Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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.

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.

"When President Obama rolled out his proposed budget to Congress for the coming year, he said it would build "on the largest investment in clean energy in history." But Obama's definition of "clean energy" includes a commitment to help companies garner billions of dollars in loans for nuclear reactor construction. And, unfortunately, nuclear energy isn't safe or clean and it's too costly for the nation. The government's role in the energy marketplace is clear in its loan-guarantee programs. This year, the Energy Department proposes to provide $166 billion in federal energy loan guarantees to aid the ailing auto industry and help finance nuclear, coal, and renewable energy projects. Sadly, the nuclear industry is slated to get the largest and riskiest share of that support. Wall Street has refused to finance nuclear power for more than 30 years, rendering new construction impossible. The Obama administration, in a move to placate Senate Republicans, proposes to fund new power reactors with some $54.5 billion in federal loan guarantees. Because of the way the guarantees are structured, the actual loans will be made by the Federal Financing Bank out of the U.S. Treasury. Last year, the Government Accountability Office estimated that these loans have more than a 50-50 chance of failing. Because of skyrocketing costs, these loans might pay for five reactors and merely expand the nation's electrical supply by less than 1 percent. "

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.

"The issue of energy subsidies is heating up. The cards are out, positions are being redefined and bargaining is in process. A concerted effort is on to get this anomaly to the maximum possible and the issue was mentioned at the just-concluded G20 summit in Toronto too. The final communiqué at the end of the G20 summit here in Toronto not only noted with appreciation the report on energy subsidies from the International Energy Agency, OPEC, OECD and the World Bank combined, but also welcomed the work of the finance and energy ministers "in delivering implementation strategies and timeframes, based on national circumstances, for the rationalization and phase out - over the medium term - of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourages wasteful consumption, taking into account vulnerable groups and their development needs." The IEA, OPEC and the World Bank report on fossil fuel subsidies was prepared at the request of the previous G20 summit in Pittsburgh."

BankTrack, in cooperation with a number of working partners, today launches www.nuclearbanks.org, a new website mapping the involvement of 45 leading commercial banks in funding nuclear power projects and companies active in the nuclear sector. [1] BankTrack considers nuclear energy a grave danger for people and planet. The renewed interest in nuclear energy also poses a severe obstacle to achieving a sustainable solution to the climate crisis.[2] The website provides information on 867 transactions, involving a total of 124 banks providing finance to over 70 nuclear companies. Between 2000 and 2009, these banks…read more"

Crews have taken the first bites out of the old uranium mill-tailings pile in Moab, Utah, beginning a yearslong process of transferring it far from the Colorado River. Abut 630,000 tons will have been moved from Moab to the disposal cell near Crescent Junction by year's end, said Wendee Ryan of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Energy Department and its contractor, Energy Solutions Corp., began moving the tailings pile this year. Moab residents and downstream water providers lobbied for years to have the 16-million-ton pile of mill tailings moved from its spot along the north bank of the Colorado River to a cell up against the Bookcliff Mountains at Crescent Junction that is deemed less likely to contaminate the river. The pile is being moved by train from Moab to the disposal cell 30 miles north.

Crews have taken the first bites out of the old uranium mill-tailings pile in Moab, Utah, beginning a yearslong process of transferring it far from the Colorado River. Abut 630,000 tons will have been moved from Moab to the disposal cell near Crescent Junction by year's end, said Wendee Ryan of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Energy Department and its contractor, Energy Solutions Corp., began moving the tailings pile this year. Moab residents and downstream water providers lobbied for years to have the 16-million-ton pile of mill tailings moved from its spot along the north bank of the Colorado River to a cell up against the Bookcliff Mountains at Crescent Junction that is deemed less likely to contaminate the river. The pile is being moved by train from Moab to the disposal cell 30 miles north.

"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."

Efforts by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to keep countries from acquiring nuclear technology by offering them alternatives got a boost this week as three plans for nuclear fuel banks and multinational fuel factories were tabled. The latest proposal was put forward by Germany on Friday. The text foresees the creation of an internationally-governed nuclear fuel production plant. Two additional, complementary, proposals for Russian and IAEA fuel banks to provide supply of last resort are also to be considered by the 35 countries on the IAEA's governing board in June. The ideas were proposed by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei in 2003 to keep countries such as Iran from acquiring uranium enrichment and reprocessing technologies, which can be used not only for energy purposes, but also for making nuclear bomb material. But diplomats say the Vienna-based nuclear agency is split on the issue between those countries that already hold the technology, and sceptical countries such as Egypt, Argentina and Brazil, many of them developing economies.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

Nuclear Power Industry is Perfect Illustration of Why Taxpayers Are Saying "No More Bailouts!" - Billions for Plant Vogtle Reactors Impossible to Justify in Terms of Rising Financial Risks, Reduced Demand for Power, Cheaper Renewables and Huge Potential of Energy Efficiency ATLANTA, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- First it was insurance companies, then it was banks and that was followed by auto companies. Now, the federal government is putting U.S. taxpayers and utility customers at new risk under a controversial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) loan guarantee program that is slated to award $18.5 billion, with Atlanta-based Southern Company predicted to be first on the list for program funds to build two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. Ironically, the DOE's "top choice" for the nuclear reactor loan guarantees, which are backed by U.S. taxpayers in the event of defaults, is the very same Plant Vogtle that helped to kill the previous nuclear power boom in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Huge cost overruns at the original Plant Vogtle - which escalated from $660 million for four reactors to a whopping $8.87 billion for two - likely played a role in putting the brakes on nuclear expansion plans pursued decades ago in the United States.

"The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Steering Group met in Accra, Ghana on June 16-17, 2010 and approved unanimously several transformative changes to reflect global developments that have occurred since the Partnership was established in 2007. The transformation includes a new name - the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation -- and the establishment of a new Statement of Mission. Participants in this new International Framework agreed that this transformation was necessary to provide a broader scope with wider international participation to more effectively explore the most important issues underlying the use and expansion of nuclear energy worldwide. The Steering Group addressed follow-up actions to the International Framework's Executive Committee Meeting that occurred in Beijing on October 23, 2009, including ways to further enhance its activities, such as exchanges of views on approaches to assurances of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management. Jordan formally announced that it will host the next meeting of the International Framework's Executive Committee in the fall of 2010."

"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."

Belgium will introduce levies on banks, life insurers and nuclear-power producers next year as Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy seeks to start taming a swelling debt burden without hampering the economic recovery. The government will seek 670 million euros ($991 million) from banks and life insurers in 2011 to protect their depositors and policy holders from default, Finance Minister Didier Reynders said. Power producers GDF Suez SA and SPE NV will have to pay as much as 245 million euros annually for keeping the country's three oldest atomic reactors in operation for an additional 10 years, according to Energy Minister Paul Magnette.

Belgium will introduce levies on banks, life insurers and nuclear-power producers next year as Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy seeks to start taming a swelling debt burden without hampering the economic recovery. The government will seek 670 million euros ($991 million) from banks and life insurers in 2011 to protect their depositors and policy holders from default, Finance Minister Didier Reynders said. Power producers GDF Suez SA and SPE NV will have to pay as much as 245 million euros annually for keeping the country's three oldest atomic reactors in operation for an additional 10 years, according to Energy Minister Paul Magnette.

Cheap, reliable hydroelectric power once helped make Ontario rich, powering the factories and foundries that created wealth for the province. But it's now 18 aging nuclear reactors that keep the lights on, providing half the power used in Ontario. Most are closer to the end of their working lives than the beginning, and many have a record of costly overruns, inefficiency or both. Despite that history, the Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty has enthusiastically backed a nuclear future for Ontario, planning to renew the aging fleet to maintain its half of provincial generation with an ambitious, 20-year, $26-billion plan. But in June, when the bill for replacing just two of those reactors came in so startlingly high -- "several billions" too high in Energy Minister George Smitherman's words -- that he simply pulled the plug on the project, suspending it and leaving open the question once again: Can Ontario keep splitting the atom without breaking the bank?

Cheap, reliable hydroelectric power once helped make Ontario rich, powering the factories and foundries that created wealth for the province. But it's now 18 aging nuclear reactors that keep the lights on, providing half the power used in Ontario. Most are closer to the end of their working lives than the beginning, and many have a record of costly overruns, inefficiency or both. Despite that history, the Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty has enthusiastically backed a nuclear future for Ontario, planning to renew the aging fleet to maintain its half of provincial generation with an ambitious, 20-year, $26-billion plan. But in June, when the bill for replacing just two of those reactors came in so startlingly high -- "several billions" too high in Energy Minister George Smitherman's words -- that he simply pulled the plug on the project, suspending it and leaving open the question once again: Can Ontario keep splitting the atom without breaking the bank?

Cheap, reliable hydroelectric power once helped make Ontario rich, powering the factories and foundries that created wealth for the province. But it's now 18 aging nuclear reactors that keep the lights on, providing half the power used in Ontario. Most are closer to the end of their working lives than the beginning, and many have a record of costly overruns, inefficiency or both. Despite that history, the Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty has enthusiastically backed a nuclear future for Ontario, planning to renew the aging fleet to maintain its half of provincial generation with an ambitious, 20-year, $26-billion plan. But in June, when the bill for replacing just two of those reactors came in so startlingly high -- "several billions" too high in Energy Minister George Smitherman's words -- that he simply pulled the plug on the project, suspending it and leaving open the question once again: Can Ontario keep splitting the atom without breaking the bank?

Energy firms will refuse to pass on all of the savings they make on cheaper wholesale gas and electricity to consumers, one of the UK's top energy bosses admitted this weekend. The warning, issued by Paul Golby, chief executive of Eon UK, came after a week in which the price of oil tumbled to just above $40 a barrel. As the government demands that the banks give borrowers the benefit of the latest cut in interest rates, energy companies are also coming under increasing pressure to cut customers' bills.

Eastern Europe is promoting nuclear energy as the only way to tackle climate change and reduce dependence on Russian gas, in spite of costs of going nuclear that it cannot meet. Amid the last Ukrainian-Russian gas spat early this year, officials from several Central and Eastern European countries were quick to point to the need for nuclear energy to reduce problematic imports of Russian gas. Unlike many countries in the West, public opinion in Central and Eastern Europe overwhelmingly supports nuclear energy, with opinion polls showing 80 percent support in Slovakia and 70 percent in Hungary. "They see it as a way to export electricity, and they believe the simple solution is to have big facilities," Olexi Pasyuk, energy specialist in Kiev with Bankwatch, an independent group monitoring European Bank investments told IPS. "But you have to invest a lot, and maybe you get money back in 30 years, if you're lucky."

A fresh round of federal loan guarantees for nuclear plants may help seed new power projects now that a Senate committee approved an energy measure on Wednesday, an industry spokesman said. A measure passed in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 15 to 8 includes language for the creation of the Clean Energy Development Administration, a new federal agency to help funnel loan guarantees for nuclear, wind and solar projects. The proposal will now move to the full Senate, along with a version from the House of Representatives. While an initial $18.5 billion loan-guarantee program will help build four new nuclear plants, an additional $90 billion in loan guarantees already have been requested among the 17 companies proposing 26 new reactors, according to Mitch Singer of the Nuclear Energy Institute.

When Progress Energy announced plans more than two years ago to build a nuclear plant in Levy County, the project met little resistance. Electric bills were a lot lower, the utility's customer base was still growing and the Legislature had just passed a nuclear-friendly law to encourage construction. Then it came: An economic recession led by a surge in housing foreclosures, a collapse of the banking industry and the loss of millions of jobs. For the first time in memory, Progress Energy began losing customers in Florida. Last month, homeowners and businesses began receiving the tab for Progress Energy's nuclear plant. The consumer outrage has led lawmakers to call for changes. Suddenly, Florida's appetite for an expensive nuclear plant has diminished. At least $4 billion of the $17 billion project is still slated to be collected from Progress Energy customers before the plant is even completed in 2017.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia signed off Monday to set up the world's first nuclear fuel reserve in Siberia Monday to ensure uninterrupted supplies to the world's nuclear power reactors. The deal guarantees stock of 120 metric tons of low-enriched uranium in Angarsk, near Irkutsk in Siberia, said Sergey Kiriyenko, head of Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom, who added that other countries were displaying interest in the pool of low-enriched uranium.The IAEA said the value of the uranium was about $250 million. The move to create the bank on the site of the Angarsk Electrolysis and Chemical Combine mollifies many defence industry experts who are afraid de-centralised caches of nuclear fuel could be used for terrorism. But Monday's announcement also perturbs many Russian and international environmentalists who say the Siberian fuel bank at Angarsk will become a sink hole of radioactive contamination. Once operational, the fuel reserve is meant to encourage countries looking to develop peaceful nuclear programmes to depend on outside sources - in this case the Angarsk instead of developing uranium enrichment programmes of their own."

"Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has denied allegations that his "prejudices" against nuclear energy contributed to the cancellation of the £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to build power plant components. Labour leadership contender Ed Miliband said the coalition's decision was based on the "short-sightedness" of a Tory party which was against state intervention and Mr Huhne's opposition to nuclear. But at Commons question time Mr Huhne said the decision was made because the loan was "simply unaffordable". Shadow energy secretary Mr Miliband said the "commercial loan" to Forgemasters would have resulted in at least £110 million returning to the Exchequer. Mr Huhne told him: "The loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was not a commercial loan. If it was a commercial loan it would have been arranged through the banks and not by the Government."