Posted in Nuclear, tagged city hall, community demonstration, CPS, Nuclear, protest, public citizen texas, San Antonio, South Texas Nucler Project, STP, Texas on October 14, 2009 |
Community Demonstration!
Wed Oct 14th
4pm – 8pm
City Hall
{103 Main Plaza,78205}
..next to Main Plaza downtown SA
Come to the demonstration! BRING 3 people with you!
BRING: street theatre props & political costumes, signs, puppets, bikes, hats, banners, CPS suits, etc!
Download flyers and more information at www.esperanzacenter.org
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Energy, esperanza peace and justice center, Nuclear, nuclear waste, nukes, plutonium, Texas, uranium mining on October 2, 2009 |
Thursday, October 8th the Esperanza Peace & Justice center continues the Other and Out & Beyond film series with a day on nuclear energy and the devastating effects of uranium mining, nuclear waste and contamination. This event is Free and open to the public, though donations are appreciated.
All films will be held at the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center at 922 San Pedro, San Antonio, TX 78212. The center can be reached at 210-228-0201 or at www.esperanzacenter.org.
Must see movies from the 70’s and 80’s:
4:15 pm Silkwood
Life & Land: The Hidden Costs of Nuclear
7:00 pm Climate of Hope
7:40 pm Woven Ways
8:30 pm Platica — The evening program will be followed by a community platica on nuclear energy including local activists and experts who will share their knowledge on issues of waste, water, mining, renewable energy alternatives and local organizing.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Arjun Makhijani, City Council, CPS Energy, Nuclear, San Antonio, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, toshiba on October 2, 2009 |
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.
Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, tagged ACES, cap and trade, Carbon Dioxide, CEJAPA, Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, climate change, Coal, coal plant, Congress, EPA, Global Warming, green jobs, Kerry-Boxer, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, senate, solar, Texas, waxman-markey on September 30, 2009 |
This just in from EPA:
LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.
The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.
UPDATED: that text is now available here.
“Wow” would be an understatement. This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill. Here’s my statement on that subject:
Sept. 30, 2009
Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft
Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office
The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.
The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.
Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.
The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.
Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:
Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.
Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.
The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.
The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.
With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need. We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress. Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government. As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUAUnjhB7l4]
Posted in Nuclear, tagged CPS, CPS Energy, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, San Antonio, SEED Coalition, South Texas Project, STP, Texas on September 30, 2009 |
Great news about the legal fight against STP.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel admitted four more of the contentions (all water related) brought by SEED Coalition, bringing the grand total to 5 contentions admitted for a hearing with 7 still pending.
This is more than anywhere else in the country.
This increased uncertainty *should* make CPS and San Antonio City Council think twice about going forward.
Look! A Press Release! (fully continued after the jump if you want to get into all the legal contentions) As always, for more info go read everything at NukeFreeTexas.org
For Immediate Release: September 30, 2009
Contacts: Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition,
Susan Dancer, South Texas Association for Responsible Energy
Robert V. Eye, Attorney for Intervenors
Citizens Gain Ground in STP Intervention Over Water Concerns
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Admits
Four Additional Water Related Contentions for a Hearing
Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project (STP) continues with another success. Yesterday the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel ruled that South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) had failed to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of radioactive contaminated water and water availability, issues or “contentions” raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP. The Order is of national significance since STPNOC is the first in the nation to request licensing in 30 years.
“Citizens intervening in the South Texas Project’s licensing process gained significant legal ground yesterday when the ASLB Panel ruled that four additional contentions be admitted for a hearing,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition, one of the Intervenors. “Intervenors now have a total of five admissible contentions, with seven contentions related to fires and explosions and losses of large areas of the plant still pending.” The licensing process is likely to be delayed as a result of additional contentions. It was delay and construction problems that led to the first reactors at STP coming in six times over budget.
SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project.
Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged CPS, matthew johnson, Nuclear, nuclear reactors, Public Citizen, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, too expensive on September 29, 2009 |
In case you didn’t catch our editorial in the San Antonio Express News this summer, it’s worth repeating.
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.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Greg Harman, Mining, Nuclear, nukes, nukes means mines, SA Current, San Antonio, South Texas Project, Texas, Uranium on September 24, 2009 |
If you’re interested in the San Antonio South Texas Project nuclear issue and haven’t been reading Greg Harman’s work for the San Antonio Current, you are seriously missing out.
His latest story is a cover feature titled “Nukes Mean Mines” and part of a life cycle analysis of the South Nuclear Texas Project. First things first: where does that fuel (uranium) come from, and what is the impact of uranium mining? That answer can be found right here in Texas, and Harman’s investigative reporting brings the story of those mines to life.
Keep “cued” in to the QueQue blog as well, where you’ll find even more background and reporting on nuclear power in Texas and its toxic legacy.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Arjun Makhijani, CPS Energy, Craig Sererence, economics of nuclear, no to nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, Patrick Moore, San Antonio, south texas nuclear project, STP, Texas 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!
Posted in Nuclear, tagged Arjun Makhijani, carbon free and nuclear free, center for american progress, craig severance, Energia Mia, Nuclear, San Antonio, solar, South Texas Project, STP, Texas, wind on September 14, 2009 |
Nuclear 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!
Posted in Global Warming, tagged andy wilson, cap and trade, CBO, climate change, Coal, economic crisis, Energy Efficiency, energy policy, EPA, global waming, green jobs, house of representatives, kay bailey hutchison, kbh, Nuclear, oil, renewable energy, sen. hutchison, solar, Texas, union of concerned scientists, wall street journal, wind power, wind turbines on September 10, 2009 |
Check out our editorial in the Round Rock Leader, in response to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s piece “Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas”:
By ANDY WILSON
Special to the Leader
United States Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison takes a head-in-the-hot-sand approach to climate change that will get Texas burned and drive tens of thousands of new jobs elsewhere (“Cap and Trade is No Good For Texas,” Aug. 27 Leader).
She misses the mark on energy policy, using discredited industry statistics to drum up fear about a Cap and Trade policy that represents just a small portion of the initiatives proposed in the energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in July.
She fails to acknowledge that the bill includes provisions for renewable energy and energy efficiency – the real solutions to climate change.
Hutchison’s solution is no solution at all: more oil, more coal and more nuclear, with absolutely no coherent policy on how to lower energy costs and find alternatives to dwindling resources.
While America is faced with the worst economic crisis in generations, Sen. Hutchison is turning away opportunities to create new jobs while slavishly clinging to the talking points of the oil industry.
Families are hurting from high energy prices.
The answer lies in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, which have proven to save Texans money.
Even The Wall Street Journal reports that “Wind Power Makes Electricity Cheaper in Texas,” and families that have received energy efficiency retrofits from their electric utility save money every month.
In the dieting world, low-calorie treats never taste as good as their fatty counterparts, but in the energy efficiency world, both light bulbs burn just as brightly. That’s a pretty sweet deal.
If Sen. Hutchison is as worried about job loss as she professes, she should work to improve the anemic renewable energy and efficiency goals in the bill.
Texas, as the leader in wind power and home to a burgeoning solar industry, would stand to gain 153,000 of new green jobs by passing a strengthened and stream-lined bill.
Texas already has employed more than 9,000 individuals to build our current crop of wind turbines, representing just a drop in the bucket in terms of the green jobs that national clean energy policies could bring to our state.
Big polluters are trying to scare people with exaggerated costs of addressing climate change.
Independent analyses from the EPA and CBO show the actual price to Americans to be less than a postage stamp a day.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that strong action on climate change, including Cap and Trade, would save Texas families an average of $980 a year.
Opponents are concerned that Texas refineries are going to be hurt by this bill, but the House-passed bill provides more than $2 billion in free carbon credits to refiners.
How is about $2 billion in handouts to corporations not enough?
The oil industry is floating a red herring argument about sending competition overseas.
The U.S. Department of Energy projects that gasoline imports will decrease under the climate bill due to slowing demand and fuel economy improvements.
Sen. Hutchison has received more than $2.1 million in campaign contributions from the oil industry during her Senate career, so her remarks may have more to do with giving back to an industry that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has been the largest single source of financing for her Senate campaigns.
If Sen. Hutchison really wants to do what’s right for Texas, she should strengthen the climate bill, rather than shoot it down.
If she is worried about price impacts on Texas families, she should strengthen consumer protections and strip out the billion-dollar in-dustry giveaways.
And if she’s concerned about Texas’ financial well being, she should remember that Texas above all else is an energy state – which means that we must have a future in clean, renewable energy as well.
But just saying “no” to a new energy bill, “no” to new jobs and “no” to new industries is “no good for Texas.”
Posted in Nuclear, tagged KSAT, ksat webpoll, no to nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, San Antonio, South Texas Project, Texas, web poll on September 2, 2009 |
KSAT.com is conducting an online poll on nuclear power. Please take a
minute or two to vote NO on nuclear for San Antonio. This is anonymous –
you don’t have to identify yourself.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged atomic safety and licensing board, department of agriculture, energy security, environmental report, Global Warming, Karen Hadden, livestock, matagorda county, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, radioactive waste, robert v. eye, safety, san antonio water system, saws, SEED Coalition, south texas association for responsible energy, South Texas Project, susan dancer, Texas, toxic discharge, tritium on August 28, 2009 |
UPDATE: Safety panel hearing in the news: at the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express News
Citizen opposition to two proposed nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project continues with another success. On August 27th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that the nuclear applicant, South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC), had failed to adequately analyze issues raised by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at STP.
“This is a major victory for those living in the South Texas Project region and throughout Texas,” said Karen Hadden, Executive Director of the SEED Coalition. “The decision recognizes that the South Texas Project reactor application is still inadequate, two years after it was submitted. We now have a case against the reactors that will move forward.”
SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Bay City based South Texas Association for Responsible Energy (STARE) are Intervenors in the case. Attorney Robert V. Eye went before the ASLB Panel in June and argued the admissibility of 28 contentions challenging the license application for two additional reactors, Units 3 and 4, at the South Texas Project. The ASLB Panel has ruled on 19 of the 28 contentions submitted and found that one of the contentions deserved further inquiry, giving Intervenors a case against the reactors. It is not known when a decision will be made on the remaining contentions.
“South Texas Project’s reactor application is seriously flawed.” said Mr. Eye. “They failed to analyze how a severe radiological accident or a major fire or explosion at any of the four units would impact the other remaining units at the site. This is a major omission and the issue should have been considered by STP.” The contention reads:
Contention 21 – Impacts from severe radiological accident scenarios on the operation of other units at the STP site have not been considered in the Environmental Report.
“A radiological accident at one unit could cause impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units,” said one of the Intervenors, Bill Wagner, a former STP Operations Supervisor. “How would operations at undamaged units continue in the event that the entire site becomes seriously contaminated? STP needs to address this.”
Water Issues Are Yet to be Decided
The ASLB panel delayed a decision on all nine of the Intervenors’ contentions that deal with water issues. The issues yet to be ruled on include: the build-up of radioactive particulate in STP’s Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR), increasing levels of groundwater tritium, the vulnerability of the MCR to flooding, insufficient limits on toxic discharges, reliance on dilution to achieve discharge standards, unregulated wastewater discharge, unevaluated reduction in groundwater supply for adjacent landowners, unevaluated reduction in surface water flow, and inadequate supplies of fresh water due to global warming impacts.
“Nuclear plants consume enormous amounts of water and are vulnerable to shutdown during drought and reduced river flows. The two proposed reactors would use over 23,000 gallons of water every minute.This is a real one-two punch. Not only would STP’s operations reduce water supplies for cities like Austin or San Antonio, but the plant might not even be able to operate if the Lower Colorado River has severely reduced flows from drought,” said Hadden. “These problems don’t exist for wind, solar and geothermal sources to generate electricity.”
“The current water shortages in our area are hitting us hard,” said Susan Dancer, a local wildlife rehabilitator and Chair of South Texas Association for Responsible Energy. “Livestock suffer since hay and other feedstuffs are in incredibly short supply and there is no grass left. We have personally spent over $5000 this summer having hay trucked in from other areas on semis and have gone deep into debt trying to keep the livestock fed and healthy. Everyone here is in the same situation, so selling off stock is not an option. Prices are at all-time lows due to the large number of producers who are dumping stock at the markets already.”
“Texas is in a Stage 4 drought and has been declared a disaster area. The Texas Department of Agriculture says there are no programs available to assist us,” said Dancer. “Granting more water to industry, especially nuclear reactors that consume vast quantities of water, is not an option. This drought and others to come may be even worse.”
When it comes to water, San Antonio and Central Texas citizens are feeling the pain as well. On Monday, the San Antonio Water System 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 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. Will San Antonio have to decide which matters most, electricity from nuclear reactors or water for drinking?
Large Fires and Explosions that Cause Loss of Coolant and Meltdown
On August 14th, the Intervenors filed seven more contentions regarding STP’s failure to comply with a new NRC fire safety rule which says each licensee must “develop and implement guidance and strategies intended to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due to explosions or fire.” The NRC now requires nuclear plants to deal with explosions and fires that would occur from the impact of a large commercial airliner. STP claims that their submittal brings them in accordance with the new NRC rule. Intervenors and their expert argue the opposite in the contentions. However, the Intervenors’ contentions that argue STP has failed to meet the fire and explosion regulatory requirements, STP’s submittal, and related documents are considered classified by the NRC and are not available to the public.
The NRC has also recently adopted regulations that require all applicants for new reactor licenses, including STP, to complete “a design-specific assessment of the effects of the impact of a large, commercial aircraft.” After 9/11 the NRC did its own assessments of aircraft impacts using state-of-the-art techniques and “realistic predictions of accident progression and radiological consequences.” “This regulation recognizes that nuclear plants are vulnerable to air attacks with potentially catastrophic effects,” said Hadden. “Nuclear plants could become weapons if targeted by those who would do us harm.”
The full order can be viewed online at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.
Posted in Efficiency, Energy, tagged #nn09, bill white, building codes, cap and trade, consumer advocacy, Efficiency, Energy, fuel efficiency, Global Warming, houston mayor, low-income consumers, netroots nation, Nuclear, renewable energy, science, senate, Texas on August 27, 2009 |
While at Netroots Nation a few weeks back, I had the opportunity to listen in on a panel discussing climate change, Texas’ energy future, and energy security featuring Houston Mayor Bill White (you might have also heard he is running for US Senate).
Mayor White gave very measured, political answers. Throughout the panel, never did the words “Cap and Trade” leave his lips, but he did remain skeptical of anyone who claimed to have it all figured out and that their answer would be easy and painless. He also showed legitimate concerns about the impacts of renewable energy mandates done wrong on low-income consumers. As a representative from a consumer advocacy organization, it is refreshing to hear White’s commitment to protecting our most vulnerable even as we chart a new energy future.
Mayor White’s stated goals are to become more energy independent for basic security reasons and to be in control of our energy future. To do so, he maintains that we must reduce our pollution based on sound science, and do so in a way which does not burden low-income households. He proposes three main mechanisms to meet these goals:
Despite some skepticism, Mayor White certainly showed that our energy future could have our cake and eat it too, namely through increased efficiency in building codes, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, and use of cost-effective renewables. See the edited video here:
[vimeo 6300204]
Public Citizen does not and would never endorse candidates. Even if we could, it’s hard to get an exact read on Mayor White and how he would act as the next Senator from Texas on the issue of federal climate policy — so even so we could offer little endorsement other than a candid analysis of his words and his record.
When asked off-camera about how he would vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the climate bill which passed in the House in June and due up for debate in the Senate over the next 2-3 months, he remained committed to energy efficiency but overall rather vague. White showed skepticism as to large long term goals rather than smaller but gradually increasing cuts in emissions. His version of the bill, he said, would have strong building code mandates, a renewable energy efficiency standard (which is it, Bill?) with a price cap on renewables to protect consumers, and change dispatch priorities to wean the nation off of coal fired power. He did not, however, indicate whether or not he would support implementing a federal cap on carbon dioxide emissions or the cap and trade mechanism.
This is a question likely to come up in the next few months when ACES comes to a Senate vote, and hopefully Mayor White will have a clearer answer prepared when that time comes. But if the final answer is no on ACES, would he have some specific policy solutions about how to improve the bill, or would he just cast the same “no way, never” vote that we’ll likely get from John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison?
That being said, it is refreshing to hear a candidate speak so fluently about energy policy. Mayor White’s record on energy as Deputy Secretary of Energy stands on its own, as does his impressive work on making Houston a national leader on energy efficiency. We may still be uncertain as to where he stands on ACES, but we certainly know his feelings on energy efficiency both in word and deed – which is nothing to sneeze at.
Posted in Nuclear, tagged clean technology forum, CPS Energy, facebook, julian castro, kstx, lanny sinkin, michael kotara, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Public Citizen, public radio, San Antonio, san antonio town hall, solar san antonio, South Texas Project, STP, terry gildea, Texas, texas public radio, Tom "Smitty" Smith, Twitter on August 26, 2009 |
UPDATE: The streaming audio from last night’s event was, unfortunately, very hard to listen to — but folks who weren’t willing to wade through the feedback can watch our video of the town hall in its entirety, which we should be able to post in the next couple days 🙂
Tonight KSTX will host a Town Hall on Energy in San Antonio to provide the forum we’ve all been waiting for — an honest and open debate of whether or not SA should invest in two new nuclear reactors and the safe, clean alternatives that SA can choose to meet its future energy needs.
The Clean Technology Forum will provide an opportunity for a similar opportunity for this discussion — but at $50 a pop, only the most well-heeled San Antonians will be able to attend. KSTX’s Town Hall, by contrast, will be free and open to the public. Folks who would like to attend in person should plan on being at the McAllister Auditorium at San Antonio College (SAC) from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm — but if you can’t make it, never fear. KSTX will be streaming the conversation live from their website www.tpr.org, as well as carrying the town hall on the radio at 89.1 FM. You can also submit your question on Facebook or Twitter — three cheers for interactivity!
Should be a good show — maybe even a bit of a sparring match, judging by the panelists. In one corner we’ve got: Michael Kotara, Executive Vice President for Energy Development, CPS Energy and Mayor Julián Castro, who supports the nuclear option even though he would rather San Antonio own 20% rather than 40% of the new reactors. In the other, Lanny Sinkin, Executive Director, Solar San Antonio and co-founder of Citizens Against Nuclear Power and Public Citizen’s own Tom “Smitty” Smith, whitehat extraordinaire and lifelong agitator of the nuclear bad guys (because, as Smitty likes to repeat “you’ve got to agitate to get the dirt out“).
Texas Vox will be on hand to videotape the town hall, and you can follow our tweets live from @publiccitizentx. Be sure to look for a follow up blog post and video in the next couple days!
Our regular readers already know how we feel about the issue at Public Citizen: San Antonio citizens can’t afford the huge 50% rate hikes that would result from involvement in the proposed nukes at South Texas Project. The billions that San Antonio would sink into the nuclear money pit should instead be spent in San Antonio, creating local jobs in energy efficiency, retrofitting homes and businesses, and developing clean renewable energy technologies including solar, wind and geothermal power.
Hope you can make it out to the event, listen in, or follow up on our post and videos tomorrow! Look for event details and panelist bios after the jump.
Posted in Coal, Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged Austin Energy, austinites, city coucil, city of austin, Coal, Efficiency, fayette, generation plan, lcra, natural gas, Nuclear, powersmack, Public Citizen, shut down fayette, solar, survey, Texas, wind on August 5, 2009 |
Austin Energy will make a recommendation to City Council in August of their future generation plan through 2020. According to their website, “an important component of the planning process is input from the community” — but as of April, only about 300 people had filled out Austin Energy’s survey. Through the survey, you can give Austin Energy a quick gut reaction of what kind of an energy future you want: one with more coal and nuclear (boooo, hisssss, cough cough cough), or a non-smoking future fueled by renewable energy and efficiency (cheers, jubilation!). We need as many Austinites as possible to fill out this survey and send the message loud and clear: say goodbye to our dirty energy past and look to a brighter energy future!
For a quick background on Austin’s current energy mix, check out the following video from our friends at PowerSmack:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqYd_AIpH8o&feature=player_profilepage]
According to Austin Energy’s survey, Austinites get about a third each of their power from coal, nuclear, and natural gas, and about 10% from renewables. Looking at their draft generation plan, they are looking to change that mix to 26% from coal and nuclear power, 44% from natural gas, 5% from biomass, 22% from wind, and 3% from solar by 2020.
That plan may be an improvement from what we’ve got now, but it doesn’t show near the vision and leadership that Austin Energy ought to provide. Imagine what kind of a message it would send if Austin Energy actually tried to divest itself completely from coal — and shut down the Fayette Coal Plant!
That’s right folks, Austin — that Central Texas shining star of wierdness, environmental stewardship, and progressive politics — has a dirty secret. We own half of a coal plant, along with LCRA. And 16% of the South Texas Nuclear Project!
GHASP! Skeletons in the closet.
Ghasp indeed — and skeletons in the closet for real. We all know how bad coal is, and the Fayette plant is spewing toxic emissions into the air every day on our behalf. A total of 44 people die early deaths as a result of these emissions every year.
But Austin Energy’s expected proposals don’t put a priority on shutting down Fayette. That’s why, along with our friends at PowerSmack, we’re launching a new campaign to try to convice Austin Energy and the City Council to shut down Fayette. Don’t sell it — don’t pawn those emissions off on someone else. Shut. It. Down.
James Hansen, one of the top climate scientists and greatest climate change advocates of our time, has said that the number one thing we can do to stop global warming is to stop using coal. Better, cleaner alternatives exist. We’re not looking for a silver bullet here, but through a mixture of aggressive solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency — we can kick the habit.
But the first step is to admit we’ve got a problem. So fill out the survey, and tell Austin Energy you want your power to come from MUCH LESS coal and nuclear and MUCH MORE renewables and efficiency.
If a city as polluted as Los Angeles can commit to stop using coal by 2020, so can we. Let’s walk the walk.
">spousal
Citizen Vox Blog
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |