Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Nuclear’

Did the Senate rob schoolchildren and give the money to Mr. Burns?

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

During much of the debate over the stimulus in the Senate, the argument was made that it was simply too large and porky. I failed to see the logic of the stimulus being “too big” when the Senate Appropriations Committee strained at a few smaller points and then inserted big, porky $50 billion of loan guarantees for the nuclear industry.

Then the debate shifted and they started stripping more pieces out of the stimulus, including money for education and school energy efficiency retrofits.

Does that mean that that they robbed schoolchildren and gave the money to Mr. Burns?

You be the judge:

Stimulus spending on:

House

Senate
Tax credits for Renewable Energy $13 billion $13 billion
Nuclear Loan Guarantees 0 $50 billion
Energy Efficiency upgrades for homeowners $6.2 billion $2.9 billion
Energy Efficiency and modernization upgrades for schools $21 billion 0
Fossil Fuel R&D (clean coal) 0 $4.6 billion
“Smart Grid” technology $11 billion $11 billion
Loan subsidies for renewable energy 0 $8.5 billion
Advanced battery systems research 0 $8.5 billion

Source: AP

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 »

The staggering cost of new nuclear power

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, tagged , on January 7, 2009 |

On the heels of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s environmental scoping meeting about the proposed expansion of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant outside of Fort Worth, TX (two of six new units moving through the permitting process in Texas), a new study by Craig Severance –a leading expert in power plant costs- was released detailing the staggering cost estimates of new nuclear power.

The new study, Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power  puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants between 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity  rates! This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today, and ten times the cost of energy efficiency. 

This is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. The author, Craig Severance is a practicing CPA and co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976). 

This important new analysis fills the critical transparency gap in the current debate over nuclear power, demystifying the entire process, so that anyone reading  it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of  how total generation costs per kWh come together.  

Join the opposition to new Comanche Peak nuclear reactors

For those living near the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant near Glen Rose, Texas who are concerned about the health, safety and pocketbooks of Texans, join the opposition by attending a public meeting:

Thursday, January 29th at 7pm
Fort Worth Botanical Gardens

Learn more about radioactive, health and economic risks of nuclear power, as well as the history of Comanche Peak’s existing reactors at www.NukeFreeTexas.org.  (Video of the January 6th scoping meeting coming soon to this site) 

Read Full Post »

Hey, let’s destabilize a nuclear power because of global warming!

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 30, 2008 |

A truly frightening article from The International News and their Karachi (Pakistan) bureau:

Global warming and the ongoing thinning of Tibetan glaciers will result in as many as 15 million ‘environmental refugees’ in South Asia in the near future, said Chairperson Hisaar Foundation and member of Stockholm-based Global Water Partnership Technical Committee, Simi Kamal.

Full article can be found here.

Besides Pakistan (who we obviously do not want to destabilize), other major powers who get their water from the Himalayan glaciers include India,  China, and other trouble spots like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Thailand and Burma.

Emissions in Texas affect the climate worldwide, and as we all have painfully learned, what happens in other countries can end up right back on our doorstep.  We need to start cooling it, especially considering that if Texas were its own country we would be the 7th largest polluter of greenhouse gases in the world.  Thankfully, we also lead in renewable energy potential and can start saving money today by investing in energy efficiency.

Read Full Post »

Reprocessing nuclear fuel & the Catch 22 Legacy

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , on October 24, 2008 |

Generating electricity using nuclear power includes processing uranium.  After 40 years, the waste from the process can safely be put into containers for storage, though it is still dangerous to living things. After 10,000 years, the leftovers, the nuclear waste, will no longer be dangerous. Currently in the U.S., we leave the waste in ponds at the power plants and then put it in containers and bury it in the ground (a.k.a. “geologic depositories”).

“Nuclear reprocessing” means separating the waste—taking uranium that didn’t get used the first time out of the “trash” so it can be used to generate electricity.  The uranium is chemically separated from the rest of the waste and one of the new leftovers is plutonium, the radioactive ingredient in nuclear bombs.

Other countries, like France, reprocess their nuclear waste even though plutonium is left over, usually in the form of a highly concentrated power.  In the U.S., we’ve recently heard both 2008 presidential candidates say they support Americans reprocessing nuclear waste. (Private companies in the U.S. stopped doing so in 1976.)

One concern about nuclear reprocessing is individuals acquiring the powdered plutonium leftovers with which they can devise a nuclear weapon.  But for reprocessing nuclear waste, it would be extremely difficult for an individual to develop a nuclear weapon. There is disagreement among scientists about whether the plutonium powder is too radioactive to steal.

“. . .Commercial-scale reprocessing facilities handle so much of this material that it has proven impossible to keep track of it accurately in a timely manner, making it feasible that the theft of enough plutonium to build several bombs could go undetected for years,” reports the Union of Concerned Scientists website. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Gimme! Nuclear industry asks for $122 billion from Uncle Sam

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , on October 16, 2008 |

Call it a preemptive bailout if you like, my Friends…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5L18ZV_qU]

…but the Department of Energy recently issued a press release stating that they have received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 14 nuclear power plants. The price tag: $122 billion.

http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

I know after the $700 billion bailout package, on top of $100+ billion just for AIG, $122 billion for nukes doesn’t sound that impressive. But it is a little scary when you realize that the feds only appropriated $18.5 billion for loan guarantees. Now children, don’t push in line!

The DoE estimated the total cost to construct the 21 proposed reactors at $188 billion, which they say averages out to around $9 billion per reactor.

Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees would total $5.8 billion per reactor based on DoE’s numbers. That’s a hard pill to swallow for an industry with a notorious history of default. From Bloomberg:

Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects’ high costs.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Lowest energy bills in Texas: WOAI says Austin’s got ’em

Posted in Consumers, Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 20, 2008 |

CPS Energy stakes its energy planning credibility on the fact that it has the lowest energy bills in Texas – even lower than those Austin people who get energy from hugging bunnies.

But WOAI crunched the numbers and last month, Austin Energy beat ’em. Check out the write-up and video here.

-Matt

Read Full Post »

Hi, I’m France and I have a nuclear problem.

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , on July 24, 2008 |

Are you just slightly skeptical of people who bashed France 5 years ago, yet hold them up as a paragon of energy planning for having so much nuclear power?

From the folks at Beyond Nuclear:

The French Nuclear Medusa: Beyond Nuclear’s Linda Gunter has just returned from a fact-finding mission in France where she also spoke at a rally of 5,000 demonstrators in Paris on July 12 calling for a nuclear-free world. Watch for new updates on France on the French Connection page on our Web site. French speakers can also view videos of the rally here. During Linda’s visit, there were coincidentally – but not inappropriately – two accidents at nuclear sites both operated by Areva. (more…)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts