Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘true cost of nukes’

Citizens Groups Win Right to a Hearing for Comanche Peak Intervention

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2009 |

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors at Comanche Peak continues. On August 6th the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel found that Luminant had failed to adequately analyze issues brought by concerned citizens in their Petition to Intervene in the proposed expansion at Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant.

“This is a major victory for those living near Comanche Peak and throughout Texas,” says Karen Hadden, Executive Director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The ASLB Panel has recognized in their decision that Luminant has not sufficiently analyzed alternatives to nuclear power as the law requires.”

The Comanche Peak Interveners (formerly referred to as Petitioners) include SEED Coalition, Public Citizen, Ft. Worth-based True Cost of Nukes and Texas Representative Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth. On June 10th-11th, the Interveners’ attorney, Robert V. Eye, went before the designated ASLB Panel and argued the admissibility of the 19 contentions filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 6th challenging the adequacy of Luminant’s application to construct and operate Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4. Four months later, the ASLB Panel found that two of the contentions deserved further inquiry and delayed a decision on the Interveners’ contention dealing with the Luminant’s lack of plans to deal with catastrophic fires and/or explosions.

“The Environmental Report in Luminant’s application is seriously flawed,” says Mr. Eye. “The collocation of Comanche Peak Units 1 and 2 and the proposed Units 3 and 4 is never considered in light of various accident and radiological release scenarios. A radiological accident at one unit could cause collateral impacts and disruptions in operations at the other units, and Luminant should have considered this.”

The contentions admitted for further adjudication in the August 6th ASLB decision are as follows:

Contention 13. Impacts from a severe radiological accident at any one unit on operation of other units at the Comanche Peak site have not been, and should be, considered in the Environmental Report.

Contention 18. The Comanche Peak Environmental Report is inadequate because it fails to include consideration of alternatives to the proposed Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4, consisting of combinations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, with technological advances in storage methods and supplemental use of natural gas, to create baseload power.

Read Full Post »

Citizens Oppose Comanche Peak Expansion before Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

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

stop nukeOral Hearing Set for June 10th-11th in Granbury, TX

Citizen opposition to more nuclear reactors in Texas continues. On June 10th-11th an oral hearing will be held before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Citizens’ petition to intervene in Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4.

“I have many grave concerns about building more nuclear reactors in Texas,” said Texas Representative Lon Burnam, District 90, Ft. Worth, one of the petitioners seeking to intervene in the proposed expansion of Comanche Peak. “The risks are simply too high. As the most expensive and most water intensive energy source, and with the unsolved problem of how to handle the radioactive waste, Texans deserve better.”

SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Ft. Worth-based True Cost of Nukes are also petitioners. Attorney, Robert V. Eye, will go before the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and argue the admissibility of the 19 contentions citizens filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on April 6th. These contentions point out the inadequacies and the incompleteness of Luminant’s combined operating license application (COLA) to construct and operate Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4.

“Luminant has failed to comply with new federal regulations regarding aircraft impacts,” stated Mr. Eye. “These new regulations are very specific and require the applicant to plan for catastrophic fires and/or explosions that would cause the loss of major critical functional components in the plant. After 9-11, an aircraft attack on a nuclear power plant is a real and credible threat. Moreover, fire hazards represent about half of the risk of a nuclear reactor meltdown. Luminant’s noncompliance with these regulations puts citizens around Comanche Peak in a dangerous position, which is completely unacceptable.”

“Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and obsolete,” says Karen Hadden, Executive Director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “Wind energy is booming and the cost of solar is coming down, while the costs of proposed nuclear plants is skyrocketing. Although they’re required to do so, Luminant failed to fully consider safer, more affordable alternatives to nuclear in their license application.” (more…)

Read Full Post »

Proposed Nuclear Projects in Texas Could Cost $22 Billion

Posted in Energy, Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 30, 2009 |

Impressive nuclear headlines in the papers these days, largely as a result of a new report released by our office entitled: “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas: A Consumer Perspective.  The report finds that the proposed expansions of nuclear power plants in Bay City (South Texas Project) and Glen Rose (Comanche Peak) could cost $22 billion, boost the cost of electricity for consumers and curtail investment in energy-efficiency programs and solar power.

The headline in the San Antonio Express News yesterday morning, just below the banner no less, read: Nuke Plan May Cost $22 Billion

This morning the Fort Worth Star Telegram also ran an article titled Anti-nuclear group: Comanche Peak expansion could cost $27.6 billion

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog also reports: Projected nuke power’s price tag inflating.  

In addition to a real cost estimate for nuclear power plant expansions in Texas, the report also compares the cost of nuclear power to the cost of alternatives such as wind, solar, and energy efficiency.  I’d encourage anyone who complains about the expense of renewable energy but claims that nuclear power is “cheap” to take a gander at the following graph: 

estimated-installed-cost-per-kw-11

Wow.  Even on the low estimate end, energy efficiency costs just a fifth of what we would spend to get that kind of power from a nuclear plant, and wind and solar both come in well under that cost of nukes.  Take that, naysayers!

A major concern brought up in this report is that the massive capitol outlays for nuclear power options may drain available financial resources for making advancements in deploying more cost effective alternative resources.  In San Antonio, this could mean that CPS Energy chooses to partner with the South Texas Project Nuclear Expansion at the expense of Mission Verde, Mayor Phil Hardberger’s aggressive plan to green the city’s infrastructure, businesses, energy sources and technology.

“This new report indicates that we’re going to have to decide now which energy future we want for San Antonio,” said Bexar County Commissioner Tommy Adkisson. “If CPS becomes a partner in the South Texas Project expansion, we are simply not going to have the financial resources to front Mission Verde. We can either choose the most expensive option possible and send our jobs to Bay City and overseas contractors, or pay a fraction of the cost to create thousands of jobs here at home and power the city with clean, green energy.”

For more information on how consumers could get stuck with the check if the nuclear plant goes over-budget or can’t meet its construction schedule (as they are notoriously wont to do), check out our press release.

The San Antonio Current’s Queblog reports,

Prior to deregulation in 2001, ratepayers were drained of $5 billion in capital costs for the nukes in North Texas and Bay City, according to Johnson’s “Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas.”

Also, much of the overruns associated with Comanche Peak and STP have been borne by electric consumers in Texas’ deregulated market since, who “continue to pay off at least $3.4 billion for nuclear assets through transition charges, as well as $45 million in annual payments for nuclear decommissioning,” Johnson writes. 

Additional associated STP costs have also been passed along by AEP and CenterPoint to their customers.

Those interested in the report may also download either the full report or a short fact-sheet detailing the report’s major findings.

Along these same lines, turns out today is the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS)’s national call-in day to end coal and nuclear subsidies. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Citizen Filings Oppose Comanche Peak Reactors 3 & 4

Posted in Nuclear, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 9, 2009 |

simpson-nuke This week citizens submitted two separate filings to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) opposing Luminant (formerly TXU)’s proposed Comanche Peak nuclear reactors. Petitioners include state Rep. Lon Burnam, the SEED Coalition, Public Citizen and the Ft. Worth based True Cost of Nukes.

In the past, NRC has made  companies jump through two major hoops before their operating license is granted.  First, the company must complete the reactor design certification process which ensures that the design for the plant is safe.  If a company decides to choose a pre-certified design that has been built before and the NRC has vetted, they may get their operating license faster because they can skip dealing with design issues.  After their design is approved, the company can then file for their license to operate in a separate process.  This is when citizens have the opportunity to analyze such documents as the Environmental Impact Statement and file contentions.

But for this new fleet of nuclear plants being licensed, the NRC has streamlined this process, combining both the design certification and licensing process into one.  This is a major problem for reactors such as those proposed at Comanche Peak because they are submitting a design that has never been built before anywhere in the world.  It hardly makes sense that NRC can approve a plant to operate when they don’t even know if the plant design is feasible or safe, but that is exactly what is happening.  This is kind of like getting in car and driving off to the drugstore when you’re not sure where it is and… oops, might not even know how to drive.

“By 
moving 
the
 license 
forward
 without 
having 
certified
 the 
design,
 the
 NRC
 is
 violating
 its 
own 
rules,” 
said 
attorney 
Robert 

Eye,  “The
 licensing
 process
 should
 be 
halted 
until 
the 
NRC 
can 
honestly
 say 
that 
the 
reactor
 design 
is 
safe.”

Rep. Lon Burnam has compared what the NRC is doing to making those living near Comanche Peak “guinea pigs in a radioactive experiment.”  Other nuclear plants that have 
gone forth with construction before their design was finalized and approved by regulators have seen serious complications.

In addition to the madness of the NRC’s licensing process, there were even further contentions filed concerning defects in Comanche Peak’s license application.  These contentions include:

  • inadequate fire protection
  • no viable radioactive waste disposal plan
  • inability to secure against airplane attacks
  • financial, health and safety risks
  • vast water consumption
  • failure to address safe, clean energy alternatives

The next step in this process is for the NRC to respond to citizen’s petitions and contentions.

For further information on contentions filed, check out SEED Coalition’s press release after the jump. (more…)

Read Full Post »