Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

New WISPIRG report shows that dollar for dollar, a clean energy portfolio can produce more energy than nuclear power (Madison, WI) - With the state considering solutions to reduce our global warming pollution, a new WISPIRG report finds that renewable energy sources can produce far more electricity than nuclear plants for less money. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has proposed thirty new reactors across the country at an estimated cost of $300 billion. "Taxpayers should not be subsidizing nuclear power when there are faster, cleaner, cheaper alternatives to meet our energy needs," said WISPIRG Advocate Kara Rumsey. Here in Wisconsin the nuclear industry is pushing to overturn a long-standing law that prevents new nuclear plants from being built unless the proposed plant is economically advantageous to ratepayers and there is safe and adequate disposal for radioactive waste.

"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."

"Bill Gates has called for a dramatic increase in R&D investment for low carbon technologies, including his own new pet project into advanced nuclear reactors, warning that developed countries will need to completely decarbonise the energy they use by 2050 if they are to avert the worst effects of climate change. Speaking at the annual TED Summit in California late last week, the billionaire philanthropist and Microsoft chairman, said the widely accepted goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50 to 80 per cent by mid-century was likely to prove insufficiently ambitious. Outlining the so-called COPSEC equation, which states that carbon emissions are a factor of population, services, energy and carbon per unit of energy, Gates argued that with population and consumption of services set to rise and improvements in energy efficiency able to go only so far, the way to deliver deep cuts in carbon emissions is to reduce CO2 per unit of energy to zero."

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.

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 nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

The nuclear debate once again risks becoming simply caught up in the pros and cons of nuclear technology itself, missing the vital point that, in Australia, we have a host of safe, environmentally sustainable, economically viable alternatives to reduce our carbon emissions. Given that renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions can be deployed now, at a scale and volume large enough to make a sizable dent in greenhouse gas emissions, reopening the conversation around nuclear is surely a debate and a distraction we don't need.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Weakening Wisconsin laws regulating new nuclear reactors should not be part of a climate change bill. The Clean Energy Jobs Act, unveiled in the state Legislature recently, is a significant step toward addressing global warming while strengthening our state economy. Although much of the bill is a positive step to addressing global warming, it weakens Wisconsin's current law on building new nuclear reactors. Wisconsin's current law is common sense and protects citizens and the environment from radioactive nuclear waste, which poses considerable risks for tens thousands of years and contains plutonium, which can be used to make nuclear weapons if separated. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

Regarding the guest editorial "Time to reconsider nuclear power" published Monday, there are numerous aspects to nuclear power that the author fails to mention. Most importantly, when the Pioneer of Bemidji states that nuclear power is a clean energy source, that "today's technological advances can produce safe, efficient power plants," they are seriously mistaken. While coal burning is mentioned as a possibility for a continued and extensive source of energy, the level of carbon produced makes it seem like not a viable option. However, it is discovered that nuclear energy is not a very green choice, either.

William Martin, chair of the Nuclear Energy and Radiological Sciences department at the University of Michigan, said Michigan needs to rely more on nuclear power to reach Gov. Jennifer Granholm's lofty fossil fuel-reduction goals. Granholm has called for the state to reduce its use of fossil fuels 45 percent by 2020. Granholm's initiative pushes energy efficiency and renewable energy, but leaves out nuclear energy as a possible solution.

"It could cost between $4 billion and $8 billion to supply Vermont's electric needs from renewable sources, according to a report issued by the Coalition for Energy Solutions, a loosely associated group of energy professionals who study and evaluate energy options. The report was an evaluation of a study released by the Vermont Public Interest Group, which stated renewable energy sources and energy efficiencies could make unnecessary the continued operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon past its original license expiration date of 2012. "Our Evaluation makes the same assumptions about total electric demand, total purchases from the grid, and complete use of renewables (no extensive gas-fired back-up) as (VPIRG's) Repowering Vermont (report)," wrote Howard Shaffer and Meredith Angwin, the authors of "Vermont Electric Power in Transition." "

With nuclear energy, uranium atoms split inside a reactor, and radiation heats water to its boiling point creating steam to spin a giant turbine. It all seems like ingenious, efficient, and clean energy production. So where's the mess? Now consider plutonium, a horribly carcinogenic and highly fissionable substance, radioactive for more than half a million years. If exposed to air, it will ignite. Like little pieces of confetti, very fine plutonium particles will disperse after ignition. A single particle -- like talc, to give you some perspective -- can give you lung cancer. In the words of Helen Caldicott, M.D.: "Hypothetically, if you could take one pound of plutonium and could put a speck of it in the lungs of every human being, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth" -- not immediately, but over time "from lung cancer," Caldicott explains.

With nuclear energy, uranium atoms split inside a reactor, and radiation heats water to its boiling point creating steam to spin a giant turbine. It all seems like ingenious, efficient, and clean energy production. So where's the mess? Now consider plutonium, a horribly carcinogenic and highly fissionable substance, radioactive for more than half a million years. If exposed to air, it will ignite. Like little pieces of confetti, very fine plutonium particles will disperse after ignition. A single particle -- like talc, to give you some perspective -- can give you lung cancer. In the words of Helen Caldicott, M.D.: "Hypothetically, if you could take one pound of plutonium and could put a speck of it in the lungs of every human being, you would kill every man, woman, and child on earth" -- not immediately, but over time "from lung cancer," Caldicott explains.

"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."

Sometime in the near future, Topic A in San Antonio will be whether or not to move forward with a several-billion-dollar investment in additional nuclear energy. CPS Energy has invested $206 million on preliminary design and engineering to build two new nuclear reactors in Bay City and that money will run out at the end of the year. The debate over whether to move forward will be divisive because of the high costs of the project, which will almost certainly increase electric bills. The fact is that San Antonio, like every other city in America, is at a crossroads: Do we bet our future on the old energy drivers - coal, fossilized fuels and nuclear - or do we invest substantially in energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind and solar? Put another way, how green, both economically and environmentally, is our future?

The problematic history of nuclear power in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests that a stronger focus on sustainable energy alternatives is a better and more cost-effective option. This is a conclusion of a report released today by The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). The British Nuclear Industry: Status and Prospects provides a detailed analysis of the current state of the nuclear power industry in the UK, including its energy strategy and the government's plans for possible new nuclear capacity. While the political momentum in support of nuclear options continues to grow, the study's findings show that the government's strategy is once again thwarting technologies that might prove cheaper and more reliable. "The future of UK's nuclear power is clearly tied to meeting two-long term challenges: Tackling climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions both in the UK and abroad, and secondly ensuring the security of UK's energy supplies," writes Ian Davis, the author of the report. "The government's obsession with nuclear power is undermining and marginalizing more efficient and safer technologies - the real energy solutions."

Utilities that want to build new nuclear reactors should have to prove they are a better investment than energy efficiency, a new report says. The Arizona Public Interest Research Group Education Fund this week released its 40-page report, titled "The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Power." According to the report, utilities can cut the amount of energy they need to supply customers by offering them incentives to install low-power appliances or insulate their homes better.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

Four lawmakers involved in energy and environmental issues on Thursday released details of the global warming legislation that is expected to be introduced soon in the state Legislature. The draft legislation would relax the state's ban on building nuclear power plants while requiring the state's utilities to increase the amount of renewable power they generate and increase their investment in energy efficiency. The draft "is intended to track the recommendations of the (global warming) task force," the four legislators said in a letter Thursday. The task force, appointed by Gov. Jim Doyle, included legislators, utilities, environmental groups and businesses.

Aiming to head off a budding bipartisan move in Congress to boost nuclear power, environmentalists took to the streets - and the Internet - to dismiss atom-splitting as too slow and costly to help fight climate change. Environment Maryland released a new report Tuesday (Nov. 17) arguing that it would take a decade or more and cost upwards of $600 billion to build 100 more nuclear plants, as some have advocated to ease planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The group argues that the time and money could be better spent promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind and solar. "Nuclear power would actually hurt our ability to stop global warming,'' said Mike Sherling of Environment Maryland.

Aiming to head off a budding bipartisan move in Congress to boost nuclear power, environmentalists took to the streets - and the Internet - to dismiss atom-splitting as too slow and costly to help fight climate change. Environment Maryland released a new report Tuesday (Nov. 17) arguing that it would take a decade or more and cost upwards of $600 billion to build 100 more nuclear plants, as some have advocated to ease planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The group argues that the time and money could be better spent promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy such as wind and solar. "Nuclear power would actually hurt our ability to stop global warming,'' said Mike Sherling of Environment Maryland.

"Not Wales, or Scotland….they want renewables The Welsh Assembly Government's new Energy Policy Statement 'A Low Carbon Revolution', sets out an approach to accelerating the transition to a low carbon energy economy in Wales, focusing on efficiency measures and the use of indigenous renewable forms of energy such as marine, wind, solar and biomass. It claims that by 2025 around 40% of electricity in Wales could come from marine sources and a third from wind. In addition to local community-level micro-generation projects, it proposes the use of offshore wind around the coast of Wales in order to deliver a 15 kWh/d/p (per day per person) of capacity by 2015/16 and to capture at least 10% (8 kWh/d/p) of the potential tidal stream and wave energy off the Welsh coastline by 2025, and it wants onshore wind to deliver 4.5 kWh/d/p of installed onshore wind generation capacity by 2015/2017. It will back small-scale hydro and geothermal schemes, where they are environmentally acceptable, in order to generate at least 1 kWh/d/p, and wants bioenergy/waste to deliver up to 6 kWh/d/p of electricity by 2020- 50% indigenous/50% imported- also offering an additional heat potential of 2-2.5 kWh/d/p."

Nuclear power critics cite an ailing U.S. economy as yet another reason to rethink the controversial energy source. "We're in a new world of hurt," said longtime energy insider S. David Freeman. "The economy is shrinking. Take a fresh look. There are other alternatives." Freeman tours Texas newspapers this week to promote energy efficiency and alternative sources - solar, wind and other renewables.

Opposition to Progress Energy's proposed rate increases continued bubbling up this week amid public hearings across the state. Among the latest opponents: Mark Cooper, an economist and author on the financing of nuclear power reactors. Cooper told the Florida Public Service Commission that it is "not prudent" to proceed with plans for building new Progress Energy nuclear reactors in Levy County and a similar Florida Power & Light project near Miami. Cooper estimated 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. Separately, the business-affiliated group Associated Industries of Florida intervened for the first time on a rate case, backing Florida Power and Light's base rate increase. Associated Industries did not take a stance "at this time" on Progress Energy's filings. Progress is seeking to raise its base rates 30 percent and wants to add roughly $3 to the average monthly bill to help pay for its planned nuclear plant. On Thursday, community hearings were held in St. Petersburg and Clearwater. Hearings continue Friday in Inverness and Ocala and wrap up next week before the issue heads to the PSC.