Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Bloomberg suggests, and Joe Romm reiterates, that McCain's plan to build 45 nuclear reactors by 2030 might cost the taxpayers almost a third of a trillion dollars, or $ 315 billion. Now that's not much these days, considering what is being racked up for the Iraq war and the Fannie Mae debacle, but to paraphrase Everett Dirkson, a trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking about real money. And it would be nice if it could be done, but as Bloomberg and TreeHugger noted earlier, the only company in the world that can make the reactor vessels is already booked up to 2015. As we also noted in an earlier post, perhaps there is more energy to be made by fixing what we have, by eliminating waste, by increasing efficiency. Perhaps we don't have to Drill, drill drill! as some suggest, or Invent, Invent, Invent! as Tom Friedman calls for. Perhaps all we really have to do is Insulate, Insulate, Insulate!

The Gang of 10 (now Gang of 20) offshore oil drilling bill, as it has been characterized, appears headed for a Senate vote late next week. While the bill apparently isn't damaging enough to our environment and future for the "Drill, Baby, Drill" crowd, who are going to try to expand areas allowed for drilling, I won't go into the oil drilling issues here-they've been covered extensively on DK-except perhaps to borrow a phrase about how you can put lipstick on an offshore oil pig and, well, you get the idea.... But what most people-and certainly the mainstream media-haven't yet realized is that the Gang of 20 bill would do much more than open up some of America's coastlines to oil drilling. In fact, it is a major energy bill-the draft runs 233 pages-and delves into energy efficiency and conservation, renewables, coal-to-liquid, and so forth. And 18 of these pages would provide the most significant taxpayer-backed boost to nuclear power ever.

In the first part of a week-long series at the breakthrough university, our resident geek looks down the belly of extreme machines with forces some 100,000 times stronger than the Earth's-and forecasts the future of efficient energy.

In Switzerland, five nuclear plants produce about 40 per cent of the country's electricity. Hydropower accounts for most of the rest. Over the next ten years, the nuclear plants will start to reach the end of their operational life. That's led to heated debate over the country's future energy supply. Some say we should replace the existing power plants or build new ones. Others say the future lies in renewables or an increase in energy efficiency. And the government believes the medium to long term future lies somewhere in between. Vincent Landon reports.

Three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors," a report released on June 18, 2009 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The Cooper report finds that 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.

The U.S. Energy Department made official today its plan to scrap a Bush administration initiative that could have brought a major nuclear fuel reprocessing facility to South Carolina. Economic developers, however, say the cancellation of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership-published in today's Federal Register- doesn't mean Barnwell County and Savannah River Site won't win a similar venture in the future. "At this point, GNEP, as a concept, is dead, but the issue of what do do with this material isn't," said Danny Black, president of the Barnwell-based SouthernCarolina Alliance, a regional economic development consortium. The GNEP program, unveiled in 2006, was a broad plan to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel to maximize its efficiency, reduce waste volume and prevent its exploitation for nuclear weapons.

The Waxman-Markey bill will produce winners and losers in the utility sector. Companies such as Exelon Corp., which provides utility services to about 12 million people in and around Chicago and Philadelphia, could do well. The company sold most of its coal-fired power plants in 2000 and owns a fleet of 17 nuclear power reactors in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon's generation unit won't need to buy credits to generate electricity, which could give it an edge. Power companies in the Southeast could have the roughest transition, because they rely heavily on coal and have invested the least in renewable energy and energy efficiency. The Waxman-Markey bill would give power companies time to make adjustments so consumers don't get hit with higher rates tied to the cost of buying emissions credits.

U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sought to increase incentives for nuclear power and energy efficiency in a measure that would require utilities to generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources. Nuclear power is not currently considered a renewable electricity source in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee bill. Under the bill, a percentage of utilities' total power production would have to be dedicated to renewables. The committee adopted an amendment offered by Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski that excluded any increases in capacity at existing nuclear power plants and new nuclear plants from measures of utilities' total production for the renewable electricity standard.

U.S. lawmakers on Thursday sought to increase incentives for nuclear power and energy efficiency in a measure that would require utilities to generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources. Nuclear power is not currently considered a renewable electricity source in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee bill. Under the bill, a percentage of utilities' total power production would have to be dedicated to renewables.

While Gov. James Douglas spoke on the economic recovery plans at the Latchis Theatre, four protesters stood up in the middle of the auditorium, displaying a sign reading "Veto Nuclear Jim in Nov. 2010." Jonathan Crowell, 34, of Newfane, Amy Frost, 32, of Guilford, Eesha Williams, 34, of Dummerston and Elizabeth Wood, 30, of Dummerston, were escorted from the Monday morning conference after brandishing homemade signs for approximately three minutes before authorities removed them without incident, according to police. In a press release from Williams, the activists called on Leahy and Douglas to use federal stimulus money to close the nuclear plant and replace the power with energy efficiency programs and renewable energy. The timing of the civil disobedience comes three days after the Vermont House passed a bill requiring Entergy Corp., the company that owns and operates the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, to fully fund the decommissioning if the facility were to cease operations after 2012.

"We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the Department of Energy's (DOE's) lack of transparency in managing the Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. DOE's continuing refusal to disclose even the most basic information about the program stands in gross violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and is inconsistent with President Obama's January 21, 2009, Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government and Memorandum on the Freedom Information Act; and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) December 8, 2010 Open Government Directive. DOE has been authorized to issue a total of $51 billion in loan guarantees under Section 1703 with $18.5 billion earmarked for nuclear reactors, $2 billion for uranium enrichment, $8 billion for coal projects and $18.5 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency. These guarantees could expose taxpayers to tens of billions of dollars in default risk; yet DOE's lack of transparency regarding this program means that taxpayers will have little, if any, ability to evaluate the feasibility of the projects they are being asked to underwrite. "

Record of Decision for the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement--Tritium Research and Development, Flight Test Operations, and Major Environmental Test Facilities AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. [[Page 77657]] ACTION: Record of Decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the continued transformation of the nuclear weapons complex (Complex). This ROD is based on information and analyses contained in the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) (DOE/EIS-0236-S4) issued on October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63460); comments received on the SPEIS; and other factors, including costs, technical and security considerations, and the missions of NNSA. The SPEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for transforming the nuclear weapons complex into a smaller, more efficient enterprise that can respond to changing national security challenges and ensure the long-term safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

Record of Decision for the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement--Operations Involving Plutonium, Uranium, and the Assembly and Disassembly of Nuclear Weapons AGENCY: National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Record of decision. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the continued transformation of the nuclear weapons complex (Complex). This ROD is based on information and analyses contained in the Complex Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) (DOE/EIS-0236-S4) issued on October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63460); comments received on the SPEIS; other NEPA analyses as noted; and other factors, including cost, technical and security considerations, and the missions of NNSA. The SPEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for transforming the nuclear weapons complex into a smaller, more efficient enterprise that can respond to changing national security challenges and ensure the long-term safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.

I was disappointed that Tricia Bishop's article "Nuclear plant hearing today" (Aug. 4) failed to discuss the costs or real alternatives to a new nuclear power plant. In fact, the costs to taxpayers in both government subsidies to the nuclear industry and safety are enormous when nuclear power is compared with investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The nation's top power industry regulator on Tuesday suggested that U.S. utilities don't need to build big nuclear or coal-fired power plants to fill the nation's future power supply needs. Instead, Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said future electricity demand growth can be met with a low-emission supply from wind, solar and other renewable sources, combined with more efficient use of all sources of electricity.

The proposed expansion of the South Texas Nuclear Project (STP) would cost as much as $22 billion, boost the cost of electricity for consumers and curtail investment in energy-efficiency programs and solar power, a report released today by Public Citizen finds. The report, "Costs of Current and Planned Nuclear Power Plants in Texas: A Consumer Perspective," provides some answers to many of the key questions about CPS Energy's proposed partnership in the STP expansion that municipal candidates have said must be resolved before they can decide what is right for San Antonio. "We've been down this road before," said Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of Public Citizen's Texas office. "This nuclear expansion will have a significant impact on consumers in San Antonio, and perhaps throughout the Texas market. It is an irresponsible investment."

The U.S. Energy Department will scrap a Bush administration initiative that could have brought billions of dollars in new spending-and a lot more nuclear materials- to South Carolina. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, unveiled in 2006, was a plan to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel to maximize its efficiency, reduce waste volume and prevent its exploitation for nuclear weapons. Two of the 11 sites proposed for such reprocessing centers are in South Carolina.

"Heavily subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers, nuclear power is susceptible to delay, cost overruns and significant environmental risks. Investing billions into more nuclear power threatens to derail funding that would be better spent on energy efficiency and safer, cleaner renewable energy. Moody's advises investors that nuclear projects frequently lead to financial crunch and credit rating drops. The two South Texas Project reactors proposed for the existing Bay City site were supposed to lead the so-called "nuclear renaissance," but there has been strong citizen and legal opposition and the cost has already skyrocketed. Estimates now exceed $18 billion, three times original projections. No shovel has yet been turned and no license granted."

"The Department of Energy no longer will automatically seek bids for management of national laboratories, including Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and may instead renew agreements with current contractors. In a new policy statement, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that the practice common under the previous presidential administration of routinely opening the lab contracts to competition often did not have the expected benefits of saving money and improving efficiency. Under Chu's leadership, the decision on whether to open management contracts for competition will be decided case by case. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland has been operated by Battelle since 1964, but DOE decided to open the management of the lab to competition in 2007."