base-rate increase. Stripped of their authority to make ratepayers bear the financial burden and risk of new reactors, FPL announced

it would halt $10 billion in projects, including plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the Turkey Point plant near Miami and upgrade two new generators.

If the economy improves, FPL can ask for a larger rate increase at a later date — but for the time being, this is a major victory for consumers and anti-nuclear advocates alike.  Florida has seen the folly of forcing citizens to pay large rate increases and bear the long-term burden for risky investments in nuclear power — let’s just hope that the San Antonio City Council comes to the same conclusion.  They’re set to vote on $400 million in bonds to continue their stake in two additional proposed reactors at the South Texas Nuclear Project facility later this month.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, 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 »

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 »

Reminder Post: Nuclear reactors too expensive

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

In case you didn’t catch our editorial in the San Antonio Express News this summer, it’s worth repeating.

NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE 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 »

Come Speak TONIGHT at CPS Public Hearing

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , on September 28, 2009 |

Tonight at 6 pm is the final CPS hearing regarding the proposed nuclear reactors. The trustees will vote at their next meeting, Oct. 5th, on whether to participate in the proposed two additional nuclear reactors and spend an additional $400 million. This could be the last chance for citizens to directly address CPS on this extremely important issue.

Nuclear reactors come with serious financial, health and security risks, and are not the answer to San Antonio’s energy needs. We are increasingly concerned about the misinformation, spin and fuzzy math used by CPS to defend its risky nuclear proposal. CPS Energy knows that safer, more affordable options already exist today. These better energy choices could build green jobs locally.

WHEN: Today – Monday, September 28th at 6 pm (Come at 5 pm to sign up to speak)

WHERE: Lobby of Villita Assembly Building, 401 Villita Street, San Antonio

Hope you can make it out!

For more info visit: www.Energiamia.org

Energía Mía includes members of Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Southwest Workers Union, Sun Energy, Former San Antonio City Council members, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, SEED Coalition, and Public Citizen.

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 »

San Antonio Protest of Nuclear Reactors TOMORROW, Thursday Sept. 10

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2009 |

Hey San Antonio! There will be a protest against nuclear power tomorrow at lunchtime downtown outside of City Hall.  Join us and the rest of the Energia Mia coalition and make your voice heard!  Details below.

WHAT: Protest against CPS Energy’s pursuit of more nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project. Not only is nuclear power the most expensive form of energy, it’s the most water intensive and it comes with enormous security, safety and health risks.

WHEN: Thursday, September 10th, Noon

WHERE: 114 W. Commerce, Outside of the Municipal Plaza Building, City Hall Complex

WHO: Concerned students, Members of Energia Mia and others.

Energia Mia includes members active in Southwest Workers’ Union, the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Project Verde, the Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills and Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Associations, AGUA, the Texas Drought Project, the Green Party, San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition, Public Citizen, SEED Coalition, Environment Texas and Clean Water Action.

WHY: Nuclear reactors come with serious health and safety risks. Exposure to radioactivity leads to cancer and genetic damage and after fifty years there is still no solution to storing radioactive waste. San Antonio needs drinking water. Vast quantities of water should not be wasted to cool nuclear reactors. Safer, more affordable energy choices exist today.

Spending billions of dollars for nuclear reactors is throwing money away that should be used for energy efficiency and renewable solar, wind and geothermal power, creating green jobs in San Antonio. Nuclear power would raise electric rates much more than other energy options, at a time when people are already struggling to pay their bills. The nuclear reactors should be halted now.

For More Information, Contact: Alice Canestaro, Energía Mía (713.480.8013) or Amanda Hoss, Esperanza Peace and Justice Center (210.228.0201)

Read Full Post »

Proposed South Texas Project Reactors Pose Increased Water Use and Radioactive Contamination Risks

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2009 |

San Antonio, TX —  Nuclear power is the most water intensive energy source available. When San Antonio and all of Texas are suffering from extreme drought and are increasingly in need of sources of drinking water, pursuing more nuclear reactors doesn’t make sense, especially true since cheaper, safer alternatives such as energy efficiency, wind, geothermal and solar energy are available. All use significantly less water than nuclear reactors.

Dr. Lauren Ross’ comments are timely in that the Texas drought continues to worsen, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is still considering nine water-related contentions submitted in opposition to additional reactors by SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and STARE, the South Texas Association for Responsible Energy.

“Nuclear reactors consume vast quantities of water,” said Dr. Lauren Ross, environmental engineer and owner of Glenrose Engineering. “The proposed STP reactors 3 and 4 would withdraw 23,170 gallons per minute from the Colorado River. The two proposed reactors would increase forced evaporation by an additional 37,400 acre-feet per year. The water withdrawal required from the Colorado River to replace evaporated water for all four reactors would be about 74,500 acre-feet per year.”

“Water withdrawal for STP’s nuclear reactors can be a significant fraction of the total river flow. Peak water use so far occurred on September 16, 2001, when the water withdrawal was 48% of the total Colorado river flow near the reactor site,” said Dr. Ross. “From January 1, 2001 through September 30, 2006 there were 69 days when withdrawal for existing STP reactors was equal to or greater than one quarter of the entire river flow.” With four reactors and an increase in the surface water demand, the river flow in the future could go even lower than it is now.

Estimated groundwater use would more than double from an average of 798 gallons per minute for the existing facility over the last five years to a level of 2040 gallons per minute for all four reactors, according to Dr. Ross, but STP wants to wait on analyzing groundwater availability until after the permit is issued.

The year 2008 was one of the driest years on record for Central Texas. Dr. Ross’s most recent research shows that in 2008 water use by LCRA’s firm water customers plus four irrigation operators was more than twice that of the Highland Lakes inflows for the same period, so losses are not being replenished. Moreover, STP’s authorized withdrawal is more than one-third of the total Highland Lakes inflow for 2008.

Water versus Energy

The San Antonio Water System recently filed suit for breach of contract against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion. The suit claims that the water-sharing project was killed by the river authority in order to make sure there would be enough water for power plant deals in Matagorda County. At the same time CPS Energy, the San Antonio municipal utility, seeks to be a partner in the proposed nuclear reactors for Matagorda County. STP’s annual permitted withdrawal from the Colorado River is 102,000 acre-feet per year, incredibly close to the amount in the canceled LCRA/SAWS water agreement, 102,500 acre-feet per year (average).

“Will we reach a point where San Antonio will have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?” asked Alice Alice Canestaro-Garcia, visual artist and member of EnergÍa MÍa. “It makes no sense to build two more reactors, which together would use enough water to fill 1,440 swimming pools in one day.”

Increasing Radioactive Contamination

South Texas Project’s license application fails to evaluate the increasing levels of groundwater tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that can be dangerous if inhaled, ingested or absorbed through the skin. Tritium emits Beta radiation that causes cancer, cell mutation, and birth defects. “Tritium has been detected in two of the pressure relief wells that collect water leaking from the unlined bottom of the existing main cooling reservoir. Concentrations of tritium have been increasing in both wells, and these concentrations could rise if two more nuclear reactors are built at the site,” said Dr. Ross.

A state water permit proposed for the site fails to address radionuclides such as tritium, and doesn’t require monitoring for total dissolved solids, some metals or the chemicals added by the facility, such as biocides, sulfuric acid, and anti-scalants. There are also no sulfur or sodium limits for the wastewater discharges, even though these are significant components of the water that would be released back to the Colorado River system.

The application’s Environmental Report relies upon a dilution factor of 10 to meet discharge standards, but fails to provide information about how much the waste discharge loads would change with two additional nuclear reactors. It fails to analyze the consequences of the load increases into a system with only a small change in the dilution factor, since the storage volume would increase only 7.4%.

The reactor application admits that “5,700 acre-feet per year leaks through the unlined bottom of the main cooling reservoir into the underlying Gulf Coast Chicot Aquifer” and 68% of it is recovered. The rest migrates underground, seeping into nearby surface water bodies, into pumped wells or the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.

“Failure to monitor and regulate leakage through the bottom of the main cooling reservoir constitutes a failure to protect groundwater and surface water from plant operations,” said Dr. Ross.

For more information, visit www.EnergiaMia.org

Read Full Post »

New Anti-Nuclear Group, Energía Mía, Putting Heat on CPS

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 6, 2009 |

miaAs many of you already know, the nuclear battle is getting pretty heated in San Antonio these days.  That’s why a new citizen’s group, Energía Mía, has recently formed.  But they can tell you their intentions better than I can:

Citizens are uniting in efforts to halt CPS’ spending for more nuclear reactors. Speakers from many diverse organizations and businesses relayed their concerns about nuclear power as part of the newly formed Energia Mia network and are working to increase visibility and awareness of the problems of nuclear power.

“Energía Mía urges all citizens in San Antonio to get involved now and contact the mayor and city council. The rate hikes that would come from more nuclear power are unacceptable. They would create a severe economic hardship on many people and local businesses” said Cindy Weehler. “We have set up a new web site, www.EnergiaMia.org to provide information to the public and let people know how to get involved.”

According to the San Antonio Express-News, their membership includes representatives from

…the Southwest Workers Union, Project Verde, Alamo Group of the Sierra Club, Highland Hills Neighborhood Association, Jefferson Heights Neighborhood Association, Texas Drought Project, Green Party and the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.

Alongside fundamental concerns about water, security, radioactive waste, and health and safety risks, the group is concerned about the financial effect the project could have on the city and the rate hikes that CPS has said will accompany STP’s expansion.  CPS has already said that 5-8% rate hikes will be needed every two years for the next ten years to pay for this project, and that electric rates could increase nearly 50% as a result.

The good news is that all the noise these activists are making is starting to have an impact.  Already, Mayor Julian Castro is having doubts.  And apparently, “at every public meeting, city and CPS officials have run into a buzz saw of objections from ratepayers and business owners concerned about higher energy costs.” Some folks are even calling for a referendum on the issue — or at the very least, an honest debate and presentation of viable alternatives (that won’t cost $100 dollars a head).

Way to rouse that rabble, San Antonio.  You deserve answers, and for your concerns to be heard in a meaningful way.  If you agree with these folks (and if you’re a regular reader I bet you do!), sign their petition!

Read Full Post »

South Texas Nuclear Project: The Early Years

Posted in Consumers, Efficiency, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2009 |

After CPS Energy unveiled its optimistically low $13 billion proposal for South Texas Project reactors three and four, I decided to look into the history of the construction of the first two reactors. What I found was troubling, but it seemed to be pretty much in line with my understanding of problems with nuclear projects during the 70s and 80. Here is a brief time line:

1971: Houston Lighting and Power presents proposal for South Texas Nuclear Project, with an estimated cost of 1 billion dollars for the entire project.

1973: Construction begins, with contractor Brown and Root. A $1 billion cost is agreed upon and the first reactor is projected to be finished by 1980 and the second by 1982.

1979: Brown and Root Inspector Dan Swayze gives interview with CBS Magazine, discussing his decision to stop inspecting concrete pours after a 1977 incident at STP in which concrete workers at STP threatened his life and physically assaulted another inspector. “They beat the hell out of him” -Swayze

1979: Estimated costs rise to $2.7 Billion and completion of the reactors is postponed

to 1984 for the first and 1986 for the second.

1979: Three Mile Island accident. San Antonio reevaluates its role in the project.

1980: After 3,000 complaints reports of work deficiencies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issues a report citing 22 violations and fines HL&P $100,000 and issues a “show cause order” requiring the company to explain why the project should be allowed to continue.

1980: HL&P voluntarily stops work after problems are discovered in the welding and concrete. The projected is rated below average by Ralph Nader’s Critical Mass Energy Project. It is ranked among the top 4 worst ongoing projects.

1981: HL&P fires original contractor Brown and Root (who had no previous experience with nuclear reactors) and replaces them with Bechtel Corporation. Estimated completion costs increase to $4.5 billion.

1985: Brown and Root looses a $750 million law suit, filed by Houston Lighting & Power, San Antonio City Public Service, Central Power, Light of Corpus Christi and the city of Austin. At the time this was the largest cash legal settlement in U.S History.

1987: HL&P receives low-power operating license for Unit 1 nuclear reactor.

1988: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts last minute inspection of facility after hundreds of allegations of poor construction, over 50 of which were made by plant workers through the Government Accountability Project. Among the allegations was a claim that roughly 20% of the plant’s safety valves were installed backwards. This was never corrected after it was concluded that the plant could still function with backwards safety valves.

1988: Completion is announced 7 years late and 500% over budget.

1989: City of Austin files lawsuit against Houston Lighting and Power for unexpected expenses and delays during the construction of STP. Texas Court in Dallas Rules in HL&P’s Favor.

Since 1990: STP and other nuclear plants spend an average of $45 million each year disposing of waste. To clarify that is average is per plant.

CPS energy is giving an optimistically low estimate of the total cost of the project.  Estimates that consider the cost overruns and construction delays that plagued STP and similar projects last time  peg the plant at no lower than $17 billion. This look at STP’s history provides a good example of what can happen when we don’t recognize the likely additional expenditures an expensive project like this will have and operate on an unrealistic time frame.  San Antonio is on the verge of repeating many of the mistakes of the past, and it is the citizens that will have to pay.

The Disappointed Environmentalist

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 »