Group items tagged

Most Texas homes weren't built as if energy mattered. Despite 100-degree summer days, our roofs are still covered in heat-absorbing black-tar shingles. Cheap insulation in the attic, leaky doors, and single-paned windows mean when the air conditioner runs, it runs loads of cooled air right out the house. San Antonio's CPS Energy plans to spend $850 million to eliminate 771 megawatts of wasteful energy consumption through weatherization programs and rebates to help residential and commercial customers replace lights and appliances, and hoist solar panels onto their roofs by 2020. To do that will cost roughly $1,100 per saved kilowatt, according to the utility. However, 80 miles to the northeast, municipally owned Austin Energy has already cut 800 megawatts through energy efficiency over the last 20 years at a cost of roughly $350 per kilowatt, said Scott Jarman, consulting engineer with Austin Energy's efficiency program. But after 20 years of efficiency work, the savings are increasingly hard to find, and accordingly, more costly.

Most Texas homes weren't built as if energy mattered. Despite 100-degree summer days, our roofs are still covered in heat-absorbing black-tar shingles. Cheap insulation in the attic, leaky doors, and single-paned windows mean when the air conditioner runs, it runs loads of cooled air right out the house. San Antonio's CPS Energy plans to spend $850 million to eliminate 771 megawatts of wasteful energy consumption through weatherization programs and rebates to help residential and commercial customers replace lights and appliances, and hoist solar panels onto their roofs by 2020. To do that will cost roughly $1,100 per saved kilowatt, according to the utility. However, 80 miles to the northeast, municipally owned Austin Energy has already cut 800 megawatts through energy efficiency over the last 20 years at a cost of roughly $350 per kilowatt, said Scott Jarman, consulting engineer with Austin Energy's efficiency program. But after 20 years of efficiency work, the savings are increasingly hard to find, and accordingly, more costly.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

Within the past year, estimates of the cost of nuclear power from a new generation of reactors have ranged from a low of 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) to a high of 30 cents. This paper tackles the debate over the cost of building new nuclear reactors, with the key findings as follows: * The initial cost projections put out early in today's so-called "nuclear renaissance" were about one-third of what one would have expected, based on the nuclear reactors completed in the 1990s. * The most recent cost projections for new nuclear reactors are, on average, over four times as high as the initial "nuclear renaissance" projections. * There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors. Indeed, nuclear reactors are the worst option from the point of view of the consumer and society. * The low carbon sources that are less costly than nuclear include efficiency, cogeneration, biomass, geothermal, wind, solar thermal and natural gas. Solar photovoltaics that are presently more costly than nuclear reactors are projected to decline dramatically in price in the next decade. Fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, which are not presently available, are projected to be somewhat more costly than nuclear reactors. * Numerous studies by Wall Street and independent energy analysts estimate efficiency and renewable costs at an average of 6 cents per kilowatt hour, while the cost of electricity from nuclear reactors is estimated in the range of 12 to 20 cents per kWh. * The additional cost of building 100 new nuclear reactors, instead of pursuing a least cost efficiency-renewable strategy, would be in the range of $1.9-$4.4 trillion over the life the reactors.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Mark Cooper, Ph.D., a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Mark Cooper, Ph.D., a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

"Vermont is showing the nation that it doesn't need nuclear power, said Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., on Wednesday during an Environment and Public Works Committee oversight hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Green Mountain State has proven people can rely on energy efficiencies to reduce their electric consumption and on renewables to provide the supply that they need, he said. "Vermont is a leader in energy efficiency," he said. "We have reduced our electric consumption thanks to ... energy efficiency (and) our people do not live in caves." Over the past 10 years, said Sanders, the state has cut its electric consumption by 1.5 percent each year. By 2020, if the nation were to be "slightly more aggressive" than Vermont in its energy efficiency implementation, it could reduce its peak electric demands by 117,000 megawatts. "That would save more power than the entire capacity of the existing United States nuclear power plant fleet," said Sanders. "

--Combination of Efficiency and Renewables Much More Economical Than New Nuclear Reactors With Skyrocketing Construction Costs; 'Low Balling' of Cost Estimates Imperils 'Nuclear Renaissance,' Just as Runaway Costs Sank the 'Great Bandwagon Market' of 1970s WASHINGTON, June 18, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables.

If plans to build a new fleet of nuclear power plants make it past the drawing board, the cost to taxpayers and electricity consumers could be massive, according to a new study released by the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. In a 78-page report, economist Mark Cooper concluded that investing the money in efficiency and renewable power would be more economical than building new nuclear power plants. "The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12 to 20 cents per kilowatt hour, considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour," stated a summary of the report. Cooper's report found that during the life of 100 new nuclear reactors the cost to ratepayers and American taxpayers could be between $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more than the same power generated by a combination of energy efficiency and renewable power.

Since 2007, there have been applications to license 26 new nuclear reactors in the US. Nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months, and 10 have been delayed 1-5 years. Why? Because, as almost always happens with nuclear plants, they end up being much more expensive than original plans project. In these cases, costs over-runs were triple that of estimates, while the price for natural gas declined, making them even less attractive. And, importantly, energy efficiency programs combined with reduced energy demand because of the recession dramatically reduced the need for new power supplies. Nuclear looks good to lots of people - and Republicans are demanding strong incentives for it in the Senate Climate Bill - but the history of nuclear is frought with significant cost over-runs, multiple delays and cancellations. It's a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper.

Since 2007, there have been applications to license 26 new nuclear reactors in the US. Nine have been canceled or suspended indefinitely in the last 10 months, and 10 have been delayed 1-5 years. Why? Because, as almost always happens with nuclear plants, they end up being much more expensive than original plans project. In these cases, costs over-runs were triple that of estimates, while the price for natural gas declined, making them even less attractive. And, importantly, energy efficiency programs combined with reduced energy demand because of the recession dramatically reduced the need for new power supplies. Nuclear looks good to lots of people - and Republicans are demanding strong incentives for it in the Senate Climate Bill - but the history of nuclear is frought with significant cost over-runs, multiple delays and cancellations. It's a fact that energy efficiency combined with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind are much faster to ramp up and much cheaper.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

TVA is scaling back plans for new reactors at its Bellefonte Nuclear Plant in northeast Alabama as it moves forward with building a natural-gas-powered generator adjacent to a coal-fired steam plant near Rogersville, Tenn. Advertisement The Bellefonte plant, picked three years ago as a possible site for America's next reactor and once eyed for up to four reactors, is now being studied for a single reactor to be built within the next decade. TVA announced Friday that falling power sales and rising cleanup costs at the Kingston ash spill have changed plans for the nuclear plant in Hollywood, Ala. "As the valley grows, TVA intends to meet the demand for power with a combination of conservation, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and additional base load generation," TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnagar said.

Sunday's Sun editorial claims the Constellation Energy Group-Electricite de France deal will help ratepayers, in part because EDF might construct a new nuclear reactor that will increase Maryland's supply of electricity ("PSC's power play," Sept. 20). The cost of a new nuclear reactor is in the billions, and the electricity generated by the reactor may not be available for a decade. The problem is that ratepayers are suffering high energy costs now. The best and most immediate solution to our high energy costs is investment in energy efficiency. Instead of investing billions into nuclear, we should invest heavily in weatherizing and retrofitting our homes and businesses. By doing so, we will decrease the amount of electricity needed to turn on our lights and keep us warm in the winter. In fact, studies demonstrate that we can reduce Maryland's electricity use by 15 percent by the year 2015 through basic energy efficiency projects. We owe it to ratepayers to start lowering utility rates today, not in a decade. Fielding Huseth, Baltimore

"US Department of Energy officials on Tuesday voiced their support for a wide range of energy-related bills in the Senate, but were at a loss to explain why a bill that would give the agency authority to sell uranium is needed. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee considered six bills that would encourage solar panel use (S. 3460), increase natural-gas-turbine research and development (S. 2900), improve energy efficiency at federal buildings (S. 3251), expand best practices for supply-chain efficiency (S. 3396), increase research and development of heavy-duty plug-in-hybrid trucks (S. 679) and a measure introduced by Wyoming Republican Senator John Barrasso (S. 3233) that would give authority to DOE to barter, sell or transfer surplus uranium. But Shane Johnson, the chief operating officer of DOE's office of nuclear energy said that the agency already has such authority and he does not believe the legislation is necessary. "

The presidentially appointed commission that oversees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rejected an appeal by the groups and a state assemblyman challenging the Indian Point license renewal application under the umbrella of WestCAN. The groups include the Westchester Citizens Awareness Network (WestCAN), Rockland County Conservation Association, Public Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE), Sierra Club -- Atlantic Chapter and state Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. On July 31, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel handling the Indian Point license renewal hearing expelled WestCAN from the proceeding. It did so because the counsel for WestCAN repeatedly disregarded agency regulations and instructions from the panel. In its ruling Tuesday, the commission upheld the expulsion, noting that the actions by WestCAN's counsel have "seriously disrupted the Board's efforts to meet its responsibility to conduct a fair, orderly and efficient hearing, has interfered with the other participants' efforts to use their own litigation resources efficiently, and has made our own review of the appellate documents and the underlying record far more time-consuming than necessary."

On Wednesday, January 14, 2009, Secretary Bodman will discuss major DOE achievements over the last four years, energy-related challenges and major opportunities he sees for the future. Additionally, Secretary Bodman will discuss the release of "A Decade of Discovery," which highlights how the DOE National Laboratories have helped develop energy-efficient buildings; new, cleaner alternative fuels that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; safer, more efficient, nuclear power plants; improved responses to disease outbreaks; more secure and streamlined airport security; more effective treatments for cancer and other diseases; and astonishing discoveries that are altering our understanding of the universe and enabling scientific breakthroughs in fields such as nanotechnology and particle physics. Since the founding of the first DOE lab more than 60 years ago, the complex has been associated with the recipients of more than 80 Nobel Prizes.

Focusing our efforts on nuclear power distracts us from concentrating on energy efficiency and renewable energy - alternatives that provide the safest, cleanest and most dependable means to securing our energy future. We have the ability to meet our energy needs and have a clean and healthy state without nuclear power. If Idaho's leaders scrutinized the drawbacks of nuclear reactors and contrasted those drawbacks with the benefits of energy efficiency, conservation and renewables, Idaho wouldn't be so quick to jump on the nuclear band wagon.

Twelve Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy and Support a Green Energy Future We have a complete set of energy solutions: solar cells, wind turbines, concentrating solar, ocean current and wave energy, energy efficiency, and the list goes on.(1) As these technologies mature, we can quickly reduce nuclear and coal usage and, in the future, cut oil and natural gas use. The most environmentally and economically destructive sources of electricity should be reduced now, as other technologies emerge. The phase-out of nuclear and coal energy will reduce global warming while freeing up monies for renewables and efficiencies.

The likely cost of electricity for a new generation of nuclear reactors would be 12-20 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh), considerably more expensive than the average cost of increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energies at 6 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a major new study by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Titled "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," Cooper's analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade -- a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

Ratings Warning From Moody's Followed by Mothballing of New Reactor Plans in Texas and Ontario; Developments in Line with Cooper Report from June Projecting Trillions in Excess Costs for Nuclear, Compared to Combination of Renewables and More Efficiency. WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. Available online at http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environmental_Law_Center/Institutes_and_Initiatives/Institute_for_Energy_and_the_Environment/New_and_Noteworthy.htm, the Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns. Cooper said that three late June developments provide new evidence of the validity of the cost-related concerns documented in his report:

A US House of Representatives subcommittee on Thursday approved a $26.9-billion budget for the US Department of Energy in fiscal 2010. The budget largely supports an Obama administration proposal in May that included substantial increases for energy efficiency and renewable energy and a reversal in DOE's plans for a nuclear waste repository in Nevada. It includes $2.2 billion for DOE's energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs, which was $69 million short of the administration's request, but $321 million more than the department is spending on such activities in fiscal 2009, according to House Appropriations Committee data.

"Making good on a promise made during last week's State of the Union address, President Obama has included new money for what he describes as clean energy development. That includes authorization for the Department of Energy to guarantee loans for new nuclear power plants. This money is not a direct payment but will be available to back up investments in what many regard as a financially risky enterprise. The spending comes as DOE appoints a commission to study how to dispose of high-level nuclear waste. Last year the administration decided to end efforts to bury it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The budget also extends credit subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Spending on renewable energy projects will also rise for solar, biofuels and energy efficient buildings. "

"Congressman Sestak submitted language directing a study on the use of thorium-liquid fueled nuclear reactors for naval power, an important assessment of an energy source that has shown great potential to be more efficient for our military. As a result, the House Armed Services Committee included funding in the bill for research and development of a nuclear-powered destroyer reactor utilizing thorium energy. While our nuclear Navy has thrived with a continuing record of zero reactor accidents, thorium may be more efficient than uranium as a fuel source. Massive fuel rods would not have to be utilized, and it produces only 1/2000th the waste of uranium. In domestic applications, waste can even be stored on-site, eliminating the necessity of facilities such as Yucca Mountain. Large deposits of thorium can be mined domestically in States such as Idaho, and we already have 160,000 tons in reserve."

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.

Tories court property owners with promise of free cost-saving home improvement scheme and pledge 'immediate action to to keep Britain's lights on' The Conservative party annual conference in Manchester. Photograph: Christopher Thomond Every UK homeowners will benefit from an allowance of up to £6,500 to make their properties more energy efficient, under a "green deal" proposed by the Conservatives today. The idea is part of a wider energy and climate change package aimed at kick-starting a green economy in the UK. The shadow energy and climate change secretary, Greg Clark, said a Tory government would immediately approve construction of several nuclear and coal-fired power stations to help prevent electricity blackouts in the next decade, to strengthen the national grid and enable the harnessing of renewable energy sources at sea, and to boost the number of charging points for electric cars.