Group items tagged

"New Subsidies for Constructing Reactors Would Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers Massive government subsidies proposed in two pending Senate climate and energy bills would shift the risk of financing and constructing new nuclear reactors from the industry to U.S. taxpayers, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Such subsidies would disadvantage more cost-effective, less risky approaches to curbing the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming, including energy efficiency programs and renewable energy technologies, the group said. The UCS analysis is the first to quantify the most significant subsidies for the nuclear industry proposed in the American Power Act (APA) and the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA). Those subsidies include expanded federal loan guarantees, reduced accelerated depreciation periods, a 10 percent investment tax credit, expanded production tax credits, and expanded federal regulatory risk insurance. Assuming eight new reactors are built over the next 15 years, UCS found those subsidies would amount to approximately $40 billion, or $5 billion per reactor, slightly more than half of what a typical 1,100 megawatt reactor would cost to build today. If the industry is able to secure federal approval to build the 31 new reactors it is expected to request, UCS found that total proposed subsidies could be worth from $65 billion to as much as $147 billion."

- The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today released the executive summary of a new report that should put an end to claims that new nuclear weapons are required to maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal, according to experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "This new scientific report should be the final nail in the coffin for proposals to build new nuclear weapons," said Stephen Young, senior analyst in the Global Security Program at UCS. "The report finds that we can maintain our nuclear weapons indefinitely by simply continuing to do what we are already doing." The report, by a prominent, independent scientific panel called the JASON group, concluded that the United States can maintain current high levels of safety, security and reliability indefinitely without designing a new generation of warheads or testing current warheads. The panel found that the arsenal can be maintained by two existing programs: the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which monitors the arsenal for signs of aging, and the Life-Extension Program, which refurbishes existing warheads with new components.

- The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today released the executive summary of a new report that should put an end to claims that new nuclear weapons are required to maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal, according to experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "This new scientific report should be the final nail in the coffin for proposals to build new nuclear weapons," said Stephen Young, senior analyst in the Global Security Program at UCS. "The report finds that we can maintain our nuclear weapons indefinitely by simply continuing to do what we are already doing." The report, by a prominent, independent scientific panel called the JASON group, concluded that the United States can maintain current high levels of safety, security and reliability indefinitely without designing a new generation of warheads or testing current warheads. The panel found that the arsenal can be maintained by two existing programs: the Stockpile Stewardship Program, which monitors the arsenal for signs of aging, and the Life-Extension Program, which refurbishes existing warheads with new components.

The nuclear power industry is pressuring Congress to dramatically expand federal loan guarantees for building new plants, which would put taxpayers and ratepayers at significant financial risk, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). view counter Congress already has authorized $60 billion for loan guarantees in which the federal government would shield utilities and private investment firms from the risk of default on loans for building new electricity generation plants. The Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $18.5 billion of that money for new nuclear plants over the next few years. Given the average projected cost of building one reactor is currently $9 billion, the industry is clamoring for considerably more. To date, the DOE has received $122 billion in applications for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.

"The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today leveled criticism at an expected Obama administration announcement that it will significantly boost federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants. The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Obama administration plans to triple federal loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors, from $18.5 billion to $54 billion. Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate change project manager at UCS, said "increasing loan guarantees for nuclear power beyond what Congress already has authorized would shift unacceptable risks from the nuclear industry to U.S. taxpayers. This is a prime example of pork barrel politics on behalf of special interests." "

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. David Lochbaum on behalf of the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on February 23, 2007. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations governing domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities to require periodic demonstrations by applicable local, State, and Federal entities to ensure that nuclear power plants can be adequately protected against radiological sabotage by adversaries with capabilities that exceed those posed by the design basis threat (DBT).

Northwest, the official airline of the Republican National Convention, has taken on a new role of censor. Yesterday it asked Clear Channel Communications to remove a Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) anti-nuclear-weapons billboard in the Minneapolis airport because it is "scary" and "anti-McCain." Clear Channel agreed, and plans to take the billboard down today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists wants to postpone construction of a new production facility at Y-12 (Uranium Processing Facility or UPF) until the nation has a new nuclear policy and a better handle on the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. UCS also says it's "premature" to build the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Nuclear Facility at Los Alamos. The new report, "The Cart Before the Horse: DOE's Plan for the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex," is available

Shifting the focus of UC laboratories away from nuclear weapons is a much-needed departure from Bush' policies. Change we can all believe in may be coming to the university's two laboratories which deal primarily with nuclear weapons research: Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Congress and the Obama administration are re-evaluating the role of nuclear weapons in national security, potentially shifting the focus of research at the UC labs away from nuclear weaponry for good. We welcome this dramatic policy shift from the Bush administration, which could mean a much-needed end to outdated Cold War-era national security policies.

WASHINGTON (April 6, 2011) - In the weeks following the Fukushima accident, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and nuclear industry officials have been asserting that U.S. nuclear plants are better prepared to withstand a catastrophic event like the March 11 earthquake and tsunami than Japanese plants because they have additional safety measures in place. However, according to internal NRC documents (links provided below) released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), there is no consensus within the NRC that U.S. plants are sufficiently protected. The documents indicate that technical staff members doubt the effectiveness of key safety measures adopted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. UCS obtained the documents on March 25 from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it made a month before the Japanese disaster.

Bailout estimates for failed projects could range from hundreds of billions to more than a trillion The nuclear power industry is pressuring Congress to dramatically expand federal loan guarantees for building new plants, which would put taxpayers and ratepayers at significant financial risk, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Congress already has authorized $60 billion for loan guarantees in which the federal government would shield utilities and private investment firms from the risk of default on loans for building new electricity generation plants. The Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated $18.5 billion of that money for new nuclear plants over the next few years. Given the average projected cost of building one reactor is currently $9 billion, the industry is clamoring for considerably more. To date, the DOE has received $122 billion in applications for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.

"Per Peterson, professor and chair of nuclear engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, with expertise in advanced reactor systems, nuclear waste processing, and inertial fusion energy, has been named to a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. DOE Secretary Steven Chu, former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a former UC Berkeley physics professor, announced the 15 members of the commission on Friday, Jan. 29. The panel is charged with providing recommendations for a safe, long-term solution to managing the country's used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The recommendations will provide an alternative to storing spent nuclear reactor fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, a proposal that the Obama administration rejected in 2009. "

"A dangerous chemical on the site of a former animal-testing laboratory at UC Davis may not have come from experiments there, but rather from a chemical reaction underground in the years since. For 30 years starting in 1958, the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research was, for some, a place of discovery. For others it was a source of nightmares. The lab conducted Cold War-inspired research for the U.S. Department of Energy, including exposing beagles to lethal radiation to judge how humans might survive."

The March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami off the northeast coast of Japan has led to a major, still evolving crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power facility. UCS is providing information and analysis about the crisis and what is happening on the ground, as well as its broader implications for nuclear power safety and the future of nuclear power. Click the links below for timely information.

A rapid-fire exchange of press releases this week Friday, Nov 13 made short order of a claim [press release] by Friends of the Earth (FOE) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that the end of testing of MOX fuel in a Duke Power reactor is a "huge setback" to the program. Identical letters sent Nov 10 by Tom Clements representing both two green organizations to Energy Sec. Steven Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko claimed that a decision by Duke not to reload test bundles of MOX fuel at the Catawba reactor represents a "failure to demonstrate" the safety of the fuel in a conventional light water reactor. The letter called the situation "an aborted test" and claimed that as a result the MOX fuel is unsafe for use in civilian nuclear reactors. The remainder of the letter is incendiary with claims that the MOX fuel program should not proceed as a result of the "decision" by Duke Energy.

A rapid-fire exchange of press releases this week Friday, Nov 13 made short order of a claim [press release] by Friends of the Earth (FOE) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that the end of testing of MOX fuel in a Duke Power reactor is a "huge setback" to the program. Identical letters sent Nov 10 by Tom Clements representing both two green organizations to Energy Sec. Steven Chu and NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko claimed that a decision by Duke not to reload test bundles of MOX fuel at the Catawba reactor represents a "failure to demonstrate" the safety of the fuel in a conventional light water reactor. The letter called the situation "an aborted test" and claimed that as a result the MOX fuel is unsafe for use in civilian nuclear reactors. The remainder of the letter is incendiary with claims that the MOX fuel program should not proceed as a result of the "decision" by Duke Energy.

"The Obama administration is planning to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal by as much as 40 percent by 2021, but also wants to spend nearly $175 billion over the next 20 years to build new facilities and maintain and modify thousands of weapons, according to two sections of an administration plan made public today by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The proposal, the "FY 2011 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan," which is part of the Department of Energy's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget, was drafted by DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and presented to members of Congress in May. "

WASHINGTON (April 16, 2008) - This afternoon, President George W. Bush is expected to announce a new proposal to halt growth in U.S. global warming pollution by 2025. His proposal is inadequate and falls far short of pollution reduction goals in domestic legislation and international treaties, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). This summer, the U.S. Senate is expected to consider a bill that would drastically reduce global warming pollution by 2020. Internationally, other industralized countries have pledged to reduce global warming pollution 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Monday night Stewart Brand spoke at UC Berkeley on "Rethinking Green." He went through the requisite slides on climate, population and energy - but with a few twists. He was involved in the Pentagon-sponsored Abrupt Climate Change report in 2003, "we're still learning about how weird it can get and how fast it can get weird," he said as he showed a global minefield of positive feedback loops that could rapidly increase CO2 in the atmosphere. "At what point will the pH of the oceans become too acidic for the phytoplankton to continue sequestering CO2? When will the methane gigaburp out of the permafrost? When will the rainforests wilt and stop storing carbon? We have no idea!" Brand asserts that each one of these events will come as a nasty surprise and will push the urgency around climate response to a new level, forcing us to reconsider technologies that we may not currently favor, such as nuclear power and geo-engineering.

Former employees of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory are eligible for free confidential medical screening to determine if they have any health problems related to on-the-job exposure to radioactive or toxic substances such as beryllium, the universities running the program announced Monday. Experts from UC San Francisco and Boston University School of Public Health will do the evaluations of workers at Kaiser Permanente occupational medicine facilities in Northern California.

A "discussion draft" (pdf) for climate and energy legislation released today by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sets the stage for the federal government to rapidly adopt a comprehensive approach to energy and climate policy, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). House members will use the discussion draft as a starting point for crafting legislation. Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, have pledged to move a bill out of the Energy and Commerce committee by Memorial Day, Monday, May 25. The discussion draft release comes on the heels of President Obama reaffirming his pledge to move rapidly on comprehensive climate and energy legislation during a March 24 press conference.

"The Obama administration is expected to make final decisions as early as today about the Nuclear Posture Review, the official policy document that will define U.S. nuclear weapons policy for the next five to 10 years. This will take place at what is called a "principals meeting" attended by Cabinet members whose departments are involved in the review. The congressionally mandated review will set the role nuclear weapons will play in overall U.S. security policy, how many nuclear weapons the United States needs to fulfill those roles, and whether the United States should produce new nuclear warheads. "The administration's decisions on the Nuclear Posture Review will not only set U.S. policy, they will shape the future of nuclear weapons globally," said Lisbeth Gronlund, senior scientist and co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "President Obama, who has the final word, can choose to make the transformational changes needed to address the real threats of the 21st century, or can allow bureaucratic inertia and the parochial interests of the federal nuclear weapons labs to hold sway." "