Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear renaissance’

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 »

San Antonio Mayor’s Nuclear Town Hall Tonight

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

Tonight, August 10, is Mayor Castro’s Town Hall Meeting, where he wants to allow the community to tell city council and himself what they think about going the nuclear route. This is so important to attend. It will be at the City Council Chambers downtown where Flores and Commerce meet (map below).

Sign-up to speak is 5:00-6:00 pm, meeting is 6:00-9:00 pm. Castro has already burst CPS’ bubble by saying he does not want to be a 40% owner in the project — he would prefer a 20% share. It is highly likely that the mayor has made this compromise in response to citizen’s protest.

But local activists are saying (and I would agree) that any nuclear is too much.  Even if San Antonio only goes with 20%, the environmental damage will be done, the water will be stressed, and the national “nuclear renaissance” will have begun. It still doesn’t make economic sense for SA, will bring no jobs here, and wastes city resources that could go to energy solutions which are lighter on the environment.

Energía Mía‘s message is, “We don’t want any part of nuclear for San Antonio; we don’t want 40%, we don’t want 20%, we don’t want any percent. If the project’s a bad one at 50%, it’s still a bad one at 20%. It’s just 30% less bad.”

Plus, if San Antonio only buys in at 20%, who are they going to get to cover the rest of the project?  Everyone knows how risky this investment is — that’s why Austin took a look at the numbers and said: No, thank you.  NRG certainly can’t foot the bill for this themselves — especially not with “junk” bond ratings!

Various community groups have entered their questions in advance and will have an opportunity to respond to CPS’ answers.  Tonight the mayor will hear from: Sierra Club, Public Citizen Texas, SEED Coalition, Consumer Energy Coalition, COPS/METRO, members of the business community, and the Hispanic, Chinese, and Greater San Antonio Chambers of Commerce.  Each city council person will also have a chance to ask a question, and the public will have a short period of time at the meeting’s close to make a short statement.

mayor town hall map

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 »