Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

At the very end of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Town Hall" meeting at Embassy Suites on May 28, we in the audience were made aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is almost entirely funded by the nuclear industry itself rather than our government, through taxes. They consider it a "user fee."( On Sunday June 7, I was listening to Public Radio International's This American Life episode called "The Watchmen". We were told that the big investment banks, like AIG, also paid a "user fee" (not their words) to their regulatory agency-in this case, the Office of Thrift Supervision. (It was in the interests of both the industry and the agency that investment bonds be awarded high ratings. If the ratings were low, the investment banks would lose business, and the regulatory agency would have less to "regulate" and consequently also lose business. High ratings, whether accurate or not, led to a win/win situation for all concerned; except of course for us, the public.( What is to protect us now from the similar scenario of the nuclear industry paying for its own regulation?

Green Inc. caught up with Mr. Nader recently to ask him about some of the most pressing environmental questions of the day - from carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs to renewable energy and nuclear power - as well as his impressions of the Obama administration's approach to these issues in its first 100 days. Excerpts from that conversation follow:

A Calvert County official urged Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) on Friday to continue his support of Constellation Energy Group's merger with a French energy giant and its plans to build a third nuclear reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby. Board of County Commissioners President Wilson H. Parran (D-Huntingtown) told O'Malley that Maryland is facing an energy shortage and that the third reactor would be a source of much-needed power. Constellation officials have said the reactor would nearly double the plant's capacity. Parran said the project would bring hundreds of jobs to the county, plus tax revenue.

In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy. The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs. At the White House, Obama said the bill would create jobs, and added that with its vote, the House had put America on a path toward leading the way toward "creating a 21st century global economy."

EDF Energy will scale down plans to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK unless the government fixes the price of carbon, its chief executive, Vincent de Rivaz, has warned. De Rivaz said that EDF's business case to build four new reactors depended on a carbon tax or minimum carbon price being introduced. The government will publish a wide-ranging white paper this month detailing plans to meet the UK's new carbon budgets. It is expected to discuss measures to prevent the carbon price fluctuating wildly. Two years ago prices fell to as little as €0.10 (£0.08) a tonne. Experts say that a far higher price - at least €60 (£51.40) a tonne - is necessary to make low-carbon technologies, such as nuclear power generation or carbon capture and storage, economic.

Many in sparsely populated Andrews County in West Texas embraced the idea of opening up a radioactive waste site there. They saw it as a chance to bring much needed jobs and tax dollars into the remote, sparsely populated West Texas county. Now, they're not so sure after the waste company asked the county to go a step further and come up with $75 million to pay for a disposal area at the site. Voters in the county on the New Mexico border will decide Saturday whether to help Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists fund construction of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. If passed, the measure would give county officials the ability to issue bonds to purchase $75 million of Waste Control Specialists' assets and lease them back to the company.

"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."

"Residents, environmentalists and company officials on Wednesday debated a proposal requiring the Oyster Creek Generating Station to build cooling towers. The state Department of Environmental Protection wants the plant to build cooling towers as part of a water-discharge permit. The plant's owner, Exelon Corp., said closing the plant would be preferable financially to installing a cooling system the company estimated would cost more than $700 million. At the hearing, most local residents and elected officials sided with the company and urged the DEP to let the plant continue using its current cooling system, which circulates 662 million gallons of water per day from canals off the Forked River. Lacey Township Mayor Gary Quinn defended the private jobs and public revenue the plant provides, including more than $11 million in Energy Receipts Taxes the township receives each year. Exelon Corp. lawyer William J. Donohue said 700 plant employees would lose their jobs if the state prevailed in adding cooling towers to the plant's water-discharge permit."

It is still dubious as to how many nuclear reactors will be installed in Alberta since it all depends on water and approval after the environmental assessment. Schacherl claims that Energy Alberta Corporation, the original nuclear proponent, was intending to build 13 nuclear reactors in Alberta as part of their business plan. Then Bruce Power bought them out. Elena Schacherl founder of CAUSE explains, "When Bruce Power first came to Alberta, CEO Duncan Hawthorne stated that the Peace River region reactors are 'just the start' of development in Alberta. He admitted that the company has a 'very aggressive growth program.'" "What will be problematic for this plan in going forward, aside from public opposition, will be insufficient water for cooling. Nuclear uses 50% more water to generate electricity than fossil fuels. Bruce Power is now planning to build cooling towers and a cooling pond for the reactors proposed in Northern Alberta because there is not enough water for a 'once through cooling system' in the Peace River. But even then they have to pipe in water from the river to keep the cooling pond sufficiently filled. Not sure where they will find the water to venture into southern Alberta as well," warns Schacherl.

It is still dubious as to how many nuclear reactors will be installed in Alberta since it all depends on water and approval after the environmental assessment. Schacherl claims that Energy Alberta Corporation, the original nuclear proponent, was intending to build 13 nuclear reactors in Alberta as part of their business plan. Then Bruce Power bought them out. Elena Schacherl founder of CAUSE explains, "When Bruce Power first came to Alberta, CEO Duncan Hawthorne stated that the Peace River region reactors are 'just the start' of development in Alberta. He admitted that the company has a 'very aggressive growth program.'" "What will be problematic for this plan in going forward, aside from public opposition, will be insufficient water for cooling. Nuclear uses 50% more water to generate electricity than fossil fuels. Bruce Power is now planning to build cooling towers and a cooling pond for the reactors proposed in Northern Alberta because there is not enough water for a 'once through cooling system' in the Peace River. But even then they have to pipe in water from the river to keep the cooling pond sufficiently filled. Not sure where they will find the water to venture into southern Alberta as well," warns Schacherl.

It is still dubious as to how many nuclear reactors will be installed in Alberta since it all depends on water and approval after the environmental assessment. Schacherl claims that Energy Alberta Corporation, the original nuclear proponent, was intending to build 13 nuclear reactors in Alberta as part of their business plan. Then Bruce Power bought them out. Elena Schacherl founder of CAUSE explains, "When Bruce Power first came to Alberta, CEO Duncan Hawthorne stated that the Peace River region reactors are 'just the start' of development in Alberta. He admitted that the company has a 'very aggressive growth program.'" "What will be problematic for this plan in going forward, aside from public opposition, will be insufficient water for cooling. Nuclear uses 50% more water to generate electricity than fossil fuels. Bruce Power is now planning to build cooling towers and a cooling pond for the reactors proposed in Northern Alberta because there is not enough water for a 'once through cooling system' in the Peace River. But even then they have to pipe in water from the river to keep the cooling pond sufficiently filled. Not sure where they will find the water to venture into southern Alberta as well," warns Schacherl.

"A fledgling company's plan to build a 3,000 megawatt nuclear power plant near the Green River in eastern Utah is generating more questions than answers. What would happen to the spent nuclear fuel from the two-reactor plant proposed by Utah-based Blue Castle Holdings? If the Utah Division of Water Rights deems there is enough water in the Green River for the plan, what happens to 50,000 acre feet of water required each year to cool it? Who would get the electricity generated by the plant? And last, but not least, is the proposal economically feasible, or would it require federal loan guarantees and tax incentives? And are those means available? "

"Chancellor Angela Merkel may have to put plans to extend the life of Germany's nuclear-power plants on ice as falling poll ratings diminish her ability to overcome a unified opposition. Weeks of coalition infighting over tax cuts and the war in Afghanistan have eroded Merkel's political standing, making it harder to promote nuclear power, "the most difficult task she has on her agenda," said Claudia Kemfert, chief energy analyst at the DIW economic institute. "The government has had a very bad start," Kemfert said in a phone interview in Berlin. "People have the feeling that she's not really a leader at the moment, and nuclear is not the best topic for her to win." "

"Since Sen. Lamar Alexander first began pushing the idea last spring of building 100 nuclear plants over the next 20 years, the proposal has increasingly become part of the national debate about the best way to generate electricity while lowering emissions that contribute to climate change. President Barack Obama and some congressional Democrats have proposed new loan guarantees and tax breaks for nuclear plants as a way to attract Republican support for climate-change legislation. Late last year, Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, was able to get Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia to sign on to his idea as part of legislation to promote clean energy. But Alexander's push also"

"The cantons of Bern, Solothurn and Aargau say they will not sign the agreement on the allocation of tax revenues from new nuclear plants. The three say not one of the solutions is satisfactory either legally or politically and it should be the electricity companies who come up with an agreement. The Senate had asked each canton to submit a proposal in anticipation of the building of new nuclear plants."

"While Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., agree with much of what President Barack Obama spoke about during his State of the Union address last month, what they absolutely don't support is his proposal for loan guarantees for the nuclear power industry. The Obama Administration wants to boost loan guarantees to the nuclear industry from $18.5 to $54 billion. All three Congressmen believe the guarantees would unnecessarily risk tax power dollars on an energy source that can't stand on its own. "In my view, this is an absurd proposal," said Sanders. Support in Congress for the "nuclear renaissance," in which the industry proposes to build 100 new nuclear power plants, could place at risk up to $1 trillion in taxpayer money, he said. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have stated that the risk of default on taxpayer-supported loan guarantees is more than 50 percent. "

"On Thursday, the House Transportation and Energy Committee will hear testimony on House Bill 1348, the Uranium Processing Accountability Act. The bill was developed by Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste and Environment Colorado. According to those groups, the bill would "hold the uranium industry accountable for its own mistakes and ensure Colorado does not subsidize those companies through tax dollars or incentive pollution by saying actions do not have consequences." The bill would require uranium processors to comply with clean-up orders before new applications are processed, strengthen public oversight of bonding requirements; require processors to inform residents about threats to their water if they have registered wells in close proximity to known groundwater contamination; and require processors to amend their operating license before accepting new sources of "alternate feeds." "

"After reading Sen. Mike Crapo's glowing endorsement of nuclear energy, I feel inspired to remind your readers why no U.S. nuclear power plants have been built in the past 25 years. To begin with, the enormous financial cost to build a reactor is exceeded only by the cost of decommissioning it once it has depleted its 40- to 60-year life span. Regardless of whatever laws Congress may pass to: (1) subsidize nuclear power plant construction (2) remove standard liability requirements from nuclear construction contractors or (3) force long-lived toxic and radioactive wastes onto less populated states, the fact still remains that nuclear energy is not cheap, clean or safe. The primary reason nuclear power is being considered at this time is that it carries with it a "scale of economy" that translates into jobs, tax money and economic boon for specific, well-lobbied industries. This all seems so needless in light of life-friendly, alternative energy production technologies that do not place toxic-waste storage burdens, large-scale contamination issues and a mess of other problems and risks onto the environment and future generations. "

"$10 to $15 million spent on work since 2006 Cotter Corp. continues to make efforts to clean up environmental damage caused by its operations during the last 50 years. John Hamrick, vice president of milling, said the company has spent between $10 and $15 million on clean-up efforts since the mill shut down operations in 2006. However, continuous efforts were taking place at the mill while operations were under way, he said. House Bill 1348, also known as the Uranium Processing Accountability Act is currently working its way through the Colorado General Assembly. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Buffie McFadyen and Sen. Ken Kester and was developed by Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste and Environment Colorado. According to those groups, the bill would "hold the uranium industry accountable for its own mistakes and ensure Colorado does not subsidize those companies through tax dollars or incentive pollution by saying actions do not have consequences." "

"It's an easy short-term political decision for the Obama administration and its Energy Department - as long as taxpayers can be shown it's being made on a sound technological and financial basis. Here's the deal. You've got two companies, one French-owned and one American-owned, each applying for a $2billion federal loan guarantee to help finance a uranium-enrichment plant that produces fuel for nuclear power plants. Each project means hundreds of jobs and tax revenues."

"In January of next year, Georgia Power customers will begin to pay for new nuclear reactors. This is the second part of a series investigating the financial and environmental implications of the Plant Vogtle expansion. The first part of the series discussed how federal tax dollars were being used to subsidize the development of the nuclear industry. Beginning in January 2011, most Georgia Power customers will see an increase in their electric bill. It will start small, about $1.30 per month. Over the next several years it will increase, until 2017, when residential and small business ratepayers are coughing up an additional $9.10 or more per month."

"Plans for a radioactive waste disposal unit in the canton of Schaffhausen has come under fire in a study published by the local government. The National Cooperative for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste outlined two possible sites for the unit: one in Zurich Weinland and one near Sudranden in the canton of Schaffhasusen. That's just a few kilometers from the city of Schaffhausen, where 80 percent of the canton's population live and work. Today's report says a disposal centre would have a detrimental effect on the town of Schaffhausen, and on the development of both the canton's economy and population. The report estimates it would lose between 15 and 33 million francs in tax revenue a year and the population would drop by up to 5,000 people."