Report: 50-100 Percent Jump in N.C. Electric Bills Possible if Duke, Progress Build 4 Unneeded Nuclear Plants and Duke Finishes Cliffside Coal-Fired P

Comment: Nuke Power is not cheap, No to Nuke Power and no to uranium mining!

Study by Duke University Economist Highlights Energy Efficiency and Renewables as Path to Avoiding Costly New Plants and Shutting Down Many Existing Coal Plants.

DURHAM, N.C., March 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- North Carolina homeowners could see their utility bills climb between 50-100 percent if Duke Energy and Progress Energy are allowed to proceed with four nuclear plants and if Duke completes the new Cliffside coal plant.

Any need for these plants could be replaced with modest increases in energy efficiency, cogeneration, and renewable power, according to a major new study produced by the former chair of the Duke University Economics Department for NC WARN (North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network).


The report is being issued against a national backdrop in which more than 60 of 150 planned coal-fired power plants already have been stopped and many more are likely to be halted.


NC WARN issued the report today ahead of a filing this week in which the group is contesting the long-range utility demand forecasts and the supposed need for the new power plants.


The NC WARN news event to release the report was made possible with support from the Civil Society Institute and TheClean.org (http://www.theclean.org/).


Titled "NORTH CAROLINA'S ENERGY FUTURE," the NC WARN report states: "Electricity rates for most North Carolina customers will increase dramatically if new coal-fired and nuclear power plants are successfully completed by Duke Energy and Progress Energy. Our analysis of recent filings by both companies shows that even with a growing population, North Carolina can eliminate the need to risk $35-40 billion on new plants.


This can be accomplished through modest increases in energy efficiency, cogeneration and renewable power sources, and if necessary, by using a large oversupply of electricity in the Southeast. ...


Electricity from new nuclear plants will cost three to five times as much as the power now being generated by Duke Energy and Progress Energy.


Even the lower end of that range is much more costly than energy-saving programs, and the nuclear price tag makes all forms of renewable energy attractive in North Carolina, especially when many of them enjoy declining costs."


Progress Energy is proposing two new reactors at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant near Raleigh, while Duke Energy wants to build two reactors in Gaffney, South Carolina, not far from Charlotte.


If completed, each of the four reactors is likely to cost ratepayers in North and South Carolina between $8 and $12 billion.


Duke Energy is building a large coal-burning plant at Cliffside, scheduled to open in 2012, with costs currently estimated at $2.4 billion.


Costs for some or all of the plants could balloon even further when financing problems, construction cost increases and other delays are taken into account.


Report author John Blackburn, PhD, professor emeritus of economics, said: "This report shows that, based on the utilities' numbers and the modest changes noted above, electricity demand can be reduced by up to 3,700 Megawatts (MW) within 15 years, avoiding the need for any new plants and allowing retirement of 7 to 9 existing coal-fired units.


The utilities' record on energy efficiency remains very weak; both forecast only minuscule efficiency savings over the next 15 years.


By contrast, an independently-administered efficiency program such as the NC SAVE$ ENERGY proposal would avoid the utilities' conflict of interest between building expensive power plants -- upon which profits are based -- and selling less electricity."


Dr. Blackburn has conducted research into energy efficiency and renewable energy over more than two decades.


He has authored two books and numerous articles on the future of energy, and has served on the Advisory Boards of the Florida Solar Energy Center and the Biomass Research Program at the University of Florida. He has testified before the N.C. Utilities Commission in several utility dockets on energy efficiency and renewable energy.


Report co-author John Runkle, environmental attorney, NC WARN, said: "North Carolina consumers need to take note at what is happening right now in Florida, where Progress Energy already has applied for a 31 percent rate increase, driven in large part by escalating nuclear power costs. ...


The average residential electricity bill in North Carolina is currently $100 per month, with larger homes generally using more electricity than smaller ones.


If the proposed coal and nuclear plants are built, electricity rates will increase dramatically.


Sufficient information is available to conclude that Progress Energy rates would rise by at least half, or an average of $50 each month, for each residence.


This assumes that the current cost estimates for the new nuclear plants will not escalate as they have done over the last four years even while new units remain on the drawing board. If that happens, home electricity bills could easily double."


According to the report: "Upcoming carbon regulation will also drive up the price of coal-fired power, giving even more impetus to efficiency programs and new renewable energy.


" The report outlines four things Duke Energy and Progress Energy can do to avoid the risks associated with building the new nuclear and coal-fired power plants:


Stop impeding progress toward real energy efficiency. Through proven programs growing at a modest pace, efficiency can be increased at least 1% per year through 2023.


Twenty other U.S. utilities and municipalities have already achieved at least this much.


Bring on renewable energy as required by the 2007 Energy Bill, Senate Bill 3. At least 7.5% of electricity from new renewable sources is well within reach, especially as prices for solar equipment continue declining and as North Carolina joins other mid-Atlantic states in developing its large wind energy potential.


Make modest increases in load control programs to soften demand peaks.
Add cogeneration (combined heat and power), a proven resource that is largely untapped in North Carolina.


Other highlights of the report include the following:


"If nuclear plant cost estimates continue rising, power bills could easily double by the time they are built. New nuclear reactors are likely to cost $8-12 billion each if they are ever completed.


In the 1980s, dozens of U.S. nuclear plants were cancelled during construction, and now, serious delays and design problems have emerged.


This could leave customers with large rate hikes for abandoned projects, since under the 2007 NC Energy Bill, corporate stockholder risks are largely shifted to ratepayers.


In early 2008, Wall Street lenders insisted they will not finance new plants without 100% loan guarantees by taxpayers."


"...Duke Energy is currently seeking permission to sell more electricity and is soliciting at least nine cities and other large customers outside its service area for wholesale contracts. Existing ratepayers would subsidize these new power sales by paying for the new plants needed to meet that demand. If approved by the N.C. Utilities Commission, this deal would add customers whose electricity usage exceeds the 800 MW capacity Duke Energy says it must build at the Cliffside coal-fired plant."


ABOUT NC WARN
NC WARN (North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network) is a member-based nonprofit tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change -- by working for a swift North Carolina transition to energy efficiency and clean power. In partnership with other citizen groups, NC WARN uses sound scientific research, advocacy and public education and involvement. For more information, visit http://www.ncwarn.org/.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available on the Web as of 6 p.m. EDT on March 31, 2009 at http://www.ncwarn.org/.

UN Secretary General Urges Citizens To Join WWF's Earth Hour

THIS SATURDAY 28 MARCH AT 8.30PM YOU CAN VOTE EARTH BY SWITCHING OFF

YOUR LIGHTS FOR ONE HOUR - EARTH HOUR.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged citizens around the world to join WWF's Earth Hour to demand action on climate change.

In a video-taped address, the Secretary-General said that Earth Hour – which takes place on Saturday 28th March – promises to be “the largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted.”

“Earth Hour is a way for the citizens of the world to send a clear message.

They want action on climate change.” said Secretary-General Ban.

Speaking just a week before Earth Hour rolls out across thousands of towns and cities across the globe, Ban underlined the seriousness of climate change and the need for a global climate deal to be agreed when the world's leaders meet in Copenhagen this coming December.

“People will be telling their representatives to seal a deal in Copenhagen.

A deal at the climate change talks that will protect people and the planet.

We need an ambitious agreement. An agreement that is fair and effective. An agreement based on sound science.”Secretary-General Ban went on to underline the seriousness of climate change and the scale of the task ahead.

“We are on a dangerous path. Our planet is warming. We must change our ways,” he said.

“We need green growth that benefits all communities.

We need sustainable energy for a more climate-friendly, prosperous world.

This is the path of the future. We must walk it together.”

WWF's Earth Hour is being hailed as the biggest ever global movement – a vote for the future of planet earth.

Hundreds of millions of people are expected to take part by switching off non-essential lighting for an hour.

Cities from Las Vegas to Sydney, from Cape Town to Beijing will go dark for an hour.

Ban said that the United Nations would be doing its bit for Earth Hour.

“In New York, we will switch out the lights at UN Headquarters.

Other UN facilities around the world will also take part.”And he concluded:

“I urge citizens everywhere to join us.

Please send a strong message on climate change. Together we can find a solution to this most serious of global challenges.”

In Virginia, We are Only Lacking the Political Will

Comment: Tell the State of Virginia, we want true green power, No Nukes, No Mountain Top Removal and Coal!

Submitted by ArticleXI on Fri, 03/20/2009 - 09:31.

It's a simple question that needs to be posed to our gubernatorial candidates. "How do you propose Virginia gets from Point A to Point B?"

As far as I can tell, none of the candidates disagree that we do indeed need to migrate away from Point A. But do they propose perhaps a Point C? What is Point C? Whether Point B or C, how exactly do we arrive there?

By 2030, total growth in energy consumption will be 31%. The increase comes mainly from the residential, commercial and transportation sectors, driven by a 30% increase in the state's population.

Point A is Virginia's current business as usual where our fossil fuel use continues to grow strongly, particularly for coal and petroleum. Coal consumption in particular increases to 68%, due to construction of new coal power plants in Virginia to meet electricity demand. (A chart showing CO2 emissions for Point A is below the fold.)

Point B is outlined in the Sierra Club's Citizens Energy Plan [1] where "a new energy future integrates energy conservation, more efficient energy use and significant substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuel based energy".

Total energy use is reduced 14% by 2020 over the business as usual approach. By 2030 it is reduced by 27%. In absolute terms, energy use is reduced by only 5% from 2005 levels due to the 30% growth in population. However this is offset by a per capita consumption decrease of 56%.

Reduced demand for electricity due to efficiencies makes it possible to halt construction of new coal-fired power plants. As renewable sources such as wind energy grow, older (dirtier and less efficient) coal-fired power plants can be phased out.

The candidates are each very smart cookies. And each have produced energy plans that only talk in generalities.

We need to demand more specifics.

That said, life could be made easier by pledging to just adopt Point B if elected.

Anybody game?

Dirty energy loan guarantees stripped from compromise stimulus bill

Clean energy advocates scored a victory yesterday when a provision to provide $50 billion worth of taxpayer loan guarantees for new nuclear and high-tech coal plants was stripped out of the final version of the economic stimulus bill negotiated by the House and Senate.

The guarantees were not in the version of the bill originally approved by the House, but they were added to the Senate version by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah). Bennett has long fought efforts to move the country toward more sustainable energy by opposing vehicle fuel standards, pushing for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and opposing efforts to factor global warming into government planning.Experts had warned that the provision would not create any new jobs over the next four years and could in fact actually kill jobs.

As Climate Progress reported following a discussion with former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Peter Bradford: The capital markets are not swimming in credit.

If you have billions in taxpayer backed loans for your project, even for a project that will take years to finalize and see actual jobs, you may well suck up money that might be otherwise be available for, say, wind projects that are shovel ready now. Bradford called the nuke loans "straw ready.

"Worse, utilities that actually use these loans to build a nuclear plant would face an all but certain drop in their credit rating -- see "Warning to taxpayers, investors -- Part 2: Nukes may become troubled assets, ruin credit ratings." That means we are setting ourselves up to take over more trouble assets, since the Congressional Budget Office estimates the likely default rate of these loans at over 50%.

If you liked nationalizing banks and insurance companies, you'll love nationalizing nuclear utilities!Climate Progress went on to explain how the calculated cost of the loans was based on the same sort of ridiculous financial assumptions that got the United States into the subprime mortgage mess.

The loan guarantees were stripped from the compromise bill after a massive outpouring of public opposition.

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Maryland-based watchdog group with offices in North Carolina, reports that Senators received more than 7,600 letters on the issue in one week, House members received more than 3,000 letters in three days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got more than 1,100 letters in just one afternoon when the negotiations on the compromise measure were taking place.

The final bill is expected to be approved by the House today and by the Senate on Friday and land on President Obama's desk on Monday.

It is expected to pass, and no amendments can be added at this point.

"This is a huge win -- for our planet and for taxpayers who want stimulus funds to be invested wisely," Friends of the Earth said in a statement.

"The bailout in question would have thrilled nuclear industry lobbyists but done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for the nuclear industry's failures.

Congressional leaders did the right thing and prevented waste by removing this bailout.

"But NIRS warns that the nuclear industry is unlikely to give up on getting the taxpayer subsidies it so desperately wants -- and in fact needs, since private capital has proven unwilling to finance the new reactors planned for the nation, most of which are slated for the South.

As the group reported in an e-mail sent out to supporter following yesterday's vote:
Two days ago, for example, they began a new push to have nuclear power declared a "renewable" energy source in Senate Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) upcoming

Renewable Portfolio Standard bill, which is intended to increase renewable energy production in the U.S. (although first indications are that the bill is much weaker than it should be).

This is likely to become a major issue in March.And there will be new efforts to set up a federal "clean energy bank" to finance nuclear reactors with taxpayer dollars in the coming weeks and months.

By Sue Sturgis on February 12, 2009 11:22 AM