Group items tagged

Entergy's ads about Vermont Yankee being clean, safe and reliable are psychologically abusive to the good people of Vermont and an insult to our intelligence. Are we supposed to ignore that uranium comes from somewhere? Uranium mining has devastated the traditional food sources and health of the Serpent River First Nation in Ontario. The workplace safety insurance board pays $30,000 to the families of uranium miners who die from workplace-related cancer. We are paying for our "cheap" energy with bodies.

Hanford is one of the two Department of Energy nuclear cleanup sites with employee benefits more than 5 percent higher than comparable organizations, according to the Government Accountability Office. It issued a report last week to Congress providing information on DOE's management of costs and liabilities for pensions and post-retirement benefits for which it must reimburse DOE contractors. DOE is concerned about future costs for pensions and benefits for retirees, such as health care and life insurance, and congressional leaders find budgeting for fluctuating amounts difficult each year.

Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want?

You know who's going to own those nuclear reactors that Georgia Power and other utilities want to build near Augusta? In a legal sense, the utilities would own them. But in a political sense, state Sen. Don Balfour would own a good piece of them too, at least if Senate Bill 31 becomes law. Written at the behest of Georgia Power, SB 31 would strip authority from the Public Service Commission, the body created to regulate utilities and make highly technical decisions about how to finance complex multibillion-dollar projects such as nuclear plants. Balfour, the sponsor of the bill, apparently believes that the interests of Georgia would be best served if such technical decisions are made by Waffle House executives, insurance salesmen, retired farmers and others serving in the state Legislature. Such people do have wisdom, of course. It just doesn't generally extend to the intricacies of utility regulation.

A recent letter advocated more nuclear power plants. There are too many problems with this technology. First, companies will not build nuclear power plants without the protection of the Price-Anderson Act which provides taxpayer compensation in case of an accident since no company in the world will insure them. Price-Anderson, however, only provides $500 million when the latest government report, states that depending on the severity of the accident, damages could run in the billions. Second, after 50 years of operation there is still the waste problem. Energy Secretary Steven Chu appeared before the House lawmakers on June 3 and declared the planned Yucca Mountain repository "dead." More than $9 billion have been invested developing this waste dump, which caused one lawmaker to say: "We got a mighty expensive dinosaur sitting there." This waste, which is lethal for thousands of years, now stays on site in fuel pools and dry casts for future generations to worry about. Minimum morality would demand that we, at least, stop producing it. Estimates as to the cost of this "eventual cleanup" are incalculable. Still the proponents declare nuclear as cheap energy. Third, uranium, like oil, is a finite fuel. Reprocessing, the separation of plutonium which can then again be used as fuel, was discontinued by the United States nearly three decades ago on nonproliferation grounds. Fourth, since 2005, cost estimates for building a new nuclear reactor have more then tripled. Nuclear energy, once declared to be "too cheap to meter," is now too expensive to pursue. Frieda Berryhill, Wilmington

As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first "new generation" construction projects sink in French and Finnish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the US within twenty years. It explicitly welcomes "alternatives" such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and "clean coal." Though it endorses some renewables such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions. According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month. But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.

In a statement June 12, Kazatomprom sought to reassure worried foreign investors that no existing agreements with foreign shareholders would be changed, despite turnover at the company and the reported arrest of its former president, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, last month. Kazatomprom, or KAP, is the world's third-largest uranium producer. In the statement, KAP's new president, Vladimir Shkolnik, said the company "understands its responsibility for resources provision of the world nuclear power industry." Shkolnik said KAP would continue the same pace of development "in order to cover the growing demand [for] our products." KAP said that its top management had met with foreign partners over the past two weeks to discuss implementation of plans ranging from uranium mining to new joint ventures. In particular, it said, negotiations were held with the representatives of Marubeni, Sumitomo, Nuclear Fuel Industries, and Japanese financial and credit and insurance companies and banks, including NEXI, JBIC, ERM, and ING. KAP said management had also met with Atomredmetzoloto, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd., Areva, Uranium One, Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd., and others which it did not name. The statement said KAP management would meet soon with Cameco, Toshiba and Westinghouse Electric on further development of cooperation.

Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank . As Greenwire explained, the amendment would "create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department" that would "provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others" for "energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy." CEDA must adopt a "portfolio investment approach" and "ensure no particular technology receives more than 30 percent of the total funding available." John Podesta and Karen Kornbluh explain why we need a clean energy bank in a post first published here. The picture is of a worker makes adjustings before a section of a wind turbine is put into place at Energy Northwest's Nine Canyon Wind Project near Finley, WA, the kind of clean energy project the bank could help accelerate. The United States is falling behind in the space race of our generation-building long-term economic prosperity powered by low-carbon energy. China's stimulus package invests $12.6 million every hour in greening its economy, for a total of $220 billion, twice as much as similar U.S. investments. Meanwhile, during the most recent economic expansion the average American family paid more than $1,100 a year in rising energy bills for U.S. policies that favor fossil fuels.

Which sectors will perform which functions in the future in the energy industry is still being discussed, but the Department of Energy is now becomming a major investor in the renewable energy industry. So, now the U.S. government is in the auto industry, particulary advancing EVs; and also it is in the banking, investment banking, home finance, and insurance markets. Conditions are aligning to create a fundamental shift in how energy is financed, generated, transmitted, and consumed in both businesses and residences in America. Since the government has chosen to lead the way into the transition, it pays to listen to the process they have established for applicants and how they organize outgoing funds here in the initial buildout phase.

We live in the shadow of Vermont Yankee (VY). We live with alarm radios in our homes, provided for us free by VY, to alert us if there is an accident at the outdated plant located only a few miles from our homes. We store our potassium iodide pills supplied by the VT Department of Health where we can easily find them. We dutifully review the emergency evacuation route that we must travel in case of a nuclear accident, knowing that VY has acknowledged that it is ineffective. Daily we feel unsafe in the homes and community that we love and have worked hard to live in. Imagine reading these headlines in your newspaper about a nearby nuclear plant: "Nuclear Plant Tower Collapses" and " Plant at 60% reduced Power Due to Radioactive Water Leaks." Imagine reading these headlines knowing there is no insurance that will cover you or your home from the risks of an accident or sabotage or dangerous levels of radioactive waste. Remember that this plant would not be licensed by today's standards and is currently running at 20% over its original design capacity. Please imagine yourself in our place, and remember you too are not that far away and would be affected if there was a major disaster. Please ask your legislator to reject the relicensing of this aged nuclear reactor.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a provision to its sweeping climate and energy bill that would create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration within the Energy Department and make reforms to DOE's loan guarantee program for low-emission projects. The time spent debating the amendment was more than hour, suggesting the committee will face a slog through the 946-page measure. The amendment passed 51-6, with ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas) among a handful of Republicans who opposed it. Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), who offered the amendment with Democrats Jay Inslee of Washington and Bart Gordon of Tennessee, said the plan would aid deployment of new nuclear plants as well as renewable technologies. Changes to the loan guarantee program and creation of a "clean energy" bank within DOE are also part of a major energy bill before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, although the plans are not identical. The Clean Energy Deployment Administration would be empowered to provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others.

"Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen's Energy Program Taxpayers are about to take another huge hit. Reports that the Obama administration Tuesday will announce a "conditional" loan guarantee for corporate utility Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors at its Vogtle site in Georgia will once again put taxpayers on the hook when they can least afford it. In addition, it takes us entirely in the wrong direction. Proven efficiency and renewable energy technologies that can benefit millions of households are more cost-effective public investments than financially risky and uncertified nuclear technology. Initially authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the loan guarantee program was designed to back "innovative" energy technologies such as renewable wind and solar power, as well as new commercial nuclear reactors. While the program has finalized one $525 million loan guarantee for a solar power facility in California, the size and scope of proposed new nuclear reactors - with a price tag of roughly $10 billion per reactor - will overwhelm the public's bank account. In fact, nuclear power cannot be financially viable without taxpayer support, which includes not only federal loan guarantees but also risk insurance and production tax credits that manipulate the cost of nuclear generated energy. Since 2005, Southern Company has spent nearly $70 million lobbying the federal government, including to ensure these industry-friendly subsidies."

"The mystery has been solved. Where is this "new reactor renaissance" coming from? There has been no deep, thoughtful re-making or re-evaluation of atomic technology. No solution to the nuke waste problem. No making reactors economically sound. No private insurance against radioactive disasters by terror or error. No grassroots citizens now desperate to live near fragile containment domes and outtake pipes spewing radioactive tritium at 27 US reactors. No, nothing about atomic energy has really changed. Except this: $645 million spent on lobbying and media manipulation."

"Vienna - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia set up the world's first nuclear fuel reserve Monday to ensure uninterrupted supplies for the world's power reactors. The idea for a fuel bank was initiated by the IAEA in order to give countries an alternative to developing their own uranium enrichment technology, like Iran has done. "With our effort, we made the world a little better," said Sergei Kirienko, the head of Russia's nuclear corporation ROSATOM in Vienna, after signing the agreement with IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. The reserve is intended as an insurance mechanism for countries whose foreign supply of nuclear fuel is interrupted. In such a case, the IAEA would provide the nuclear material, which is to be made and stored at Angarsk in Siberia. The recipient country would pay current market prices for the low-enriched uranium. Russia would have 30 per cent of the target of one reactor load ready by the end of the year, Kirienko said. Developing countries have expressed scepticism about the fuel bank, as they fear that such mechanisms might indirectly prevent them from acquiring peaceful nuclear technology."

"ACE believes taxpayer funding should go to residents and small businesses for solar and wind energy installations, instead of the wealthy nuclear industry. With solar and wind there's no perpetual astronomical waste costs, no security force, no government subsidized catastrophic insurance and no need for evacuation plans. In his April 30 letter, Ross Brady used meaningless calculations to support giving our tax dollars to the wealthy nuclear industry. Brady can defend dangerous, polluting, and costly nuclear power and attack ACE, but he can't silence ACE or make us move. I lived here over 40 years before Limerick Nuclear Plant started operating. I won't stop trying to prevent harm to our community's children and their children from Limerick's operations. ACE members care deeply about others. We don't believe anyone should have to leave their community for a safer life."

At Time.com's Curious Capitalist, Michael Schuman calculates that the Tohoku quake could end up being the costliest earthquake ever in dollar terms, not counting the loss of human life. One consulting group estimated that insured property losses from the calamity could reach as high as $35 billion, making it the second-most expensive natural disaster ever, after Hurricane Katrina. And another firm estimated that total losses to home, factories, infrastructure and other property could exceed $100 billion when the final tallies are made. Sobering stuff.

" Bulgaria's 30-year-old plan to build a nuclear power plant in an earthquake-prone area on the Danube may become the European Union's first atomic project doomed by Japan's disaster, leaving a $2 billion hole in the ground. The EU's poorest member faces a "mission impossible" to finish the Russian-designed plant because the Fukushima accident will require it to borrow an extra $2.1 billion for improved safety measures and insurance, according to a report by the research group Balkans and Black Sea Studies Center of Sofia."

President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Before the Indian Parliament votes on limiting the liability of nuclear operators due to accidents, it should carefully consider the much higher limits that the United States has set for itself about $11 billion per incident industry maximum (under the Price-Anderson Act). The liability of the operator of the plant would be just Rs. 500 crores, about $110 million, which is just one percent of the U.S. limit, and about $450 million per accident. The proposed law allows an adjustment of this upwards or downwards to a possible lower limit of just Rs. 300 crores, or about $65 million. But more than that, Parliament should consider that the actual damages could be far greater than the U.S. liability limit. A 1997 study by the U.S. governments own Brookhaven National Laboratory, on Long Island, New York, found that the severe spent fuel pool accidents could result in damages from somewhat under $1 billion of up to $566 billion, depending on a how full and hot the pool is at the time of the accident and the intensity of the postulated fire. The high-end figure would amount to over $700 billion in 2009 dollars. Vast amounts of land --- up to about 7,000 square kilometers in the worst case would have to be condemned. Large numbers of people would have to be evacuated. Further, the maximum estimated monetary damages do not take into account some critical elements. For instance, the Brookhaven amount does not include excess cancer deaths, estimated to range from 1,500 to more than 100,000. Worst case nuclear reactor accident cancers and condemned area were estimated to be generally comparable to the upper end of the spent fuel accident estimates.

"Writing in a recent issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer, Madhusree Mukerjee wonders why, at a time President Obama is demanding that BP fully compensate Americans for the Gulf disaster, his administration is simultaneously "leaning on the Indian government to render its citizens unable to claim damages from U.S. power-plant suppliers in the event of a nuclear accident." Pursuant to the controversial nuclear commerce deal that the Bush administration negotiated with India, the United States would like India to adopt nuclear liability limits analogous to those in the U.S. Price Anderson Act, which caps corporate liability for a U.S. nuclear accident at $11 billion. A proposed Indian law would limit corporate liability in that country to $110 million."