Group items tagged

"Two Republican US senators Monday introduced a bill that would increase the use of natural gas, nuclear power and electric vehicles as a means of reducing the US power sector's air emissions and building domestic energy supply without specifically targeting greenhouse gas emissions. Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said their bill (S. 3535) would move the country toward cleaner domestic fuel sources through financial incentives. According to a bill summary, the measure would expand US use of natural gas with incentives for vehicles run by the fuel, including requirements for federal purchases of natural-gas fueled vehicles and extending income tax credit for vehicle purchases. For nuclear power, the bill would increase loan guarantees, provide a 15-year accelerated depreciation period for new plants, a 10% investment tax credit and launch a policy for recycling spent nuclear fuel. "

Ten percent of 20 is two. Five percent is one. To make the deal go down at the Public Service Board level 1 percent of the 20 percent uprated Vermont Yankee power (in 2006 it went from a 540 Megawatt ((Mw)) to a 650 Mw. reactor) was sold to a small utility up north in Vermont at below-market rates. As a result of the uprate decision at the PSB, Entergy must pay taxes to Vermont on all power from the uprate sold out of state. Translated, this means that Entergy must pay taxes on 19 of the uprated 20 percent of the power sold. This is money to the state coffers. The PSB makes decisions based primarily on economics. The PSB will decide to continue Yankee past 2012. The PSB will play their quasijudicial role as arbiter and Entergy will sweeten the deal for the supposed ratepayer advocate Department of Public Service (read: governor's right-and team) in a Memorandum of Understanding just before the PSB decision.

While the national media currently focus on the economic stimulus program of President Barack Obama, a major internal battle is shaping up between his environmental team, led by Carol Browner, who will seek a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program and a carbon tax, and his economic team, led by Larry Summers, who will almost certainly oppose such measures as having a significant deleterious effect on economic recovery. There is no doubt that the economic team will prevail. President Obama, however, does not need either a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax to attain his laudable air quality and greenhouse gas reduction goals. Over 40 per cent of all greenhouse gases generated in the United States emanate from coal fired power plants. A national program to begin the process of replacing coal plants with nuclear power plants would eliminate this greenhouse gas generation and likewise overwhelmingly reduce America's smog (ozone) and soot (particulate matter) pollution.

Lawmaker urges halt in payments to nuclear waste fund While the legislature debates tax increases, one Minnesota congressman wants to give back money most of you have been paying in a hidden fee. You can't find it on your Xcel Energy electricity bill, but you've been paying it for decades--all for something that hasn't even been used. Plans introduced in Congress and here in Minnesota would scrap the fee and give you the refund.

"EnergySolutions Inc. is shortchanging the state by millions of dollars in taxes each year because of the state's lax waste-reporting requirement for the company, an attorney told the Utah Supreme Court on Thursday. Lewis Francis, representing Charles Judd and his company, Cedar Mountain Environmental, asked the court to overturn a 2009 Utah Radiation Control Board ruling that denied his clients the legal standing that would have allowed them to bring attention to the alleged tax issue and other problems with EnergySolutions' current license. The state's lost revenue could total as much as $25 million, he said. The case, which the justices took under advisement, is the third involving the Tooele County low-level radioactive waste site to come before the state's highest court in the past two years, and it raises similar issues to the Judd-EnergySolutions case the court decided in Judd's favor last year. It is also one of a half-dozen that have dealt with the question of who can intervene in the formal decision making by governmental boards and commissions. In Thursday's case, lawyers for EnergySolutions and the Utah Radiation Control Board argued that Judd and his new company failed to meet the legal tests that show they, as the saying goes, have a dog in the fight. They have not been harmed, as a neighboring property owner, a business competitor or a member of the public at large whose personal health or environment might be at risk. "

"An attorney for a competitor of EnergySolutions told Utah Supreme Court justices Thursday that the company has not only contaminated areas surrounding its Clive-based radioactive waste site, but it is cheating on its taxes. Lewis Francis stood before the state's high court to argue that the company he represents, Cedar Mountain Environmental Inc., had the right to intervene after the Radiation Control Board renewed EnergySolutions' five-year license to operate, despite a list of issues presented by Cedar Mountain. Francis said the board's decision disregarded 14 issues presented by Cedar Mountain, including two "undisputed" contaminations and an allegation that the company often fails to properly cover some of the waste it houses."

MOSCOW, April 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's state-controlled nuclear power corporation Rosenergoatom has received a back tax claim for 1.7 billion rubles ($70 million), business daily Kommersant reported on Tuesday.

Could nuclear power be an option for Mohave County? At least two county supervisors think so. "Why not? As long as it provides a big enough benefit to the residents of the county and it didn't draw water from an aquifer," said Supervisor Gary Watson. A nuclear plant, if done right, could provide much-needed jobs and tax revenues for the county, he said.

Could nuclear power be an option for Mohave County? At least two county supervisors think so. "Why not? As long as it provides a big enough benefit to the residents of the county and it didn't draw water from an aquifer," said Supervisor Gary Watson. A nuclear plant, if done right, could provide much-needed jobs and tax revenues for the county, he said.

Haunted by the goblins of the cold war, a Boise-based group is obsessed with a uranium enrichment plant GargoyleA relic with knee-jerk, anti-nuclear reflexes from the cold war has energized itself to oppose Areva's planned $2.4 billion "Eagle Rock" uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. The Boise-based Snake River Alliance (SRA) has a war chest of $300,000 from the Bullit and the Edwards Mother Earth foundations and Patagonia outdoor clothing. With a staff of five and a claim of 1,000 members, it is planning to mount a major campaign to drive Areva out of Idaho. The French nuclear energy firm announced plans in May 2008 to build a $2.4 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. Areva chose the site after a yearlong nationwide search, with intense competition among five finalist sites, and only after the Idaho legislature offered tax incentives to sweeten the winning deal. Idaho Falls is one of the nation's most pro-nuclear cities with a sustained track record of standing up for Areva's project.

Haunted by the goblins of the cold war, a Boise-based group is obsessed with a uranium enrichment plant GargoyleA relic with knee-jerk, anti-nuclear reflexes from the cold war has energized itself to oppose Areva's planned $2.4 billion "Eagle Rock" uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. The Boise-based Snake River Alliance (SRA) has a war chest of $300,000 from the Bullit and the Edwards Mother Earth foundations and Patagonia outdoor clothing. With a staff of five and a claim of 1,000 members, it is planning to mount a major campaign to drive Areva out of Idaho. The French nuclear energy firm announced plans in May 2008 to build a $2.4 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. Areva chose the site after a yearlong nationwide search, with intense competition among five finalist sites, and only after the Idaho legislature offered tax incentives to sweeten the winning deal. Idaho Falls is one of the nation's most pro-nuclear cities with a sustained track record of standing up for Areva's project.

Republican lawmakers work to decrease carbon footprint via new energy source Three Republican legislators proposed ideas for new legislation Monday to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Rep. Michael Huebsch, R-West Salem, Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, and Sen. Joe Liebham, R-Sheboygan, said in a statement Monday they are crafting the bill as a way to prevent energy shortages, unsustainable price increases and utility taxes.

Republican lawmakers work to decrease carbon footprint via new energy source Three Republican legislators proposed ideas for new legislation Monday to repeal the state's ban on construction of new nuclear power plants. Rep. Michael Huebsch, R-West Salem, Rep. Phil Montgomery, R-Green Bay, and Sen. Joe Liebham, R-Sheboygan, said in a statement Monday they are crafting the bill as a way to prevent energy shortages, unsustainable price increases and utility taxes.

FOX 13 with partner Utahpolicy.com asked republican and democratic insiders whether energy solutions should be allowed to bring 10,000 additional tons of depleted uranium and radioactive waste from Italy to the Tooele County Facility. Energy consultant, Jeff Hartley said, "Energy is the most regulated industry and of that industry, nuclear is the most regulated and I have every confidence that if those products posed any type of threat, they wouldn't let them in the state." FOX 13 and Utahpolicy.com asked 50 Republican and 50 Democratic politicians, activists and lobbyists and other insiders about the Uranium Policy. Both sides claim the science and the facts but the issues about Italian waste coming to Utah, 67 percent of Republican insiders say take it, especially because it comes with millions in shared profits for tax payers. 71 percent of Democrats say to keep it out, believing it will make Utah less safe and hurt the State's image.

FOX 13 with partner Utahpolicy.com asked republican and democratic insiders whether energy solutions should be allowed to bring 10,000 additional tons of depleted uranium and radioactive waste from Italy to the Tooele County Facility. Energy consultant, Jeff Hartley said, "Energy is the most regulated industry and of that industry, nuclear is the most regulated and I have every confidence that if those products posed any type of threat, they wouldn't let them in the state." FOX 13 and Utahpolicy.com asked 50 Republican and 50 Democratic politicians, activists and lobbyists and other insiders about the Uranium Policy. Both sides claim the science and the facts but the issues about Italian waste coming to Utah, 67 percent of Republican insiders say take it, especially because it comes with millions in shared profits for tax payers. 71 percent of Democrats say to keep it out, believing it will make Utah less safe and hurt the State's image.

Germany's new coalition government put the finishing touches to its policy program this weekend, promising moderate tax cuts to help support the economy, a reduction in the length of compulsory military service, and the continued operation of the nation's aging nuclear power plants. No big surprises there. But one detail could have interesting international repercussions: the man designated to be foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, is pushing for the U.S. to remove its remaining nuclear weapons from German soil.

Germany's new coalition government put the finishing touches to its policy program this weekend, promising moderate tax cuts to help support the economy, a reduction in the length of compulsory military service, and the continued operation of the nation's aging nuclear power plants. No big surprises there. But one detail could have interesting international repercussions: the man designated to be foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, is pushing for the U.S. to remove its remaining nuclear weapons from German soil.

Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill? The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance."

Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill? The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance."

Greg Clark is a thoughtful chap: the sort of chap who contemplates his subject from all angles before pronouncing. If he reckons we need more nuclear power stations, that's good enough for me. Greg is also a sound localist - one of the original supporters of Direct Democracy - and he wants local communities to be consulted about the siting of any new facilities. How can these two things be reconciled? How can we build more nuclear power stations quickly while respecting local autonomy? Here's an idea: why not let the market decide? Some US states have come up with an intriguing way of settling where to build unpopular installations, from incinerators to mobile phone masts. They ask each county what it would take to make them want the facility. Each county then submits a sealed bid, and the one with the lowest price is chosen. How the county authorities use the money is up to them: they can spend it, cut taxes or both.

Greg Clark is a thoughtful chap: the sort of chap who contemplates his subject from all angles before pronouncing. If he reckons we need more nuclear power stations, that's good enough for me. Greg is also a sound localist - one of the original supporters of Direct Democracy - and he wants local communities to be consulted about the siting of any new facilities. How can these two things be reconciled? How can we build more nuclear power stations quickly while respecting local autonomy? Here's an idea: why not let the market decide? Some US states have come up with an intriguing way of settling where to build unpopular installations, from incinerators to mobile phone masts. They ask each county what it would take to make them want the facility. Each county then submits a sealed bid, and the one with the lowest price is chosen. How the county authorities use the money is up to them: they can spend it, cut taxes or both.

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

Nuclear power plants are being pushed as part of climate-change legislation. But the focus should be on renewable power sources, which are getting cheaper and don't produce radioactive waste. As the Senate debates climate legislation that could reinvent the country's energy infrastructure, it is richly ironic that lawmakers who consider themselves rock-ribbed fiscal conservatives are among the strongest backers of nuclear plants -- a vastly expensive, inefficient and dangerous source of energy that requires massive taxpayer bailouts. Senate Republicans and many moderate Democrats are seeking to lard up prospective climate and energy bills with billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other subsidies for nuclear power, even though it makes no sense as a solution to climate change and is a terrible option from an economic, environmental and national-security standpoint. Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), whose bipartisan effort to restructure the cap-and-trade climate bill (which Republicans like to deride as "cap and tax") offers its only hope of passage in the Senate this year, signaled their intent to add more nuclear pork to the bill in a recent Op-Ed article. Meanwhile, Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) recently introduced their own alternative climate bill calling for up to $100 billion in clean-energy loan guarantees, most of which would end up going to nuclear plants.

While all the alternative energy buzz is on solar and wind, the U.S. Department of Energy is putting its money into nuclear fusion. Japan, France, the U.K., and China along with the U.S. are experimenting with nuclear fusion. Energy demands worldwide are expected to double in the next thirty years, and solar and wind energy will not be able to meet these demands. Nuclear fusion, dubbed as Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) by the scientists doing the work, may be the solution to all our energy problems. The project has a $3.5 billion price tag, funded by tax payer money.

While all the alternative energy buzz is on solar and wind, the U.S. Department of Energy is putting its money into nuclear fusion. Japan, France, the U.K., and China along with the U.S. are experimenting with nuclear fusion. Energy demands worldwide are expected to double in the next thirty years, and solar and wind energy will not be able to meet these demands. Nuclear fusion, dubbed as Laser Inertial Fusion Energy (LIFE) by the scientists doing the work, may be the solution to all our energy problems. The project has a $3.5 billion price tag, funded by tax payer money.

"The Danville Regional Foundation (DRF) announced Friday it has received proposals from two nationally-known groups, Resources for the Future and RTI International, to conduct an independent socioeconomic study on the regional impact of uranium mining. Abstracts of these proposals can be found online (http://danvilleregionalfoundation.org/Uranium/uranium-proposal-abstracts) and available for public comments for 30 days through DRF's Uranium Blog (http://danvilleregionalfoundation.org/Uranium/). Registered public comments submitted online will be reviewed and used in selecting the organization to conduct the study. Selection is expected to be announced in August with the final study due by year-end 2011, according to a DRF news release. The proposed study will examine the potential effects of uranium mining and milling, and long-term waste management on people, institutions and economies within 50 miles of the proposed site. Specific means of determining the socio-economic benefits and risks, such as impact on property values, taxes and institutions, are outlined in the abstracts, the release stated. In the state of Virginia, there are currently four uranium mining, milling and tailings storage studies currently under way or planned. Each has different purposes, it continued. A brief summary is online (http://danvilleregionalfoundation.org/news/documents/Uranium-Studies-FINAL.pdf) "

"House Democrats choose preemptive bailout for nuclear industry over preventing teacher layoffs WASHINGTON, D.C.-- This week, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on supplemental appropriations for the war in Afghanistan and several domestic programs. The domestic program funding preserves $9 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear reactors, while cutting $13 billion in funds to prevent teacher layoffs. Friends of the Earth's climate and energy tax analyst, Ben Schreiber, had the following response: "This week Congress will vote on whether to take teachers away from students so that they can give nuclear reactors a $9 billion preemptive bailout. We continue to be shocked that Congress brazenly puts the interests of corporations above the needs of regular Americans, including teachers and children. This is further proof our political system has been corrupted by corporate influence and special interests."

"On May 3, 1969, after hours of bitter debate, the Sierra Club fired David Brower. The organization's first paid staffer, Brower had transformed the Club from an exclusive, politically timid, white male hiking outfit of 2,000 members. But the old guard didn't like the direction that Brower, its executive director, was taking the staid organization: toward political confrontation, grassroots organizing and attacks on industrial pollution, nuclear power and the Pentagon. This kind of green aggressiveness in the face of entrenched power alienated funders, politicians and, eventually, the Internal Revenue Service, which, after Brower's successful international campaign to halt the construction of two mega-dams in the Grand Canyon, moved to strip the group of its tax-deductible status. The IRS action proved to be the final straw and Brower was booted out."

"Turkey's parliament approved legislation opening the way for Russia to build the country's first nuclear power plant. The measure approved in the Ankara assembly today guarantees to buy power from the planned reactor at Akkuyu on the Mediterranean coast at 12.35 cents per kilowatt hour plus sales tax, the state news agency Anatolia reported. "