Enough Scare Tactics,Voices of Reason Needed (Uranium Mining in Virginia)

Comment: Please read the email sent to someone and telling the Nuke bunch to write letters to counter all of our great truths about the problems with uranium mining. Keep writting the great letters about the problems of uranium mining!

EMAIL FROM:

Enough Scare Tactics—Voices of Reason Needed

Dear VEIA Member:

You are receiving this message because you indicated your willingness to sign a Letter to the Editor.

Please take a few moments to review the scare propaganda being submitted to papers in Virginia regarding the uranium deposit at Coles Hill—a major potential source for domestic nuclear energy.

The National Academy of Sciences—a highly reputable entity—has been engaged by the Virginia General Assembly (after VUI paid for the study, they forgot to add this to the letter) with a request to study the safety of uranium mining in Virginia.

We need voices of reason to sign Letters to the Editor to speak up for the National Academy, the study, and to interject reason into papers full of too much heightened rhetoric. If you are willing to sign a letter, e-mail info@virginiaenergy.org. (Uranium fighters, keep the letters coming!)

URANIUM MINING IS REPLETE WITH DANGER

THE RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
August 31, 2009

Editor, Times-Dispatch: In response to Reed F. Goode’s letter, “Virginia Has the Right Stuff to Lead in Nuclear Energy”:

Sure, we can have nuclear power, and uranium mining too, if we want them. And we surely will if people sit back and do nothing. Nuclear power has so many problems that I will only address the uranium mining issue and urge people to educate themselves on the dangers involved therein.

Please consider the following uranium mining issues:

There are uranium mining deposits all along the eastern slopes of our mountains so uranium mining will affect all Virginians.
Uranium mining is the dirty end of the nuclear power cycle, with the greatest danger coming from ingestion: breathing the dust, drinking the water, or eating affected meat or crops.
Uranium is radioactive and has a life of millions of years.
Radiation is a killer and contaminated stream beds cannot be cleaned up.
Only 14 percent of uranium is recoverable. The tailings contain 86 percent in a finely ground powdery form that leaches into streams and groundwater.
More and better jobs will be lost in the surrounding area than will be gained.
Jack Dunavant,

Halifax

---

URANIUM MINING WILL LEAVE DESTRUCTION IN ITS WAKE

CHATHAM STAR TRIBUNE
September 9, 2009
Letter to the Editor

Please no uranium mining in Virginia.

In the Washington Post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted:

"Mining syndicates are detonating 2,500 tons of explosives each day - the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb weekly - to blow up Appalachia's mountains and extract sub-surface coal seams.

"On this continent, only Appalachia's rich woodland survived the Pleistocene ice ages that turned the rest of North America into a treeless tundra.

"King coal is now accomplishing what the glaciers could not - obliterating the hemispheres oldest, most biologically dense and diverse forest." (July 2009).

As quoted by email to me from Matt Wasson from ilovemountains.org.

Just recently this was stopped by Congress.

So, why do we give them a back door to have new areas to explore for minerals and have their destruction here in their wake for a way to benefit a few?

Where are the area educators' outcry?

Chemistry and biology teachers surely know that mass destruction must come from mining and milling of ore that is not in the metallic state when extracted from the soil.

It does not come in a sealed cylinder when taken from the ground.

Please read about mountain-top removal at ilovemountains.org.

John David Lewis,
1955 graduate
Spring Garden High School

---

‘UNBIASED’ URANIUM STUDY ALREADY TAINTED

CHATHAM STAR TRIBUNE
September 9, 2009
Letter to the Editor

Today I read that, regarding uranium mining, "Del. Terry Kilgore, chairman of the Virginia Commission on Coal and Energy, said Virginia Uranium Inc. will pay for the study by the National Academy of Sciences."

So, a man backed by a foreign interest with unlimited pockets deeper than even his own, and supported by family and friends in our government from Chatham to Richmond to Washington, can pay for an "unbiased" opinion on the financial lucrativeness of uranium mining in our community (reportedly worth billions of dollars), and expect that we will accept its validity?

However, "Kilgore said Virginia Uranium will fund the scientific study, but not an in-depth look at the socioeconomic impact of uranium mining."

Why not? Is it because that part of the equation is the least of VUI's concern?

Of course, that's why we, the rest of us, must make it ours.

Linda Worsley
Chatham

----

A COMMENT ON OUTRAGEOUS DOINGS

CHATHAM STAR TRIBUNE
September 9, 2009
Letter to the Editor

With the news that Virginia Uranium will pay for a study to determine the future of uranium mining in Virginia, this very major issue now moves into the realm of the absurd.

The acquiescence of the government of the commonwealth to this situation is stunning in its stupidity and bald-faced corruption.

Our elected officials have shown little judgment and even less common sense in this decision. The fate of their careers as elected officials must be in doubt.

Every state-wide representative who did not stand up to oppose this corrupt bargain has abrogated his responsibility as a guardian of the people's interest. They are unworthy of our votes and have earned our collective disdain.

I am sure the National Academy of Science is indeed a "neutral" organization through which to conduct this study, bought and paid (quiet literally) by our Canadian friends and their cadre of wealthy local and foreign investors.

The scientists at Virginia Tech would never think of the opportunity to use Pittsylvania County as a laboratory and its citizens as guinea pigs in their investigations of the affects of uranium mining on the environment east of the Mississippi.

They are responsible individuals first, and scientists second. In fact, this new relationship could be the beginning of several new National Academy/Virginia Tech studies.

Let's see what else they could do. Here's one: "The Feasibility of Bank Bailouts as a Means of Helping the Economy."

That one would be paid for by Wachovia and Bank of America. I wonder what the National Academy of Science would find?

Here's another: "The Positive or Negative Effects of Socialism in America."

That one would be funded by the American Communist Party. I am sure the folks at Virginia Tech will come up with a fair and balanced conclusion.

Finally, in the area of sports we have, "Steroids: Good or Bad for Baseball?" This one has the financial backing of Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.

I am on tenterhooks awaiting that conclusion.

Pardon my sarcasm, but I fear the deck is stacked against Pittsylvania County. Is this the sad fate that must play out over the next two decades?

The "study" will conclude that uranium mining is safe "under certain circumstances."

The fine print of the extreme conditional approval will be ignored by the uranium industry and they will embrace the study as definite "scientific" proof that all is well.

Mining regulations will move swiftly through the hapless House of Delegates; mining will begin with a flourish of heady pronouncements about employment and the economic prosperity that is headed our way.

Blasting activity will begin; tailing ponds will be dug; all will move quickly forward. Then, somewhere down the line, there will be an economic (price of uranium falls) or environmental (water ruined) catastrophe.

Government and uranium industry officials will throw up their hands and declare that no one could have foreseen this (remember Katrina?), and they are not to blame.

The mines will close; the investors will go silent and Virginia Uranium will creep back to its Canadian homeland.

By that time, the people of Virginia will be left to tend the mess that Virginia Uranium began: the two 800-foot holes in the ground; the ruined landscape, poisoned water and contaminated air.

Unemployment will rise, now that tobacco and non-mining businesses have long left the area. Taxes will rise; land values will fall.

The National Academy will assert the fine print of its study (i.e. that mining probably could not be done successfully) and the scientists at Virginia Tech will have their laboratory and guinea pigs just down the road from them in Pittsylvania County.

My father used to say that if you can't pay for something, you can't buy it. If the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot pay for a study, they should not have one.

Virginia Uranium is a biased funder; the conflict of interest is so apparent that it is embarrassing for a private citizen to have to point this out to officials who should know better.

If Virginia cannot pay now for a study of this sort, how are they going to pay for the regulation and upkeep of the area once mining begins? Where will that money come from?

Until these basic questions are answered completely, all citizens of good faith must remain opposed to any study of any kind paid for by the very people who profit from its slanted outcome.

We shall and must regard the findings of this tainted study, and the people who support it, with a cynical and suspicious eye.

Richard Dixon
Chatham

Neils S. Nokkentved: Nuclear power isn't clean or cheap

July 14, 2009
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER
BY NIELS S. NOKKENTVED - Idaho Statesman
READER'S VIEW NUCLEAR POWER

An Eagle-based company wants to build a 1,600-megawatt nuclear power plant in Elmore County.

The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that proposes the nation build 100 new nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.

Idaho Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson has embraced nuclear power, and like others, promotes it as cheap and clean. They argue also that nuclear energy emits no greenhouse gases.

But it is unclear which part of the nuclear energy cycle they're referring to.

Nuclear power is neither cheap nor clean.

The two main reasons no new power plants have been built in the United States since the late 1970s are the high cost of construction and the uncertainty of the regulatory approval process.

Only federal subsidies make nuclear power "cheap."

The nuclear fuel cycle starts with mining, which relies on trains, trucks and heavy equipment that run on diesel fuel. Refining the ore and turning it into nuclear fuel creates large amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings and waste. Uranium, for example, gives off radioactive radon gas, the second leading cause of lung cancer in this country.

And operating a nuclear power plant requires an outside source of electric power. Reactors emit small amounts of radiation and heat in the form of steam or hot water, and they produce waste for which we have no disposal solution.

Uranium mining and milling have a sordid history in the West. In the Southwest, Navajo homes once were built of radioactive mine tailings, and their land is riddled with more than 1,000 abandoned mines. Mining companies hired local residents to work at low wages without telling them of the health risks. When the ore played out, some companies simply walked away.

In one example, Uranium Reduction Co. began processing ore from the Moab area's rich uranium ore deposits in the 1950s. In 1962, the company sold the mill to Atlas Minerals Corp., which ran it until declaring bankruptcy in 1998. The federal government took over the site in 2001.

Today a 94-foot tall pile of radioactive and toxic mill tailings covers 130 acres and holds 12 million tons of radioactive waste - about 750 feet from the third largest river in the West, three miles from Moab, less than a mile from Arches National Park and across the mouth of Moab Wash.

The unlined pile leaks an average of 57,000 gallons per day into the Colorado River upstream of Lake Mead, which supplies drinking and irrigation water to southern California, Las Vegas and parts of Arizona. Similar piles at 38 mill sites in the West - 22 of them abandoned - hold 140 million tons of radioactive tailings.

The story doesn't end with refining the ore. Producing reactor fuel involves a process that concentrates one form, or isotope, of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. The leftovers, known as "depleted uranium," remain radioactive. About 750,000 tons of depleted uranium already awaits disposal. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued warnings about disposing of large amounts of this material as "low level" waste - the current proposed practice.

Most industry supporters - who claim nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases - want to ship spent fuel from power plants, mainly in the eastern part of the country, by diesel-powered trains to a proposed waste disposal facility in Jackass Flats, Nev. - a site known as Yucca Mountain.

Niels S. Nokkentved has degrees in journalism and environmental studies and has worked as natural resource reporter for 20 years, including more than 12 years of covering nuclear waste issues at the Idaho National Laboratory.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/story/832976.html

Virginia’s AES plans Indiana wind farm

Comment: We do not want Nuke Power, therefore, no uranium mining! We want true green energy, true renewable energy, we must share our green power, something maybe Utilities company do not want to do, they just want Nuke, or Coal Plants so they can make money off their consumers because the government (taxpayers) gives this bunch subsides!

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 5, 2009

INDIANAPOLIS -- The parent company of Indianapolis Power & Light Co. is planning a wind farm with 200 or more towers that could become Indiana's largest generator of the alternative energy.

AES Corp. plans to build the wind turbines in a 75,000-acre area along the Clinton-Tipton county line north of Indianapolis, The Indianapolis Star reported yesterday. The project would cost up to $1 billion and mark central Indiana's entry into the growing market.

Paul Burdick, a vice president of Arlington County-based AES, said the company hopes the wind farm will produce 400 megawatts of electricity, or roughly the output of a midsize coal-burning power plant and enough to power about 400,000 homes.

Turbines could start going up next year, Burdick said.

Clinton County farmer David Ristow said several European companies also approached him about leasing land for a wind farm, but AES offered the best deal.

Landowners also liked the fact AES is a U.S. company, has ample resources to complete the project, owns the power utility serving Indianapolis, and wants to take on the entire wind-farm project by itself, Ristow said.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/WIND05_20090704-211402/278070/

Nuclear Power – It’s the Dirty Little Secret in the Clean Energy Bills.

Comment: Thanks Ms. Winograd, the truth about the so call Clean Energy Bills, our country needs true green energy not the same old, same old, nuke cycle and coal!! Demand our leaders to stop this madness, the nuke cycle has just kill people all over the world, from uranium mining to bombs!!!

By Marcy Winograd

The Clean Energy bills navigating their way through the Senate and House sound good at first glance. Consider the sales pitch:

* Create clean energy jobs.
* Achieve energy independence.
* Reduce global warming.

Who can argue with such lofty goals? Not you, not me – not unless we look at the fine print on Jeff Bingaman's 21st Century Energy Technology Deployment Act (S. 949), and the Markey/Waxman American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454).

Here’s the dirty little secret.

These not-so-clean energy bills would also provide financing for a new generation of commercial nuclear power plants.

Please follow me below the jump to take a closer look.

marcy winograd's diary :: ::

According to the Maryland Public Interest Research Group:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has identified 30 possible new nuclear reactor units, as of February 2009.

As many as six may be built in Texas alone. Florida and South Carolina could get four each, with the remaining sixteen new nuclear reactors being planned for Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Missouri, Maryland, New York, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia, Lousiana and Tennessee.

Both S. 949 and H.R. 2454 establish a new Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) to "promote access to affordable financing for accelerated and widespread deployment" of clean energy, energy infrastructure, energy efficiency, and manufacturing technologies. It's bad news.

The bills make dangerous concessions to the coal, nuclear, gas and oil lobbies: Two polluting industries - nuclear power and coal - are now poised to receive public financing and divert scarce dollars from solar, wind and other benign and truly clean energy development.

After reviewing five recent license applications in May 2008, Moody’s Investor Service estimated that the capital cost of a new reactor, including finance costs, could reach $7,500 per kW.103 At that price, the 20 potential new nuclear power plants would require a $300 billion investment over the coming decade.

— Maryland Public Interest Research Group
March 2009

For the past five decades, tax payers and rate payers have been underwriting and subsidizing our nuclear power industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, not even factoring in the hidden costs related to radioactive waste and environmental contamination. And how do we even begin to calculate the high price borne by those who suffer adverse health effects caused by exposure to ionizing radiation?

Let's tell the truth: the U.S. nuclear power industry has proven to be a colossal business failure, which would not have survived without public investment and subsidy. We bailed out these industries long before Wall Street crumbled.

"The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.

The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power, with an additional $140 billion to come before the decade is out, and only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible."


— "Nuclear Follies," a February 11, 1985 cover story in Forbes Magazine
(h/t MD PIRG)

No new commercial nuclear reactor has been constructed in the U.S. during the past two decades, but over twenty companies are now planning to build as many as 30 to 34 new nuclear reactors in coming years.

An enormous new uranium enrichment plant already under construction in a remote southeastern corner of New Mexico is slated to commence operation this year.

In recent months, multi-national Urenco and its American subsidiary LES, trumpeted the aptly named National Enrichment Facility’s potential to provide 50% of uranium fuel for U.S. commercial nuclear reactors. They failed to mention the annual waste stream of thousands of tons of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) - commonly referred to as "depleted uranium." A great deal of depleted uranium (DU) waste has been recycled into munitions by weapons manufacturers for battlefield use in Iraq and Afghanistan, but close to a billion pounds of DU waste piled up at closed uranium enrichment plants in Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio remain in inventory.

On May 20th, to the great relief of most Nevadans, the Obama administration cut funding for Yucca Mountain, but the nuclear power industry and it’s supporters in Congress are still clamoring for the repository to open.

The costly construction of the intended dump at Yucca Mountain was initially funded by Congress without adequate proof that, once placed in the repository, high level radioactive waste could be isolated from the accessible environment for the 10,000 years during which the waste is most harmful. Among other troubling factors, the intended final resting place for the waste, located just 80 miles north of Las Vegas, Nevada, lies along a line of old volcanoes – and according to some scientists, an eruption, although highly unlikely, is possible.

Readers may recall that while working at a Urenco run commercial uranium enrichment facility in Europe, none other than AQ Kahn gained the knowledge that he would later use to spearhead Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and go on to share with Syria, Iran and North Korea. Do we need a better cautionary reminder of the intrinsic connection between commercial nuclear power and nuclear weapons?

Starting with exposure to radiation suffered by America’s indigenous uranium miners, and unsecured mounds of uranium mill tailing left behind to be scattered by the wind, the horrors of the nuclear chain are legion. And that’s just the beginning. For decades, growing inventories of unstable, gamma ray emitting, highly radioactive, but euphemistically named "spent" fuel assemblies remain as challenges for which no viable, lasting solution has been found.

There's still more: following the meltdown at Chernobyl, Italians voted to decommission their commercial nuclear reactors. Decades later they are still dealing with an enormous inventory of radioactive waste. Some of the rad waste has been shipped off to France, and on May 16th a federal judge gave the green light to U.S. based "Energy Solutions, Inc." to import up to 20,000 tons of Italy’s so-called "low level" radioactive waste for reprocessing in Tennessee and ultimate dumping in Utah.

If you don’t want to see the promise of a new clean energy initiative subverted by the powerful nuclear energy lobby, contact Congress right away and make your voice heard.

Demand that benefits to nuclear power be excised from "clean energy" legislation.

Nuclear Power – It’s the Dirty Little Secret in the Clean Energy Bills.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/6/739366/-Clean-the-Dirty-Energy-Bills

In Renewable Energy Legislation, Nuclear Power May Find Exemptions

Comment: Nuke cycle is not green or CO2e free, uranium mining and milling uses gas and coal!! No to Nukes, No to Uranium mining!

Posted on: Friday, 5 June 2009, 06:45 CDT

In a law that would mandate utility companies to generate a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources, U.S. legislators are trying to increase incentives for the use of nuclear power and energy efficiency.

Nuclear power, however, is not currently considered a renewable electricity source according to the terms laid out in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee bill. If the bill becomes law, a predetermined percentage of every U.S. utility company’s total power output would have to be dedicated to renewable energy sources.

The Senate committee recently modified the bill to include an amendment authored by Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski. Under the modified legislation, any future increase in capacity at existing nuclear power plants or new nuclear power plants would be exempt from the bill’s green energy requirements.

By not including the expansion of output at nuclear power plants, the amendment would allow these power plants to increase energy production without being subject to mandatory increases in the amount of renewable power they generate.

A number of other nuclear power amendments were handily defeated by the committee, including one proposed by Republican Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona. McCain's measure would have permitted nuclear power itself to fall under the category of renewable energy.

"Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, have cleaner sources of energy and diversity: I certainly think nuclear power meets all of those definitions," said a disappointed McCain. (Well, Mr. McCain, Nuke power has lots of gas emmissions, from the uranium mining and uranium milling uses coal, gas in trucks, moving the uranium, uranium will depleted in less than 50 years, Nuke is not green or clean!!!)

According to the guidelines laid out in the proposed bill, power plants would be gradually phased into the new renewable energy standards, starting with 3 percent of their output between 2011 and 2013 and rising to 15 percent between 2021 and 2039.

Experts say that utility companies would likely be able to hit roughly a quarter of the required new renewable energy targets simply through energy efficiency gains.

The Senate committee also rejected an amendment put forward by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Landrieu’s proposal would have removed the cap limiting the extent to which the new renewability standards could be met through energy efficiency adjustments.

"We wanted to incentivize renewable power because it was seen as best way to clean our air and reduce our greenhouse emissions. It's become clear, however, we can do even better and more cheaply by improving efficiency in our existing generation," Landrieu said.

Other legislators argued, however, that the renewable energy targets dictated by the proposed bill were not stringent enough. The first draft of the bill proposed by Committee chairman Jeff Bingaman's would have mandated that energy producers obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2021-2039.

"It seems to me we've come a long way in the wrong direction since November," said Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey.

Menendez is co-sponsor of another amendment that would require utilities to generate a whopping 25 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Supporters of this amendment say they plan to present their measure to the full Senate soon.

The renewable energy legislation is just one part of a multi-faceted energy package that is intended to tackle various issues in the field including building efficiency, expanding electricity transmission and domestic energy production. The Senate energy committee says it plans to vote on a final version of the legislation by the end of next week.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1700922/in_renewable_energy_legislation_nuclear_power_may_find_exemptions/

Renewable energy at home

Comment: People of Virginia, turn to True Green Power, Nuke Power is not green or an alternative energy, Uranium is not green or renewable!!! No Nuke Power, No Uranium Mining!

Radhika ReddyGo to Radhika's Home Page
Portland DIY Environmentalism Examiner
May 24, 2:57 PM

Earth wind and fire: the state of renewable energy and how to bring it home.

In case you haven’t heard, fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, dwindling, and frankly, kind of uncool. Although the door to traditional carbon-based energy sources is far from closed, the door to green technologies has blown wide open in recent years. Seven percent of US power came from renewable sources in 2007—mainly biomass (biofuels) and hydroelectric. But solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy are moving up and shaking up the business-as-usual mind set of the energy sector. Here’s a peeping tom’s glance at the power and potential of naked energy.

Here Comes the Sun…

Solar energy has been in use since before the first sea creature sprouted legs and walked on land. Plants use the sun to turn carbon dioxide into food. Your grandparents probably used it turn wet clothes into dry ones. But beyond its conventional function as a direct heat and light source, the potential for solar energy is enormous. One hour of sunlight hitting the earth is commonly estimated to contain enough energy to meet global demand for an entire year.

As interest in alternative energy grows, so do methods for harnessing and delivering it. Once thought too expensive to be practical, solar energy gets cheaper with each passing year of technology development. McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm dealing in energy, projects the unsubsidized cost of solar energy is a scant three to seven years away from “grid parity”—that is to rival the affordability of traditional energy sources.

Sunlight is energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Much like a beach can be broken down into individual particles of sand, the basic unit of electromagnetic radiation is the photon. A photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is a sheet of light-absorbing material which converts photons into electricity through a process called the photovoltaic effect. When photons from sunlight are absorbed into a solar cell, they displace a stream of electrons and generate direct current (DC) electricity which can be stored or funneled into the power grid.

Although the first solar cell was created in the late 1800s from selenium and gold, it was the accidental discovery of silicon’s light absorbing properties in the 1950s which inspired solar power technology as we know it. Solar cell efficiency is determined by its ability to collect photons and by how much electricity can be harnessed from each of those photons. Science fictionesque inventions, ranging from solar cell balloons to grids of solar panels in space which beam energy back to earth in the form of microwaves, are promising but years away from making a practical contribution to the grid.
More immediate technologies, such as higher efficiency light absorbing materials, cells which adjust their position according to the changing angle of the sun, and sun concentrating cell designs, are bringing costs down. Despite these advancements, the US Department of Energy (DOE) reports that photovoltaic power plants made up less than one percent of renewable contributions to the total energy supply in 2007.

While its commercial impact has been modest, solar energy has great potential for a motivated consumer. Solar powered calculators or solar kits to charge cell phones, MP3 players, and other portable devices already enjoy widespread use. On a grander scale, hardwiring a new home with a 2.5 kilowatt solar power system would add $13,000 to $15,000 to the cost of a California home, according to online technology forum, cnet.com. This translates to $105 per month on a 30-year mortgage at 6.75 percent and would meet 30–60 percent of the average household’s energy needs. The increased housing payment would be offset by reduced utility payments.

Retrofitting an existing home with solar power is also possible. A three-part series on the PBS television program Nova documented the conversion of a 1960s southern California house into a zero energy home (excluding cooking gas). After incentive and tax rebates, the total cost of going solar was $43,000. The homeowners estimate that they will make their money back in seven years of saved energy bills and auto fuel. Furthermore, their unused energy is funneled back into the southern California power grid, earning the owners $200–$300 a year in credit.

Blowin’ in the Wind …

Man has been using wind as his workhorse for over a millennium. As early as the ninth century, vertical-axle windmills were used to grind grains and siphon water in Persia. Modern versions of these were seen in Europe toward the end of the twelfth century. The latest descendent of the windmill, the wind turbine, is popping up all over the world as a legitimate source of renewable energy.

Airplane-wing technology has made modern turbine propeller blades more efficient than their predecessors. Additionally, the turbines are mechanized to turn to face the wind, further improving energy collection. Current models are able to harness about 50 percent of the energy in wind, rapidly approaching the 59 percent theoretical limit. Most appealingly, wind farms require no fuel and have zero emissions. Wind’s major drawback, like solar, is its dependency on the weather. Power cannot be generated when wind is not blowing. In addition, stronger winds are generally found far from cities where it is needed the most.

To the average consumer this means a commercial turbine producing two megawatts (MW) costs $3.5 million. Its smaller 10 kilowatt (kW) cousin is strong enough to power an average household and will set you back $40,000 to $70,000. But even the residential variety turbine is not something an urban dweller could simply plant in their postage-stamp-sized backyard. The 10 kW model sold by the Oklahoma-based Bergey Windpower Company is 23 feet in diameter and installed on an 80–100 foot tower. Such a behemoth structure would be restricted by most urban zoning laws. Other cons include noise pollution and a questionable aesthetic. However if you have a lot of space and an agreeable neighborhood association, it’s an option worth considering. Over its estimated life span of 30 years, a residential turbine will save Mother Earth from 1.2 tons of air pollutants and 200 tons of greenhouse gases. To seriously consider this option, look into your local zoning regulations.

US wind use pales in comparison to that of Denmark and Spain, whose wind power respectively accounts for 20 percent and 10 percent of their energy consumption.

The American Wind Energy Association reports wind accounting for 1 percent of US energy in 2008, serving the equivalent of 4.5 million American households. The market hasn’t even skimmed the surface of its potential according to a recent Stanford University report claiming that wind contains enough energy to meet global demand 35 times over. And to these kinds of numbers governments are starting to listen. The European Union hopes wind power will meet 20 percent of its energy needs by 2020—a benchmark the US Department of Energy (DOE) wants to meet by 2030.

And it burns, burns, burns, burns…

The burning core of our planet is the root of geothermal power, which uses heat stored beneath the earth’s surface. The deeper you go, the hotter it gets, peaking at a scorching 9932° F at the core. Archeologists suspect that geothermal heat has been used by humans for a many as 10,000 years. Indigenous populations used North American hot springs for bathing and therapeutic purposes.

In 1904 a modern incarnation of this technology took the form of a generator built on a dry steam field by the Italian Prince Conti. Although his invention illuminated only four light bulbs, the concept evolved into the first industrial geothermal power plant. In 1922 American John Grant powered his famous Californian resort, The Geysers, with a geothermal plant. The plant became defunct but was later redeveloped and is now home to 21 geothermal plants. Although The Geysers pumps out 750 MW of energy, geothermal accounts for less than 1 percent of American energy. More impressive international success stories include the Philippines, whose government reports 27 percent of its energy coming from geothermal.

Geothermal plants are diverse in their specific technologies. The most common binary-cycle type uses hot geothermal water to vaporize a second fluid with a lower boiling point. The resulting steam drives an energy-harvesting turbine. Because water is depleted, this is not technically a renewable resource. However water loss can be managed with methods like reinjection into the ground. The Geysers uses treated sewage water from nearby Santa Rosa, simultaneously creating renewability and providing a solution for city waste. A 2007 Wall Street Journal article reports geothermal plants leave smaller footprints than even solar or wind plants. Carbon emissions weigh in around 10 percent of those produced by typical coal-burning plant, according to one EPA report. Perhaps most attractive, geothermal energy is available irrespective of weather the wind blows or the sun shines.

Given the offset of the water consumption by the other green features, the technology is included in the green category, getting favorable nods from environmental advocacy groups such as Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Like wind and solar, geothermal offers consumers a residential option in the form of heat pumps, specifically ground-source heat pumps (GHPs). They capitalize on the constant and moderate temperature of the Earth’s surface. Regardless of sweltering or frigid weather forecasts, the majority of the planet maintains a constant 50–60° F in its first three meters underground.

GHPs work via water-filled pipes running below the frost line which transfer the Earth’s heat to a pump. This pump extracts heat and delivers it to the home through air ducts. Some GHPs use this technology in reverse to cool in the summertime and still others can also provide residential hot water.

The efficiency of the system relative to air source systems comes first from the use of water, which gains and loses heat more efficiently than air. The second point of efficiency comes from the nature of ground water temperatures, which tend to be more moderate than air temperatures during the hot summer or cold winter.

In spite of the electricity required to operate the pump, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that GHPs can reduce energy consumption by up to 70 percent of traditional residential heating methods. The US DOE reports a typical GHP installation will pay for itself in five to ten years via energy-bill savings. Although GHPs can be installed in both new and existing houses, retrofitting may not be possible in homes whose ductwork is incompatible with the system. Tips for installation are available at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy agency’s website:

Catch a Wave and You’re Sitting on Top of the World …

Lagging behind the renewable energy pack is wave power. Like geothermal, wind, and solar, the ocean’s waves have enough power to meet global energy demands and then some. Nonetheless, commercial wave farms didn’t appear until late 2007 off the coast of Portugal.

Steven Salter, a Scottish engineer, developed the first wave generator in the mid 1970s. The invention was a string of large canisters, called Salter’s Duck, tethered to the ocean floor. A generator and hydraulics extracted electricity from the wave-powered rocking motion of these canisters.

Though technological refinements made wave power price-competitive with nuclear power, by the early 1980s the British government shut down the project without ever testing the Salter’s Duck in the open ocean. Some believe this decision was influenced by nuclear industry lobbyists.

Building off Salter’s ideas, the current Portuguese installment makes use of wave-powered undulations with flexible horizontal pipe. The resulting displacement of hydraulic fluid at the pipes’ hinges drives an energy-collecting turbine. Another technology, called the AquabuOY, is in development off the coast of California. The AquabuOY is a vertical tube whose wave powered bouncing pressurizes water and drives a turbine.

Major obstacles in wave technology development include designing hardware that can withstand the physical assault of ocean storms, transporting equipment to the open sea, and transporting power from the wave farms back to the grid. Environmental concerns include possible hydraulic fluid leaks and disturbance of marine life—neither of which are insurmountable barriers. Wave power is a relatively young technology and like any child, its potential for growth is still untapped.

So whether it comes on a wave, from the ground, through the air, or from the sun, it’s clear that the benefits of getting naked (with energy that is) are many. A future with renewable, sustainable energy foretells an economy without dependence on foreign oil and with the potential to actually export energy. Add to the mix the creation of new and better quality jobs (maybe it’s time to hang up the dangerous coal miner hats?) and a cleaner, safer environment and the potential is as clear as the air that we might someday breathe.

http://www.examiner.com/x-8364-Portland-DIY-Environmentalism-Examiner~y2009m5d24-Renewable-energy-at-home

US lawmakers reject nuclear in renewable power goal

US lawmakers reject nuclear in renewable power goal (well duh!!!!!Not CO2 free either, with uranium mining & milling, uses gas, coal, etc!!)

Wed May 20, 2009 4:30pm EDT

(Recasts lead, adds details on amendment on energy efficiency, details on EIA emissions report)

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON, May 20 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers pushing to include greater recognition for existing nuclear power in a national renewable energy standard failed to win new breaks for the industry when a U.S. congressional panel on Wednesday voted down an amendment to a controversial climate change bill.

The sweeping bill, which seeks to cap greenhouse gas emissions, includes a renewable energy mandate that would require utilities to generate 15 percent of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar by 2020.

Under the legislation sponsored by Democratic Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, utilities' renewable mandate would be reduced in proportion to the portion of any electricity sales from new nuclear plants, but not existing nuclear plants.

Republican Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida, who offered the failed amendment, said the measure would have helped states meet the renewable electricity standard with a source that has no carbon emissions.

Waxman argued that the bill was not discriminating against nuclear power, but that nuclear was not renewable energy because it requires uranium, a limited resource. Also, he said the renewable standard was aimed at promoting new power sources and technology. (but Waxman did not mention the nasty uranium mining!!!)

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is in its third day of debate of a nearly 1,000-page climate change bill, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.

The panel approved a measure that would require the State Department and U.S. Trade Representative to annually prepare and publicize a report on whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emission reduction programs as stringent as those found in the United States.

An amendment requiring the Energy Department to develop rules for enforcing any national energy efficiency building code established through this legislation was also approved.

Republicans have blasted the legislation, warning that it could drastically curb the United States' economic growth by making U.S. companies less competitive internationally with countries such as China and India that will likely not have strong climate change regulations.

"A cap and trade program will never be made to work in an economy as diverse and complex as the United States. It's just not possible. It's going to cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs," Republican Representative Joe Barton of Texas told reporters on the sidelines of the hearing.

A poll conducted by Reuters found that Democrats have the votes to get the climate legislation passed by the committee. Of the 59 members on the House committee, 30 lawmakers, all of them Democrats would definitely vote "yes" or were likely to support the bill, according to the survey.

Barton predicted, however, that the Waxman-Markey bill would not make it into law.

"This cap and trade exercise that we're about to engage in, is an exercise in futility on their side. Even if they muscle it out of committee, it's not going anywhere."

The heart of the historic bill would set up a system limiting carbon dioxide and other pollutants by gradually reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that utilities, steelmakers, oil refineries and other companies can emit. Businesses would be required to acquire an ever-decreasing number carbon pollution permits.

A separate report from the Energy Information Administration on Wednesday said U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels fell by 2.8 percent in 2008, the largest drop since the agency began reporting greenhouse gases. The agency said high oil prices and the slowing economy were factors in the decline. [ID:nN20287598] (Additional reporting by Tom Doggett, Richard Cowan; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN20533760

Areva plant expansion on hold

Comment: No gov't loans to Nuke People!!!!

By Bryan Gentry
Published: May 16, 2009

Nearly one year after Areva NP officially announced it would bring 500 new jobs to Lynchburg and spend $25 million to expand its local headquarters, the company is waiting for a clear signal that the hoped-for construction of new nuclear reactors will come.

Of the four proposed reactor projects that would use Areva’s design, one has been dropped at least temporarily, while another is in line to receive a crucial loan guarantee from the U.S. government this year.

Areva has continued hiring engineers in Lynchburg — about 200 in the last year — to work on the detailed designs for its Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR). But in November, the company halted its $25 million facility expansion due to uncertainty about how the economy could affect electricity companies.

Areva spokeswoman Denise Woernle said recently that the company continues to watch economic indicators closely to decide when to proceed.

“Our expansion at Old Forest Road is still on hold,” Woernle said in an e-mail. “ … We believe this is the prudent action to take based on the current situation, and we will monitor the economic conditions and projections made by our customers throughout 2009.”

The purpose of the expansion is to support the deployment of Areva’s U.S. EPR. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the reactor design and four applications to build EPRs. (this is the same design of the Finland's Nuke Plant, which is not working!!)

The city of Lynchburg has some stake in the success of Areva’s expansion. It is counting on the new jobs and increased tax revenue, and the city is spending about $500,000 to improve nearby Kings Drive and make other improvements to support the expansion.

The infrastructure improvements around Areva’s office were part of $1 million of incentives the city offered to help with the expansion. The state government also offered grants worth $2.5 million.

Marjette Glass, the city’s director of economic development, said Areva must meet benchmarks for hiring and capital investment before receiving cash payments from the incentive grants. (WHY WOULD A CITY PAY A FOREIGN COMPANY WHO TAKES THE MONEY BACK TO THEIR COUNRY, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS!!!!!????)

If the physical expansion were canceled, only the incentive money used on infrastructure would have been spent.

“That’s the kind of incentive that the citizens of Lynchburg get to keep,” Glass said.

Woernle said Areva could finish its new building on Old Forest Road in about nine months after deciding to proceed.

Meanwhile, the company has continued hiring additional employees in Lynchburg.

“Areva has about 2,100 employees in the Lynchburg area compared to just over 1,900 this time last year,” Woernle said. “Our goal continues to be to hire about 200 new employees each year across all of our U.S. locations. … The majority of those are expected to be in Lynchburg.”

Areva has leased office space on Nationwide Drive, where about 100 employees can work.

Woernle did not say what economic signs would prompt Areva to finish its physical expansion, but “an order for a new nuclear power plant would certainly make the expansion more likely.”

Three companies have submitted to the NRC a total of four applications to build EPRs. However, the companies are holding off on actually committing to build a reactor.

One of those projects, at a Constellation Energy plant in Maryland, is moving forward steadily. A Maryland state official has recommended that the new reactor be approved. Also, the project is one of only a few that are on the Department of Energy’s short list for a loan guarantee, according to Maureen Brown, spokeswoman for Constellation Energy.

Constellation is part owner of UniStar Nuclear Energy, a company set up to help deploy the U.S. EPR.

A loan guarantee would make it less risky for a bank to finance a nuclear reactor project because tax dollars would repay the bank if the project defaults. Brown said the guarantee provides for a lower interest rate, which reduces the cost of financing. It is vital to the Maryland project, she said.

Preliminary site work for the reactor could begin later this year if a loan guarantee is obtained, she said.

Other proposed Areva reactor projects did not make it to the final round of loan guarantees.

“We continue to believe that nuclear energy is important to the country’s future, and we hope that Congress will allocate additional funds” for loan guarantees, said Joe Scopelliti, spokesman for PPL, which has tentative plans to build an EPR in Pennsylvania. (NO LOANS FOR NUKE PEOPLE)

AmerenUE, a company that had plans to build an EPR in Missouri, recently canceled those plans. A state law forbids the company from raising its electrical rates before finishing a new reactor. The company did not succeed in getting a law passed to change that.

Woernle pointed out that the decision reflects the financial and legal environment in Missouri, not the quality or potential of Areva’s work.

“This decision is not related to the EPR technology,” she said. “Areva continues to work closely with AmerenUE and UniStar representatives and is focused on investments to support the development and construction of EPR plants in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

http://www.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/areva_plant_expansion_on_hold/16007/

A key energy industry nervously awaits its 'rebirth'

Comment: write all leaders in Virginia not to support Nuke Power, it is not green, uranium is not green, it is old technology like a dying dinosaur! Virginia wants true green power, now!! Uses too much water! Plus the Nuke people says we cannot export nuke jobs but they bring in foreign corp, that takes the money back over the pond!

April 27, 2009
By PETER BEHR, ClimateWire

One of the biggest question marks in the nation's energy and climate policy is the future of nuclear power. In the past, the United States has made a major commitment to it. The U.S. nuclear power industry is the world's largest. The nation's 104 operating plants produce 20 percent of its electricity, making them, by far, the largest source of electricity that does not result in greenhouse gas emissions.

If a cap and a price are imposed on carbon dioxide emissions, these plants could be among the biggest economic winners in the vast economic shifts that would be created by greenhouse gas regulations.

But the future of the industry may still hang precariously on decisions made by the Obama administration, in which multiple issues remain unsettled. While former President George W. Bush joined the industry's chorus proclaiming that a "nuclear renaissance" is under way, President Obama has approached the issue with his lawyer's penchant for nuance, caution and opacity as he listens to conflicting voices within his administration.
"The president needs to show his cards on nuclear energy," said energy consultant Joseph Stanislaw, a Duke University professor. "He cannot keep this industry, which must make investments with a 50-year or longer horizon, in limbo for much longer."

To be sure, the "limbo" he refers to isn't just a policy matter. The industry faces political, legal and technological issues in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The economics of nuclear power, including the future costs of new plants, appear to be the biggest current hurdle.

The most-cited evidence for the "renaissance" is that U.S. energy companies have filed 17 applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for 26 new reactor operating licenses. On Friday, the first of these fell by the wayside. A Missouri utility, AmerenUE, said it was suspending plans to build its proposed plant because the state Legislature would not allow it to charge consumers for some of the project's costs before the plant's completion. Without that "financial and regulatory certainty," the company said it couldn't proceed. (Attention, state of VA - stop the local energy plants from charging their customers for plants not built - !!!)

On the other hand, the industry's political acceptance has improved since the 1990s, when new power plant construction stopped as if dead. A shift in the policy debate to climate change mitigation has helped the industry make its case. The availability of nuclear power reduces U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 680 million tons a year, says Paul Genoa, policy director for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry. "It's a big number -- roughly equivalent to all the CO2 emissions from our passenger [vehicle] fleet," Genoa says.

An industry with a new, international face

The new face of the U.S. nuclear industry that is emerging will have a number of foreign players eager to stake their claim. Virginia officials rolled out the carpet in October for the French energy company Areva and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, which plan to build a $363 million manufacturing plant in Newport News to make nuclear reactor components. More than 500 employees would be at work by 2012, the companies said. "This joint venture project is tremendous news for Virginia," said Gov. Tim Kaine (D), whose state holds large uranium deposits. (the wrong news, stop the Nuke Movement NO!!!)


40 nuclear plants are under construction in 11 countries, led by China, South Korea, Japan and Russia, according to the World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear energy is going to be used," asserted William Magwood IV, a physicist who directed nuclear programs in the Department of Energy under both former Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. "People underestimate how quickly this is going to happen." Internationally, more than 100 nuclear reactors are planned and more thans 250 have been proposed. (scary, Japan and France has lots of Nuke accidents!!!)

Climate concerns led Congress to approve $18.5 billion in federal loan guarantees in 2005 to support construction of perhaps a half-dozen new nuclear plants that are meant to demonstrate new, safer and more efficient reactor designs. The guarantees would cover up to 80 percent of project costs. The 2005 Energy Policy Act also provided a limited production tax credit for a few new nuclear facilities. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is following a new licensing process designed to speed the review process and prevent recurring environmental challenges.

The first few new plants, aided crucially by the 2005 financial incentives, could be in operation by 2015-17, industry officials say. But the industry's U.S. 'renaissance' could well stop there unless more favorable economic and political conditions appear. "The industry's success in the coming years will turn largely on money, attention to detail, and an ability to earn and retain the trust of all its stakeholders," said Roland Frye Jr., a senior NRC appellate attorney, writing in the Energy Law Journal last year.

Obama's 'agnosticism': maybe, maybe not

Perhaps the most critical issue is whether President Obama will be among those stakeholders. Obama called himself an "agnostic" on the issue during the 2007 presidential primary campaign. "I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what, because there's no perfect energy source," Obama told editors of New Hampshire's Keene Sentinel newspaper.

But then he threw out a barrage of question marks: "Given the importance of reducing carbon emission, nuclear should be in the mix, if we can make it safe, if we know how to store it, if we can make sure it's not vulnerable to terrorist attack, it's not enhancing proliferation. There are a whole set of questions. And they may not be solvable and if they aren't I don't want to invest in it. But if they are solvable, why not?"

Obama raised the industry's hopes by turning the Energy Department over to Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate physicist who says nuclear energy should be "part of the mix. ... It's 70 percent of the carbon-free electricity we produce today."

Last May, a Congressional Budget Office report concluded, "In the long run, carbon dioxide charges would increase the competitiveness of nuclear technology and could make it the least expensive source of new base-load capacity." The CBO, then headed by Peter Orszag -- now Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget -- said that a cap-and-trade system requiring coal or gas plants to purchase emission rights at $45 per metric ton of carbon dioxide could lead utilities to replace coal plants with nuclear reactors.

But in January -- without a protest from the administration -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, cut $60 billion from the stimulus bill that could have benefited nuclear development. Then the administration trimmed funding for the long-delayed federal nuclear waste repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nev. (Thank you Mr. Waxman - No Nuke Plants!)

In a 4,900-word Earth Day speech focused on renewable energy, Obama mentioned nuclear energy twice. Meanwhile, Obama's chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, said that he did not believe the United States would need to build new nuclear plants in the future. "First of all, they're too expensive," Wellinghoff told reporters.

While nuclear power has considerable support in Congress, its opponents are led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). A pro-nuclear stance by Obama would also risk a backlash from key members of his party and from some environmental groups, some of which have spent years building membership and raising donations based on their anti-nuclear stance.

Among some environmental groups, anti-nuclear is a tradition

More than 300 environmental and social action groups signed a statement in December calling on world climate policy negotiators to reject nuclear power as a solution. The Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth International and Greenpeace headed the list.


"The nuclear power folks should just let the carbon policies happen," said David Hawkins, director of climate programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "They will be beneficiaries. The value of their resource is increased. The environmental community understands that."

"What the environmental community will fight is additional federal subsidies after all that has been given to this industry. It's more efficient to put future dollars into renewable energy and energy efficiency," Hawkins added in an interview.


Public opinion surveys show gains. A Gallup Poll this year reported that 59 percent of Americans favor expanding nuclear power, compared to just 49 percent who took that position in a 2001 poll. In many rural communities where nuclear plants have been running for decades, their value as employers and taxpayers ranks much higher. Gallup polling also indicates, however, that the nuclear option is much less popular among Democrats than Republicans.

It is a far cry from the tides of protest that confronted nuclear power projects a generation ago. While safety issues are still debated by nuclear power advocates and opponents, the newest arguments against new nuclear projects are based on their costs compared to other future energy sources.

Two years ago, many U.S. companies pegged nuclear construction costs in the range of $2 billion to $3 billion for 1,000 megawatts of generating capacity. Now the price has shot upward.

Constellation Energy, which is partnering with France's EDF power group to build Calvert Cliffs Unit 3 in Calvert County, Md., estimated last year that the project's costs could rise to $6 billion per 1,000 megawatts because of the plant's added security and safety features. At that top price, the proposed 1,600-megawatt Unit 3 plant could cost $9.6 billion. (Nuke power is not cheap, never has been for been, the electric bills are 20-30 per higher!)

NEI President Marvin Fertel and others in the industry argue that the Obama administration and Congress should establish a federal energy bank with a multibillion-dollar revolving loan fund to help finance nuclear projects, patterned after U.S.-backed institutions that support American exporters. (NO!!)

"Everywhere else in the world where entities are pursuing advanced new nuclear plants, it is all governments. Only here in the U.S. do we try to make private companies build these plants," said George Vanderheyden, president of Unistar Nuclear Energy LLP, the joint venture between Constellation Energy Nuclear Group and EDF Development, in the complex financial structure behind Calvert Cliffs Unit 3.

Amid the promise, a risk that lingers

With power plant construction costs on the rise, U.S. nuclear developers are looking hard for foreign financial support. Vanderheyden said the Calvert Cliffs partners hope to get backing from France's export financing agency to bring a federal loan commitment from 80 percent of the project's cost to 50 percent.

"All of us [in the industry] are working to increase the amount of equity in the projects by coming up with innovative financial structures that generally involve export financing agencies. So the literal ask is coming down to much, much less than 80 percent." U.S. companies are also seeking help from Japan's export agency.

Predictions of whether nuclear power can compete with wind, coal or other energy sources are a guessing game clouded by critical uncertainties. Analysts try to compare the total costs for each fuel, including costs for construction, financing, operations and maintenance.

A Lazard Ltd. study last year reported low and high price ranges for major electric power options. The high price for nuclear power came in at 12.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared to 13.5 cents for coal with carbon dioxide capture. The high price for wind energy was 15 cents, but that was reduced to 9 cents when the federal tax subsidy for renewable energy was factored in. A continuation of federal loan guarantees could bring nuclear power down to about 8 cents, the study said.

Nuclear power's "Faustian bargain," as nuclear engineer Alvin Martin Weinberg put it years ago, links its bounteous energy capacity with the threat of radiation. That risk hovers over the nuclear option still, the industry's opponents, promoters and regulators agree.

While the older generation of U.S. nuclear plants now runs at 90 percent efficiency and has a relatively good safety record, utility executives are aware that the industry retains a unique fragility. They've seen it all crash before. As David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, briefed investment analysts last year about the company's plans to build new nuclear plants in Texas, he spoke of that risk. "So what worries me is I'm going to wake up someday and something is going to happen in some nuclear plant in Russia or something. And it's going to sour the American public on the nuclear renaissance."

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/04/27/27climatewire-a-key-energy-industry-nervously-awaits-its-r-10677.html

Nuclear vigil entering second day

Protesters gathered at a generating station in Suffolk to mark 20 years since the Chernobyl disaster have held a vigil against nuclear power.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), which organised a "peaceful" overnight protest at Sizewell said it wanted to highlight the dangers.

The Government said new nuclear power stations could be built at 11 sites in England including Sizewell.

The group has been joined by a number of clergymen who are leading the vigil.

A spokeswoman said the protesters were angry about plans for new reactors on the site.

A multi-faith service on the beach was led by the Revd Chris Walton from the Ringsfield Eco Centre near Beccles.

In the early hours of April 26 1986, one of four nuclear reactors at a power station at Chernobyl, Ukraine, exploded in the world's worst nuclear accident.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/8019177.stm

Ameren Scraps Plans for Callaway II

Comment: Virginia, we need this law too, we should not have to pay for a future Nuke Plant since they are so dangerous and old technology!

Thursday, Apr 23, 2009 @06:56pm CST

(Jefferson City, MO) -- A utility company has scrapped plans to build a new $6-billion nuclear plant in Missouri.

AmerenUE was hoping lawmakers would repeal a law prohibiting power companies from passing on some of the building costs to customers. (don't the taxpayers have to pay for the plant, duh, now they want us to pay twice -(which we do in Virginia now) greed!!!!))

The bill would have let utilities add financing costs onto electric bills before the plant was operational.

But lawmakers said they didn't think that bill would pass.

Governor Jay Nixon says the idea of increasing customer bills in the current economy, is a bad idea. "Adding whatever number you want to use. 15, 20, 30, 40 percent to businesses and individuals' bills, in the short run with this economy right now I don't think is the right thing to do."

http://ozarksfirst.com/content/fulltext/?cid=142071

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive:

The nuclear industry seeks to revitalize itself by manipulating the public’s concerns about global warming and energy insecurity to promote nuclear power as a clean and safe way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce dependence on foreign energy resources. Despite these claims by industry proponents, a thorough examination of the full life-cycle of nuclear power generation reveals nuclear power to be a dirty, dangerous and expensive form of energy that poses serious risks to human health, national security and U.S. taxpayers.

Nuclear Power is Dirty

Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process, including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.

Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately impacted indigenous people because much of the world’s uranium is located under indigenous land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.

Serious Safety Concerns

Despite proponents’ claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked by a number of disasters and near disasters. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine is one of the most frightening examples of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident. An estimated 220,000 people were displaced from their homes, and the radioactive fallout from the accident made 4,440 square kilometers of agricultural land and 6,820 square kilometers of forests in Belarus and Ukraine unusable. It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5)

In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3)

Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism

The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and ‘threshold’ nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their ‘civil’ nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan.

In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a ‘waste solution’ under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world’s largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.

In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)

Nuclear Power Doesn’t Mean Energy Independence

Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.’s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future.

One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.

Nuclear is Expensive

In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.

The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.

Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment

It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming.

Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11)

When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation.

Call the Capital Switch Board (1-202-224-3121) to ask for your Congressional Representative and your Senators and urge them to oppose subsidies to the dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear industry.

_______________________________
Endnotes
1 Andrews A. Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Locations and Inventory. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS22001, Dec. 21, 2004. Available at: http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/04dec/RS22001.pdf.
2 General Accounting Office (GAO). Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Disposal Availability Adequate in the Short Term, but Oversight Needed to Identify Any Future Shortfalls. GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, June 2004. Available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04604.pdf
3 World Information Service on Energy (WISE), Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS). Nuclear Power: No Solution to Climate Change. Nuclear Monitor, Feb. 2005. Available at: http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf.
4 Chornobyl.info. “Overview of health consequences”. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. http://www.Chornobyl.info/index.php?userhash=10786534&navID=21&lID=2#Sources
5 http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/118/118729.the_other_report_on_chernobyl_torch@en.htm
6 Wing S, Richardson D, Armstrong D, Crawford-Brown D. A Reevaluation of Cancer Incidence Near the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant: the Collision of Evidence and Assumptions. Environ Health Perspect (1997); 105: 53-57.
7 Behrens B, Holt M. Nuclear Power Plants: Vulnerability to Terrorist Attack. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, RS21131, Feb. 4, 2005. Available at: http://www.vnf.com/security/rs21131.pdf.
8 Lyman, Edwin. Chernobyl on the Hudson? The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_terrorism/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack-at-indian-point-nuclear-power-plant.html.
9 http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/umar/table3.html
10 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html
11 Scully Capital Services, Inc. Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants. Report prepared for the Department of Energy (DOE), 2002. Available at: http://www.nuclear.gov/home/bc/businesscase.html.
12 Congressional Budget Office cost estimate of S.14, Energy Policy Act of 2003, ftp://ftp.cbo.gov/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf

http://www.psr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Nuclear_power_fact_sheet

To former governors: Think smarter and cleaner than nuclear

Comment: for some reasons some local leaders of different states(like VA) believe Nuke Power is great but most people under Nuke Power is not Green but of the CO2 produce from Uranium mining, milling and building $10-18 Billion Nuke plants paid for the taxpayers!

April 23, 2009

To former governors: Think smarter and cleaner than nuclear

In response to the April 21 column by former governors John Engler, James Blanchard and William Milliken ("Switch to nuclear power"): Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor cost effective.

Those who promote nuclear energy typically do not inform the public of the excessive cost: The average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no U.S. nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.

Partially used uranium is stored at old power plants in pools of water called "spent fuel pools." Lying near cities, on crucial river systems, in small rural towns, these pools are potentially a far greater risk than a reactor meltdown.

Asia's, Russia's and France's nuclear power plants are closely linked to nuclear weapons programs.

There will be no nuclear renaissance. Talk of such a renaissance helps keep people distracted, their minds off the real project of developing wind, solar, geothermal and tidal kinetics to build a green power grid.

Nancy Adadow Gray, Farmington Hills

Team up for alternatives

Three past Michigan governors could have done better than to use the fear-mongering of "hostile ... sources," "job losses" and the specious "clean energy" to argue for nuclear power. Or could they? From mining to the disposal of uranium, serious concerns remain.

Michigan is populated by many intelligent and well-meaning citizens who can come up with a valid course of action in a timely fashion. Let's have a wide-ranging debate, in a setting of calm and composure, with all the scientific and economic data on the table.

Matthew Evans

Southfield

Nuclear isn't so clean

It looks as if the three ex-governors signed on to the CASE (Clean and Safe Energy Coalition) fact sheet. This multimillion-dollar PR campaign is designed to sell nuclear energy at great expense to taxpayers and ratepayers because nuclear cannot compete without huge government subsidies. Our energy demand is not surging, but in steep decline. A package of bills recently passed by the Michigan Legislature calls for further energy efficiencies that will reduce demand.

While the operation of nuclear reactors is mostly carbon-free compared to coal, the process of mining, milling, enrichment and construction causes significant carbon emissions.

Will the swing to electric plug-in vehicles increase electrical demand? Not according the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy, which says 1 million plug-ins will increase demand by only 0.01%.

As for jobs, studies indicate there will be more jobs available in wind, solar and efficiency than in the nuclear industry.

Ed McArdle

Southeast Michigan Sierra Club

Melvindale

http://www.freep.com/article/20090423/OPINION04/904230385/1072/opinion04/Think+smarter+and+cleaner+than+nuclear