Another Major Setback for 'Nuclear Renaissance': Industry Goes 0-6 in 2009 Efforts to Overturn State Bans on New Nuclear Reactors

More Lobbying Expected in 2010 in Even Tougher Environment After Yucca Mountain and Soaring Cost Estimates; Outside of Bans, Industry Falters on CWIP in Missouri and Key Fights in Other States.


WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --The so-called "nuclear renaissance" is finding few friends among state lawmakers in the United States. The nuclear power industry has been shut out across the board in 2009 in its efforts in all six states -- ranging across the nation from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii -- where it sought to overturn what are either explicit or effectively bans on construction of new reactors, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Efforts to overturn bans also have failed to advance in Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Beyond failing to reverse a single state-level ban on new reactors, the industry also suffered a wide range of major defeats, including an effort to repeal a ban on "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) payments that would have been imposed on Missouri ratepayers to finance a new nuclear power plant, which was then promptly mothballed. Industry efforts to get nuclear declared "renewable" by the states of Indiana and Arizona also failed to achieve results. Also going nowhere is a California bill to lift the state's pioneering law banning new reactors until a high-level waste dump is in place. That follows a 2008 California statewide referendum drive with the same focus that failed for lack of sufficient signatures to get it on the ballot.

Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said: "While the nuclear power industry and a few members of Congress claim the U.S. is on the verge of a nuclear power resurgence, the industry looks more like a critical patient struggling to get by on life support out in the real world beyond the Beltway. No one seriously expects the industry to go away. But the truth is that things will be even tougher for their state lobbyists in 2010 now that the freeze on Yucca Mountain has taken long-term waste disposal off the table and also in the wake of new evidence of runaway construction costs that make nuclear power even more of a boondoggle."

Dave Kraft, director, Nuclear Energy Information Service, Chicago, IL., said: "Authorizing construction of new nuclear reactors without first constructing a radioactive waste disposal facility is like authorizing construction of a new Sears Tower without bathrooms. Neither makes sense; both threaten public health and safety."

Jennifer Nordstrom, Carbon-Free Nuclear-Free coordinator, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Madison, WI., said: "Telling states to build new nuclear plants to combat global warming is like telling a patient to smoke to lose weight: There are too many other serious downsides that cannot be ignored. Fortunately, it is both technically and economically feasible to go both carbon-free and nuclear-free by 2050. Here in Wisconsin, we have a carbon-free, nuclear-free coalition in support of Wisconsin's current law on nuclear power, and a 100 percent renewable Wisconsin."

Commenting on the defeat of an industry-sought CWIP repeal in the Missouri Legislature this year, Mark Haim, chair, Missourians for Safe Energy, Columbia, MO., said: "New nuclear plants are far too risky and expensive to attract investor funding. Utilities will only build them if they can transfer the risk to the taxpayers or their ratepayers. Here in Missouri AmerenUE attempted to repeal a voter-enacted state law that bans Construction Work in Progress charges. Their goal was to get the ratepayers to assume the risks. When our legislators heard from consumer, senior, low-income and industrial groups all opposing CWIP, the CWIP repeal went nowhere. Once Ameren realized they couldn't get CWIP, they announced that they were abandoning efforts to build a new nuclear reactor. The pattern is clear, investors find nuclear too risky and utilities will only go down the nuclear path if their customers or the taxpayers underwrite the project."

NIRS provided this overview of the six states where industry efforts to overturn what are explicit or effective bans on new reactors failed:

MINNESOTA. The 1994 law in Minnesota provides that the state will not approve "the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant..." The Minnesota House voted 70-62 on April 30, 2009 to keep the state's nuclear moratorium in place. Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, has stated publicly that the issues that led to the 1994 law are still not resolved. "We hear about advancement in technology, but we haven't solved the issue of waste -- a million-year radioactive toxic legacy that we'll pass on to untold generations," said Hornstein.

Since then, Minnesota has seen the launch of a group calling itself "Sensible Energy Solutions for Minnesota" including a retired power company CEO and the self-proclaimed head of a wildlife group who also headed up an organization called "Sportsmen for Bush." According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, the new organization was founded by "three veteran Republican operatives": Matt Burns, spokesman for the 2008 Republican National Convention; Ben Golnik, who last year was Midwestern manager of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign; and Tom Steward, a campaign spokesman for McCain and communications director for former Sen. Norm Coleman. By contrast, the Minnesota House's upholding of the moratorium was supported by the Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota, Environment Minnesota, Izaak Walton League of America-Minnesota Division, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Sierra Club North Star Chapter.

WEST VIRGINIA. In 1996, section 16-27A-2 of the West Virginia State Code was enacted, stipulating that any nuclear facility must be approved by the Public Service Commission, comply with environmental requirements, be economically feasible for in-state rate payers, and, most importantly also that "a functional and effective national facility which safely, successfully and permanently disposes of any and all radioactive wastes associated with operating any such nuclear power plant, nuclear factory or nuclear electric power generating plant has been developed and that such facility has been proven safe, functional and effective by a minimum of twenty-four months' operation or experience." This spring, a bill to repeal West Virginia's effective ban on nuclear power plants died in the 2009 Legislature.

WISCONSIN. Wisconsin law sets two conditions that must be met before new nuclear power plants can be built in the state. One is that there must be "a federally licensed facility" for high-level nuclear waste. In addition, the proposed nuclear plant "must be economically advantageous to ratepayers." As the Center for Media and Democracy noted on March 26, 2009: "Given the near-death of the planned waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, and the estimated $6 to $12 billion cost of building one nuclear reactor -- not to mention the lack of interest from private investors and the tanking economy -- Wisconsin's law effectively bans new nuclear plants in the state. The major industry group Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) registered four lobbyists in Wisconsin. NEI is lobbying state legislators on issues related to 'nuclear generation... engineering education and other issues related to state policies on energy, job creation, and environmental law,' according to disclosure forms. It's the first time that NEI has had lobbyists in Wisconsin since at least 1996, though the group has organized public and media events here, especially in recent years."

As the Milwaukee Journal reported on April 21, 2009: "Supporters of nuclear power made a big push earlier this spring to overturn the state's ban on construction of nuclear reactors. The supporters included (Patrick Moore) a co-founder of Greenpeace who now is working for an energy coalition funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute... [A] coalition of environmental groups and others concerned about nuclear power responded, saying the high cost of nuclear power and the challenge of radioactive waste -- the spent fuel left over from production of electricity from reactors -- make nuclear the wrong choice for the state. 'Given nuclear power's high costs and its legacy of nuclear waste, expanding the use of nuclear power is not a responsible choice for meeting future electricity needs in Wisconsin,' Physicians for Social Responsibility and other groups said in a letter to Gov. Jim Doyle and members of the Legislature.

HAWAII. Hawaii's ban on nuclear reactors dates back to the state's 1978 Constitutional Convention, which added Article XI, Section 8 to the State Constitution: "No nuclear fission power plant shall be constructed or radioactive material disposed of in the State without the prior approval by a two-thirds vote in each house of the legislature." Industry-supported bills to lift this constitutional requirement failed in the 2009 Legislature.

ILLINOIS. Illinois' law requires either a federally-approved waste disposal strategy or the state legislature's approval for a new reactor project. According to the Nuclear Energy Information Service, the repeal attempts of the Illinois nuclear construction moratorium did not move in the 2009 legislative session in the Capitol. Bills introduced in the Illinois House and Senate died in both chambers. These restrictions may be linked to the fact that Illinois is described as "the Most Nuclear State in the USA". Illinois has 11 operating power reactors, three power reactors prematurely closed, and hearings underway for a new plant. Illinois also has a waste closed and leaking dump for "low level" radioactive waste, a storage facility for spent fuel, and Manhattan Project waste buried in a forest preserve.

KENTUCKY. Kentucky's law not only requires a high-level nuclear waste facility "in actual operation" by the time the new nuclear reactor would require it, but also insists on detailing "the cost of [waste] disposal... with reasonable certainty." A combination of industry-backed bills designed to remove these restrictions died in the 2009 Legislature.

According to NIRS, the nuclear industry's 2009 defeats in 10 or more state capitols -- including all six efforts to overturn bans on new reactors -- were offset by only one win. Georgia state lawmakers approved CWIP, empowering a subsidiary of the Atlanta-based Southern Co. to collect $2 billion from its customers before a single watt of power is produced from two planned nuclear reactors. Outside of the South, CWIP bail-outs for the industry have made little headway to date.

ABOUT NIRS

The year 2008 marked the 30th anniversary of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service http://www.nirs.org). NIRS was founded to be the national information and networking center for citizens and environmental activists concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation and sustainable energy issues. NIRS does not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available on the Web as of 6 p.m. EDT/3 p.m. PDT on August 27, 2009 athttp://www.nirs.org.

Related Links:
http://www.nirs.org
SOURCE Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Washington, DC

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/08-27-2009/0005084216&EDATE=

How Dangerous is Uranium Mining? - And To Whom?

Comment: Great piece about clean power and problems with nuclear power and uranium mining! The major problems are corporations and their ties to the federal government! Both have little regards to people lives, they just want the money, pure and simple! People of American, we need demand no more uranium mining and nuclear power, I mean DEMAND OR OUR GOVERNMENT WILL RUIN OUR WORLD AND OUR LIVES FOR MONEY!

nhpeacenik

08:12 am July 14th, 2009

I think it is important for us, as citizens, to understand exactly how risky the process of mining and processing uranium is, before we decide to resume it on a massive scale and build new nuclear plants.

I find it surprisingly hard to determine what the facts are.

Anecdotal evidence of cancers and neonatal deformities among people living in communities where uranium is mined are everywhere.

Low-income indigenous people seem to bear a large burden of these effects worldwide. This article sums up the way indigenous people are banding together to share their stories and call for an end to uranium mining. The Navaho Tribe has banned any further uranium mining on its land, but if the US government concludes that new nuclear electric generation facilities are needed, I suspect the Navahos will be forced to rescind the ban.

Looking at the results of a search of Google Scholar, I found more than 5000 scholarly articles on the subject of the level of increased risk for cancer from uranium mining.

Most of the studies blame radon and its "daughter" decay products for any increased cancer levels, and most find at least a slight inrease in risk, but surprisingly, there are some that find the level of cancer deaths in uranium miners to be less than the expected number in control populations. Review-of-the-literature studies come to extremely wishy-washy conclusions by averaging out the results of studies that find five times the expected rate with those that find no increase at all.

I have to assume that most scientists who study this issue are strongly committed to the scientific method and objectivity, but I also suspect that there is corruption in the way articles are placed in many journals, and I am aware that many of the studies are funded by industry-based groups that have as a goal to prove that uranium mining is safe, so they can go on doing it.

If we can agree, as I am convinced we must, that global warming threatens the continued existence the human race and all the other living things on the planet, we also have to agree that extraordinary measures to reduce CO2 emissions are necessary.

If building and fueling new nuclear plants is the best way to reduce these emissions, we need to answer the questions about whether it can be made safe, and if not, whether the injuries it causes can be spread fairly among rich and poor humans (i.e. can there be environmental justice in a neo-nuclear economy).

I made the statement in an earlier posting that urainium mining is arguably more lethal than coal mining; this was based on advocacy writing and not scientific studies, and I find it hard to get a good comparison from the executive summaries of the scientific studies I have look at so far.

Coal is emphatically bad for the planet and should be phased out as an energy source as fast as possible.

I spent some time Saturday at Solarfest in Vermont, talking with people I have trusted for years, about whether solar and wind power can be brought on lline quickly enough to replace coal without building nuclear plants.

I came home with a lot of literature that I have yet to digest and evaluate. At Solarfest, one could see alternaive energy powering a small community of thousands for a weekend, and it took little imagination to extrapolate that scene to the communities where we live permanently... a few acres of solar panels, maybe a solar-thermal plant on a few acres or a line of wind turbines on a ridgetop could replace all the coal-generated power our town now uses.

Couldn't this infrastructure be built everywhere? If so, why add the permanent poisons and threats of uranium mining and nuclear waste storage to our children's children's children's future?

Nuclear is a politically feasable solution. As a costly subsidized, centralized energy solution, nuclear fits right in with the status quo, so that from a corporate point of view it's the only way to keep the profits high and still address global warming.

Corporations don't get cancer and don't die, but they seek profit the way a vampire seeks blood.

The congress and the executive are paid for and lobbied by corporations that thrive on the energy status quo.

That's why the global warming bill just passed by congress allows coal mining and burning to go on for another two decades without serious obstacles and allocates a pittance to solar and wind development, why it favors large centralized power plants and includes nuclear as an option, why it doesn't charge corporations for the "right to pollute" for years to come.

A Friend asked me last week why I thought that political feasability meant that the moneyed interests had to be bribed an exorbitant amount to allow any beneficial programs at all; I didn't have an answer, but if the current global warming bill is the best we can do in a time of crisis under the best administration we've had in years, what more can we expect.

Now is the time to bone up on the truth, both the heart-truth and the intellectual truth, of the climate and energy situation and come to our own conclusions.

Then, with luck, we can agree on some basic points and go "out in the streets" to demand that congress take sensible action without asking permission of its corporate masters.

http://nhpeacenik.livejournal.com/30171.html

U.K. Expert: U.S. is Not Losing International 'Race' on Nuclear Power With France and Other Nations

Comment: Why are the Nuke people pushing uranium mining, GREED, GREED$$$$$$$$$$ PAID FOR BY THE US TAXPAYERS!!!

U.K. Expert: U.S. is Not Losing International 'Race' on Nuclear Power With France and Other Nations

No "Nuclear Renaissance" on the Continent: French, Finnish, and U.K. Experiences Hold Little Relevance for U.S. - Other Than As Cautionary Tales;

Copying France "Would Require Nationalization of U.S. Electric Utilities."

WASHINGTON, May 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Lobbyists and utility company officials who claim that the United States is missing out on a so-called "Nuclear Renaissance" have their facts wrong about what is going on in Europe with nuclear reactors, according to University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas.

The U.K. energy expert said that, not only is nuclear power in France, Finland, and Great Britain now plagued with problems, but almost nothing that is positive about the experiences in those nations would translate to the United States. Thomas is the author of "Areva and EDF: Business Prospects and Risks in Nuclear Energy" (March 2009) and the co-author of "The Financial Crisis and Nuclear Power" (February 2009).

Thomas said: "We've been waiting in vain on a 'Nuclear Renaissance' in Europe since the early 1990s. Even before the recent collapse in energy prices and the financial downturn, it was clear that all of the talk of a new resurgence in the prospects for nuclear reactors was just that: talk. It is for this reason that I find it so odd that the case for more nuclear power is being built in the United States on an entirely mythical notion of some kind of international 'race' that the U.S. supposedly is losing. In reality, the nuclear power industry in Europe is in the midst of the same kind regulatory and financial uncertainty that makes the future of the industry murky at best in this nation."

The University of Greenwich Professor added: "For example, the mistaken notion that the United States need only copy the 'French model' on nuclear power is particularly bizarre. The two main French entities in nuclear power - Areva and EDF - originally were and remain today largely branches of the French government. They are directed as a matter of state policy and have benefited from extremely favorable government financing and credit assurances. To duplicate this experience in the United States, you would essentially have to nationalize your electric utilities and have all new power plant siting decisions emanate from the White House."

In a briefing for reporters, Thomas focused on three nations often cited by U.S. proponents of moving ahead with new nuclear reactors in this nation:

Finland: This month, the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant in Finland was supposed to start producing power. Instead, the plant is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over-budget. Olkiluoto was to be the "poster child" for the new generation of nuclear power plant designs that would drive the "Nuclear Renaissance" and if any nuclear project was going to go well. Instead, it has become an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms with new reactors. The vendor (Areva NP) and the utility are in bitter dispute over who will bear the cost overruns and there is a real risk now that the utility will default.

France: Even in France, where the same design as at Olkiluoto is under construction at Flamanville, things are not going smoothly. After 18 months of construction and a series of quality control problems, the project is more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule. However, the French government strongly supports nuclear power through the utility, EDF (85% state-owned), and the vendor, Areva NP (more than 90% state-owned).

United Kingdom: In the U.K., Tony Blair's assertion in 2006 that nuclear power was "back with a vengeance" is proving slow to turn into reality. The first new order is unlikely before 2013 and by this time there could be two general elections and waning governmental support, which has driven things so far. In 2006, the British government began a safety assessment of the competing designs and announced it would streamline licensing and planning processes, believing that this would be sufficient for orders to be placed without the need for government subsidies. Progress has been slow, the reforms to planning are still being formulated and skill shortages in the safety regulator are delaying licensing. The French utility EDF, which owns the Britain's nuclear utility, British Energy, is saying that existing renewable energy targets must be reduced if they are not to hamper efforts to build nuclear plants in the U.K. Falling fossil fuel prices (less than US$40 per barrel of oil), have already substantially reduced wholesale electricity prices and this could put British Energy in major difficulties, as happened in 2002 when the government had to bail it out at a cost to taxpayers of more than $15 billion.

And what about other nations in Europe?

Thomas said: "In the countries where there have been suggestions that existing nuclear phase-out policies would be reversed -- Italy, Sweden, Germany, Belgium and Spain -- new orders for reactors are a long way off. Even if the public can be persuaded that its earlier decisions to phase-out should be overturned, the process of rebuilding nuclear capabilities, assessing the safety of reactor designs, establishing sites and, most important, getting the financing in place puts orders a long way away and vulnerable to changes of government."

The lesson for the United States, according to Thomas, is that there is no international race on nuclear reactors to be won or lost. He explained: "U.S. efforts to revive nuclear ordering, begun in 2002, were originally expected to get a new plant on-line by 2010. Even if there are no further delays, the earliest a new plant could be on-line is now looking closer to 2020. In the meantime, the nuclear industry has upped its demands for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to build demonstration plants from about $5 billion to more than $100 billion. The prospect that these demonstration plants would lead to unsubsidized ordering now looks fanciful. Far from leaving the U.S. lagging behind Europe in reviving nuclear power, the delays in the U.S. program may allow the Obama administration to free up resources to be channeled to energy efficiency and renewable energy that are able to meet the urgent environmental and security-of-supply issues that the U.S. faces."

Examples of Professor Thomas' recent work are available upon request by contacting Leslie Anderson at (703) 276-3256 or landerson@hastingsgroup.com.

ABOUT PROFESSOR THOMAS

Professor Thomas has been a researcher in energy policy for more than 25 years. He writes particularly on economics and policy towards nuclear power, liberalization and privatization of the electricity and gas industries and trade policy on network energy industries. He is a member of the editorial boards of: Energy Policy, Utility Policy, Energy and Environment, and International Journal of Regulation and Governance.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.psr.org/NuclearMyth as of 6 p.m. EDT/3 p.m. PDT on May 20, 2009
SOURCE Professor Stephen Thomas, University of Greenwich

Link to this page:
back to top

Related Links:

http://www.psr.org/NuclearMyth

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-20-2009/0005030201&EDATE=