Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘worley parsons’

Nuclear Falls Out at Austin City Hall

Posted in Global Warming, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 12, 2009 |

Hip-hip- HOORAY! After a series of informative, provocative presentations and public comments this morning, the Austin City Council voted unanimously to DECLINE participation in the South Texas Nuclear Project’s expansion plan.

Austin has a 16% stake in the current South Texas Nuclear Project, and has been questioning for months whether it should be a financial participant in new plans to double the capacity of that plant.  Months ago a consultant firm, Worley Parsons, was hired by Austin Energy to investigate whether this would be a good idea for Austin’s future.

First to present was Roger Duncan, general manager of Austin Energy.  He gave a presentation on the consulting firm’s recommendations.  We learned the following:

  • The proposed expansion would generate an additional 436 MW for the City of Austin.  Estimated cost: $2 billion.
  • Under a worst case scenario (of cost overruns, delayed construction, etc), power generated from the new boilers would cost 13 cents/kwh.  Under the best of circumstances (everything was beautiful and nothing hurt), electricity would cost 6 cents/kwh.  The firm’s most realistic, expected scenario would price out at around 8 and a half cents/kwh — however, it should be noted that Worley Parsons is a pro-nuclear consulting firm, so these are likely the most conservative of estimates.

The consulting firm concluded that with only a 16% stake in the project, Austin Energy would have insufficient owner protection from the scheduling, cost, contractor and regulatory risks involved in the project.  For example, if significant cost overruns did occur, Austin Energy would not have any vote or say in the matter of how to proceed.  Furthermore, large capital costs would be associated with the project throughout 2016 — but none of that cost risk would be within Austin Energy’s control.  The firm also warned of a potential downgrade of Austin Energy’s bonds because of the extended time period of debt issuance without cost recovery.

Because of the significant amount of unacceptable risk associated with the the expansion project, Worley Parsons recommended that Austin NOT participate.  As an Austin Energy spokesman Mr. Duncan announced that the utility had reached the same conclusion with the additional reasoning that Austin has no need for the 432 MW of base-load power that the project would eventually supply.  We wouldn’t even know what to with all that power.  Austin Energy also expressed concerns (rightly so!) that the nuclear waste issue remains unresolved. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Austin City Hall Showdown: Solar vs. Nukes. Let’s get biz-zay!

Posted in Energy, Global Warming, Nuclear, Renewables, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 10, 2009 |

Time to show your support for solar, and your opposition to new nuclear power!

On Thursday, Austin City Council will take up the issues of nuclear energy and solar energy. We can’t think of a better picture to illustrate the fork in the road we face when it comes to Austin’s energy future.

Item 3 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will appropriately recommend, again, that the City of Austin not invest in expansion of the South Texas Project. Austin Energy hired the pro-nuclear consulting firm Worley Parsons to examine the proposal, which concluded that Austin’s share of the proposed 3rd & 4th reactors would cost around $2 billion (that’s only 16% of the total, btw). Our solid credit rating would likely decline due to the large amount of debt the city would have to issue coupled with the high risk of cost overruns and schedule delays typically associated with nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the addition of 432 megawatts of baseload nuclear power does not fit with Austin’s projected electric demand forecast. This deal didn’t make sense in 2007 or 2008. It makes even less sense in 2009.

New nuclear power economics are frightening (several cost estimates put new nukes in a category by themselves), and it’s a down right nasty way to make electric power. Uranium mine sites plague groundwater sources, there is no plan in place to deal with the waste, and Texas can ill-afford to devote its precious water resources to running a radioactive water boiler.

We don’t need to go down the nuclear path again. We’ve learned from the mistakes of previous councils. Remember, Carole Keeton McClellan [Strayhorn] was mayor of Austin (1977-1983) when the city trapped itself in the boondoggle that was the first two units at STNP. Read the Austin Chronicle article from 2006 on her (scroll down to “Nailed to the Nuke”).

She is running for mayor again, which means this becomes a radioactive campaign issue. Where do Leffingwell and McCracken stand on the issue? Stay tuned.

Better options exist. Come out and voice your opposition to new nuclear power.

solar-array

Item 16 on the City Council agenda: Austin Energy will recommend that Council approve a plan to invest in 30 megawatts of solar power from the proposed solar plant near Webberville. This project is a good start down the path toward a renewable energy future for Austin. The 25 year $250 million contract with California-based Gemini Solar Development Company will provide Austinites clean, renewable power from one of the largest photovoltaic arrays in the world. Solar beats new nuclear power on cost, environment and meeting peak demand.

Solar power may seem expensive, but compared to what it costs to run natural gas plants to cover the same peak period and its associated environmental impacts, it’s a winner.

Some have raised objection to the fact that the solar panels are not local. Buying local is always preferable, but it’s not always feasible. There are no Texas companies that can currently manufacture panels for this sized plant. And while a California company has gotten the first contract because of California commitment to solar, local contractors and products can be used to construct and maintain the facility. Austin will still own the land too. We hope that with more plants like this one, solar companies will get the message that Texas is open for business.

We expect a large pro-nuke/anti-solar crowd, so come out to City Council this Thursday, Feb 12, sign up to voice your support for solar power. Tell City Council you want more!

Council convenes at 10 AM.

Read Full Post »